Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  PBS: The Armenian Genocide (Part II)  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.


Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

This page is a continuation from

PBS: The Armenian Genocide (Part I)



NARRATOR: "There were similar uprisings in three other villages."

Only "three." Hoo-boy. What kind of quadruple-checking of the facts, doing "homework six ways from Sunday" is this? Andrew Goldberg would be conducting a public service if he would release the long list of "so many people — historians, journalists" who helped check his facts, so that the world can know to stay away from such incompetent and/or prejudiced "experts."

To give an idea, from "The Armenian File," a list of events taking place in a snapshot of time from late February 1915; let us bear in mind these are all internal Ottoman communications, and never meant to be publicized:

The Governor of Bitlis sent the following telegram to the Ministry of the Interior on 21 February 1915: `The Armenians of the nahiye of Haksef have rebelled. In the village of Siranun under the jurisdiction of the central kaza of Mush, shots were fired on our detachment, and the confrontation continued for two hours. In the village of Kumes, under the jurisdiction of the bujak of Akan, shots were fired at the house where the bujak superintendent and the gendarmes were staying, and the confrontation lasted for eight hours.'33

The same day, the governor of Bitlis, in a second telegram, stated: `Armenians have revolted in many villages. I became suspicious when I saw that among the Armenians who opened fire in Kumes, a village in the bujak of Akan, were Rupen, the Tashnak delegate of Van, Zovin, and Eshroone of the Tashnak leaders in Mush. As a precaution, I had the delegate of Van, Papazian, be a guest of the sanjak governor, to hold him as a hostage.'34

On 27 February, about 300 volunteer soldiers from Sürt, who were on their way from Adiljevaz to Van, wanted to spend the night in the Armenian village of Arin. The Armenians, who attempted to prevent this, opened fire and killed eight privates. Upon this a detachment was sent from Erchish to Van, but the Armenian bands escaped to Lake Van.

Imagine the pressure the Ottomans were under, being besieged by their mortal, merciless foe Russia (this was before the French-British attacks on other fronts), and having their treacherous Armenians attacking from within, from all sides. What would any nation have done, under the same, desperate circumstances? It is amazing, actually, that the Ottomans waited as late as May, suffering a whole half year of Armenian revolts, before even considering the relocation program in a serious manner.

Goldberg goes back and squeezes in pre-1915 Armenian uprisings. Here is how he handles it:

"Armenians responded to what they considered to be excessive taxes and oppression with violence against Turks and Kurds, and engaged in three uprisings."

We've already covered this chapter, and know the Armenians were fairly content, and the reasons for the uprisings had only to do with the criminal attacks of their fanatical terroristic leaders. Andrew Goldberg is trying to pass off the number "three" again, but that only represented the tip of the iceberg. "They even took over an Ottoman bank by force," we're told as one of these "three" uprisings, but there is a huge difference between just any bank and THE Ottoman Bank. Turkish casualties, as presented by Andrew Goldberg and his "six ways from Sunday" homework: "Experts estimate that Armenians killed close to a hundred Turkish officials in these attacks."

Perhaps Goldberg's utterly unqualified "experts" mistook the pre-1915 period for the Armenian terrorism from the 1970s and 80s, where close to a hundred Turkish officials and others were killed. But the casualty list before 1915, as with 1915 and after 1915, included more than just Turkish "officials." The ones who were mainly targeted were the common people. The idea was to incite the Turks into counter-massacres, and hopefully bring in European intervention. Why, a better "expert" from those days, Aghasi, the Armenian rebel leader, claimed he killed 20,000 Turks from one battle alone!

It is necessary to think about how many immoral acts were committed upon corpses of killed Muslims by Armenians (for example, like the cutting off of some of their organs and putting these organs in their mouths), inciting anger and revenge.

General Mayewski, Russian Consul General of Bitlis and Van, regarding events of 1895-96

BALAKIAN: "In Trabzon, they decided to take men, women and children out in boats, and just dumped them in the Black Sea, where they drowned."

The background information on Lord Bryce's propagandistic beginnings of this anecdote may be read here. The initial idea was that 10,000 had been drowned in one afternoon, yet another unverified horror story the New York Times was quick to spotlight (it helped that the most trusted Briton in America, former Ambassador James Bryce, was behind the statement. Bryce was the head of the Turkish division of his country's war propaganda bureau, Wellington House. At least the tag team of Goldberg and Balakian didn't go as far as 10,000 in an afternoon, but they sure made it sound like this was a systematic policy, didn't they? (Not to say there weren't drownings. But the number of people killed via this method must have been small.)

Goldberg outdid himself and his quadruple fact-checking by allowing the bigoted Tessa Savvidis Hofmann to include absolutely pure propaganda, based on hearsay: "Diarbekir was then under the leadership of the notoriously Christian-Armenian hating governor, and he was one who got notorious for his particular cruel ways of torturing Armenian clerics which were (indecipherable) with burning iron, stripped naked and chased around and other ways of torture." (Propagandistic paintings served as the accompanying imagery; must be the "proof.")

PBS Editorial Standards and Policies, June 14, 2005, IV-L: "Responsible treatment of important issues may sometimes require the inclusion of controversial or sensitive material, but good taste must prevail in PBS content. Morbid or sensational details... should not be included unless it is necessary to an understanding of the matter at hand."

The photo representing the
"Diarbekir governor." No name
was provided.

Why, if this keeps up, we can almost expect the arrogant Peter Balakian to give an actual demonstration of how that other Christian-hating governor of Van, Jevdet Bey, nailed horseshoes onto Armenian feet... as Balakian wrote in his Burning Tigris, without providing any evidence.

Mehmet Kemal Bey

An Armenian site offered this
shot as Mehmet Kemal Bey.

(A Feb. 12, 1919 N. Y. Times article, "Turkish Trials Begin," shown later in the program, identified the Diyarbakir governor as "Keimal Bey." This requires closer scrutiny, but the closest party found guilty by that name was Mehmet Kemal Bey, an ex-governor of Bogazliyan [in Yozgat, a vilayet in Ankara, the center of the country. Diyarbakir is toward the southeast] and hanged by the puppet Ottomans on April 10, 1919. In point of fact, the Governor of Diyarbekir Province was Dr. Mehmed Reshid, who would commit suicide in early 1919. )

At least we can be thankful for one thing. There is no shortage of well-rendered illustrations depicting "genocide" that the program has made sure to adorn itself with. Perhaps these paintings and pictures can substitute for actual "evidence."

Vahakn Dadrian

After that old women's rights advocate, Vahakn Dadrian, gets through telling us that very few Armenian women were spared, we get into Aurora Mardiganian's experience. (Her voice-over, from Natalie Portman, sounds down-home American, whereas Enver Pasha's voice-over earlier was slightly "foreign," and therefore somewhat sinister). She was the star, along with Henry Morgenthau himself, of the notoriously propagandistic 1919 film, RAVISHED ARMENIA. As the Chairman of the National Motion Picture Committee stated, Aurora was the tool to make "as many adults as possible ... know the story of Armenia, and the screen was selected as the medium because it reached the millions, where the printed word reaches the thousands." Goldberg makes use of his professional propagandistic tool to shed light on how Armenian girls were violated in the "harem" (this is a misuse of the term, and old stereotypes. Ordinary Turks did not have "harems," not in the way Westerners think of that word, where female slaves were for the taking. Even the one-and-only imperial harem did not operate in such a fashion.) Footage is presented with the caption "100 girls all under age 20 from Turkish harems." That is really impressive for producer Goldberg, and his quadruple fact-checking skills, to have tracked down each of these people and verified their age and status.

Were Armenian women abused, raped, violated and killed? Of course they were. Unfortunately, the rape of women is a constant of war. During the break-up of Yugoslavia, who can forget the tactic of the Bosnian Serbs, to systematically impregnate Bosnian Muslims, with the knowledge of the Muslims' cultural shame and fear of being regarded as "soiled" would be devastating? One who is aware of the hateful and destructively propagandistic tactics of this film must force oneself to be numb to these assaults. Just as Goldberg makes no mention of a single Turkish victim of the Armenians (unless the Turks are soldiers or officials), was there no reverse side to this coin? Turkish women who fell into the clutches of vicious Armenian bands would consider themselves lucky if their ordeal ended with rape. (This hateful film does not mention the fact that many younger Armenians were taken into good Turkish homes as a measure of humanistic goodwill, as happened to Leon Surmelian's sister in "I Ask You, Ladies and Gentlemen." By using the word "harem," we are, of course, being made to think these women were all sexual slaves.) To remind all there is no "exclusive victimhood" going on with these tragic years, here are a few Turkish women who evidently escaped with their lives: Click Here for PicAnd for good measure, a few more:Click Here for Pic

As with every other facet of anti-Turkish propaganda, this omnipresent "harem" notion meant to suggest the inhuman cruelty of the Lustful and Terrible Turk has another side.

Next,. we are shown a list of notable Americans such as Ezra Pound, Woodrow Wilson, Rabbi Stephen Wise and others speaking out for "the Armenian cause." (With Editorial Consultant and Writer Peter Balakian at the helm, what this show really turned out to be was a filmed version of Balakian's "The Burning Tigris"... chapter by chapter.)
Teddy Roosevelt described the events as "the greatest crime of the war."

What is the intended effect of presenting the views of these upstanding Americans? Imagine, the robust former president, Theodore Roosevelt himself confirming the Armenian propagandistic claims. As usual, the honest truth-seeker must always dig deep beneath the surface. Roosevelt was very much into the "whites are superior" notion that was popular during his day. He thought of the Turks as, basically, human sewage. All of that Armenian propaganda, compounding the existing age-old anti-Turkish prejudices, served as a driving influence for all of these people... a practice that goes on to this very day, although not as overtly racist, as demonstrated by what drives the people of PBS and its affiliates.

