part of a series examining the ways and works of the Armenian-supported
perpetual "visiting professor" Taner Akcam; here is the lead page for this series.
In early 2004, Taner Akcam was persuaded
to join a discussion group (Truth-Anatolia1915) that I happened to be a member
of, and I couldn't resist throwing Dr. Akcam a challenge. I told him this
would be his golden opportunity to prove himself with a crowd that does not
accept everything he says at face value, like the rest of his prejudiced and
lazy-thinking "genocide" world. He immediately withdrew from the
group, and I wrote him a second letter, wondering why a cat had grabbed hold
of his tongue. Finally, he replied, calling me "brother," which was
very kind of him. He basically said he didn't have the time to teach me, since
he was such a professor and all, I suppose. (Which is curious, because I'd
have thought the duty of a professor would be to teach.) But he revealed his
real thoughts about me to the group's moderator, who decided not to make a
secret of Akcam's response, and the professor's feelings were anything but
brotherly. Naturally, I had to follow up with a third open letter. In the
meantime, Dr. Dennis Papazian jumped to Taner Akcam's rescue, offering to
debate me, but he first wanted to know who I really was. I decided to throw my
response to Dr. Papazian into this series, as well.
There are a good number of letters that
I've written in my hopes for correcting the terrible wrongs that are
prevalent, in this unfair world where Armenian "genocide" claims are
accepted at face value. These are private communications, but when I came
across these open letters a year-and-a-half after they had been written, I
decided to make an exception and share them (in slightly edited versions) with
readers of this site. Because I don't pretend to know everything about this
history and am always on a learning curve (many times I've come across better
information, shedding my older beliefs, as the perpetual
"revisionist" all truth-seekers must be in historical matters), I
added comments at the bottoms of these older letters, correcting the areas
where I had gone wrong. There are areas that I would write differently
today... for example, I'm now largely refraining from referring to Turkish
pro-genocide opportunists as "turncoats." (There are many earlier
pages of this site that I would like to go back and re-write in a similar
vein, but this site has already taken up so much of my time.)
This first letter was written in late
March of 2004.
Letter Number One to Taner Akcam
Dear Mr. AkÁam,
Taner Akcam, posing for the
March 2004 N.Y. Times article
I havenít been active with the Truth-Anatolia1915 group of late,
but I was intrigued to see you have accepted the moderatorís invitation to join. The one
message you left (message/813) did not come across as especially sincere... if I
understood correctly, you referred to the March 6, 2004 New York Times
article ("Turks Breach Wall of Silence on Armenians") featuring yourself
as somewhat being out of your hands when, really, the purpose of that article was to lend
evidence that Turks are finally owning up to their criminal past... giving yourself as the
main, mold-breaking Turk who has been brave enough to defy the sinister line of the evil
Turkish government. I donít understand why you would attempt to distance yourself from
the articleís point-of-view, when in fact your entire purpose is exactly as stated...
and has been, ever since you decided to reinvent yourself as the first Turkish scholar to
break what is often referred to as Turkeyís Armenian genocide taboo.
Your comment that numbers donít matter is straight out of Richard Hovannisianís book
(during occasions when it is not convenient for him to stress the numbers, as he usually
often does), and your conclusion that we need to regard what happened to the Armenians as
"genocide," because of the "intention," cannot be taken seriously.
That is precisely the pointÖ "intent" has never been impartially proven.
Several of the members got back to you on this point, and you chose not to reply. Next
time you make such statements, donít forget to neglect that annoying little matter known
Regardless, I commend you for making this attempt to publicly address your position to a
not necessarily friendly audience, and I believe you should make the most of what may be a
golden opportunity for you.
Iím sure you have endured your share of contempt from the "deniers" within the
Turkish community. I happen to be offended by that word myself, as I fully recognize the
implications behind it. Before you were a blip on the radar screen of this debate,
beginning in the late 1970s and particularly the 1980s, some Turks finally began to
counter what has been a terribly lopsided argument... with the Armeniansí story having
been presented almost exclusively in the West, since the late 19th century. Suddenly, the
Armenians began to lose their stranglehold on what had been universally accepted ó the
barbaric Turks persecuting and exterminating the poor, innocent Armenians, in the same
fashion as the Nazis doing their number on the Jews ó as doubt began to set in the minds
in some corners of the West. Since the Armenians couldnít afford to lose what had been
so carefully cultivated for so long, they had to get serious. Some of their weaponry
involved their characteristic smear campaigns, the sponsorship of certain Turkish
academicians who were required to agree completely with Armenian views, and the nurturing
of alliances with hypocritical genocide scholars and institutes, many of the latter at
least partly financed by the deep pockets of this traditional merchant class.
The Armenian campaign has been all too successful, as the new generation of Western
scholars has been afraid to step into this historical minefield during the last
generation.... I donít see any new Justin McCarthys, Heath Lowrys and Stanford Shaws on
the horizon. Meanwhile, there is no end to the crop of so-called scholars who lazily
accept whatever everyone else says, without bothering to see for themselves if the earth
truly is flat.
Dismissing those who donít agree with the Armenian perspective as "deniers" is
a tactic that is yet another offshoot of attempting to find a parallel with the Holocaust.
Nobody would want to be seen as the young men you no doubt came across during your years
in Germany, the ones who wore black boots, shaved their heads and scrawled "T‹RKEN
RAUS" messages on public walls. Yet, that is what we associate with
"deniers".... either those who are deluded, or the kind of people who know fully
well the genocidal truth, and yet attempt to cover up matters for their own contemptible
Especially since the same can be said about pro-Armenian propagandists ó they are "denialists"
for denying the Armenian "Genocide" did not take place ó this kind of
name-calling has nothing to do with academic debate. Nor does the dishonest usage of other
types of false statements or implications, such as the often repeated claim that it is
only the Turkish government that believes there was no Armenian "Genocide."
However, of course, the one thing the pro-Armenians do not want to encourage is genuine
academic debate.... and why they resort to below-the-belt strategies well familiar to many
in their community.
However, I am glad you decided to come to the forefront by joining this group, and are not
afraid to have your views dissected by those who donít agree with you. You do realize
the pro-Armenians dishonestly try to portray you as representing the other, or
"Turkish" side, attempting to create the illusion of a real debate. Those of us
who know better can only sigh, since the whole idea of a debate is to bring together
parties of opposing views.
As I was saying, Iím sure you have endured your share of contempt from those who
perceive you as having sold out. I canít speak for others, but I will say I personally
have not come across any reason to feel respect for you. This is why I am telling you your
decision to join a group involved in honest debate may be a golden opportunity for you;
finally, you have come up from hiding behind Armenian coattails, and participating in
their one-sided and usually closed door workshops/conferences. Now is your chance to right
yourself in the eyes of those who donít think all that highly of you.
It is fortunate for you that the ones you have decided to confront are traditionally
big-hearted people who, unlike many Armenians, are not raised with hatred in their hearts.
Iím sure most everybody in your opposing camp wishes you well, generally speaking... I
enjoyed learning more about your personal life in the New York Times
article, for example, and I get the sense youíre not a "bad guy" at heart. You
should take advantage of the fact that most people in this opposing camp will not resort
to dirty, low-down tactics such as calling you names ó as with how the Armenians (via
the $2.5 million budgeted Armenian Assembly of America) falsely love to refer to Samuel
Weems, for example, as a "convicted felon." (Keeping in mind that, in your case,
the term may not be entirely inapplicable.) And, God forbid, you can pretty much count out
anyone thinking of bombing your house ó the way Armenians dealt with Prof. Stanford Shaw
ó or anything of a violent nature. I would bet, over the years, perhaps with the
exception of an isolated lunatic here or there, you havenít even received any death
threats to speak of. (By the same token, Iím certain youíve had no shortage of those
who have labeled you as a traitor... and if the word suggests betraying your own people
for reasons that arenít clearly ethical, then I would believe such accusers would have
had cause to hurl such a charge.)
I donít know how much you still remain in touch with your kind (and Iím not referring
to the Armenians, here), but one great thing about them is that they generally play fair
and square. Historically, even the Turksí enemies have acknowledged that they are a
stand-up people... one other reason why it is galling the biased world largely believes
the Turks could be guilty of the worst crime against humanity. The very humanity that the
Turks worked to preserve for centuries, as opposed to other multi-cultural empires... one
reason that ironically led to the Ottomansí downfall.
Speaking for myself, if I were to come across genuine evidence there was an actual
government-sponsored attempt to exterminate the Armenian people, I would have absolutely
no problem with admitting it. I would have no reason to wish to defend a criminal regime,
particularly one that was overthrown by the current Turkish government. The truth
supersedes all, including tribal loyalties.
(One reason why the Briton, C. F. Dixon-Johnson, who wrote 1916ís "The
Armenians," going against the policy of his governmentís wishing to portray the
Turks as inhuman creatures, was not a traitor... quite the contrary, such integrity serves
as an inspiration. By the same token, Lord Bryce and Arnold Toynbee, who knowingly lied
for their Majestyís government, cannot be judged with total harshness... as they decided
ó helped along with their pre-existing prejudices ó to patriotically compromise their
principles for the benefit of their warring nation. It is only when you betray your own
brethren for dishonest reasons do you become a low form of humanity... which is precisely
why you must defend your position not with those who already agree with you, but with
those whose image you have helped to dishonor.)
Another thing thatís very nice about those who donít agree with your views is that
they generally treat you pretty decently. Just recently I came across an article by Levon
Marashlian who went completely ballistic on a proven, fellow "Armenian AND?
Anthem" singer, the co-editor of Armenian Forum, Vincent Lima.
