Dear Dr. ABC,
In my other e-mail, I said that completely one-sided arguments, especially in such a serious issue, should not be considered part of freedom of speech in the academia, but absolute propaganda. As I mentioned before, nobody in the world cares about the mass, and partially systematic, killings of the Turkish civilians by the Armenians. So-called scholars who are in favor of the genocide of the Armenians do not mention the “sins” of the Armenians. Please go to the following website: http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/lists.html
Dr. XYZ recommended me to read the book of Henry Morgenthau, then American Ambassador to the Ottoman, titled “Ambassador Henry Morgenthau’s Story.” This book is regarded as the leading and most outstanding resource for the Armenian genocide, and Dr. ten Cate first mentioned this book. I read the related parts of the book. When reading the pages, I was shocked with the language he used and the information he presented. Here are some examples from his book:
Essentially the Turk is a bully and a coward; he is brave as a lion when things are going his way, but cringing, abject, and nerveless when reverses are overwhelming him.
The Turk is psychologically primitive.
We must realize that the basic fact underlying the Turkish mentality is its utter contempt for all other races.
So far as I can discover, the Ottoman Turks had only one great quality, that of military genius.
They were lacking in what we may call the fundamentals of a civilized community.
I think that these old Turks present the most complete illustration in history of the brigand idea in politics. They were lacking in what we may call the fundamentals of a civilized community. They had no alphabet and no art of writing; no books, no poets, no art, and no architecture; they built no cities and they established no lasting state. They knew no law except the rule of might.
They were simply wild and marauding horsemen, whose one conception of tribal success was to pounce upon people who were more civilized than themselves and plunder them.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries these tribes overran the cradles of modern civilization, which have given
It became a common saying with them that a horse or a camel was far more valuable than a man; these animals cost money, whereas "infidel Christians" were plentiful in the Ottoman countries and could easily be forced to labour.
The sultans similarly erected the several peoples, such as the Greeks and the Armenians, into separate "millets," or nations, not because they desired to promote their independence and welfare, but because they regarded them as vermin, and therefore disqualified for membership in the Ottoman state.
After five hundred years' close contact with European civilization, the Turk remained precisely the same individual as the one who had emerged from the steppes of
What is definitely known about the Armenians, however, is that for ages they have constituted the most civilized and most industrious race in the eastern section of the
They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and morally that much of the business and industry had passed into their hands.
For fifteen hundred years they have lived there in
The physical destruction of 2,000,000 (!) men, women, and children by massacres, organized and directed by the state…
After massacring hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the course of thirty years, outraging their women and girls, and robbing and maltreating them in every conceivable way, the Turks still apparently believed that they had the right to expect from them the most enthusiastic "loyalty".
I cannot describe in detail the numerous acts of individual heroism, the cooperation of the Armenian women, the ardour and energy of the Armenian children, the self-sacrificing zeal of the American missionaries, especially Doctor Ussher and his wife and Miss Grace H. Knapp, and the thousand other circumstances that made this terrible month one of the most glorious pages in modern Armenian history.
Do you think these sentences were written by a neutral person who witnessed the events in the region, or by a pro-Armenian man whose attitude is almost racist against the Turks? I, more or less, know the qualifications of an ambassador. I do not think that there can be such a hostile and impolite ambassador, especially in the West, who clearly discriminates one race against another, even at that time. Moreover, anyone who reads a single book relatively objective about the Ottoman history can easily understand that the position of the Armenians, and other non-Muslims, in the empire is not that dreadful as explained in the book. Even, many times, they had more freedom than the Muslims. I recommend Dr. XYZ to go to Turkey, especially to Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, to learn more about Turks and their history, art, etc. I can share my Erasmus grant with him for the costs.
