THE GREAT WAR, presented by PBS in 1996 was a sneaky
program, regarding the "Genocide." There were several
"stories" in each chapter, and the "Genocide" one began
with coverage of the Gallipoli episode. The Turks were presented fairly, and
it was refreshing. That was the first chapter, and since the Turks were the
Low Men on the Totem Pole during World War I, I figured that would be it
regarding mention of the Turks in this series covering World War I. The series
concentrated almost wholly on what was going on between the Germans on one
side and the British/French and later Americans on the other... with some
Russia added, here and there.
Theophil Wegner's shot was used to identify the
"Genocide" chapter in The Great War.
So while watching this first episode, feeling good that
FOR ONCE America's Public Broadcasting System did not jump down the Turks'
throats, the title card for the last episode came up.... with Armin Theophil
Wegner's ubiquitous shot of the little girl crying identifying the segment,
called "Genocide." I was so lulled, I actually thought, genocide?
There was a genocide in World War I? In the next few seconds, I realized which
genocide they were referring to... of COURSE. THAT "genocide"!
I could picture what was going through the minds of the
producers, mainly Blaine Baggett: if we put in the one segment involving the
Turks not showing them in a bad light... the Gallipoli one... in the same
episode with the GENOCIDE one... we won't be accused of being unfair, and
coming down hard on the Turks.
I was really incensed about this low down tactic, and
this terribly unfair and one-sided depiction of events, so customary of PBS'
Armenian programming. The show was produced in the Los Angeles/Californian arm
of the network, the land of milk and honey for Armenian-Americans.
From an Armenian web site, here is how Harut
Sassounian, of the California Courier Publisher, rejoiced:
If you watched
the PBS documentary on World War I, you will probably agree with me that it was a
masterpiece. The inclusion of the Armenian Genocide in such a major documentary brought
the Armenian tragedy out of its obscurity and showcased it on the center stage of one of
the defining moments of world history. In eight minutes, the producers were able to
present the Turkish attempt of race extermination with powerful still and film footage,
maps, eyewitness accounts of survivors and foreign diplomats, scholarly narration, and
haunting background music. The producers did not mince words. They clearly identified the
perpetrator as Turkey. They called the crime, "the first genocide of the 20th century
. . .a brutal plan of mass murder," and "ethnic-cleansing." They stated
that both major wars of the 20th century "were marked by genocide," thereby
clearly drawing a parallel between the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust. They
referred to the infamous Hitler statement, "Who remembers the extermination of the
At the end, when the narrator pointed out that "to this day, the Turkish government
denies the genocide," the viewers could only feel disgust and horror at the Turks'
shameful misrepresentation. This documentary marks a turning point in our long effort s to
bring international recognition to the Armenian Genocide. This will also be the beginning
of the end of Turkish lies and distortions. I have transcribed below the segment on the
Had I discovered Mr. Sassounian's article on the
Internet earlier, it would have saved me the trouble of transcribing the segment. I will
go with my transcription, not because Mr. Sassounian did not do an accurate job, but I
took it from the first word to the last. (Besides, this way I won't feel all my time had
gone completely to waste.) .
I love it when Armenians claim their
"genocide" is so obscure. Naturally, since the "genocide" constitutes
such a major part of the Armenians' "raison d'etre," nothing would please them
more than if the "genocide" were referred to all the time... in every published
article and every TV show. However, the Armenian "Genocide" is firmly
established in the minds of Westerners, after nearly a century of a non-stop barrage of
reminders; there are many, many, many genocides
that are truly obscure, like the genocide of the Tatars begun with Catherine the Great and
ending with Stalin, or the genocide that actually succeeded, that of the Tasmanians; the
Armenian "Genocide" is anything but obscure.
Why is The
Ottoman Empire called "Turkey,"? Persia
is not called by its present-day name, "Iran." Arabia
is also not identified as "Saudi Arabia."
