Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Congress Rep. Steve Cohen -- Tennessee's First Jewish Congressman -- Among Those Urging Colleagues to Block Armenian Genocide Resolution
Posted by Brantley Hargrove on Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:18 AM
Comments (56)
Showing 1-50 of 56
This is old news. Cohen's position on this has been consistent for years. So why is it a story now?
like
dislike
To be so comparatively little-known in the U.S., the controversy and fury surrounding this issue continue to simmer. I never knew how much until filmmaker Atom Egoyan (who is of Armenian descent) gave a lecture some years ago at Vanderbilt in the wake of his film Ararat, which deals with the genocide. The talk quickly turned into a bitter argument among audience members, who either dismissed the event as propaganda or said they had family members who perished there.
There are over 40,000 pages in our own US archives on the "Armenian race extermination". The facts are not in doubt. Yet for some reason there are many Jews in the US, ironically like Rep Cohen, that having no problems shoving the Holocaust down every ones throats yet fight tooth and nail against the US confirming it's own well documented archives and condemning the brutal reality of the Armenian Genocide for another country. Ask yourselves whats in it for him? $$$$$$$$$$$$
The Armenian Genocide is very real. I grew up in Lebanon where a significant number of Armenians took refuge after the genocide. My grandfather was born in 1904 and recalled to me the horrors that the refugees went through before settling mostly in Aleppo (Syria) and Lebanon. They were not soldiers or "insurgents". Many were craftsmen, musicians, intellectuals, etc. It was indiscriminate extermination by officers of the Ottoman Empire. My grandmother's piano teacher was a frail old Armenian woman who had to teach music in her old age to sustain herself and her family. My friends of Armenian descent all can recount the horrors and missing family members. Most notably, this issue is not a religious issue. The Ottoman brutality during WWI was applied to many occupied nations (Muslim or Christian) and in the Arab countries where the Armenians settled for the last century, Muslim (like my family) as well as Christian Arabs are well aware of the Ottoman atrocities in 1915 and will testify to it.
I recall the lecture at Vanderbilt by Egoyan. The person disputing the genocide was a young Turkish student. To this day, Turkish authorities deny the Genocide and actively forbid any discussion of the historical events surrounding it.
I think it's completely appropriate to hold Steve Cohen to account, as a human being, for his vote on this matter. But, Brantley Hargrove, unless you are also a Jew you have no business holding him accountable as a Jew. Non-Jews really have no business telling Jews how to be Jews.
So the message here is that if you're not Jewish you should ignore that little bit of irony? That's the lamest rationale I've ever heard.
Jewish or not, I would have called him out for being a congressman from Tennessee and working to kill this resolution.
What a piece of shit article from an obvious bigot of an author, why would it matter if Cohen is Jewish or not? His vote on this matter is either good or bad(I don't know enough to judge) but his religion has nothing to do with it. If Jews should support all holocaust resolutions, does that imply other religions should be against them?
Steve Cohen shoved me out of a press conference (held in his living room) back in August 2008. It was all captured on tape. On YouTube, if you type in my last name (Musurlian) you will find it.
But, this issue is not about me, it is about Steve Cohen's hypocrisy. In my YouTube video entitled, "Meltdown," you will see Cohen eloquently communicate his disdain for hate speech, discrimination and man's inhumanity toward man. But, when it comes to the Armenian Genocide, he does a 180. It is perplexing.
As a grandson of genocide survivors, I think I am more inclined to be sensitive toward the Holocaust and the genocides in Cambodia, Rawanda, Bosnia and Darfur. I do not hold exclusive rights to this concern, I simply think I am more predisposed to being sensitive.
Mr. Cohen is Jewish. So, I think, as has been noted, he might be, considering the horror of the Holocaust, more likely to avoid compromise on an issue as serious as recognition of the Armenian Genocide. But, he not only opposes the House Resolution, he joins the Turkish Caucus, becomes the co-chairman and actively works against the resolution. Why?
His friend from Kentucky, Rep. John Yarmuth, also the only Jewish member there, supports the Resolution. And, in the Senate, almost half the co-sponsors are Jewish.
I see nothing bigoted in recognizing these facts. In fact, it only adds to the speculation as to what is motivating a career politician like Mr. Cohen. Is it blackmail? Is it campaign contributions? Or does Mr. Cohen, a bleeding heart liberal, simply believe he knows better than Sen. Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the majority of his Democratic colleagues in the House?