Because Mr. Lima dared to step out of line in a tiny little footnote, referring in passing
to Richard Hovannisianís possible racism and lack of courage, Marashlian nastily wiped
up the floor with Lima, even implying (as I interpreted it) that Lima might be an agent of
the sinister Turkish government! The irony is, of course Hovannisian is a racist... in a
small slip-of-tongue, he even referred to the inhuman Turks as things, during a
rare 1983 PBS debate with Prof. McCarthy; and of course he is a coward, having avoided
debate with genuine "Turkish scholars," for the most part. (http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/marashlian-attacks.htm)
Along with this big-heartedness of the Turks comes their general willingness to side with
truth. Here is the danger, as hopefully you are aware: the reason why Turks in Turkey are
largely ignorant about this genocide matter is not to cover up crimes of the past, but
because it was the policy to forge ahead in peace and brotherhood, and not to dwell on
wrongs committed by both sides; the idea was to still the cycle of hatred. My father
informed me, for example, that when he was a child, history books would refer to the
Greeks during periods of conflict not by name, but as "the enemy." What a mature
and humanistic policy that is twisted by those you have pitched your tent with.
As a result, it seems to me, many Turks are blank slates.... and are ripe for the picking.
I donít know many Turks, but when Iíve had occasion to test the knowledge of the few Iíve
come across... itís easy to see their ignorance and apathy, regarding this matter. The
Armenian "Genocide" is simply not an obsession with Turks who have better things
to do with their lives. So when you have your genocide books printed in Turkish for
distribution in Turkey, or when you go on Turkish TV, as Armenian mouthpiece Robert "Tsk-Tsk"
Fisk reported in (the Kirk Kirkorian co-owned) "The Independent"
years ago... you have an ultra-special responsibility to speak the truth. The land of your
birth has enough enemies trying to tear it apart from outside, and it doesnít need any
help from those within.
Not to say you have no less responsibility to tell truth with non-Turks, particularly
Westerners such as the Americans you are currently teaching.... who are also ignorant in
Turkish matters, and who carry a high degree of negative imprinting, regarding Turkish
people and culture. You may look up another definition of the word "Turk" in any
dictionary, if youíre not sure what Iím alluding to.
It is my conclusion that you have made a very selfish and opportunistic move, and the
consequences are deeply hurtful. However, Iím not going to put you on the hot seat by
asking uncomfortable questions regarding yourself... such as how you were so easily able
to find a job in an American university, teaching history, when your foreign degree was in
Sociology, and your academic background appears largely not to have been established. And
how is it that, of all the universities in the United States, you just happened to become
employed in the one that one of the Armenian "Joint Chiefs of Staff," Dennis
Papazian, calls home? (You know, the one that your fellow turncoat, Fatma MŁce GŲÁek,
somehow also found a job in.) And since you were reportedly kicked out of that institution
when Michiganís local Turkish-American community questioned your credentials, Iím at a
loss to understand how you happened to find employment so easily in another university
known for its unfriendliness to Turks.... the one that houses the genocide center, Stephen
Feinsteinís CHGS? (The one that has the indecency to put up a forged Talat Pasha
telegram as evidence for the Armenian "Genocide"Ö citing just one outrageous
(I know of someone with a Ph.D) not having an easy time finding work, the same fate of
many Americans armed with a doctorate degree. Iím going to resist the temptation of
asking for your employment advice and taking advantage of your magical job-finding skills,
this go-round.... since we mainly need to focus on the historical issues.
Regarding the CHGS, by the way, it is in their disgusting "Armenian Resources"
section that we can read an often-repeated quote of yours... this time advertising the
video, "The Wall of Silence." Thatís the one where you state Turkey can
only become a democracy once she comes clean with the Armenian "Genocide." If
Turkish society has problems, itís naive and/or deceptive to point to this fast-becoming
ancient historical episode as a potential cure-all. Moreover, there are plenty who donít
see the nation of your birth as akin to an oppressive dictatorship (your buddies Peter
Balakian and Dennis Papazian, for example, prefer to use the word
"totalitarian"), but already as a democracy ó perhaps not exactly in the mold
of the United States, but what country is? Canada? Greece? Switzerland? France? (You know,
Switzerland and France, where you can be taken to court for saying there was no Armenian
"Genocide," as Professor Bernard Lewis experienced in the case of the latter
Anyone who says one knows with certainty what went on during those tumultuous years of
"genocide" is not being true to oneself, or, if a professor, to oneís
profession. I wasnít there, and you werenít there. That is why we only can rely upon
historical evidence, and the only kind that counts is the impartial variety, from ones
that wouldnít have had conflicts-of-interest.
In other words, you generally ought to refrain from pointing to the following... if you
want people here to believe you:
1) Armenian Oral History 2) The missionaries 3) Ambassador Morgenthau and his band of
consuls 4) The German wing, including Lepsius and Armin Wegner 5) A multitude of press
accounts, particularly from the prestigious New York Times 6) Bryce,
Toynbee and the Wellington House reports 7) The Hitler Quote, and fake quotes from Ottoman
officials 8) Franz Werfel's "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh," and the Andonian
telegrams 9) Pronouncements from the 1919 Ottoman kangaroo courts
Hearsay, canards, and court findings under enemy occupation must be treated most gingerly,
if our purpose is to examine unbiased truth. Much of the above is akin to presenting an
accurate portrayal of blacks, using documentation from the Ku Klux Klan.
Since the juggernaut of the Armenian Genocide industry (or "genocide.com,"
as Prof. Mahmut Ozan coined it) vastly holds the upper hand in this discussion, I usually
find myself patiently explaining the countless charges of the pro-Armenians. That is
because you cannot win your argument without obliterating every point from the other side.
Such follows the usual pattern: the Armenians act, and the Turks react. (Ironically, the
very reason that led to the tragic events the Armenians love to call "genocide";
despite what your hero, Vahakn Dadrian, preaches.)
(If I may take a moment, regarding this hero of yours, did you know what snapped his mind
and convinced him... like a calling from beyond, similar to the voices Soghoman Tehlirian
heard in his head... to embark on a lifetime crusade of selecting only what appears to be
facts to demonize the Turkish people? Dadrian was apparently an Armenian-Turk, living in
Turkey, and as a young man he read "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh,"
according to an Armenian site. Thatís right [assuming one can believe what one reads in
an Armenian site], it was a work of fiction that got Prosecutor Dadrian going, working for
the Zoryan Institute, and digging up all the anti-Turkish mud he could find. "Musa
Dagh" was a work the author of which became ashamed of having written, once Franz
Werfel discovered he had been duped by the Armenians... as Werfelís friend, Rabbi Albert
Amateau, testified. This is the man you chose to cozy up with, according to the recent New
York Times article? The man who is so ethically challenged, he actually
produced a work attempting to validate Aram Andonianís forgeries?)
However, since you are technically not an Armenian, Iíd prefer not to give you this
luxury. If you donít mind, instead of your going up to the podium and saying, What about
this? And what about this? I would like you to be on the receiving end of questions that
you need to come up with explanations for. After all, you are the one making the
allegations... therefore, the burden of proof rests upon you.
I have many questions for you, actually. Just for starters:
Do you accept Aram Andonianís words that were put in Talat Pashaís mouth? How do you
account for authenticated telegrams written by Talat Pasha that demonstrated sensitivity
toward the Armenians? (That is, the ones translated accurately ó and not by
"Turkish scholars" who pretend to be experts on Ottoman Turkish, where one
little alphabetical sign can change the entire nuance of what is being said.) Would you
conclude a conflicting set of orders were deliberately sent during the chaos of war, for
the sole purpose of fooling future historians?
Why would the Ottomans have convicted Turks of crimes committed during the war, at times
to the point of execution? (Yes, "during the war"; Iím not referring to the
1919 post war kangaroo Ottoman courts, where many were convicted.) Hitler did not punish
any SS man for harming a Jew.
Why would the Armenians of the cities in the west and Ottoman Europe have been generally
exempt from the relocation policy? Did Hitler exempt the Jews of Berlin? (Furthermore,
there were other exemptions granted, such as for Catholics and Protestants, certain
workers, soldiers, the ill and blind. Regarding the latter group, Hitler embarked on a
program of involuntary euthanasia to rid Germany of her handicapped, to further the aim of
racial purity; one would think the Ottomans would have had a double reason to target the
Armenian disabled, instead of deciding to protect them. )
Why would the bankrupt Sick Man of Europe have spent the equivalent of today's millions of
dollars to relocate the Armenians, when they could have simply slaughtered them?
Why were there some 600,000 Armenian survivors from the relocation policy? Since they were
under the Turks' control, who would believe these people could not have been murdered, if
murder was the Turks' true intention?
If there were one million to 1.5 million "exterminated" Armenians, where are
their skeletons? If they were all dumped in the desert to die, as the Armenophile
Christopher Walker and so many others love to tell us, it seems like multi-millionaire
Armenians could afford to subsidize the Armeniansí raison díetre, by excavating this
critical evidence in places like Zor.
Why wasnít a single Ottoman found guilty by those who wished to wipe the Turkish nation
off the face of the earth, via the Sevres Treaty? Deceptive Armenian reasons such as
war-weariness and P.O.W. exchanges donít count, if one studies the sequence of British
archival evidence. The Malta Tribunal lasted from 1919-1921, donít forget, and the
British could have decided to be over and done with this matter in 1919[-20], just like
the false 1919[-20] Ottoman courts.
The truth-seeker must determine from these and other questions whether there really was a
systematic policy directed against the Armenians... or whether the tragedies that occurred
took place from ineptitude and severe shortages of resources/manpower. No Ottoman-Armenian
would have been harmed (at least not by Turks) had Armenian revolutionary leaders not
incited their people to rebel in their nation's darkest hour... just like no Ottoman-Jew
was harmed (at least not by Turks).
