In the annals of the
genocide scholars, there are many contenders for those who are the most
prejudiced, one-sided, Turk despising propaganda advocates. Prof.
Alfred-Maurice de Zayas might well have a championship belt in one of his
Let's take a look at where this man is
When one runs a search for Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, one is
rarely at a loss to find his association with the Armenians. For example, a Nov. 14, 2003
ANCA press release tells us:
till you make 'em
Dr. Alfred De Zayas, the recipient of the ANC
Scholarly Excellence Award, was lauded for his groundbreaking report regarding the
applicability of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide to the Armenian case. According to his findings, the UN Convention
applies retroactively to the Armenian Genocide, making the Turkish state fully responsible
for reparations. Based in Geneva, Switzerland, Dr. De Zayas teaches international law at
several European and North American universities.
And here lies Dr. De Zayas' main value; under the guise of
his "expertise" of international law, he goes out of his way to tell us that the
1948 U.N. Convention may be applied retroactively, that the Convention defines the
Armenian experience as a genocide, and that reparations deserve to be in line. He
suspiciously does not get into the countless other historical episodes of "Man's
Inhumanity to Man" from many years past that may equally be subject to the same rules
that he opines about; no, he concentrates almost exclusively on the Armenians. Is it any
wonder that he is the Armenians' Wet Dream, tackling their obsession from a
"legal" standpoint, as Alfred De Zayas does?
He served as a senior lawyer with the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights (for 22 years, according to the ANCA document), an
organization that does not recognize the Armenian experience as a genocide. Now think
about that: the very organization that made the rules for what constitutes a genocide refuses to consider what happened to the
Armenians as a genocide (despite deceptive maneuvers by pro-Armenians to say otherwise), yet this man still insists that
the Armenian experience must fall under the genocide category. And he was a lawyer for the
United Nations. What is going on here? Are we to conclude that the U.N. is wrong? Or
should we begin to think this man is doing some weasely legal maneuvers to serve his own
There is an abundance of Armenian
genocide contributions by De Zayas plastered over the Internet. We'll concentrate on
basically two. But first, let's get an idea of where he stands on Turks.
From his own site, we can read his
position on Cyprus. He begins by telling us, "The Turkish invasion entailed
without any doubt the crime of aggression, as it violated both the UN Charter and
the Nuremberg principles." Let's keep in mind this man is supposed to be an
"expert" on International Law. What are we to make of the fact that he has
completely ignored the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee giving Turkey and Greece the right
to protect their respective Cypriots in the case of aggression? In 1974, it was the
Greeks who were the aggressors, following many years of terrorizing the Turkish
minority. The coup leader, Nikos Sampson, admitted in a Greek newspaper interview
that had Turkey not intervened, he would have exterminated every last Turk on the
island. (Eleftherotipia, Feb. 26, 1981.)
Legally, Turkey performed its right to
intervene. Even an Athens court agreed Turkey's move was legal. You can read the
details on the Cyprus page.
Yet, De Zayas is calling this legal
intervention an "invasion," and a "crime." (This shoddy
"international law expert" should have consulted how the legality was
upheld even by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in a resolution
adopted on July 29, 1974, namely Resolution 532 . Moreover, what excuse has
he, as a lawyer working with the U.N., when he does not acknowledge the fact that
the United Nations never actually condemned the Turkish intervention of 1974 and
never called it an "invasion"? Source.) He goes on to compare this episode with what the Nazis
did, as established under the Nuremberg trials, regarding the "illegality of
aggressive war," as if the Turks simply made this move out of the blue and
without provocation, no different than the Nazis, as they stormed through Europe.
(He actually goes on to imply that the Turkish leader who ordered the Cyprus move,
Bulent Ecevit, should be treated as a Nazi war criminal.)
victim of Greek Cypriot atrocities. More.
Isn't that incredible? Absolutely no
regard for history, no regard for the provocations in place, no regard for legal
agreements not in keeping with the professor's agenda. Why, exactly as with the case
of the Armenian "Genocide." It's as if these events must have existed in a
He talks about the implantation of
Turks, comparing the process to the purposeful implantation of Germans in WWII
Poland, as if there were no Turkish Cypriots in existence before 1974. He talks about the forceful expulsion of Greeks, as if none of
the Greeks moved to southern Cyprus on their own accord. Did the Turks go
door-to-door in northern Greek homes, and tell them to get out? I think in the
chaotic situation, most thought, uh-oh! We'd better go where it is "safe."
If this was the case, is it right for De Zayas to present the picture of forceful
What of the Turkish Cypriots who left
their homes in southern Cyprus to travel to the north? Were they forcefully
expulsed? Or did they similarly travel on their own accord? (In August 1975, Rauf
Denktas and Glafkos Clerides, negotiating on behalf of their respective communities,
signed a formal agreement, which recognized the population exchanges that had taken
place and sanctioned further such exchanges.)
Which side tried to get along with the other over the years, and which side made it
impossible to get along?
As with the Armenians, the Greeks
committed the aggression. Innocent people were caught in the middle. Yet, in the
end, it is always the Turks that must get the blame.
Alfred de Zayas is spoken of as though
he is a champion of "human rights." Yet, in his paper, it is only the
Greeks who have suffered or have been expulsed. He speaks as though only the Greeks
have a right to Cyprus, as though "enosis" were already in effect. To De
Zayas, the Turks are not entitled to human rights. The only time he throws a bone to
the Turks is when he explains that "Of course, the settlers are human
beings," when referring to the "120,000 illegal settlers" who have no
"right to stay." Maybe he is referring to the Turkish Cypriots who were
living on the island for centuries as "illegal settlers."
A biased (and outdated) Greek site (kypros.org/Cyprus/cy_republic/demography.html)
tells us: "It is estimated that over 30,000 Turkish Cypriots have emigrated
since 1974." (In 1973, the Turkish Cypriot population was 116,000.) A table for
1992 tells us the "Total Population in the Occupied Areas" was 175,000.
The problem is, of course, that such information comes almost always from
anti-Turkish sources, and these are the sources one such as De Zayas happilly
accepts at face value. To get an idea of "the other side," let's resort to
yet another Greek site, having published a 1991 New York Times article, "Fresh
Tension for Cyprus: Counting the Newcomers"; the Northern Cypriot president
complains, "They are trying to make believe that there are no Turkish
Cypriots at all." Further: "Mr. Denktash does not deny that settlers
from Turkey have come to Cyprus. But he says that only about 15,000 have taken up
residence and produced families. As for the rest, he said, they are either tourists
or seasonal workers who don't stay the five years required to acquire Turkish
The Greek Cyprus government site (cyprus.gov.cy)
tells us the southern Cypriot population went up to almost 800,000 in 2004.
