Chester Father And Son.

[DominO123]

Chester father and son, businessmen’s and NOT impartial investigators like claimed by revisionists.

 

Admiral Colby M. Chester and his “Chester Project” and the “Chester Concession” obtained from Turkey. Chester father and son were not present, neither witnesses of the events of 1915-1917, where most of the massacres happened. In fact, Chester “report” had as aim to support the establishment of American companies, and the achievement of the railway in the East, to exploit the Mosul oil field; and was NOT based on an investigation to verify if the massacres in fact happened. One of the contracts between the Turkish government and the Chesters (father and son), was that they will try to “correct” the Turkish image. What the Chesters had as exchanges? Does it only stop with the exploitation of the railway and the oil field?

 

"…the American promoters of the Chester lines are granted exclusive rights to the exploitation of all mineral resources, including oil, lying within a zone of twenty kilometres on each side of the railway lines. The Bagdad Railway mortgaged the revenues of Imperial Turkey; the Chester concessions mortgage the natural resources of Nationalist Turkey. The Ottoman-American Development Company, furthermore, is authorized to carry out important enterprises subsidiary to the construction of the railway lines and the exploitation of the mines aforementioned. It may, for example, lay such pipe lines as are necessary to the proper development of the petroleum wells lying within its zone of operations. It is permitted to utilize water-power along the line of its railways and to instal hydro-electric stations for the service of its mines, ports, or railways. It is required to construct elaborate port and terminal facilities at Samsun, on the Black Sea, and at Youmourtalik, on the Gulf of Alexandretta." *

 

It takes a little satisfaction for a denialist to support his claims by using as source an individual that was neither present during the mass extermination of the Armenians, neither an unbiased investigator, but rather a businessman that was able to have a concession from the then Turkish Nationalist power by as exchange promoting Turkey and denying its crimes. Beside that, George R. Montgomery answered to Admiral Colbys “Turkey Reinterpreted” published in the New York Times monthly magazine Current History on its September 1922 issue, by an article published in the same magazine in its October issue of the same year, titled: “The massacres of Armenians in 1915: A refutation, from authentic sources, of the allegation that the Turks were not guilty of wholescale slaughter of the Armenians – Testimony of German and Turkish eyewitnesses of the crime.” In this article, Montgomery answers point by point Chesters allegations by referring to Turkish and German sources to refute Chesters entire argumentation. Later on, Chesters claims being refuted, his son, Arthur Tremaine Chestler, in his fathers business, came to his defence by writing an article titled: “Angora and the Turks” in the February, 1923 issue of the same New York Times magazine, Current History. Where he regurgitates the entire denialist theses by subtitling his article: “Armenians Deported for Treachery” by recycling Esat Uras allegations.

 

 

 

-------------

*Turkey, the Great Powers, and the Bagdad Railway : A Study in Imperialism, by Edward Mead Earle ; Macmillan & Co., 1924, pp. 341-342

Edited May 23, 2004 by Fadix