Then the really difficult question for the pro-Armenian with integrity to consider is: did
the Armenians engage in a systematic extermination policy of their own, directly killing
over one half million Turks and Muslims? The Jewish Times opined in
1990 that the Armeniansí actions were the real ones analogous to the Holocaust... in
terms of a "genocide" taking place. In this other and woefully-neglected side of
the coin, there is definite evidence of the all important "intention" you wrote
Mr. AkÁam, as I mentioned, this is your golden opportunity. This is your chance to redeem
yourself in the eyes of those who donít hold you in the highest esteem, or who donít
regard you as a particularly moral man. I canít speak for everyone else, but I for one
have nothing to do with the "evil" Turkish government.... and I have no reason
to believe anyone else here does, either. We are mainly truth-respecting individuals
attempting to independently find out what really happened in the Anatolia of
"1915." Please provide us with the answers to the questions above, backed up
with evidence we can all respect. Itís possible you might make believers of us all.
By the same token, if you cannot appropriately put up, then it should be time for you to
shut up. Assuming, of course, that you consider yourself a man of honor.
P.S.: I believe this communication is of enough importance to share with a wider audience,
and thus Iím also submitting it to the Turkish Forum. That doesnít mean they will
publish it; if they do, the address of the group that wishes to get to the bottom of this
hot-button issue is: ...
I learned subsequently that Taner Akcam, to his
credit, does not support the authenticity of
the Talat Pasha telegram forgeries by Aram Andonian, unlike Akcam's mentor, Vahakn
Not to Taner Akcam's credit, he has been hard at
work attempting to discredit the exemptions granted the Armenians as "tall
tales," as examined on another Taner Akcam page
of this series.
Open Letter Number Two to Taner Akcam
Subject: Follow-up Open Letter to TANER AKCAM from HOLDWATER, Fri, 16 Apr 2004
Dear Mr. AkÁam:
Regarding the open letter commending you for having joined the Truth-Anatolia1915
group, presenting yourself with the golden opportunity to prove to objective
truth-seekers that there was an Armenian Genocide, I notice there has been no
Perhaps you havenít yet had a chance to reply (the Turkish Forum did put this open
letter up in their March 29th edition, for your information; I would presume there
would now be a slightly larger crowd interested in hearing your explanations), but Iím
aware you have subsequently withdrawn from the group. Therefore, I am going to take
your non-response as a response.
Frankly, thatís exactly what I was expecting. The generally deceitful Armenian
professors whom you have befriended, excelling in typically closed-door pseudo
conferences where a sham is made of genuine academic debate, shy away from true
dialogue as well... having had the luxury of presenting usually unopposed monologues
for so many years.
I see this as a pattern. Armenians and "genocide scholars" whose flimsy
arguments are obliterated put their tails between their legs and go away. (Many, I
suspect, continue with their agendas, regardless.) Those who are too hysterically
and emotionally attached to bear the thought of their beloved genocide not actually
being based on real evidence, resort to the equivalent of a childís sticking out
his tongue and stomping his feet. Such reactions actually come from those who call
I presented you with a beginning list of questions, asking you to provide
explanations and the solid evidence to back them up. (Since you have joined the
crowd of those making the allegations, itís only fair that you prove what you are
alleging; itís simply not enough to say the Turks had "intentions," as
you stated in your one message at the group.)
It appears that you have failed the test of demonstrating the courage of your
convictions. (Assuming that you are privately convinced of what you preach.)
How is that going to make you look in the eyes of those who are from the land of
your birth? Donít you care about that?
Is it only enough for you to be regarded as a hero by the Armenians and those many
people they have succeeded in bamboozling? You realize these people donít have
real devotion for you. Those who are in the know (as opposed to the rank and file of
hysterically emotional Armeni-Lemmings) only regard you as the Russians and the
British regarded the Armenians during WWI. I surmise the difference is that you are
no mere pawn ó you are using them back.
You and I know you are sitting very prettily; youíve got the juggernaut forces of "genocide.com"
behind you, and most of the world dumbly accepts what you and they have to say. The
Turks are generally sleeping and complacent, as usual.
Coincidentally, I ventured into the web site of the Institute of Turkish Studies. Of
course, Iím well familiar with this wonderful institute. It came into being as a
small propeller airplane sent into the perpetual hurricane of pro-Armenian
propaganda. We can all be grateful for their gallant efforts to open Turkish studies
departments in universities across America... they have succeeded to the tune of
less than one university per year of their operation. Hardly much to counter the
manifold Armenian-financed operations, but itís certainly better than the
"zero" number of Turkish studies not all that long ago.
Iím also familiar with Prof. Heath Lowryís invaluable research during the heated
years of this debate, in the 1980s, while working for the institute. He didnít
take that job because he couldnít find any other... as a Peace Corps volunteer (as
I understand Prof. Justin McCarthy might also have been... thanks, President
Kennedy!), he got to know the Turks firsthand and learned they werenít the
monsters he may have been led to believe while growing up. He took that job because
of his principles, not in spite of them. When Peter Balakian despicably co-led a
smear campaign against Dr. Lowry in the 1990s ("The Professor Feels the
Heat" period, as a Princeton student newspaper titled an article), I donít
believe too many Turks rose up to defend the good professor.
The victimization of Heath Lowry ó which continues to this day, as an Internet
search for his name reveals; over one-half are character-defaming pro-Armenian links
ó very probably served as a good lesson to the new crop of American academicians
hesitant to step into this minefield, attesting to the success of the latest
Armenian terror campaign.
And what of the Institute of Turkish Studies, probably the sole gun against the
scores of Zoryan/Gomidas Institutes that are working night and day to blacken the
image of the Turks? While I suspect their position hasnít changed regarding the
"genocide" (I wrote them and havenít heard back), I couldnít find a
single reference to this issue on their site. (Not to say one may not exist; I didnít
examine every nook and cranny.)
I think what probably has happened is that the "genocide" has become so
hot to handle, even the Institute of Turkish Studies has decided to stay clear,
worried that "denying" the genocide might affect their credibility.
Furthermore, they even listed a work of Fatma MŁge GŲÁek, legitimizing your
fellow Turkish Turncoat who reportedly hosted your first American employment
opportunity in Dennis Papazian's university. (I am not saying Ms. GŲÁek might not
be an otherwise competent academician ó I donít know much about her, except for
some works where she appears to be 100% in line with Armenian-speak ó however, if
she is claiming there was a genocide without offering definite proof, then such
compromising of her integrity would put into question her entire body of work. After
all, she is not frivolously accusing her fellow Turks of stealing office supplies
from the storeroom, but of the worst crime against humanity.)
For the moment, you havenít much to worry about; the forces you have aligned
yourself with are just too powerful, and the opposition is mainly in hibernation...
aside from the Turkish government stepping up to the financial plate from time to
time, by default (since nobody else has the big money to spend), trying to defend
the truth against relentless genocide resolutions ó along with the handful of
brave, past generation American academicians (perhaps that last word should be
singular, these days) ó the only ones who are squawking in the USA are a few
Turkish-Americans here and there. Not many are consistently at the game, many get
quickly burnt out, and their letters usually wind up in the trash bins of The
New York Times and The Boston Globe.
(However, I know from my experience that even one letter can make a huge difference;
so they are not a force to be belittled, as comparatively puny as they may be.)
Regardless of whether you are sitting prettily, why did you (so far) refuse to
utilize your golden opportunity? Donít you have a professional sense of
obligation? Here is your chance to convince the "deniers" of how much in
the dark they are.
What are you afraid of? Hopefully you are aware people in this opposing camp are
basically civilized, and wonít resort to below-the-belt tactics the Armenians too
often resort to. All we are into is the truth.
If you think this communication is coming from a deranged neo-Nazi denier, or a paid
propagandist of the sinister Turkish government, put your "cojones" on the
table and defend your position. If I am any of those things, then you would have the
truth on your side... and you should have nothing to worry about. Moreover, here is
your chance to clear yourself with those from your part of the world who think you
have sold out. People here unquestionably will listen to you with an open mind... as
long as you can present the verifiable facts.
If my assignment for you was too tough, and you are having trouble answering the
questions I presented for you, then letís make it easy. Provide the respectable
evidence for why there was an Ottoman government sponsored plan to exterminate the
Armenians. Keep in mind the interest-conflicted
Morgenthau-Bryce-missionaries-Lepsius-1919 courts-New York Times-nowhere near the
scene religious/bigoted German sources wonít go too far around here. The
preferably first-hand evidence must come from sources that had no reason to lie, or
to be duped.
Send your best believable evidence to the Turkish Forum and weave your professorial
magic. (I have nothing to do with the Turkish Forum, but there is an excellent
chance they would publish the best of what youíve got, for the scrutiny of the
truth-seekers in their membership.) If you love the land of your origin and wish to
help make that backward, oppressive nation into a democracy ó as youíve
indicated ó itís time for you to convince a tougher audience than the ones you
are accustomed to, that there really was an Armenian Genocide. You can be like Paul,
spreading the word of Jesus... venturing to a nation of unbelievers... and emerge as
a hero, among your own people.
While only the facts matter, I canít help wondering why you have embarked on the
course that you have. Certainly you have found a comfortable means to provide for
yourself and for your family; if you have done so on a foundation of prevarications,
then your gains would amount to blood money. You would then be committing
"Rufmord," as Prof. Erich Feigl put it, helping to kill the reputation of
your people... accusing them of the worst crime against humanity.
I canít believe your incentive can purely be financial, however. Something must
have driven you.
An article referred to your having grown up in Kars, a province with many
Armenian-Turks. Just as your hero Dadrianís mind snapped when he read the fiction
of ďThe Forty Days of Musa Dagh,Ē maybe you heard stories, and you were hooked.
