^1. Dr. Stanton should be particularly ashamed for stooping to such immature tactics with his disgraceful name-calling. Yes, those as Peter Balakian have likened McCarthy to a "white supremacist," but that is the mentality of extremist Armenians such as Peter Balakian with an overriding interest in Hai Tahd, or the Armenian Cause. One would hope somebody like Dr. Stanton would try and be a little more "neutral" (particularly if he is the President of a genocide association that claims to be "non-partisan"); yet, here he is, trying to make Prof. McCarthy, as legitimate as a historian can possibly get (following the rules of honest history), as though he were the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. It is truly inexcusable. (Stanton used the exact same phrase, "notorious genocide denier" for Gunduz Aktan, in Stanton's previous letter, rudely adding that Aktan was a "nationalist Turkish MP," as though Aktan was a mindless flag-waver, instead of a true intellectual who has conducted responsible research. Stanton must have liked the term, and left it to describe McCarthy, since Stanton is on record for abhorring "revisionism." By the way, the dictionary defines "notorious" as "known widely and regarded unfavorably." It is only the dishonest genocide world that regards those as McCarthy and Aktan unfavorably, and poor souls who have lost touch with reality need to be reminded that the world of genocide far from equals the world of reality.) Once these foolish genocide scholars choose to get personal, and in an unethically defamatory fashion no less, they admit what losers they really are. A true scholar would let the facts, and only the facts, do the talking.

^2. If poor Dr. Stanton actually believes that the Armenian-financed PBS propaganda film represents anything resembling factual evidence for "genocide," then he is truly living in a world of his own.

^3. The only thing Justin McCarthy represents is the truth. (Here is his own account as to how he came to find the truth; before he knew any better, he, too, accepted the Armenian claims, because the obsessed Armenians and the apathetic Turks, along with intense anti-Turkish prejudice in the West, made sure only the Armenian perspective kept getting heard.) Since Dr. Stanton is supposed to be a legal expert, you'd think he'd be very careful before making such libelous statements as "Mr. McCarthy represents... the Turkish government." (What exactly is Dr. Stanton insinuating that McCarthy ... and note Stanton's contempt, addressing McCarthy as "mister," and not as a fellow "doctor"... is receiving for this representation? Mind you, again, this was the wording Stanton used for Aktan, which would bear greater relevance, since Aktan is a representative of the Turkish government, much as Aktan is obviously representing his own beliefs on the matter; Stanton either sloppily or purposely decided to allow the same defamatory description to remain for McCarthy.)

^4. Do you think Dr. Stanton actually read anything written by Dr. McCarthy? I am beginning to wonder; it sounds as though he relied strictly on the works of those such as Vahakn Dadrian. Dr. McCarthy knows that the Armenians committed mass murder on a hideous scale, and he knows this from sources that would be the last to want to defend the Turks, such as the Armenians' wartime allies, as well as Armenian-sympathizing Americans. In other words, McCarthy has based his findings on real scholarship, apparently a foreign concept for the faithful Gregory Stanton. Similarly, McCarthy is not trying to "rehabilitate" the Turks; when Turks have committed wrongs, McCarthy has never shied away from reporting these wrongs, when relevant. The only thing McCarthy knows is that no evidence exists for a systematic plan for extermination on the part of the Ottomans, and as a responsible historian, not to mention an honorable man, McCarthy fulfills his duty to report the truth. Why would McCarthy wish to "rehabilitate" the Turks, anyway? What would be in it for McCarthy? What is Dr. Stanton trying to tell us? (Note, by the way, that the definition for "rehabilitate," in the sense that Stanton is going for, is: "to restore the good name of." That is an honest word Stanton has chosen, because he appears intent on retaining the "bad name" of the Turks. Why would such a "non-partisan" do such a harmful thing?)

^5. Except that one is a real and proven genocide, and the other is a myth based on hearsay and forgeries. The differences are, indeed, overwhelming. As Prof. Bernard Lewis put it (see last link): "Anybody who has a minimum concept of the historical evidence will admit that these analogies have no validity. The Armenians are proud of their struggle for an independent Armenia against the Ottoman regime. It was a national liberation movement, and they fought with great courage. But what happened to the Armenians has no similarity to what happened to the Jews in cold-blooded bureaucracy."