(willfully underestimating with 87,600 for the Turkish Cypriots.) In 1973, it was
almost 500,000. Are we to assume these are all offspring of the original
inhabitants? (And how did these original inhabitants get there? For example, during
WWII, many of the 12,000 Greek refugees, escaping Nazi persecution, stayed.) If
thousands settled from mainland Greece, why should they have the right to do so, and
not the Turks from Turkey? (That is, should the population of Turkish Cypriots have
remained constant through the years? Interestingly, according to a British book,
"The North Cyprus Almanac," 1985: "At the time of the British arrival
in Cyprus in 1878 under the Cyprus Defence Alliance between Great Britain and the
Ottoman Empire, approximately 95,000 Turkish-Cypriots were residing on the
In addition: "The population does
not include over 115.000 Turkish settlers illegally residing in the Turkish-occupied
part of Cyprus." That's right, ladies and gentlemen. Alfred de Zayas is getting
his information directly from the southern Greek Cypriot government, as if they must
be the beacons of truth, adding 5,000 for good measure. Unbelievable.
Why isn't De Zayas up in arms about
the zillions of Chinese the government of China implanted in eastern Turkestan, in an attempt to make the
original inhabitants a minority in their own land? We know the answer; the victims
are Turks, and De Zayas appears to regard Turks as sub-humans, and not worthy of
consideration. But he probably thinks better of Tibetans, whose similar fate has
been glamorized by the West. Surely the few thousand Cypriot Turks who settled from
the Turkish mainland is a drop in the bucket compared to the many, many Chinese who
have been implanted in Tibet. But there's no word on Tibet that I'm aware of from De
Zayas. He similarly does not protest over the many Americans who have settled in
Hawaii, after illegal annexation in 1898, making the original inhabitants a minority
in their own land. (Note that in each of the cases above, the people no longer are
in possession of their homelands. With Cyprus, the Greeks are still in possession of
lands which they travelled to and settled in over the centuries, thanks to the
tolerance of the Ottomans, after conquest from the Venetians. To the best of my
knowledge, Cyprus was never owned by any government of Greece.)
Let's get out of this Cyprus
discussion. The idea was to inform the reader of how blatantly one-sided De Zayas
is. A "scholar," of course, is one who must dispassionately study all
De Zayas got into the meat of the topic with his "The
Genocide against the Armenians 1915-1923 and the relevance of the 1948 Genocide
Convention," as featured on his site.
Before we examine De Zayas' facts and figures, take a look
at that title. Yes, he is actually suggesting, without shame, that this supposed
intentional plan of genocidal extermination went as late as 1923, years after the Ottoman
government had ceased to remain a viable force. (The Sultanate was abolished in 1922, and
the Sultan fled in a British boat.) It appears the man's racist attitude in portraying the
Turks as evil incarnate at every turn is allowing him to accuse the modern Republic of
Turkey with the extremely serious charge of genocide (despite his attempting to
rationalize contradictory "successor state" theories, as you'll read below; if
De Zayas truly feels modern Turkey was guilty with the crime, why feel the need to justify
the responsibility of successor states?), and this "legal expert" is doing so
without offering any proof whatsoever. (He also has no proof for Ottoman Turkey's guilt,
but how especially irresponsible and unethical of him to implicate modern Turkey.)
"... In 1916 ... the genocide had all but run its
Vahakn Dadrian, a key source for De
Zayas, from "The Armenian Genocide: A New Brand of Denial by the Turkish
General Staff — by Proxy,” Sept. 2004. More on this work.
He begins his "Historical and legal introduction"
with "For centuries, the Armenian population of the Turkish Ottoman Empire was
subjected to mistreatment and despotism, particularly in the Armenian homeland." Legal
introduction? There ought to be a law against this lie that the genocide scholars keep
repeating, with no reservation or shame. No. The Ottoman-Armenian population were known as
the "Loyal Millet," so prosperous, that when Napoleon asked his French
ambassador (Sebastiani) in "Constantinople" whether it would be possible to stir
them up (during plans of invasion against the Ottomans, 1798-1799), the ambassador replied
that the Catholic Armenians of Syria and Palestine were "so content with their lives
here that a revolt is impossible."
The Armenians in Turkey were by no means an oppressed and
miserable people. Through hard work, thrift, native intelligence, and a cultural
level generally higher than that of the Turks, they had become a prosperous and
important community. In the eastern vilayets they were [a] predominant economic
force. In these vilayets more than half of all merchants (58%), physicians and
pharmacists (60%), and three quarters of all persons engaged in mining (75%) were
Armenians. In the same vilayets, the Turks accounted for only one quarter of all
merchants, doctors, and so on. By contrast, they accounted for well over half of all
government employees and magistrates (62%). 
 K. Mesrob.
L'Armenie au point de vue geographique, historique, ethnographique, statistique, et
culturel. Constantinople, 1919. p. 85.]
Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh, The Struggle for
Transcaucasia (1917-1921), 1951. More excerpts
from this classic book.
"[M]ore than 150,000 Armenians were killed" in 1896
mainly because of "the resultant ethnic and religious fanaticism deliberately fuelled
by the Sultan's policies." (The actual figure was closer to 20,000. It would have
been zero, if the Armenians did not rebel.) No mention of the terror groups that the
Armenians formed, the purposeful massacres and violence they caused in the hopes of
European intervention. No. All of a sudden, after centuries of relative prosperity and
contentment, the Turks decided to go on a murder spree.
De Zayas rubs salt in the wound by claiming 30,000
casualties in 1909 Adana, when even Armenians from the period estimated some 10,000 less. His source: Vahakn
Dadrian. How appropriate for a "scholar" like De Zayas to completely take the
word of a notorious Armenian propagandist, whose scholarly ethics boil down exactly to
what Prof. Guenter Lewy concluded.
De Zayas informs us that a series of "massacres and
deportations... took the lives of some 1.5 million Armenians." Fact: Some 1.5 million
pre-war Armenians, according to neutral sources such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Fact: One million Armenian survivors,
according even to Armenian hard-liners such as Vahakn Dadrian. Simple mathematics: 1.5
million minus one million. Does that equal 1.5 million to you? (Fortunately, you probably
don't have a Ph.D., like Alfred de Zayas.)