Each one of these men had their own reasons for despising Turks. Woodrow Wilson was a deeply religious preacher's son, and Rabbi Wise was a confirmed Zionist, like his friend, Ambassador Morgenthau. Engaging in the vicious rhetoric could more speedily knock the Ottomans out, ensuring a quicker path to a Jewish homeland. (Ironically, the Sultan had offered this very homeland back in 1516, but the Jews declined, feeling their best protection against Christian anti-Semitism rested with remaining under Ottoman jurisdiction.) The Ottomans were history's greatest pure-hearted defender of Judaism, and unfortunately some who claim they have a "Jewish consciousness" partake in films (whose propagandistic power the National Motion Picture Committee's chairwoman spelled out paragraphs ago) that defame the honor of the Turks and results in hatred against the Turks.

Kamuran Gurun noted in The Armenian File:

Without any doubt the USA was the country where anti-Ottoman views were most prevalent in that period. The information sent by the Protestant American missionaries in Turkey from the 1890s onward, and the attitude of the press has poisoned public opinion in the United States with regard to the Turkish people to such an extent that a member of that race is seldom thought or spoken of in this country otherwise than as the "unspeakable" ... Nor was the government itself impartial in its opinion and attitude concerning the present or the future of the Ottoman state.... When Woodrow Wilson was considering the appointment of ambassadors shortly after his election in 1912, Colonel House suggested Henry Morgenthau as Ambassador to Turkey; Wilson replied, "There ain't going to be no Turkey"...


Straight out of Balakian's book: Click Here for Pic

"In 1915 alone, the New York Times ran 145 articles, and the reporter? was clear: This was government planned, systematic, race extermination."

It was not up to the New York Times to determine history, since they were mindlessly printing second-hand reports, like every other publication in the biased West. "The Great Armenian Horror Boom," as the Armenophile Richard Davey coined back in 1895, had seen no let-up. The public wanted to read tales of the monstrous Turks victimizing the poor, innocent Christians; this kind of sensationalism made money. As an example dating back to the 19th century, Davey had written: "Within the past six weeks the London papers have been gloating over the 'atrocities' committed upon Armenians at, and in, Sasoun. The number of the killed was at first 2,000, then 3,000, and finally, thanks to a telegram from Boston, from 'one who had received a letter from Sasoun' — how the letter had time to reach America, and how it had been allowed to get out of Turkey, were details never explained! — it was declared that the 'massacred Armenians exceeded 10,000'." Davey warned his readers that "The truth must prevail, and the truth about Armenia is terrible enough, without the aid of hysterical sensationalism."



1) New York Times Publisher Adolph Ochs was close friends with Henry Morgenthau, according to Balakian's friend, Samantha Power ("A Problem from Hell — America and the Age of Genocide"). Both men were members of New York City's wealthy Jewish elite, going to the same social events... they must have gotten pretty chummy. Not that Ochs would have needed his pal to put up all the genocide news unfit to print, since every other media publication was doing the same... but to the extent of one article about every two and a half days?

2) According to a propagandistic book where Balakian, Dadrian and Hovannisian contributed chapters, Jay Winter's "America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915," there was one and only one American newspaper correspondent who travelled into the Ottoman interior in 1915 to witness events firsthand. Can you imagine? Only ONE American reporter. Can there be a greater indication that these 145 "genocide" articles from the New York Times, and all the many from America's other newspapers were almost exclusively based on hearsay and propaganda? (That reporter's name, by the way: George Schreiner. He's the one who blistered Henry Morgenthau with a late 1918 letter, appalled over the lies of Henry's "Story" book... and he's the one who concluded there was no "genocide."

PBS Armenian genocide propaganda "big gun" Leslie Davis, the U.S. consul from Harput, is once again utilized as a witness, this time gaining further weight with the commanding voice of actor Ed Harris. (It is unsurprising that such a voice of integrity was not chosen to represent Enver Pasha.) He was the rare Westerner who left his comfy diplomat's office to check out what was going on outside.

"We saw hundreds of bodies and many bodies in the water below. It was rumored that many of the people who were brought here had been pushed over the cliffs by their gendarme. That rumor was fully confirmed by what we saw."

Turkish soldier

One of Goldberg's "gendarmes"; by
making him a regular soldier,
he gets closer to working for the
central "genocidal" government

Goldberg flashes an image of two snappily dressed regular Turkish soldiers, equating them with the gendarmes who served a sort of police duty. Yet note the absurdity of Davis' words. If these people were massacred, as apparent, how do we know who killed them? How could the fact that the killers were the gendarmes, and not, say, Kurds or other lawless bands, have been "confirmed"? (According to another Davis report not mentioned in the program, a Kurd had told him — falling under the category of hearsay, but likely not without truth — the gendarmes had made an arrangement with the Kurds; in exchange for a sum that the Kurds would have to pay the gendarmes, "and were to have for themselves whatever they found on the bodies of the Armenians in excess of that sum." Davis's best information told him the actual killings were done by the Kurds. In his six ways from Sunday homework, Goldberg must have neglected to read Davis' report of Feb. 9, 1918, as recorded in Ara Sarafian's "United States Official Documents on the Armenian Genocide," vol. 3, p. 86. No, Goldberg wanted to make it seem as though the gendarmes, as "agents of the Turkish government," directed the actual killing.)


Andrew Goldberg used a picture of Ottoman soldiers, varying greatly from the outfits of the guards accompanying the convoys that were represented in his other photographs. Was the quadruple-fact checking producer correct?

Here is how Sir Mark Sykes described The Gendarme, or Zaptieh:

"He rides, jobs, carries the post, fights, and occasionally makes an arrest. He is one of the great features of the Turkish Empire; but to the greater number of untravelled Englishmen he is unknown. If he is seen he is taken for a soldier, which he is certainly not. A Quaker would not be more shocked than he would if you asked him if he were one. And yet what is he? If you talk of fighting his eyes blaze. He tells you how he alone would fight twenty Bedouins, and so I believe he would."

Sykes, who got to know the Turks close up, and wasn't yet working for his government's war propaganda division, sized them up as such: "The average Turk is as honourable as the average Englishman when he receives his pay, and as dishonest as when he does not."

If we're searching for "murder" motives, assuming the story told by the Kurd was true, here is the sensible recipe: [1] Ottoman Empire: Bankrupt. [2] Gendarmes: Can't get their meager pay [3] With the good men away at the fronts, the 1915 gendarmes were composed of enough not-so-good men. [4] Away from central government control, the more corrupt gendarmes saw the way to make a quick buck; some no doubt saw the Armenians as traitors who deserved what they got. [5] Conclusion: these massacres were perpetrated by renegade forces, acting on their own.

Let's add one more, just for fun: [6] The Ottoman "S.S.," Vahakn Dadrian's "Special Organization" whose duty was to supposedly polish off the Armenians, was nowhere in sight.

A somewhat energetic Ara Sarafian himself appears right afterwards (having met director Goldberg face to face, and could have set Goldberg straight on who perpetrated the killings, since Sarafian was behind our "untold" Leslie Davis report), declaring that "this is an American consul who is describing what he himself saw directly to the American government in 1915. So this is the sort of information that we have about the Armenian Genocide in the American archives. It's not hearsay, it's not secondary, it's not maybe this and that. It is outright killing on a massive scale."
Ara Sarafian

Ara Sarafian

Yet Ara Sarafian, who made such a noble effort to be truthful at least once (before getting savagely kicked by a Dashnak-style smear attack, since "Turth" and "Hai Tahd" are polar opposites), neglected the following:

1) Leslie Davis is one of the very few consuls, perhaps the only one, who witnessed corpses to such an extent. The rest rarely ventured from their consular offices, and were content to listen to the words of missionaries and Armenians. So this might have been perhaps the only example in the U.S. archives, at least in the case of a U.S. official, where there was no hearsay. The rest of the U.S. archives is practically useless, as the British ambassador in Washington determined in 1921. They looked at the cream of the crop, and concluded practically all of it boiled down to "personal opinions" which is what we would call "hearsay."

2) Even if we accept what Davis had to say as the truth — let's not forget how prejudiced Americans were, and he was one of the biased Morgenthau's men, and under Morgenthau's instructions (like Morgenthau, Davis was dependent on Armenian translators, and had Armenian assistants, one of the few people in this alien culture who could speak Davis's language, eliciting Davis' sympathies; moreover, the Christian Davis was also under the influence of the constantly exaggerating missionaries. On the second of three trips he took on horseback to check out these corpses, his partner was the missionary, Herbert Atkinson) — the best information we have is that these massacres were directed by what Halil Berktay had described (it looks like he borrowed what Germany's Col. Stange had said about the Special Organization, "scums," or at least what Dadrian told us Stange had said) as "scum of the earth," immoral men who were out to make a fast dollar. Such criminal actions cannot implicate these bad-apple gendarmes' central government, so far away, and so powerless to control forces deciding to act independently. Even if Davis was being one hundred percent honest, he was witness to a massacre. As My Lai demonstrates, a massacre does not equal a genocide.

It is also necessary to add that the general impression after reading pages of harrowing details concerning such enormities, as gathered together in the Blue Book, is that most of them were based on hearsay evidence. [FN 63: Almost every page of the report contained phrases such as “some said,” “I was told,” etc., despite Bryce’s statement that “by far the larger part” of the information came from eyewitnesses. The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, p. xxvii.]

