Talk:Prosecution of Ottoman war criminals after World War I

Content of Malta Tribunals

The article covers the issues regarding the so much publicized but never executed trials. There is a huge list of articles and sections in books about the event. In these sources under this section the questions of why did it never executed? was there a lack of evidance? Thanks. --OttomanReference 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes to the article in order that it be more accurate and not make entirely ficticious claims. However, the title of the article and the subject itself is still far more fiction then fact. As such I strongly suggest that the article be deleated as it serves no purpose except to confuse and make false claims and present false history. Wikipedia has no use for such garbage.--THOTH 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Object ! Malta Tribunals proves that there was no armenian genocide . its importance is same as Nuremberg trails. people like you should not manuplate wikipedia users and try to spread false history .thats why everybody should know about malta trails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.56 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Name of the Article

The content is referred in cited sources as (1) "international tribunals" or (2) tribunals of Malta exiles. The name "International Tribunals would not really be defining choice as there are many other international tribunals. I personally like to keep the "Malta Tribunals", however this should be open to discussion. Thanks for your efforts. --OttomanReference 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have I somehow found myself in Wikifiction? How can there be an article about something that was non-existant? Will you Turkish deniers stop at nothing to deny the Armenian Genocide and the guilt of those involved. Will we next see an article on the role of extraterrestials in fermenting rebellion in the ottoman Empire? Really what is next? This article needs to be deleated. Again you have suceeded wasting our time.--THOTH 06:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

THOTH claims "it is a fiction" The Great "Armenian Historian" has a extensive section in his book "The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus" which extensively explains this pretext of "international trials" and their results. The (a) collection of events and (b) interrogations in Malta to build the "international case" exits. There is an article that explains the memories of Bogazlayan Mehmet Bey which ended in this "very interesting" set of events which explain "Armenian Relocation and the Trial of Governor of Bogazlayan Mehmet Bey." These set of events which fits to normal prosecution procedure: events "arrest of people", moving them to "Malta jails", and "collection of events", "perform analysis on the collected events" and discussions regarding the consequences and then "Suspension of Persecution" is explained in this article "The Malta Tribunals". These are not fictions. The article has a section of "Aftermath" which aims to collect opinions regarding why these events failed to produce desired results. (1) The events are real and covered by Armenian and Turkish historians (2) the terminology is also not original which An Armenian Fadix labeled the trials at "[[1]]" in Revision as of 22:04, 2 March 2006. And developed a discussion tread as "The_Real_Malta_Tribunal" [2]. Which you have been following these edits from the same period. (3) The concept is extensively discussed by you and your friends in as MarshallBagramyan says """This has been discussed before: [3] which includes on the Blue Book, and here [4] on Malta regarding American, British and Ottoman records which Fadix had already addressed long time ago. How long people will still keep bringing back old discussions which were already addressed? """ I hope you do not claim that these "discussions are based on fictional events". The article summarized what historians worked on and what was perceived "by wikipedians" as significant (see the discusions [5] ) to give their time which was not perceived by them as """Again you have suceeded wasting our time"" . Thanks --OttomanReference 13:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

References are to the Ottoman Post War military tribunals which were held in various parts of Anatolia and Istanbul - none were held in Malta to my knowledge - nor did the British establish any mechanism for prosecution of Turkish detainees held at Malta after the war. Simply discussing or considering prosecution of individuals does not equate to trials. This subject and your contentions are pure fiction and nothing else. If I contemplated punching you out and even talked with someone about my desire to do so would you say that I could be tried for having attacked you? No. There was no attack - just as there were no trials. I strongly recommend that this article be deleated as there is no substance to it. The Post War Ottoman Military Tribunals are introduced and discussed in the Armenain Genocide article. Perhaps you would recommend that we exapand that discussion as these trials and the trial of Solomon Telerhian for the murder of Talat in Berlin in 1921 are the only trials of relevance that I am aware of that concern perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. Perhaps you are referring to some trials held on Malta for fisherman who exeeded their quota of fish - in any event to introduce and discuss trials as an article in Wikipedia there actually have to be such trials to begin with.--THOTH 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with the "name Malta" in the title"

THOTH objects the title with the name "Malta" in it. I propose to change the title to "International Trials of Ottoman Empire" as the detainees were hold on a wide range of reasons.--OttomanReference 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)--

I propose we call the article - "Trials of Ottoman detainees held in Tahiti". Or maybe "the Further adventures of Danial Webster as he shows them Ottoman Scoundrals a thing or two about the Law and American Justice!" etc --THOTH 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