Zayas, in Yerevan
Alfred de Zayas actually gets into the specifics of the
dead-horse Treaty of Sèvres, signed by an occupied puppet Ottoman administration! Does
this human rights champion pretend ignorance of the purpose of that treaty, to eliminate
the Turkish nation? (He actually writes... this is truly unbelievable... that: "the
Treaty remains eloquent evidence of the international recognition of the crime of
'massacres' against the Armenian population of Turkey." Yes, ladies and gentlemen,
Alfred de Zayas has actually sunk as low as to tell us this racist and inhuman treaty
provides "evidence" of the massacres... and in an "eloquent" fashion,
Since Alfred de Zayas is an "expert" on
international law, he should be the first to point to this treaty's legal worthlessness.
The signing of the original Armistice (aboard the HMS Agamemnon, with Hussein Rauf, the
Minister of Marine) guaranteed Ottoman Turkey's frontiers, and Admiral Calthorp, who
represented the British government, gave assurances in writing that the integrity of
Turkish borders would not change.
The Sèvres clauses De Zayas brings up, not incidentally,
such as the establishment of criminal trials and the return of Armenians to their homes
were actually fulfilled. Armenians were returning in droves to their homes even before the
1918-end decree allowing them to do so, as observed by missionaries and other hostile
foreign agents. So much so that 644,900 Armenians
were in what was left of the empire by 1921, according to the Armenian Patriarch. (In 1918
war-end, the Patriarch claimed 1,260,000 survivors still in what was left of the empire.
The Patriarch's own death toll — 840,000, as exaggerated as it was — didn't reach the
stratosphere as De Zayas' propagandistic figure.)
The troublesome thing here is that we can almost excuse De
Zayas for his ignorance, because he is no historian. (Oops! Keep reading, as to what he
says about that.) However, this is not rocket science here; anyone can do a little
research to get at the heart of the matter. (And it is the duty of those known as
"scholars" to do so.) What are we to conclude? That De Zayas is totally inept,
or that he knows the truth but only reports selective "facts"?
In typical propagandistic form, De Zayas writes: "No
international criminal tribunal as envisaged in Article 230 was ever established."
This tribunal was well underway between 1919-1921. The reason why it never went all the
way through was because the British — as determined as they were to eradicate the
Turkish nation, under their leader, Lloyd "the Turks are a human cancer"
George — were pressured to find the genuine evidence, and simply could not. This was, of
course, the Malta Tribunal.
At least De Zayas mentions the unmentionable, and refers to
Malta. But look at the reason why it failed: "[T]he British government was ultimately
blackmailed into releasing them in 1921-22 in exchange for British officers."
(Our wondrous scholar has the date wrong; the tribunal
process ended in 1921. What he fails to ask is why Malta wasn't over and done with by
1919-20, as the puppet Ottoman kangaroo courts were, if the evidence was so clear. The
answer is that the British were feverishly trying to find the evidence, and there simply
was no evidence. When the British desperately resorted to the U.S. State Archives, the
British ambassador's office in Washington reported that everything boiled down to
"personal opinions," i.e., hearsay.)
If anybody maintained prisoners as hostages, it was the
British, as the British Archives themselves spell out. (English Judge Sir Lindsay-Smith
said as much, when asked by Sir H. Rumbold: "[A]n abortive trial would do more harm
than good," and that the only alternative was "to retain Turkish deportees at
Malta as hostages." [FO 371/6504/E. 10023] More.) What De Zayas is doing is dutifully taking the line of Vahakn
Dadrian and those like him, trying to find a convenient way to weasel out of the real
facts. Here is Dadrian's version.
De Zayas then gets into Dadrian's bread and butter, the
1919-20 Ottoman kangaroo courts. It's embarrassing that an "expert" on
"international law" can't tell the difference between legitimate courts and a
court forced through an occupying enemy, with the threat that if the criminals don't
surface, the Turks would be treated harshly at the Peace Conference. If there was any real
"blackmail," it was these false
Getting beyond the realm of his "history," now De
Zayas gets down to the legal nitty-gritty. He writes: "In the classic
Oppenheim/Lauterpacht textbook on 'International Law', Professor Hersch Lauterpacht noted
that the Convention was not only forward-looking but that it had a primary retrospective
significance." Here is the relevant line: "Thus, as the punishment of acts of
genocide is entrusted primarily to the municipal courts of the countries concerned, it is
clear that such acts, if perpetrated in obedience to national legislation, must remain
unpunished unless penalized by way of retroactive laws."
Now note how De Zayas is grasping for straws desperately.
Firstly, this is an opinion by a legal expert, and not the law. Secondly, Professor Hersch
Lauterpacht could well have been referring not to past examples of genocide, but those in
the future that escape punishment (and there certainly have been plenty of examples since
the Convention has been adopted). That only makes sense; otherwise, are we going to take
Italy to court for what the Romans did in Carthage?
Thirdly, what about the basic legal concept of Nullum Crimen? A law must be in place
before the crime is recognized.
(Later, he feebly attempts to address this, by referring to
a clause stating: "Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment
of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was
criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of
nations." But criminal in what sense? If enemy forces declare the Turks were behaving
as monsters [as the Entente Powers declared
in May 1915], and they do so for propagandistic purposes... and later, when they have the
upper hand at Malta and can't prove their own allegations... then what course can be
pursued? Certainly, it's a crime in any age, when helpless people are deliberately
slaughtered. However, we need guidelines before we can establish the crime. [Example: an
American regiment slaughtered hundreds of innocent Vietnamese at My Lai. Should we
simple-mindedly conclude they were acting on orders from the U.S. government, and that the
USA had the "intent" for extermination?] And these are the conditions as set in
the 1948 Convention, conditions which go against the Armenian episode: "intent"
must be proven, and there must be no political alliances.)
Fourthly, and what the above ties in with, is that the
crime must be proven. Even the United Nations, the body that wrote the rules on genocide,
has not recognized the Armenian matter as a genocide.
Note how De Zayas is twisting so much to serve his agenda.