Itís been pointed out the photograph of your youthful face featured in www.PKK.org
features undeniable Kurdish characteristics. (I wouldnít know.) Perhaps your
ultra-leftist past resulted in genuine hatred toward Turkey, and your current course
is your way of having revenge.
Your similarly "lefty" pal, Halil
Berktay, was actually quoted as having referred to eastern Turkey as ďWestern
Armenia,Ē during an Armenian genocide conference you were reportedly also a part
of, according to an Armenian article. Do you think Halil Berktay hates the fact that
there was an Ataturk? Maybe Mr. Berktay would have been happier if the Armenians
were now in charge of eastern Turkey, the Greeks in charge of western Turkey, and
the British and French controlled southern-to-central Turkey... leaving the Turks in
a little patch of northern Turkey, depressed and drinking alcohol, in the Indian
reservation that the SŤvres Treaty allowed for. Maybe you would be happier, too.
A devoted Turkish-American recently wondered how you could have entered this
country, what with your indulgences in Marxist ideology, your prison conviction and
working against American interests in the past. Did you enter with Armenian help?
The Armenians have a knack for getting people with spotty records past American
immigration officials. Iím amazed at how the mass murdering Armenian hero
Drastamat ďDroĒ Kanayan was somehow snuck in, American regulations against
former Nazis notwithstanding. Dro comfortably lived out the rest of his years in the
USA, despite what he did to innocent Turkish women and children circa WWI, and the
Jews in World Wars I and II.
If you are genuinely convinced that the Ottoman Turks behaved like the Nazis, you
not only have to present the evidence, you also have to satisfactorily explain all
the nagging holes in your theories, as provided by the beginning list of questions
that were put before you. If you fail to do so, then you have no business continuing
with your present one-note "Armenian genocide" profession. If you
continue, people who know better will be justified in looking upon you as a
You can get away with continuing on your defamatory track, with forces of this
equation currently stacked in your favor. That would be at the cost of your code of
ethics, however. Even if we donít always do the right thing as human beings, we
know whatís right from wrong.
Personally, I would not be able to live my life in a lie... particularly when the
lie slanders an already maligned people, relentlessly victimized by Western
prejudice. If my views should change, or if I were being unethical and should be
reminded of my conscience, I would do a turnaround. Thatís what Arnold Toynbee
did, after WWI... mostly salvaging his reputation as a respectable historian, making
up for his lies during his tenure at Wellington House. (Although it was too much for
the ďdenialistĒ in him to completely come clean.)
One day, the real truth of this matter will emerge. What will your daughter think of
you then, if she comes to believe her daddy deliberately shunned the truth?
(Hopefully her head is not being filled with hateful poems, Armenian-style, and she
will be objective enough to make such a determination.)
This is a matter of honor. Letís put our ethnicities aside; at the end of our
lives, if we as men and women are not deemed to have lived our days honorably and
truthfully, then we have nothing. If you canít come up with the proof, I hope you
will have the strength to look into your heart, and do some heavy soul-searching.
Fatma MŁge GŲÁek appears to
have been a driving force behind the 2005 genocide conference originally planned to
be held in Turkey's Bogazici University that caused a lot of commotion. This
conference was later held at Bilgi University, and in typical genocide club fashion,
nobody from the opposing viewpoint was invited. Both Akcam and Berktay took part in
this conference. Now that there are more Turks getting suckered in to the
omnipresent and near-exclusive Armenian propaganda, some from good but ignorant
intentions and others hoping to get a free ride from the profitable genocide
industry, I wonder if "blank slate" Turks remain as tough a crowd as I
originally suspected. (More on Gocek.)
I can't present Akcam's response, and you'll have to
get an idea about what he wrote from my last open letter, reproduced below. I will,
however, provide in Turkish ó the language Akcam prefers to privately communicate in
(despite the mysteriously impeccable English of his essays) ó one line he wrote to the
group's moderator, when the moderator had forwarded Open Letter Number Two to him, not
knowing that Akcam would be getting the letter directly from me:
...[B]u itin kopegin
That translates to "Don't send the writings of
this blankety-blank to me." The blankety-blank is somewhat charming if literally
translated into English (it's a canine reference), but pretty venomous in Turkish.
I will present a letter written by another group
Greetings to Everyone.
First of all I find it interesting that an Academic like Mr. Akcam
would insult and attack Mr. Holdwater to the point of telling him not
to pursue any understanding of history. Why? No one is asking him to drop his
interpretation of history. Why so defensive? Also the Turkish language and tone of the
response to the letter was
condensenting and full of contempt. Even if Mr. Akcam took Holdwater accusations
personally (Especially the part about a photo on the Internet) Which in reality of the
topics discussed is truly trivial, a more civil & dignified response would have helped
his reputation as an academic versus the email response dog analogies that was sent.
Personally though I take the most offense in attacking ... the moderator of this board. If
certain emails were made public, that is the responsibility of the sender. This reminds of
the analogy of killing the messenger for the words of the ruler. If Mr Akcam feels that he
has something embarrassing and/or confedential to write about then don't blame the
moderator, blame yourself for not having the common sense to think through topics that
can't be discussed or aired. A contraversial subject with people who have strong opinions
on the matter, expect your emails and words to get around, especially by someone of
noteriety on the subject matter as Mr. Akcam. Remember: Dismissing people and/or arguments
and moderators does not make them or the ideas go away.
This man is NOT Taner Akcam
The photo regarded a youthful Taner Akcam that was
identified as Taner Akcam from PKK's site (as far as I could determine; the site was in
Kurdish, but Akcam's name was next to the photo), and Akcam complained that the photo was
not him. The photo was promptly removed. The false photo is shown at right, just to make
sure people have this straight.
I have learned more about Taner Akcam's fascinating
past since the composition of these open letters, particularly how he had cozied up with
the PKK's terrorist leader, Abdullah Ocalan, at one point... in interviews where both men had few kind words to say to each other.
Akcam also claimed, in another interview,
the only reason why he was sent to prison was because he had mentioned "Kurds"
in a 1976 article, and implied that because Turkey is such an authoritarian country, he
received a stiff jail sentence, for the forbidden reference. In a Turkish interview, Akcam
was asked if he were Turkish, and Akcam's reply was that he was "Turkoglu Turk,"
meaning he is 100% Turkish. Since we can only dwell on the facts and not give credence to
speculation, unlike the way Akcam and his bedfellows treat this alleged genocide, we have
no choice but to agree. However, as the TAT webmaster, I hear things. And the last report
on Akcam is that his father was 100% Kurdish. I asked, how can this be verified, and the
answer was that the information came from someone from the military who was in a position
to check the records. Does this mean it is true? Not necessarily. And Taner Akcam's
ethnicity ideally should not make one bit of difference. Unfortunately, there are a lot of
people with Turkish sounding names who are extremists of ethnic groups wanting
nothing better than to represent Turkey as the worst nation on earth; it would be helpful
to understand why Taner Akcam has taken the course he has chosen.
Open Letter Number
Three to Taner Akcam
Subject: Open letter to TANER AKCAM from
HOLDWATER No. 3, 11 May 2004
Dear Mr. Akcam:
It was decent of you to address me as your brother, when you finally chose to
respond. However, I was saddened to discover that you then turned around and called
me disparaging names, behind my back.... as if you were a two- faced person, or
something. It made me feel that if we were real brothers, you would be the Cain to
Since you basically thought of me as a dog, we should keep in mind that at least
dogs are loyal... and they do not betray those who raise them, school them and
basically take care of them. That is a civilized quality of Manís Best Friend.
Those who behave otherwise might be regarded as the opposite, as barbarians.
The ones you have cast your lot with often subject brutality upon their innocent
children, such as in the case of six-year- old Edna Petrosyan, being encouraged to
recite hateful poems with lines the likes of "... It's better that I be a
dog or a cat, than a Turkish barbarian..." (The Los Angeles
Times, February 1, 1990.) In our case, just like the now twenty-year- old
poor Edna, I will consider possibly echoing those words.
It appears you have conveniently cast me (and, in effect, those who disagree with
you... since your challenge was to provide genocidal proof for your ethnic tribe) in
the lot of the ignorant, and not worth the time to attempt to educate. And here I
thought it was the duty of the educator to illuminate those not as wise and as well
informed. Would Lulu have ever sung "To Sir, With Love" to Sidney
Poitier, if he contemptuously looked down his nose at his dumb students? I think
As the prime example of my ignorance, you pointed to a photograph that appeared to
be of your youthful self, put up at the "Tall Armenian Tale" (TAT) site.
An image search with your name came up with that photograph, and the site where it
appeared... www.PKK.org.... had only your name in connection. I had no idea what you
looked like, and that kind of ignorance is far from shameful. You wrote something to
the effect that your picture appears every so often in the Turkish press, as if it
should have been my responsibility to consult such sources... but I was born and
bred in the United States, and were you suggesting I travel to Turkey, to get your
Nevertheless, I did away with that photograph the day I read your letter. My
intention is never to falsely represent you, as that is what separates those such as
myself from those you have become so warmly chummy with.
However, you couldnít resist making one reference to actual history, despite your
inclination not to get down and dirty with the facts. This is when you rebutted my
Malta argument by giving a quote from a British official as having said something to
the effect of no Turkís being worth the life of an Englishman. In other words, you
have utilized the Armeniansí reason for attempting to discredit the Malta
Tribunal... Ataturk had captured some British soldiers in retaliation, and the Brits
wished to bloody well end the affair, to get their lads back safe and sound. (The
Armenians also like to say Malta had to be wrapped up because the British were
war-weary; yes, the Armenians are experts in coming up with smokescreen explanations
to fudge the facts.)