US involvement to international trials

THOTH claims "Brits were relying on documents generated and held by the US State Department for their prosecution. US was unwilling to turn these documents over at that time - thus no case". Is there a source which collects these information that is not returned? Because if this is limited with the validity of The Blue Book, The Blue Book as a war propaganda has been documented. In this case US did a very decent act not to turn this into an international fiasco which could claim on peoples life at Malta! Also, Why did Brits did not used their documents. if there is a crime, how could Brits not know it? At the time Brits had an extensive information system at the Ottoman system. An empire (Brits) which can organize the Arab Revolt, why does it needs US information? We have the personal position of THOTH, please give some citations. Is there any proof that Blue Book is not another case of WMD. OttomanReference 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Big difference between knowing and even witnessing things and convicting a specific person of specific crimes. The Blue Book information - again - highly corraborated and verified and beyond any question whatsoever - sorry - is a collection of primarily eyewitness testimony observing massacres and mistreatment - however it has much less specific information concerning the plnners fo such and those giveing the orders - the type of folks held at Malta and that one would really want to prosecute. Any correspondence with a Turkish criminal documented in one (or more) of the blue book accounts to one held at Malta would have been only coincidental or happenstance - considering the few held and the very large number of true criminals in this matter. Again - this type of prosecution was unprecedented for the time. It trivializes it to just make claims that because (International) trials wern't conducted that the CUP leaders and henchmen were innocent. It also ignores very real political factors. Your claims have all been well addressed within (many) scholarly works. I believe many of these have already been cited. I'm not with my library at the moment but I am able to cite a number of sources that back up what I have said above. Additionally Ara Sarafian has done a very detailed and extensive analysis of the "Blue Book" - including the volume of citations and cross references that details the painstaking manner in which the data was compiles and verified. So again I claim - and the evidence clearly supports - that these are factual acounts beyond your ability to question with just inuendo. It is incumbant on you (deniers in general) to prove the accounts false (individualy) by finding primary evidence that contradicts the observations. I rather doubt you can do this - so all you have is ad hominem attack and other diversions. Rather pathetic really - this whole denial thing in general is...--THOTH 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not about if Armenians died! WWI totaled to 40 million, Ottoman Empire lost 5 million (20% of its population) of its citizens. American's know when there is a crime and where there is mass destruction (Did you know how many people died during American Civil War). Ottoman Empire was in a mass destruction. Turkish sources do not deny the mass destruction (not just Armenians but to the Empire), what they say is genocide is about "a crime." Crimes has people who plan it, people who put that plan into action. The blue book does not offer this "crime" perspective, it tells a destruction. People kill each other during civil wars. If you claim that Ottoman Empire planned WWI as crime against Armenians, that is another issue. Armenian Revolutionary Federation shares the same responsibility as Ottoman Empire. Sarafian is an Armenian, he is biased. Is there another source which is not linked to Armenian Diaspora. If there is such an analysis of yours why didn't you include your arguments in the article (with citations)? Do not spend your time at the talk pages, just include the information in the article. I'm only asking for the credibal sources, not try to engage a talk. My question stays "Are there sources, please not Armenian, that proves "US did committed a crime by not presenting the information which proves that there was a criminal which should have been punished?" Thanks. --OttomanReference 16:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, does not presenting evidence of genocide you hold count as a crime in the legal sense (in the moral sense, it is, obviously)? Did the US officials involved (if any) know that such documents existed, and did they really have any control over the decisions the British made. Also, when destruction is aimed at an ethnic group (and not simply ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ of a certain ethnic group, as eyewitness accounts prove otherwise) does that not by definition constitutes genocide? Trying to place blame on a small political group with that had no control over or association with most of the Armenian population is I think irresponsible; particularly considering they initially supported the Young Turk government. As for your sources, I will search for them, but It will be difficult to select a keyword. The Myotis 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

: The Myotis says "I will search for them" Thanks for your response, I will be looking forward for the article which shows that US officials hold on to an "evidence which could have prosecuted one or more responsible parties". Regarding the moral sense, it is, obviously that Turkish sources claim that if a genocide can be decided on a moral sense; then the international community need to find another word to what happened to Jews during WWII. It is mind blowing to me that this article does not have included that citation. A proof such as would have solved the Genocide conflict. I believe the Turkish historians will change their position, if there exits an evidence with the Burden of proof given (not just accusations and claims). It is impossible not to remember the recent US Intelligence (information gathering) issues. Thanks for your response. OttomanReference 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Laughable argument...both the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide fully meet the definition of the word genocide and that is the word which best describes what occured to both communities by the Nazis during WWII and the Ottomans during WWI respectfully. We know however the popensity for Turks to change/eliminate words (place names, names of animal species etc) from their venacular when they find these words too painful - as they remind you of a people whom your people slaughtered without mercy and commited (in the words of Holocaust survivor and genocide scholar Robert Melson) - "Total Domestic Genocide" against. --THOTH 17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Its again an Ad Hominem attack to claim that Ara Sarafian is Armenian thus biased without examining his actual work. I also want to point out that the figure of 5 million casualties for the Ottoman Empire includes 1.5 million Armenians, perhaps 500,000 Greeks, several hundred thousand Assyrians, Arabs (not sure how many) - etc etc - so I don't see that you claiming that 5 million Ottomans died during WWI is any kind of a counterbalance or proof against the Armenian genocide - certainly no more then a Holocaust denier claiming that 7 million (not sure the numner) German Deaths in WWII somehow disproves the Holocaust.--THOTH 17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eat this - http://www.gomidas.org/Blue_Book_Project/27_January_Response.fm.pdf and this - http://www.gomidas.org/Blue_Book_Project/GIResponse.pdf and more - http://www.gomidas.org/papers/004.pdf The above show that the "Blue Book" to be unassailable. Turkey's attempt to do so backfired - as the British House of Lords re-affirmed its accuracy and unassailability. Additionally Sarafian prooves here that the Turkish contentions are phoney and the Turks (outside of ottoman Reference and other deniers here) have dropped this one like a hot stone --THOTH 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The question THOTH brought forward is "US did committed a crime by NOT presenting the information to punish criminals during international tribunals" The question is regarding with the "court of law". Please do not diverge THOTH. Keep focus, Keep focus. Keep focus. With a diminishing voice: _{Keep focus}. Concentrate on the criminality. Work with citations. Many many years passed but you continue to let yourself be distracted from the main topic. Thanks. --OttomanReference 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this all you are doing here - disrupting and provoking? I have more then shown you wrong with every denialist contention you have made - so repeat after me - ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IS FACT. You are clearly attempting to turn this talk page into a sideshow. I hope the admin folks are examining your behavior here.--THOTH 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide is proven in all its components — among them intent. The converging evidence is well in excess of that generally judged abundant in establishing other historical truths. The genocide was a horrendous crime. The evidence is there — province by province, city by city, village by village, hamlet by hanlet, with its countless variations according to time and place yet all the same in the vast process of extermination — genocide. A deliberate plan, carefully organized and brutally executed. The deniers and rationalizers offend the dignity of the historian and of all humanity. Yves Ternon, author of several volumes concerning human rights and genocide in Freedom and Responsibility of the Historian — the "Lewis Affair" (1999)

