Armenia?

[phantom]

The Blue book was British Propaganda.

"The Blue Book written by Viscount Bryce and Arnold Toynbee has been used as proof that Armenians and the victims of the Jewish Holocaust suffered the same fate in history. This book has been said to be a product of British intelligence designed to promote and promulgate lies during World War I. Britain had set up the war propaganda bureau at Wellington House for the sole purpose of promoting lies and misinformation on Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The British were in full co-operation with American missionaries in Anatolia and the American Embassy in Istanbul conjured a so called Armenian genocide based on gossip, hear-say and erroneous information."

"The real purpose behind this exercise was to create and strengthen an image in the minds of British military officers that the Turk were evil, horrible and untrustworthy."


The 'Blue Book' on Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and 1916, you publish an extract from Lord Bryce's covering letter of 1 July 1916 to Sir Edward Grey. This letter was written at Arnold Toynbee's suggestion in order to deal with the tricky matter of proving the authenticity of the 'evidence' presented in the book. On 11 May 1916 Toynbee had written as follows to Lord Bryce:

if you were to send these documents with an introductory note to Sir Edward Grey and say that they have been prepared under your supervision, that they are trustworthy, then your letter would be published by the Foreign Office as an official document, and the documents would constitute an appendix to your letter. The problem of publication would thus be solved. While giving the book an official character, it would free the Foreign Secretary from the obligation to take upon himself the probing of the accuracy of every matter mentioned in these documents.

(The letter can be found in FO 96/205: Toynbee Papers.)

Mazower, who might with benefit have asked why the current 'Uncensored Edition' of the 'Blue Book' is no longer published by the Foreign Office but by something called the 'Gomidas Institute', can read the full story in British Propaganda during the First World War 1914-18 by M.L. Sanders and P.M. Taylor (1982). As the authors note, Toynbee 'became something of a specialist in atrocity propaganda'. Among his other works of the time were The German Terror in Belgium and The German Terror in France - no longer published by the Gomidas Institute or anyone else. He complained that it was 'no work for a gentleman'; and once the object of all the propaganda, the entry of the US into the war, had been secured, he was assigned to more gentlemanly pursuits.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/p...glossary_b.htm
Blue Book Booklet of diplomatic correspondence published by the British government in late 1914, purporting to show that the war had been forced on Britain by Austria-Hungary and, in particular, Germany.

I am not pointing to the Blue Book to prove whether or not it is true. I am pointing to it to show you what the British position really is. If you claim it is British Propoganda, then you have to admit that the British government who ordered it views the events or, at least wants them portrayed, as a Genocide, which means their position, right or wrong, must be that it was a Genocide.

[imported_Fadix]

Also to note, that while Toynbee refused to use the other works(beside the one treating about the Armenian massacres) produced by the House, he still maintained decades later in his autobiography, that what Armenians faced, was in fact genocide, which he compared with the Holocaust. Also to add, a letter requesting from him, to specify if in fact the informations were accurate, decades after the events, Toynbee confirmed their authenticity. When the uncensured version is published by Gomidas, Sarafian hasn't produced anything new, beside what he wrote on prepages(more particularly pages ix-x).

The uncensured version only really adds, the Key to Names of Persons and Places Withheld from Publication in the Original Edition of "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-16" From British records, which was cut from the Blue Book to protect the identity of the reporters. Furthermore, a large section(at least 41 of them can still be found in U.S. Departement of State archives) of the records originate from US archives, and are accessible from there also.

As for Michael Sanders book, it doesn't say anything about the uncensured edition or Gomidas, and as much as I remember nothing about the Houses edition regarding the Armenian. You should check the parenty link between Michael Sanders and Liman von Sanders, a German officiers woking in the Ottoman Empire and organizing its army during World War I.

I could continue, but it'll be worthless. Why am I not surprised that revisionists will always try to discredit records on the massacre of Armenians?

The Blue book was British Propaganda.

"The Blue Book written by Viscount Bryce and Arnold Toynbee has been used as proof that Armenians and the victims of the Jewish Holocaust suffered the same fate in history. This book has been said to be a product of British intelligence designed to promote and promulgate lies during World War I. Britain had set up the war propaganda bureau at Wellington House for the sole purpose of promoting lies and misinformation on Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The British were in full co-operation with American missionaries in Anatolia and the American Embassy in Istanbul conjured a so called Armenian genocide based on gossip, hear-say and erroneous information."