Mr. Sassounian is quite correct. "The
producers did not mince words. They clearly identified the perpetrator as Turkey."
Indeed. That was the whole IDEA. In fact, their accusatory agenda was so obvious, they
even marked the map on their program as "Turkey," rather than the "Ottoman
Empire," attempting to form a link between the alleged crimes of the past regime with
the present day republic.
What the Program Said, and Holdwater's Comments
In Turkey in the year of 1915, war had two faces. One was the heroic stand at
Gallipoli. The other, a brutal plan of mass murder.
In Northeastern Turkey, hundreds of thousands of civilians were to die. The war was
the excuse. Ethnic cleansing of Christian Armenians out of the lands controlled by
Islamic Turkey was the true intention.
Professor JAY WINTER:
(?), during the days of the Ottoman Empire
The presence in the northeast of the country of
a thriving cultured and relatively wealthy community of Armenians was a difficulty
to Turks long before the First World War. It became a political and strategic threat
when the war broke out because of the place of Armenians in the Russian Empire.
However, most Armenians, two million of them living in the Turkish Empire, were no
In many ways, it shows that the old idea that
war is politics by other means is outdated in the 20th century. War is hatred by
other means. And in this case, hatred means extermination. The First World War was
the biggest war ever to date. The Second World War was bigger still. It's not
accident on my mind that both of them were marked by genocide. This is the logic of
the brutalization of total war.
I'm going to have some things to say about Professor Jay
Winter, after we get through the show's content. Already, we can see the producer
and his cohorts have accepted the "Genocide" as fact, claiming from the
outset that there was a "brutal plan of mass murder." Of course, if there
were such a plan, there must be cold, objective, hard evidence, the lack of which
prevented the British from convicting any of the Ottoman officials held for the Malta Tribunal not only of genocide,
but of ANY war crimes. But, hold on. We'll get to what the program offers as
So the professor is singing the
same song about the Armenians in the country's northeast (described as
"relatively wealthy"; the key word is "relatively." These
Armenians, relative to the Armenians in the west of the country, were NOT
wealthy. Maybe they were generally wealthier than their fellow Ottoman Muslim
citizens, but the implication that these relatively poor Armenians were
targeted for their wealth becomes bunk when we keep in mind their richer
cousins in the western region were mostly exempt from the relocarion policy)
targeted by the Turks for extermination for "strategic" reasons... which
has truth, since the Armenians were colluding with the Russian invader... and for
"political" reasons, implying it was the Turks' intention to cleanse the
land of non-Turks, which is bunk. Why were the other non-Turks of the land,
like the Jews, unaffected? If the professor meant the Christian vs. Muslim issue as
"political," another standard argument of the pro-Armenians, why were the
Catholic and Protestant Armenians excluded from the relocation orders? (Last time I
checked, Catholics and Protestants were
Christians.) Yet another Armenian explanation for the Turks wishing to exterminate
the Armenians, in the Armenians' desperate search for a motive — any motive —
was that the Turks were looking for a scapegoat, as angered as they were for having
the empire diminish in the previous century. In other words the Turks had a hissy
fit. Even if extermination were the aim, a period of desperate wartime struggle
would have been the most inopportune time to get rid of such a valuable resource as
the Armenians, who largely made the economic wheels turn.
How about looking at the one
motive that makes sense? The ONLY reason the Armenians were relocated was because
they were revolting! That is, in the sense that the Armenians betrayed their nation,
acting as a fifth column behind the Ottoman lines. The United States Secretary of
State, Robert Lansing, said in November of 1916: "I could see that [the
Armenians'] well-known disloyalty to the Ottoman Government and the fact that the
territory which they inhabited was within the zone of military operations
constituted grounds more or less justifiable for compelling them to depart their
Only hours after the first allied soldiers stepped onto the beaches of Gallipoli,
two hundred Armenian leaders were rounded up and executed. The Turks then began
ridding themselves of entire communities; men, women and children were marched off
into the desert.