British Foreign Affairs Minister Lord Curzon wrote the following, "The less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused."- British Foreign Office Archives, FO 371/7882/E4425, folio 182. A report on this matter summarizes - "It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that they were released because "the charges were exhaustively probed, investigated, and studied." Nothing of the sort happened. The Allies, especially the British, studiously avoided getting judicially involved at that juncture of developments. Everything was deferred for an eventual, anticipated international trial. To an incidental, single inquiry from London, Aukland Geddes, the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921 responded saying that the U.S. archives at that time already contained "a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres" but that under existing conditions it was not possible to assign and charge specific culpabilities to the Turkish detainees at Malta as the Allies were not involved in the specific task of prosecution that would require pre-trial investigations, the administration of interrogatories, and the application of other methods of evidence gathering. Nor did the British "exhaustively search the archives of many nations," not in 1919, not in 1920, or ever! Like so many other statements noted above, these are purely fabricated declarations to confuse the issue and confound third parties." --THOTH 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If feel you (THOTH) are an expert on the criminality issue, add your text (develop the section "criminal intent") with the citations. Defend you position, lest see what is going to come out of it. However, non of this really answers the main question regarding US. Focus... Thanks. --OttomanReference 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before: [6] which includes on the Blue Book, and here [7] on Malta regarding American, British and Ottoman records which Fadix had already addressed long time ago. How long people will still keep bringing back old discussions which were already addressed?--MarshallBagramyan 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No one will argue, if MarshallBagramyan add his information to Malta Tribunals. Hope he will include all the positions in it. I guess this would be the correct way to analyze this, which s/he should have been done. All other arguments are drips of water in the ocean. --OttomanReference 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Which "Malta Tribunals" are these? Please provide details. Who was/were the presiding judges? WHo were the prosecutors? Where is the record of proceedings? Verdicts etc? I am not aware of any "Malta Tribunals" that have any relevance in this issue. Please elaborate if you can.--THOTH 06:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep thinking that articles are created for us to analyze claims rather than on the basis of the subject being notable. A Malta Tribunal article can not exist when there was no “Malta Tribunal” in the first place. It's not written in any work, check the link on Fadix's answer, he quoted the only notable Turkish author who wrote on the subject and the author in question writes: “As a result, all detainees at Malta were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal.” No notable work or paper writes about a fictional tribunal.--MarshallBagramyan 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The "copy edit" of Toth [8]