After I read this book I found another one titled “The Story behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story” written by Heath Lowry. He is infamous among the Armenians for his so-called “Heath Lowry Affair.” But he gives us noteworthy information as to whether the book of Morgenthau was written in an objective way with the purpose of ‘demonstrating the whole reality.’ I strongly encourage you to read his book as soon as possible. After I read it I sent the following letter on 11 May to Zoryan Institute and www.armenica.org, the leading lobbying organizations of the Armenians in the
''Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a student at the international relations department in one of the universities in
In my research, I am trying to evaluate the different views of the Armenian and Turkish sides, and there is something that might be missing in my research. ''Ambassador Morgenthau's Story'' is considered to be one of the most outstanding (primary) sources on the Armenian genocide. But I read another book, which is some kind of a review of it, titled ''The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story'' by Heath Lowry. I am wondering whether the documents and information in Lowry's book is true or his own fabrication. Could you please inform me about it? Is there any source that confutes his book?
I will be appreciated if you respond to me as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Kivanc Sagir''
Then both of them responded to me:
From Zoryan:
''Dear Kivanc:
You are doing a very worthwhile study, that is, comparing and trying to reconcile the truth in the different views of the Armenian Genocide. Morgenthau is certainly a very important source that must be reckoned with. Here are a few points to consider.
One of Lowry's main arguments is that Morgenthau's information is fabricated by his Armenian assistants. According to Lowry, details that appear in the book are not to be found among his papers. However, all the facts in Morgenthau's book are corroborated by other sources--American, German and Turkish--and his papers that are in the US National Archives are consistent with the book. Another consideration is if a man of Morgenthau's stature would allow his name to be attached to something false. Remember, too, that he campaigned actively for relief for the devastated Armenians across the
I hope this is helpful. I wish you success in your endeavour, and if you think I can be of help again, it would be my pleasure to try.
Best wishes,
George Shirinian, Director''
From armenica.org:
‘’Dear Kivanc Sagir,
Thank you for contacting us.
Well, Heath Lowry is not quite known for his objective research on this
matter and is actully not that frequently quoted even by the side which
refutes the validitiy of the Armenian Genocide. Among those B. Lewis and
G. Lewy (and to some extension J. McCarthy) are those who are regarded as
more creditable.
I have to admit that I have not read Lowry's work in question, but I would
refer to remarks on his work and his questionable creditability mentioned
among others in Israel W. Charny, Encyclopedia of Genocide, Vol. 1,
Oxford, 2000
But as scietist and historian you should look at both camps and deduct the
obvious truth given the existing material and evidence. I would suggest
the following books on the matter if you are able to get hold of them:
...
hope tha tthis was of any help to you. Good luck with you research.
With best regards,
Vahagn Avedian’’
Interesting is that while I am making a research in this serious issue, I consult to different sides in order to find the truth; but the person who wrote me from Armenica have never read this important book, which criticizes the source they almost use as Bible. I’ve already mentioned the word used for that kind of one-sided researches.
In any case, I went to the website www.gomidas.org, which was recommended by George Shirinian. There I encountered some archive documents from the
Here are some real sentences from Morgenthau which contradicts with the things written in his book:
“I told Wangenheim that I was willing to say that Turks so far
had behaved quite decently, and it was foolish to keep on threatening and thereby hurting
themselves…”
“The trouble is that Talaat wants to
please every one and has no permanent stamina.”
Do you think these sentences were written by the author of Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story?
Henry Morgenthau’s book was written after he left
Why Was Ambassador Morgenthau's Story Written?
Any examination of the genesis of the Morgenthau 'Story,' must begin by focusing on a letter the Ambassador addressed to his friend and confidant, United States President Woodrow Wilson, on November 26, 1917. For it is in this previously unpublished letter that Morgenthau set forth both his idea of writing a book, and his aims and objectives in desiring to do so. He combined his concept with an appeal for the President's 'blessing' as it were for his proposal. Given the fact that his sole aim was fostering public support for the
...Greatly discouraged at the amount of outright opposition and the tremendous indifference to the war, as well as by the lack of enthusiasm among the mass of those who are supporting the war...