Mr. Cohen can hide behind the flag and the troops, but in doing so, he is implicitly suggesting that others do not care about the troops. That is where his only good argument falls apart and where we must really start asking, "What makes this guy tick?"
PETER MUSURLIAN
Globalist Films
Brantley, I think you ought to call him out as a human being. While I understand a number of the issues involved with Turkey (which are even more involved than you mention here), I think that not admitting that the attacks on Armenians were genocidal is both stupid and immoral. But Non-Jews are not the ones to decide for Jews how our history is to be understood and acted on. Unless it's fair from now on for me to start attacking Christian legislators for their votes based on my interpretation of what their Christianity and the history of persecutions of Christians ought to mean to them.
There's enough going on here to blame Cohen on the grounds of common humanity, believe me.
I'm Jewish and I have no problem with Brantley pointing out the obvious irony of the situation. There's nothing anti-semitic about his contention.
To nm: Brantley never told Jews how to be Jews. He pointed out an obvious irony.
And to Kris Murphy, the point isn't that Jews should support all holocaust resolutions. The point is that someone whose own people suffered through a holocaust should be able to recognize one when they see one. The bottom line is that politicians all across the country are afraid to use the "G" word for fear of pissing off Turkey.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Hargrove, could you answer this:(paraphrasing nm)
Is it fair to question Christian legislators for their votes based not on the issue's merit, but on their Christian faith and what the history of persecutions of Christians ought to mean to them?
NM, who are you calling a Christian?
Rogers,legislators in this state pass all manner of ridiculous legislation justified by a shallow and distorted understanding of Christianity.
And last time I checked, Christians historically have more often played the role of persecutor than persecuted. Not seeing your point here.
Hargrove, get with the program. It's automatically assumed that everyone is Christian here.
Hargrove, please forgive me for calling you a Christian if you aren't one. What religion, if any, do you profess? I'd like to point out the irony of your statements based on whatever way I choose to decide that members of your group ought to think and behave.
My point is that I, as a non-Christian, don't get to tell Christian legislators what they ought and ought not do based on whatever feature(s) of their religion and history I decide I consider important. Same with non-Muslims and Muslim legislators; non-Buddhists and Buddhist legislators; non-Jews and Jewish legislators; non-atheists and atheist legislators; and so on. I can tell any legislator in the US what I think s/he ought to be doing as a fellow-citizen, though I have no particular business telling a Canadian legislator, say, what Canadian history and ideas demand s/he do; I can tell any human being that I think s/he is or isn't acting humane. But I really think people ought not to decide for others whether those others' actions are in accordance with a belief system and a history that I don't share.
NM - No, I don't classify myself as anything really, or align myself with any god, demon or thetan. And yes, you can do any of the things you listed in this country, where speech is free and whatnot. However, I don't think that's what was done here. Highlighting the inherent irony in the actions of elected officials is something that I, as an observer, am completely entitled to do.
I agree with your article, call it as it is, Human rights should prevail for all people. One of the worst things to be in this world is a hypocrite. Turkey depends way to much on us than we depend on them, its snake rattling from Turkey. I read on a poll that the United States is the number one enemy of the Turkish people conducted recently. I don't think they're position will change with a resolution on a genocide they committted.
I'm not sure, Hargrove, that you and I have the same definition of irony. Doesn't irony depend on something being unexpected? If it does, Cohen's position is ironic only if there's a way that Jews ought to be expected to respond to the memory of the Holocaust. But Jews have a wide range of responses, from "because of the Holocaust it is my obligation as a Jew to seek out, name, and oppose genocide wherever it happens," all the way to "because of the Holocaust it is my obligation as a Jew to make sure that no one tries to attack Jews ever again."
If Cohen's reaction is the latter, there's nothing ironic about what he's doing. Now, I don't know Cohen. I thought he was a progressive, in which case one could point out the irony of a progressive holding his position. But as it is, you're basing your "irony" on the demand that Jews must have a certain reaction to genocide because of the Holocaust. I find it ironic that a free-thinker would tell others what they must think.
Let's say you have a woman who used to be in an abusive relationship, and she's on a jury hearing the case of a battered woman who finally had enough and killed her husband.
Now the prosecution is calling into question the fact that the woman on trial is battered, and refuses even to countenance the possibility that she was abused. But the woman on the jury has been there, and she can see the signs clearly. Logic would follow that she's going to be much more sympathetic to the woman on trial, even when there are those who refuse to use the word battered, and claim there's no evidence for it. But the woman on the jury knows a battered woman when she sees one.
It makes sense to me like that, NM. I'm sorry, but I don't buy your argument at all.
Steve Cohen created the Tennessee Commission on the Commemoration of the Holocaust. He served on the Board of the Tennessee Holocaust Commission for 20 years and was honored by the Commission with a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2000. He has been honored by the Tennessee Council of Jewish Women and a speaker to the B'nai B'rith Board in New York City about his work on anti-Semitism, among other issues.
Yet he opposes recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
It's really not the fact that he is Jewish that hightens the irony; it's that he is a person that obviously understands the pain and grief of Genocide survivors, at least Jewish ones of the Holocaust, yet is willing to prolong that grief in the Armenian community.
Hargrove, so it's your contention that all battered women recognize each other?
Sorry. I see where you are coming from. I just think you're wrong. Phantom, OTOH, is completely right. IMO, of course.
Of course, NM. Cohen is a member of a number of Jewish councils, and councils commemorating the Holocaust and its survivors, and the fact that he also happens to be Jewish has absolutely nothing to do with the irony of his stance whatsoever (rolls eyes, contemplates whether or not this person genuinely believes what (s)he says).
"Hargrove, so it's your contention that all battered women recognize each other?"
Ugh, we could go round and round all night, converting our statements into hyperbole. A device of debate for the lazy, if you ask me.
Hargrove,
There are actually Jews out there (not many, but a few) who could care less about the Holocaust, as there are some Armenians out there (not many, but a few) who could care less about the Armenian Genocide. That's why it's wrong to assume there is irony in what Cohen does simply because he is Jewish. The irony comes out because he happens to be a Jew who does care about the Holocaust. That's what makes his actions sickening in my view.
Well, some of you need to do your reading. Many Jews today feel that Turkey is one of their few Muslim friends so, with some justification, they oppose this resolution dealing with Armenia and the Ottoman Empire 100 years ago.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/forums/viewthread/1577/
Pith has a ongoing problem with its bloggers; mention genocide and hysteria reigns. It s clear that none seem to see why Cohen is, if nothing else, a pragmatist. If you wish to attack him on his allegiance to Israel then I would say go to it. But, that it what we are really talking about.
Does Israel have to do immoral things to get Turkey's friendship? Couldn't Israel just stay out of it, and tell the Turks that they are staying silent on the matter? Why can't Cohen just say nothing and abstain from the vote, rather than take the extraordinary step of writing letters to other congressman imploring them to strike down this human rights piece of legislation?
Armenians are not asking for Israel's or Jews' help to pass this resolution, although many righteous Jewish organizations do actually support. What Armenians wish is that Jews and Jewish organizations who support Holocaust resolutions would at least stay silent rather than help Genocide-deniers. Is that so hard to understand?
Watch Musurlian's video and you'll see why Cohen's future in politics is blighted. In it, he basically engages in a hateful rant about "those Armenians" (Peter is a US army vet from Wisconsin, I believe, which is one of the fifty states). His disdain for those who elected him is evident. His constituents, he believes, lack the sophistication to discern that a man who exhibits hatred and bigotry toward one ethnic group (the Christian Armenians) doesn't hate others. His slavery apology shtick is pure pandering. His true nature comes out in the video. Watch it and see who represents your state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxkdWQG5ETU
I don't wish to wander into the polemics here, but let me clarify, as a board member of the Tennessee Holocaust Commission, that Steve Cohen was not its only founder. He did have much to do with it in its early years, but I think most would recognize former VU chaplain Bev Asbury as the prime mover in its creation.
The commission exists to aid in education concerning the Holocaust and other genocides, has done much good work in that regard, and does not take stands on political matters, within or beyond the U.S.
steve cohen got his instructions from shimon perez what to do. some of those zionists (not all) are pure fascists. they've copyrighted "suffering" and milking it all the way. steven cohen is scumbag. and it is maybe ironical that a jew would deny the armenian genocide but it's been a standard practice in israeli foreign policy. cohen is no different, pursuing his ilks agenda. the jews who're fair minded and sympathetic on this issue have no power. they suffer as well.
For an extra dose of surrealism, when watching Cohen's hate rant, recall that Captain Kangaroo, children's folk singer Raffi, Cher, the Kardashians and the creator of Alvin and the Chipmunks are all of Armenian descent. When Peter came to his press conference, would he have feared these people as well? Not counting on a wider audience, doubting the sophistication of his Memphis constituents to know better, Cohen thought the following was OK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxkdWQG5ETU
If you would like to see me commenting on Steve Cohen, in a short video that was shown to hundreds of people, including elected officials, at a 2009 banquet in Pasadena...for the Armenian National Committee of America, look at the first video here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/301AD
Peter Musurlian
Globalist Films
Hargrove, you have some nice circular reasoning going on. Cohen does what he does not "as a Jew" but "as a Jew who takes certain political positions." Other Jews -- let's use Henry Kissinger as an example -- take very different positions on most issues and do very different things. One may assume that, in part, both of them base their positions and actions on their understandings of the lessons of the Holocaust. (One might be wrong in this assumption, of course. I have no information on this, and I'm willing to make the assumption as a basis for discussion, but this is all speculation.) You can well criticize either Cohen or Kissinger, or both, for specific positions or specific actions. But it's ridiculous to take either of their positions to be a "Jewish position" and therefore to criticize them as Jews for holding those positions (or taking those actions, etc., etc.).
Above all, when you say that either or both of them, or any other Jew, ought to take a particular position or action because of the Holocaust, you, a non-Jew, are telling someone how you think they should be Jews. And that is something that I don't think any non-Jew has the moral standing to do.
I'm through with this. I hope it's clear from my earliest comments on this matter that I think denying that Turkish attacks on Armenians a century ago were genocidal in intention, and would have been genocidal in result if the Turks at that time had had the capacity, and that Turkey and Turks today would probably be better off if they admitted this and dealt with it. And that refusing to call those actions genocidal (which Cohen is refusing to do) makes a person a schmuck. But you, Hargrove, are also acting like a schmuck in this instance, in a different way.
I just want to correct one thing in nm's response above. When you say, "and would have been genocidal in result if the Turks at that time had had the capacity." The results were perfectly "genocidal". There's not an Armenian left in the historic homeland of the Armenian people, Anatolia. Not only have the people been eliminated, but so have the Armenian names of villages, streets, cities, lakes, and even animals. The thousands of Armenian churches, monastaries and schools that existed up until 1915 throughout Anatolia have been demolished or left to rot and crumble. It was the perfect genocide, and it continues today because the perpetrators and their descendants are allowed to continue denying it ever happened. There is no better example of a Genocide, either in intent, or in result, than the Armenian genocide. Not even the Holocaust resulted in the complete elimination of a people from their historic homeland or the continued denial of the crime. Only the Armenian Genocide, and possibly the genocide of Native Americans, has those distinctions.
Just to give you a real world example. Last year I met a young man from Turkey. He was in his mid twenties, and was studying in the United States. When he found out that I was Armenian, he told me that he had never met an Armenian before. When I asked him where in Turkey he was from, he said Adana. Before 1915, Adana was teaming with Armenians. Adana was in the center of the Armenian historic kingdom of Cilicia on the Mediteranean coast. The place is littered with crumbling Armenian churches, yet this young man had never met a single Armenian in a city that was at the heart of an Armenian kingdom and had thousands of Armenians before the Armenian Genocide.
So, NM, if I'm reading you right, the murder of 1.5 million Armenians was intended as genocide, but it wasn't really because the Turks didn't have the capacity to carry it out fully?
That to me reeks of the Clinton administration's use of the phrase "acts of genocide" when referring to Rwanda, rather than just coming right out and calling it genocide. Talk about some convoluted logic.
Oh, get over yourself, Hargrove. It was genocide. I listed a number of many ways it was genocidal; I did not limit it to not being really, truly genocide.
Phantom, you likely have better knowledge than I do; I'm going on the basis of having met Armenians in the 1970s who told me that they lived in Turkey.
NM said: "I hope it's clear from my earliest comments on this matter that I think denying that Turkish attacks on Armenians a century ago were genocidal in intention, and WOULD HAVE BEEN GENOCIDAL IN RESULT IF THE TURKS AT THAT TIME HAD HAD THE CAPACITY, and that Turkey and Turks today would probably be better off if they admitted this and dealt with it."
Just quoting you.
nm,
I am an Armenian from Turkey as well. The Armenians you met in the 70s from Turkey are almost exclusively from Istanbul. Even today there are about 50,000 Armenians still living in Istanbul. That's because the Ottomans could not go about exterminating people in the middle of one of the most cosmopolitan cities of the world. That did not, however, stop them from rounding up the leaders of the Armenian community of Istanbul (then Constantinople) on April 24, 1915, sending them to "prisons" in Anatolia and killing them there. That's why Armenians commemorate the Armenian Genocide on April 24, 1915. It's the day in which the leaders that could have possibly put a stop to the Genocide were killed, thus cementing the Ottoman's plan to do away with the hapless commoners. It worked perfectly. The vast majority of Armenians followed like sheep to the slaughter as they were rounded up, and marched into oblivion. They didn't fight for their survival, because they didn't know any better, nor did they have the wherewithal or strength to resist and fight. The only well-known act of resistance was in Musa Dagh, and those Armenians managed to fight off the Turks just long enough to be rescued by French naval ships. But for all of the other Armenians of Anatolia, their destiny was sealed on the orders of the leaders of the Ottoman Empire. The only Armenians left in Anatolia are the part-Armenian descendants of little Armenian girls who were saved by righteous Turks or kidnapped by bad Turks, but in both cases raised as Muslim Turks.
More and more Turks are now learning that their grandmothers were actually Armenian. This is a very confusing and emotional experience, as you might imagine. A book called "My Grandmother" was published by the granddaughter of one of these Armenian converts a couple of years ago. It sold in huge numbers, and it really got Turkish people talking about their own family histories. Nobody in the family had any idea that this grandmother was actually Armenian, until one day in her very old age, she confessed to her granddaughter who she really was. Nobody knows how many such girls were converted, but some believe that there are hundreds of thousands or low millions of Turks today who can trace their ancestry back to an ethnically Armenian grandmother or great-grandmother.
Wow, I really digressed there.
Cohen is Jewish and the Jews are worried about what's going to happen to Israel and not without some reason. Events occurring 100 years ago are the least of their concern.
Events of today are considerably more important to the Jews than the behavior of the old and gone Ottoman Empire. It's a bit of a stretch to attack Cohen for supporting Israel.
I'm the first to admit the Israelis may get us all in trouble but right now they need any friend they can get. It appears they think Turkey's support is important and Cohen, the American, is siding with Jewish interests.
John,
I get your point, but what I don't understand is why Israel has to lie and take part in genocide denial in order to be buddies with Turkey. Can't they just stay silent on the matter and not say anything? Can't they tell their U.S. lobbies to not comment with respect to the Armenian Genocide resolution? Can't they tell Jewish congressmen like Cohen who may or may not be sympathetic to Israel that Israel has no position and that they can abstain from voting altogether? Even as immoral as that is, it would still be better than what Israel has been doing for 30 years on this issue, which is to actively deny the Armenian Genocide and actively help kill all resolutions brought to Congress commemorating or acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.
Well, of course in a perfect world and all that. Now Obama is getting some attention.
I think it naive to expect American Jews not to back Israel as to what is happening now.
If you wanted to attack Cohen for his allegiance to Israel that is one thing but most Jews will stand with Israel no matter what IMO. You do know that. Or, might my post be considered anti-Semitic? On this board you can get into big trouble without even knowing it. Or, maybe some of you are anti-Semitic?
Anyway, I wonder how congressional Jews are voting on this? I could not find it.
Here is a link about the whole thing:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=will-obama-endure-the-consequences-of-a-genocide-resolution-2010-02-22
Phantom, yes, the people I met were from Istanbul. Thanks for clarifying that. And I had no idea about the converts. I'm very glad that some of them spoke up before all memory of this was gone.