THOTH wrote: "There was no such thing as the "tribunals", "international trials", or "Malta trials", depending on the (propoganda) source." What kind of sentence is that? THOTH in this sentence accept that there are propaganda sources (which by the way one of them is Famous "Armenian Historian") that are explaining the events which he says "no such thing as the "tribunals"". I guess his/her native thong was interfering, but hope he can find a better way to express what he wants to say. This sentence looks funny. Could you explain what that really mean in your mind? Thanks. --OttomanReference 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide us with a list of trial dates with defendents, presiding judges, prosecutors, evidence presented and verdits - and so on and so forth - then we can talk. Until then you have no trials. BTW - all of your references to discussions of "Malta Tribunals" from Armenian Genocide/Fadix talk pages are to citations that specifically make and back the claim that such trials did not exist. As for a "Famous Armenian Historian" refering to such - I don't know what you are talking about here - but I can only imagine that he - likewise - is dismissing such ficticious claims. Enough of this already - OK.--THOTH 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think THOTH should present his citation for his claim "no effort what so ever" as given the fact: "Article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres required the Ottoman Empire, "to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres" This article in an international PEACE TREATY informs us that there is a conviction for the international trials (convicts were in the control of the Allied Forces, which makes this international I guess) which Ottoman Empire did "hand over to the Allied Powers" with Malta exiles. This is a very strong position that "There was an effort" Before THOTH edited the introduction section the first paragraph clearly states "MALTA TRIALS did not go to PERSECUTION stage." These facts explain that THOTH's statement is totally wrong "no effort what so ever." However the rest of the stages are not LESS important than the prosecution. Which This articles tries to explain. These events are real THOTH. THOTH I really do not understand the position which you want to add to the article that is not in the article. THANKS--OttomanReference 16:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If there were no trials - and you even admit this - then how could there be an article titled "Malta Tribunals" etc? Answer - there cannot be. I covered the logic of this above in the discussion that even if I tell someone I would like to hit you - until I do it - it can't be said to have occured. Likewise I (and others - in past Armenian Genocide talk pages that you reference) have already discussed and presented the facts in regards to the lack of any attempt to move forward for any trials (there is even no blueprint to describe what the trials would be about, how they would be arranged for, who would preside, what law would be applied - etc) - none of this. And beyond a single documented inquirey by Geddes - there was no attempt - nor does there exist any evidence for any attempt - on the part of the British or anyone else - to specifically seek or accumulate evidence in preperation for any trial. So - non issue. There were no other "stages" of prosecution - nothing of this nature happened whatsoever - and the onus is on you to document such as I have requested - not for me to proove it didn't occur. This would be like asking me to prove that the Chinese have not landed men on the moon - if you are cliaming that they did - then you must present the proof.--THOTH 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slow down take it step by step. Your argument is limited, even though explained before. There are "many steps" in a trial. There are trials which parties agree (under the judge control) before the trial reaches its final PERSECUTION stage. These are also trials as the documentation regarding all other stages (arrest, evidence, exchanges, etc) stay within the archive of the corresponding offices with the same code or title given at the beginning. The information in the article is cited. Both Turkish and Armenian. The proof of this process is in the "Article" given by an Armenain historian. Thanks OttomanReference 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that it changes anything (because there were no trials, there was no organization for trials, there was no investigations to establish evidence - none of that) - but please - by all means - I am curious about your alledged quote proving something to the contary by some A"rmenian Historian". BTW - I am still seriously contemplating hitting you...can we yet say that I have done so? Can we even say that I have done anything at all to really prepare to do so?--THOTH 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW - just curious - do you suppose that we could craft an article for Wikipedia called - Guantanamo Tribunals - concerning the trials of prisoners held there from the Afghan war? I imagine that someone has contemplated trials - so can we write and article about these (non-existant) tribunals and then talk about how since there were no verditcs and no sentencing etc - then this somehow proves that these detainees are innocent? Because that is what they are - detainees. ANd those held on Malta were even more so. Sevrees and other prounouncemtns by the Entente powers spoke to the collective guilt of the Turks for the Armenian atrocities...but there was no legal international framwork for prosecution - this was all a new thing - and regardless by this time the Entente powers were politically going thier own way - and becaoming rivals - and there was little likelyhood of any International effort to try and convict these men. There was hope that through Sevres and the partictioning of Anatolia that the Turks would be punished by loss of territory/soveriegnty - but even this proved a futiel hope in light of the rise of Turkish Nationalist power. So justice was not served. ANd this is the story - not your made up "Malta Tribunals" that never existed.--THOTH 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres required an international trial. There is no International peace treaty regarding Guantanamo prisoners. That is the main difference you do not want to hear. --OttomanReference 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong - article 230 required the Ottoman Government to turn over all officials involved in the Armenian massacres. It did not specify trials. Even if it had done so - saying such does not mean that such a thing occured. Again - I may be planning to hit you - but until I do it - one can not say tht I had done so - only that I may have been contemplating such at a point in time. BTW Sevres (completed in August 1920) never was ratified or implemented.--THOTH 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is what article 230 of Sevres Treaty says "ARTICLE 230. The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on August 1, 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the tribunal which shall try the persons so accused, and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such tribunal. In the event of the League of Nations having created in sufficient time a tribunal competent to deal with the said massacres, the Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to bring the accused persons mentioned above before such tribunal, and the Turkish Government undertakes equally to recognise such tribunal." This says that the Allied Powers reserve the right to set up a Tribunal or that the Leaugue of Nations might do so - however to my knowledge no such Tribunals were ever established. If you have any information which suggests the existance of such tribunals then I suggest that now is the time to supply it. Malta was strictly a holding place for detainees. Again - if you have any evidence of actual trials held on Malta please supply such...--THOTH 18:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

THOTH Please, your edits are not cited. I would appreciate, if you bring your arguments with citations. I would like to have a session with you about "Can we even say" or "I have done anything" kind of your personal ideas of yours, but I think these can wait for later issues that you will rise. Have a nice day. Thanks --OttomanReference 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no point. And I am not interested. This article is sure to be deleated. And you obviously cannot comprhend these issues and understand what is important and real. "Discussing" anything with you is obviously a tremendous waste of time.--THOTH 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

non-sourced paragraph introduced by THOTH

You have introduced some arguments and you claim that they are coming from a source; Could you gave the source with page numbers and which paragraphs you acquire these arguments. I would like you tell me which paragraphs these sentences are acquired. Please use the wikipedia Citation format. Thanks --OttomanReference 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Series of trials that never occurred and this fact is presumed to somehow abrogate the Ottoman Empire and specific Turks from responsibility for perpetuation of the crimes against humanity that occured during the Armenian Genocide.
• In his groundbreaking book The History of the Armenian Genocide Armenian genocide scholar Vahakn Dadrian devotes a chapter to the issues and difficulties surounding Allied attempts at Retributive Justice against the Turks for crimes commited against the Ottoman Armenians where a number of concepts for and practical impediments against pursueing criminal proceedures against Turks.
• The Turkish nation as a collective responsible for such crimes are presented.
• In the chapter, as well as in presentations of this dilema in other works regarding the issue of punishment for crimes commited by the Turks against the Armenians,
• Dadrian presents numorous testimony from Allied as well as Turkish officials and from news sources
• Such from the time that clearly demonstrate the overwhelming consensus that Turkish individuals detained at Malta as well as others who escapes from Ottoman prisons were clearly guilty of henious crimes.