I am considering writing a book in which I would lay bare, not only
Please also read the following sentences written in Schreiner’s letter to Morgenthau on 11 December, 1918:
Schreiner, whose letter to Morgenthau was occasioned by a chance meeting in the State Department (in December, 1918) as well as by the fact that he had recently read Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, addressed him in the following terms:
"…. I am writing this letter under the impression that the peace of the world will not gain by such extravagant efforts as yours. Before there can be understanding among peoples each must have the right perspective of things, and that perspective consists of knowing the true proportions of right and wrong."
"Since I knew Baron Wangenheim probably better than you did, I do hope that future historians will pay little attention to what you said of the man. But it has ever been easy to slander the dead. You know as well as I do that the German ambassador was not at all the figure you and your collaborator have fashioned.
Nor did you possess in
"… To be perfectly frank with you, I cannot applaud your efforts to make the Turks the worst being on earth, and the German worse, if that be possible, You know as well as I do, that Baron Wangenheim all but broke relations with the Turks on one occasion, when to his pleas for the Armenians he was returned a very sharp answer by Talaat Bey, then minister of the interior. Has it ever occurred to you that all governments reserve to themselves the right to put down rebellion? It seems to me that even
"… I wonder what your erstwhile friends in
"I do not want you to look upon this as a declaration of war. My purpose in mentioning these matters is to let you know that there is at least one human being not afraid to break a lance with an ex ambassador of the United States. Ultimately truth will prevail. I have placed my limited services at her command... Of diplomatic events on the Bosphorus more will be heard as soon as I can get at my notes and documents now in
Dear Dr. ABC,
There are references to Morgenthau in the history books of the West, which are taught in high schools. People are brainwashed with these resources. Then you say: “the majority of relevant scholars in the world argue that in terms of our contemporary understanding of the term the events amount to genocide. Others disagree, but in the international academic community these critics apparently have constitute a smaller group. They are most often Turkish scholars.” If the West opens their ears to what we say, this situation will change! Of course falsification of the arguments laid in this book is not sufficient to prove the non-existence of Armenian genocide, but you can see how they deceive the masses with this so-called “important”, “outstanding”, “essential”, “marvelous” source.
Later we had the following conversation with Prof. XYZ:
1-)> > >
> > > Dear Dr. XYZ,
> > >
> > > Yesterday, I read the related chapters in Ambassador
> Morgenthau's
> > > Story. I am really surprised. In my view, if all the things
> > > written in the book are objective and true determinations, the
> > > events indeed amount to genocide. Are they?
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Kivanc Sagir
2-)> > Dear Friend,
> > Thanks for your mail. Yes, I think that Morgenthau's story is on
> the
> > whole reliable. And there is much more evidence elsewhere to be
> found.> All the best,
> > Johannes XYZ
> >
> > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> > Van: ksagir@ug.bilkent.edu.tr
> > Datum: zondag, mei 13, 2007 4:37 pm
> > Onderwerp: Re: Your article
> >
>
3-)> Dear Dr. XYZ,
>
> Thanks for your response. Are other sources you recommended to me
> wholly reliable as well? I am asking this because I do not want to
> waste my time with these matters any more. I want to be sure that
> the writings of, for example, Lepsius, Bryce, Toynbee, are also on
> the whole reliable. Are they also totally objective and true? I
> asked to a teacher in
> But he did not say anything else.
> I have to admit that we were not taught about this genocide in
> detail. The only thing we learned in high school was was the
> number of Armenians who existed in the empire, and who were
> relocated. We also partially learned something about Hunchak and
> Tashnak organizations. That´s it!
> What the Armenians did against the Turks was, to some extent, self-
> defence. All the problems came into being because of Talat Pasa
> and Enver Pasa, who also caused death of 90.000 soldiers in
Sarikamis.
> So, I understand that I should have opened my ears to what the
> others say as well.
