The Armenian genocide movement had
been subdued for some forty years, aside from the private circles of
Armenians, and the occasional mainstream books they would release in the
nations where they had settled. (As this
one from 1945.) That is because the West became too aware of Armenian
skullduggery, and memories needed to dim before Western prejudices could be
re-activated in force once more. Armenian activists were, of course, gearing
up to renewing their campaign of hatred circa the fiftieth anniversary of the
"genocide," timing the occasion with a coordinated campaign release
of their most vicious propaganda, such as a 1964 reprint version of Aram
Andonian's "Naim Bey/Talat Pasha telgrams" forgeries.
But that does not mean Armenians were idle before 1965. Specialty publications
targeting the Armenian-American readership were making sure to keep the flames
of hatred alive.
The Turkish Ambassador at the time decided to do something about the
Armenians' vicious anti-Turkish defamation campaign (this is why so many
Turkish diplomats were forced to turn into de facto historians, such as Sukru
Elekdag and Kamuran Gurun; only Turks outside Turkey were getting a taste of
these hatred campaigns, and there was simply no others in the apathetic or
trying-to-assimilate Turkish immigrant communities who would do anything to
protect Turkish honor and the truth), and wrote the editor of one of these
publications a letter, appealing to the editor's reason and sense of fairness.
Naturally, the attempt was a lost cause. But the reproduction of his letter,
and the editor's response, serve as a reminder of how little these matters
have changed. The same dialogue could be taking place this very day.
The following exchange of letters appeared in The Armenian Review,
Autumn 1960, pp. 3-6. Holdwater's footnotes follow.
COPY OF THE LETTER FROM TURKISH AMBASSADOR TO THE
UNITED STATES TO MR. REUBEN DARBINIAN,
EDITOR, THE ARMENIAN REVIEW
December 7, 1959
WASHINGTON, D. C.,
Dear Mr. Darbinian:
I am writing to you this letter with regard to the disparaging references to Turkey that
appear in all the issues of the Armenian Review.
It is extremely difficult for me to understand how a journal can be published in the
English language in America by, presumably, responsible American Citizens containing such
indecencies against the Turkish people and displaying such poor taste.
I am not going to try to refute all the vile accusations made against the Turkish Nation.
Not because these unwarranted allegations cannot be refuted as being slanted, incomplete,
exaggerated, or completely false, but because no useful purpose can be achieved by being
drawn into a polemic over events that took place half a century ago or earlier. Besides, I
am confident that you know well enough the real causes lot those incidents. 
I am, however, going to draw your attention to the fact that most of the articles in The
Armenian Review reflect a mentality which is both ridiculously and dangerously
chauvinistic, and disgracefully prejudiced, which deliberately misrepresents the facts by
showing one side of the picture, and which has for its sole object the sowing of seeds of
hate.  I consider this to be unjustified because the
ideas contained in the said articles are outdated and reflect only an attitude towards
questions of nationalism that belongs to the last century, rather than to the second half
of tne present one. It is harmful because it may tend to prejudice the already exemplary
Turkish-American friendship , which I consider as
vital for the Free World in its struggle against Communist expansion. I wonder whether by
implication it may not also prejudice your very interests as Americans of Armenian origin,
by creating doubts in the minds of others as regards the nature of your dubious
Therefore, may I suggest that in tile future, you select with the utmost care the articles
submitted to your magazine for publication, and reject all those containing a hate-Turkey
theme. Thus, you will be helping not only Turkish- American friendship, but, also,
Turkish-Armenian friendship and understanding. The latter should have a particular
significance for you for reasons that require no further comment. 
The Turks and the Armenians have lived together for so long, and their destinies are so
closely interlinked, that there is no point in making deliberate .attempts to create ill
feeling between the two peoples by conducting a campaign of slander and vilification
against one of them. In my opinion anyone who attempts to do this is committing a grave
crime.  I am sure that you, as well as all
responsible Americans of Armenian origin, will share these views. 
ALI S. H. URGUPLU
Mr. Reuben Darbinian
The Armenian Review
Hairenik Association, Inc.
212 Stuart Street
COPY OF LETTER TO TURKISH AMBASSADOR TO UNITED STATES FROM MR. REUBEN DARBINIAN,
EDITOR, THE ARMENIAN REVIEW
December 15, 1959
Ali S. H. Urguplu, Ambassador,
Dear Mr. Ambassador:
In reference to your letter dated December 7, this year:
I am sorry to note that you have found vile accusations against the Turkish nation
in the pages of THE ARMENIAN REVIEW.