Like Dadrian, he is making us think people made statements that could have had an
altogether different meaning, and chooses excerpts and quotations while totally ignoring
When he boldly opines, "It is precisely because of its
erga omnes quality that the crime of genocide cannot be subject to prescription, and that
State responsibility for the crime, i.e. the obligation of the genocidal State to make
reparation, does not lapse with time," note how hollow such a declaration becomes
when he neglects to apply the principle to all the many historical examples that were
plain examples of extermination policies. Is De Zayas after the British, French, Belgians,
and so many other nations that misbehaved so ruthlessly in their pasts? For example, is he
on Russia's back for what the Russians did to the Circassians?
Or to the Crimean Tatars? And what of the Chechens?
Why is De Zayas only passionate about the Armenians? (I'm
making this statement through an Internet search, where I basically noticed his Armenian
concentration. This is not to say he may not have paid lip service to other historical
examples. Clearly, however, there is a gross imbalance, regarding his Armenian interest.)
Most troublingly, as he did with the Greek Cypriots, why is
there no mention about the extermination efforts of the Armenians? We even saw their
misbehavior in recent history, with Karabakh.
(Now there's an example where the U.N. was in agreement, regarding the wrong-doers.) The
Armenians systematically wiped out their
Muslims during the establishment of the post-WWI republic, and they were behind the deaths
of some half-million Ottomans, in the
implementation of "Death and Exile."
What's going on here?
To further build his case that there must be retroactivity,
De Zayas cites statements from the Supreme Court of Israel in their ruling against
Eichmann, and U.S. courts' support of the extradition to Israel of John Demjanjuk. If we
can put aside the special and sensitive nature of the Holocaust (Eichmann was a dead duck,
no matter what), here we arrive at an interesting cul de sac.
It is not the nation that can be taken to court for
genocide. It is individuals. (And if a nation could be taken to court, for argument's
sake, should it be the nation — the Republic of Turkey — that overthrew the one —
the Ottoman Empire — allegedly performing the crime?)
He later gets into "The principle of State
succession," trying to find examples to support what he desperately wishes to
demonstrate, by providing parallels such as Serbia assuming responsibility for Yugoslavia,
and Germany for the Nazi regime. If we remember our history, can these constitute as true
parallels? Serbia was the dictating force in Yugoslavia, and wound up being what was left
of Yugoslavia. [Indeed, when everyone else except Montenegro broke away, Serbia was still
called "Yugoslavia" until 2003.] In other words, the state did not change here,
it just grew smaller; and Germany's new state was imposed by victorious outsiders. There
was no overthrowing in either case.
to Greece by Europe, in 1897
De Zayas gives another example, that of Greece bearing a
wrong committed by "autonomous" Crete. This regards the "Lighthouse
Arbitration (France v. Greece)" case from 1956. "Greece was obligated to
compensate for Crete's breaches, because Greece was the successor State," De
Zayas wrote. Anyone who knows the history of Crete is aware the Cretans were chomping at
the bit to declare "Enosis" (union) with Greece, throughout the uprisings of the
19th century. When the Ottoman military was kicked out "bag and baggage" in
1898, leaving the Cretan Turks at the mercy of the murderous Greeks (what does the reader
suppose happened to these unfortunate Turks? Clue: As an
example, when Greece invaded Crete in February 1897, 80 Muslim villages in the center of
the island were entirely destroyed .
Perhaps De Zayas will instruct us that there is no retroactivity to this mini-genocide), does anyone believe the Allied forces set up on the island were
not at one with Greece? Although "Enosis" was officially established in 1908,
for all intents and purposes, Crete's decade-long "autonomy" was in name only.
The 1897 British cartoon above makes this plain to see. The woman (Europe) is throwing a
bone (Crete) to her dog (Greece). Greece, in reality, was not the "successor
state," but the state all along. A far cry from the Republic of Turkey, which
overthrew the Ottomans, made a break with the past and practically wiped out Ottoman
history in the minds of the Turks.
Just like biased Christian Europeans were anxious to please their Grecian lap dog then,
the same strategy exists with Cyprus, today. (Imagine! They even made Greek Cyprus a
member of the European Union, even though Cyprus isn't part of Europe... to further turn
up the heat against Turkey.) Turkey had 345 years of the island's ownership after conquest
from the Venetians, and before that, practically everyone owned Cyprus (Assyrians,
Sumerians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Arabs) except for Greece. The
British took advantage of the Sick Man and came in temporarily, refused to get out as per
the arrangement (what does "international law" say about that, and is there a
statute of limitations to bar the Brits from being taken to court, unlike the 1948
Convention's supposed retroactivity?), and illegally annexed the island come WWI.
The only reason why there is a Greek presence on Cyprus is because, unlike the murderous
Greeks of Crete, the Turks were tolerant. Suddenly, Cyprus has come to be accepted as a
Greek possession by bigoted Christian nations, the Turks on the island are not
acknowledged as in existence, and biased parties such as De Zayas do their utmost to
maintain the deception and injustice. It is truly an unconscionable situation.
This man actually gets into "Continuation of the Crime
of Genocide: the destruction of historical monuments." Appalling. If Turkey had the
mind to willfully destroy these monuments, not one would be standing.
"Why are there more open and operating
Armenian churches in Turkey today than there are open and operating Armenian
churches in Armenia? Why for example are there no operating and open mosques
allowed to function in Armenia today?"
Devoted Baptist and
Christian Scholar Sam Weems, in a 2002 letter
to Rev. John Hagee; Weems had produced a Christian video at the time ("The
Seven Churches Of Revelation"), and conducted extraordinary religious
research. Elsewhere, Weems declared:
"[T]here are more Armenian churches in Muslim Turkey than there are Armenian
Christian churches in Christian Armenia."
Examples such as "Among the Turkish acts of
memory-destruction can be listed the suppression of the name 'Armenia' from official maps
and the changing of the names of Armenian villages and towns in Asia Minor, which
continued late into the 1950s," now fall into the category of "genocide."
(What is he talking about, suppressing the name
"Armenia" from official maps? I hope he's not foolish enough to be talking about
present-day Armenia, where certainly that nation would be acknowledged in maps. And there
was no nation called "Armenia" before WWI's end, except in the minds of wishful
Has anyone bothered to tell this man that as the years
progress, change is inevitable? There is a difference between evilly implementing
"memory destruction" and having to bow to the tide of progress and evolution. If
the Armenian presence is primarily gone in eastern Anatolia, what responsibility is there
to preserve what went on in a bygone time... especially after many years. Armenia and
Greece made haste to eradicate all mention of the Turkish presence from their lands. The
Turks certainly did not do the same. But after a time, the neighborhood must adapt,
according to present-day realities; let's get real, here.