I several times stated that I used Dadrian's book as a source - this should be clear. You have reverted my edits and re-instated a quote from Dadrian that does not exist as at no point in Dadrian's work does he even so much as mentions any "Malta Tribunal(s)" - thus you are manipulating his words and protraying something falsely - much as this whole (so-called) article does.--THOTH 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Concentrate THOTH; there is a very clear citation format. Do not take it personal. I'm asking you to give exact citation of the sentences or paragrafs that you used to reach these arguments. They are listed one by one for you just at the top of the page. Just keep your Focus... OttomanReference 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Extensive coverage of failed attempts at securing justice against Turks responsible for the Armenian genocide also exists in Tanar Akcam's book - A Shameful Act - The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility

Two chapters cover this issue - both in Part 3 of the book - The Investigations and Prosecution of the War Crimes and Genocide - Chapter 6 is entitled The Question of Punishing the Turks and Chapter 9 (concerned primarily with the Post War Ottoman Military tribunals and the role of the Nationalists in truncating them - The Final Phase of the Trials. In Chapter 9 (page 358) he presents the following - "The Allies had mountains of documents relatedto the Armenian Genocide, but these were mostly general and did not clearly implicate specific individuals. So the problem of finding enough evidence to take individuals to court remained unresolved....a large portion of the relevant documents (held by the Ottomans) had been destroyed or stolen, and there was no coordination between British and Turkish Authorities. The British never requested incriminating documentation. (several specific quotes from British officials follow regarding the hopelessenss of expecting to get such documentation from the Turks...for instance...) "...in August 1919, High Commissioner Calthorpe had said - 'The Turkish Government collected a considerable amount of incriminating evidence, but hoping to lay our hands on it is in vain.' - Admiral de Robeack was similarly concerned. 'It would be hard under these conditions to convict most of the exiles before an Allied court.' Thus, the British ultimatly gave up on the idea of prosecution and decided to hold the exiles as hostages against British prisoners of war." Akcam goes on to describe the fact that the Turkish government was never pressured to provide any evidence and other Allied governments were equally uncooperative. Thus - no "Malta Tribunals" (again this name is never mentioned in Akcam's book) and no International Trials - regardless of (unratified_ Sevres or any statement of intention by any Allied power - no such thing ever occured - not even any attempt to set up a court or to truly make any attempt to assemble a legal case. So this article of yours here is faulty in its premiss and concerne entirely fictional speculation and misrepresentation on your part.--THOTH 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a very clear citation format. Give exact citation of the sentences or paragraphs that you used to reach these arguments. Which pages and sentences are the source that you use (sentence by sentence) in your arguments. Just keep your Focus... OttomanReference 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Where does it say "The British never requested incriminating documentation" give us citation of this sentenceOttomanReference 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Where does it say "The Turkish Government collected a considerable amount of incriminating evidence, but hoping to lay our hands on it is in vain" give us citation of this sentence OttomanReference 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Where does it say "British ultimatly gave up on the idea of prosecution" give us citation of this sentence OttomanReference 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Where does it say "The Allies had mountains of documents relatedto the Armenian Genocide, but these were mostly general and did not clearly implicate specific individuals." give us citation of this sentence OttomanReference 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All quotes from Akcam are on p 358 as stated.--THOTH 17:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you, SO: Are these your sentences? OR Are these quotes? Which in that case you should have exactly copied authors text from the source and quoted them. If you exactly copied from the source are they refer to secondary sources? What evidence is given to validate these ideas? Are these quotes have referenced to a primary source, such as an official British document? You need to give this information so that we can verify the correct information. Right at this moment we do not know if you quote the specific paragraph or you come up with these sentences. Thanks OttomanReference 18:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One fork after another

This article does not say anything that we cannot include on the Malta Exiles. OttomanReference has created so many useless fork articles that I have lost track of them all. Much of them can be consolidated into one concise page yet we must have numerous, useless articles that recycle information and citation dump them from one another.

This article is perfect example of which. It's unfortunate its AFD did not pass, moreso that uses unfamiliar with the topic voted to keep it, because much of the information on this article can more than very easily be incorporated into its mother article. Why is that we cannot include the reasons as to why the Malta exiles were not tried and the significance of the tribunals on that page? I'm growing weary of jumping from one article to the next to see how much new information they even offer only to see another fork has been created. This is definitely deserving of a second nomination for an AFD.--MarshallBagramyan 01:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a bad faith to open a Afd and not even involve with the discussions. All the questions you present here is already answered during the Afd. This behavior of yours undermines the peoples good faith. All the questions you bring over and over again are answered. It is impossible to communicate to you when you ignore the given answers and continue on with your ideology. You do not even give your time and read the article. Your oppositions are theoretical and based on your POV. Including the differences between this article and Malta Exiles. You may be taking this non seriously, but for a lot of people wikipedia is not a "joke". You are welcome to read the discussions and answers given at the Afd. Thnsk --OttomanReference 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I have brought this to your attention. Numerous times, I have told you to discuss your edits and yet numerous times you have duly ignored them. Your cynical sarcasm does not amuse me and accusing me of demagogic or POV attacks strikes of hypocrisy as they have been the crux of all your retorts. If I remember correctly, it was you who called me "an Armenian Joke" and insulted me numerous times with your personal attacks.