The Turkish government had said that the men in prison would be released and allowed
to go with their families. Some were simple enough to believe this and to think they
would be allowed to settle down in some other place where they would begin life all
Here we go with the same
baseless charges, and the same unfair overlooking of the impartial, cold facts. The
fact of the matter is, the Young Turks gave the Armenians every warning not to side
with the enemy, as the Armenians historically had a knack for, since the 19th
Century. When the evidence was clearly in that the Armenians would once again stab their nation in the back,
as their revolutionary leaders instructed in a 1914 call to arms, somebody had
to be found guilty. Who were the ones leading the Armenians? Was it the janitors and
dishwashers among them? No. It would have had to be the "Armenian
leaders," wouldn't it? These two hundred Armenian leaders, then... were they
all so innocent, as the program implies?
Regarding the naive
Armenians who simple-mindedly believed what "The Turkish Government
Said"... let's see now. The Armenian
Patriarch gave statistics to both the British and to the American president of
Robert College (in Istanbul) in February of 1921, claiming the Armenian survivors in
the Ottoman Empire were around one million. (The Partiarch also presented a document
to the British specifying 625,000 Armenians were within the borders of what was left
of the Ottoman Empire after the war, just before the Sevres Treaty. Hundreds of
thousands were refugees in other nations, 500,000 in Transcaucasia alone, by Richard
Hovannisian's count.) If over half a dozen neutral
census figures came up with a median total population of Armenians of 1,300,000,
it would seem a LOT of Armenians indeed did survive, and their government WAS
telling the truth. Even if the Armenian casualties amounted to twice the remainder
from the above computation (at 600,000, a number Holdwater accepts), did all of
these people die of atrocities? Or could some of them died in the same way that
their fellow Ottoman Muslims died, of famine and disease? (in addition to dying as
treacherous combatants?) Even the Armenian guru, Ambassador Henry Morgenthau,
claimed in his ghostwritten book that thousands of Turks were dying daily. That's
DAILY, assuming the ambassador was telling the truth (which is a big assumption,
Leslie Davis, the American consul in the remote
eastern province of Harput had heard rumors of crimes committed by Turkish soldiers
and marauding bands. To see for himself he hired a guide and by horseback (went)
into the desert.
“Greater misery could not be imagined. The dead and the dying are everywhere. Two
or three small children may be seen weeping over the body of their dead mother.
Other children are lying curled upon the ground dead or in convulsions. One sees
dead bodies now in all directions and on every road. The whole country is one vast
Let's get a few things
straight. Nobody is denying Armenians did not suffer from the relocations. They were
poorly defended by attacking bands that were mostly out for blood feuds, in
retaliation for their own that the
Armenians had massacred. Not all the gendarmes were lowlifes, as the Armenians
claim.... some gave up their lives in
the Armenians' defense. However, every quality man was needed at the front to defend
the nation from the invading Russians and the backstabbing Armenians (not to mention
other fronts, among four or five in the resource-depleted, bankrupt nation, such as
Gallipoli -- also aided by Armenians). The pool of men these gendarmes were selected
from were poor, and the Armenians were victimized by some who were assigned to
protect them, as well. (Some of whom were tried and executed
by the Ottomans in 1915! A greater number than twenty was no doubt tried and punished in less extreme
ways. Did Hitler punish a single SS man during the Holocaust, for mistreating a
Jew?) No doubt the Armenians suffered, and there were massacres. Massacres that
would never have occurred if their leaders had not fired the first shot and betrayed their
nation in their nation's darkest hour for survival.
However, massacres do NOT a
government-sponsored genocide make. Was the American government guilty of a
systematic plan to exterminate the Vietnamese people when one of their officers went
bonkers and slaughtered the residents of My Lai?