How ironic your attempt to demonstrate my ignorance only embarrassingly serves to
showcase your own.
By the way, I have read your amazing "The Genocide of the Armenians and the
Silence of the Turks." (You know, the one where you wrote, "the Turks...
have made [the Armenian Genocide] a taboo topic"? So taboo, there are books
everywhere regarding the matter, including one written by you, in a nation where youíre
able to go on Turkish television attempting to malign ignorant minds, and where youíre
allowed a column in an Armenian-Turkish newspaper?) In this essay of yours, it would
appear you have conducted research on the Malta Tribunal, displaying a familiarity
with a number of the accused. So I canít be sure what youíve written me is a
matter of ignorance, or a deliberate concealing of the facts, in true Vahakn Dadrian
Allow me to demonstrate your interesting methodology to come up with
"proof": the presentation of a quotation unsupportive of the British
archival evidence. It brings to mind the tactics of your friend, Dr. Stephen
Feinstein, who is in charge of the appalling web site run by your University of
Minnesotaís Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. In order to present how
genocide- minded the Turks are, in the "Shadows of a Forgotten
Genocide" section (http:// www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/
we are presented with a 1967 quote from the Turkish newspaper, "Yeni Istiklal
Haftakik (sic) Siyasi Gasete (sic)":
Let Armenians keep in mind that the Armenians of Istanbul are hostages in the
hands of Turks. Let them forget the past, if not, not a single Armenian will live in
Istanbul. It is true now it is not easy to commit genocide again, but we can make
the atmosphere unbreathable for the Armenians.
We have no idea who said this, what context it was said in, and who translated the
words. The unwary reader can easily conclude all Turks think in this manner, and are
currently a short step away from committing mass murder. Meanwhile, weíre well
aware there has been no mass exodus of Armenian-Turks since 1967, running in fear of
their lives, as a result of this ugly quoteís frightening implications.
I guess you must approve of this sort of unconscionable scholarly strategy, since it
is exactly the sort of methodology your hero Prosecutor Vahakn Dadrian uses. Find a
damning statement, close your eyes to all other facts, and point to the statement as
Mr. Akcam, this is your lucky day. Iím not going to contemptuously throw my nose
in the air and sniff that you are not worth my trouble to show where you have gone
wrong. Naturally, as the honorable educator that you are, no doubt you are only
interested in the neutral and objective facts... therefore, Iím certain youíd be
highly interested in the true picture of Malta, so that you may correct yourself in
Fact: the puppet Ottoman government's kangaroo courts were conducted in 1919-20,
without due process, the main purpose of which was retribution. This is the reason
why the findings of these courts are not deemed valid by anyone but the Vahakn
Dadrians of the world.
There was absolutely no reason why the British could not have conducted the Malta
Trials (which began in 1919) in the same manner. The whole business could have been
gotten over with, in 1919. After all, all the evidence was at hand; Lord Bryce,
Morgenthau, the missionaries' reports, the consuls... practically everything except
the Hitler Quote that the Armenians are pushing today as evidence were available to
convict the Turks. Moreover, every single Ottoman document was at hand, as the
Allies had occupied Istanbul in 1918.
In fact, this is what Lloyd George initially intended to do. The British could have
easily convicted what grew to be the nearly 150 prisoners in 1919, just like the
Ottoman kangaroo courts came up with their mainly pre-determined convictions.
Consider: the following year the Andonian telegrams appeared, clearly with the
created words implicating the Ottoman government; why would the trial process have
continued for another year? There must have been some reason why the prosecutor did
not say, Look! Talat Pasha wrote that every Armenian man, woman and child must be
exterminated..! By Jove, that is all the proof we need, and now we can get the
bloody business over with!
Your friend Stephen Feinstein obviously finds
these Andonian telegrams legitimate, as in his CHGS site he has put one up as
"evidence." However, to the credit of the British (thanks to international
pressure), they decided to go with real evidence... unlike Stephen Feinstein.
On March 16, 1921, an agreement was signed in London between Bekir Sami Bey, the
Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Robert Vansittart, a member of the
British Foreign Office, which stipulated the release of all 22 British prisoners of
war in Turkey, and the repatriation of 64 Turkish detainees in Malta. Certainly the
British valued the lives of their soldiers, and such concern no doubt played a part
in the decision of the British. However, as Dr. Justin McCarthy states, "The
main falsification of history by the Armenian apologists lies not in what they say,
but in what they do not say." The reason why the British acted was because the
Turkish detainees in Malta formally requested from the Governor and the
Commander-in-Chief of Malta Field Marshal Lord Plumer, that they be furnished with
the "summary of evidence" or with the actual charges, so that they would
know what offenses they were accused of and be prepared to answer the charges. Why?
They had already been excessively detained for twenty entire months!
Who out there believes, after the hysterical fever pitch the British public was
exposed to regarding the slaughter of the innocent Christians at the hands of the
brutal Turks... day in and day out, through the war years... that anyone would have
stood for the release of these Ottoman Heinrich Himmlers, simply for the purpose of
getting a few of their lads back home? Had a renegade German army group captured
Americans at the end of WWII, would the no less war-weary Allies have released their
Nazi prisoners at Nuremberg to get the boys back? Would the public at home have
stood for such an injustice?
However, here is the key regarding the POW excuse the Armenians have cooked up, and
that you are loyally following to the letter: According to a May 20 memo from the
British Archives (PROóF.O. 371/ 6502/ E. 5845)ó 45 Turkish prisoners were still
left in Malta.
Two months after the British P.O.W. issue had been resolved.
The memo partly stated:
"Our difficulty is that we have practically no legal evidence and that we do
not want to prepare for proceedings which will be abortive. We asked Washington if
the Americans could produce any evidence of massacres against the internees."
Almost two months later, on July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington came up
with the reply that is now famous in "Armenian Genocide" quarters: "I
regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as
evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta."
Indeed: the desperately-seeking-to-convict British looked at all that documentation
from the likes of Leslie Davis, Jesse Jackson and the other biased U.S. consuls who
only listened to the tall tales of the Armenians and the missionaries, and judged
their silly reports to be null and void. How about that?
Itís difficult to understand how you could have missed all of this, since it
appears you have looked extensively into the episode of Malta. In your "The
Genocide of the Armenians and the Silence of the Turks" (GAST) paper, you wrote
(in your efforts to implicate Ataturk in the "genocide"): "When Kemal
began to organize the resistance in Anatolia, he received the strongest support from
the Ittihadists for whom there were arrest warrants on account of their role in the
genocide. Many who were sought or were actually arrested and deported to Malta for
their role in the genocide, but fled or escaped later.Ē Since you have written the
prisoners were deported to Malta, how could they have "fled or escaped"?
Malta is an island, isnít it? It would probably have been as difficult to escape
Malta as it would be for Americaís Taliban prisoners to escape the island of Cuba.
Why donít you write the truth, that the Turks were released by the British, for
lack of evidence?
(And not all the Ittihadists were sought by the vindictive Ottoman puppet government
"on account of their role in the genocide." The 1919 kangaroo courts
covered a lot of territory that had nothing to do with Armenians.)
What shall we conclude? Iíd say your research was shoddy and incomplete. The only
other explanation is that you learned about the truth and deliberately wished to
cover it up... but as the honorable man we know you to be, that would simply defy
the realm of possibility.
Since your scholarship capabilities leave a bit to be desired, what could possibly
have possessed you to write "I, a Turkish historian" in your GAST paper?
You are not a historian... that is obvious. A true historian looks at all sides of
an issue. You are also not a historian because your degree was in Sociology. Why do
you misrepresent yourself?
Incidentally, I donít know why you chose to write your response to me in Turkish,
since your English in GAST is impeccable. Itís remarkable that after having
learned German you could have mastered English in such a short period of time. Iíd
hate to think somebody else wrote this paper... it sounds exactly like what your
hero, Vahakn Dadrian, would have written.
I give you the "Arnold Toynbee 'Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empireí
Award" for writing such a wonderful paper, interweaving irrefutable facts with
concoctions and theories. Whatís missing? The facts.
What was the Turksí motive for genocide? Pan-Turanism, or Pan-lslamicism? Those
are two very different ideas, not necessarily consistent with one another... you canít
have your cake, and eat it too. An argument could be made for racial Turkification,
since the Turksí nationalism was aroused after the empire began crumbling from the
nationalism in occupied territories. (In my opinion, Turkish nationalism only became
truly aroused among the common people by the close of the war, when all seemed
lost... thanks to Ataturk.) Since the Ottomans were already the keeper of the
Islamic flame (the Caliphate), the religious fervor was already in place for
centuries; there was no reason for a sudden call for "Pan- lslamicism."
(When the Germans got the Turks to call for a Holy War, phonily excepting the
Christian Germans, Ottoman Moslems were hardly moved.) Besides, not all Moslems are
alike; there have been chapters in Turkish history where Moslems with different
beliefs have been persecuted by the majority, just like Christians with different
beliefs were deemed as heretical by the Christian majorities in Western countries.
(One such episode resulted in what appears to be a true genocide, the Cathars under
the French. I wonder when the French Parliament will come up with a "genocide
resolution" for this particular historic example of "Man's Inhumanity to
To elaborate further, one reason that spurred Christian Scholar Samuel Weems to
write his "Armenia" book was his outrage of that country's persecution of
non-Orthodox Christians, like Weemsí fellow Baptists, along with Moslems and Jews.