The creation of these countless, and often misleading, articles that you have created, without even completing them or adding fuller information, only complicates matters for the worse.--MarshallBagramyan 02:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is sourced. Every bit of this information is coming from respected sources. Even "Armenian state department" had a page that covers this topic. Your idea that this content does not deserve its article is many times falsified by different Armenian historians which spend their time to generate information which IS CITED IN this article. The article uses so many different sources to build its validity and you claim; "insignificant". All these arguments are presented ar Afd but have you changed your position on removing this article. No, you did not. Besides, do you really know the topic? You have not shown the proof (by adding info) to the article that you are capable of understanding the issue. It is very normal for a person which did not brought single source to claim "only complicates matters for the worse." You try to remove the content (instead of learning and engaging) which is formed by other peoples efforts. This is disrespectful. The sad part is; This article has a counterpart at Armenian state department. Are you going to ask them to remove their page too? This is not the first time that you present this behavior as you pointed out. People have faced with you, including me, about your biased, non sourced edits. Thnks. --OttomanReference 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article does not make sense

The article does not make logical sense. It is saying that the Ottomans held captive in Malta were exchanged for British prisoners of war. That's just false. The Ottomans were found innocent after 2 years of trials. The logical problem here is, British occupied Istanbul and the Sultan leadership, so why would they exchange "high profile criminals who supposedly committed the Armenian genocide" for simple British POWs when they already own the whole Empire and can threaten the sultans life with a pistol? It makes absolutely no sense. However, the statement does make sense if you look at the source of the information... The Armenian foreign ministry. Why isn't the source from Britain archives? The British should write this article not Armenian nationalists. Am I wrong here? Arsenic99 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some info here https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2012-04-19/news/turkeys-eu-minister-judge-giovanni-bonello-and-the-armenian-genocide-claim-about-malta-trials-is-nonsense-308828/

"Deeply embarrassed by the exchange of the hostages Lord Curzon minuted : “The less we say about these people (the Turks released for exchange) the better … I had to explain (to Parliament) why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta, skating over thin ice as quickly as I could … The staunch belief among Members (of Parliament) is that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused”. Dr Bonello concludes this particular chapter highlighting the fact that the Armenian Genocide controversy lingers on after almost 100 years with the prospects of a solution very meagre." Vmelkon (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hijacked Wikipedia

This article is an excellent example how the followers of the Armenian genocide hijack Wikipedia and cover up matters that shows that their case is no solid. A Shameful act, a disgrace for what Wikipedia is intent to be. Chonanh (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you can provide a source material and indicate which line in this article needs fixing. Vmelkon (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy edit 1 April 2011

Sections between Name and Turkish trials edited. Slow going because of the language barrier and confused narrative. More to come. Already evident are POV and citation issues that a copy edit cannot remove. Forst I will finish the edit, then I will consider the appropriate consultation that might occur. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit 2 April 2011

Another hard slog. Particularly difficult was interpreting the broken English and poor grammar for meaning and intent. While I have attempted to remove some of the more obvious point of view perspective, without removing references, I have serious doubts about the references themselves, and about the objectivity of the article even after my copy edit. I don't think I can really change that deficiency without devoting considerable time over an extended period to conduct research and verify sources. It is not my intention to add such a project to my list, though I may contribute.

In the meantime I'm going to template the article to invite further references.

I have also formed the view that the title of the article is ambiguous and possibly inappropriate, requiring some work in disambiguation pages. That's a job I may bring to the attention to someone with an interest in this period of history.

More work needs to be done on the copy edit, which I will resume at my earliest opportunity.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Where to from here?

Hi all. I have completed my copy edit, removed the copy edit template from the main page, but replaced it with a template looking for more and creditable third-party references. My reason was that there appears to be unduly heavy reliance on one particular source, some others appear to be primary sources, and yet others appear to be difficult to assess or are dead links.

That aside, the impression I formed in proofing this page was that it was an orphan - a page with no clear parentage or association, and that it might therefore become lost. One of the factors in my thinking was the naming of the page, which doesn't actually refer to the subject matter. Without reference to the subject matter (WWI, Armenia, Ottoman Empire, alleged genocide/massacres, British prisoners at Malta, etc) in the title, how will anyone who does not know the precise name ever find this page?

Since I don't have any particular interest in the subject of the page, and because I didn't wish to artificially incite renewed animosity between Armenians and Turks, I thought I'd seek an opinion from a senior Wikipedia editor or administrator on what the options might be for moving ahead with this page. I have no clear ideas on what such options might look like and was hoping to discuss with someone who also had no particular stake in the subject matter, but was knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules and perhaps also precedents for dealing with naming and page orphans.

So I went to the administrator forum to seek some input, but was advised that I need to seek a consensus on this page first. I'm not really sure what I would seek a consensus on, except to seek administrator advice on what a reasonable proposal to the editors here might look like. My question to all editors involved in this page is as follows:

Should we seek administrator input on what our options are to address any potential problems with naming of the page, or a possible orphan status?

Please let me know your thoughts (on this page) at your earliest opportunity. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The prisoners were found not guilty due to a lack of evidence not otherwise.

The article promotes the view that the Turkish Prisoners at Malta were exchanged with British POW's, it implies that these people were otherwise guilty and should not have been released. The information, the bases of this claim is rested upon the Armenian Archives, which I, along with many belive to be unreliable due to the Armenian governments' vested interest to promote the Turkish as villans in the eyes of the world.

I have therefore have and am conducting research which is prodominantely based upon British Archives and we can clearly see that the Armenian claim is not valid. It is as follows: "I circulate to the Cabinet a long list of prominent Turkish politicians, ex-Ministers, Generals, Deputies and others whom we are still keeping as prisoners at Malta. It seems to me that this list should be carefully revised by the Attorney-General, and that those men against whom it Is not proposed to take definite proceedings should at the first convenient opportunity be released.. They are a burden and a cost to us while they are on our hands, and I am not at all clear how long we are expected to go on holding them.