What kind of a man was Leslie
Davis, anyway? Information on him is sparse, but I dug up enough details from
Armenian web sites that casts serious doubts on his character. Many U.S. Consuls,
such as George Horton were equally
racist as their boss, Ambassador Henry
"Holier-than-Thou" Morgenthau. These consuls accepted wholesale the
lies provided for them by Armenians (many of which were in their employ, including
Leslie Davis) and the heartbreakingly unscrupulous missionaries, who were duty-bound by their pledges to God to be
honorable. Why did Leslie Davis come up with the EXACT same casualty figures that he
independently conducted as an "eyewitness," that a missionary lady came up
with when she independently conducted her own "eyewitness" count? That
would have been IMPOSSIBLE, given the extremely difficult circumstances. Read more about Mr. Davis, and judge how
reliable his testimony is.
The deplorable scenario Mr.
Davis described above could well have been on the money; nobody is denying the
Armenians suffered horribly. However, people dying from famine and disease, as we
can gather from the description, does not have anything to do with a
"slaughterhouse," where people are deliberately murdered. Was food
intentionally withheld from the Armenians, in an attempt to make them die slowly? If
this was the evil intentioin, we must bear in mind two factors. How could so many
Armenians have survived, if the idea was to kill them off? And how could Leslie
Davis, a hostile foreign agent, have been permitted to eyewitness the suffering of
the Armenians, if the idea was to exterminate them through starvation? Most
convincingly, weren't the Turks dying of the same reasons in large numbers?
Ambassador Morgenthau estimated an entire quarter of the Turkish population died
from famine in his "Story" book, and a U.S. Consul wrote in his memoirs: "Since
the beginning of the war even bread is almost unobtainable." That consul
was Leslie Davis himself. ("The Slaughterhouse
By the way, if the country was
one vast slaughterhouse as Davis wrote in his testimony above, why were the children
spared? That doesn't make sense. If there's going to be a massacre, I can't
understand why everyone was not massacred. That's the way the Armenians did it.... they did not spare the Turkish children.
Davis’s reports were not the only ones. Other eyewitnesses also complained of the
killings. One was a young medic in the German army, Armin Wegner. Against orders
smuggling in his camera, he visited a refuge camp filled with survivors.
“In the last few days I have taken numerous
photographs under penalty of death. I do not doubt for a moment that I am committing
an act of treason. And yet, I am inspired by the knowledge that I have helped these
poor people in some small way.”
What Armin Wegner captured in these photos was a visual record of the first genocide
of the 20th century.
“Hunger, death, despair… shout at me from all sides. I was seized by the terror
and hurried out of the camp, my heart pounding. I was overcome by dizziness as if
earth were collapsing on both sides of me, into an abyss.”
Armin Theophil Wegner sure
wrote poetically, did he not? Just like many of these accounts of suffering
Armenians that are written poetically... by Armenians! Yes, his writing style is
markedly different than the cold, matter-of-fact style of a Leslie Davis, provided
Regardless of Mr. Wegner's
ethnicity (is "Theophil" a German name?), what do his photographs prove?
Like Leslie Davis, Wegner, too, is another Armenian "Big Gun," presented
on the side of the evidence for genocide, within the "The Armenians, A Story of
Survival " PBS program.
The photographic examples on both programs show suffering people, of whom there were
many throughout the empire. The Ottoman Muslims were not cavorting about swimming
pools with cigars in their mouths. (Remember they, too, were dying.... by the
thousands.... daily... according to Ambassador Morgenthau.) There is one photo in
the lot from THE GREAT WAR that is the most incriminating.... a pile of skulls.
Since the photo's quality was so different from the other Wegner photos shown on the
program, I suspect it came from another source. Even if it did not, was this photo
documented? The director of the German museum, (Stutgart's Schiller-Nationalmuseum
Deutsches Literaturarchiv) where the Wegner photo originals are housed, said:
we do not have any indication regarding when or in what country the Wegner
photographs were taken. As a result, the dating, and sites depicted must be
determined by whoever uses the photos.’’
