[.ca] The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire ... (ISBN 1903656516)

Artificial hearsay & fabrications still taken as History:
. It is remarkable that this material, known informally as The Blue Book, is being paid attention to, in this day and age. Harold Laswell (PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES IN THE WORLD WAR, 1927) wrote the purpose of the Allies' extensive propaganda campaign was to portray enemies as "inhuman creatures." WWI British official Arthur Ponsonby (FALSEHOOD IN WARTIME, 1928) pointed out "strict accuracy was not essential," and "Atrocity lies were the most popular of all... no war can be without them. Slander of the enemy is esteemed a patriotic duty." "It is impossible to describe all the types of atrocity stories. They were repeated for days in brochures, posters, letters and speeches. Renowned persons, who otherwise would be hesitant to condemn even their mortal enemies for lack of evidence, did not hesitate to accuse an entire nation of having committed every imaginable savagery and inhuman action." The purpose of the Blue Books was to show the enemy as monsters. U.S. War Correspondent George Schreiner (THE CRAFT SINISTER, 1920), a genuine eyewitness to Armenian relocations in 1915, wrote: "Of the real causes the world knew nothing, and still knows nothing really worth knowing. The press everywhere had been used to mislead readers, and when the warring governments began to deluge the world with 'colored' books, most of us took their contents to be gospel truth." Lord Bryce, known for his Armenophilia since 1881, was placed in charge of Wellington House, Britain's propaganda division; intentions were to attempt to force the USA to join the war with the Ottomans, create an Armenian state and to further justify the UK's Ottoman-land grab scheme after the war, secret treaties firmly in place. Neither Bryce nor Arnold Toynbee were actual witnesses to the Armenian massacre stories, provided by Armenians and missionaries... and delivered to Wellington House primarily by US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau (as the book's editor, Ara Sarafian admitted: "a significant number of these reports came from the U.S. State Department"). The ultimate source of the information was doctored by Morgenthau's Armenian aides, Arshag Schmavonian & Hagop Andonian... as Morgenthau confessed in his diaries. While Toynbee could never openly admit the dishonesty, he at least characterized the Blue Book as "war propaganda!" and offered semi-apologies in later books. In ACQUAINTANCES, the historian "remembered the atmosphere of animosity against Islam and against the Turks in which I had grown up," and of his mother's strong Turkish prejudice. Very important: the 1916 Bryce-Toynbee reports could not be used by the British themselves as evidence during the "Nuremberg Trial" of WWI, the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921)... when the British invasion administration in Istanbul arrested 144 Ottoman Turks. While Ara Sarafian pays lip service to valuing "the highest Academic standards" (In his Armenian Forum, feuding with Rouben Adalian over the "10,000 drownings" story, a typical fabricated tale of Turkish inhumanity) he actually goes on to endorse the credibility of the Blue Book. Sad. It's not difficult to find the lies in "Treatment"; Toynbee wrote with a straight face: "There was no Armenian revolt at Van." (Even the anti-Turkish New York Times documented Armenian rebellion at Van in "ARMENIANS FIGHTING TURKS, Besieging Van," November 7, 1914... ONLY FIVE DAYS after Russia had declared war). Another example: Toynbee suddenly found the Armenian Patriarch's 2,100,000 pre-war figure for Ottoman-Armenians credible when one year earlier (NATIONALISM AND THE WAR), before Toynbee became a propagandist, Toynbee himself estimated less than half! The lies of the "German" Blue Book (bayoneted babies, people made into soap) resulted in a British apology to Germany in 1936. The British Parliament needs to similarly apologize to Turkey, especially since this groundless work continues to poison minds. This evil book published in 1916 forms the bases of the Armenian genocide claims. It's a pity British House of Lords members were present during the P.R. campaign of the book's reprinting in England, by Armenian propagandists. "Very few have opposed the continued propaganda against the Turks. The lies that were told during wartime have had half a century and more to incubate. Now they are the accepted wisdom. Everyone thinks they know what the Turks did. In fact, what they know is what the British Propaganda Ministry and the missionary propagandists wanted them to believe. Those of us, whether historians or not, who care that the truth be known have a duty to try to right this historic wrong, to make sure that the propaganda of long ago finally dies in our own time." - Professor Justin McCarthy. .

Excellent:
The Turkish government tried relentlessly to stop the publication and distribution of this book in Britain. They failed to do so miserably. You can never silence the truth. Excellent read. very informative.

Alleged "Armenian Genocide"...:
As a Turkish citizen, I was embarrassed, speechless and exhausted from the blames that the Turks carried out a "genocide" of the Armenians in 1915, so I went ahead and read as much as possible about the history of what REALLY happened in Eastern Anatolia. The claims of Armenian genocide is a very smart diplomacy implemented by the Western politics, which has looked at Anatolia as a land to be teared apart and shared among. Before I start telling you why the Turkish people are clean from the accusations of "genocide", it is worth defining what genocide is: According to the articles of the United Nations, for genocide to take place, there has to be (1) Massacre of (an ethnic or a religious) a group of people as a formal national diplomacy; (2) This massacre has to take place not only in one location, but nationwide, and (3) This massacre has to take place not once but in a contiuous basis. Now, the act that Ottomans performed against the Armenians is called "techir" in the Turkish language, which can be translated as "relocation" into English. During the brutal World War One (WWI), the Ottoman land was the big cake that could be shared among the British, French and the Russians. The best way to terminate an Empire was to start a civil war within its borders, weaken the Empire and then break it apart; and this is exactly what the British, French, and the Russians did. In this process, they used the Armenians as a tool to start the biggest civil wars within the Ottoman territory while the Ottomans were fighting WWI with these very countries (French, British, Russians and Italians). Here, the biggest problem with the Armenians was taking place in the East where the Armenians took over several Ottoman provinces including Van and massacred many Turks and Kurds. These Armenian revolusionists were backed by the Russian who were also fighting the Ottomans in the Eastern Anatolia. While the Turks were fighting the Russians, the Ottoman government felt unsecure by the presence of the hostile Armenians behind them, so had the decision of "techir" (relocation) came forth; they decided to move the Armenians to south. Ok, this relocation was not for the best interest of the people being relocated, but it was for the safety of a nation. (At this point, it is necessary to point out that the Ottoman government officially stressed the safety of the civillians being relocated) The Ottoman Empire at this point was in such a distress and poverty. The battle was on all over its borders and the caos was a major threat of an end. Of course, at this point Ottoman Empire was not thinink of the safety of the Armenian people (who hit them from behind) but they were thinking of their own survival as an Empire. There was ABSOLUTELY no (1) systematic extinction of a race (2) continuous killing of the Armenians (3)killing of the Armenians nationwide. It is however a war tragedy that many Armenians (as well as Kurds and Turks) were killed during these times. All in all, it would be a ruthless blame to say that the Turks have commited a "genocide" against the Armenians.