So would we call Armeniaís policy a Christianization? No, it would be more like an
ďOrthodoxification.Ē Similarly, ďPan-lslamicismĒ makes no sense, unless youíre
referring to a ďSunnificationĒ... and we know the Ottoman leaders had other
concerns than forcing everyone to become Sunnis. Some Moslems, like the Alawites and
Alevis, largely donít believe the Sunnis are real Moslems, and certainly the more
fundamental Sunnis think the same of these and other sects... not unlike the
disrespect Catholics and Protestants sometimes have for one another. Youíre only
throwing in "Pan-lslamicism" to further cloud the mind of your unwary
reader... "Pan-lslamicism" is just another concocted theory, unsupported
by any facts.
So let us concentrate on the other theory that carries a bit more weight. Hereís
where the silly Armenian made-up reason for Pan-Turanism goes wrong: you canít
take a quote by an Ottoman with mad dreams and conclude such was actual Ottoman
policy any more than you can take the opinion of a Briton and conclude the
illegitimacy of Malta... especially in the absence of any official documents
declaring the empire must be cleansed of non-Turkish elements. If there was an
actual policy to wipe out non-Turkish elements of the empire, why would it have been
only the Armenians who were targeted? The best example is to study the situation of
the Ottoman Jews, but I find an even more interesting example to be of the Ottoman
Arabs. The idea of Pan-Turanism was to racially purify the nation; the Arabs were of
a different race. Furthermore, the Arabs were just as guilty as the Armenians for
revolting in the empireís darkest hour. (Since your historian chops are lacking,
you can rent "Lawrence of Arabia" at your local Blockbuster to see what Iím
talking about.) Why was there no genocide of the Arabs?
By the way, there is one thing I must commend you for in your relatively brief GAST
paper; you managed to use the word "genocide" a whopping sixty-four times.
That takes talent. Since you have no proof of genocide, I guess your strategy is to
repeat this word during every other sentence in order to make it seem true.
I understand you are seeking an apology for being looked upon as having sold out to
This is noteworthy; you have put yourself on record implying that the chapter of
your academic success in the United States was achieved entirely by your courageous
Here is how it works: no court accuses a person and asks for the person to prove his
or her innocence. No, what happens is that it is up to the court to prove the personís
guilt. Therefore, nobody has the right to ask you for proof of your innocence. If
anyone wishes to conclude you are supported by the Armenians, justly it should be up
to them to prove it.
And I believe you have asked for such proof from your detractors, which is your
right. On the other hand, it's unfair that you donít follow the same rule... since
you cannot come up with proof of the Armenian "Genocide," what you are
doing, in effect, is to ask the Turks to prove their innocence.
You are well aware, as opposed to your multi-million dollar Armenian genocide
juggernaut, the only ones who speak out against the so-called genocide are a handful
of individuals here and there, along with a brave scholar or two. Nobody has the
resources or the desire to hire private investigators to sort through Dennis
Papazianís trash for proof of potential clandestine operations years ago.
This is why you can comfortably state that those who believe you are a traitor
should come up with proof... since you well know such proof would be nearly
impossible to come by.
But here is the difference: Armenians who similarly declare that American scholars
who have spoken against the "genocide" are paid tools of the Turks have no
proof either. Yet many Armenians openly state these scholars have sold their souls
to the Turkish devil, the truth be damned. In contrast, I have rarely encountered
similar open declarations regarding your case. I canít speak for what everyone has
written about you, but youíll notice that I have never written about you so
conclusively... at least Iíve tried not to. If there is no definite proof, but
strong evidence to the contrary, the proper way to word such conclusions is with
softeners such as "apparently" or "alleged."
Is it fair to even presume that you have been supported by the Armenians?
Allow me to first compare you with a similarly accused "counterpart," the
brave Edward Tashji... the only Armenian I know who has publicly renounced the
Armeniansí precious genocide. Recently, I read an Armenian openly stating that Mr.
Tashji has been "paid/recruited" by the Turks.
Edward Tashji grew up in the United States, during a period where there were no
Turks or Turkish organizations to speak of. He grew up in Armenian neighborhoods,
exposed to the typical Armenian anti-Turkish prejudice. Only his parents steered him
in the correct, non-hateful direction... parents who went through the same hell in
the Ottoman Empire as their co-religionists, but who were people of integrity,
unwilling to be a part of false conclusions such as "Pan-Turanism." The
parents never advertised their beliefs to the outside world, keeping these
discussions solely under their own roof, and therefore could not have been
propagandists. The "sinister" Turkish government had no idea of the
Tashjis during Edward Tashjiís formative years. Edward Tashji began to act upon
his conclusions during the 1960s, a time when Turks were practically invisible in
the United States.
Conclusion: no Turk could have influenced Edward Tashji. Anyone who says Mr. Tashji
has been paid or recruited by the Turks would have nothing to base their claim upon.
People who make declarations as fact based on nothing are not honest people.
Letís take a look at your situation.
You grew up in an ultra-political household that likely had an axe to grind with the
unfair Turkish government, in a part of the nation where there probably were
"Armenian neighborhoods" to influence your young mind. After escaping from
a Turkish prison, where you were sent for unlawful acts against the state, you were
welcomed in the liberal wing of Europe, always anxious to brand Turkey as an
oppressive heavy. After earning your doctorate in Sociology, it seems your only
academic experience was spent in a Hamburg institute conducting research; it doesnít
look like you finished your second dissertation or were hired by a German university
to serve in their faculty, so at least by German standards you may not even be a
It would be possible for you to have immersed yourself in this one-note
"Armenian Genocide" specialty, researched the handful of American
universities that are gung-ho in this area, and gotten the job entirely on your own.
(The official story is your fellow turncoat, Fatma MŁge GŲÁek, "hosted"
you to come to America all by herself.) However, there is the nagging fact of your
friendship with Vahakn Dadrian, a man who surely holds tremendous influence in the
world of "genocide.com," along with the immeasurable propaganda
value of your becoming the first Turkish scholar who admits to the
"genocide." You surely opened up the floodgates of other opportunistic
Turkish academicians who recognized there is financial and fame-inducing gold in
advocating the Armenian "genocide" ... none of whom, not incidentally,
have ever been charged with having received direct benefits from the Armenian
genocide industry, to my knowledge; that dubious honor only belongs to you.
However, you must admit; your own personal situation looks highly suspicious. it
would be one thing if you were a Turkish scholar who happens to believe the Ottoman
Turks conducted an extermination policy against the Armenians, but it is troubling
that your beliefs are so seemingly 100% in line with the official Armenian line,
also following their penchant for disregarding the facts. The occurrence of your
apparently having got kicked out of the University of Michigan, the institution that
houses Dr. Papazianís Armenian Research Center, for your lack of scholarly
credentials also does not help your case. Moreover, how you got past tough American
immigration officials with your criminal background, without outside help, also
raises an eyebrow or two.
If you have truly achieved your American academic success on your own, gaining
employment from the Universities of Michigan-Dearborn and Minnesota strictly on your
own merits, then you have become a victim of your own circumstance... since there
are strong factors that indicate you have been sponsored by the Armenians. Advice:
The Armenian Assembly of America falsely accused Samuel Weems of being a
"convicted felon," a charge Armenians are still gleefully and unfairly
spreading far and wide. Weems wasted no time in attempting to clear his good name.
You should be similarly concerned with your own honor... perhaps you should consider
providing the evidence to prove your innocence. Yes, in a fair world, the burden of
proof should lie with those who think there is something very fishy about you... but
as those who are convinced there was no Armenian "Genocide" and are in the
uncomfortable position of constantly responding to the mindless voices of hysteria
fully know, the world can be anything but fair.
I was wrong about no prisoners having
escaped from Malta; a British source I came across claimed two of the detainees
somehow broke out of the joint. (The date was after April 1, 1921; FO 371/6502/E.
5845.) This is a far cry from the "many" Akcam referred to (although there
is another British source, M.C. Keeling, who claimed there were 15-16 escapees
which, if true, would certainly qualify as "many." See Addendum, below.)
In addition, I learned afterwards the P.O.W. exchange did not go through, as the
Turkish representative did not follow his "all for all" orders; so this
matter was not resolved, as I had written. I made a correction on the Malta page, under a July 2004 addendum.
I recognize many of these Malta excuses from Dadrian's writings (including the
selective quote Akcam borrowed, about one Briton's life being worth those of many
Turks), which were covered here.
According to the British archives, the British regarded not the British prisoners
being held by Ataturk's forces, in retaliation, as hostages; the ones the British
regarded as hostages were the Turks
ADDENDUM, 3-06: "On September 6 (1921), sixteen detainees escaped from
Malta, thus further weakening British bargaining power." On Sept. 20, the British agreed to an "all for
all" exchange, and on Nov. 1, the remaining fifty-three Turkish captives were
released. (Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed
Genocide, 2005, p. 125. Simsir's account states 59 detainees boarded two ships
on Oct. 1, and Nov. 1 corresponds to the date the Turks arrived in Turkey.) This
means Akcam was being highly misleading in his contention that the "many"
detainees' escape derailed the punishment process, when this escape had occurred
only two weeks before the long Malta process came to a halt, at a time when all was
pretty much said and done.
Akcam shared his letter with Prof.
Dennis Papazian, and the director of the Armenian Research Center offered to debate
me, if a few conditions were met.
Subject: Reply to Dennis Papazian from Holdwater, Fri, 16 Apr 2004
Dear Prof. Papazian:
I wish you had told me which essay of mine you were referring to; I presume it was the
open letter to Taner AkÁam.
Thank you for writing. Since you wrote that you do not respect those
who are "ashamed" to admit their names, allow me to inform you that I have one
measure of respect for you: you have at least attempted in your writings to counter
anti-genocide claims. Many pro-Armenian scholars are so sitting in the driverís seat,
with much of the world lazily agreeing with them, they donít even feel the need to
refute the anti-genocide position.