> But do you think is it legitimate to give responsibility to the
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> KIVANC SAGIR
>
>
4-) Dear Friend,
Well yes, I think the other testimonies are credible as well.
There are so many of them that it is hard to explain them away.
No, I do not think the
responsible. I do not know of any other historical case in which a
government is - in practice - held accountable for facts that happened
90 years ago, and I strongly feel that equal yardsticks have to be
applied.
The case of
article). There is no reason to talk down to or to be condescent of
the current Turkish government.
I - as a private person - do not think that apologies of the current
government are in order. What we, perhaps, need is a Kemalist
statement that authorities of the Ottoman Empire were involved in
deportations of Armenians and - perhaps - other Christians with the
purpose of killing many of them, that these orders were in many cases
obeyed, in other cases not obeyed and in still other cases were pushed
further than was originally intended (by Dr Rashid for instance).
But all of this is not of the essence. I am not a politician, but a
mere historian.
All the best,
Johannes XYZ
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: ksagir@ug.bilkent.edu.tr
Datum: maandag, mei 14, 2007 10:02 pm
Onderwerp: Re: Your article
I was really sad to read his answer, which made him a victim of this never-ending propaganda. The other sources that Prof. XYZ suggested have dark stories as well. If you want to know more about the problems with the other sources I can send you a letter explaining those lies and misinterpretations. There are numerous distorted documents that the Armenians use.
I do not deny the killings of the Armenians by some of our ancestors. But I already explained to you in what kind of circumstances those killings occurred. I once again send you the letter that shows the sins of the Armenians in the other attached file.
Prof. XYZ told me during our meeting that Armenians could not be a threat to the existence of the Ottomans, that’s why it was not justifiable to destroy them all! I, partially, agree with his ideas. But there is something missing in his sentences. Armenians alone could not be a serious threat against the Ottomans; the Greek alone could not be a serious threat against the Ottoman, either; the Bulgarian alone could not be a serious threat against the Ottoman, either; the Arab alone could not be a serious threat against the Ottoman, either; Zionists alone could not be a threat against the Ottoman, either; nor could be the Russian, the French, the British, etc. But when they are all against the Ottoman, can you imagine the threat against the country? Do you know anything about the secret agreements the allied countries signed, which suggested division of the Ottoman among themselves and which included giving one part to the Armenians? Do you know anything about Sykes Picot? In order to defend yourself against these joint movements, you must take some actions, mustn’t you? The Ottomans did the best they can by passing the law of relocation. Dr. XYZ and you still did not give a real answer to my question: “What other options were available to the Ottoman state in that time?”
I discussed this matter with some Dutch friends. After I explained the cases to them, they said that those killings were normal during the war, but the hatred should not continue after the war. Then I told them that we did not hate the Armenian, but it was the Armenians who still hated us. This year, in the Eurovision contest, we gave 12 points to
As you did not answer to my questions in my previous e-mails, I felt it necessary to repeat them.
This is what Dr. EFGH said on 20 April:
‘’Dear Dr. ABC,
I am shocked by the complaints as expressed by Mr. Kivanc Sagir. During my lecture, I indeed talked about "mass killings", "mass murders" and "genocides". I also explicitly mentioned the Armenian genocide - though not as quoted ("In the last century, before 1948, massive killings had occured only once in the world, which was the genocide to the Armenians", i.e. several other genocides were mentioned too, like the Holocaust, though not at that particular moment of my lecture).
Let me be clear, I do claim the right to label the mass murder on the Armenians as "genocide". There are numerous academic colleagues who do the same, acting on the basis of sound academic research. I refer here, among others, to studies being done by our own university's Center for Genocide and Holocaust Studies.
Truly yours,
Paul EFGH’
Unfortunately, no matter what I do, the Europeans will continue to believe what they have learned until now. Something must be done. But, with these minds?
|
| ||
|
|
|
Kivanc Sagir
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder