He is an Islamic prominant advocate of creationism who believes that terrorism is the result of Darwinism.  He launched a campaign against Darwinism and wrote a book called Evolution Deceit. 

Right now on British TV, and a programme about Darwin and the dangers of his evolution theory.  It was opened in Istanbul with and interview with Adnan Oktar.

And of course an infamous Darwinist who took survival of the fittest to extreme lengths was Hitler.

Interesting programme..............

I have not yet found any definitive citation for this but it is widely reported that in his latter years Darwin said something to the effect of "I look at the world around me and cannot believe that all this came about purely by chance."   This is generally spread by religious people trying to convince others of creationalism.

However, it should be remembered that Darwin was also a very religious man.   He was a devout methodist and the chapel in Shrewsbury has a memorial to him and the time he spent worshiping there.

BRITISH PROPAGANDA AND THE TURKS

Prof. Justin McCarthy
(Presentation made at the School of Oriental and African Studies on 19 January 2001)

This evening I am going to consider something that I have noticed for many years.That is the basic assumption in Europe and America that the Turks must be in the wrong, whether the question is human rights, activities in Cyprus, the Armenian Question,Turkish-Greek relations, or al most any other contentious subject. Often it is assumed that the Turks are evil. If there is a question of comparative guilt, it is assumed that the Turks were most guilty. Turks have to prove themselves three times for every one esseftion provided by their opponents.

All of this may surprise those of you who have known Turks well and have found that Turks are human beings like anyone else. But the unfairness with which Turks are treated does not surprise those of us who have looked into te background of the views and prejudices people have of the Turks.

I will not be speaking only of British propaganda tonight, but of the effects of what the British propaganda machine produced in World War I. That means I will alsa be discussing America, where that propaganda had its greatest effect.

The reasons for the iII feeling against Turks that is of ten seen in Western countries, as all of you know, go back to the Middle Ages. They go back to the period in which the name Muhammad was virtually synonymous with the Devil in Western culture. Europeans and Americans had a jang memory of conflict between Christianity and Islam, and Turks were the politicalleaders of Islam.

The particular image of the Turk as the enemy developed in the nineteenth century along what can be described as facialist lines. In the United States, as well as in Britain, books were printed which portrayed the Turks as members of groups of people who were described almost uniformly as viciaus. "Brutal" was the prirnary adiectiye that was used to deseribe them. In America, and i suspect in Britain as well, we feared something called the "Yellow Peril." The Yellow Peril supposedly was a great danger to the "white racelf (a fine example of psychological transference, since at the time Europeans were much more likely to assault Asiatics than vi ce versa). The Turks were portrayed as being at the forefront of the yellow peril, the leaders of the Yellow Peril. Those who had never seen a Turk found this an easy mental exercise: Turks lived in Asia. Turks were great warriors. Therefore, Turks led the Yellow Peril.

Traditional facialist and religious animosity against Turks has left a legacy of prejudice that has affected European and American feelings about Turks in dur own day. But Westerners have jang held religious and racial prejudices about many peoples. None of these prejudices seems to rise to the level of the feelings against the Turks. No other group is assumed to be so violent and brutal, nar is any other group so often and routinely assumed to be wrong in all its disputations with other peoples. There is more to the feelings against Turks than traditional animosities.


From my experience in many years of teaching American students and in many years of deciing with the American public, I believe the Armenian Question has been the primary ageney through which animosity against the Turks has been advanced. The conflict between Turks and Armenians during World War I has had a permanent affect on the beliefs and prejudices of Americans and arts. In America today, if you esk someone, "What do you know about Turks?" you will very find that the only thing they think they know about Turks is summarized in one statement: "killed all those Armenians, didn´t they?" That is it, the sum of knowledge on the Turks.

Today in America, the alleged genocide of the Armenians is included in the books that teach the Holocaust to schoolchildren. Through political influence and writers´ ignorance, it has been included as another example of inhumanity, a false example. Through the ageney of Holocaust Studies, American children are learning what is usually the only thing they ever learn about Turks, and that is the so-called Armenian Genoeide. Most American school children see nothing else about Turks in their schoolbooks. Theyonly see Turks in their study of what Turks supposedly did to .Armenians; and I might say, it is a completely one-sided description at that. The feeling about Turks is so ingrained that it is impossible to have rational dialogue on the subject. But the question remains-where does all this come from? Why do the otherwise caring and liberal academics who write on the Holocaust feel it proper to vilify one people, the Turks, without considering any other side of a contested issue? In studying the prejudices against Turks, I have found two basic causes for the ingrained anti-Turkish feeling in western soeiety, and especially in America. The one is the work of American missionaries and the other is British propaganda during and immediately af ter World War One. This evening, as the title of my talk indicates, I am going to speak on the British and about British propaganda.

During World War I there were many reasons for propaganda, but the most common was simply the desire make your enemy look bad. Any propaganda organization intends to downplay the good side and emphasize the bad side of its enemies. The most well known example of this is the anti-German propaganda of World War I-the babies on bayonets, the starving Belgians, the rape of nuns. The intention of this propaganda was to draw neutrals to the side of Britain, the primary neutral of course being the United States. But propaganda is also useful as a moraleý builder for one´s own side. It can make people feel they are fighting a holy crusade against evil. In some cases, especially in the second world war, this was true. There was a definite evil to be opposed. In the first war it was much harder to identify one side as more evil than the other, and thus propaganda was all the more needed. In addition to the general desire to defame one´s enemies, there were very specific reasons British propaganda would come out against the Turks. One of them was the traditional British opinion of the Turks, at least among those who thought of the Turks at all. Those Britons had a very ambivalent feeling towards Turks. This had been true for some time. The best example of this is probably the period of the 1876 Bulgarian Rebellion, when Disraeli´s and Gladstone´s visions of the Turks alternated in the public mind. At first, the public image was negative; the Turks were blamed for the "Bulgarian Horrors." But soo n af ter the British changed their minds and the public cried out for war with Russia to defend the Attornan Empire (and British self-interest). From that time until World War iý a number of travelers, diplomats, and others wrote kindly of the Turks, balaneing the writings of those, espeeially British missionaries and other clergymen, whose opinions were not so favorable. A feeling developed that the Turks, while bad in some ways, stili had many good qualities. They were not Christians, but they were honest and could be relied upon. The word of a Turk was good. The feeling about Turks in Britain was not necessarily bad at the beginning of World War One. This is especially true once Turks started actually fighting the British. Favorable reports of Turks came back to Britain, even appearing in some newspapers that were allied with the government. These reports described the Turks as men of honor. It seems to me, looking back without any good scientific evidence, that the British officer corps and the Turkish officer corps had very much in common; honor was a very important thing to both of them and they both could rely on the word and the actions of the other.

This was not the kind of thing that the British government wanted its people to believe about one of their arch enemies. It is very difficult to fight a war against people if you feel you must say good things about them. Something had to be done to change this image.

Another intent of British propaganda was to counter the image of Russia, espeeially in the United States. Britain wanted the United States to take its side in the war, or at least to remain a friendly neutral. In the United States, Russia had a very bad image, a well-deserved bad image, because it had been involved in the persecution of the Jews for some time, speeifically in 1915. Then Russian soldiers had massacred large numbers of Jews during Russian campaigns against the Germans. Because of that and because reports of these atrocities reports had come back to the United States, Russia, one of Britain´s allies, had become a very negative factor in trying to draw America into the war. It was feared that the Jewish influence in America was so great that the Russian actions would harm Britain. This was ridiculous. However, throughout World War I, from the very beginning ders of the war through the Balfour Declaration and beyand, there was a great belief, a prejudiced belief, in something called "The Jews" and the "Power of the Jews." As we know, in the war the German Jews fought on the side of Germany and the English Jews fought on the side of England. But the feeling that there was some great and powerful internationalorganization of Jews was strong even in the British government. People took actian based on their belief in it. The British feared that the Jews were powerful in America and would favor the Central Powers.AIso, and again this is something that is hard for us to believe today, there was a great fear about India.


There was fear at the time that Indian Muslims would engage in a Jihad, a holy war, against the Allies, alongside their brother Muslims in the Onarnan Empire. There was never realýr a chance this would happen. With hindsight, we can see that, but at the time the British Government feared a Muslim reyolt. If you could make the Turks look evil, then you could teach the Indian Muslims that the Muslim Turks were really bad Muslims, not the sort of people who should be followed into war or anywhere else.

Looking back today, such things may seem hard to believe. I can only assure you that they definitely were believed at the time.

To the British, the most important of all things was to lure Americans against the Central Powers. Eventually, as you know, Britain was to sLlccessfully draw America into the war. Those who have looked over the archival record know that the Wilson administration was in favor of the British and other Allied Powers long before America entered the war. They needed justifications to allow them to enter the war, to convince the American people that the Central Powers should be opposed. The Turks were a ready target, because propaganda against them was aýready available. One force available to the propagandists was the American Missionary . Propagandists could play upon the great respect Americans held for the missionaries who had güne to the Onarnan Empire, and who of ten appeared in the newspapers as national heroes for a Christian Nation. The American feeling of affection and respect for the missionaries could be mobilized as a force to oppose the natural anti-Allied feeling among many Americans, a feeling espedelýr prominent among the Germans and the Irish. If the Turks could be portrered as the persecutors of missionaries and murderers of Christians, the taint would alsa pass to the Germans. Portraying the Germans as the sort of people who would deal with those evil Turks, and indeed lead those evil Turks into battle, would show the American public how bad those Germans were. Indeed, this policy was to be greatly successful in affecting American public opinion.

The British ageney entrusted with changing public opinion was at first called the War Propaganda Bureau. It was a part of the Foreign Office. In 1914 it was stationed in Wellington House. The Director was the Right Honorable C. F. Masterman. In December of 1916 it was made into the Department of Information under Calanel John Buchan, with Masterman as his deputy. Later, in 1918, a Ministry of Information was created, under Lord Beaverbrook.. However, to the people who were involved in British propaganda the propaganda office always was the same. It was simpir called Wellington House.

The policy committee that operated Wellington House had so me first class minds. In fact the committee was very heavy with historians. The committee included people such as Gooch and Toynbee, the latter of whom we will be saying much.

The Wellington House brief was simple, the same brief as that of all propagandists. They were to make the enemies look as bad as possible and make their friends, and especially the British themselves, look as good as could be. Their main focus was, naturaýýY, Germany, but much effort was expended against the Turks. Propaganda was not considered to be a gentleman´s game. Toynbee himself remarked that he would like to get out of it for that reason. Nevertheless it was something that had to be done and British gentlemen did it. They were probebly always ashamed of their work, however, as indicated by the tact that they destroyed all the records of the Propaganda Office immediately af ter the war.

The only Propaganda Office records that exist have often been found by chance. Some few were found when the British again took up propaganda during World War II and found they did not know what to do.


They said, "You know, we obviously had a propaganda ministry. They did good work, very good work actually. How did they do it?" They searched for documents from the first war and in total found four Ietters, all the records that had been kept, and these were hidden away. Over the years other documents have gradualýr emerged. I actually have found a number of them myself as i have gone through Foreign Office documents. They were records that had been sent off to other offices. Although the originals were destroyed, some copies were kept in relevant Foreign Office departments, especially in the Foreign Office records for the United States. So we have a modest number of documents. They indicate some smail part of what Wellington House did.

Table One: Wellington House Publications Distributed.
Publications
1914 45
1915 132
1916 202
1917 469
Distributed
By June, 1915 2.5 million
By February, 1916 7 million

We have enough to show that they were extremely busy. We have enough to show that they were engaged in a massive undertaking. Unfortunately what we do not have are the documents that would show us the day to day workings of Wellington House. We do not know, for instance, how many American journalists they got drunk so that they would be receptive to the official tales that were told. We do not know how many stories they planted, or who was paid what. We do not have those kinds of references. We do, however, have one specific group of Foreign Office records for propaganda that was sent from London, especially to America. These records show the numbers of publications distributed. Unfortunately we do not know exactly what those publications were. We only know that they were publications of Wellington House. As you can see from the numbers, starting out on a very smail rate in 1914, the number of publications they brought out kept on going up until there were quite a sizeable number of them distributed. By June of 1915 they had distributed two and a half million publications. Not even a year later, seven million publications. Unfortunately we do not have any record that goes beyond that. We are lucky to have this at all. It can be assumed that the numbers continued to grow.


What that means in essence is that Wellington House was a massiye undertaking. We do have two good sources for the kind of work that was done. The main source is a book in the Imperial War Museum that is simpir identified as "Wellington House Library". Now this would ordinarily mean the books on their shelves, but actually these are the books that Wellington House distributed-the books that they had written for them, and the books that were written by someone else which they bought and distributed because they liked them. The only reason we know that is because when they destroyed everything else Wellington House kept copies of bound books, which they obviously saw no reason to destroy. And so the books that Wellington House possessed were sent off to the Foreign Office Library, eventually to the publicly-available Foreign Office library, where anyone can now read them. Studying in that library, i saw a strange notation written by hand in one of the bound book catalogues. Out of curiosity i requested the book, which i believe had not been seen since 1918. They blew the dust off and brought it over to me. it was the Wellington House record of the distribution of propaganda books. It was all hand written in ledger form, but someone had very carefully bound it. That meant it had been taken to be an ordinary bound book, and thus was not destroyed. So we have the list and know the books that were distributed by Wellington House.

Table Two: Wellington House Publications on Turks.

EF. Benson, Crescent and Iran Cross
EF. Benson, Deutschland uber Allah
British Palestine Committee, Palestine
M. Sykes, The "Clean-Fighting Turk", a Spurious Claim
Israel Cohen, The Turkish Persecution of the Jews
anon., The Commercial Future of Baghdad
Edward Cook, Britain and Turkey
Delegates of the Red Cross, Turkish Prisoners in Egypt
Leon Dominion, The Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe
Fa´iz EI-Ghusein, "Bedouin Notable of Damascus" [sic] Martyred Armenia
anon., General Sir Edmund Allenby´s Dispatch or the Operations in Egypt and Palestine
S. Georgevitch, Serbia and Kosovo
anon., Germany, Turkey, and Armenia: Selections of Documentary Evidence
anon., Great Britain, Palestine, and the Jews: Jewry´s Celebration of its National Charter
anon., Great Britain,. Palestine, and the Jews: A Survey of Christian Opinion
AP. Hacobian, Armenia and the War
E WG. Masterman, The Deliverance of Jerusalem
Basil Mathews, The Freedom oUerusalem
Esther Mugerditchian, From Turkish Toils
Martin Niepage, The Horrors of Aleppo
anon., The Ottoman Domination
Canon Parfit, Mesopotamia: the Key to the Future
Pavle Popovic, Serbian Macedonia
anon., Report on the Pan-Turan ian Movement
R. W. Seton-Watson, Serbia, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
George Adam Smith, Syria and the Holy Land
Harry Stuermer, Two War Years in Constantinople
anon., Subiect Nationalities of the German A/liance
anon., Syria During March 7976: Her Miseries and Disasters
S. Tolkowsky, Jewish Calanisation in Palestine
Arnold J Toynbee, Armenian Atrocities: the murder of aNation
Arnold J Toynbee, ed., The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 7975 - 7976
Arnold J Toynbee, Turkey´ A Past and a Future
Arnold J Toynbee, The Murderous Tyranny of Turks
Josiah Wedgwood, M.P., With Machine-Guns in Gallipoli
Chaim Weizmann, R. Gottheil, What is Zionism?
JS. Willmore, The Welfare of Egypt

The list of publications is long, but for the Middle East there are o more limited number of books. The table gives only those volumes, but it oHers an idea of the breadth and the scope of the Wellington House interests. They included Palestine, Jews and Lionism, and especially the Turks, quite abit about the Turks. i have left oH o number of other books that had multiple subjects, such as The Germans and the Turks, what the Germans were doing in the Middle East, or Toynbee´s work on the "subject nationalities of the German empire." Even with those excluded, there is o large number of books, so I have selected o few as examples.

Table Three: Selected Wellington House Publications.

E. W.G. Masterman, The Deliverance of Jerusalem
Fa´iz EI-Ghusein, Bedouin Notable of Damascus" [sic] Martyred Armenia
Mark Sykes, The "Clean-Fighting Turk, " a Spurious Claim
Arnold J. Toynbee, Armenian Atrocities: the Murder of aNation
Amold J. Toynbee, The Murderous Tyranny of the Turks
Amold J. Toynbee, ed. The Treatment of Armenians in the Attornan Empire, 1915-1916

The first one is by aman named Masterman. i do not really know if this Masterman is related to the other. Perhaps someone in the audience does know. Thus book is an example of relatively harmless propaganda. It does little injury to anyone, beceuse it really is a celebration of the fact that Jerusalem was now once again in the hands of the Christians, thanks to the British, who succeeded where the Crusaders failed. It is primarily a positive statement about the British. Whether you feel that the British conquest of Jerusalem was a good or a bad thing depends on which side you are on, I expect. But this book does not do much damage to the Turks or anyone else. There are a number of publications like this. Their primary purpose was to extol the British.

One of my favorites is the next one. Notice this rather strange loaking name, Fa´iz EI-Ghusein. The book says this EI-Ghusein was "a Bedouin notable of Damascus". Of course, the term Bedouin notable of Damascus is perhaps by itself an indication that something is wrong. But there is quite abit more. Let me give you his description from the book. It says he was the son of one of the heads, whatever that means, of a Bedouin tribe that lived in the Hawran, an interesting statement in itself. He had been educated in Istanbul and was employed as a bureaucrat in the Attornan government. He was put on the staff of the Vali of Damascus, then he was made Kaymakam, or the district leader, of Mamuretulaziz. He then became Member for Hawran of "the Assembly in Damascus". Now I can see the people who are familiar the Attornan Government saying, "Wait a minute, there are some problem s here." Wait. He states he was arrested by Cemal Pasa, the governar of Syria. He was imprisoned in Diyarbakir, a city in the southeastern part of Turkey, and then he was released. In Diyarbakir, according to his own story, he heard much of the massacres of Armenians. He heard what was going on and he thought he had to do something to record it. So he escaped to Basra and then to India, where he wrote his report. And it made its way to the British Foreign Office. The book does not ever say the manuscript made its way to the British Foreign Office, it just says it made its way to England, where it was published. There is no indication of its delivery to Wellington House, London.

There are a number of internal inconsistencies in this story, errors that should not have been made by a supposed Attornan official, such as placing cities in the wrong provinces. But forgetting about those, if you read the book you will notice that he wrote about things that he never could have known, secret conversations. In fact there was at the time almost a closet industry in making up quotes from Talat´ Pasa. He seems to have set in prison hearing what Talat Pasa was telling Enver Pasa in the cabinetin Istanbul, writing it down for later publication. Where he found this information i am not sure. He alsa knew about secret activities of Armenian revolutionary leaders, news of which was alsa reaching him in his prison in the Diyarbakir. Obviously this is more than unlikely.

He gaye great detail. He talked about what was done to Armenians, who stole their goods, which Attornan official was here, which man was there. Some of this is hard to evaiuate. If he says, "Ahmet Bey took the Armenians´ goods," you might esk yourself which of the hundreds of Ahmet Beys he was discussing, and whether the author knew himself. So you are not sure, but it does look a little strange. Outright lies are easier to spot: He states that after the Balkan wars large numbers of Turks were settled in Zeytun. Of course, none were settled there as amatter of fact, but who among the readers would have known? The stories he tells about what the Turks did to the Armenians are, even under the category of war stories, absolutely horrible. They include Turkish soldiers copulating with Armenian corpses.

From reading the book alone one can see that it has all been made up, but the most telling thing about Fa´iz al-Ghusein com es from an investigation of Ottoman records: There was no such person. If he indeed was employed in the government in either Syria or Mamuretulaziz he would have appeared in the list of government officials. Not only is there no Fa´iz al-Ghusein, there is no Fa´iz at all. The man simply did not exist. He was never there. Because Wellington house burned their records, we do not know who actually did write the book, but we can trust that it wasn´t Fa´iz.

Another favorite of mine is The Clean-fighting Turk, a Spurious Claim. Mark Sykes, as many of you know, was a great traveler and a very intelligent man. He was one of the two people that negotiated the SykesPicot Agreement that was to lead to the dividing up of the Middle East by the British and French after the war. But this story should began with Lloyd George, who did not like Turks very much and who, of course, was Prime Minister. Lloyd George was very interested in defaming the Turks and was personally interested in the propaganda bureau. He instructed that certain topics be developed by the bureau: "The Turk´s incapacity for good Government; his misrule, and above all, his massacres of all the industrious population". An order frq.m the Prime Minister. He added that the propaganda should be surreptitious: "I need hardly point out that it is very important that all this should be done gradually and that the artides should be spread over a considerable period of time, so as not to make it too obvious what we are driving at. Sir Mark Sykes´ artide in the Times,´ the ´Clean-Fighting Turk,´ is just what we want".

The Sykes artide can be considered the template for what was produced for the press. Unfortunately, we may never know what all those artides were. If you go through the American and the British press you can read artides and say to yourself, "That must be Wellington House work´lI but you cannot prove it.

This one we know. The Foreign Office saw a problem, the problem mentioned before-the Turks looked too good to many people in Britain. They were especially bothered by the image of what was called the "Clean Fighting Turk", the image drawn from the fact that the T urks did a good iob as soldiers and could be relied as men of honor. Now we will not discuss the accuracy of that daim here. The important point is that it was believed. And so something had to be done about it. Someone had to negate this image, write against it. And so their Foreign Office masters directed Wellington House to do something about the image of the Clean Fighting Turk. The writing of the original message was somewhat mistaken. Wellington House received an order that said they were to propagandize and bring out the image of the Clean Fighting Turk. Wellington House wrote back and said, "Why in the world would you want us to prove that the Turks are dean fighting?" The matter was finally deared up.

Wellington House went to Mark Sykes and asked him to write an artide attacking the good image of the Turks. He agreed and wrote an artide. We do not know if what he wrote was much changed by Wellington House, because the relevant records are burned, but we know he wrote the artide. We do know that once Mark Sykes´ artide was finally done a deal was made with the London Times to not only have it published, but alsa to buy a hundred thousand off-prints. The Times patriotically suggested a good price and the Foreign Office patriotically haggled with them for an even lower price. Forty pounds was paid for a hundred thousand copies.

The artide, which was printed at The Times and reprinted all over the United States, used words such as "a merciless oppressor," "a remorseless bully," "pure barbarians," "degenerate," and "has strewn the earth with ruins". It was one of the nicer propaganda works, actually. Sykes fabricated quotes nem the Ottoman government once again. Or perhaps Talat Pasa kindly told him of his plans. If you wish, you can believe he was in contact with the Ottoman government. Among the truly amazing things he wrote are statements such as that the Turks had invaded and destroyed Baghdad. The historians in the audience are shaking their heads. It was the Mongols, of course. Sykes knew much better. Conflate the history of the Turks and the Mongols? Put all the harm caused by the Mongols on the shoulders of the Turks? Well, you can get away with these things if you know that those who will read the artide have no idea about the history. But Sykes knew the truth.

Lloyd George and the Foreign Office were both very happy. Thirty two thousand copies of this publication were sent to the United States alone.

And now Arnold J. Toynbee, in many ways a great historian, at least a much respected and revered historian in many quarters. In nothing Toynbee wrote on the Armenians was there ever an indication of who his employers were, which was Wellington House, the propaganda bureau. He retained the image of a scholar who was writing on his own, or perhaps in collusion, or perhaps collusion isn´t the best word, cooperation with others.

We will go over his first title, The Armenian Atrocities, the Murder of aNation, only briefly. I will not sar much about the book itself other than to sar it was an extended catalogue of evils of the Turks. Toynbee mentioned therein that the Armenian refugees who had come to Alexandria were suffering terribly, that they were starving, that they were "dying of disease, exposure and starvation." This, of course, coused the British in Alexandria who were taking care of these people to be abit upset. The heads of the British agencies in Alexandria wrote back to the Foreign Office bitterly complaining, saying, "What do you mean? We are feeding these people, theyare not dying of starvation and disease. Both births and deaths are both completely normaL" Toynbee apologized.

The other book, The Murderous Tyranny of the Turks is interesting for some of its quotes and as an example of the kind of book that was created by Wellington House. I will just deseribe a few representative selections: Toynbee stated the Turks were engaged in the "maiming and warping of more gifted peoples". This, he wrote, had occurred throughout Turkish history. From the beginning, Turks had maimed and warped "more gifted" peoples. The racist qualities of such a statement need no elaboration. In 1913, according to Toynbee, Turks had been engaged in exterminating the Albanians. "Absolute lies," is all you can sar. Af ter the Balkan wars Turks "exterminated all Greeks and Slavs left in their territory". This may surprise those Greeks who survived to fight against the Turks in their independence war-according to Toynbee they had all been killed. He related that Turks had attacked the Arabs, and that Turks were indeed planning right then to exterminate all the Arabs. Turks had no civilization: "They had nothing but the militery tradition of violence and cunning". Perhaps abit intemperate. In fact, an incredible diatribe of a book.

But the book I want to concentrate on, because it is the one that has been most discussed Iateýr, including in the House of Lords, is a book called The Treatment of Armenians in the Attornan Empire, 1915-1916. As you can see, even for a command paper this is a weighty tone. Lord Bryce, the putative author of this book, was a long standing friend of Armenians and enemy of Turks. He was the founder of an Anglo-Armenian Association in 1893. He was very important to the propaganda bureau because he was so respected. He was the President of the British Academy, a former cabinet minister and a very important figure, especially in the United States. You have surely noticed this quality among some Americans, the way they fawn on the British. It is a realýr strange cultural phenomenon, and a very old one. This was definitely the case with Bryce, who was loved in America, partýr because as the British Ambassador he had been such a friend of the United States, partly because he had written a history of the United States, the American Commonwealth, which glossed over all of our faults and seng many high praises of our limited goods. An American would not have written in such a laudatory tone.

The official story was that Bryce, who had friends who were Armenians, had been reading notes sent by Armenians, and that he had decided he had better collect the facts and write a book about it. So he asked Toynbee, who was, I forget the words he used, "a notable young scholar and researcher," something like that. He asked Toynbee if he would compile a book. They then presented the book to Lord Grey, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Lord Grey in turn presented it to Parliament. Parliament was so impressed by it that they asked it to be published as a "command" book. In fact that is not at all what happened. What happened was the Propaganda Bureau asked Bryce for a propaganda volume, and said, "We have this man Toynbee here who is pretty good. He can put it together for yow." And that is exactly what happened.

I want to examine the content. The book is six hundred and eighty four pages long and there are so many errors and inconsistencies that we will be here much longer than the time allotted if we consider each of them. We will just talk about the reliability of the sources and the production of the book. One source was Ietters by Armenians and Armenian organizations. Armenian newsparers were also a source, newsparers like Ararat and Gotchnag. But the biggest sources, the main ones, were American missionaries and missionaryorganizations. Now, in order to understand why this is a problem, we have to examine those missionaries as sources, something that has not been done in the recent reprint of The Treatment of Armenians in the Attornan Empire, 1915-1916, which also incidentally does not mention that Toynbee worked for the Propaganda Bureau. A digression on Missionaries: The American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief was founded in November of 1915. There were other Armenian relief organizations before that. According to the circular that went out when the organization was founded, it was a "nonsectarian" organization. The table shows the bo ard of directors of that organization. We do not have time to go through the whole list, but if you were to do so, you would notice that every single member of the board, excert one, was part of the American protestant missionary establishment. The exception, obviously, being Rabbi Wise, who was not a Protestant Missionary. Everyone else was a missionary or a member of a missionary support group. Many of them had been through the mission field at some point or other.

The leaders of the main missionary groups-the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions, and others-were all members of these organizations. "Secretary" meant the boss in these organizations. These people began their new mission to aid the Armenians with a relatively smail pamphlet, in which they identified why people should heir their organization. It began, of course, with atrocity propaganda. Naturally Talat Pasa was spuriously quoted once again. Talat Pasa supposedly said, "the Armenians would pray for massacre." That is, he was going to treat the Armenians so badly that they would rather be dead. I personally find it hard to believe that he really would have said these things to missionaries.

Table Four: Board of the American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief
James L.Barton A Secretary (Head) of the ABCFM
Charles R. Crane President, Board of Trustees, Constantinople College for Women (missionary college)
Samuel Dutton Treasurer, Constantinople College for Women
Charles Dodge Chairman, Board of Trustees, Robert College (missionary college)
D. Stuart Dodge Member, Board of Trustees, American University of Beirut (missionary college)
Stanley White Secretary of the Presbyterian Board of Missions.
William Chamberlain Secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Reformed Church.
Samuel Harper Beginning a mission to Russia.
Frank Mason North Secretary of the Methodist Board of Missions
Thomas D. Christie Missionary in Anatolia
William I. Haven Secretary of the American Bible Society
Charles MacFarland Secretary of the Federal Council of Churches
Arthur C. James Member, Board of Trustees of AU.B.

(Continued from previous post)

The introductory pamphlet spoke of rapes, enslavements, and the "murders of nearly all able-bodied Armenian men above the age of twelve." The Relief Organization engaged in an eight-year policy of vilifying Turks, from 1915 to 1923. It is interesting that in 1923, once the Turks had won and the Mission obviously would not survive unless they got along with the Turks, suddenly all changed. Suddenly Turks were being praised by missionaries. But until then, the Turks were evil. To build their missionary organization was one of their purposes, but their main purpose was a good one. Their main purpose was to colled money for what indeed were starving Armenian and Syrian (Assyrian) Christians, to try to make sure that these people had food and the orphans had shelter. It was a good purpose. They used a not-so-good means to get the money, which was to vilify the Turks in every way, because there is nothing that draws in funds like portraying a horrible enemy that is oppressing these people and will succeed unless you help, unless you contribute. Which is what they did.

Later on the missionary establishment attempted to get the United States government to actually take over and turn Turkey into an America mandate. They failed that because the American Congress refused, saying, basically, that it would be bad for business and would cost too much.

Studying what they preached unfortunately takes a long time. You must read much truly disgusting literature. What they wrote was not what one would expect of clergymen. Yet one reason they were so successful is exactly that people expected that clergymen would not lie.

We only have time for a few examples. One of the leaders of the missionary propagandists was a man named Rockwell, who I will deseribe in a moment. He wrote in one of his pamphlets, "Never since the world began has there been such a reign of torture and of butchery as that to which the Ottoman hordes have subjected this helpless and unoffending nation. It is a scheme planned by high and skilled ability [the Germans] and carried out by low brutality [the Turks]."

In all of the writir.gs of the missionaries Turks were never victims; Armenians were always victims. Armenians never killed; Turks always killed. Turks, and i am not exaggerating in any way, Turks persecuted orphans; Turks were cannibals; Turks held auctions of Armenian women; Armenians were a majority all over the east of Anatolia; all young Armenian males had been killed by Turks; all women, every one, were raped by Turks; the Turks hated education and always persecuted the educated; no Christians had ever been part of the Ottoman government. Turks needed Christians because the Turks were racially incapable of being "doctors, dentists, tailors, carpenters, every profession or trade requiring the least skill". And the missionaries wrote that now that the Turks had killed the Armenians, Westerners who were going to have to come in and take over Turkey, because the Turks had rid themselves of the only people with brains, the Armenians, and the Turks could not run the country themselves.

As the missionaries described them, Armenians were happier than the other inhabitants of the Near East. The Muslims had "pinched faces, pele faces, anxious faces, careworn faces, listless faces.hungry faces,sickly faces of little children, and older faces that had grown sour and sullen". But Armenians smiled.

The main Protestant missionary propaganda was, or course, religious. James levi Barton, the leader of the relief organization, wrote "[Armenians] are suffering for no fault of their own, but because their lot was east in a land where no Christian power was able to protect and because, they would not remove the lord Jesus Christ from their alters and put Mohammed in his place."


The fact that the Turks had been running what was called Armenia for eight hundred years and the Armenians were stili there would see m to argue against that. Of course the propagandists didn´t bother with that sort of explanation. To us today these kinds of things are crude and unbelievable, and i imagine you would probably be laughing if you didn´t think this was a serious topic. But Americans especially, and many other people in the world, including most people in Britain, knew little of Turks or of Muslims in general. Such descriptions of Turks would have seemed perfectly reasonable to them.

The most important factor about the missionaries as far as I am concerned is that they did not hesitate to lie, most of these lies being lies of omission. For example, there were two major books written about the rebellion of the Armenians in the city of Van, one by a missionary named Ussher, anather by a missionary named Knapp. The Knapp book was excerpted in the Bryce Report. To the missionaries, no Turks or Kurds ever died in Van, except for four sentences in the three hundred and fifty-page book written by Ussher in which he stated that Armenians sometimes taek revenge against the Muslims. Ussher mitigated that by stating that these were people who deserved to die.

The fact is that Armenians had slaughtered every Muslim man, women, and child they caught in the city of Van. They rounded up the Kurds in surrounding villages and killed them in the great natural bowl at Zeve. If the missionaries missed that, they must have been both blind and hiding in the basement. Yet you read all the missionary literature and the only people who died were Armenians. This makes one wonder what happened to all those dead Muslims. They must have committed suicide.

This campain, the missionary campaign, was a great success. It gained a hundred and sixteen millian dallers, which, if you calevlete it in mode_ money, was the most successful private charity campaign in American history. Posters in public buildings, sermons in churches, door-to-door campaigns, pamphlets, press releases-it was the biggest such campaign ever see n in America. It has never been superseded in its scope or in the amount of money that was spent or that was taken in. Leading every one of the missionaries´ pleas to charity was an attack on Turks.

There was complete cooperation between the missionaries and the British Propaganda Bureau. They sent materials to Toynbee; in turn the missionaries distributed Wellington House propaganda material. For example, three thousand copies of Toynbee´s Armenian atrocities were distributed in America by the missionary relief organizations. The United States Government forwarded missionary materials on using government distribution systems. The government gaye secret documents to the missionaries, who extracted sections from them. These eventually made their way to Toynbee with the statement, "Under no circumstances reveal source".

The missionary establishment leaders most involved in providing propaganda to Toynbee were James Barton and William Rockwell. Barton had been a missionary in Anatolia. He was a Congregational minister and the head of the American Board of Commissioners For Foreign Missions, the largest of the American missionary groups. He had become the head of the main relief organization, the American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief. William Rockwell was alsa a minister, at Columbia Theological Seminary, I believe a Presbyterian. He was the Chief Propagandist of the American Committee. They were joined as Toynbee´s prime sources by a gentlemen in Switzerland, LEopold Favre, who had published the first of the World War l Armenian atrocity books, Quelcques, Documents sur le sert des Armeniens en 1915. And, of course, there was Boghos Nubar Pasha who had been the Prime Minister of Egypt and was now the head of what was called The Armenian National Delegation, of which he had named himself head. He was a well-known Armenian apologist.

Barton, Rockwell, Favre, Nubar, all these people provided materials to Toynbee, read the manuscripts, suggested emendations, and read the proofs. At one point Nubar wrote to Toynbee concerning one document, "Drop the phrases that make Turks lock good". Which Toynbee then did. The original source of nearly all the documents was the missionaries and the Armenians. And i think you can probably see that these were the two least reliable sources one can imagine.

The Blue Book, as it is called, was a collectian of letters, pamphlets and artides with an introduction by Bryce. This introduction was a summary of Armenian history with,p view to excoriating the Turks. In the documents of the Blue Book, many of the sources were not identified. This, it was alleged, was beceuse of the need to protect them, which could indeed have been reasonable. They were called: A, B, C, X, F or words were used, such as, "a traveler" or "a foreign resident." Place names were disguised.

Now, unless one knows who those people were, their documents do indeed make the Armenian case. When you do know their identities, the picture changes. Years age in the Public Record Office I found o smail booklet that was printed for private circulation within the Foreign Office. Others have alsa seen it. The booklet identifies the authors of all the contributors to the book, at least all of those who were known to Toynbee. AIso, Toynbee´s papers on the construction of the Blue Book (which i think he must have iIIegaIIy taken away from Wellington House) are now available in the PRO. I have them all on microfilm from the PRO.

The booklet and Toynbee´s records show an interesting story, one that is duplicitous, to say the least. Toynbee and Wellington House may indeed have been trying to protect sources. But it alsa must be faced that they did not saf who the sources were because the truth of their deception would have been obvious if they had. Instead, Bryce wrote, "All possible sources were seen" and "The respondents do not know each other". This was an outright lie. Some of the authors were missionaries who had compared notes before they wrote. In his Ietters, Toynbee remarked how similar the accounts seemed. He found that the authors had read other the pieces of others or had spoken to other authors before writing. Yet the Blue Book stated that because the accounts were completely independent the similarity of their stories proved that they were true! The similarities avowedly proved their reliability.

Waiting that the authors did not know each other was more than disingenuous, since sometimes they were the same people entered under different names, so they must have known each other fairly well. My favorite example is one Professor Xenides. He was o professor at the American missionary college in Merzifon. Three quotes from him were used. In the first two quotes he was identified a: "a professor at the College of X." He actually was o professor at o college in which all the student were Armenians, and he himself was o Greek. Now it might have helped readers to evaluate his writings if this had been identified, but it is easy to understand why it wasn´t. He alsa was the source of anather completely separate statement in which he was identifjed as "o traveler not of Armenian nationality". That was true. He was o Greek and he was o traveler, because he was teaching some miles away from his home. He was, according to the Blue Book, two different peeple, perhaps with o split personality. I think it is undoubtedly true that Professor Xenides number one did indeed agree with Professor Xenides number two.

The missionaries who heard things -they almost never actually saw the things they reported-were sometimes described only as "American travelers". Indeed, if you believe this book you will find that there were an incredible number of American travelers going through Anatolia during this period of the First World War. They were in fact all missionaries, or their wives, or their sisters. They were described as travelers. Readers reading this would have thought these were travelers from America, but indeed they were not. A number of authors were listed only as "An Authoritative Source". This included the Armenian Patriarch, described only as "An Authoritative Source".

The largest group of authors were American missionaries, fifty-nine out of o hundred and fifty. Next came individual Armenians, fifty-two. Many times only the name of these Armenian contributors was known, to Toynbee, not who they were or any information on their bono fides, only their name. Many times not even that was known, because they were identified only as "An Armenian".

Many of the contributors reported what they heard; very few reported what they saw. Seven documents this is really is amazing -seven documents were forwarded by the Dashnak party, the sworn enemies of the l Ottomans. This was the party of revolutionaries who were most responsible for the rebellion in Van, the ones who had attempted to take that area and many other areas from the Turks and the Muslims and those who persecuted the Muslims of the East. Other articles were provided by newspapers, including Dashnak and other newspapers sympathetic to the Armenian Cause. Documents were alsa forwarded by Armenian political representatives. Describing all these people as X, Y, and Z hides much. Many of the authors were unknown. For many others, only the name of the one who had forwarded the quotation, such as an American Consul, were known. Toynbee did not know who had actually written it One source, known to Toynbee only as the wife of an American missionary, was a woman who had never left her mission station. She was reported as a "refugee." Now, where she was a refugee from i am not sure. Maybe she had left her husband once. I do not know.

Toynbee wrote to Bryce, "I do not know the real authorship of thirty-four, twenty-three percent, of the documents". But these unknown writers appeared in the book in exactly the same way as the known. I must add that Toynbee did indeed try to find who these people were. He wrote to Barton trying to and the names of sources Barton had forwarded. Barton said he did not know. Not only did he not have the names, he had never seen the originalletters and did not know how he could get them. Where Barton did give so me information it of ten was sketchy: "it is written by a citizen of a friendly power". "A statement forward ed by a United States consul", "Statement by an American official unnamed".

Rockwell, the man who was the lead propagandist, wrote that he had himself published many of the stories he had forwarded to Toynbee. He had no idea who the authors of some of the stories were, but they seemed like good stories. Favre did the same thing. He knew some identities, not others. The Dashnak Party, when asked ab0l1t the statements they had forwarded, said they did not know the identities of any of the respondents. None of them. Of course Toynbee used them all anyway. He didn´t know their identities, so he called them A,B,C, "A Traveler," whatever, and he used them all.