What nation does this? Does Israel have maps with
"Palestine" on them? Does the United States record the nations of the Indians in
Is this supposed to be "genocide"?
De Zayas curiously writes: "Yet another form of
continuing the genocide is by negating its historical reality, as if the 1.5 million
Armenians of Anatolia had never existed." Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Here,
he appears to be admitting the truth, that there really were 1.5 million pre-war Armenians
as the total population. Earlier, he stated the mortality was 1.5 million. That
means, in his "scholarly" mind, there would have been zero Armenians
And look at this:
"Another form of continuing the genocide is by
rehabilitating the murderers. In March 1943 the mortal remains of the principal architect
of the genocide, Ittihad Interior Minister Talaat Pasha, were ceremonially repatriated
from Germany to Turkey..."
He has a point with the example of Dro ("rehabilitated" in
Armenia, 2000) as a chief architect of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslim
and other Ottomans, but Talat Pasha was no murderer. His telegrams stressed the
safeguarding of the Armenians, he dined and played
backgammon with Armenian party leaders, and those who really knew him gave a very
different picture (A German eyewitness wrote in 1921 that "Talaat
was a statesman, not a murderer";
even Morgenthau spoke well of Talat in his private letters and diaries). How does De Zayas prove Talat was the "Hitler"? Let's
reproduce the footnote provided by the "scholar":
50. Walker, op. c i t. , p. 37. David Marshall Lang
quotes in his book “The Armenians. A People in Exile” London 1981, p. 27, the
telegraph which Talaat, addressed to the Governor of Aleppo on 15 September 1915: “You
have already been informed that the Government has decided to exterminate entirely all the
Armenians living in Turkey. No-one opposed to this order can any longer hold an
administrative position. Without pity for women, children and invalids, however, tragic
the methods of extermination may be, without heeding any scruples of conscience, their
existence must be terminated.”. Also reported in the Daily Telegraph, London 29 May
Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Alfred De Zayas actually points
to Andonian's forged words to convict Talat
Pasha! (And to make it worse, he even refers to a newspaper account from 1922's
"enemy" London to verify it.)
This is totally unacceptable. Even most Armenian
"scholars" know better these days than to stray into Andonian territory.
He then sinks to the level of quoting from Ambassador
Morgenthau's "Story" book, relating the infamous insurance story, where Talat
asks for the Armenians' money because the Armenians are all dead. Here is what lies at the base of that
story. Does the truth matter to Alfred de Zayas?
Getting further into the "red herring" of
"The Genocide Convention and the principle of non-retroactivity," our scholar
embarrassingly puts the Treaty of Sèvres on the same plane as the London Agreement of
1945. He refers to the opinions of lawyers. Finally, he safely concludes: "[T]he
Genocide Convention of 1948 can be applied retroactively." Whoopee!
"While non-retroactivity is a principle that has
pragmatic value, it is frequently abandoned in international treaties..."
Alfred de Zayas is desperate to make his case, and will point to anything to bolster his
He concludes with, "Bringing the genocide against the
Armenians before the International Court of Justice." If any party needs to be
brought to court, it should be Armenia... to force them to prove their defamatory claims,
based on propaganda. That goes equally to the totally prejudiced supporters in the
(But what if the judge in that courtroom would be someone
like De Zayas? In an interview related below, De Zayas vouches for the integrity of the
judges at the Hague. Hopefully, there are honorable judges who can retain their
objectivity. Unfortunately, the prejudice against Turks is so thick in Europe, and
anti-Turkish propaganda has been so relentless, chances are the judges could be ready to
throw the book at the Turks from the get-go.)
Alfred de Zayas
reports from Yerevan
In keeping with that last point,
reports (ARKA News Agency - 04/20/2005) that De Zayas was in Yerevan, singing sweet
music to the Armenians' ears: "NEW PEOPLE'S TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE ORGANIZED
TO CONDEMN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE.": (At the conference "Ultimate Crime,
Ultimate Challenge: Human Rights and Genocide.")
"He pointed out that all
the Turkish officials concerned with the Armenian Genocide died and, therefore,
cannot be punished." Good! He's aware of that.
(And let's bear in mind many of those officials had been assassinated by the Dashnak
"Nemesis" organization, just after the acquittal of those held in Malta.
Assuming the murdered officials were guilty of genocide, they paid the highest
price. But even a pre-law student knows a person is innocent unless proven guilty,
and nobody came up with the proof that these murdered men were guilty.)
"What is possible and
necessary today is to settle the historical record, to seek the judgement of the
Court of the world public opinion."
And there you have it, ladies and
gentlemen. What the Armenians and their supporters cannot prove with genuine
historical facts, they attempt to prove through "the world public
opinion." This is a breeze, given the money and obsession of these genocide
advocates, and the intense prejudice still existing against the Turks.
Alfred de Zayas cites the 1984
People's Tribunal in Paris as a "good start." Of course. That non-legal
entity was near-totally composed of prejudiced and brainwashed parties who concluded
the Turks were just no good.
"The results of such people's
tribunals must be given greater visibility. I am persuaded that it is possible to
take the Armenians out of the category [of] 'unsung victims' and to ensure that the
Armenian Genocide is taught in every school and in every university, at least in the
United State and in Europe."
Whew! Alfred de Zayas sure is
committed to the Armenian cause, isn't he?
(And whoever said the Armenians were
"unsung victims"? Armenians have made victimhood into an art form. If De
Zayas wants "unsung victims," why not — among so many, many historical
examples — champion the cause of the Tasmanians? Now there is an example of a
people who were literally exterminated, going the way of the dodo. I think
what Adolf Hitler must have really said was, "Who today remembers the
extermination of the Tasmanians?")
Our "International Law
Expert" was interviewed by Aris Babikian on July of 2004 ("Recognition,
Restitution, and Return—Modern-Day Turkey's Responsibility For the
Genocide"); let's see if we can get a better look at his make-up.
He starts off by telling us that he is
"of Spanish descent. I have no connection with Armenia or Turkey or other
countries in the region." In other words, he is completely neutral.
An online encyclopedia tells us he is
of Spanish-French descent (which explains the "Maurice" part of his
hyphenated first name), growing up in Chicago. He studied and practiced law in the
United States, before leaving for Europe in 1974.