^6. Here is a great example of how "faith" supersedes all else in the genocide-frenzied mind of Dr. Stanton. First of all, there is no evidence for the Armenian story; he'll get a crack at providing such evidence later in his letter, and he laughably presents works as the Blue Book, Morgenthau's Story, and newspaper accounts of the postwar puppet Ottoman government. No less importantly, if something is not true, of course it would be the duty of honorable parties to straighten out the record, particularly if harmful claims (such as equating Turks with Nazis) lead to hatred and racism. And then it would be the duty of dishonorable parties to try and shut these voices up, by charging them with "ultra-nationalism" or "racism." If the Armenian genocide is a lie, pointing out that lie has nothing to do with hating Armenians, nor does it mean one is a mindless flag-waver for Turkey. It is appalling for anyone to even suggest such a thing, and Dr. Stanton goes one better by attempting to pooh-pooh "free speech." (The only time he criticizes the lack of free speech is when bad-boy Turkey is the culprit, as he will make sure to point out later in this letter.) He should be careful about knocking free speech, much as free speech can cause harm by giving hate-mongers free reign to spread such harmful propaganda. If he doesn't like what is being said, instead of blaming free speech, he should use his own free speech to challenge the facts of what he dislikes, with better facts of his own. Naturally, the problem for Armenian genocide-fanciers as Dr. Stanton is that he does not have the facts, as he so graciously proves with this letter of his.

^7. Where were the "facts" in this propagandistic PBS program? Again, here is the link to a highly in-depth look at this film, ignoring none of its significant claims. Personal opinions of biased missionaries and other Turk-disliking Westerners who were not directly on the scene (of massacres; some witnessed suffering, but suffering is not genocide), and who mainly got word from deceitful Armenians (who almost exclusively served as interpreters for the foreigners of the Ottoman Empire) cannot count as factual evidence. Meanwhile, honest truth-seekers must pay serious attention to the rare first-hand accounts of Westerners with no incentive to defend Turks, as the aforementioned George Schreiner, along with others such as H. J. Pravitz, and even the "Anne Frank" style diary of a relocated Armenian, that tell us there was no genocide.

^8. "Permission" nicely pre-arranged, with pockets deep enough to spring for Express Mail, on the house. What a racket.

^9. Yet Lipstadt herself wrote, in her early work "Denying the Holocaust," that the Armenian story "...was terrible and caused horrendous suffering but it was not part of a process of total annihilation of an entire people." She had to become more pronounced in her views in later years (for example, she signed her name to a 1998 ad proclaiming "a systematic, premeditated genocide of the Armenian people" with "more than a million" who were "exterminated"), probably because one cannot maintain membership in the dishonest "genocide club" without agreeing that there was an Armenian genocide. Yet, she ought to be ashamed of herself for attacking free speech; the next voice to be stifled could be hers, once freedom of speech is chipped away. If she disagrees with a "denier," she ought to not fear going head-to-head with the opposite camp, particularly if her opponent is an established scholar, such as the now cartoonized David Irving. (Irving had established himself as a historian previously, on non-genocide topics.) Surely it must have given Lipstadt great pleasure when her court clash with Irving resulted in Irving's acknowledgement that there was indeed a Holocaust; such is the only way for a real scholar to prove herself, not with character assassination, but with better facts. (Of course, if the opponent is a hateful crackpot, such a clash would be futile; a clash would only be welcomed if the opponent is responsible, reasonable and rational.) If Lipstadt were to go go head-to-head with a scholar such as Justin McCarthy or Guenter Lewy regarding the Armenian tale, in an honestly conducted debate or courtroom (meaning, not like this debate nor this courtroom), she would emerge a laughing-stock, presenting the kinds of "facts" Stanton will go on to offer. She should have been much more careful before writing her haughty words, because such words have encouraged the current fearful and/or righteous environment resulting in the imprisonment of David Irving, in Austria. This sets a highly dangerous precedent, and we have these "moralists" to thank for a setting Stalin would have been proud of. (It is these pretentious moralists who insist, of course, that conflicts they have characterized as genocides must be accepted without question, one reason why they regard "genocide denial" as a high crime; rare is the clean, black-and-white example of the Holocaust as applied to other possible cases, and any conflict can be made to appear as a genocide if critical information is omitted by unscrupulous or emotional parties.)

^10. And there is Dr. Stanton, law professor, on record for clearly libeling Justin McCarthy. Once again, what is Stanton basing his conclusion on? Why would Prof. McCarthy be representing Turkey? Is McCarthy "on the take"? What is the evidence for this? Peter Balakian tried to sell us on McCarthy's being an "agent of the Turkish government" without offering proof, and why is Dr. Stanton trying to do the same? If someone were to accuse Dr. Stanton of spreading propaganda for a foreign government, would Dr. Stanton appreciate such an attack on his scholarly reputation? What would Dr. Stanton think of the morality of such an accuser?