This is the book that has been brought into the House of Lords as an honest representation of what happened in World War One. Now, excuse me if I become upset when I think of these things. It is astounding. The maior problem is not that so much of what was written was untrue. The major problem is that the other side was never told. No Turk ever died; no Armenian ever killed. No mention of ChettE bands, of Armenian members of Ottornan Parliament joining Russians and leading armed bands against Turks, of murders of Ottoman officials, of cutting of Attornan supply and communications lines, of attempts to capture Attornan citjes, of mass murder in Van, of the forced migration of more than a million Muslims forced to flee by the Russians and Armenians. Yet Bryce stated, "AII possible sources were seen."

As intended, the propaganda was most effectiye in America. The British had destroyed the cable from Germany to America, and so only very unsatisfactory radio communication, which was in its infaney at the time, could bring out the German si de of the story. The British censors controlled all the news that was sent to the United States. Newspapers sympathetic to Germany were punished by not letting their reporters go to the front, by keeping news from them and giving it to their opponents. And so even the Chicago Tribune and other anti-British papers eventually came around. The German and the Attornan side were simply never heard.

The amazing thing is there was an extensive British propaganda machine in the United States which was never known by the public during the war. Sir Gilbert Parker, a Canadian who had been an MP in England and who wrote romantic novels, was a gentleman well known in America. He had married a rich American and lived in the United States. Parker ran the British propaganda organization in the United States. It was always a secret, although it was obviously well-known to the United States government. It distributed materials all over the United States. All were forward ed as if they had been sent by private citizens, never by the British government. How many people were fooled´? We will never know, but it is definitely true that no one ever published the fact that there was a propaganda bureau in America or that Parker had anything to do with it. That information only came out long af ter the war was over.

Parker himself wrote to the Foreign Office: "In fact we have an organization extraordinarily widespread in the United States, but which does not know it is an organization. It is worked entirely by personal association and inspired by yoluntery effort, which has grown more enthusiastic and pronounced with the passage of time. Finally, it should be noticed that no attack has been made upon us in any quarter of the United States, and that in the eyes of the American people the quiet and subterranean nature of our work has the appearance of a purely private patriotism and enterprise."

By 1917 Parker had one hundred and seventy thousand addresses in his book. A hundred and seventy thousand people to whom he was sending material. Obviously, he wasn´t sending it all himself. He was sending to people who se nt to people who se nt to peeple. The material was passed on.

Table Five: Distinguished American Recipients of Wellington House Publications Distributed in the United States
Public Men generally 1847
Scientific Men 1446
Lawyers, etc. 1445
Y.M.C.A. Officials 830
Senators and Representative 680
Libraries 619
Newspapers 555
College Presidents 339
Financirs 262
Bishops 250
Historical Societies 214
Law Schools 166
Clubs 108
Judges 81
State Superintendents of Public
Instruction 35
Distinguished Men (for distribution) 585
Others and Miscellaneous 2212

We have, unfortunately, very little good information on his activities, but we do have some information. The table was drawn from one notice from Parker, sent to the Foreign Office in July, 1916. These were the important people to whom he sent propaganda. "Public Men Generally" probably included anyone with "The Honorable" in front of their name. Note the scientific men, lawyers, YMCA officials, senators, representatives, libraries, newspapers. Down the list you have "Distinguished Men for Distribution". In other words, distinguished friends who would give the propaganda to other peeple. "Others and Miscellaneous," twenty two hundred and twelve. This is a limited list, but it is interesting that it covers the "Who´s Who" in American society. These publications were primarily directed against Germans, but quite a few of the materials that were sent were propaganda against the Turks.

It has to be remembered that missionary propaganda was going very strong at the time. The greatest effect against the Turks undoubtedly came from missionary propaganda. But in the United States the fact that the British propaganda appeared as well was very important, because the two supported each other. Again and again, in the missionary propaganda against the Turks in the United States you see statements such as, "You can tell that what we say is true because our old friend, Ambassador Bryce, agrees with us". The two propagandas fed on each other, when in fact they, were mainly drawn from the same sources, primarily the missionaries. Most of the records have been destroyed, but we do know that five hundred and fifty five American newspapers were sent materials from the propaganda office. We know that the missionary organizations alsa distributed this material. In fact, at one point the missionaries had a problem because three thousand copies of the Blue Book had been sent from Wellington House to the American missionary organization, three thousand copies, but American customs held them. Customs said the missionaries could not distribute them unless they paid duty. The American government intervened and ardered the books be jet through without payment. The missionaries distributed them. Toynbee gaye a list of newspapers to the American missionary Relief Committee, a list of newspapers to which they were to send the book as if it was their own idea. Toynbee even provided press releases they could copy, reviews that they could send, prewritten, to publish in American newspapers. The Secretary of the American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief, Charles Vickery, wrote Toynbee that he had distributed books "to 200 others that do not chance to be on your list. i am endeavoring to see that every editer and molder of public opinion in the country has a copy."

Parker had distributed fifteen thousand copies of this book to prominent Americans. Now we do not know what the deals were made with publishers. We know the Blue Book was reprinted in America, we know that many of these books, almost all the books that are on that originallist given above, were printed in both Britain and in the United States, some by an American company that was owned by the British publisher MacMillan. Wellington house articles were surely published in American newspapers. However, the records have been destrered. We will probably never know what deals were made.

I am running out of time, but i want to be sure to tell you one thing, and that is that it is important to note that both Toynbee and Bryce believed that what they were doing was right. i have no question but they indeed believed the Turks had slaughtered Armenians. They surely believed that what they were doing was Iying and exaggerating in the general service of the ultimate truth and in the service of their country. They lied, as theYýadmitted this themselves in their writings. But it was war. Such things were and are accepted in war.

The strange thing is that Wellington House had distributed similar, in some cases almost identical, propaganda against the Germans. As you know, not jang af ter the war the Wellington House campaign against the Germans was studied, described, and often censured by scholars. In fact Bryce and Toynbee together had written a very similar but shorter book about so-called German Atrocities in Belgium. That book contained the same sert of thing see n in the Armenian Blue Book: "X, Y, and Z" and unknown and fraudulent sources. After the war, the Belgians investigated and found that the book was al most completely lies. The Belgians had wanted it to be true, but they reported their findings accurately. Yet no one has looked into the propaganda directed against the Turks. After all these years, no one has decried this propaganda. If one reads the basic books on the British Propaganda Ministry, and there are quite a few books on the subject, they never discuss the campaign against the Turks, only the Germans. I believe the reason that no one has researched the topic and uncoveredcthe lies told of the Turks is that no one cared. They were just Turks.


Table Six: Books Recommended in Today´s Bibliographies.