James Morgan Read, Atrocity Propaganda, 1914-1919 (1941), p. 221. Ara Sarafian, who tells us "It's not hearsay," is a cheerleader for the veracity of the Blue Book.

Next, we are featured to a long tirade by a U.S. consul, Jesse Jackson, who certainly has demonstrated his bigotry against Turks in a good several writings. Jackson felt "careful estimates placed the number of those surviving even this far as being less than 150,000," and ends with "there seems to be about one million persons lost, up to this date." (September, 1915.)
Jesse Jackson

All the way with J. B. J.:
Jesse B. Jackson

Jackson had trouble with his numbers on other occasions. On this particular occasion, what he stated was especially wacky, because he himself prepared a report for boss Morgenthau on Feb. 8, 1916, contending that 486,000 represented "the statistics of Armenian immigrants, according to best information."

The next month, Morgenthau was quoted by Vahan Cardashian, in a letter to Lord Bryce, as stating the Ottoman government's attitude toward Armenians was "passive" and that the "Armenians were found in good numbers in almost all the interior cities of Turkey." [The Armenian Review, Winter 1957, p. 107.] That is, the relocation was all but over, as even Vahakn Dadrian has kindly taught us. (Talat Pasha had first ordered the movements to stop as early as August, 1915; locals had different ideas. But we can see the bulk of the relocation had been finished with by the time Jackson had filed his September report.) So let's put aside the pertinent question the PBS people should have asked themselves, that is, if the idea were state-sponsored extermination, why would the genocide (that's a synonym for "relocation," among genocide folks) process have come to a halt so soon; let's concentrate on the following:

If Jesse Jackson agreed the number of the "deported" ran only around half a million in early 1916, and if hundreds of thousands of Armenians still remained in the empire, and if hundreds of thousands of Armenians were with the Russians (Hovannisian would tell us some 150,000 of these would go on to die of starvation and disease with Turks nowhere in sight; of course, these numbers must also be added to the "genocide" toll), and if many thousands of Armenians had also gone off to other lands on their own accord (since the Ottomans did not control lands like Iran and Greece), and if the pre-war population of the Armenians hovered around 1.5 million (and not at exaggerated levels as the Patriarch's 2.1 million), then how in the world could it have been possible for one million Armenians to have died by September 1915?

Let's think about the above in another way. There were only "odds and ends" displacements of Armenians going on until 1916, as the bulk had already been moved out by Sept. 1915 or so. If Jackson is saying there were 150,000 survivors in September and then jacked up this figure by a whopping 350,000 or so in the following February, we know these extra 350,000 did not magically appear. Especially when there is reliable evidence on record that there were already some 500,000 survivors in September, as an Armenian representative himself told Morgenthau. The obvious conclusion: Jackson's report isn't worth the pimple on a baboon's butt. So why are Goldberg and Balakian choosing to include this terribly incorrect information? (That is a rhetorical question.)

The irresponsible producer included yet another biased personal opinion of some traveling businessman named August Berneau , who witnessed the suffering Armenians and concluded the "1,001 horrors" boiled down to "governmental barbarianism which aims at the systematic annihilation through starvation of the survivors of the Armenian nation in Turkey." There you have it— "proof" that the starvation of the Armenians was intended. (He also used the helpful word "executioners" at one point.)


A shot of a few Turks that
Goldberg forgot to put in his film

As the ever-present sad violin music plays in the background, Berneau also added, "I gave them some bread; they threw themselves on it like dogs dying of hunger." (This voice was particularly overacted and irritatingly melodramatic, oozing with sanctimony. Orlando Bloom, the talent, might have asked Goldberg what his motivation should be, and Goldberg must have surely thought of the perfect directorial guidance: "Think of the Turks as those monstrous Orcs you fought in LORD OF THE RINGS.") If we may refer to a previous "genocide witness," Consul Leslie Davis, we may learn: "Since the beginning of the war even bread is almost unobtainable." As Morgenthau had written, the desperate life or death war required every able-bodied man to be mobilized, leaving few to till the fields. As a result, thousands of Turks were dying daily of starvation. (That is what Morgenthau himself wrote, and it bears repeating: thousands of Turks... dying... daily.) Add to this grim situation the British naval blockade, making sure no supplies could reach the nation's ports. (What else could the British have been striving for, save for a true "systematic annihilation through starvation"?) Even the nation's first line of defense, its soldiers, were dropping like flies from hunger. (Testimony of Liman von Sanders, 1921 Berlin trial: "...The economic situation was so dismal that not only many Armenians, but thousands of Turkish soldiers as well died of the lack of food supplies, disease, and other consequences of poor organization in the Turkish government. In my division alone, after the battle of Gallipoli, thousands died of malnutrition.")

It's one thing if the oppressors were fat and jolly while their victims were turning into living skeletons, as in the case of the Nazis and their Jewish victims. It's quite another when everyone is in the same boat. We'll need a lot more than the opinion of a Christian-sympathizing Westerner whose emotions ran away with him, before concluding the Armenians' starvation was purposefully forced. Incidentally, if this fellow was a "travelling businessman," did he not see the plight of the Moslems? Let's put our heads together and wonder why he likely never wrote such anguished words about the humans who did not share his own faith.

(ADDENDUM, 8-06: Contrary to how the program presented him, Bernau was no disinterested party who just happened to be travelling nearby; his mission was to help the Armenians. "An employee of the Vacuum Oil Company of New York, Auguste Bernau... was sent by Consul Jackson to distribute relief." Guenter Lewy, "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey," 2005. ADDENDUM, 9-07: A couple of years before this page was presented, Bernau had already been featured on TAT, in the analysis of Balakian's "The Burning Tigris." It appears Bernau made other wild claims, such as 60,000 buried Armenians, and mounds of hundreds of corpses, "as far as the eye can reach.")

NARRATOR: "These men, and other American diplomats filed reports on the atrocities they witnessed which today are housed in the U.S. National Archives. They constitute nearly 4,000 pages of testimony and witness to the Armenian genocide."

To my knowledge, only Leslie Davis firsthand saw corpses in great numbers (aside from various missionaries, whose word cannot be taken at face value), and we've already established such is a far cry from genocide, as we can never be sure who killed those people, and why. Genocide is a very serious charge, and singular massacres do not prove genocide. The definition of "atrocities" in my dictionary: "Savage or brutal acts committed in wartime." What the above businessman witnessed was heart-wrenching misery and suffering, but not "atrocities." In 1919, Armenian leaders, through their corruption and neglect, caused what Sam Weems called the "real genocide of the Armenian people," basing his information on Richard Hovannisian's history. "It was verily a land of death," wrote Hovannisian ("8.7 births and 204.2 deaths, a net loss of 195.5"); could these constitute as "atrocities"?

What those 4,000 pages are filled with are mostly the opinions of biased Christians, indoctrinated with hatred against what they were raised to believe were a different species, the "unspeakable" Turk. They might have witnessed suffering, but suffering does not equal genocide. As mentioned before, the British, in their desperate search for factual evidence in order to convict Ottomans accused of crimes against Armenians at Malta, rejected these worthless documents. ("I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this matter.") What's more, the British Embassy's report made clear that "officials of the Department of State expressed the wish... that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in the court of law." What does that mean? It means the embarrassed State Department was aware of how utterly unreliable and false the caliber of their 4,000 documents was.



 NARRATOR: "The International Association of Genocide Scholars affirms that over one million Armenians died during the Armenian Genocide. Other scholars put the numbers as high as 1.5 million."

"The International Association of Genocide Scholars" is frequently referred to in order to strengthen the genocide thesis. Who are these people? In order to join the genocide club, they must first agree there was an Armenian genocide because, for one thing, wealthy Armenians support the genocide industry. For another thing, anyone who begins a thesis with a conclusion first and then tries to fit the evidence around the conclusion is anything but a scholar; such a person can more accurately be termed a "propagandist." These people unquestioningly take what unscrupulous researchers as Vahakn Dadrian have written, and accept them at face value. Like the people at PBS, their ingrained belief system, after years of propaganda bombardment, tells them the barbaric Turks must have been guilty. Very few of these so-called scholars have a background in history. A famous one, Israel Charny, for example, has a background in psychology. Charny has mainly edited other people's research. Israel Charny, who serves as the Association's current president, is not a "scholar." (As Prof. Guenter Lewy — not incidentally, a Holocaust survivor — succinctly put it: "I am less than impressed by the unanimous vote of the International Association of Genocide Scholars... The great majority of these self-proclaimed experts on Ottoman history have never set foot in an archive or done any other original research on the subject in question." Commentary. Feb. 2006.)

Few of these hypocrites ever concentrate on the many other examples of historical extermination campaigns. The two that are the best financed attract them the most, but at least one of these two happens to be a real genocide. Regardless, majority opinion can never substitute for genuine history. Because there is a preponderance of ignorant, agenda-ridden bigots who are in agreement does not make "The International Association of Genocide Scholars " any more valid than the "4,000 pages" of the U.S. Archives.

Simply look at the propagandistic numbers "The International Association of Genocide Scholars" has agreed on, to demonstrate their partisanship. The pre-war Armenian population was around 1.5 million, and hardcore Armenian propagandists themselves agree there were one million survivors. 1.5 million minus 1 million does not equal the result these scholarly frauds would like us to believe. What they are basing their estimate on is the propagandistic pre-war population figure provided by the Armenian Patriarch, 2.1 million. (Lepsius swore, under oath at the 1921 Berlin trial of Talat's assassin, that the Patriarch had told Lepsius 1,850,000... but that's the Armenian Patriarch for you.) Regardless, even the dishonest Armenian Patriarch broke down his initial 2.1 million figure as such, at the tail end of 1918: 1,260,000 survivors, and 840,000 dead. "The International Association of Genocide Scholars" have the shame to out-propagandize even the propagandistic Armenian Patriarch.