"The real purpose behind this exercise was to create and strengthen an image in the minds of British military officers that the Turk were evil, horrible and untrustworthy."


The 'Blue Book' on Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and 1916, you publish an extract from Lord Bryce's covering letter of 1 July 1916 to Sir Edward Grey. This letter was written at Arnold Toynbee's suggestion in order to deal with the tricky matter of proving the authenticity of the 'evidence' presented in the book. On 11 May 1916 Toynbee had written as follows to Lord Bryce:

if you were to send these documents with an introductory note to Sir Edward Grey and say that they have been prepared under your supervision, that they are trustworthy, then your letter would be published by the Foreign Office as an official document, and the documents would constitute an appendix to your letter. The problem of publication would thus be solved. While giving the book an official character, it would free the Foreign Secretary from the obligation to take upon himself the probing of the accuracy of every matter mentioned in these documents.

(The letter can be found in FO 96/205: Toynbee Papers.)

Mazower, who might with benefit have asked why the current 'Uncensored Edition' of the 'Blue Book' is no longer published by the Foreign Office but by something called the 'Gomidas Institute', can read the full story in British Propaganda during the First World War 1914-18 by M.L. Sanders and P.M. Taylor (1982). As the authors note, Toynbee 'became something of a specialist in atrocity propaganda'. Among his other works of the time were The German Terror in Belgium and The German Terror in France - no longer published by the Gomidas Institute or anyone else. He complained that it was 'no work for a gentleman'; and once the object of all the propaganda, the entry of the US into the war, had been secured, he was assigned to more gentlemanly pursuits.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/p...glossary_b.htm
Blue Book Booklet of diplomatic correspondence published by the British government in late 1914, purporting to show that the war had been forced on Britain by Austria-Hungary and, in particular, Germany.

[imported_Fadix]

Hellektor I think you let your emotions go really far. As a Turk I am aware that many people are racist against the Turks. Even the Iranians are racist to the Turks they always make fun of the Turks and many Europeans hold these racist attitudes aswell. I think you Hellektor need to accept the fact the Turks are human beings. No matter what you say or how you spin anything will change that.

Look Hellektor you keep showing that Armenians apparently built a few Mosques but so what? Big hairy deal! The truth is the Turks were the Masters and they instructed their Subjects (the Armenians) to do the manual work for them. Thats if that book is correct.

Heres a quote for you, "We have never denied the Armenian crime of genocide inflicted upon 2,500,000 Muslim people between 1914 and 1920."
Agop Zahoryan, 'Voices of Agonies', p. 91.

How about:
"The Armenians did exterminate the entire Muslim population of Russian Armenia as Muslims were considered inferior to the Armenians by the prominent leaders of the Dashnaks."
Mikael Kaprilian, 1919.

and finally:

"When the Russian armies invaded eastern Anatolia after the Sarikamish massacre of 1914, their columns were preceded by battalions of Armenian Army, both from the Caucasus and from eastern Anatolia. One of these was commanded by a certain Andranik, a blood-thirsty adventurer. These Armenian soldiers committed all kinds of excesses and massacres, more than six hundred thousand Kurds being killed by the Armenians between 1915 and 1916 in the eastern vilayets of Turkey."
Hassan Arfa, "The Kurds" (London, 1969), pp. 25.

Of those three quotes, only one is in fact authentic, the other two do not exist, they have been fabricated by the famous newsgroups spammer also know as Multu and his various aliases.

The only that do exist, is the third, a Persian Azeris whom organized an Azeris army attacking the Kurds in 1920 and allied his army with the Ottoman. He was made the Iranian ambassador of Turkey by the Kemalists to thank him for his contribution for the Turkish causes.

Unlike what the book suggest, the work is not a history or accurate decription of Kurds, the book may be qualified as racistic. It qualify the Kurds as the worst way possible, claiming Turks to be moraly superior and Kurds being warlike and predatory tribesman, (p.59)

The same page, that the quote you included, also contains a request to trust him about his description of the Kurds, even though, as he says "for years fought against the Kurds..." He couple this with a story of massacres of Kurds by Armenians, by balming the Armenians for what he did with his army, by butchering countless numbers of Kurds, for which he was thanked by the Kemalists.

[cosmos]

go on to laugh then maybe u are suffocated in ur xxxx.is that funny

Ulen göt, why are you getting angry? What is the problem with being funny?