^11. The "301" law in question targets anti-Turkishness; there is no law "prohibiting acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide." That is an outright falsehood by the fact-disrespecting "scholar," Dr. Stanton. Granted, the 301 law is a foolish law, but with so many powerful forces within and without Turkey trying to weaken Turkey, such a desperate law may be a necessary evil. If Turkey were a more stable nation such as France and Switzerland, with no worrisome enemies trying to destablilize those nations, Turkey might be able to better afford doing without such a dumb law. Of course, these more "civilized" nations, such as France, Austria, Belgium and Switzerland, have "laws repressing intellectual freedom," with some prohibiting telling the truth about the politicized Armenian genocide. Yet Dr. Stanton, with his selective preference for "free speech," does not appear to dole out criticism against countries as these. (His hypocrisy does not end there; first he criticizes Turkey for what he alleges as a lack of free speech, and then condemns the university for practicing free speech, crying about McCarthy's appearance, justified by "claims of 'free speech' as their cover.")

^12. Could it be that these "Human Rights" people have an axe to grind against Turkey, and go after the Turks with a vengeance, no differently than Human Rights man Gregory Stanton? Putin's government in Russia is widely acknowledged as being most undemocratic, and it could be the bigoted people involved don't screen Russia and the other nations as carefully. (ADDENDUM: To illustrate, an article by Levon Ter-Petrossian appearing in the Washington Post (March 5, 2008, "Silence on Armenia"), and pointing oout Armenia's corruption, caps off with "the West cares about democracy only when it is politically expedient to do so." Even Richard Hovannisian admitted there was more freedom in Turkey than Armenia, yet prejudiced "human rights" people give countries in keeping with their sympathies a pass just as much as they go after the countries they don't like with fervor.)

^13. In whose opinion has Orhan Pamuk become Turkey's greatest living writer? Did anyone outside Turkey even hear about Orhan Pamuk, before he befriended the genocide crowd, as so many other opportunistic Turks?

^14. What's the connection here, that the Turkish government was behind Hrant Dink's murder? It was awful that a nut committed this terrible crime, but Turkey is as responsible for Dink's murder as the USA should be blamed for, say, the murder of John Lennon. Beyond Stanton's "low blow" and nonsensical point, since Stanton has been at the "human rights" game for many years, has this "non-partisan" ever griped about the Armenian nuts who murdered and maimed so many innocent Turks and others during the terror spree of the 1970s-80s, in the hopes of spreading recognition of their genocide myth?

^15. What were the circumstances, and who was the murderer? Is Stanton attempting to give the impression that the Turkish government ordered a hit? And who says there was an "Assyrian genocide"?

^16. What does any of this have to do with the facts regarding whether a genocide occurred or not? Why is this man going out of his way to try and demonstrate that the nation of Turkey is so bad it deserves to be hated? His pathetic justification is "For scholars to support a state with a record of this kind raises profound questions about their professional ethics." The only responsibility a scholar has is to the truth, not to whether a nation is rotten or not. We can come up with plenty of examples as to how the USA has abused its authority and has committed injustices against its own citizens. Does the fact that the USA is not always an angel mean that a historian should think twice before specializing in U.S. history?

^17. Here we go! The familiar propaganda once again. According to Dr. Stanton, these events took place in a vacuum, and the bankrupt Ottoman Turks suddenly embarked on a costly genocide when every man was needed to defend the homeland against three superpowers anxious to render the Turkish nation extinct, through secret treaties. Yes, that sure makes a lot of sense. Of course, April 24 did not mark the beginning of the "genocide," the pro-Armenians' synonym for the resettlement policy of the Armenians, all but over by early 1916, according even to Vahakn Dadrian. The relocation was put into effect in late May-early June of 1915. The planning of the Armenian rebellion has been documented by leaders such as Vahan Papazian, a rebellion begun even before the war had gotten underway and immediately after Russia had declared war, and April 24 marked the arrest of some of the rebellion's ringleaders. Claiming a "systematic, well-planned and organized genocide" is highly unethical when no proof can be offered; the British desperately attempted to find such proof in the precursor to Nuremberg, the Malta Tribunal (1919-21), and all the British found was evidence on how much the Ottoman government attempted to safeguard the Armenians and their properties. The canard that follows regards the Armenians as being "unarmed." (Armenians were stashing their arms for years in preparation for treachery; there are plenty of photographs proving the weapons seized by Ottoman authorities. As many as 100,000 Ottoman-Armenian men joined the enemy in active rebellion, some taking their arms with them after they deserted their nation's army.)

It is interesting that this "non-partisan" who attended Harvard Divinity School would stress his preferred victims as happening to be "Christian." (Is he implying the Armenians were killed because of their religion, when they were allowed to prosper for centuries? If so, what is his proof? If he doesn't have the proof, what is his motive — is he trying to get the university personnel on his side by appealing to their "us vs. them" prejudices?)