NARRATOR: In 1919, shortly after W.W. I ended, the British pushed the Turks to hold war crimes tribunals for the Armenian massacres. A series of trials were then held in Constantinople. DADRIAN: "The Turkish court-martials are a very significant event... in terms of future settlements of the issue of the Armenian genocide, because the Turkish military tribunal scrupulously investigated the issue of the Armenian genocide and concluded in its final verdict that the Young Turk party as responsible for the conception, organization, and execution of the Armenian genocide."

Whew! Old man Dadrian sure knows how to stick the phrase "the Armenian genocide" into his sentences, doesn't he? (By the way, the issue of "future settlements" has already been resolved; the Armenians had put their John Hancock on a treaty wherein they "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," in the words of Arthur Derounian.

Let's say, God forbid, the Nazis had defeated the Americans during WWII and installed a puppet government in Washington. They held a gun to the Americans' heads and forced war crimes trials to be held for Truman, Eisenhower, Patton, MacArthur, and other war principals. Otherwise, the Nazis would come in and really take control of the nation, as they eventually did with Vichy France. Should these trials be considered as legitimate?

The 1919-20 trials were such a travesty, even the British rejected their findings during the longer process of the 1919-21 Malta Tribunal. What's more, Dadrian, who investigated and translated the "transcripts" of these trials (actually, the summaries printed in lackey Ottoman government newspapers; the transcripts are unavailable)... the unscrupulous Vahakn Dadrian, cited for his "misleading quotations" and the "selective use of sources" even by fellow pro-Armenian "genocide scholar" Hilmar Kaiser... desperately points to these kangaroo courts as his "evidence," because he has nothing else. Naturally, he is desperate to suggest these courts were conducted professionally (as he reminds us above with the word "scrupulously"), but when their legitimacy does not serve his purposes, he has been known to quickly reverse himself, in the typical style of a shifty Dashnak "historian." If readers want to get what lay behind these spurious courts, please tune in to Prof. Guenter Lewy's even-handed evaluation.

NARRATOR: "On March 15th, 1921, a young man named Soghoman Tehlirian approached Talat, tapped him on the shoulder, then shot him in the head... Tehlirian, an Armenian student, was arrested by the German police and tried for murder. He was found not guilty."

Yet this cursory two-day trial was another kangaroo court, where only witnesses for the defense were allowed, and wealthy Armenians throughout the world hired the best German legal talent money could buy, through a "Soghoman Tehlirian Defense Fund"... a tactic Armenians would follow in the defense of their future terrorists. The imbalance of the trial was further demonstrated when several of the high-priced lawyers took their turn versus one for the District Attorney, and there was further mention in the transcripts that the verdict could have been pre-determined. A defense lawyer provided reason; the Germans were seen as the masterminds behind the Armenian "genocide," and the freshly defeated and demoralized nation figured the best way to get let off the hook would be to let the murderer go. What this trial amounted to was a historic case of murder justification, and the German nation will have to live forever with this shame. The verdict's destructive effect would become apparent in future years, as other Armenian terrorists figured they could get away with murder. Many did, in the courtrooms of the biased Western world.

The quadruple-fact checking Andrew Goldberg was aware of easily available Internet resources such as the TAT site, yet still chose to go with the typical propaganda. (But it's looking more and more like "Writer" Goldberg was the "Ambassador Morgenthau" to "Additional Writer" Balakian's "Burton Hendrick," the ghost writer of Ambassador Morgenthau's Story.) Tehlirian did not tap Talat's shoulder; the trial transcript tells us he waited for Talat to pass by, and shot Talat in the back of the head, in a fashion befitting the cowardly murderer. It was Tehlirian's second known assassination, according to a 1960 article about him in The Armenian Review; he also knocked off an Armenian, suspected of snitching on Ottoman-Armenians to Talat Pasha, in 1915. Tehlirian might have taken dance lessons to idle his itchy trigger finger in Berlin, but he was not a "student"; he was a member of Nemesis, the Dashnak organization's professional hit squad. Tehlirian had betrayed his Ottoman nation, among the many other Armenians who defected to Russia, at age 17 and war's outset, 1914. Eventually fighting under Antranik, he doubtless was behind many of the cold-blooded mass killings the Armenians perpetrated in eastern Anatolia.


Ataturk Marches On.

At least Goldberg did not go so far as to claim, while continuing to tell us of the fate of other Ottoman officials, that Enver Pasha was felled by the bullet of an Armenian, as Armenian propaganda likes to tell us. (The newspaper clip states Enver was "left dead on the field after desperate fight in Bokhara.") The producer also found an exciting "Time Marches On" type of newsreel, popular in movie theaters at the time, regarding Mustafa Kemal.

Halil Berktay, always with a mysterious ax to grind against his country that (to him) can do no right, has his heart broken as he relates the secular and westernized changes Ataturk implemented: "As a result, Britain, France, Germany, everybody else, they were now out to court this new Turkey to try to become friends with it, and the great powers did not have any interest in pursuing the dirty matter of what had happened in 1915, and all kinds of reasons like this, made it undesirable for the Republic to maintain an honest memory of what had been done in 1915. And as a result, you have an enormously constructed, fabricated, national memory."

This boy really has a chip on his shoulder. He makes it sound like it was a bad thing for the other nations to want to become friends with his own country. Even if everything about the Armenian "genocide" were true, note the double standard: Turkey must forever be held to past ills, while what England had done in Kenya (with the Mau Mau) during the 1950s is never talked about, France's "dirty business" in Algeria (also from the later 20th century, as well as before; France may also have been complicit in the Rwandan Genocide) is frequently brushed aside, and in one of the real first genocides of the 20th century, German colonialist actions in South West Africa (evidently the real influence for Hitler's "Final Solution" instead of his fabricated quote), is paid only lip service to. Why isn't Berktay up in arms over these, and many, many other examples of historical "Man's Inhumanity to Man"?

As we have seen from the Malta Tribunal process, it is not as though the powers had lost interest. What happened is that they simply could not find the real evidence. In the long 1919 to 1921 process, the Western world discovered what deceivers the Armenians and Greeks had been. Their lies had begun even to filter down to the common person, as William T. Ellis nicely put it in a 1928 article about "Smyrna": "[T]he average American was beginning to grow sophisticated and sceptical concerning propaganda about the Near East."

What Ataturk had achieved was truly miraculous. He conducted what might be televisionalistically (I coined that) called today as an "extreme makeover" for his country. In order to make the transition more successful, the nation's back was turned to the old history. But far from what a one-note thinker as Berktay has his heart bleeding over, the detriment came not in hiding dirty laundry, but in reducing the pride of Turks over their rich history. That is one reason why Turkey has an identity crisis, and is often unsure of itself today.

The benefit, however, came in keeping future generations free of hatred; Turkish people had an excellent reason to be resentful of the traitorous Armenians, who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent Turkish people. That is the real reason this catastrophic period was not dwelled upon in Turkish schools. Would it have been better to foster hatred in the hearts of the young, as Armenian parents and churches have been doing with their own innocent youth?

There is no "fabrication" for Turkey's national memory. As may be seen from this page's analysis, utilizing almost exclusively pro-Armenian sources, the real history was that the "Sick Man" was in for a fight for its life, a fight that ultimately resulted in its death. During this most dangerous moment, the Armenians turned traitor and joined the enemy. Treacherous actions bear consequences, as with any other nation, and the price for the Armenians to pay was their relocation under horrible circumstances. The circumstances were not horrible out of "intent," because manpower and resources were painfully limited, and the rest of the nation was also suffering dreadfully. Anyone who wishes to detract from this very real history is the real fabricator.


We then get into how Turkey is in denial. With objective academicians frightened away from this debate, through the unscrupulous smear tactics of the genocide industry, the strategy has been to single out the propagandistically ill-reputed Turkish government as the sole "denier." Naturally; who is going to believe the word of the "criminal"?

After establishing that Turkey is a crook, the sole contra-genocide spokesman on the program, Prof. Yusuf Halacoglu, is introduced as "the head of the Turkish Historical Society in Turkey." In other words, he is an "agent of the Turkish government." Already the viewer is biased against what he has to say. The fair choice would have been to feature a speaker having no links to the Turks. (I realize these were hard to find for the producer, because of the producer's partisan reputation, but the producer should have tried harder to do so... assuming he were objective. But his instructions to me was that he was looking for a "Turkish" professor. Later on, as he was getting more desperate, he mentioned that he did ask one non-Turk, Justin McCarthy, but McCarthy declined.)

Finally we get the first word on the program that "many Moslems were massacred by Armenians." Unfortunately, it came from the mouth of a man who had already been discredited on the surface. Halacoglu concludes with the point that if both sides were killing each other, that could only amount to a "civil war." However, while the producer did a good job with the show's Turkish translations, based on my own limited knowledge — it was good to not have a dubbed voice-over, and only subtitles, so those who are interested could make out what was being said — this was not the best translation. I wouldn't otherwise quibble, but this point is critical, as I don't prefer the term "civil war." [The reason why liberty may have been taken with this translation is because Armenian propagandists have ready-made arguments for what Dadrian calls, "the futility of the argument of civil war."] What the professor said was "ic catismasi," and not "ic savasi." "Catismak" means, as I just looked it up in a dictionary, "to come up against one another in dispute or competition." (And "ic" means internal; "savas" means war.) What Halacoglu was getting at was along the lines of "intercommunal fighting," and not "civil war." (In a broad sense, "civil war" is not incorrect, because the whole of the Ottoman-Armenian community sided with the enemy, by choice or coercion. However, "civil war" connotes the clash of two armies, as in the American experience. "Fifth column" Armenians within the empire mainly engaged in guerilla warfare... although there were rare times when Armenians, armed with artillery, engaged in what was a clash of armies.)