Unfortunately, those accusations are based on irrefutable historical facts, and are
established by the testimony of distinguished and responsible foreign observers.  You think the facts we have adduced are slanted,
incomplete, exaggerated or completely false, or that we are giving a biased version
of the past. But we are ready to give you an opportunity to present your side.
As a general principle I agree with you that the Armenians and the Turks have lived
side by side so long and their destinies have been so closely linked together that
they have nothing to gain by antagonizing each other. 
But I do not agree with you that the enmity is being expressed by the Armenians in
the form of slander, vilification and vile accusations. In reality we have presented
the historical facts.  There might have
been some strong language, which is understandable, but never an intentional
distortion of fact or fiction. 
But if the Armenian people are filled with hatred toward the Turks, the reason is
not the Armenians, nor can it be.
The Armenians were a subject race in Turkey. If they had been treated well by the
Turks, they would have had no reason to hate them, especially since they had nothing
to gain from such hatred. The Armenians in
Turkey were subjected to perpetual oppression and periodic massacres , until in 1915 the Turkish Government, through mass deportations
and massacre, consummated the Armenian Genocide in its attempt to make an end of the
The Turks justify their crime by citing the Armenian revolution. But, first, there
has never been a nation in history which resorted to revolution unless the
conditions of its life were insufferable. 
And secondly, no revolution can justify the genocide of a nation by any other
You want that the sad past be forgotten. We, too, want to forget. But it is easier
for the Turks to forget the past as long as you have confiscated the historic
Armenian terntories , have massacred half
of the Armenians under your rule, and have driven the other half to the four corners
of the earth, depriving them.of their ancestral homes and their possessions.
The monstrous Varlik Vergisi impositions on the Armenians in 1943 , and the barbaric eruptions of September 6-7,1955, in the
streets of Istanbul, Smyrna, and elsewnere in Turkey , are still vivid in our mind. How do you expect the Armenians to
forget the Turkish atrocities so easily? Is it not true that every one of them lost
a dozen relatives and loved ones as a result of those atrocities  and is deprived of all possibility of ever recovering his
ancestral home and property which is now held by the Turks? 
Unfortunately, the authors of the Armenian genocide, neither the Turkish Govermnent,
nor any organization nor individual, despite the fact that forty-four years have
passed since that tragic episode , have
expressed at any time any regret or remorse over the crime they committed , nor have they shown any disposition to make
any moral, economic, or political restitution to the surviving Armenians, as, for
instance, the German Government did to the Jews who survived Hitler's concentration
camps and his diabolical death chambers ;
On the contrary, the surviving Armenians saw in the Turkish press and propagandists
a cynical mentality and an inclination to place the whole responsibility of the
genocide on the heads of their victims! 
I fully understand how exceedingly unpleasant it is for you to read the story of
.the Turkish atrocities in the pages of THE ARMENIAN REVIEW, a story which is so
disconcerting to you and which you want to forget. Unfortunately, you, that is the
Turkish Government, does nothing to make the Armenians forget the crimes which the
Turks have committed against them. 
The Anneno-Turkish friendship is one of the most vital wishes of the Armenians.  But the establishment of such a friendship
does not depend upon us, but; upon you; for without any moral, economic and
political reparation on ypur part it is psychologically impossible for the Armenians
to effect any rapprochement with the Turks.
Therefore, Mr. Ambassador, if the Anneno-Turkish friendship is important, for you,
too, you must take the initiative and you must work in that direction.
The Armenian Review
1. What's "extremely difficult" to
believe is that the Turkish Ambassador would have been so naive, but perhaps the times
were more innocent back then, and he was being sincere in his statement. On the other
hand, was he kidding? It is the rule, and not the exception, for Armenian-Americans
to commit "such indecencies against the Turkish people and displaying such poor
taste." In fact, doing so is a patriotic
necessity! Can the reader imagine making a similar statement of "disbelief"
today, when Armenians, genocide scholars and other Turk-haters have succeeded in painting
such a black eye upon Turkey and the Turks, that when the rare media article appears
giving Turks a fair shake, it becomes cause for a heart attack?
2. This may have been one time the
ambassador's diplomatic skills paid off. Perhaps he was aware the real reason why "no
useful purpose" would be served by engaging in debate with an Armenian
propagandist, particularly on the Armenians' turf, was because attempting to talk sense
with one who is either off in a religiously convinced la-la land or who is prone to
singing the "Armenian AND? Anthem"
would be Olympian, and not simply an exercise, in futility.
3. Duh! So sadly, sadly true.
And the ambassador sure put his finger on the very crux of the issue. Armenian propaganda "has
for its sole object the sowing of seeds of hate." Let us remember that the
horrible genocide scholars, by relying almost exclusively on one-sided propaganda, and by
pretending to be so noble, and such champions of "human rights," are the willing
accomplices of this perpetuation of hate, in the pursuit of their slimy genocide agendas.