So he's an American. Completely
exposed to the massive Armenian propaganda perpetuated in the United States, and the
anti-Turkish prejudice that follows suit. He wanted to make it sound like he was
Spanish, far removed from Armeno-Turkish relations. We know from his writings that
he is anything but neutral. How very disingenuous.
"I was first interested in the
expulsion at the end of World War II of 15 million German civilians from East
Prussia, Ukraine, Silesia, Sudetenland, etc." This is how he became interested
in the Armenian story, he says.
Indeed he (co)-wrote a book called, "The
War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945." De Zayas investigated the suffering of one
of the villains of history. (I understand another work of his examining the plight
of the WWII Germans couldn't find a publisher, because it's not politically correct
to acknowledge the plight of an "evil people." So De Zayas has firsthand
knowledge about the hypocrisies of academia.) What a pity such a
"contrarian" could not bring himself to look at the Armenian tale with an
open mind. One would think he'd have had the makings for it.
"I discovered the only one of
similar severity was the deportation of Armenians from Armenia to Syria, to the
desert where they perished. I was also confronted by the massacres that started on
April 24, 1915, in Istanbul—a huge topic which, unfortunately, had not entered
into the general public consciousness."
Not for lack of trying. And if his
research has allowed him to conclude the Armenian episode was the closest historical
parallel "of similar severity" to the expulsion of 15 million Germans, we
have just learned what an absolutely sorry scholar Alfred de Zayas is. (Armenian
relocated — not expulsed; the Armenians were moved around the
country, not out of the country: 486,000
by Feb. 1916, according to biased U.S. consul J. B. Jackson, when the
"genocide" was all but over, as Dadrian himself told us, above. Armenian mortality due to famine, disease and similar
wartime conditions: up to 600,000. The French newspaper Le Figaro estimated the number of massacred at only
15,000 — actually, that figure included causes
of sickness and other deprivation as well, and the perpetrators were not proven to
be acting on orders of the government.) Preceding the example of the Armenians by a
mere generation, in terms of numbers, were the unsung 1.6 million Cubans of the
And what of the totally unsung 5 million truly expulsed Ottoman Muslims, and
the 5.5 million killed (total: 10.5 million), as accounted for in the book, "Death and Exile"? (Keeping in
mind the unlikelihood of de Zayas' giving beans about the latter, because the
victims were only Turks.)
Note how De Zayas perpetuates
the fallacy that the Armenians who were sent to the "desert" all perished,
and that the massacres "started on April 24, 1915." That date signified
the arrest of the ringleaders of the
Armenians' rebellion. Is an arrest now supposed to be a "massacre"?
"As you know, the Convention was
already applied retrospectively in many situations concerning the Holocaust. The
Holocaust which took place in Europe from 1941 to 1945, occurred prior to the
Genocide Convention. Nonetheless, the Germans were convicted of genocide."
Hoo-boy! Of course the Convention was
going to be applied toward the Germans, since their crimes are what caused the
Convention to be created in the first place. Show us how the Convention would be
applied against the British and their conduct during the Boer War a century or so
ago, and then we'll be a little better convinced as to how "retroactive"
the Convention is meant to be.
"I really think it is necessary
to imagine what the reaction of the world community would be if modern-day Germany
were still to occupy the synagogues and use them as warehouses or as prisons, as is
the case of Armenian churches in Turkey. Or if Germany were to hang the paintings
and other items of value of the victims of the Holocaust in its museums. It is a
particularly ugly situation. For me, as a non-Armenian and non-Turk, it is difficult
to understand why this situation has been tolerated."
If we get past his making a highly
inappropriate analogy to the proven genocide of the Holocaust, what about the
Armenian structures that have been preserved? Has this been the fate for every
single Armenian building? Is he seriously suggesting everything Armenian needed to
be worshipped, even though the Armenians had left by their own choosing? (Remember:
644,900 of the original 1.5 million were still left in 1921, according to the
Patriarch. Many hundreds of thousands of others had already left for non-Ottoman
lands, on their own accord, and many of the rest later left for the greener pastures
of sympathetic Christian countries.) Who was going to pay for all of that
maintenance? And why?
What is ugly is the parallel he is
setting up. How many synagogues were left in Germany at the end of the war? If they
had all survived, as much as Germany has bent over backwards to make amends, I doubt
they would have all been maintained, with practically no Jewish community to make
use of them.
Once again, he tries to present
himself as a neutral party, by reminding us he is "a non-Armenian and
non-Turk." If he was so neutral, he would also be up in arms regarding the
complete absence of the Turkish cultural presence in today's Armenia. (In 1828,
before conquest from Persia, today's Armenia had a Muslim majority. Russia
"implanted" Armenians from the Ottoman Empire, Persia and elsewhere into
this region (for one thing, by offering huge incentives, as a tax-free status for
many years), in the same manner De Zayas accuses Turkey of doing with North Cyprus.
Between 1918 and 1921, the Armenians systematically wiped out the Muslim presence,
constituting by that time at least 30-40% of the Armenian Republic.)
"In the case of the Armenian
Genocide, obviously, there is no one that you can prosecute—the perpetrators are
dead. On the other hand, you still have an obligation on the part of the state of
Turkey to make restitution."
Even if that were the case, it is not
up to a propagandist like Alfred de Zayas to make such a determination. There
happens to be the nagging matter of the legal document Armenia signed at the end of
the 1920 war that the Armenians had provoked (according to First Prime Minister
Katchaznouni himself; Armenian propaganda tells us Turkey and Russia worked together
to pick on poor, innocent Armenia) with the Turks. As Dashnak Critic Arthur
Derounian wrote, referring to the Gumru/Alexandropol Treaty: "Highly
significant Is Article 8, wherein Dashnags agreed 'to forego their rights to ask
for damages... as a result of the general war,' thus closing the doors FOREVER to
reparations for the enormous destruction of Armenian life and property."
"I see no problem in applying the
Convention retrospectively to the experience of the Armenian Genocide, because that
is in the object and purpose of the Convention. That is what the Convention intends
No, the purpose of the Convention
was to prevent genocides taking place in the future. If the "object and
purpose of the Convention" was to go after past genocides, then we would have
had a whole slew of cases making an issue with just about every nation on earth.
