A so called “Armenian Genocide” has been more discussed in the agenda of the world history as well as international political arena so far. However Armenian lobbies and diasporas in many countries, including Russia, the United States and European countries have funded media outlets and politicians in order to promote the campaign for the recognition of the genocide issue. And this policy is carried out until today. However, no one or little people in western world have turned out documentaries reflecting realities and truths of the events of 1915 occurred in eastern part of Ottoman Empire and Azerbaijan.

Dr Patrick Walsh is a one of the few western historians who shared his criticism on Armenian claims of territories and the issue of genocide in the history.

He is an author of numerous books, a political analyst and a teacher of history and politics in his home land of Ireland.

P.Walsh spoke to EDNews.net concerning facts about Armenian crimes in the early XX century in territories of Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia.

- Please tells us about the massacres committed by Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaks against Muslims and the local Armenian population.

- Well, this is the element that is always left out of accounts in the West and Armenian writings. I have visited a number of places where large massacres of Moslems were carried out by the Dashnaks, including Erzurum, Baku and Quba. The documentary evidence is very complete and detailed and mass graves have been uncovered. However, there is little knowledge of this side of events outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan. Even in the years when I wrote about the Great War and the Ottoman Empire I was totally unaware about the extent of killings of Azerbaijanis that took place.  It was only when I visited Azerbaijan that I learnt of these atrocities and they shocked me. In the West the Armenians have the image of helpless, innocent victim and there is little knowledge of the Dashnak activities, which from 1915 were covered up by their allies in the West, who had developed a narrative that they did not want destroy,  which included the “terrible Turk” and the “ravished Armenian”. Of course, when you read honest accounts of people who were there, like British and Russian officers and later American investigators, the truth comes out. Professor Justin McCarthy, an Irish American geographer, has done extensive demographic analysis of casualties in Eastern Anatolia and has found out that Moslem death rates were at least as high as Armenian. The Dashnaks perpetrated campaigns of extensive ethnic cleansing and killing in the Western Caucasus between 1917 and 1920 in Erivan, Karabakh and other areas. Armenian leaders like Pasdermadjian and Dro boasted of their exploits and how they had killed more Tatars than Armenians had died. And logic suggests this was true because the Armenians were the most militarized elements in the region with long-standing organizations, who were well armed and trained, and capable of carrying out such terrorism against the Moslem civilian population.  I am aware, too, about Dashnak actions against their own people who they often terrorized into submission. I have no hesitation in seeing ordinary Armenians who just wanted to live in peace with their neighbors but they became victims of the whole tragedy as just much victims as ordinary Moslems. But you never see the same recognition of Moslem suffering in Armenian accounts.

- Why does the world still believe groundless Armenian claims about so-called genocide, and do not want to see and hear bloody massacres done by Armenian rebel groups against the Muslim population?

- Because the narrative in the West was created during the Great War as a form of propaganda against the Ottoman enemy and it has stuck ever since. Europe is not as Christian as it once was, but the Armenians were carefully presented as Christian, European and highly civilized and deserving of more sympathy as such than the peoples they lived amongst. Of course, the Armenians are as Asiatic as the Turks (or as European). But accounts written by people like James Bryce and others in the propaganda departments like Wellington House were careful to depict Armenians as a special people, and a higher form of humanity than their neighbours, presumably on the basis that they were Christians and therefore deserving of sympathy and help. This, of course, is sheer racism.

A lot of belief in an Armenian Genocide today is simply the product of ignorance. Journalists and pseudo-historians simply regurgitated the simplistic, emotional narrative of Armenian propagandists. A lot of these people are just lazy careerists in essence, who have never studied history in the proper way but are content to go along with any tales of victimhood without actually investigating the complex series of events that actually created the victims, who were just as likely to be Turk, Azeri or Kurd as they were Armenian, and in the Caucasus more likely to have been.

- What is main importance of Armenian issue in the foreign policy of western powers, especially the United States and France?

- Both these countries have powerful and influential Armenian lobbies that can achieve the success of motions, resolutions and votes in favor of recognizing a so-called Genocide. Of course, these things are meaningless in a historical sense. It is doubtful either whether they have any real effect on the Foreign Policy of States. Most states are sensible enough to realise that these votes are the frivolous stuff of politicians acting like student debating societies to show how well-meaning they are to gullible sections of the public who are impressed with empty gestures. However, in one respect they are important. They can be employed against Turkey, in certain circumstances, when the West is displeased with its political orientation – say, for instance, when it becomes closer to Mr. Putin or buys defence systems from Moscow instead of American ones. In these circumstances these empty declarations can be used as leverage. However, Turks have generally maintained a solid position against the Genocide lobby the use of this lever has generally been counter-productive. So some elements of the U.S. democracy votes through a recognition of the so-called Genocide and Turkey shifts toward Russia in response, which has also issued similar declarations. Nothing changes in reality. It is all just politics and does not influence the course of major events. The Armenian issue has always been like that.  

- Please tell us, how the Armenian lobby in the US and European countries continues to influence policy-makers and media to support the so-called Armenian genocide?

- The Armenians have a great advantages in their diaspora which is 3 generations resident in the United States and writes very effectively in the English language. Lobbying and interest groups are the basis of U.S. politics and, actually, are one of the things that both undermines its democracy and makes the system dysfunctional. Because members of Congress are subject to frequent re-election – every 2 years in the House of Representatives – they are prone to great pressure from both lobby groups and powerful groups of citizens in a district. The U.S. is also the home of ethnic politics and identity politics. All these features of the U.S. system suit the Armenian lobbyists. And, of course, the thing that really oils the U.S. system is money and the Armenians are not afraid to spend it to buy influence for their cause. Armenian identity has unfortunately been boiled down to a single issue. This makes the Armenian lobby quite different from other ethnic groups, say, the Irish Americans, who have a wide range of cultural pursuits and political causes to pursue. This is both a strength and weakness for the Armenians. Of course, they have great influence for the size of their community, but they are also myopic and have harmed the richness of their culture by this singular pursuit of bitterness against Turkic people.