(Initialled) W. S. C "

The above quote is from the arcgives of the War cabinet 1920. We can clearly see that Winston Churchill is refering to these Prisoners as "holding them" the term holding them means they are held without reason which is why he is eager to let them go.To add to this it reads still this indicates there is no reason to hold them for normaly one would not use still holding them for someone who has commited a crime and must be held. In no way is there a reference to switching of prisoners. May I also remind you this document is under the classifcation of Secret therefore reflects the true way in which the British government was thinking and acting. I shall be adding many more refferences tomorrow for I have no tiem to do so today. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Winston Churchill was perhaps one of the greatest Turkophiles in the War Office during that period. If you study most of his arguments from the time, you can see how dead set he was against involvement in the Caucasus (especially in the new republic of Armenia) and the Greek military activities in Western Asia Minor. He wanted to pursue a policy that would strengthen the hand of the anti-Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War and, given the untenable position of the occupying British troops in the Ottoman Empire, did not want to do anything that would lead to additional agitation by the Ottoman government or the Kemalist insurgents. This said, and as a fluent speaker of English, I should point out the mistakes in your interpretation of Churchill's comments: Churchill is saying that if the government has no serious intention of trying these individuals, especially on account of the fact that they are a financial burden on the military, they should be released. But the truth of the matter was that the British were waiting for the opportune moment to set up a tribunal to try the prisoners for a litany of war crimes, including those against the Armenians. There was no absence of evidence: there was enough witness testimony to incarcerate these people for multiple life sentences or to even have them executed. A Foreign Office official described it thus in 1921, when the last Malta prisoners had been released: "The whole transaction [i.e., the prisoner exchange] [was] tantamount to complete capitulation to Turkish blackmail." (P. Balakian, Burning Tigris (New York, 2003), p. 344).

In the end, the British lacked the willpower and they saw that there was little reason to align themselves against the Empire/the Kemalists, what with the tension that already existed between the British and their Muslim subjects in India and elsewhere. To change the text on the basis of such a distorted reading of a single primary source is bad enough, but to do so by engaging in original research and without any reliable secondary material is perhaps much worse. Those who are interested in reading about W. Churchill's position (albeit in passim) on the Caucasus and Armenia should check out Richard Hovannisian's four volumes on the Republic of Armenia (1971-96).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop conducting original research. What you think would have happened or his motivation is no relevant unless voiced by an expert. Please reply with sources (on the subject of Churchill). What we can see here is a clear message which reads as quoted, no more no less. To add to this; if the evidence against the Turks was so strong, why was noone convicted within 3 years (1918-1921) before the National Movement became strong? I am providing and will continue to provide nuetral sources, who are neither Turksi/Azeri, I also advise you to do the same. For Mr Balakian is not a nuetral source as he is a side in this ehtnic dispute. You have said it yourself "Churchill is saying that if the government has no serious intention of trying these individuals, especially on account of the fact that they are a financial burden on the military" It is obscene to believe that "guilty" people would not be trialed because they are a drain on British Finances; I mean obviously cans of beans will bankrupt the greatest empire the world has seen. I can also assure you I am a very fluent English speaker and I have not produced a distorted interpretation of the text, it is possible that you, accidentaly have. You accuse me of Original Reserach when you can clearly see the source! I am providing sources from the British Archives where as you are providing them from Armenians...

I will also provide you the agreement which was reached by the British and the Turkish officials:

"APPENDIX D.AGREEMENT FOR THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF PRISONERS.

ARTICLE 1. AJ1 British prisoners of war and other British nationals or members of the British forces, who are held in' Turkey against their will, shall immediately be released and conveyed to Constantinople. Theponveyance of such persons shall be effected by and at the expense of the Turkish authorities in whosehands they now are.

ARTICLE 2. The repatriation of Turkish prisoners of war and interned civilians now in the hands of the British authorities shall commence at once, and shall continue as quickly as possible. This will not apply, however, to persons whom it is intended to try for alleged offences in violation of the laws and customs of war, or for massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war in territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on 1st August, 1914. The British Government may make it a condition of the release of any particular individuals that they shall not visit Constantinople before the restoration of a state of peace,and shall have the right to arrest and detain them in the event of this condition being violated.

ARTICLE 3, This agreement shall come into force on the date of signature, and its execution shall be proceeded withas quickly as possible."

Notice Article 2 which clearly shows us that the agreement indicates that the accused would not be released. In the end all 64 members were released. This tells us that no more were they accused and thus the prisoner exhange was not the major factor in their release as the article states accused people would not be released. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You're basing your entire argument on a literal interpretation of primary sources at the expense of neglecting or choosing to ignore the political realities of post-World War I British policies. The Malta exiles were to be tried only after a peace treaty was signed between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire. This came in the form of the Treaty of Sevres (August 1920), but even its clauses for the establishment of war crimes tribunals would take time to set up, but by then it was too late. The Ottoman government was uncooperative; the Kemalists were implacable and its ranks filled up by the very same individuals who had participated in the Armenian Genocide. Gary Jonathon Bass, writing in Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals (Princeton, 2001) details in length the exasperating process of the attempt to try the criminals. In the end, the British simply placed far greater value to their prisoners of war than to pursuing a long and arduous justice proceedings which were bound to fail. Even Lancelot Oliphant, of the Foreign Office, who tried to justify the exchange in the most positive light, describe the Kemalist pressure in the following manner: "It is a measure yielding to blackmail but seems justified by present conditions." (Quoted in Bass, p. 142).