Gunduz Aktan in Congress, Sept. 2000

Then we get Congressional hearing footage from Sept. 2000 with ex-Ambassador Gunduz Aktan. (Why, isn't that Robert Melson's dome in the background? One can always count on Melson to pay visits to Congress, to defend beloved Armenians.) Aktan stated the relocation affected "only the eastern Anatolian Armenians," but that was a misstatement; Armenians from other communities were affected as well, as in the heartland's Sivas; Armenians were rebelling there, too. Aktan explains the Armenians were collaborating with the invading Russians, with the aim of creating an independent state of their own, "in areas where they were only a minority, by ethnically cleansing the majority Turks... Many Armenians were killed, but many more Muslims and Turks perished as well."

Now get a load of Ara Sarafian's response: "It's complete garbage, of course." Ara, how could you! The only blunder in what Aktan stated was the part about the eastern Armenians. But the affected WERE mostly the eastern Armenians (and some of the central ones, and a dab and dash from the rest of the country), so even that was not an attempt at deception. The western Armenians were mostly untouched, as even a "genocide map" on the program demonstrated. (Although this silly map featured a HUGE dot in the Istanbul vicinity. Two people were behind the program's maps in the end credits, and Ara was one of them.)

Above is a "genocide map" taken from Armenian sites. It's very standard, and may be seen all over the place. Note how the "deportations" are concentrated in the eastern and central areas of Anatolia. Note the big dot in the center, which is Sivas. This map has not been cropped, that is, the cut-off at left was their doing.

Now this is the map used on the program. Note all the dots from the northwest, especially the gargantuan one from around Istanbul. As everyone knows, the Armenians of Istanbul were mostly untouched. Also, note the biggest dot in the center, which on this map is well right of center. That's Sivas too, but look at all the other dots that have sprung up toward the left, and in fact, all around.

The Armenians of Istanbul, and the Armenians in the sanjak of Kutahya and the province of Aydin had not been required to emigrate. The Armenians who at the present time are in the sanjak of Izmit and in Bursa, Kastamonu, Ankara, and Konya, are those who had emigrated from these areas, and who have returned. There are many Armenians in the sanjak of Kaiseri, and in Sivas, Kharput, Diyarbekir, and especially in Cicilia and in Istanbul, who have returned, but who are unable to go to their villages. The rest of the Armenians of Erzurum and Bitlis are in Cilicia.

The Armenian Patrirch, elaborating after the late 1918 decree permitting Armenians to return; British Archives, F.O. 371/6556/E.2730/800/44

(ADDENDUM: Turkish historians have a breakdown of Armenians who were forced to leave on this outside page, and there was a large number — 58,000 — relocated from Izmit, which is next to Istanbul. That would be the smaller big dot, to the right of the gargantuan "Istanbul" one.)

Sarafian explains that there was no systematic killing on the part of the Armenians. In his defense, he may not have been responding to what Aktan said specifically, just responding to "Turkish propaganda" in general; but Aktan said nothing about "systematic" killing (although "ethnic cleansing" does carry a systematic connotation). Systematic killing certainly enters into the area of genocide, but Ara: let's face facts. The allies of the Armenians, the Russians and the French, that is the honorable officers among them, have provided many accounts of the savage actions of your forefathers, where killing was conducted for killing's sake, in an attempt to create a "Greater Armenia." There were even American observers a little later, those who went in there generally sympathetic to the Armenians, like Lt. Robert Dunn and Niles and Sutherland ... and even the Armenophile, General Harbord himself... who reported exactly on the unbelievable crimes the Armenians had committed, on a wide, massive scale. It's heart-breaking that Ara Sarafian, the "new breed" of Armenian researchers, Sarafian who has issues with the repulsively deceptive ways of the old Dadrian-Hovannisian guard, would sit there with a straight face and regard these truths as "garbage," and "not true."

The Armenians behaved even more ruthlessly than the invading Greeks from western Anatolia, and the Western world bore too much of a witness to the unbelievably atrocious actions of the Greeks. This is why the Armenians are getting a cleaner bill of health than the Greeks; the only Westerners around in eastern Anatolia to see what was happening were in the Turks' enemy camp. And Muslim lives were considered comparatively worthless anyway.

Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the 'seventies, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey, or that in the Great War, they traitorously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invader; that they boasted of having raised an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population.

Prof. John Dewey, 1928

Prof. Suny informs us reasons for Turkey's "denial" stems from fear of compensation (which is a non-issue, as the Treaty of Gumru/Alexandropol made clear; unless Prof. Suny is insecure about Armenians keeping their word), and that they are so nationalistic, "Turks do not want to recognize that they actually committed this terrible crime."

It looks like Suny has been hanging out with his sociologist pal, Fatma Muge Gocek too long. She is sociologically-challenged to think even Turkish-Americans are mindless drones of the Turkish state, when the truth is Turks in the USA, with no supportive immigrant network, assimilate into American society, very often at the expense of their Turkish identity, and are quite able to think independently. As for the Turks in Turkey, it is naturally the propagandists' aim to make it seem as though the Turkish government is a Stalinist state exercising mind-control over its citizens. The fact is, Turks are like every other people in a free society who can gather the facts and come up with the correct conclusions. (And for those who can't accept that Turkey is a democracy, keep in mind, especially with the Internet, even totalitarian states like China have trouble maintaining a grip on their people). If anything, unlike diaspora Armenians, who generally think of Armenia first and sacrifice honest scruples for Hai Tahd (the Armenian Cause), Turks are guided by honesty and truth. This is why, when Turks come to America and are bombarded by the incessant Armenian propaganda (learning about these issues for the first time in a big way, since their schooling largely avoided the matter... as Gocek herself has related as her own experience), too many get suckered in. That's because they know the truth takes precedence over "my country, right or wrong" notions. And just like ignorant genocide scholars and PBS people who refuse to look beneath the surface, if everyone else is saying there was an Armenian genocide, these Turks can be the perfect pigeons.

Silly Samantha Power lends her personal opinion that Turkey is afraid of "putting itself permanently in the company of Adolf Hitler." She is severely into the Turk-Nazi association, but this particular notion can much better be categorized as a Problem from Her Own Hell. Shall we count the number of nations who have committed extermination campaigns, starting with her own, which... if we leave the obvious example of the Indians aside... probably truly earns the distinction of committing "The First Genocide of the 20th Century." As the 1900s began, American troops — commanded by veterans of the Indian wars, where the philosophy was "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" — carried a vicious ethnic cleansing campaign that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians (the 20,000 Filipino military mortality was separate). If Samantha Power would stop being such a "genocide club hypocrite" and direct her outrage in this direction, and Americans were to be made aware of this shameful chapter, how many Americans would associate their nation with the Nazis? Even now, with Americans aware of what their nation had done to the Indians, their nation's being on a par with Hitler is the farthest thing from their minds. (She also goes on to say another factor for Turkish intransigence is "an unwillingness to wrap your mind around atrocities carried out by people like you." Is that why Power doesn't focus on the crimes of her nation, because she can't bear the fact that she happens to be just like the 19th-early 20th century Americans who committed cold-blooded murder? And to think, Turk-biased members of the Pulitzer Prize Committee, like William Safire, actually thought this woman worthy of that prize... with nutty logic like that.)

Samantha Power

Samantha Power

Because Samantha Power and her bigoted ilk are in a frenzy to have the world believe there is no difference between the Turks and the Nazis... and Power will make this link crystal-clear by the show's close... she probably believes Turks will never get over their shame, even if it is proven the Ottoman Empire acted genocidally. She is truly in a world of "denial" of her own. Turks already acknowledge their forefathers had committed massacres. So if the genocide hoax becomes authenticated, it will be no skin off any Turk's nose. Life will go on. Every nation has blood on its hands, and no nation with an "exterminating" past is going to put itself on a plane with the Nazi regime that committed a crime unique into itself.

"The Jewish experience in World War II particularly, where the full power of an industrial state like Germany, were trained on a single people... for no crime except that they were Jewish; and where, of the six million people who died, over a million and a half were children under twelve years old; we think is unique. There has been nothing like it in history."

Barry Jacobs, Jewish Committee Director, "Sari Gelin" documentary

What Turks hate are these ugly lies being perpetuated in the prejudiced and ignorant West. Being compared to the Nazis when it's painfully obvious the allegations have nothing to do with genuine facts is what hurts. And when one tries to present the case, providing sources that are infinitely more reliable than the tainted sources pro-Armenians rely upon, and when fair, educated folks as those who run PBS can't bear to listen because their prejudices are so ingrained... that is exactly what stabs Turks in the heart.

Goldberg now makes use of the ample footage that he shot, trying to grab that one Turk on the street who gave a "genocide"-supportive opinion, of all the many Turks who don't believe there was a genocide. (To Goldberg's credit, he did not translate the last part of the first fellow's line, that Turkey couldn't have committed genocide because Turkey is not that kind of a nation, Turkey is a Moslem nation. The producer restrained himself from further agitating the minds of anti-Muslim American viewers, and his "Jewish consciousness" made a fleeting appearance for real.)

Yusuf Halacoglu

Yusuf Halacoglu

While Goldberg was in moral territory, he permitted the one moment in the entire program that seriously offset the propaganda that had come before; that was when Halacoglu was allowed to calmly state, without an Ara Sarafian following with a dismissal that it's garbage, "There are many people in Turkey that you can show crying on TV. People know that their relatives were murdered and they can cry too. But just because people cry doesn't make this written history." (No sad violin music was playing in the background at this point.)