Unfortunately, the way in which you have countered claims against your genocide (I have
analyzed your incredible "What Every Armenian Needs to Know," and your equally
remarkable "Misplaced Credulity") leaves something to be desired in earning
respect, as well.
There is no reason for me to be ashamed of admitting my name. Iím proud of the work that
Iíve been writing, as I only approach this subject from the standpoint of truth; I would
never defend the Turks if there were clear evidence of their having committed a genocide,
Nazi-style, as they are accused. Thus, the meaning of my pen name, Holdwater. (No, it has
nothing to do with a translation from another language, as you speculated... especially
not Turkish. I believe the translation in that case would amount to ďTutsu,Ē which
sounds like an altogether different genocide. You know, one of the few that hypocritical
genocide scholars love to pay some lip service to, when all they really want to talk about
are the Holocaust and the Armenian ďGenocideĒ?)
If I were writing the occasional letter of protest as in years past, I certainly wouldnít
be using a pen name. However, since I got into this debate in a more heavy-duty fashion, I
decided not to sacrifice my entire life. The potful of e-mail viruses from Armenians and
the occasional death threat I can deal with, but more than that would stop being
You know your side doesnít play fair. Aside from the real violence that they can
occasionally be capable of, against those whose views arenít agreeable... as the
Professors Shaw painfully experienced years ago... the violence and harassment of phone
calls and death threats can be a serious obstacle in living life. Samuel Weems was
constantly tortured by the fanatics who live and breathe your hate-inducing history,
possibly precipitating his relatively early death from a heart attack. Of course, smear
campaigns are your sideís favorite terror tactic in recent years, as Heath Lowry sadly
experienced in the hands of (chiefly) Peter Balakian and three genocide scholar cronies,
and the outrage Bernard Lewis experienced at the hands of a French court.
You know about all that; youíve done it yourself to an extent, as weíll get to in a
If I were getting paid, I might be willing to step out of my anonymity. (Not that payment
has proved persuasive in enlisting the next generation of "pro-Turk" American
academicians; the Armenians have done their work all too well.) Otherwise, anyone can do
without the $2.5 million budgeted Armenian Assembly of America to spread horribly
unfounded rumors against oneís character, as theyíve been unethically known to do in
the past. However, Iíve come to discover another advantage for keeping my identity
cloaked: your side becomes very frustrated in not having a background to check, and a
reputation to try and destroy. With no visible messenger to shoot, they are then forced to
concentrate on the messages of this debate, which is all that matters.
Youíve written that you "cannot take seriously an essay perhaps written by several
foreign office officials or members of Turkish internal security."
Dr. Papazian, do you really believe that? Do you believe there are Turkish Gestapo agents
who are working undercover, spreading lies and propaganda? (And are you also giving me the
familiar tune that it is only the Turkish government that doesnít believe in a
Iím shocked that you might have actually reached the point where you believe in these
assertions, akin to the big movie star who begins to believe his own press. You are a
highly intelligent man, and I am in "denial" ó if youíll pardon the
expression ó that you actually think the Turks would conduct such intricate operations
as a matter of policy.
If there were such operations, do you think your side would have become as successful as
they are, currently? Can you name me one counterpart to the many well-funded
Zoryan/Gomidas type institutions working night and day to blacken the image of the Turks?
I would have thought the only one that would have offered a small counterweight would have
been the Institute of Turkish Studies... but a visit to their site reveals not a peep
about the Armenian "Genocide" (that I could find), and even a legitimizing of
Turkish Turncoat Fatma MŁge GŲÁek, who has happily been working at the main branch of
your very own university... for just about her entire professional life. (How these
turncoats with sociology degrees are allowed to teach history is beyond me.)
The reason why your side is so ahead in this game is because the Turks are as complacent
as can be; so unless paranoia is getting the better of you, please... letís get real.
"The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in
argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally
committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the diaspora
today," is what Dr. Gwynne Dyer wrote in "Turkish 'Falsifiers' and Armenian
'Deceivers',Ē the rare even-handed look at this debate (so rare, I had to go all the way
back to 1976 to find it; curiously, there is not one example of Turkish falsification Dyer
pointed to, despite the promise of the title.) I bring up this passage to remind you that
you are not speaking to the kind of "convinced and emotionally committed"
audience member you are accustomed to. So we can drop the talk about the sinister
undercover Turkish secret agents.
The reason why Dyer couldnít point to an example of Turkish falsification was because
the Turks are the ones being charged, and that puts them on the defensive; as a result,
Turkish scholars (that is, "real" Turkish scholars) usually point to sources
that would have had no reason to lie. Very much the opposite of how Armenian scholars
typically operate, asking a lazy-thinking world to accept second-hand reports of hearsay
as actual evidence. Luckily for those pursuing the Armenian agenda, the western world has
been conditioned enough, and is bigoted enough, to swallow just about anything handed
You can see Iím going to remain anonymous, which I suppose means we wonít have the
pleasure of engaging in a debate. For argumentís sake, however, what if I were the
realization of your worst fears, a sinister Turkish agent who has been paid to lie and
cover up this alleged Ottoman crime? How could my being a Joseph Goebbels in disguise
possibly hurt you in a debate? After all, we would only be concerned with sorting out the
truth from the fiction. If Dr. Goebbels found himself in an authentic debate, his Ph.D.
would not have been able to save him from being exposed as the liar he was.
Propagandists work best in monologue, not dialogue. Thatís why genocide conferences
often take place behind closed doors, and the only "Turkish scholars" in sight
are the ones who have agreed to the existence of a genocide. But I donít have to tell
I thank you for the compliments you paid when you wrote, "Your essay was well
written, and certainly persuasive for those who do not know the facts." However, I
take great exception to your last few words. There is no way that I could pull the wool
over anyoneís eyes, even if that were my intention. What I do is look at the objectivity
of each source. (An area where you are at a disadvantage, because nearly all of your
sources from the period had conflicts of interest.) If the source appears credible, I use
that source. So how could I possibly fool anyone who doesnít know the facts...
particularly the many who are already predisposed to believe in your side, thanks to the
relentless barrage of nearly one-sided propaganda over the years?
Case in point: the recent National Geographic article parroting your 1.5 million claims.
One of the editors: an Armenian. I noticed ANCA has pointed to the extremely credible
Library of Congress to validate your genocide. (Yes, the Library of Congress completely
backs you up: using the then-worldwide population of 3 million Armenians as the pre-war
number in the Ottoman Empire alone, and claiming up to 2 million as systematically killed
and tortured.) Imagine... the harbinger of truth in our country, the honorable Library of
Congress, itself! The man in charge? You guessed it; an Armenian. (The Armenians really
know how to stick together, I must say; kind of like in "Invasion of the Body
Snatchers," where the pod people have been sent far and wide, infiltrating from all
Not that people in charge have to be Armenians to support your claims, since everyone has
been so brainwashed... but this is the lopsidedness of our debate. Youíve got a terrific
built-in advantage, as you well know. So please donít insinuate that Iím purposely
lying... people already think Iím lying, so how could I possibly win my argument by
Itís the same old story... Armenians act, and the Turks react. Exactly what happened in
pretty much every single Armeno-Turkish conflict, from 1796 on. Iím only reacting to the
actions of those as yourself.
What about you? Are you a truth-teller?
Iíve taken apart your works in detail, and Iím far from convinced truth is your
I love the way you actually say, in "Misplaced Credulity" (which Iíll refer to
as MC) that "No... (Armenian) revolt ever took place."
Thatís a big whopper there, Professor Papazian.
You know how much Peter (whom I affectionately refer to as "Peternocchio")
Balakian enjoys pointing to the 145 articles in the New York Times in 1915, as genocidal
proof? (Did you take a look at his recent book? Quite an educational read... I never knew
Turks made such fine craftsmen, since I keep reading in Armenian literature what unskilled
brutes they were. Peter tells us there was not one, but at least two Ottoman Turks who had
mastered the art of nailing horseshoes onto Armenian feet. Now that takes real talent,
because I canít figure how the horsehoes would stay on... but one of these Turks was
gifted enough to get the Armenians to actually walk through town on these horseshoed
Interestingly, we can turn to this very anti-Turkish source, The New York Times, and read
a 1914 article entitled, "ARMENIANS FIGHTING TURKS; Besieging Van ó Others
Operating in Turkish Armyís Rear." The article came out only five days after Russia
had declared war. Imagine that! These Armenians, who only fought in
"self-defense" as youíve written, followed the Dashnak charter instructions to
a tee, striking when the Ottoman Empire was at her weakest... while at war.
This is the kind of material I like to use in my attempt to be "certainly persuasive
for those who do not know the facts."
Also interesting how Boghos Nubar didnít stress your genocide when he did his best to
grab free goodies from the Allies at the Paris Peace Conference; no, in his 1919 Times of
London letter, he was bragging about the fighting force of nearly 200,000 Armenians. (I
guess these ranks must have been composed of women, children and the elderly, because
according to you, all the Armenian men were savagely killed by the Turks.)
I have a feeling thereís little chance you would be related to Kapriel Serope Papazian;
he wrote "Patriotism Perverted" in 1934, before the word "genocide"
was invented... so he didnít follow the line of latter-day Armenian historians, but
actually upheld the principles of objectivity and truth. (At least in some sections; I
didnít read the entire work.) "Thousands of Armenians from all over the world,
flocked to the standards of such famous fighters as Antranik, Kery, Dro, etc. The Armenian
volunteer regiments rendered valuable service to the Russian Army in the years of
Antranik and Dro strictly targeted enemy soldiers, is that correct? Undefended Turkish
villagers wouldnít have had anything to fear from these honorable men, I would hope.