Hargrove, you seem to be too angry to think clearly, so this will be my last response to anything you say on this thread. There are Armenians left alive today. Phantom has explained how that happened in some cases, and in other cases ethnic Armenians were already living elsewhere when the massacres took place. There are also, you may have noticed, Jews left alive today. Now, the casual use of the term "genocide," which you wish to use, would call both the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide examples of genocide; the technical use of the term, which I prefer, distinguishes between the attempt to wipe a group out (attempted genocide) and the actual obliteration of that group (genocide). I find the fact that the attempted genocides being discussed here failed to be of enormous historical and moral significance, which is why I like to make the distinction. I notice that Phantom, who is personally affected by the question, got that with no trouble.
nm,
Sorry nm, but you've left me confused again by your distinction between attempted genocide and genocide. There are different definitions for that term, but the legal definition used by the UN, and which came from the man who invented the word, Raphael Lemkin, do not make a distinction between the attempt and the complete annhilation. Attempting to annhilate a group, but failing to do so, as in the case both of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, still amounts to Genocide according to the legal UN definition.
Incidentally, Raphael Lemkin was a Jewish Polish lawyer who became interested in crimes against humanity, because as a law student, he had read about the case of Soghomon Tehlirian. Soghomon was an Armenian whose entire family had been killed by Turkish authorities during the Armenian Genocide. He survived as a child and eventually made his way to Berlin. While he was there, he found that Talaat, one of the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide, was also living in Berlin. Soghomon found him and killed him in cold blood. He was charged with murder, but acquited in an extraordinary trial in which he was found innocent due to insanity. Raphael Lemkin was astonished that Soghomon could be charged with a crime for killing one person, but that there was no law under which mass murderers like Talaat could be convicted and punished. So he set out to study the Armenian case, and he used it as his prime example of what the term "Genocide", which Raphael invented, meant. By then, the Nazis had begun murdering Jews, and that included many people in Lemkin's family. Thus, the Holocuast became another prime example of what Lemkin intended the word Genocide to mean.
George Washington was the person who proposed the "process of cultural transformation" which led to Native Americans walking the trail of tears. While I will admit that there were attrocities committed during this forced relocation and many people including women and children died, to go back now and relabel it would mean that our first president and a hero of the American revolution would be relabeled as a war criminal responsibe in part for genocide. Please dont support the remaking of history, I dont want to see my heros turned into crimials.
Sabu,
Allow me to turn your American Indians into criminals.
You, as many on this board do not know your history. The so-called civilized tribes (Cherokees, for example) in the SE US owned slaves. When they were marched off on the Trial of Tears the US bought their black slaves. These Indian owned 1000's of black slaves.
See recent books on Jackson, Waking Giant, etc.
For a link:
http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_indians_slavery.htm
The irony of this situation demands emphasis:
Cohen is a genocide-denying, slavery-apologizing descendant of genocide survivors who has given emotional speeches railing against the exact behavior in which he regularly engages.
Note that the Tennessee Holocaust Commission has produced a book that discusses the Armenian Genocide:
http://www.tennesseeholocaustcommission.org/view_resource.php?id=5
Since the organization he helped start talks about the Armenian Genocide, Cohen is just being willfully ignorant.
1
The photograph you presented is another Armenian forgery. Because the women and children in the picture are indeed Turkish women and children slaughtered by Armenians in Subatan (in Ottoman Empire) on 25 April 1918. The picture had been copied by Armenians in internet and is being presented as a Picture of Armenian victims.
The original photo is in Turkish Archives’ATASE Archive: Directory of Genelkurmay Military History and Strategic Studies Archive, The pfotograph collection of WWI, Album No: 4, photograph No: 123)
Here are other photograph forgeries of the Armenians :
In the following video http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/10/2616-armenian-forgeries-exploitation-of.html,
in Picture 1, you will see a woman presented by the Armenians as a woman slaughtered by the Turks. This picture indeed belongs to a Jewish woman butchered by Nazi Arrow Cross Men Party in Hungary (The Mazal Library)
The second picture shows heads decapatated allegedly by the Turks. This picture indeed belongs to White Rose activists who fought against Nazis in Germany during WW2. These activists were sentenced to death and killed via guillotine by Nazi Germany.
The third picture is the one you presented which indeed depicts Turkish women and children slaughtered by Armenians in Subatan (in Ottoman Empire) on 25 April 1918, as it was stated in the first paragraph.