This means those
skulls could have belonged to anyone. Unlikely such a fraud could not have been
perpetrated by the Armenians? Then you're not familiar with the long line of Armenian forgeries and falsifications.
Even if the skulls
were Armenian skulls... does that prove a genocide, as defined by the U.N. Convention of 1948?
Think again.... massacres by themselves do not prove a government-sponsored policy
Please go to Armin Wegner's page on TAT to find out
more (the details on the German museum director are here), and to see the
photographs used in THE GREAT WAR, including the small pile of skulls... and
determine for yourself whether these undocumented photographs are a visual record of
a genocide, or a record of suffering and dead people that singled out only one
segment of the entire population... during a period of strife, famine and disease
that did not discriminate among its victims.
Professor JAY WINTER:
In many ways, it shows that the old idea that war is politics by other means is
outdated in the 20th Century. War is hatred by other means. And in this case, hatred
The first world war was the biggest war ever, to date. The second world war was
bigger still. It’s no accident in my mind that both of these were marked by
genocide. It is the logic of brutalization of total war.
A few found a way to tell what had happened to them. One Armenian woman smuggled out
a message in a shoe. ‘I seize the opportunity of bringing to your ear the cry of
agony which goes out from the survivors of this terrible crisis through which we are
passing. They are exterminating our nation(s). Perhaps this will be the last cry
from Armenia that you will hear.’
To this day, the Turkish government denies the genocide. Estimates vary as to how
many Armenians died. Some cite the figure of half a million. Others, one million.
Whatever the number, the Armenian genocide was one of the darkest chapters of the
a pretty time for anyone.
In years to come, Armin Wegner would send a
letter to Adolf Hitler in defense of the Jewish people. It was a plea which fell on
deaf ears. For Hitler had learned a completely different lesson. He told his inner
circle: ‘Who remembers the Armenia massacres today.’
"The last cry from Armenia that you will hear"? How
wrong that poetically-writing Armenian woman was. Sympathy-seeking Armenians are
crying louder than ever... like forks scraping a blackboard.
It's not just the Turkish
government that "denies" the "genocide"... impartial scholars do, as well. That is,
those who are still brave to speak the truth, after being targeted for character assassination or just plain assassination
by some of the more fanatical Armenians. What a dishonest program. The producer
really did the services of the many fine, talented people who worked on this program
a great injustice by making the decision to support what must have been the views of
his California Armenian friends. When just one segment is filled with such
propagandistic materials, doubt is cast on the seaworthiness of the entire ship...
the whole "Great War" series now becomes untrustworthy, its credibility impaired.
Naturally, the biggest gun of
the Armenian "Genocide" is the alleged Hitler Quote. If it wasn't for the services of the Armenians'
fellow Aryan, I don't know if
there would be ANY "proof" of the "Genocide."
The last segment of this
chapter accompanying the show was a real cheap shot. It was illustrated with these
Regardless of whether the
people shown in these photos were actually the relocating Armenians on their way to
their new homes or just arbitrary shots of Ottomans using the trains (look at those
trains... made of wood. The bankrupt nation likely bought the cheapest train cars
available, in the years before the First World War, and I doubt any of the citizens
traveled sitting in the plush seats we know from Amtrak or the Eurail system), the
connection is clear: the Armenians were inhumanely being transported in cattle cars,
like their Jewish counterparts of the Holocaust. (I've never seen W.W.II Jews
allowed to open the doors of their train cars and sit around in such a relaxed
The railway system in the
destitute land was very limited; this is why many Armenians had to travel at least
part of the way by marching, where whatever cruelties occurred, occurred. As Rear
Admiral Colby M. Chester wrote in "Turkey
Reinterpreted" (The New York Times Current History, March 1922): The Turkish Government. ordered the Armenians deported from
the districts they menaced That they did not have railways and other means of
transportation was not their fault, and the deportation had to be carried out on
foot. Had this been a period of time beyond relatively un-modern 1915, and there
was a fuller railway system, the Armenians could not have been as open to attack.
