Tall Armenian Tale

 

The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide

 

  Armenian Scholars' Disregard for the Truth   
HOME
First Page
Background
Scenario
End-of-argument

 

SECTIONS
Quotes
Thoughts
Census
Questions
Reviews
Major Players
Letters
Cumulative
Search
Links & Misc.

Translate

 

COMMENT
Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems
Others


 

 

"Viam inveniam aut faciam"
 ("I shall find a way or create one.")

 

Holdwater says: As heartbreaking as it is for individual Armenians to have an en masse aversion to the truth (in the context of their genocide), it's just mind-boggling for the bulk of Armenian historians and scholars to openly manipulate the facts. You would think these professionals would rise above the emotional psychology that drives the Armenians, and try to resist practicing their quasi-religion of hating the Turks; you would think the scholars would remember the ethics of their field and attempt to be impartial... and objectively consider all sides to a story. 

One day the world at large will discover how the bulk of Armenian historians and scholars have such an utter and shameless aversion to the truth. People will feel just like Franz Werfel, the author of "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh," must have felt... what an unpleasant feeling it is, to be taken for a sucker.

The first chapter on this page illustrates perfectly the M.O. of Armenian scholars; it can be summed up in one word... AND?

 
"He who knows the truth and does not speak it is a miserable coward and not a Christian" — Saint Pius V

ERICH FEIGL, a documentary filmmaker, decided to write A Myth of Terror: Armenian Extremism, Its Causes and Its Historical Context when he lost a close friend to Armenian terrorism. His friend Erdogan Ozen, to whom this book is dedicated, was killed by a bomb planted in his car on June 20, 1984. He was the labor and social affairs attaché for the Turkish Embassy in Vienna. 

In his personal foreword, Feigl talks about an interesting encounter he's had during his research for the book. The conversation between Feigl and Dr. Libaridian demonstrates perfectly how certain scholars will ultimately give in to fabrications to suit their advantage.

---------------------------------


"…The Armenian view of history is for the most part shared by the public at large. That is no surprise, and it should not be taken as a reproach. Virtually all the information that we have concerning the tragic events of 1915 comes from Armenian sources or from others who know nothing —  or at least pretend to know nothing —
 about the much greater suffering endured by the Moslems at the time. The available information also presents a very incomplete, one-sided view of the events leading up to the tragedy of 1915.
…I did, of course, also meet other people in the course of my research work. I especially recall Dr. Gerard Libaridian, the head of the Armenian Zorian Institute. I spent several hours with Dr. Libaridian in his office in Cambridge, Massachusetts and had an extremely interesting conversation with him. Dr. Libaridian is a brilliant man, bubbling with vitality, knowledge, talent, and self-confidence. One could write a very compelling play based on my conversation with him.

Several times he mentioned the so-called "Andonian papers"


I kept notes of my host's most provocative statements in this fascinating discussion. Several times he mentioned the so-called "Andonian papers". In the early twenties, an Armenian by the name of Aram Andonian published a "collection of documents" (actually they were photographs of "documents"), which he presented as "proof" that the Ottoman government had planned the extermination of the Armenian people. Basically, these "documents" consisted of "orders" that could certainly be compared to the insane acts of a Hitler or Himmler.


Franz Werfel based his splendid novel, The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, entirely on these "extermination orders" of the Ottoman government. Of course, he originally did this in good faith, and when he found out that he had been taken in by a forgery, it was too late. Out of fear of Armenian reprisals, he did not even dare to publicly acknowledge his error.
 

"And?"

Since it seemed reasonable to assume that Dr. Libaridian knew that the papers were forgeries, I did not want to waste a single word on the subject. There were so many other, more interesting things to talk about. But remarkably enough, he stuck with Aram Andonian's book, and its "documents". Finally I had to say, "But Doctor Libaridian, you know as well as I that these 'Andonian papers' are forgeries!" I will never forget Dr. Libaridian answer or his facial expression as he replied simply and briefly to my reproach:
"And?"


… and I will never forget that answer. It was not even cold; it was casual, matter-of-fact reply to one who has long since found other strategies but does not even bother to clean house, since he knows that the old dirt can be swept under the rug of history and —
 who knows? —  maybe someday it will come in handy again to help obscure the truth.


It is a very tiny minority of Armenians who promote terrorism and misuse the idealistic, impressionable young people for their own irrational motives and objectives. The ironic tragedy of it all is that the people pulling the strings are themselves hanging from the strings of powerful puppet-masters. Or to use another analogy, they are nothing more than ridiculous little chess pieces in the game of superpowers, who sacrifice their Armenian pawn whenever it seems to suit their game-plan."