4. But that is the aim of Armenian-Americans,
isn't it? What do they care about the interests of America? Witness a recent example at
the time of this writing, the near-passage of Armenian Resolution 106.
5. Lazy-thinking Americans, with their
conditioned (albeit mainly subconscious) prejudices against Turks, and particularly those
liberal "do-gooders" who have a mindless knee-jerk reaction to defend the
no-brainer notion that "genocide is bad," have so far been wholly in acceptance
of Armenian claims. (Prof. John Dewey's 1928 warning that Americans be on guard against Armenian propaganda was
simply too long ago, and memories have dimmed.) However: for the first time, given the
repercussions of the recent resolution described above, for the first time there are
indications of a backlash against selfish Armenian interests.
6. At this point, the Armenian editor may have
been thinking: "What? Reject the hate-Turkey articles? In... in the furtherance of
building friendship? Brotherhood? Love? Why, that's (sniffle) beautiful. Why
didn't... why didn't we think of it before? Of course, it only makes sense!"
(About now, in a cold sweat, the Armenian editor must have awakened from his nightmare.)
7. The ambassador was certainly well before
his time. In later years, this was the sort of thing that would become known as a
"hate crime." The very kind that Armenians and their genocide scholar allies
would point to, in order to categorize those who would speak the historical truth as being
neo-Nazi "deniers." Naturally, when the real hate language is directed against
Turks in this prejudiced world, it does not count as hatred, but as "human
rights." Here is Prof. Erich Feigl's take
on how criminally unethical these anti-Turkish defamatory practices are, in the form of
8. When it comes to "genocide," are
there "responsible Americans of Armenian origin"? If so, where are
they? (Of course some exist; but none are going public.)
9. There is not a single one of these "distinguished
and responsible foreign observers" who witnessed killings of Armenians firsthand.
A handful saw corpses and certainly suffering — suffering also experienced by Muslim
Ottomans, whose lives did not count — but suffering is not genocide, and corpses,
without the evidence of the circumstances and the killers' identities, do not by
themselves prove a systematic extermination policy perpetrated by the Ottoman government,
The majority of these foreign observers (as Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, frequently classified as an "eyewitness") did
not observe anything significant, but merely accepted the word of the missionaries, who in
turn had accepted the word of Armenians, and the word of the Armenians themselves. The
Armenians, by and large, served as the interpreters
for the foreigners in an alien land, instantly commanding the sympathy of the Christian
foreigners. This is the kind of "evidence" that would fall under the
"hearsay" category, which is no evidence at all. The British rejected all
of this foreign testimony, in preparation for the Malta Tribunal.
10. It is not unusual for extremist
Armenians to follow such well-meaning sentiments with a "BUT." As when
Armenian-Americans would make sure to add
they do not condone terrorism, while the rest of their thoughts would often prove
12. Did you get that, folks? "Never
an intentional distortion of fact or fiction." That's right, "never"!
Even well-meaning and straight-arrow publications can't honestly make such an
all-encompassing claim, and this comes from a publication by agenda-ridden Armenians,
those whose better attributes don't often
include being sticklers for the truth. Let's see how well this claim holds up within
the editor's letter itself.
13. Every Ottoman was a "subject
race" in the highly diverse and heterogeneous Ottoman Empire, those known as
"Turks" frequently serving as better objects for derision. Whatever elements of
"second class citizenry" existed for the Armenians, such as not being allowed in
the military before 1908, was made up for with the Armenians being allowed to prosper in
all clasees of society, as never before in their history, for six centuries. The
Armenians, in effect, were the masters of Ottoman society; as Consul Leslie Davis himself
pointed out in "The Slaughterhouse Province," 95% of the bank accounts
belonged to Armenians. (In the Harput region, but such was the case, more or less,
throughout the empire.) Before the fanatical revolutionaries and the missionaries
corrupted Armenian minds with atrocity stories and feelings of racial superiority, there
was indeed no reason for Armenians to hate Turks, and indeed "The Turks and
Armenians got on excellently together," as Sir Charles Eliot accurately pointed
out in his 1900 book. Finally, was the
Armenian editor being sincere with the claim that there was no reason for the two peoples
to hate each other? Absolutely not! There is no greater power than hate, in order to bind
a people together, as Hitler well knew before making a scapegoat out of the Jews. The
effect of this "power of hate" is what still keeps the worldwide Armenian
diaspora together, to this very day.
