Talk:Henry Morgenthau, Sr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: As has been noted on the talk page, the book on Armenia is an area which needs careful exploration, but given it's even more important to get things right in such a sensitive area, more detail is needed on the book. It's a pity to just have two lines on it - isn't there a way of setting his work in context of others, with in-line citations? An otherwise solid article, though. Edofedinburgh 01:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (edit)

	Armenia Portal Henry Morgenthau, Sr. is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

[edit] Comment

Good job, Shimgray. Yet, the parts I had written which you removed were not a matter of "POV," as you described in the history of editing notes; quite the contrary, the witness for the facts you were uncomfortable with come from Morgenthau himself.

If you've read the "Story Behind the Story," you can see the book was ghostwritten, beyond doubt. The date of the book's release coinciding with WWI's end has nothing to do with its propagandistic intent; publishing takes a while, and the ambassador had no way of predicting the turns of events since he decided to take pen in hand. Morgenthau was interested in getting the USA into the war; as you know, the USA entered the war late in the proceedings.

Morgenthau worked from a platform of dishonesty and racism, regarding the Armenian chapter. The poison of his book has caused much harm, and there is no need to whitewash his intentions today.

[edit] Slandering of Morgenthau by Torque, the author of the racist site, tallarmeniantale.

I added a reference to the fact that Morgenthau was also the Grandfather of American Historian Barbara Tuchman.

This website can not be used as reference to any Wikipedia article, it compares Armenians with instects, animals, and lower than animals etc. The reference to Morgenthau, and his distortions have already been addressed in the Armenian genocide talk page archives. Fadix 21:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

His role in relation to the history of the Armenian Genocide is contentious; the first major work on the subject in the West was his Ambassador Morgenthau's story, still used as a source, which discusses Turkish atrocities against the Armenians. However, it has often been alleged that Morgenthau concocted specific incidents (and, indeed, that he never left Istanbul), exaggerated the general case, and sharply deviated from private letters in his published work. It has also been claimed the book was ghostwritten. The text also demonstrates a dislike of, and animosity towards, the Turks, which is often seen as supporting allegations of partisanship.

Let "show" from where his "stories" came from. An example, one of his sources, a Consul to the East, Leslie Davis, has witnessed the events. It was even asked to him to get very reliable informations, which he did by asking to a Turk to show him for a day, the places where Armenians were slaughtered. Besides, his work reports are nothing compared with German records that are more direct, and mind here that Germany was Ottoman allies. Fadix 21:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Some examples of this bias within his writing (Morgenthau is on record for having given his Armenian assistants [Hagop S. Andonian and Arshag K. Schmavonian] permission to write some of his letters) portrayed the Turks as less-than-human creatures: "inarticulate, ignorant, and poverty-ridden slaves" (p. 13), "barbarous" (p.147), "brutal" (p.149), "ragged and unkempt" (p. 276), and "parasites" (p.280). The Ambassador also wrote: "The descendants of Osman hardly resemble any people I have ever known. They do not hate, they do not love; they have no lasting animosities or affections. They only fear" (p.99). By contrast, he cites "The Armenians are known for their industry, their intelligence, and their decent and orderly lives. They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and morally."

Not exactly, Torque once more is either distorting what really happened(Andonian), or probably ignore or misinterpret what Lowry actually has written about the work. No one has written Morgenthau dispatches but him, they can be traced back to the documents he himself received from the East, those are different than the letters used to write the book. His brutal description of Turks is apparent back from those dispatches, and are absent before he was sent there. The answer lies behind what he heard and the reports he have read, his disgust of what was happened directly influenced his opinion of Turks, much like witnesses of the crimes and brutalities in the occupied Europe during World War II. Morgenthau is not a robot. Fadix 21:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Story was begun in late 1917, and began being serialised in newspapers and magazines in mid-1918; it is often suggested (through correspondence Morgenthau had with President Wilson) that it was written with the intent of bringing the United States into the First World War, but a look at the dates indicates it came too late for that. There is evidence that Morgenthau nonetheless intended the book as a work of propaganda, for domestic consumption by a population often actively hostile to the idea of being involved in a foreign war. However, even were this the case, it would not automatically imply that the contents were untrue, merely that he saw them to be politically useful.

False, Torque again is misinterpreting his own revisionist materials he can't digest. It is claimed that his reports were to force the United States into the war, and not the book, since during his writing of the book, he was one of the first to learn that the US has planed to enter in the war, therefore, I see far how the books production could have been to drag the US in the war. I also see how a book for public consumption could influence the decision of the government. Fadix 21:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are several indications demonstrating the ambassador's deviation from reality. For example, on July 16, 1915, Morgenthau cabled the Department of State with his dispatch that "a campaign of race extermination is in progress." However, in September he recorded in his private diary that he heard from Zenop Bezjian, Vekil [representative] of Armenian Protestants, that half a million Armenians were displaced and presumably alive, and the ones "at Zor were fairly well satisfied; that they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings."