This marvelously revealing excerpt is from ataa.org



"The genocide in 1915 did not have much to do with what Armenians ultimately said or did...There was no armed Armenian population in 1914." *

Prof. Gerard Libaridian, in a debate sponsored by the University of Pittsburg at Johnstown on October 21, 1982 on the subject "Was there an Armenian Genocide?"

"In the beginning of fall 1914, when Turkey had not yet entered the war, but was preparing to, Armenian volunteer groups began to be organized with great zeal and pomp in Trans-Caucasia. In spite of the decision taken a few weeks before at the General Committee in Erzurum, the Dashnagtzoutune actively helped the organization of the aforementioned groups, and especially arming them, against Turkey".

Hovhannes Kachaznouni, the first Prime Minister of the independent Armenian Republic, "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Has Nothing To Do Anymore," 1923 (New York 1955-English version), p.5

 

* Libaridian prefaced his statement with:

"A genocide is not a question of numbers, it is the quality of the act that is committed. That is, a government, a force, decides to get rid of an element because of its race or ethnic origin or religion and does it, the intent is what counts."

Thank you Prof. Libaridian. And that is what this debate boils down to; did the Ottomans subject the treacherous Armenian population to relocate for phony reasons like trying to Turkify the whole nation (in which case they would have had to get rid of all non-Turkic elements in the vastly heterogeneous empire), or for the real reasons your dishonest kind is still trying to keep under wraps? "Intent" is indeed the magic word.

ADDENDUM: This 1982 debate is now featured on TAT


On Vahakn N. Dadrian 

 

According to the web site of a Dutch TV production entitled "The Wall of Silence," Professor Dadrian, reported to be 70 years of age at the time, was raised in Istanbul. Upon arriving elsewhere in Europe, he came across a copy of Franz Werfel's "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh." The fiction transformed him, and his crusade to affirm the Armenian "Genocide" was born.

Another site reports the professor has taught in five languages, and some of his research has been funded by The National Science Foundation and The H.F. Guggenheim Foundation.

DADRIAN'S BACKGROUND, IN HIS OWN WORDS

From a May 2, 2005 FrontPageMagazine.com interview:

"My family largely survived the genocide, because my father was very popular among the Turks. He was a judge, and I understand that he was very respected for his sense of probity and justice. At one time, he was even urged by his Turkish colleagues to become a deputy of Chorum, and he refused. I understand also that I come from a very wealthy family. My grandfather erected the church of Chorum, and my father built the school at Chorum, as a result the Patriarch issued an encyclical declaring the Dadrian family national benefactors. I have lots of title deeds documenting amassed wealth in Chorum involving Dadrian family properties. But I am prepared to relinquish any claim on property if the Turks recognize the genocide. A sizable portion of the city of Chorum was owned by the Dadrian family but I am an academician, and I have an aversion against wealth and greed."

Dadrian's family was by no means the only wealthy Armenian one, in a tolerant nation where Armenians were allowed to prosper for centuries. Yet the word Dadrian uses to characterize the treatment of Armenians, particularly in the last few decades before "1915," is "persecution." (What do you suppose happened all of a sudden, after the Armenians had been regarded as the faithful nation, in centuries past?)

The fact that Dadrian's family "largely survived the genocide" (did the members of his family survive, or didn't they?) was attributed to what, exactly? That his father was honorable? Were honorable Jews exempted from Hitler's Holocaust? That the family was wealthy? Don't we often hear as one of the speculative murder motives that the Turks wanted to get at the Armenians' wealth?

Don't we also hear the Turks did not respect the property claims of returning Armenians? Dadrian seems certain his title deeds will be respected.

How ironic that from Dadrian's own story we can already see the holes in the hateful genocide theories he has been instrumental in perpetuating. His family thrived in the old country and was anything but "persecuted." Vahakn Dadrian has shown a peculiar way of demonstrating his gratitude. He must have utilized his special brand of morality that he proudly points to, with his "aversion against wealth and greed"; his wealth is his own business (I wonder if he's having trouble making ends meet), but the degree of his greed — in pushing one-sided propaganda defaming the nation that took such good care of his family — is openly evident.

 

 

-------------------------------------

Professor Malcolm E. Yapp is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Middle Eastern Studies journal and is the author of The Near East Since the First World War: A History to 1995.

