Scenario :What would Australia do ?

We are often confronted by people who are shocked that we would question the “accepted truth” of the Armenian “genocide”. These people take us to task, asking us why we challenge this description of the events of 1915-1916. We are met with criticism that we are simply “genocide deniers”, Often we are asked, “Do you accept that 1.5 millions were massacred at the hands of the Ottoman Government?” or “How can you say this was not a genocide?”

We can assure our readers that we are not, in fact, genocide deniers. Nor do we deny the massive, and tragic, loss of life during this period. However, we condemn the continued habit of western governments to only count the Christian dead, and ignore the many millions of Muslim civilians who died in this period of terrible civil war.

The events of 1915-1916 are not nearly are simple, or as black and white as some would have you believe. The people of this country are not being given the full picture. We are sure that any fair minded, and objective person who looked at all the facts would conclude that although the massive loss of life was a terrible tragedy, that this was no attempt at “ethnic cleansing”, this was no genocide. We invite people to look at the literature available on our website. However, in an attempt to answer our critics, and in order to explain what we mean in a nutshell, we ask you to imagine the following scenario:

Australia's Darkest Hour

After two centuries of decline, Australia is on her last legs.

A once great Empire with lands across Asia, Europe, and Africa is now on its deathbed, reduced to lands roughly the equivalent of the modern nation with the same name. Foreign powers look with ambition to our resources and land. We are at war on all fronts, there have been uprisings in the north, which have caused devastation, and the massacre of millions of Australians, simply because they happened to be Australian. Our armed forces, infrastructure and capabilities are in a shambles. The people face famine, and disease.

Into this mix, a foreign power figures that Australia has become a bit of a soft target, and aims to take it. While our army is fighting on other fronts, this foreign power appeals to an ethnic group within Australia, promising that when the country is “liberated”, then they will get to have their own territory, just for them, a “new homeland”. They even map out the territory they will be given to create their new republic. There has never been a republic like this on the lands promised to the ethnic group. Even though they have lived in some of these areas for a very long time, nowhere within this “promised land” are the ethnic group in a majority, and many other people also live in those areas. Of course these lands currently form part of the Australian empire, on the Australian mainland. What is clear to the conspirators is that to gain this new republic, they must fight to win it from Australia, and in doing so, make sure very few if any Australians are left within these imagined boundaries. The ethnic group rejoices, enthusiastically embracing the idea and arming themselves with armaments provided by the foreign power, forming into “revolutionary bands” with the aim of forging this new republic out of a piece of Australia. They make no secret of this aim, and start to publish propaganda leaflets advertising their goals. The insurrection starts, and Australians are attacked, regardless of whether they are in the military or civilians. The aim is to de-populate an area of Australians, so this ethnic group can claim sovereignty over it to found the new republic.

There are, of course, many members of this ethnic group who remain loyal to Australia, however, they fear the repercussions of speaking out, and at least appear to go along with this plan.

The “revolutionary bands” then start to hit strategically important sites – supply lines, lines of communication. They prefer hit and run tactics, though sometimes they confront Australian troops head on. the terrorist attacks take place across a large area. Of course, Australia has very few soldiers to spare, as its armed forces are engaged in a battle for the survival of the country against multiple enemies, most of the men are away fighting foreign enemies on far off fronts. Part of the plan of this ethnic group is to “cleanse” the areas it has an interest in to make them as ethnically pure as possible. When they win an area, a town or small city, they slaughter all the Australian mena women and children that do not belong to that ethnic group. They even manage to take Darwin, massacring the citizens. When the foreign power finally invaded, the ethnic group simply handed the city over to them. The slaughter is relentless as it is savage.


Do we really think that we would respond with anything other than righteous anger at what was happening, within our borders carried out by an enemy from within? How much sympathy do you expect the Australian community would have toward this ethnic group? Do we really think we would sit back and tolerate these outrages, occurring when we were at our most vulnerable?

Australians would organise resistance to this group, and respond with violence to protect themselves, their families, and their land.

Faced with civil war, the Australian government concludes something has to be done to stop the internal violence. The attacks and reprisals are spiralling out of control, as each massacre gives rise to a revenge attack which leads to yet another massacre.