Which brings to mind, if the Turks' evil plan was to kill the Armenians not through
outright massacres but by deliberately subjecting them to the harsh conditions of a
march... why did the Turks allow any Armenians to board any trains? The sooner they
began their death-march, the more easily could the planned genocide have succeeded.
Ladies and gentlemen, the case for the Armenian "Genocide" simply does not
add up, no matter how you look at it.
Here is a report by a
U.S. Consul that paints a picture of how the Armenians were transported by train...
from the Leslie Davis page.
|Jay Winter wrote
that it was NOT GENOCIDE
I didn't check this firsthand, but I had no reason to suspect the
following was untrue (of course, I could be wrong): on pg. 148 of the accompanying book
for the series ("The Great War," Penguin Books, 1996), Professor Jay
Winter acknowledged that there was no genocide! If anyone has this book, a
confirmation would be welcomed.
book appears widely available throughout the nation's library system, and I had a
chance to check out page 148 of "The Great War":
unlikely that a precise order to exterminate every single Armenian came down from
the ruling Turkish triumvirate of Tallat [sic] Bey, Minister of the Interior, Enver
Pasha, Minister of War, and Djemal Pasha, Minister of the Navy. The responsibility
of these men for collective deportation is clear; but deportation — a
time-honoured strategy in nineteenth-century Turkey — while tantamount to death
for the old, the weak and the infirm, was not genocide."
The blame, Winter wrote,
rested with "corrupt and incompefent elements of the army." And he is
absolutely correct, there were elements in the army that committed criminal actions
against Armenians. However, how highly irresponsible to conclude that such amounted
to "genocide." In war, it is a given that some soldiers act irresponsibly,
committing atrocities and war crimes; in fact, this inescapable part of war
constitutes — unfortunately —the nature of war. (In other words:
war is not "nice.") When American troops took it upon themselves to gun
down hundreds of Vietnamese civilians in My Lai, it would be quite a stretch to
characterize the event as the intent to exterminate all Vietnamese.
How many of these
"bad" Ottoman soldiers directly massacred Armenians, and how many
Armenians died from famine and disease? The vast majority fell nto the latter
category, the same causes that snuffed out the lives of everyone in the ailing
Empire, without discrimination.
Let's not forget there were
also gendarmes who lost their lives protecting Armenians. The main perpetrators of
murder were lawless bandits. Some killed because they were "bad." Many,
however, were out for revenge for what the Armenians had done to their families.
British Col. Wooley reported the Armenians had killed from 300,000 to 400,000 Kurds,
very much in line with the Ottoman documentation pointing to the deaths of over
half-a-million Ottomans at the hands of the Armenians (and some Russians).
That was the real
extermination policy, and nobody talks about it because Muslim lives don't count in
prejudiced Western minds. The acts of violence committed by lawless bandits and some
renegade soldiers can not be termed "genocide." The lives these criminals
haphazardly took could not have amounted to "a brutal
plan of mass murder," as Jay Wnter irresponsibly stated
in the TV program. Such a brutal plan could only work if the government were
involved, and the government was NOT involved, according to Jay Winter in his book.
of the book makes sure to drive home the "genocide" point in a major way. From the index, there are 12 pages on
"Turkey" (Prof. Winter makes sure to call the country "Turkey"
and not the Ottoman Empire. I suppose the "historian" must also call
Russia by the name of "The Soviet Union." He is attempting to
propagandistically link the previous regime with today's Turkey... as he made clear
in the T.V. show's closing statements), many of which is just a passing reference.