The following are excerpts from his commentary on The History of the Armenian Genocide by Vahakn N. Dadrian

"...The key issue, Dadrian contends is the genocidal nature of the massacres and this issue supersedes all others. The book is therefore a further contribution to the campaign waged by Armenian writers in recent years in an endeavour to persuade the public that a major crime against humanity was carried out by the Ottomans before and especially during the First World War and this crime has gone unpunished and unacknowledged at least in its full dimensions. It's probably unnecessary to remind readers that the contrary view maintained by Turkish historians and by many other historians of the modern Middle East is that although massacres of the Ottoman Armenians undoubtedly took place, the available evidence suggests that those chiefly responsible were local Kurdish tribes and brigands and that there was some connivance even participation by local Ottoman officials, but that the central Ottoman government did not order or plan the 1915 massacres; what it did was to order the deportation of Armenians from areas made sensitive by the progress of the war without adequate arrangements for their transport, food or security. The question is: has Dadrian produced sufficient new evidence to turn the debate decisively in favour of the view that the massacres were planned by the Ottoman government with a view to the extinction of the Ottoman Armenians?

Professor Vahakn Dadrian

Professor Vahakn Dadrian

   The book begins with the emergence of an Armenian question in 1878 when the Treaty of Berlin provided for internationally supervised reforms in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire and Armenian hopes and expectations were accordingly raised. From then on the Ottomans feared that the same process which they had witnessed in the Balkans would be repeated in eastern Asia Minor; autonomy would be demanded, found to be inadequate, and eventually full independence would be demanded and conceded under international pressure. But there was one major difference between eastern Asia Minor and most of the Balkans; in eastern Asia Minor the Armenians were a minority in a Muslim majority region. Moreover among the Armenians only a small minority wished for independence; it's a weakness of this book that there is no adequate analysis of the very varied Armenian population of the Empire.

...Although Dadrian produces many reports tending to suggest that members of the Ottoman government wanted to destroy the Armenian, he fails to find any document which constitutes a definite order for massacre...

In the last sections of the book, Dadrian describes the various post-war efforts by the Ottoman and Allied authorities to bring those responsible for the massacres to book. The 1919 courts martial, however cannot be taken entirely at face value because they were conducted by a government which was anxious to pin any blame on the CUP leaders...

Despite the numerous documents cited and the careful assembly of information about individuals and organizations, there is no decisive evidence to support Dadrian's case.... Of course one may argue that even without clear unambiguous documentary evidence the weight of so many pieces of indirect and circumstantial evidence brought together could be persuasive, even conclusive, but one must enter a caveat. The author's approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system. What he wants are admissions of guilt from the defendants, first Germany as the easier target and then Turkey. What is missing is any adequate recognition of the circumstances in which these events took place; the surge of Armenian nationalism, the ambitions of Russia, the fears of the Ottomans and the panic and indiscipline of war. Dadrian is so obsessed by his theory of the long plan that he too often overlooks the elements of the contingent.

...It's indeed the dimensions of that tragedy which have led many to feel that the massacres must have been planned by government. But the scale of the horrors doesn't necessarily point to genocide. Some mass murders of the twentieth century have indeed been the result of deliberate government action; some have been the result of panic, indifference, ignorance or a combination of circumstances. To which category the Armenian massacres belong is still unknown." 

From ataa.org

 


Dadrian "Once Again Commits a Serious Violation of Scholarly Ethics"

...The high-ranking German officer Felix Guse (who as chief of staff of the Turkish Third Army was a witness to the events of 1915 in eastern Anatolia) insisted that the activities of the Armenian revolutionaries represented a “prepared undertaking” rather than simply a reaction to stepped-up persecution. “The seriousness and scope of the Armenian insurrection,” he noted, “have not been sufficiently recognized and appreciated.”24