Dr. Stanton then proceeds to mislead with: "More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile." Out of an original population of some 1.5 million (Dr. Stanton almost certainly is going along with the propagandistic 2 million+ figure as the original pre-war population, since even the worst genocide advocates, as Vahakn Dadrian, vouch for one million Armenian survivors; such a count is out of line with the Western consensus of the period), some half-million died of mostly non-murderous methods (starvation does not count as a method for genocide if everyone else is similarly starving). In 1977, the not-Turk friendly French newspaper Le Figaro investigated in response to the Armenian terrorism raging during that period, and concluded only 15,000 were killed from all causes of the march (not just massacres). Furthermore, every Armenian (some 400,000 of whom had left on his/her own accord; none were deported, unlike the cases of the WWI British and Russians, who had deported a portion of their entirely innocent Germans) was free to return via the stipulations of the Gumru and Lausanne Treaties; if Armenians chose to leave, that does not count as "exile." The real migration began in the 1920s; the Armenian Patriarch calculated 644,900 Armenians still remained in what was left of the empire, in 1921.) The propagandist professor, Richard Hovannisian, wrote in his 1967 book that some 150,000 Armenians died of famine and disease after the Russian retreats. (Thousands similarly died during the French retreats, after the war.) Note this figure represents one-third to one-quarter of the entire Armenian mortality, the Turks were not even around, and yet these Armenians must also be added to Dr. Stanton's "exterminated" toll.

^18. In other words, what Stanton offered in the previous paragraph represented "facts"? And where is this "overwhelming scholarly evidence"? What we have is overwhelming propaganda, and those who rely on propaganda are anything but "scholarly." The correct word to describe them would be "propagandists."

^19. The agenda of the Turks has been to tell the historical truth in the face of such vicious propaganda, based on anti-Turkish prejudice, which mindless and bigoted genocide scholars keep perpetuating. (They are the ones with the real "agenda.")

^20. Where is this "overwhelming historical and scholarly evidence"? Is it the Blue Book? Ambassador Morgenthau's Story? The newspapers of the puppet postwar Ottoman government, under enemy occupation? Why is Dr. Stanton making it so easy to demonstrate what a non-scholar he is?

^21. Has he even read a book of Justin McCarthy's? (Has he read anything besides Armenian propaganda?) If he has actually read a book of McCarthy's, can he show how the man he calls a "notorious genocide denier" has engaged in "selective scholarship that grossly distorts history"? McCarthy does not ignore anything, yet only relies on sources of which the veracity appear to be reliable. This may be a foreign concept to someone who stresses dishonest propaganda, or who has no tolerance for anything but "selective scholarship that grossly distorts history."

^22. Does Dr. Stanton actually believe referring to this embarrassing and highly biased article will make his case stronger? The only ones whose "Professional Ethics" came under question were the article's authors, one of whom (Roger Smith) subsequently going on to join the impossibly partisan and wealthy Zoryan Institute. These three attempted to assassinate the character of Prof. Heath Lowry, simply because Lowry attempted to demonstrate Lifton's poor scholarship (Lifton mindlessly concluded some Ottoman doctors — as if the Ottomans had that many doctors — were Mengeles in disguise, strictly on the say-so of Vahakn Dadrian.) Lowry did so (he was the Director of the Institute of Turkish Studies at the time) upon the request of the Turkish ambassador. (The ambassador needed a specialist, since the ambassador was not a historian. Who was he going to ask for help?) The three authors dishonestly wrote that Lowry's report was included "inadvertently" when it was obvious the ambassador had enclosed the report deliberately (and naively, unaware of the ruthlessness of these genocide scholars), and Lowry was thrown to the wolves once those as Peter Balakian directed a vicious smear campaign, ultimately knocking Lowry out of the genocide debate. (Once again, since they don't have the facts, the idea for these unscrupulous genocide scholars is to stifle debate.) Naturally, since Turkey is depicted as the worst nation on earth by these bigots (as Dr. Stanton has done a good job in trying to demonstrate with his letter), anyone associated with Turkey is represented as similarly "evil." Thus, far from enhancing "careerism," genuine historians who tell the truth about WWI's Armenians are in danger of ad hominem attacks (just as Dr. Stanton has attempted to smear Justin McCarthy and, later, Guenter Lewy in this letter), which can only serve to harm their careers. In reality, it is the opportunists who join the genocide bandwagon who find doors, career and otherwise, opening, those as Taner Akcam, Orhan Pamuk, Elif Shafak, Samantha Power, Margaret Lavinia Anderson, and so many others. (By the way, here is how Stanton's IAGS predecessor attempted to prove how genuine historians stand to financially gain from the Turkish government.)

^23. He's got the order wrong; most are unreliable, emanating from those with a conflict-of-interest, and/or coming secondhand through Armenians and missionaries (these are what we would call "hearsay" reports, which any honorable law professor would agree would be inadmissible in a legitimate courtroom); the forgeries are comparatively few. If Dr. Stanton can come up with rock-solid evidence proving his genocide, he is welcome to do so. But we are talking about a "scholar" who places value upon Wellington House's Blue Book, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story and the newspapers of the puppet postwar Ottoman government, under enemy occupation.