PBS Editorial Standards and Policies, June 14, 2005, IV-A. Fairness: Fair treatment of individuals generally requires that a producer represent the words and actions of the people portrayed or identified in a way that presents their strongest case, and gives individuals or organizations that are the subject of attack or criticism an opportunity to respond. Fairness also requires that a producer be willing to consider all relevant information and points of view.

We next get into the technicalities of "genocide." Aktan asks why Armenians are not content with words like catastrophe, tragedy or disaster. He states what determines genocide is not the number of casualties or the cruelty of the persecutions, but the intent to destroy a group. Turks have never harbored any anti-Armenianism. The victims of genocide must be totally innocent.

And that's the 100% truth. Now let's see how Samantha Power, "genocide scholar," addresses this. Like almost all genocide scholars, she has no background in history, but at least she can utilize her skills as the attorney that she may be (having attended Harvard Law School):

"What the word genocide connotes is a systematic campaign of destruction. If you simply call the horrors of 1915 'crimes against humanity' or 'atrocities,' it doesn't fully convey just how methodical this campaign of slaughter and deportation really was. And I think that's why historians look at the record and they really can come to no other conclusion but that this word genocide applies to this methodical campaign of destruction."

If Ms. Power is referring to "genocide scholars" as "historians," she is getting herself into very deep water. Let us remind ourselves of what is expected of a real historian: "A historian has a duty to try to write only the truth.  Before historians write they must look at all relevant sources."

There were more real historians a generation ago, such as the sixty-nine Western academicians who signed this 1985 declaration. But such real historians have been frightened away by unscrupulous genocide advocates like Israel Charny, who think nothing of harming the precious reputations of real historians. But brave ones do surface now and then, such as Prof. Guenter Lewy, whose scholarly methodology puts the partisan genocide scholars' pretensions to shame. Lewy reminds us there are still some real historians around who do their duty and look at all relevant sources: "Distinguished scholars of Ottoman history like Roderic Davison, J. C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis, and Andrew Mango have rejected the appropriateness of the genocide label for those occurrences." (Commentary, Feb. 2006)

Counselor refers to how "methodical" was "this campaign of slaughter and deportation." Deportation, or more accurately relocation in this case, is not genocide. Relocation is not pretty, but it has nothing to do with an "intent to destroy." Otherwise, WWII relocations of Alsatians in France and Japanese in the USA & Canada could be called genocide, which would be ridiculous.


So let's focus on what Ms. Power should have been addressing, Aktan's statement that there was no "intent." Ms. Power can use all the words like "methodical" and especially "systematic campaign of destruction" as she likes. But where is the proof of this "intent"? There is nothing in Goldberg's program that proves "intent." We were offered plenty of sad violin music, the personal opinions of endless ignorants and bigots, accounts of biased newspapers ready to print second-hand stories, decisions of courts lacking due process and conducted under enemy occupation... everything but genuine, factual evidence. Meanwhile:

—There was no mention of Ottoman orders safeguarding the lives of Armenians and their properties, displaying a formal commitment to, as Dr. Lewy put it, a "relatively humane" process.

—There was no mention of Dashnak and Hunchak revolutionaries who bragged in their publications not of "self-defense," but of their heroic fight for national liberation, nor was there mention of Armenians being the "Seventh Ally" of the Entente Powers, as the Daily Chronicle beamed on Sept. 23, 1914. (5-6,000 Armenians accompanying the Russians was mentioned, but that didn't give the idea.)

—There was no mention of the punishment of Turks who committed crimes against Armenians, during the war, at times to the point of execution.

—There was no mention of the callous disregard the Ottoman government had for the welfare of its own people, revealing the Armenians were not singled out as a deprived party, nor was there mention of the suffering of all of the Ottoman people, of famine and disease.

—There was no mention of the counterpart of Nuremberg, the Malta Tribunal.

That is little more than the tip of the iceberg for facts there was no mention of. But again, most importantly, there was no mention of the real facts that would prove "intent." A possible lawyer like Samantha Power should know that without "intent," there can be no "genocide." Assuming, of course, that she is not as poor a lawyer as she is a "scholar." (ADDENDUM: The pathetic way in which Power lays out her case for the "Armenian genocide" has been examined: tallarmeniantale.com/samantha-power-hell.htm)

Goldberg found a great old CBS-TV news clip where Raphael Lemkin (at the time a "professor of law at Yale University"), who coined the "genocide" word, was shown revealing that he thought of the Armenian experience as genocide.

But here, it looks like Goldberg pulled a fast one. After the interviewer asked Lemkin of his interest in genocide, Lemkin replies, "I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times, it happened to the Armenians. and, uh, after the Armenians..."

Lemkin takes a second to formulate his next words, and we stay on his face while he is thinking. And then we suddenly switch to what appears to be an insert shot of the interviewer as Lemkin continues in voice-over, "...Hitler took action..." If Goldberg did what I think he did, replace Lemkin's next words with words that came later in the program in order to make the all-important Hitler connection, he proved himself to be a man after Vahakn Dadrian's blackened heart. Engaging in "misleading quotations" and the "selective use of sources," and an all-around breach of ethics.

Raphael Lemkin

Reasons lending themselves to possible manipulation are that, number one, "quick-cutting" was not the style of the older television programs. Number two, while a guest is briefly pausing with his thoughts to possibly come up with a revealing statement, it would be the rare TV director who would cut away and miss out on something important, for the sake of an undramatic non-reaction shot. And number three, the "...Hitler took action..." comment unnaturally starts the instant of the reaction shot, and as soon as the line ends... that is, lasting about one second, much too quick for the editing style of the period... we're back on Lemkin again, with the show's voice-over taking over. (Not to say it couldn't have happened this way; but the sequence was so jumpy, it caught my immediate notice.)

PBS Editorial Standards and Policies, June 14, 2005, IV-K, Unacceptable Production Practices: Never invent or add elements that were not originally there; and Never make choices that mislead or deceive the audience.

ADDENDUM (5-06):

Looks like this TV clip was not all that novel a find; the relentless genocide industry certainly has dug up every genocide scrap in existence. Here is how an Armenian genocide site transcribed the order of Lemkin's words:

Raphael Lemkin Interview on CBS TV (1949):

I became interested in genocide because it happened to the Armenians; and after[wards] the Armenians got a very rough deal at the Versailles Conference because their criminals were guilty of genocide and were not punished. You know that they [the Ottoman Turks Holdwater: If Lemkin were better educated and objective, it sounds like he could have been referring to the Armenians' NEMESIS here, not the Turks] were organized in a terroristic organization which took justice into its own hands. The trial of Talaat Pasha in 1921 in Berlin is very instructive. A man (Soghomon Tehlirian), whose mother was killed in the genocide, killed Talaat Pasha. And he told the court that he did it because his mother came in his sleep ... many times. Here, …the murder of your mother, you would do something about it!

We can therefore make two deductions: [1] Mr. Hitler was not on Lemkin's mind at this point in the interview, and [2] For wholeheartedly accepting Armenian propaganda without question, Lemkin was either too prejudiced and/or not all that bright.

Lemkin, a "Polish Jew" as the program informs us (have you noticed that whenever we run into a description of Lemkin, those words, "Polish Jew," are sure to follow?), grew up in Poland, mainly a Christian country. Like genocide advocates who never scratch beneath the surface because they arrogantly think they are right, like the prejudiced people who run PBS and its affiliates, the only thing that reached Lemkin's ear was "Terrible Turk" propaganda. If everyone was saying the Turks were bloody butchers, why should Lemkin have had the desire to poke around, to find the real truth? (It doesn't say much about Lemkin's scholarly integrity, to allow his emotions to supersede his science, since he did go on to become a professor... but his specialty was in law, and just because someone specializes in law does not make that person a specialist in history. As we know so piercingly from Samantha Power's example.) The fact that Lemkin believed there was a genocide of the Armenians was nothing more than his "personal opinion," as relevant as the consensus of "personal opinions" of the hypocritical "International Association of Genocide Scholars."

We then move on to how the "Turkish state" is steadfast in its refusal to accept the charge of genocide, but now there is an "increasing number of Turkish intellectuals" who have broken with the state line. Cue in a fuming Halil Berktay:

"I was speaking out of a feeling of utter disgust at all the hypocrisy surrounding this question. That is to say, the nauseating repetition of all the state line phrases about the 'Armenian slanders,' the 'so-called genocide,' the 'false Armenian allegations,' and so on and so forth. It was fairly clear that somehow the state... was signaling the press that this was how they should be talking, and the media, the press, the journalists, the TV anchorman, etcetera were all instinctively falling into line."

"Falsified Genocide"!

Part of the visuals accompanying the above were the scrolling written words like "allegations" that Berktay was listing. The last and central example was "Falsified Genocide," which came to a stop and remained frozen by itself for seconds, getting the most screen time. Since, most likely, nobody had used the word "Falsified" in relation to this genocide matter before the creation of the TAT site (the reason why it was chosen to represent the site's slogan was that the word catchily rhymed with "The Other Side" and "Genocide"), it's a sure bet Andrew Goldberg was paying a nod to TAT, for which TAT feels honored, and gives thanks.

This is the first time I am seeing Professor Berktay "in action," seeing what he really looks like, and sounds like. He comes across as a man who is really, if you'll pardon the expression, pissed-off. As opposed to many of the Armenian propagandist scholars, who know the real facts and purposely stray from them, I am getting the impression that Halil Berktay really believes everything he is saying.