Pro-Armenian authors have denied that the fighting in 1915 represented a general uprising. Dadrian acknowledges that “a number of Armenians, individually or in consort with the enemy, engaged in espionage and sabotage, mainly on the eastern border.”25 However, he denies the assertion of Guse and others that this was the result of a prepared undertaking” or full-scale rebellion. Guse, Dadrian asserts, “was largely, if not exclusively, dependent upon the information fed to him by his Turkish subordinates as well as his Turkish superior, the Commander-in-Chief of the Caucasus, or the Third Army. He had absolutely no alternative or supplementary source to check, modify, verify, or dismiss a flow of information with seemingly actual military implications but in reality with enormous political ramifications.”26 This assessment has some validity; yet after thus devaluing Guse as a reliable witness, Dadrian cited Guse in two writings published several years later as saying that “there was no proof that the Armenians had any plan or intention to mount a general uprising.”27 Dadrian’s use of Guse’s views raises several problems. First, if Guse’s testimony is not to be trusted when he says that there was a “prepared uprising” because he had no independent sources of information, he should also not be considered a reliable source when he allegedly says that there was no planned uprising. Second, and more seriously, Guse nowhere states that there was no planned insurrection. Dadrian cites as his source Guse’s 1925 article (quoted earlier), but Guse there maintains the opposite of what Dadrian makes him say—he affirms that there was indeed a large rebellion. Dadrian does not put Guse’s words into quotation marks, but by falsely attributing an opinion to a source, even when not citing it verbatim, he once again commits a serious violation of scholarly ethics.



24. Felix Guse, “Der Armenieraufstand 1915 und seine Folgen,” Wissen und Wehr 6 (1925): 614.
25. Dadrian, 'The Secret Young-Turk Ittihadist Conference,’ p. 189.
26. Dadrian, German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide, p. 36.
27. Dadrian, Key Elements in the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide, p. 12, and “The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the Armenians as Documented by the Officials of the Ottoman Impire’s World War I Allies: Germany and Austria- Hungary,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 34 (2002): 67.

Prof. Guenter Lewy, "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide," 2005, pp. 91-92; more on Felix Guse.

HEAR PROF. LEWY embellish this point, from a February 2006 discussion at the University of Utah.


 

Conference on Genocide

Dean Robert Gilbert Johnston
JMLS, Chicago
March 21, 2000

Dear Dean Johnston:

I am writing with respect to a conference co-sponsored by the JMLS of Chicago on the International Crime of Genocide. 20th century so on in April, 2000. This conference is co-chaired by Profs. Ann Lousin and Ralph Ruebner.

I have two issues to discuss which has not been settled to our satisfaction as the local Turkish-American Community.

The first issue is the presence of Prof. Vakahn Dadrian as an invited speaker. Prof. Dadrian is a well recognized propagandist for the so called Armenian Genocide in the hands of the Turks. This is all he does and publishes about. This man’s usual rumination against the Turks at the conference will be unchallenged academically as there are no presenters invited to counter with the Turkish perspective of the events. Why and is this fair for an academia of jurisprudence to do?

Second is that Conference is closed to people like myself and for “historians only”. Now what defines a “historian”? For myself, I have a 1000-volume library on the so called Armenian genocide. Although I am a scientist by training, I have published a dozen booklets on the historic Turkish and Armenian/Greek/Jewish relations. I submit to you that I know about the subject as much as any “historian” in the audience. Why is this discrimination? Academia thrives on academic freedom and public access to its forums. How can you select your audience and on what basis and why indeed? Certainly if Dadrian is able to satisfy his “historian colleagues” he can certainly field simple-minded questions from folks like me in the audience.

It appears that there is something wrong with this set-up. When two of my colleagues tried to discuss these matters with co-chair Prof. Lousin she would ask their age and tell them that they have been taught the wrong facts. What an insult and pre-disposition. She asked them about the Greek Genocide?? I wonder if she ever saw the Report of the Inter-Allied Commission on the Occupation of Smyrna by the Greeks (circa 1919 chaired by none other than the United States High Commissioner Admiral Mark Bristol). This report would tell her who committed genocide on whom!

It appears that there is frame-up against the Turks here. I strongly suggest that a rectification is needed. This can be inviting a Turkish-view speaker: canceling Dadrian’s presentation; or opening up the conference to the public. I personally prefer option one or the third. I am for open academic dialog but not for a complicity, intended or unintended.

Please give your utmost consideration to our concerns, Sir.

Thank you very much.
Dr. Tunch M. Kuzay
Napersville, IL

 


Holdwater adds: When first hearing of the high regard Professor Dadrian enjoys within the Armenian community, as an objective researcher a notch above the typically slipshod scholar of Armenian origin ("One finds little as scholarly even as Sonyel in the general run of Armenian historiography on the subject," is the way Gwynne Dyer put it in his balanced report), I figured here is an Armenian who at least tackles the subject professionally. Now I have a better idea of the merit of his work, and of his personality. Listen to some of his statements when he spoke to a hundred San Francisco Armenian-Americans on April 26, 2002 (From ANC's web site in Frisco):