14. The reality is that there were no
problems to speak of for Ottoman-Armenians before the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. What
was that about "Never an intentional distortion of fact or fiction"?
15. If conditions were so insufferable, why
didn't the Armenians begin their "revolution" in the previous six centuries? And
since the editor is blaming insufferable conditions and not Armenian aggression, even
Armenia's first prime minister admitted that nothing would have happened to the Armenians
were it not for their "revolution." "This was the terrible fact!"
is the way he worded it.
("Revolution" is placed in quotation marks, since the idea was not shared by the
bulk of the perfectly content Armenian community, at least not at first, before the
fanatical Dashnaks and Hunchaks, mostly originating from outside the Ottoman Empire,
did not terrorize and/or brainwash them.)
16. Wrong. It was not at all easy for
the Turks to forget the monstrous crimes
perpetrated against the hundreds of thousands
of the Armenians' innocent victims, but forget they tried and did, in the interest of
maturity and brotherhood. As far as confiscating the "historic Armenian terntories,"
let's not forget these lands were "confiscated" long before the Turks showed up
in the neighborhood; they happened to be in the Byzantines' possession last, before the
Turks rescued the Armenians from cruel
17. While we may expect for the editor to
claim every Armenian who lost his or her life was a massacre victim, no differently than
so many Armenians and their dishonest supporters do today, the fact of the matter is that
the bulk of the Armenians who lost their lives died from non-murderous reasons. (Such as
famine and disease, causes that claimed the lives of the bulk of the 2.7 million other
Ottomans who died.) While this propagandist is no doubt making his claims based on the
typically inflated pre-war population of over 2 million, the fact is, the pre-war Armenian
population hovered around 1.5 million, based on the Western consensus of the period. (As well as scientific demographics conducted
since.) Since current propagandists have conceded that 1 million survived, that means
roughly one-third of the Armenians died, and not "half." As far as "the
other half" being "driven" away, every Armenian who left had the right of
return by a certain deadline, as stipulated
in the Gumru and Lausanne Treaties; the Armenian Patriarch claimed nearly half the pre-war
Armenian population, 644,900 Armrenians, were
present in what was left of the Ottoman Empire, in 1921, years after the
"genocide" had run its course.
Therefore, if Armenians left, they left by choice, a wholly different matter than being
"driven" away. What was that about "Never an intentional distortion of
fact or fiction"?
18. It's true, this tax was unfair and did
not represent a proud moment of modern Turkish history. Yet as even the translation for
"Varlik vergisi" indicates, it was a tax for the well-to-do, and not just for
Armenians. Since more Armenians were well-to-do, a disproportionate number got hit by
this awful tax that was designed for all. (It appears to be a peculiarly Armenian trait to
attribute exclusive Armenian victimhood to some rotten thing that everybody was suffering
19. "Smyrna"? I suppose we
should feel grateful that the editor did not call Istanbul "Constantinople," as well. Here is some light regarding 1955's "barbaric eruptions"; it looks
like they boiled down to the chaos of a mob's response to a "barbaric eruption"
taking place elsewhere. Note how these Turk-haters desperately point to events having
nothing to do with 1915 matters, simply to give the notion that Turks are such bad people,
as though every other nation serves as a utopia, and everything goes smoothly. The
Armenians' stooge, Rep Schiff, did this recently as well, for example, while giving the
third degree to Secretary of State Rice. Schiff pointed to the murder of Hrant Dink as "not a testimony to
Turkish progress," as though all Turks should be blamed for the action of one
20. "Is it not true that every one
of them lost a dozen relatives..."? Let's do the calculation, assuming
"every one of them" was referring to the Armenian survivors, of whom
propagandists tell us there were one million, and each lost one dozen loved ones, that
means the pre-war population would have amounted to twelve million Ottoman-Armenians
before the war — four times the worldwide Armenian population of the time.
21. If Armenians chose not to return as they
were entitled to, in order to claim their "ancestral home and property," who
should bear the responsibility? (But of course, many did return in 1918, and many did
claim their homes under the jurisdiction of the British, who played great favoritism
toward the Armenians over the expense of the despised Turks.) Those who are expecting
reparations have no one to blame but their own Dashnak leaders for signing away these
rights "forever" in
1920's Gumru/Alexandropol Treaty.
22. Is it my imagination, or did the editor
claim that the "genocide" ended in 1915? (1959 minus forty-four years... yes,
1915 was singled out as the singular year for that "tragic episode," all right.)
Someone should tell Congressmen Adam Schiff and Frank Pallone and too many others, who are
claiming that the "genocide" lasted all the way up until 1923.