Berktay proudly relates how he was proclaiming that the emperor has no clothes, only to receive accusations for being a traitor, and of aiding and abetting the enemy. If he genuinely believes in what he is saying, all of that would have been terribly unfair, because what he would be suffering from would be "delusion" and poor scholarship. He used to be part of a Marxist movement that wanted to save his Fascist state. Maybe he feels his Fascist state is beyond redemption, and this is his patriotic way of saving Turkey... who knows? (Although whole-heartedly joining a camp that is clearly hostile to his country would be a funny way of saving his country.) The one thing that is clear is that if Halil Berktay has been allowed to spew his poison in Turkey for so many years, Turkey cannot possibly be the "totalitarian" state that Peternocchio Balakian likes to say it is.



Ragip Zarakolu

The publisher

We are next treated to the tale of a publisher in Turkey whose office was bombed by extremists, for having published genocide books, some dozen years back. This is kind of like when Prof. Stanford Shaw's house in California was bombed by extremists in 1977, because his version of Ottoman history was not the preferred variety (no mention of this bomb attack in Goldberg's program, in case you were wondering; fittingly, the publisher in question, Ragip Zarakolu, would appear in Glendale, California, addressing genocide-cuckoo Armenians, days after this film's airing. Balakian shared his 2005 "Raphael Lemkin prize" with Zarakolu, and Zarakolu was happy to publish the Turkish-translated version of Balakian's "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" in Turkey... especially with its lovely Chapter XXII, "The Turk Reverts to the Ancestral Type," as much of a must-read book as "Mein Kampf" would be in Israel.)

"Les Arméniens," by Yves Ternon

"Les Arméniens," by Yves Ternon, is an example of
the publisher's output. With this choice of imagery, we
can see where the fellow's heart lies. One must ask,
where is this fellow getting the money, to run his
propagandistic enterprise? Unfounded rumor: George
Soros. There are many other candidates..

That was then, and this is now. The tentacles of the powerful genocide industry have infiltrated Turkey, and genocide books now line the shelves of book stores. Even a book by the dreaded Vahakn Dadrian has made an appearance... all in a sinister attempt to mold gullible and ignorant Turkish minds.

Turkey's position in the world is vulnerable, despite its powerful military. Enemies from within and without are working constantly to undermine the country. The hostiles include supposed friends from Europe, who can't regard Turkey as a friend, despite all the gestures Turkey has shown since its inception. The West is simply too prejudiced. They will take the side of the Greeks in Cyprus, they will take the side of Kurdish terrorists, they will turn a blind eye to Armenia's aggressive and illegal actions in Karabakh, and the European Union will demand that Turkey admit to the lie of a mythological Armenian genocide before membership can be considered, despite the fact that Turkey has been waiting like a dog for many years. In the wake of these very real dangers, of course some of the brighter Turks in Turkey are going to be resistant to efforts designed to weaken their nation. Europe will herald principles of human rights and freedom, deploring defensive moves made by the Turks, applauding the chipping away of safeguards maintaining the separation of church and state, all the while employing their usual double standards, as they have been doing since some of these nations tried to split the Ottoman Empire apart. One example here: outlawing the freedom of thought in some European countries, as far as affirming the contra-genocide view.

Compare with the United States. "The Burning Tigris" finds a major publisher, while Sam Weems' "Armenia - Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State," fetches $200 on Amazon.com a short year after its release because it is nowhere to be found. There is an effective censorship in place regarding the contra-genocide view. The journalists and media all step into line, as Berktay put it regarding Turkey, and block out the alternative view. Part out of ignorance, part out of prejudice, part out of fear of intimidation from the fanatics among the Armenians. PBS thinks this Goldberg propaganda is "unbiased," while the genuine history reflected in the American-made THE ARMENIAN REVOLT is quickly rejected for being "biased." The situation is so dismal, Guenter Lewy, a mainstream, respected scholar with a track record, almost could not find a publisher for his "Disputed Genocide" book. I understand, through the grapevine, the book was rejected one publisher after another. Part out of ignorance, part out of prejudice, part out of fear of intimidation from the fanatics among the Armenians.

PBS Editorial Standards and Policies, June 14, 2005, IV-F. Courage and Controversy: The surest road to intellectual stagnation and social isolation is to stifle the expression of uncommon ideas; today's dissent may be tomorrow's orthodoxy.

So here Goldberg is attempting to demonstrate what a closed society Turkey is by pointing to the experiences of Berktay and the publisher. But the freedom of the press and freedom of speech regarding this same genocide topic is effectively curtailed in Western nations, including his own. When people like Taner Akcam and Elif Shafak are allowed to write columns in Turkish newspapers, and there is no counterpart of a contra-genocide writer to get his or her views out in print in America, ironically, Goldberg's own nation emerges as the more restrictive one.

Next, we get a rundown on the Armenian terrorism that took place, "from roughly 1975 to 1985" (I wonder why Producer/Writer Goldberg did not actually specify 1973-1987, and chose to cut the time period down by 30%? ADDENDUM, 1-07: Terror incidents went beyond 1987), committing "over a hundred" attacks (again, the attempt to minimize; the number of attacks, if I counted correctly, was two hundred and ten. Source: Dr. Heath Lowry's "Chronological Breakdown of Armenian Terrorists Incidents 1973-1987"), that "resulted in the deaths of several dozen Turkish diplomats and many innocent civilians." The segment ends with the line, "Turkey continued to maintain its position on the genocide," that could be construed as praising these murderers; that is, despite the good efforts of the terrorists, villainous Turkey still refused to budge. (It is no secret that the Armenian community regarded these killers as heroes.)

Fatma Muge Gocek wonders why she didn't know anything about the genocide that she would go on to admit personal responsibility for years later, while being raised in Turkey and getting the best education that country had to offer. She is implying her nation chose to cover up its crimes, instead of celebrating the mature decision her nation took, in guiding its young to emphasize brotherhood and love, rather than nurturing the kind of hatred that caused many young Armenian fanatics to kill so many and to wound and maim hundreds more, during the terror spree of the 1970s-80s... aside from committing untold violence then and now, in the form of "Rufmord."


 Prof. Suny complains about Turkey's Ministry of National Education finally waking up and including this matter in its curriculum, in April 2003. (Before, his pal Gocek implied Turkey was evil for avoiding the topic. Now Suny will imply Turkey is evil for including the topic.) His gripe is that the Turkish schools were directed to show this matter as groundless. Sorry, Prof. Suny, they were only doing what is right, since the claims happen to be groundless. Suny's point is that this is "official denial by the state," once more reinforcing what a "totalitarian" country Turkey is. Yet, many nations have such central bureaus that determine which direction some topics should be taught, within their nation's classrooms. For example, Yossi Sarid, as Minister of Education of Israel, directed that the Armenian "genocide" would be included in the country's school curriculum and that he would do everything possible to make sure Israeli children learned the subject thoroughly. He did so because he had faith in Ambassador Morgenthau (specifying that Morgenthau was "Jewish," meaning, I guess, that must have had something to do with Morgenthau's truthfulness), and because Sarid was influenced as a child by the fiction of a novel, "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh." (The author of which Sarid also stressed was "Jewish," in April 24, 2000.) He planned to put "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh" on reading lists for Israeli schoolchildren, corrupting their innocent minds with an exciting new "Nazi" role model, based on fiction.

Note the double standard; what does Suny think is happening in his own country, regarding this topic? The wealthy, obsessed Armenians have infiltrated school boards across the land, forcing their propaganda into the school curriculum. (Along with other underhanded tactics, such as intimidating universities from initiating Turkish studies departments.) There might not be a national education minister making these directives (On the federal level, a Department of Education could be in existence), but the Land of the Free's "official denial by the state" is directed through its individual states. The topic is presented strictly from the Armenian perspective in most cases, and at the time of this writing, a lawsuit is brewing in Massachusetts, challenging the partisan bigots who are running the show. (Many of these folks got into the act purely for "freedom of choice" reasons, but believing in the validity of the genocide thesis... similar to how the American Civil Liberties Union once defended the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to hold a parade; that is, the notion might be hated, but the rights still need to be defended. My understanding is, the involved people are beginning to have their eyes opened as to the real history, once they were forced to look into the issues more carefully.) The ones behind the case, aside from a dirt-poor Turkish association: a Jewish student, at least one Jewish teacher, and Jewish attorneys. Now THAT'S the kind of real "Jewish consciousness" that brings tears to my eyes.

But, of course, in the barrels of humanity, not all of the apples will be lip-smacking good. Israel Charny, the epitome of "genocide scholars" with his own peculiar brand of "Jewish consciousness," is up next:

"Imagine for a moment the history books of the Western world being printed without having the story of World War I in there."

Israel Charny

Israel Charny

Let's make a record of that, folks. Israel Charny is asking us to believe there are no history books in Turkey covering World War I. I suppose the utter stupidity of such a remark goes well with the domain of being what Charny is identified as onscreen, the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. (As stated earlier, not only is this non-scholar part of the club, he is actually the president. This is very appropriate.)

What Charny really means is that the "genocide" part has not been stressed, and we have gotten into the reasons why. He just doesn't get it that World War I for the Turks encompasses far more than the Armenian story. But what Charny means is far different than what he says. The ignorant and unwary will actually believe that the nation of Turkey is "totalitarian" enough to have pretended this defining event of their history, World War I, does not exist; Turkey is so ashamed, and the Armenian matter so completely describes the Turkish WWI experience, there was simply no other way for the Turks to have covered up their great crime, but to do away with the WWI topic altogether.

Using Charny's words, a far more pertinent question to ask is: "Imagine for a moment the history of what happened between the Turks and the Armenians is printed without having the story of the Turks in there."