[maral_m79]

Ulen göt, why are you getting angry? What is the problem with being funny?

Maybe he have some sort of "inferiority complex" ... Don't worry about him , he'll change when he grow up... but I hope that complex won't grow up with him.

[cosmos]

Maybe he have some sort of "inferiority complex" ... Don't worry about him , he'll change when he grow up... but I hope that complex won't grow up with him.

Surely.

[Gavur]

Oh Oh! you dont want to challange Fadix you been warned I hope he doesnt see your weak response.

Like Sarafian said ,Propoganda and Truth do not have to maintain exclusivity or something like that.The Blue Book cannot be discredited period just because it was or was alleged to be used for propaganda purposes also ,
now remember the word propaganda was not used alot until WW11
In a way just like the word Genocide. Genocide and Propaganda only became household words thanks to Hitler.He's amplified actions coined both of these words for eternity.

[maral_m79]

British Foreign and Commonwealth Office rejects Turkish Parliament’s letter

FYI ...

PRESS RELEASE



Gomidas Institute (UK)

Garod House

42 Blythe Rd.

London W14 0HA



14 November 2005



British Foreign and Commonwealth Office rejects Turkish Parliament’s

letter against 1916 British Blue Book



In a further development in the on-going Blue Book saga, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has responded in kind to the Turkish Parliament’s criticism of the 1916 British Parliamentary Blue Book The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16. The Turkish letter of 28 April 2005 claimed that the Blue Book was British propaganda fabrication and that it vilified Ottoman Turks and continues to harm Turkish interests today.



However, in a letter dated 8 July 2005, the British Ambassador to Turkey, Sir Peter Westmacott, informed the Speaker of the Turkish Parliament that the Turkish Parliament's letter and enclosures criticising the Blue Book had been placed “in the Library of the House of Commons where they are available to all Members of Parliament” and where “it would act as a comment on the Blue Book itself and one to which historians have access.”



There has been no formal response from British MPs and Peers because they were not told of the existence of the Turkish letter, even though it was addressed to all members of the Houses of Parliament and solicited a response.



In his opening remarks, Ambassador Westmacott explained that the 1916 Blue Book, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16, was a Parliament-owned document and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could not make a statement on it. “However,” Sir Westmacott added, “the Foreign and Commonwealth Office understands that whilst the publication of the Blue Book may have been regarded as desirable at the time in the context of the war effort, none of the individual reports has been refuted; and few have suggested moral or intellectual dishonesty on the part of the authors, Lord Bryce and Arnold J. Toynbee.”



Sir Westmacott's words are significant because they represents a careful rejection of the Turkish position.



1/ Despite Sir Westmacott’s statement that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot say anything about the Blue Book because it is “a Parliament-owned document,” he actually made such a statement on behalf of the British Foreign Secretary. His words were not an oversight but a warning to Turkish Parliamentarians that the FCO could engage the Blue Book issue if need be.



2/ Sir Westmacott clearly chose to disagree with the two cardinal points of the Turkish letter when he pointed out that (a) truth and propaganda are not necessarily mutually exclusive and do not appear to be so in the blue book; (b) Bryce and Toynbee remain in good standing, and their roles in formulating the Blue Book have not been seriously challenged. This was a further suggestion that the British were able to dispel the Turkish criticism if need be.



3/ Finally, when making these statements, Sir Westmacott did not credit the offending Turkish letter and its assertions about the Blue Book with any weight at all. In fact his blanket rebuttal of Turkish criticisms is a measure of the British government sentiment regarding the Turkish position.



According to Ara Sarafian, who edited the “uncensored edition” of the 1916 Blue Book, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s response was a skilful effort to defuse the Armenian issue before it became a self-inflicted debacle for Turkish Parliamentarians. By burying the Turkish letter in the House of Commons library, the FCO has prevented British Parliamentarians from defending their own document in a forthright manner. It also answered allegations against Great Britain by Turkish Parliamentarians, and threatened to examine the 1916 Blue Book in a forthright manner, should the Turkish side insist on their allegations.



To date, there has been no response to the British ambassador’s letter from the Turkish Parliament.

[maral_m79]

Yet still no recognision......

Why the rush ... be patient ... who knows

[kemal1915]

Ulen göt, why are you getting angry? What is the problem with being funny?

i know how to swear in different languages about 5 i think.so dont use these kind of words ''göt''anladınmı ibne.