Don't give us the silly example of the Nazis to make your "retroactive"
point. Of course Alfred de Zayas is going to tell us, "I see no problem in
applying the Convention retrospectively..." He has set forth to cherry-pick and
twist as much as he could to "prove" what he has set out to establish.
The overriding question is, why? Why
the Armenians? And only the Armenians?
ADDENDUM, 9-06: Here is fellow "human rights"
champion and "legal expert" Samantha Power to tell us of her difference of
opinion regarding the U.N. Genocide Convention, and how critical it was to make it non-retroactive. (If this
element was not in place, the convention would have been dead in the water.)
"What happened in Armenia from
1915-1916 and later, is without a doubt, genocide. And why a genocide? Because here
there was the intent—as in Article 2 of the Convention—to destroy in whole or in
part an ethnic group."
Is this fellow supposed to be a real
lawyer? One does not prove "intent" by simply stating there was intent.
One needs to come up with factual evidence. Alfred de Zayas has embarrassingly
demonstrated his sheer incompetence as a "legal expert" by actually
pointing to proven forgeries for his evidence.
(Not incidentatally, please take note that he suddenly went from his previous
genocide time span of 1915-1923 to 1915-1916. Also not incidentally, there was no
"Armenia" in 1915-1916.)
no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of
Prof. Henry R. Huttenbach, The
Genocide Forum, 1996, No. 9
"It’s a classical instance of a
genocide, which already then was seen by the British and French government as a
crime against humanity, as they communicated officially to the Ottoman Empire in
There is his "proof" again.
Pointing to the Ottomans' enemies, who were committed, through their secret treaties, to do away with the
Turkish state. How convenient for an enemy to propagandistically make baseless
charges at the time, and how woeful there are those in the 21st century still
pointing to such obviously biased criteria to demonstrate "evidence."
"The intention of the British and
French governments was to punish [the Ottoman leaders], and that intent to punish
those responsible for the Genocide was laid down in Article 230 of the Treaty of
Sevres. The Sultan signed it in the name of his people."
Repeat after me: the Treaty of Sèvres
was stillborn. It was never implemented. The Treaty of Sèvres does not qualify as a
valid document. The Sultan may have signed this death warrant after having been
convinced there was no way out... by the Turkish lackeys of the British (who held
the real power; the sultan was a figurehead and perhaps didn't even sign the
treaty)... but the "people" rejected it. That is why the Sultanate was
abolished in short order.
Isn't it disgraceful the way this man
is pointing to irrelevant "facts," simply to bolster his suspicious
"As you know, I am not only a
professor of international law, I have also studied history and I have a doctorate
in modern European history. So I can appreciate the importance of legal records as a
historical source, and these trials provide additional proof of the genocide against
the Armenians. It’s additional proof that is not of Armenian origin, because these
are Turkish courts-martial."
OHH! So he is also a
"historian." Then Alfred de Zayas truly does not have an excuse. No doubt
he has meticulously applied these basic
rules of history.
Only an ideologue would refer to the
decisions of ersatz courts to support his case. This is like if the Nazis had won,
and they pointed to the court decisions of Vichy France under Nazi domination, as
legitimate proof of the Nazis' own legality.
"Beyond that, you have all the
contemporary evidence of the observers—British observers, American observers,
American Ambassador Henry Morgenthau. His memoirs are of great importance. Also the
memoirs of Johannes Lepsius and any number of official records..."
We are getting a clearer picture as to
why this man is the Armenians' "wet dream." Let's not forget: those who
point to propaganda are producers of propaganda.
The interviewer asks:
"The Turkish government justifies the release of the Turkish
prisoners by Britain in Malta, stating that after researching the issue the British
government and the international community could not find any kind of documentation or
proof that Turkey committed genocide against Armenians and were forced to release these
prisoners. How realistic is this approach or denial by the Turkish government?"
Alfred de Zayas replies:
"The statement, or rather the position, of the Turkish
government is a political position. Like so many political statements, it cannot be taken
seriously. It is preposterous. The facts are there. We know exactly how it came to be—it
was an exchange for the hostages and nothing else."
Let's correct this putative scholar with the reminder that the above
is not simply the "position of the Turkish
government," but the position of any objective researcher who bothers to read the
British archives. (That is, not just the parts that are comfortable.)
Alfred de Zayas actually says, "The
facts are there," in his perpetuation of the lame "hostages" excuse. Just
one example, among so many others, as the British Foreign Office
themselves put it, "Our difficulty is that we have practically no legal evidence
and we do not want to prepare for proceeding which will be abortive" [FO
But to a man like Alfred de Zayas such clarity as to why the Malta
process was stalled in its tracks become "nothing
"That would not prejudice the fact that the Turkish
courts-martial already recognized the existence of genocide and not only tried and
convicted Turkish officials but executed three of them. So this is an ex post facto, and a
rather weak, argument by the Turkish government. I think most people will just dismiss
Let us not forget, referring to these 1919-20 kangaroo courts that
De Zayas points to so cheerfully: during the Malta process the British themselves had rejected the findings of these
Could you imagine hiring Alfred de Zayas as your own lawyer, when he
values the garbage that even the enemies of the Ottomans could not make use of?
The interviewer asks:
"While in your judgment, the
Genocide Convention applies fully to the Armenian Genocide, the International Center
for Transitional Justice issued their own opinion on it, stating that although it is
a genocide, it cannot be retroactively applied in case of the Armenian Genocide
vis-à-vis the State of Turkey. Your conclusion is quite different from theirs. How
do you reconcile these two approaches toward the retroactiveness issue?"
Alfred de Zayas replies:
"I am not impressed by
their line of reasoning..."
Of course he is not going to be
"impressed." Such would go completely against his suspicious agenda. And
he makes sure to come up with the appropriate mumbo-jumbo to give us the idea his
legal opinion is better than theirs. Let's keep in mind that the ICTJ was composed
of a body of lawyers (that is, more than one Turk-condemning "legal
expert") who relied almost
exclusively on Armenian propaganda like Alfred de Zayas. Unlike De Zayas, one
gets the impression the ICTJ lawyers did not get as hog wild over the subject.
The interviewer asks:
"The Turkish government also argues that Hitler did
not make those statements about the Armenians. During your research on the German
archives, did you come across documentation of this statement?"
Alfred de Zayas replies:
"I did not research this particular issue in the
German archives, although I have spent months in German archives studying related matters.