Of course our foreign enemies are quick to latch onto news of deaths of the ethnic group, and use it as part of wartime propaganda to whip up anti-Australian sentiment. No one counts, or even mentions the millions of Australians killed by these brigands, but with every bulletin, the world hears about only the losses of life amongst the ethnic group. Foreign countries start to claim it is part of a religious obligation to defend the poor starving members of the ethnic group. Again, no one else in the world seems to care about the plight of the poor starving Australians.


Faced with the threat of a “fifth column” – an internal enemy fighting for the enemy within our borders – the government decides that the best thing to do would be to remove this ethnic group from areas near the fighting with the foreign power. There is no practical way to work out who are the members who remain loyal to Australia, in the time, and with the resources, available. The militias having blown up railways, and most of the roads, this ethnic group is forced to walk, being marched far inland. There are not enough soldiers to escort this human convoy, our soldiers are all away and fighting. Along the way, the convoy is attacked by many Australians outraged at what they have learned members of this ethnic group have done. Even some of the officers decide to vent their rage in acts of revenge. Large scale massacres of the ethnic group take place. Conversely, many Australians take pity on the plight of this group and provide them with scarce food and medicine, and protect them from attacks.

Ultimately, most of the group make it to their destination outback. Famine, disease, and attacks have, however, taken their toll.

Australia goes onto win the wars, against all odds. The cost in human life has been enormous. The country has endured years of desperate famine, and loss of life from disease and war.


Some 70 years after the fact, descendants of this ethnic group who have moved away to countries that fought Australia at the time start to claim that 1.5 million of their number were systematically murdered during this war. The numbers are ever changing, and ever increasing. The 1.5 million figure seems to exceed the most probable number of the entire population of that ethnic group who were alive at the time, according to the best census figures.

These descendants make all sorts of claims, many of them quite hysterical, making up motives that have no basis in any document, speech, or other reliable record of Australian government decisions of the time. They even resort to creating forged documents in an attempt to “prove” the alleged motives of Australia. They start to say their ancestors were killed because Australia needed someone to blame for their crumbling empire, or that the deaths were the result of racism or xenophobia, or that the Australians really just wanted to rob this ethnic group of their money. Once again, they never mention the violence of their ancestors, except in their own private commemorations. The aim is to make their ancestors look just like lambs awaiting slaughter.


You don’t have to be an Australian to Imagine the described scenario….

Just imagine any ethnic minority in your land turning treacherous during your country’s desperate hour of need.

Let’s say you’re from France. Let’s say it’s Germany among France’s attacking nations that incites a sizeable French ethnic minority to stab France in the back (France has a huge Armenian community, so let us Use them as an example).

What if the Germans say,

“Armenians! We fought side-by-side in WWII as fellow Aryans… come join us!”

Since Armenians create their own history, and their historians have little regard for the facts, let’s say a few historians “discover” France was a real Armenian ancient homeland 7,000 years ago (long before the Armenians were documented as a people, of course), before the Armenians started migrating to the Anatolian region… taking their cue from actual Armenian professors/authors who have claimed Switzerland as their ancient homeland or that the British are descended from or related to the Armenians; French Armenians rise by hitting the on-its-last-legs French Army in the back, and begin to slaughter fellow French, to make room for their New Armenia… with the words of William Saroyan to inspire them.

“When two Armenians meet anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a New Armenia.”

How do you think the French government would react? The French people?


"It appears obvious that the Turkish authorities, anxious for the safety of their lines of communication, had no other alternative than to order the removal of their rebellious subjects to some place distant from the seat of hostilities, and their internment there.

The enforcement of this absolutely necessary precaution led to further risings on the part of the Armenians. The remaining Moslems were almost defenceless, because the regular garrisons were at the front as well as the greater part of the police and able-bodied men. Already infuriated at the reports of the atrocities committed at Van by the insurgents, in fear for their lives and those of their relatives, they were at last driven by the cumulative effect of these events into panic and retaliation and, as invariably happens in such cases, the innocent suffered with the guilty.

C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author of the 1916 book, 'The Armenians.' "

I could see that [the Armenians’] well-known disloyalty to the Ottoman Government and the fact that the territory which they inhabited was within the zone of military operations constituted grounds more or less justifiable for compelling them to depart their homes.
Robert Lansing, United States Secretary of State, November 1916

This scenario was embellished from an article written in 1923, “Angora and the Turks”