So we can conclude this tired old debate that the genocide denialists keep rehashing that the Malta exiles were freed for lack of evidence. There was simply no political will by a war-weary British to pursue the matter any further. France and Italy had already cut deals with the Turkish Nationalists and so there was no one else left to pick up the ball from where it was dropped, so to speak. It's amusing how these silly claims are always brought up time and time again by the denialists.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My friend I am not ignoring ot choosing to ingnore the background on the contrary I am taking it in to account. The British cabinet was full with Turkophobics just as you correctly put it. Turkey had also lost the war. Britain would have done all within its powers to degrade Turkey on the international stage. The Ottoman government? I was under the distinct impression that the Ottoman government was under British controll, one would asume so for the Ottoman government was in Istanbul which the British possed and the Sultan too was siding with the British. So to say the Ottoman government was uncooperative is far from the truth. I still can not understand why the British who had "strong evidence" against the Turks could not produce a short trial. The Nueremberg Trials only took 11 months but Malta Tribunals took nearly 3 years. This tells us that the people were not guilty.

Lord Curzon is quoted as "There are in hands of His Majesty's Government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacre ... There is considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt ... Please ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution" I'll let you interpret this quote. The same argument is brought up because the argument is very much valid. I have provided not one but two pieaces of information, one being the actual agreement therefore these are not silly claims but valid substantiated reasons. In due tiem I will be placing the terms of prisoner exchange within the article. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Turkey may have lost the war but it was not utterly defeated or crippled like German was in 1918 nor Germany in 1945. The Allies after World War I had ended had concentrated their attention on drafting the peace treaties with Germany and the European powers and affairs in the Near East were put on the back burner. The Allied powers could not proceed with the war crimes tribunals until a peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire was signed, and this took over a year to accomplish, by which time the Treaty of Sevres was dead in the water. The Turkish Nationalists held sway in Anatolia and the Ottoman government was simply playing a waiting game for the Allies to quit and leave. Britain did not have the wherewithal to force the Ottoman government to do anything: government officials simply dithered or aided the Turkish Nationalists by allowing them to escape Constantinople. This is how one explains Curzon's message: the Ottoman government willfully destroyed or failed to share documents that would incriminate officials who had taken part in the Armenian Genocide. The situation in 1918 can hardly be compared to Germany in 1945, which was under the occupation of millions of American, British, French and Soviet troops who had spent the past five years completely destroying its ability to continue any further.

This is degenerating into a circular debate and your ignorance of many of these basic facts shows that you are not qualified to make unilateral changes which are otherwise controversial and inaccurate. Such threats to make unilateral changes without discussion will be reverted or reported on site.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir I am finding that you are conducting Original Reserach that is loosely tied to this article. What matters is the archivial evidence that we currently have and the importance of including hem within the article. Refusal to do so is mearly POV pushing. You can speculate all you like about Ottomans burning the evidence but it is what it is, nothing but speculation. And an encylopedic article such as this does not give credinance to speculations. You are right about circular argument. I provide valid sources where as you conduct origininal rserach and make assumptions and speculations again I give you do the same and so on, so in that respects it is very repetitive. I assure you I am not ignorant in this matter but I am not sure of other editors. I am not making controversial changes, however you have (deleting 1,800 bytes of sources material). What I am proposing is including an international agreement with signitures of both parties. I am discussing but you attempt to rear the subject of its path, I am not threatening; saying I will add on to the article and fill the inadequcies is not threatening but being helpful. Tugrulirmak (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's useless to have such aimless discussions as these. I don't think you even understand the meaning of original research (even though you just engaged in it above). I have already introduced two works by secondary authors who clearly note that a prisoner exchange was made between the British and the Turks and I can, but choose not to, also start quoting from Taner Akçam's Shameless Act as well, who speaks about it and addresses the evidence "issue" in considerable detail. Unfortunately, you are approaching this matter in a way that is all too familiar among people who have been brought up with the foundation myths revolving around Republican Turkey. We witness the same thing year in, year out. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I went through original research as a reply to yours. I have given inforation concerning the agreement between the British and the Turks and have the documents to prove them. I will therefore add this agreement in to the article. This agreement is a historic fact and can not be hidden.Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The unilateral addition of a primary source whose contents are disingenuously interpreted and distorted by an editor will be subject for removal. I have demonstrated to you how inaccurate your reading of Churchill's letter is and shown the pitfalls of quoting an individual who had such a vested interest in the matter than he cannot be used to substantiate such controversial assertions. Your failure to provide neither a reasonable answer nor reliable secondary sources are further signs that this topic is not being treated seriously. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I will not interpret the agreement in the article. I will mearly present the agreement in a quote format so there can be no mistake in interpretation. I will let the reader form their own opinions. This is a key component which must be added in order to ensure the full coverage of events. You have provided one reliable secondary source which was a quote and I replied with another quote so to say I am inadequate is mistaken at best. I am in a far better position they you are. I repeat once amore, I will add, in quote format Article 2 of the agreement. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of evidence? How interesting that Allies found no evidence of so called genocide while they occupied Turkish Capital, İstanbul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.174.41.245 (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Telegraphs

The telegraphs were incomplete. I can see that past editors were trying to hide the contents and highlight only the parts they wanted to show.

It is crucial to find the rest of the content of the first one that is included:

• FO 371/6500/E.3552: Curzon to Geddes. Tel No 176 of 31.3.1921.

If it's not found, then it renders the section irrelevant in this particular case, as the decision to exchange the prisoners was already made in March 16, 1921, well before this particular telegraph was sent (on March 31, 1921).

--92slim (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)