I did not address this particular topic because it is very well known. The quotation has
been documented by many authors and very frequently. So, I did not feel the necessity to
repeat the research that has already been done on that particular quotation."
And this sums up the difference between a real scholar and
one who is content to accept surface claims. There have been scholars (including even the
rare Armenian one, Dr. Robert John; the Armenian interviewer is being untruthful with the
implication that it is only "the Turkish government" making this argument) who
have researched the Hitler Quote
extensively, backing up their findings with true scholarship, but these wouldn't make a
difference to someone like Alfred de Zayas. If it supports the "Armenian
genocide," then it must be made to appear as though it were a real fact.
I am at a loss to understand how people like Alfred de
Zayas could allow themselves to be so completely partisan. Isn't it incredible?
"I think Armenians would do well to join forces with
other victims, what I would term as “unsung victims.” Take the 200,000 Greek Cypriots
who were expelled from their homeland in northern Cyprus in 1974 by the Turks, an action
that was condemned repeatedly by the European Court of Human Rights."
Hey, don't get me started on Cyprus again.
(Hold it, I can't resist. According to the CIA Fact
Book, there was a total of 265,000 displaced. That means, if our scholar is correct
with 200,000 Greeks, there were 65,000 Turks who were also displaced. I wonder if the
"European Court of Human Rights" recognized the "human rights" of
these people. I guess we don't need to ask why De Zayas does not care about them.)
(Perhaps the Armenians can also join forces with other victims who are truly
"unsung," such as the nearly one million Azeri refugees who were expelled in
1992 by... the Armenians. Alfred de Zayas, if you're reading this, please make a note to
suggest this idea, the next time you are invited to Yerevan.)
The problem is, the deck is stacked all over with those who
have accepted anti-Turkish propaganda so exclusively. We've got all of these prejudiced
people in a body such as the European Court of Human Rights, content with looking at only
one side of the issue and never bothering to scratch beneath the surface, and then one in
their ranks could point to them and say, see? They agree with me, too.
"The rights do not lapse with time—after all, the
descendants also suffered trauma. Let’s not forget that if I were a Jewish descendant of
survivors of the Holocaust or an Armenian descendent of survivors of the Armenian
Genocide, I would be suffering trauma because I would realize what happened to my people.
And that is very heavy burden to take through life."
Well, that's the point where you'd need to "get a
life." What an absolutely simplistic way of looking at this picture. As if these
genocide stories are not constantly reinforced, Armenian-Americans, as far removed from
Armenia as can be, would have reason to be "traumatized."
More importantly, once again, our human rights champion
does not care one iota as to the sufferings
of the Turks under the hand of the Armenians. The picture must be maintained as
strictly black and white, where the innocent Armenians were solely victimized, and the
evil Turks were the victimizers.
Why would anyone choose to go down such a path? There is
only one answer, ladies and gentlemen, aside from the cynical and speculative one where a
party may be "bought" through the deep pockets of obsessed Armenians; that
reason is prejudice.
Regarding attempts of dialogue between Turks and Armenians,
our scholar replies that he has a "certain skepticism" because "you cannot
start a dialogue on false premises. I cannot see a dialogue without an apology. I cannot
see a dialogue without a recognition of the crime."
Isn't that ridiculous? If someone thinks you have injured
him, and you hope to make up, are you falsely going to apologize to make him feel better?
The idea of dialogue is to hope to come to an understanding. If you accept the position of
your opponent at the outset knowing full well it is not the truth, then what is the sense
But according to De Zayas: "I don’t think that it
shows any good faith. This is a farce."
There is a farce going on here, all right.
"But I consider it indispensable for Turkey—which
has aspiration to enter the European Union and to be considered a civilized state..."
Oh, shut up. Who is this fellow to instruct us on what it
means to be civilized?
A better definition of civility is to look at sources with
no reason to lie before making irresponsible and defamatory charges of performing the
greatest crime against humanity. Pointing to false evidence and committing "Rufmord" is not what I would call
"If you pretend that there was no genocide against the
Armenians, that is essentially defaming the Armenians because that means the Armenians are
a bunch of liars, that the Armenians have invented the genocide against themselves. That
is a very serious attack against the identity and dignity of the Armenians of today."
Shouldn't a lawyer be the first one to insist on proving
the charge before accepting it so completely?
Nobody is "pretending" that there was no genocide
against the Armenians. However, what is needed among honorable people before reaching such
a serious conclusion is genuine and solid evidence; not hearsay, not canards, and
certainly not forgeries.
"But I don’t think that Turkey is really a
strategically important country today. It was strategically important at the time of the
Cold War, because it was an important checkmate of the Soviet Union. But after the end of
the Cold War I see very little importance of Turkey, except if you see Turkey as a ground
for American colonialism in the Middle East."
Why are we not surprised to read such a contemptuous
statement as this? With the relevance that Islam has taken on in recent years, having a
secular and democratic nation on one's side should be of no importance to the West,
There is not one thing that I have come across in Alfred de
Zayas' writings where he has given the slightest attempt at fair play for the Turks. His
evidence is laughable and propagandistic, he doesn't care about the "human
rights" of the Turkish victims, and (to him) if there is anyone at risk of being
"defamed" here, it is solely the Armenians.
The reader may form his or her own conclusions, regarding
the essence of Alfred de Zayas.
Pigs will fly when Warren Kinsella learns to curb his talent for
the ad hominem rant. In this column he justifies the punishment of Holocaust deniers
because Holocaust deniers are rabid neo-Nazis. What they say is not necessarily
wrong, perhaps, but it is said for bad reasons. What then can justify the punishment
of someone who might say it for better reasons? Like all ad hominem artists, Mr
Kinsella attacks not the merit of the argument but the merit of the arguer. Mr.
Kinsella's facts may be right. His logic is stupid. In the real world, bad people
sometimes say things that are true and good people sometimes say things that are
false. I think the Holocaust did in fact happen and the evidence for it is
compelling. But anything that can be proven with reference to evidence can also be
disproven if different evidence turns up. The punishment of Holocaust deniers
ultimately threatens the credibility of the Holocaust as a verifiable event. Like
all other historical events, it can defend itself without the help of the policeman.
Frederick Dreyer, professor emeritus,
Department of History, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
(On February 23, 2006, Canada's National
Post had published an op-ed by Warren Kinsella entitled "Why Irving Can't
Be Ignored." On February 24, the Post included the above letter to the editor