The fourth picture depicts woman and children that have been allegedly killed by the Turks. These women and children in the Picture are indeed Turkish women and children slaughtered by Armenians in Erzincan Vagarir (in Otoman Empire) on 16 February 1918. Original picture is in the Turkish archives.
The fifth Picture shows two male that has been killed allegedly by Turks. This photo belongs to two Turk killed by Armenians in Erzincan Odabaşı (in Otoman Empire). Their eyes have been craved off them before they died. Original photo is in Turkish Archives.
The sixth photo shows allegedly Armenians slaughtered by allegedly Otoman Armenians. The uniforms of the soldiers in the Picture belong to Russian soldiers fighting in Russian Civil War after WW1 and not to Otoman soldiers. This Picture is not related to either Ottomans or Armenians.
3
There are lots of literary and visual documents proving massacres of Armenian bandits numbering to 200 000 during WW1 when Otoman Empire was fighting in three battles but these documents are either hidden or ignored. Here are evidences from English and Russian Archives which contradict with the Armenian allegations:
A report of a Armenian Dashnag officer, Aslem Varaam written in 1920, in Beyazit-Varan (Otoman Empire):
"I exterminated the Turkish population in Bashar-Gechar without making any exceptions. One some times feels the bullets shouldn't be wasted. So, the most effective way against these dogs is to collect the people who have survived the clashes and dump them in deep holes and crush them under heavy rocks pressed from above, not to let them inhabit this world any longer.
So I did accordingly. I collected all the women, men and children and extinguished their lives in the deep holes I dumped them into, crushing them with rocks."
A.Lalayan, Revolutsionniy Vostok (Revolutionary East) No: 2-3, p.92 vd, Moscow, 1936; Istoricheskie Zapisky No 2, p.101, 1928. Note that Lalayan was an Armenian historian.
* 'The Armenians ejected sulphuric acid to the faces of the Turkish people, fired their houses and killed them using knife and bullet, in Gaziantep' (Report of English Ambassador Henry D. Barnhamof Aleppo –Halep-, dated 16 November 1895).
* In 1905, the Armenians killed all the Turks and Muslims who lived in Susha in Azarbaijan (Russian newspaper Novoye Obozrenye 6 September 1905).
* Armenian Soviet historian A.A.Lalayan stated that the Dashnaks displayed extreme
courage to massacre Turkish women, children and ill and old people (Contrarevolyutsionnıy 'Dasnaktsutyun' İ İmperialisti-cheskaya Voyna 1914-1918 gg.', Revolyutsionnıy Vostok, No.2-3, p.92, 1936).
* V.A. Gurko-Kryajin declared that the Muslim folk around Yerivan and Kars were eradicated and the districts Shuragel, Kağızman, Karakurt, Sarıkamış, Surmali were fired and destroyed so that the folk were forced to escape, in his book entitled 'Neareast and the States' (V.A. Gurko-Kryajin, Blijniy Vostov i Derjavı, p.93, Nauçnaya Assotsiatatsiya Vostokovedeniya Pri TsİK SSSR, Moscov, 1925).
* '150 000 Armenian volunteers in Russian Army were the only forces against Turks' told Armenian Boghos Nubar, in Paris (Times of London , 1919 Jan 30 Link:
http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/10/2013-150-000-armenian-volu...)
*'The Turks who had been slaughtered like animals were buried in large holes in the Eastern Anatolia' writes Russian Lieutenant Colonel Twerdo-Khlebof in his diary
(www.tsk.mil.tr/ermeni_sorunu/arsiv_belgeleriyle_ermeni_faaliyetleri/pdf/yarbay_tverdohlebov.pdf).
*T. Hachikoglyan, in a speech he delivered, told that the Dashnaks eradicated thousands of Turks with their bloody hands (T. Haçikoglyan, 10 Let Armyanskoy Sttrelkovoy Divizii,p4-6. İzdatelstvo Polit. Uprav. KKA, Tiflis, 1930).
* Ovanes Kachaznuni (the first prime minister of Armenia) admitted in his book ‘Dashnagzoutiun Has Nothing to do Anymore’ that they massacred the Moslem population and the Armenian terrorist acts were directed, at winning the Western public opinion and the British occupation aroused hopes of the Dashnaks. (This book is banned in Armenia).