Another distortion, in late 1915, in fact there were hundreds of thousands of Armenians that survived through the transit of Allepo, and the Zor city, and this was what he heard from Zenop Bezjian. But the coming months, a circular order coming from the Ittihadist government, ordering the transfer of those that survived back in the concentration camps, 21 major convoys, each very huge, were sent back in the slaughter house. Fadix 21:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• You might like to be a bit more careful with your attributions - I wrote the first and third paragraphs there; Torque's edits are the second and fourth ones. If you look again, the stylistic differences should be obvious. The whole thing was a bit of a POV mess when I started on it; [1] gives you some idea. (I've been meaning to get back to this article for months - I was on holiday when Torque readded his POV stuff - but I was on holiday then, and you know how things slip)
• I'm not particularly sorry to see the whole thing removed, but I did feel that - as far as I could tell, being only briefly acquainted with the subject - that they were suitably equivocal and NPOV. (his role is contentious; there have been allegations regarding partisanship. "He didn't much like Turks" seems well-accepted, I believe. There are a lot of extant claims, if memory serves, that it was written as a work of propaganda; it seemed worthwhile to summarise these and mention that even were these the case - it's hard to say at this remove - that it does not obviate the content of the book.
• Since his historical role now seems to heavily involve this period, I do think it's worth putting the (relatively NPOV) discussion of Story back in, which I'll do unless you have strong objections. Shimgray 22:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That was quick. Sorry if I offended you, I did realise that you added some stuff, but I realised only after I accused all on Torque. I do agree that the book is considered as propaganda by many, Lowry did wrote an essay answering the book, but Lowry is a very controversial figure, more than Morgenthau. But I thought that the actual section as it was, should have taken much less spaces, it took as much spaces as his biography, as if people know him for that only, when he was more than this(he was the ambassador). Besides, the one that succeeded him, after he was replaced, has sent similar dispaches, so it is a simplification to directly dump the book as propaganda. Fadix 22:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the last part of what you wrote, I have no objection you bring what you wrote in, even thought I believe it should be clarified. Fadix 22:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say the book is significant - it's what he's historically most noted for, it seems, and it's probably the context for people coming here to read about him. So it's better to address it than have it ignored; I figure a couple of paragraphs is fair enough, though anything much more and it might be best to go in a seperate article. Is there anything you particularly object to in the NPOVed version, or shall I just stick it back in and let editing take its toll? Shimgray 22:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The second and forth paragraph objections are a matter of factuality, not only about simple misrepresentation of position. Besides, I do not agree that he was best known for the book. He is known also for his work for the foundation of a Jewish state, which is not covered there at all. Fadix 22:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This in my opinion is a a good base on how this article should be written: http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/morgenthau.htm Fadix 23:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

We pretty much have all the biographical content from there. Anyway, I still hold it's worth having something on the book, even if it's less historically notable than I was led to believe -and wasn't it his son who was most involved with setting up Israel? Shimgray 23:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

True about his Son, but he is considered of having saved the Palestinian Jews from starvation. “The Assimilationist Dilemma: Ambassador Morgenthau's Story” by Barbara W. Tuchman. In this text, Barbara W. Tuchman traces back his implication there, he as well is believed to have stopped the evacuation of the Baghdad Jews, planned by the Ottoman government. I do agree that there should be something about the book, but it is a matter of fact that the accuracy of the informations in that book are largely, near entirly questioned only by those who deny the Armenian genocide, also German(Ottoman allies) reports regarding the Armenian conditions would make of the books "stories" about the Armenians, jocks. So I hardly see how anyone could imply exagertion, as if the events discribed have been exagerated by him, when Ottoman allies reported much worst. Afteral, the only who has really criticized the book, is Lowry, who was exposed to work for the Turkish government. Roger W. Smith, Eric Markusen and Robert Jay Lifton have published about his implication, an article that appeared in the Holocaust and Genocide Studies, that could be accessed here. http://users.ids.net/~gregan/ethics.html Fadix 23:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, biased or not, should get more than just one sentence, especially while critiques of this book have many lines of relevant description and quotes. I hope that someone who knows more than I about his book can add some balance to that section of the article; until then, however, an NPOV flag seems appropriate to describe the paucity of direct quotes and information about this oft-referenced book. 130.208.164.157 13:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a 2 year old conversation, please provide justification for the POV tag.

• By your opinion what is wrong with the current version?
• What changes do you propose?
• What sources do you expect to use?