E.F. Benson, Crescent and Iren Cross
E.F. Benson, Deutschland ,her Allah
Fa´iz EI-Ghusein, "Bedouin Notable of Damascus" [sic], Martyred Armenia
J. Lepsius, Germany, Turkey, and Armenia: Seledions of Documentary Evidence
AP. Hacobian, Armenia and the War
Esther Mugerditchian, From Turkish Toils
Martin Niepage, The Horrors of Aleppo
Harry Stuermer, Two War Years in Constantinople
Arnold J. Toynbee, Armenian Atrocities: the Murder of aNation
Arnold J. Toynbee, ed., The Treatment of Armenians in the Attornan Empire, 7975- 7 9 76 Arnold J. Toynbee, Turkey, A Past and a Future
Arnold J. Toynbee, The Murderous Tyranny of the Turks

Source: Richard G. Hovannisian, The Armenian Holocaust

Today the books that I have described to you are stili recommended to American school children and university students. Theyare stili a basic element of school histories and advocacy by Armenian scholars. The table is a list of the Wellington House books that were particularly on the Armenians. Every one of these books except one is in the standard bibliography of Armenian History published by Professor Richard Hovannisian. The onlyone that is not is the book by Benson, Deutschland .ber Allah, perhaps because of the provocative title. Every other one, including Toynbee´s books and the imaginary Ghusein, are recommended. I challenge you to read those books and not say, "My God, how cou/d anyone write this?" Yet these are stili the sources recommended to American and, I expect, British students. By no means have the products of World War i British propaganda disappeared. Indeed, the Blue Book, The Armenian Atrocities the Murder of aNation has just been reprinted and celebrated in a book signing in the House of Lords. There is areason this book has been reprinted and the reason is not scholarship.

World War One propaganda from Wellington House and from the missionaries is routinely reprinted and quoted. In the United States, World War i propaganda is accepted as true in Congress. It is obviously alsa accepted in the French Parliament. It appears in high circles of state along with other fabrications, such as the spurious quote from Adolf Hitler (implying that Adolf Hitler was an expert on Armenian history). Even the Turkish Republic for many years was quiet on the Armenian Issue. It did not say a word, did not oppose these lies. The Turks were afraid, with some justification, of Turkish irredentism and of calls for revenge for what had been done to the T urks. They wished the T urks to resign themselves to living in Anatolia, forget pa st injuries and the lands that had been lost, and get about the business of building a new home. Only in the last twenty years has this history began to be truly studied in Turkey, and there are stili very few people that are locking into it.

Very few have opposed the continued propaganda against the Turks. The lies that were told during wartime have had half a centuryand more to incubate. Now theyare the accepted wisdom. Everyone thinks they know what the T urks 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 jang ago finally dies in dur own time.

Thank you
Justin McCarthy

 Darwin´s Enmity Towards the Turks

The most important target British colonialism set itself towards the end of the 19th century was the Ottoman Empire.

At that period the Ottoman state ruled a huge area from Yemen to Bosnia-Herzegovina. But by now it was finding it hard to control this area which it had managed in peace, calm, and stability. Christian minorities were beginning to rise up in the name of independence, and such great military powers as Russia were beginning to threaten the Ottomans.

In the last quarter of the century Britain and France joined the powers which were threatening the Ottomans. Britain particularly set its eyes on the Ottomans´ southern provinces. The Berlin Agreement, signed in 1878, is an expression of the European colonialists´ decision to divide up the Ottoman territories. Five years later, in 1882, Britain occupied Egypt, which was an Ottoman territory. British colonialism set about its plans to later take over the Ottoman territories in the Middle East.

As always, Britain based these colonialist policies on racism. The British government deliberately tried to portray the Turkish nation, the basic element of the Ottomans, and particularly the Ottoman state, as a so-called "backward" people.

British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone openly said that the Turks are examples of mankind´s non-humans, and for the sake of their civilisation, they must be pushed back to the Asian steppes and eliminated from Anatolia.23

These, and words like them, were for decades used by the British government as a propaganda tool directed against the Ottomans. Britain tried to portray the Turkish nation as a backward nation that had to bow its head to more advanced European races.

The so-called "scientific basis" for this propaganda was Charles Darwin!

Darwin´s comments regarding the Turkish nation appeared in the book The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, published in 1888. Darwin proposed that by eliminating the "backward races" natural selection would play a role in the development of civilisation, and later said these exact words about the Turkish nation:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.24

This nonsense of Darwin´s was a written propaganda tool to give support to Britain´s policy of destroying the Ottoman Empire. And in fact this propaganda tool was an effective one. Darwin´s words to the effect that "The Turkish nation will soon disappear, this is a law of evolution" gave a so-called scientific support to Britain´s propaganda directed at creating enmity towards the Turks.

Britain´s desire to bring about Darwin´s prophecy basically came to life in the First World War. This giant war, which began in 1914, was born of conflicts of interest between Germany and Austria-Hungary on the one side, and the allies Britain, France, and Russia on the other. But one of the most important calculations within this war was the aim of destroying and dividing up the Ottoman Empire.

Britain attacked the Ottoman Empire from two separate directions. The first was the Canal, Palestine, and Iraq fronts, opened with the intention of taking the Ottoman territories in the Middle East. The second was the Gallipoli front, scene of one of the bloodiest battles of the First World War. The Turkish Army at Çanakkale fought heroically and lost 250,000 men to resist the enemy forces mustered by the British. As for the British, they sent more Indian troops and Anzac units recruited from such colonies as Australia and New Zealand to fight the Turks, whom they saw as a "backward race," than their own soldiers.

The echoes of Darwin´s hostility to the Turks continued to ring after the First World War. The European Neo-Nazi groups who treacherously attack the Turks in Europe still draw their inspiration from Darwin´s stupid nonsense about the Turkish nation. Darwin´s words about the Turks are still to be found on the Internet pages of these racist enemies of the Turks. (See the chapter on The Bloody Alliance Between Darwin and Hitler.)

Founder of the theory of evolution, Charles Darwin is censored in his 200th birth year, on a monthly popular science magazine published by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBÝTAK).

Allegedly, a executive member of the council intervened at last minute to remove Darwin from the magazine´s –Bilim ve Teknik- cover, as well as a dossier on the theory of evolution. Therefore the magazine´s March issue arrived a week late in newsstands as global climate change replaced Darwin on the cover.

TÜBÝTAK has yet to make an official statement on the allegations. Meanwhile, editor-in-chief of the magazine, Çiðdem Akutaman confirmed the incident but refused make any comments as "she´s a public servant." Council´s co-chair Prof. Dr. Ömer Cebeci confirmed that Darwin was removed from the magazine´s cover but claimed that this is normal procedure. According to news reports, he demanded the change and told Akutaman that she´s removed from her post as chief editor.

"This is a scandal! It seems like Adnan Oktar [a so-called religious sect leader who propagandizes for intelligent design and against Darwinizm] might as well be appointed as chief-editor to TÜBÝTAK´s magazine," said Ender Helvacýoðlu from Science and Future magazine.

He calls on the science community to react against this incident and pressure the government, who has the last word appointing the council´s scientific committee. "This intervention can´t be regarded as solely censorship. It connotes the states rejection of science."

Association of University Councils (ÜAK) also condemned the act and called for Cebeci´s resignation. "TÜBÝTAK must clarify this incident as soon as possible. Government biased management should be distanced from TÜBÝTAK."