But there are 10 pages on the "genocide," and the professor lays it on
thick; his main "evidence" is the testimony of the awful Turcophobe, Lepsius. (The German religious fanatic was
nowhere near the scene; he relied on reports provided by Armenians and missionaries,
shared to a significant degree by another who had it in for the Turks, Ambassador
The producer, Blaine
Baggett, hailed from California, which is Armenian country. Perhaps some forces at
work (What C. F. Dixon-Johnson
called "The Invisible Hand") decided this program would present an
excellent opportunity to push Armenian propaganda under the guise of
"history." The PBS program made a big impact, added some important notches
to Jay Winter's belt, and in the interim he has succeeded in getting out of England
and settling into the prestigious Ivy League quarters of Yale University. Certainly
the topic of "genocide" can work wonders with the careers of some people.
By this time, in 1996, I was not active in countering anti-Turkish
injustices in the American media (like the typically apathetic Turkish-American), but THE
GREAT WAR infuriated me in its blatant one-sided agenda to incriminate the Turks, and
spurred me into action; I made certain to find the names and addresses of key people.
One of the Letters
February 11, 1997
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, VA 22314
Dear Ms. Cherensky,
Did you run across this week’s news item of the high school student who wrote to
the SAT board, challenging the accuracy of one of their answers? (Reported in, among
others, Time Magazine.)
What if the SAT Board looked into this matter and, despite convincing evidence to
the contrary, stubbornly stuck to their guns? Do you think that would have been the
right thing to do?
I thank you for your response to my letter concerning The Great War series, but
because the content of your response blindly disregarded everything in the materials
I provided Mr. Duggan with, I feel it would have been better if you sent no response
Armenian victims from THE GREAT WAR
You say the series was exhaustively researched
and compiled, and there was evidence of that in the series as a whole. As far as
your claim that “internationally recognized and accepted scholarship” was used:
are you sure about that? (Pertaining to the “Genocide” segment, anyway.) I mean,
really sure? And what about the overwhelming evidence of accepted scholarship I
provided Mr. Duggan with, in the form of the copy of my letter to Jay Winter?
When one point-of-view is unilaterally used, to the exclusion of all others, don’t
you think there’s something fishy? And wouldn’t that cast suspicion to the
credibility of the rest of the information in the series?
After the series aired, the only source of information provided in The Great War
website was from an Armenian author; that doesn’t seem very even-handed to me.
Even the co-author of the series, Jay Winter, acknowledges in his book, “The Great
War” (Penguin Books, 1996) that there was no genocide! (Page 148).
I know you’re merely a cog in the PBS wheel, and I’ve also learned the
uselessness of writing letters to PBS, because they’re obviously not seriously
considered. I’m simply writing you as one human being to another; it was improper
to shoot off a “form letter” type response, saying, in effect, “we don’t
care how much evidence to the contrary we get from unbiased scholars and historians
— we’re going to stand by our TV show no matter what.” At least show a little
pretense in caring, and making an effort to look into the truthfulness of the
with an agenda?
There are, of course, so many professors like
Jay Winter who blindly and unthinkingly obey the irresistible melodies of The Armenian AND? Anthem. What is
so troubling that when there is an example of a professor who believes in the
alternate view, he is quick to be branded a tool of the Turks, as happened to Dr.
Heath Lowry during a two-year smear campaign
orchestrated against him, largely by Peter Balakian (friend of several
pro-Armenian PBS shows). The difference is, Dr. Lowry reaches his conclusions
through meticulous and open-minded study and does not ignore the voluminous
impartial evidence against the case for Genocide. (Read some of his works that have
been presented here on the TAT site, and judge the man for his research.) A
professor like Jay Winter, based on the "evidence" provided on the GREAT
WAR series that was co-written by him (for the "genocide" segment) has no
real facts to back up his genocidal claims with, and other "facts" have
clearly been distorted. So why aren't American authors like Norman Mailer and Kurt
Vonnegut up in arms against professors like Jay Winter who might be influenced by
their private agendas, as these authors were against Heath Lowry? Such critics'
racist and ignorant patterns of thought become readily apparent, and the
double-standard is truly stomach-churning.