--VartanM 03:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that a POV tag would invite someone more qualified than I to flesh out the Ambassador Morgenthau's Story section, since nothing was done about it for the last two years without a POV tag to garner the needed attention. I came to this article initially seeking information about the book, and was surprised to find only one line about it, and several paragraphs about its critique. I agree that the critique is relevant to his story, but looking at the article as a whole, the critique of Morgenthau seems to be its main feature, not Morgenthau's actual work. I believe the article should feature both, so as to conform to NPOV, and simply because there is nothing else written about the book in Wikipedia!

I'd like to see some direct quotes from the book that briefly summarize the contents, but more importantly, quotes from the sections of the book that are rebutted in the Critique section. What did he actually write, and what were its implications? From my limited understanding, he was one of the few people in a position of influence at the time who tried to stop the genocide of the Armenians by appealing to the Turkish and American governments. His position in relation to the subsequent cover-up and current debate over the recognition of the genocide seems pertinent- at least as pertinent as the critique.

If nobody picks up the ball, I might add the needed content after some research, but I would be surprised if a POV tag did not get things rolling among Wikipedians who have read it (perhaps you?)...81.15.82.118 14:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)(same guy as 130.208.164.157)

The conversation about the Story imbalance is also more recent... I'm basically reiterating what Djrobgordon has already said in the POV section below this July. 81.15.82.118 14:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seemed a little harsh with the tag removal, but I'm used to seeing POV tags added to articles because someone didn't agree with the subject. I added expend tag in the section that needs expending. Unfortunately I haven't read the entire book, but I agree that the section needs expending. The book itself is available online and can be found in the external links section of the article. VartanM 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, Vartan... good idea to put in an "improve this section" tag. Cheers, Karl81.15.82.118 02:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section May Not Be POV

While it is important to have the information about the official position of the Turkish government, my personal opinion is that the text of the section is misleading and may give the impression that it is the majority opinion of international scholars. I suggest adding more text explaining the arguments of those scholars who believe Morgenthau's account to be accurate. Augustgrahl

Critiques of Morgenthau's work are relevant. However, it should be noted that Heath Lowry is NOT an unbiased source, and that the position he holds at Princeton is directly funded by the Turkish government.68.103.57.33 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Kansas Bear

Yes critiques are very important. - Strange enough I had to add his work the official records of the United States on the Armenian Genocide that is critisized as well. Critique seemed to bee more important than his work! Apocolocynthosis (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Has anyone else noticed that the external like used as a source to prove that Morganthau's views on Germany were "completely false" leads to an excerpt from the writings of Kaiser Wilhelm? For obvious reasons, I wouldn't trust him as an objective source. Also, it's suspicious that more space is devoted to lengthy block quotes nitpicking at Morganthau's writings than to the work he is most known for: bringing visibility to the Armenian Genocide. At some point I hope I have the time to do a rewrite on this, but I'd love it if someone else could do it sooner. Even after setting aside its dubious relationship to the truth, that criticism section is hack work.--Djrobgordon 04:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference I see does not point to the writing of Kaiser Wilhelm, even though it does mention him. I presume this issue is dealt with?--Adoniscik (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refusal to help Jewish refugees

Does anyone have an idea about the book cited in the article TURKEY'S MODERNIZATION Refugees from Nazism and Ataturk's Vision? It sounds strange to me that Morgenthau simply refused to help intellectuals leave Vienna or Europe as it is described in the article. Is this just an attempt to discredit him or improper citation? Apocolocynthosis (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey, Listen to Uncle Henry!

What follows is an exchange between Talaat Bey, and Henry Morgenthau, from "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story."

"Some day, he once said, "I will come and discuss the whole Armenian subject with you," and then he added in a low tone in Turkish: "But that day will never come!" "Why are you so interested in the Armenians, anyway?" he said, on another occasion. "You are a Jew;these people are Christians. The Mohammedans and the Jews always get on harmoniously. We are treating the Jews here all right. What have you to complain of? Why can't you let us do with these Christians as we please?" ...."I do not appeal to you in the name of any race or any religion, but merely as a human being. You have told me many times that you want to make Turkey a part of the modern progressive world. The way you are treating the Armenians will not help you to realize that ambition; it puts you in the class of backward, reactionary peoples."

Clearly Henry Morgenthau's Statement is as valid then, as it is today. If Turkey would come to terms with it's past it would be viewed as a much more modern and progressive country, then it is at the moment. Henry Morgenthau, made many offers to help the young turks, including making arrangements to provide debt relief to turkey, at a time, when they were struggling under tremendous amounts of debt held by the europeans, the "sick man of europe." Had they accepted his help, this might have preserved the empire, and prevented turkey's entry into the war. Then as now, Turkey would do itself a service to listen to Uncle Henry's Advice.