^24. Check. As any honorable law professor would agree, if there is no evidence, there is no crime. Furthermore, if there was intent to destroy the Armenian population, two-thirds could not have possibly survived, particularly those under Ottoman control. Talat Pasha would not have ordered the relocation (i.e., "genocide") to come to a halt in August of 1915, and Vahakn Dadrian would surely not have told us the "genocide had all but run its course" by early 1916. Furthermore, the fact behind the Armenian tragedy resulting from war is supported by the Armenian leaders of the period, as Katchaznouni, Nubar and Pasdermadjian. (The latter tells us in no uncertain terms that Armenians would not have been open to the perils of massacre had the Armenians remained loyal.)

^25. Absolutely true; in fact, more soldiers died from causes such as famine and disease rather than combat. If everyone is dying in droves of such causes, it would be ridiculous to conclude that the bulk of Armenians, who died from these very non-murderous causes, were subjected to "slaughter." Why is this such a hard concept for Gregory Stanton to grasp? Is it because the "James Farmer Professor in Human Rights" can't stomach that others besides his preferred victims similarly suffered so awfully?

^26. The Armenians were not only allied with the Russians, but with the British and the French, as well. They were the Entente Powers' "Seventh Ally." as worded by a British newspaper in September of 1915. We don't need to look far to realize the bulk of Ottoman-Armenians were rooting for the enemies of their nation. Leon Surmelian wrote in his book, for example, that Russian POWs would even be applauded by Armenians in the streets! And if Armenian women and children were massacred, the pertinent question to ask would be who massacred them. When Vietnamese women and children were massacred by U.S. soldiers who had gone off the deep end, as with My Lai, should we stupidly conclude that the U.S. government was guilty of "systematic slaughter"? (Furthermore, why doesn't Gregory Stanton cry over the many thousands of Turkish women and children who were viciously slaughtered by Armenians, quite undoubtedly in systematic fashion? Is it because these victims were not "Christian," for our "non-partisan" "scholar"?

^27. Finally, the man offers truth. Yet simply because something is "abundant and overwhelming" does not make it true. Not long ago, the "abundant and overwhelming" consensus in the USA was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. When forces are powerful, obsessed and wealthy enough to force their point-of-view down our throats, only the weak-minded would accept their version as the truth.

^28. The British looked through the cream of these American documents in July of 1921 and concluded that they boiled down to "personal opinions," which means "hearsay." The U.S. State Department permitted the Brits to take a look on condition the source not be identified, embarrassed as they were about the quality of this obviously propagandistic material. As far as the newspaper reports, even the New York Times of October 10, 1915 summed up their worth: "What has happened... is still an unwritten chapter. No newspapermen are allowed to visit the affected districts and reports from these are altogether unreliable."

^29. The reports of the Christian-sympathetic German and Austrian consuls and diplomats were based on secondhand sources, mainly Armenians and missionaries, which means "hearsay." (Incidentally, "Austria" and "Hungary" were not two separate countries during WWI.)

^30. Even the British rejected the findings of these kangaroo courts, in preparation for the Malta Tribunal.

^31. No missionary or diplomat ever eyewitnessed a massacre in the making, unlike Russian officers (and at least one American officer after the war, Lt. Dunn, who tagged along with the murderous Dro. Prof. Richard Hovannisian, unsurprisingly, tried to discredit Dunn) who saw with their own eyes the terrible crimes the Armenians were committing. (Possibly only U.S. Consul Leslie Davis saw the aftermath of a massacre, and he could only speculate on the perpetrators, likely Kurdish tribes.) The missionaries and diplomats, when they related horror stories, relied solely on the word of Armenians, whose lack of honesty was widely recognized even by these missionaries and diplomats (For example, even Leslie Davis wrote, "... lying and trickery... are besetting sins of almost all... Absolute truthfulness is almost unknown among the members of this race.") If the missionaries and diplomats saw anything, it was suffering. (That is, Christian suffering; they mainly closed their eyes to Muslim suffering, a tradition Dr. Stanton appears to be proudly upholding.) Suffering is not genocide.

^32. No serious historian would accept such testimony at face value, particularly given the political nature of Hai Tahd. Not that this testimony is always worthless; quite often, we get the idea that what took place was not genocide, but war.

^33. What the often non-historian genocide scholars produce is not scholarship. How many have researched the Ottoman archives, for example? Could the history of a nation recorded only by the enemies of that nation constitute valid history? Simply from his letter, this current President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars gives us an excellent idea that what genocide scholars engage in is propaganda, which is the antithesis of scholarship.