Despite your insincere attempt to distance the Armeniansí treachery from Russian
promises ("Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky, foreign minister of Russia in 1895, summed it
all up by saying, ĎYes, Russia wants Armenia, but without the Armeniansí") it was
pretty crazy how the Armenians, blinded by their greed, believed the Russiansí lies time
and time again. No wonder William Saroyan acknowledged the Armeniansí greatest enemy was
not the Turks, but the Russians.
If we are to debate, Professor Papazian, you know you canít get away with the kind of
material that you have presented. Just about everything youíve written, I have to shake
my head in sadness. For example, in "What Every Armenian Should Know," you
attempt to instruct your rank and file to be careful of Turkish claims that only 600,000
died, and not 1.5 million. Your defense? "Would this change the basic truth that a
genocidal massacre occurred in 1915?"
This kind of reasoning is highly disingenuous. You know very well your side knows the
value of inflating mortality figures to get the maximum sympathy value. (For the
mid-1890s, you go way off the top of the charts by stating "hundreds of
thousands," in MC... implying the number may possibly be even more than the highest
Armenian fairy tale number, 300,000. The Turk-hating Lepsius figured 89,000, an already
exaggerated figure that likely quadruples the real casualties.) Yet when cornered to prove
these wild claims, you take the moral high road by saying numbers donít matter.
The Encyclopedia Britannica reported 1.1 million Ottoman-Armenians in 1911. (Years before
they ďrevisedĒ their figures, to conform with the propaganda. We know the Armenians
regard historical revision as a sin.) Arnold Toynbee went with around a million, the year
before he ďrevisedĒ his figures, after becoming a propagandist. Armenian Patriarch
Ormanian and the Turk-hating Lepsius each figured 1.6 million or less. Thatís pretty
much the high of the range, when it comes to ďneutralĒ sources. Only Armenians fly
into fantasyland with numbers approaching 2 million and over. Since Armenians grant one
million survived, itís obvious the mortality figure is not going to exceed 600,000. And
not all died from massacres, to say the least. Mr. Hovannisian figured in 1967 that some
150,000 died of famine while accompanying the Russian retreats, and 2-3,000 faced a
similar fate while accompanying the French retreat at Marash. Is it honest of you to blame
the Turks for these deaths?
I really enjoyed your line, "The Turks play with numbers in a grotesque way."
That was in the paragraph where you claimed 1.5 million was the total of the murdered,
when just seven questions earlier, you had written that the Turks had "exterminate(d)
an unarmed minority of three million old men, women, and children." Thatís quite a
discrepancy youíve got there, Professor.
Now, why would you say "The Turks play with numbers in a grotesque way"? Iím
not making up any of these figures. Iím actually basing them on largely pro-Armenian
I should refer to your part in what Armenians love to do when they canít defend their
positions with the facts: conduct defamation campaigns.
Youíve written of Admiral Mark Bristol in a way to lessen his credibility. (You have
your facts wrong, by the way, as to which year Bristol began his term; it was not 1920.)
His writings do not demonstrate he loved the Turks over the Armenians and the Greeks; the
High Commissionerís only crime was that he did not take after Ambassador Morgenthau, and
preferred to be a man of integrity... treating all of these human beings equally.
You refer to him as a "stern" military man. You mean sort of like Patton, who
wasnít always humanistically inclined toward his troops? Or perhaps like the
pro-Armenian General James Harbord, who likely led some of the American troops committing
atrocities against Filipino civilians, after being stationed in the Philippines in 1902?
(What was the toll in that one? Possibly a few hundred thousand? I wonder when our
conscientious Congress will consider a genocide resolution for that episode of "Manís
Inhumanity to Man.") Harbord apparently liked throwing our lads into the line of fire
without proper artillery support, as he did at the Second Battle of the Marne, in July
1918. Is that what you meant by "stern"?
Why, even one of the maddest dogs among Morgenthauís consuls, George Horton (you know,
the one who got off on likening the entire Turkish people to the "anti-Christ";
good thing those consuls like J. B. Jackson were free of any sort of racial or religious
bias) referred to Admiral Mark Bristol as "brave" and "honest."
I feel you should remember the "American" in your "Armenian-American"
before you defame Admiral Bristol. Bristol served our country magnificently by getting the
Turks to regard the United States as a friend, unless you would have rather had Turkey
join the Soviet Union as Armenia willingly did, betraying her friends in the West (also
reneging on a $50 million loan at 5% interest our USA gave Armenia, in good faith); this
great Americanís character doesnít deserve the sort of treatment youíve been giving
Then there is the way you attacked the character of Arthur Moss and Florence Gilliam, one
of the few Western voices who dared to explain the other side of the story back in those
days, when they wrote their 1923 article for The Nation. (As few as such people were back
then, I think there are even less of them writing similar articles now. Amazing.) You didnít
want to factually tackle the points they had raised, while sniffing that they werenít
scholars... and you tried to discredit the validity of what they were saying by accusing
the authors of being anti-American?
Thatís not the correct way you should go about winning your argument. Comes across as
underhanded, doesnít it? (Even if they were anti-American... and I donít believe you
conducted the research to have gotten to know their personal lives...what could that
possibly have to do with their historical analysis of the Armenian chapter? Remember, by
1923, the Americans had "betrayed" the Armenians... so if the authors hated the
United States, and if they were the kind of dishonorable characters you strongly
suggested, that would have given them the incentive to take the Armeniansí side.)
You did make two attempts at specifics, first by pooh-poohing their claim that "The
Bryce reports have been proved to be without tangible evidence and to have been based
entirely on hearsay" without explaining why; however, even Toynbee is on record for
having confessed the Blue Book garbage was propaganda. (After regaining his scruples,
Toynbee also said in the respectable chapter of his career as historian: "The Ottoman
institution came perhaps as near as anything in real life could to realizing the ideal of
Platoís Republic." Remember, Dr. Papazian: no Armenians could have been persecuted
in Platoís Republic.) And as far as ridiculing their statement, "In Turkey, all
three main religions ó Mohammedanism, Judaism, and Christianity ó are on an equal
footing. . . . A Catholic cannot go as far politically in secular America as a Christian
can go in so-called theocratic Turkey," that was no exaggeration.
You werenít aware there were many Armenians who attained high posts in government well
before the Ottomans were overthrown, while Catholics in the USA were being discriminated
against? It is highly unlikely that you would be ignorant of that fact, should we
entertain the notion that incompetence is your sin. In later years, two Armenians who
served as parliamentarians were the Hunchak Hamparsum Boyaciyan and the Dashnak Armen
"Garo" Pastermadjian. Iím sure you teach your students how these two repaid
their countryís generosity (particularly the Ottoman Bank-takeover terrorist Garo,
pardoned by the "Bloody Sultan," one of your preferred ways to refer to the
Turkish leader, in 1896)... they sliced and diced Turkish women and children during WWI
I donít know what purpose it will serve to engage in a debate, Dr. Papazian, because youíre
not on the up and up!
Iím aware of the futility of debating Armenians who have erected stone walls in their
minds. Iím referring to emotionally committed rank and file Armeni-Lemmings, and not
their historians who certainly know the real truth. A private exchange between ourselves
will serve little purpose, because you are married to your cause. If you really have the
courage of your convictions, you ought to put your history up against professional
pro-Turkish scholars (Iím not talking about those such as Taner AkÁam and Fatma MŁge
GŲÁek) in genuine, public debates... as Levon Marashlian bravely (yet ineffectually)
attempted in 1990, when he was treated most fairly, as he documented.
When was the last time you were part of a genuine debate?
However, my door is always open if you have some true evidence. Iíd change my tune in a
minute, should I ever encounter actual, ironclad proof. However, I fear that even if God
were to tell you there was no Armenian ďGenocide,Ē youíd still be blasting away with
your tales of 1.5 million (or 3 million, depending on your mood) massacred, and the like.
Iím sure youíre a nice man at heart, but you have allowed your agenda and your
emotions to supersede your professional duties.
Regardless of the opinion you may have of the following writer, I donít believe you can
argue with his glorious words:
Historians should love the truth. A historian has a duty to try to write only the
truth. Before historians write they must look at all relevant sources. They must examine
their own prejudices, then do all they can to insure that those prejudices do not
overwhelm the truth. Only then should they write history. The historians creed must be,
"Consider all the sides of an issue; reject your own prejudices. Only then can you
hope to find the truth."
Do historians always follow this creed? They do not, but good historians try.
There are ways to tell if a historian has been true to his craft. All important sources of
information must be studied: A book on American history that does not draw upon American
sources and only uses sources written in French cannot be accurate history. All important
facts must be considered: a book on the history of the Germans and the Jews that does not
mention the death of the Jews in the Holocaust cannot be true.
Uncomfortable facts, facts that disagree with one's preconceptions and prejudices must be
considered, not avoided or ignored: Any book on the history of the Turks and the Armenians
that does not include the history of the Turks who were killed by Armenians cannot be the
truth. This is obvious. It should be so obvious that it need not be said. But we know it
must be said, because so many have forgotten the rules of honest history.
Those words were written by the HONEST historian, Professor Justin McCarthy, in ďThe
cc: Henry Huttenbach, The Genocide Forum; he was kind enough to conduct communications
with me, which I appreciated.
The Encyclopedia Britannica reported an
Ottoman-Armenian population of 1.1 million on one page, but the more conclusive number was
1.5 million, on the page better referring to the matter.
I sadly learned after the writing of the above that
the one who helped the Library of Congress get infiltrated with Armenian propaganda, as
much as the Armenian professor, was the head librarian himself, James Billington.
Dr. Papazian and I had another round about a year
after the above exchange. He again accused me of being a Turkish agent. It's astounding
what extremist Armenians won't stoop to, in their defensive methods to avoid the real