23. If anyone conducted a systematic
extermination campaign, or a "genocide," it was the Armenians, when they
polished off some half-million defenseless Ottoman villagers, while the Armenians were in
charge of parts of Anatolia, on and off for several years. Even today Armenians do not
acknowledge their crimes, nearly a century later, and note the awful hypocrisy. Even
individual Armenians were not punished for their crimes (if anything, these terrorists
were rewarded), whereas at least the Ottomans made some attempt to punish those committing
crimes against the Armenians, some 1,600 cases where dozens were executed, and all of this
during the war. In order to apologize for a "crime," the crime needs to
be proven; and there is simply no evidence for systematic extermination on the part of the
Ottoman government. But it's not as though there has not been regret or remorse over this
horrifying loss of life on the part of the Armenians; what propagandists are crying over
is that there has been no official apology from the Turkish government, yet that would
signify that a crime was indeed committed. Emotional conviction is never a substitute for
the cold, hard facts that would prove the crime. Exactly where are these cold, hard
genocide-proving facts? As far as the editor has offered, they are represented by "the
testimony of distinguished and responsible foreign observers," but no court would
accept hearsay (particularly from conflicted and not so "responsible" observers)
as factual evidence. Even the British did not, during 1919-21, in preparation for Malta.
24. It's really all about the money, isn't
it? As Dr. Dennis Papazian helpfully made
clear a few years ago.
25. It wasn't just the "Turkish press
and propagandists," but, as mentioned in Footnote 15, also Hovhannes Katchaznouni,
Armenia's first prime minister: the "terrible fact" was that the
Armenians themselves bore the "responsibility of the genocide." He was the
Dashnak leader, and in an excellent position to know.
26. Even if the Turkish government does
everything the Armenians would like, there is really nothing the Turkish government can do
to make the Armenians forget, since the "genocide" is burned into the Armenians'
psyche, and has become the cause for their existence. (At least the Dashnak-controlled
Armenians, mainly the diaspora. The Armenians from Armenia are not as obsessed, much as
they, too, are controlled by the Dashnaks, to the annoyance of diaspora Armenians.)
The Armenian Review featured an article on the next page (p. 7), entitled "The
Mission of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation," by Dr. Yervand Khatanasian, the
transcript of a speech he had given "on the occasion of the Anniversay Day of the
[Dashnak] organization's founding before an Armenian patriotic audience in 1958, in
Cairo, Egypt," A key excerpt:
"We will call our organization the Armenian Revolutionary Federation because the
Federation believes that the Armenian people, as a nationality, is an eternal value.
Nationality is not a mere historical phenomenon, a mere transitory flash, but an undying
reality with a complex spirited content and a unique mission. It is the ever moving factor
of human creativity, the free and authentic climate of progress, and the link of
As opposed to, say, Turks who have moved to other nations such as the United States,
making it their business to assimilate and to forget their Turkishness, the driving force
of Armenians, no matter where they happen to be living, is to be Armenians first.
It is this "link of international brotherhood" that must be preserved,
and it is preserved through an intense nationalism, the kind Fatma Muge Gocek and others despise in Turks (to ones as Gocek,
those who refuse to buy into the genocide myth are all simple-minded
"nationalists," you see). And the best way to keep this "eternal
value" of "nationality" alive is to find a common enemy, and to
preserve the hatred of that enemy, by enlisting
all elements of Armenian society in on the strategy, including parents, teachers and
churches, to condition Armenian children from an obscenely early age. That enemy, of
course, is the Turks, and the best way in which to keep the fires of hatred alive is the
Minister Serzh Sargsyan, following
in Hovhannes Katchaznouni's footsteps
An Oct. 19, 2007 L.A. Times interview with Armenia's
prime minister ("There are No Christians to the East of Us") inadvertently
points to this phenomenon; Serzh Sargsyan is quoted as saying: "You know Armenians
are indeed one country with its diasporans, one country without. Without our
diaspora we are just [a] three million-strong nation that is situated somewhere in
Caucasus region. And about which most people in the world may even not be aware of. But
with our diaspora, we're a totally different country." (In other words, we are
one, no matter where we live! By the way, why is he exaggerating Armenia's population of
27. Oh, really?
28. In other words, "We can only be
your friends if you give us something first." A conditional friendship is no
friendship at all.
29. Unfortunately, Mr. Darbinian probably
did not live long enough to see the day when a Turk would go against the truth in such a
major way, although not necessarily for reasons of "Anneno-Turkish friendship,"
(Not that this editor put priority on such friendship, so it would not have really
mattered.) Mr. Darbinian would have been delighted to see, going beyond his wildest
expectations, Taner Akcam.