^34. After receiving the British Embassy's famous "I regret to inform your Lordship" letter of July 13, 1921 dismissing the worth of the American archival documents, a member of the British Foreign Office, Mr. W. S. Edmonds, minuted: "It never seemed quite likely that we should be able to obtain evidence from Washington." In other words, if these 4,000+ U.S. reports confirmed Morgenthau's "campaign of race extermination" conclusion that his Armenian assistants whispered in his ear (and that the Armenian assistants of the consuls whispered in their ears) what we've got is "hearsay," which any honorable law professor would be quick to concede is no substitute for "satisfactory incriminating evidence." (As Washington's British Embassy worded what they were at a loss to find.) Did you catch, by the way, Dr. Stanton's appraisal of these American diplomats as being "neutral"? Yes, they were indeed as unbiased in the same manner that Dr. Stanton, the great "non-partisan," himself is "neutral."

^35. The most energetic cheerleader of this vicious war propaganda was the book's devout author, Arnold Toynbee himself, and he implored critic Marmaduke Pickthall to consult this "Treatment" work to find the evidence for "race extermination," which, in Toynbee's mind, was clearly present even late into his life; the exchange was published in the pages of The New Age (see the Dec. 16, 1915 entry of this link). Pickthall responded: "I have had no opportunity of examining the evidence, and I know not where it is to be found; but I have read Mr. Toynbee’s book, and can find there nothing serious in support of his contention that the Turkish Government ordered ‘the extermination of the Armenian race.’" But we don't need Pickthall to tell us the worthlessness of this Wellington House propaganda. Any objective party who examines the missionary and Armenian provided hearsay of this book will realize there is nothing resembling actual evidence. (Here is a closer look.) The Blue Books (at least those involving the Germans; as low men on the totem pole, the Turks did not count) were thoroughly discredited after the war, and anyone who points to these vile works (the aim of which was demonization of the enemy) as valid history in this day and age, shows his true dishonorable colors.

^36. The fact that the secondhand testimony from "Turkey's wartime allies" (if Stanton wrote about the Soviet Union, would he similarly be calling that nation "Russia"?) is now available in book form has nothing to do with the worth of this information, provided by Armenians and missionaries to bigoted Germans, Dadrian luminaries such as “Friend of Lepsius” Consul Walter Rössler, and the utterly foolish Ambassador Paul Count von Wolff-Mettemich. What counts are the firsthand accounts of German officers, particularly provided after the war, when the need to defend potential falsehoods and uphold war propaganda no longer existed.

^37. Dr. Stanton outdoes himself by presenting two prevarications in one sentence. The obsolete language of Ottoman is very complex, and few scholars are able to decipher it accurately. (For example, Taner Akcam's knowledge of Ottoman is next-to-nonexistent, at best.) So who are these "numerous scholars" who have gone through the tedious work of going through old Ottoman newspapers? The only one who has, to my knowledge, is Vahakn Dadrian, and Vahakn Dadrian is a propagandist par excellence, not a "scholar"; time and again, like his Turkish protégé, Dadrian has willfully mistranslated, distorted, taken things out of context and otherwise manipulated source materials, in weaseling service to Hai Tahd. (Knowing full well that no one was going to look over his greasy shoulder, at least regarding his Ottoman research; a real scholar who knows German, Guenter Lewy, did check some of Dadrian's German research, and exposed a few of the times Dadrian proved himself fraudulent.) Every Dadrian-provided Ottoman source that Armenian propaganda has made such good use of needs to be checked, and re-checked. "Numerous scholars" have certainly not "validated" the "authenticity" of these old Ottoman newspapers. Secondly, as far as Stanton's "Lewy claims the Gazette records are fakes" (note Stanton neglected to identify who this "Lewy" was, to the University of Florida president; this was a sloppy revision of his original letter, where Stanton had responsibly spelled out Lewy's identity), one wonders if Stanton read Lewy's book (in all likelihood, the non-scholarly Stanton did not, much as he can't bear reading anything but what his propaganda network provides), Stanton was being inaccurate once again. (His aim was to discredit Lewy, and Stanton did so on false grounds.) Lewy pointed out not that the records were fakes, but that they are missing, and all that survives are excerpts in the newspapers, which certainly cannot be relied upon as scholarly evidence — particularly since the postwar newspapers in enemy-occupied Istanbul were beholden to the puppet Ottoman government, whether official government newspapers, or not. (Here is where to lock in, regarding what Lewy had to say on the subject, beginning with "Probably the most serious problem affecting the probative value of the 1919-20 military court proceedings is the loss of all the documentation of these trials.")