Dadrian said the claim of 2.5 million Turks lost in the war was "... utterly untenable — taking two disparate categories and comparing them — Armenian losses being the centrally ordered mass murder of a population, and Turkish losses being the result of war against Britain, Imperial Russia, and France." So, in other words, the Armenian losses of less than 600,000 were all from "genocide," and all of the Turkish losses were from war casualties? What about famine and disease that even the Armenians' beloved Henry Morgenthau (in "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story") said affected civilian Turks in large numbers... which certainly also affected the Armenians? (For example, Richard Hovannisian himself estimated some 150,000 Armenians -- one-fourth of the higher range of total Armenian casualties -- lost their lives from famine during the Russian retreats, in 1967's Armenia on the Road to Independence.) General Liman von Sanders, as witness for the defense in the trial of Talat Pasha's assassin, spoke from the perspective of Turkish soldiers, and not civilians: "...The economic situation was so dismal that not only many Armenians, but thousands of Turkish soldiers as well died of the lack of food supplies, disease, and other consequences of poor organization in the Turkish government. In my division alone, after the battle of Gallipoli, thousands died of malnutrition." That's even more poignant, if soldiers actually died in such large numbers from famine... since the soldiers were the only thing standing between the nation's life and death. For more perspective, the pro-Armenian U.S. General Harbord believed 600,000 Turkish soldiers died from typhus alone.

Also, I wonder why the great Ottoman Armenian, Berch Keresteciyan Efendi... a man of high enough position (Director of the Ottoman Bank; Vice President of the “Turkish Red-Crescent”), to certainly have been aware of the gruesome struggle his people endured during the war... served his nation in the amazing ways he did as late as 1919, well after the brunt of the Armenian "Genocide." He saved Mustafa Kemal's life, and provided decisive funds [from his own pocket, cleaning out his personal account] to battle the enemy when the nation was in most desperate need; if he believed the Ottoman Turks were guilty of wiping out his fellow Armenians, what was he? Out of his mind?

Take a look at the census page; at that page's bottom, you'll learn at least one-fifth of the Turkish losses were caused directly at the hands of the massacring Armenians. (Notice that mum's the word with the prejudiced professor on the topic of his Armenian own having innocent blood on their hands.)

Addressing the Turkish claim that Armenians were victims of a civil war, Dadrian called it "... full of frivolity, exceeded only by absurdity." He explained that Turkey began the conscription of Armenian men into the army within hours of signing its treaty with Germany in August, 1914, leaving only a terrified Armenian population of women, children, and the elderly. Gee. Even the Armenians' beloved anti-Turkish New York Times reported in a 1914 article that the TURKISH ARMENIANS (were) IN ARMED REVOLT. (The article appeared five days after Russia had declared war on the Ottoman Empire.) Seems there were plenty of young Armenian males "ready to join the invading army, explaining that they had prepared themselves for the Russian approach by constant drilling and by gathering arms secretly." Boghos Nubar himself preferred to highlight how the Ottoman Armenians waged war against their countrymen, shuffling aside the so-familiar victimhood angle, when he hoped to sway the Allies during the Paris Peace Conference. Oh, and here are over half a dozen other examples of Armenian treachery, so "full of frivolity, exceeded only by absurdity."

Although the Turkish government has purged its archives of much of the evidence of the Armenian Genocide, Dadrian said "Given the magnitude of the crime, it is impossible to make every trace of evidence disappear." Huh? What's the proof that the government purged its archives? Did Dadrian visit the Turkish archives and re-visit again to find what he encountered before was no longer there? He's only speculating here. Then he says, "The Turkish archival material amply implicates premeditation." What a contradiction! Even if it's impossible to make every trace disappear, you'd think the alleged purgers would do a good enough job not to leave behind AMPLE proof. And if the premeditative evidence is so omnipresent, why did the British disregard them... when they were desperately seeking proof to implicate the Ottoman officials they holed up in Malta for nearly two-and-a-half years... with Armenian researchers digging up whatever evidence they could find in Istanbul, under full control of the Allies, before the Turkish government had a chance to "purge" any of its archives?

Estimates of the Ottoman-Armenian population: M. Zarchesi, French Consul at Van: 1,300,000; Francis de Pressence (1895): 1,200,000; Torumnekize (1900): 1,300,000; Lynch (1901): 1,158,484; Ottoman census (1905): 1,294,851; British Blue Book (1912): 1,056,000; L.D.Conterson (1913): 1,400,000; French Yellow Book: 1,475,000; Armenian Patriarch Ormanian: (*)1,579,000; Lepsius: 1,600,000

The Armenians claim one million survived.
Subtract that from the 1.3 to 1.5 million
Armenians who lived in the Ottoman Empire. Now
look up the word "annihilation" in the
dictionary.  Somebody put the word "annihilation"
in Vehib Pasha's mouth, and chances are that
somebody's initials are "V.D." Would you
want to get close to anyone who believes in V.D.?