"Here is a significant country in our world, spending an enormous amount of its money, of its resources, on one subject: Don't you mention the Armenian genocide."

The only time Turkey spends significant sums, to my awareness, is when the services of those with clout (mainly, political representatives) are paid huge fees to lobby for the Turkish side when the umpteenth Armenian genocide resolution is introduced legislatively (on the Federal level; the Armenians have had free rein with the states, which is one reason why so many states have passed meaningless resolutions). It's also said Turkey spends a lot on P.R. firms, but here is what lies behind those kinds of claims.

The sad fact of the matter is, that Turkish government, made out to look so diabolical by propagandists like Israel Charny, usually has no idea of what it is doing. Here's Sam Weems on the topic

"I am stupefied, and I am wondering where in the world are the Turks? What is the Turkish government doing? Where in heaven's name is the Turkish Foreign Service? No one seems to be doing a darn thing in defending truth and the Turkish interest. If a non-Turk American, like me, can research and find such unbelievable data so destructive for the Turks' and Turkey's vital interests, I ask myself why in the world don't the Turks..?"

He sure laid it on the line. The proof that Charny is talking out of his scrawny derriere is exactly this: if Turkey is really spending an enormous amount of its money to fool everybody, why is it making no dent on the lazy-thinking world's acceptance of  the "genocide"? As usual, the "Armenians" do the crime, and then point to the Turks as having committed the same crime; Weems again:

I know a few Turkish Americans who are true champions for Turkey. Sad truth is that they are too few and they have little funding to compete against a well-oiled and funded Armenian lobby organization. The Armenians have perhaps 40-50 full time professionals in Washington DC doing nothing but working each and every day to undercut Turkey and Azerbaijan and promote themselves for more foreign aid taxpayer funding. Turkish Americans have -0- staff and office working for them in Washington DC. The Turks really should do more to protect themselves. All they have to do is tell truth!

The main ones doing the fighting are a very few Turkish-Americans, whose voices are almost always met with an automatic censorship by media outlets (this PBS episode serving as but one example), not only because of the anti-Turkish baggage of Westerners, but because Armenian propaganda is now so powerful, those with contra-genocide views are put in the same boat as neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. (Which was exactly the unscrupulous genocide industry's goal... insidious.) Most "Picnic" Turks couldn't care less. The few who are doing the fighting are only motivated by their anger against the great injustice over the situation. Aside from the Turks' laziness, one important reason why more Turks don't get involved is because the facts of the "genocide"... that is, the hideous crimes the Armenians perpetrated on the Turks on a widespread and (if we can use Samantha Power's word) methodical scale ... have been kept from them. As a result, Turks have no hatred, which was precisely the noble idea. The reason why the Armenian genocide juggernaut is so functional is because too many Armenians are taught to hate.

One last tidbit from Weems: "Here is an eye-opening calculation for you: Armenians, in the last 10 years, have probably spent about 14 million dollars to support all the political candidates that they did. When those candidates got elected, Armenia got 1.4 billion dollars in the same 10 years as US Foreign Aid. That is, for every one dollar Armenian Americans "invested", they got $100 back in US Aid to Armenia! 100 to 1 return! This is a better return than Las Vegas casinos!"

So here is Armenia, landlocked, poor, their people leaving the nation in droves (not too many of those hypocritical diaspora Armenians from America are going off to live in their "ancient homeland" that they pay such loving lip service to), their corrupt dictator Dashnak leaders not caring for the welfare of the people as usual, instigating violence and terror as usual (as in Karabakh), and knowing they will get away with it because they are the darlings of the Turk-unfriendly West. Armenia that continuously has its hand out to get millions in American taxpayer money without offering America anything in return (the crooks still have to pony up the $50 million they borrowed from the USA, at 5% interest, all the way back in 1919); the real question for Israel Charny is not what the Turkish government is doing to protect itself from constant vicious propaganda and slander... but why is Armenia spending millions of its limited dollars to perpetuate their mythological genocide? (But that is the last question Israel Charny would want to ask.)



We are told the story of how the 1935 MGM production of "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh" was stopped because a Turkish diplomat in the USA expressed his concern, as if it were a crime to defend "oneself" while victimized by vicious propaganda. (The author of the book, Franz Werfel, according to his friend, Albert Amateau — who became a rabbi later in life — realized he had been lied to by Armenians, relying on such poppycock as the Andonian forgeries. [Which the creepy Vahakn Dadrian will still tell you, by the way, is perfectly good evidence.] But Werfel kept quiet, because he had also discovered the power of the fanatical "Armenian Curtain of Fear"; one wrong move against Hai Tahd, and it could be curtains).

The real story is that Ataturk, a man who was in close competition to become TIME Magazine's Man of the Century (but whose selection was doomed from the start; TIME Magazine was not going to be caught dead choosing Ataturk, in this anti-Turkish world), and for colossally good reason for those who know about his greatness, has never been depicted in an American movie, or even a European movie, to my knowledge. (In the 1930s and 1940s, Hollywood was churning out biographies or historical movies on just about every conceivable personality or topic.) Not even in a bit role. The last time an attempt was made to make a film about Ataturk, by the son of Laurence Olivier, the rabid Turk-hating groups (this time the Greeks) put a stop to the production, by intimidating the star and his celebrity wife. (At around the same time ARARAT got made with no problem; a few Turks objected, but Miramax's ignorant Harvey Weinstein simply gave the finger to the "Nazis." Goldberg
— more likely, Balakian, as this subject is also from his Tigris book  —  is going all the way back to 1935 and pointing to what was an unusual lark to demonstrate the "power" of the supposedly omnipotent Turkish government.)

SAMANTHA POWER, after explaining that she expected to defend her handling of the Armenian "genocide" while she was on tour for her book: "What amazed me was that there were deniers — there were people who raised their hands, you know, from time to time, y'know, as I travelled around — but they were always either Turkish or, ah, officials or individuals who had been sent out by the Turkish embassy."

How very disingenuous of Ms. Power, having had a thorough knowledge of how the genocide club had been operating by the time of her tour (that is, the dynamics of the Armenian genocide industry), to express how "amazed" she was that there were no critical non-Turks in the audience. The Armenian propaganda apparatus had intimidated everyone from the debate; those teachers who would present the authentic history in classrooms would be harassed to the point of learning to stay away from the topic. (For example, after Prof. Richard Hovannisian reportedly branded fellow UCLA instructor, Prof. Stanford Shaw, a "criminal," Hovannisian's mad dog students did their best to disrupt Shaw's classes. The cowed university offered no support, and Shaw was forced into early retirement.) So nobody really knew the Turkish side... nobody wants to know, because of prejudice and a brainwashing that has taken effect from years of repeated Armenian propaganda bombardment. The reason why there were no Turks, and Power could not have been naive enough not to know this, boils down to the five words movie critic Pauline Kael used, to describe how Hollywood could get away with making such a racist movie like MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: "Who wants to defend Turks?" (Even Turks don't care to defend Turks, because Turks have better things to do. The reason why the Embassy sometimes — and I stress the word "sometimes" — gets involved is not because they are the diabolical villains from some James Bond movie implementing a sinister plan; it's because they know they are the last stop. If they don't say anything, no one will. Here is an example of Power coming across a couple of Turks in the audience; neither was associated with nor needed the Turkish Embassy to attend this particular meeting.)

Not incidentally, the fact that Power can make a claim like anonymous folks in the audience raising their hands having been sent by the Turkish Embassy, when she would have had no way of knowing where the people in the audience came from (unless she asked them, which we all know would have been unlikely... or unless the audience member voluntarily revealed they were from or sent by the Embassy, which would also not have been a matter of course; come to think of it, even though the odds were that these people were Turks, how could she even be sure they were all Turks? Would she have stopped and quizzed each one on their ethnicity?) sheds great light on the level of the possible attorney's "scholarship"; carelessly producing statements not supported by genuine facts, but speculation.

She follows the above chatter about Turks defending their honor against this horrible defamation campaign with her conclusion of what the obvious "sign" is. And the way in which she does that turns out to be one of the most vicious and irresponsible statements from the whole production (for one thing, now present day Turks are equated with neo-Nazis, just as Ottoman Turks must be depicted as Nazis):

"That's a sign, in a way that already Turkish deniers are becoming the equivalent socially, culturally, of Holocaust deniers."

Turks are Nazis

Andrew Goldberg goes to town with the above "Turks are Nazis" juxtaposition, accompanying Power's voice-over... reminiscent of the way horrible Nazi propaganda movies juxtaposed scurrying vermin with Jews; we are simply replacing one "subhuman" species with another. Is this the kind of imagery an honest PBS documentary would carry, from the perspective of the producer?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, sums up precisely why unscrupulous genocide advocates, who care nothing for genuine history and only for their agendas, know what deep trouble they are in as regards their Armenian genocide propaganda. They have the wool pulled over the people's eyes for the moment because of their great wealth, political power and underhanded "end justifies the means" tactics, in addition to the Western world's racist antipathy toward Turks, and Turkish indifference. The one thing these genocide advocates can't afford to do is to engage in legitimate debate. So they know they must discredit their opponents by undermining their character, in age-old ad hominem style.

This is the definition of the loser. When they can't win with the truth, they must get personal.


Don't forget our analysis of the follow-up discussion:

PBS Debate: "Armenian Genocide: Exploring the Issues"

Other PBS Armenian Propaganda Programs over the years:


The Great War (1996)

An Armenian Journey (1988)

The Forgotten Genocide (1983)

The Armenians, a Story of: Survival (2002)




"West" Accounts


Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site