^38. The words of either a desperate propagandist, or a hopelessly faithful pharisee who cannot drum up the slightest sense of objectivity. Everything Stanton has offered boils down to hearsay and forgeries, and no honorable scholar devoted to the truth can regard any of these offerings as factual evidence. The person who concludes "it is indisputable that the Armenian Genocide is a proven history" on the basis of such total propaganda is conveniently handing over the rope with which he may be hanged, in the eyes of honest academia.

^39. Much as Lemkin gets the credit for coining the word, it appears the word "genocide" happened to be in prior existence. More importantly, simply because Lemkin served as the fanatical mold for genocide scholars and enjoys an image of "morality" has nothing to do with whether Lemkin had the ability or desire to research history in reliable fashion. Lemkin was very much like Stanton in that they both served as professors of law (Lemkin taught at Yale Law School, where Stanton earned a law degree), much as Lemkin was, and Stanton is, completely in the dark as to properly apply genocide law as it pertains to the Armenian issue. ("Intent": not proven. "Political groups": disallowed.) Furthermore, the emotional Lemkin based his opinion purely on the anti-Turkish propaganda he was exposed to, in his primarily Christian nation of Poland. Stanton has less of an excuse, as these days much more information is available than in Lemkin's time, that would help the truth-seeker in forming an honest conclusion. The real point here, however, is why should we take the word of Raphael Lemkin, a law professor, in regards to what really took place in history?

^40. Why is Dr. Stanton going out of his way to drive home the point that we can't take his word on anything? What he has written is absolutely untrue. United Nations spokesmen have told us in no uncertain terms that the U.N. has not recognized the Armenian episode as a genocide, a fact that is most telling, given that the U.N. has written the rules of genocide. Furthermore, as the landmark decision undertaken by the International Court of Justice at the Hague (ICJ) made clear in relation to the requirements of the 1948 Genocide Convention (while ruling on Bosnia vs. Serbia), the acts must be committed purposefully, and secondly, one must establish the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, . . . [the protected] group, as such." Intent has not been proven in the case of the Armenians, much as Dr. Stanton chooses to embarrass himself by pointing to such corrupt sources as the Blue Book, Ambassador Morgenthau, and newspapers of a puppet Ottoman government as desperate pseudo-evidence. If there is no evidence, there is no crime, as any honorable law professor would be the first to tell us. In addition, the Secretary General of the U.N. at the time of the Convention's ratification emphasized that the Convention does not protect "political groups" — those merely sharing political goals. As covered above, primary Armenian leaders have made clear that the Ottoman-Armenians joined their nation's enemies in the world war against their nation. Here is a look at how the law applies (or, more correctly, does not apply) to the Armenian matter, in a publication that even "Mr. Human Rights" Stanton cannot fault, the International Journal of Human Rights.

^41. If the President of this organization serves as an example, these people are "scholars" in name only. A real scholar looks at all the relevant information in order to arrive at a dispassionate conclusion. These agenda-ridden people begin with the conclusion first, and are not averse in using the most corrupt sources to affirm their dishonest conclusion. (Sources such as, oh, the Blue Book, Ambassador Morgenthau, and newspapers of an enemy-occupied Ottoman government.) These people are propagandists, and why should we listen to them, in our quest for truth?

^42. It is a pity that such a humanitarian as Elie Wiesel has joined forces with this unethical, hate-mongering crowd, motivated as he must have been by his own passion for genocide. Many Jewish scholars of the Holocaust back up the Armenian story, in an irrational fear that telling the truth about the Armenians would lead people to question the Holocaust, which certainly does not help with their own credibility. Moreover, by equating a false genocide with a real one, these Holocaust specialists are paying a huge disrespect to the millions of Jewish victims. cheapening their tragedy.

^43. It's a club! They are all in it together, and have the tremendous deep pockets to support their agenda and obsession. In order to belong to this profitable club, one must agree there was an Armenian genocide, because a good chunk of the financiers of this industry are clever and wealthy Armenians — and as we have seen time and again, this propagandistic club cannot tolerate debate, and those who question their claims will not be challenged on the facts in honorable and scholarly fashion, but leave themselves open to personal attack. Of course, all of these genocide books are going to be in agreement. What's far more damaging is that the hatred of this bunch has permeated the school boards across the United States and other nations, and every schoolchild exposed to their chicanery is being taught to hate the "Nazi" Turks. (A prejudice all the more poisonous, since previous propaganda has made certain Turk-hatred was already in existence.) As a minor point, I have not read William Schabas’s Genocide in International Law, but the odds are that Schabas is a member of the genocide club, and if he has fit the facts with the pre-arranged conclusion (as that other "international law" specialist, Alfred de Zayas), then Schabas has proven himself to be as reliable a "law expert" as is Dr. Gregory Stanton.

^44. Translation: it's "My way or the highway" with the false scholars of genocide, their claims must be held as sacred, and what they tell us is "decisive evidence" must never be questioned. It is sickening, is it not? A real scholar certain of the facts would relish the opportunity to prove the critics of their version of events to be wrong. These genocide scholars do not dare, knowing as they do that they are skating on such thin and propagandistic ice. Their specialty is the murder of reputation, or Rufmord: not only leveled against genuine scholars who challenge their claims, but also against the people they have labeled as genocide perpetrators and as Nazis, hatred against whom the genocide scholars help to perpetuate.

Dr. Stanton's Genocide Principles

In his Genocide Watch web site, Dr. Stanton has written an essay entitled "The Seven Stages of Genocide." (Later updated to Eight Stages or, as rumored to be known in some corners of the boxing world, the "Stanton Eight Count.") He tries to broaden the definition of the 1948 Convention (which is already broad enough) in various ways, so that he can fit in conflicts of his choosing more easily, and widen the scope of his genocide passion. For example, he writes, "The Genocide Convention specifically includes the intentional killing of part of a group as genocide." Intent is not a mere inclusion, but lies at the very heart of genocide.

"Those who shrink from applying the term 'genocide' usually ignore the 'in part,'" Stanton continues. "The intent of the act of genocide does not have to be part of a plan to kill a whole group. If a mass killing is part of a genocidal massacre, where victims are killed because of their ethnic identity, it is an act of genocide even if only a part of a group (the intellectuals, officers, leaders) is targeted." In this way, Dr. Stanton can apply his genocide definition to almost any homicidal situation. Yet according to fellow genocide scholar Samantha Power's book ("A Problem From Hell"), when this "in part" stipulation was argued at the United Nations, it was asked what "in part" means. For example, if there are 200,000 people that make up an ethnic group, how many would need to be killed in order to fulfill this "in part" part, perhaps 100,001, more than half? The agreement then was for enough members of a group to be killed that would threaten the survival of the group. So if a handful are killed, whether they are intellectuals or not, that would not signify genocide. (As an example, Armenian propaganda tells us that the 235 Istanbul Armenians arrested on April 24 [Vahakn Dadrian says 2,345] were all murdered, even though a good number were released, and the rest tried, resulting in imprisonment or execution for treason. Dr. Stanton will likely opt for the "all murdered" claim, propaganda proponent that he is, and because of Dr. Stanton's own interpretation of the genocide rules, even if no other Armenian was harmed throughout WWI and its aftermath, the murder of these 235 would constitute a "genocide.")



Under the section entitled "PUNISHMENT," Stanton wrote:

"When Adolph Hitler was asked if his planned invasion of Poland was a violation of international law, he scoffed, 'Who ever heard of the extermination of the Armenians?'"

Dr. Stanton's disrespect for the facts is twofold in this example. Not only did Hitler never make that statement, given that this line (among others) was added to the embellished "Lochner version" of the four different versions of Htler's 1939 speech (that is, the one the Nuremberg authorities rejected), but the fabricated line is, as said, from a speech that Hitler gave to his generals. In other words, Hitler was not "asked." This 1996 paper of Dr. Stanton's was "widely circulated within the U.S. government"; congressmen usually pointed to this fake Hitler quote in support of the many Armenian genocide resolutions through the years, and those who have read this paper may have been swayed to its authenticity.

In another essay appearing in genocideeducation.org ("For Teachers"), Dr. Stanton has corrected himself as far as the setting of this quote ("Hitler stated to his commanding generals"), much as he still repeated the quote as an authentic one. The fakery of this quote was exposed a good ten years before Dr. Stanton wrote these words, by scholars such as Dr. Heath Lowry and Dr. Robert John, the latter happening to be of Armenian heritage. If Dr. Stanton was unaware of the unreliability of this quote, that makes him one sorry scholar. If Dr. Stanton was aware, but still chose to present the quote as an outright fact (because any corrupt information will suffice, as long as "genocide" keeps getting affirmed), he becomes worse than simply incompetent.

In this particular paper, Dr. Stanton went on to write, "the Nazis went on to annihilate 6 million Jews." Yet the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington (not to say it is always trustworthy, since it also upholds the Hitler quote) has revised the mortality figure to a median of 5.25 million. It is possible Dr. Stanton wrote this particular essay before the museum's revision, but it's not unusual for the typically fact-disrespecting genocide scholar to regard such facts as an inconvenience. Dr. Stanton also went on to classify "Bosnia/Herzegovina" as a genocide, which everyone was doing mindlessly (including me), but the U.N. Court in the Hague determined that its own genocide rules (save for Srebrenica) did not apply. The rest of us may be excused for not knowing any better, but Dr. Gregrory Stanton is a "genocide scholar." Yet he is perhaps quicker than the rest of us to break the rules of genocide, giving weight to the reality that a genocide scholar is often no scholar at all.