  The professor comes up with an incriminating statement by Vehib Pasha, who wrote, "To sum up, the massacre and annihilation of the Armenian population and the plunder and robbery of their possessions was an order from the Young Turks. All took place under the sponsorship of the government." Unfortunately, it's taken from Vehib Pasha's December 5, 1918 court affidavit (honorably translated by... well, your guess is as good as mine; I'd highly doubt the word "annihilation" was used, because over two-thirds of Ottoman-Armenians survived)... that is, the vengeance-oriented kangaroo court under Allied control where people were saying anything and everything for their own purposes. Perhaps the pasha saw Armenian victims of massacres, but what was his proof that these were state-sponsored? (General Vehib executed two Ottoman perpetrators for crimes against Armenians. Could Rommel have gotten away with executing SS men for crimes against Jews in WWII? In other words, if "annihilation" was state policy, would the state have permitted anyone from getting in the way of that policy?)

Then the professor references Morganthau's description of the drowning deaths he saw in Erzinga. He's actually giving credence to the Turk-hating Ambassador Morgenthau, who never left the confines of the Istanbul environs of the American consul (so he couldn't have "seen" these drowning deaths) and who mainly relied on reports by missionaries, missionary-and-Armenian influenced American consuls (such as this one regarding "drowning deaths" that even a proponent of the Armenian "Genocide" refuses to buy) and his Armenian right-hand men! (Let's see now.... for a true, stand-up scholar on the "genocide,"  that would be... ohhh... minus two thousand points?)

In other words, the professor has taken the occasion to goose-step his lily-white derriere to the tune of "The Armenian AND? Anthem."

Dadrian then tries to tie the Armenian "genocide" with the Turks' actions against the Kurds (!), and then tries to tie the Holocaust with the "genocide" by suggesting Germans wanted Germany for the Germans, free from Jews, and Turks wanted Turkey free from Armenians. Mother of mercy! Then the Turks sure did a lousy job, since a good number of Armenians are happily living in Turkey, today. Perhaps the professor should ask how many Turks are living in Armenia, where they constituted a majority during the 19th Century; Mikael Kaprilian wrote in 1919: "The Armenians did exterminate the entire Muslim population of Russian Armenia as Muslims were considered inferior to the Armenians by the prominent leaders of the Dashnaks," while Sahak Melkonian wrote (in "Preserving the Armenian Purity," 1920): "In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists a single Turkish soul."

The article says: "On the question of the lack of a specific order for the enactment of the Armenian Genocide, Dadrian said it's ridiculous to expect criminals to create and keep such a record, adding that there is similarly no such record of an order for the Jewish Holocaust, yet that does not lessen the legitimacy of the event." In other words, the Turks' chief priority, during the hustle and bustle of a life-or-death war, would have been to cover their tracks, afraid of how historians might regard them nearly a century later. Quite the contrary, if the Turks had decided on a policy of extermination, they would have needed to send such orders to all corners of the empire, to implement the policy... isn't that only logical, for expedience to have come first? And the legitimacy of the Holocaust is extensively documented with irrefutable evidence (not incidentally, there is only "no such record" of an order specifically linked to Hitler; all we need to know for proof of the Holocaust is the Wannsee Conference — although there is much more than that)... no such evidence for state-sponsored genocide exists in the case of the Armenians. The real reason why a specific order cannot be found is because no such order was given! However, there is documentation that reveals quite the opposite.

The article concludes with Dadrian's ridiculing the efforts of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission... saying, "I consider it a diversion and deflection by the Turks." That's really mean-spirited. (Duh!) When some Turkish businessmen approached him regarding the establishment of a Turkish Chair at Princeton University (did they actually want Dadrian to head this Turkish chair? Horrors..!), Dadrian said that the Turks expected them to "drink together, eat together, and forget the past..." To a captivated audience, Dadrian said, "We will never forget!".

That, ladies and gentlemen, reveals volumes as to the personality of the man... he is much too cynically and emotionally bent out of shape on this issue to possess anything even approaching objectivity. This putative professor's credibility is NIL.

Of course you will "never forget." To forget will mean sacrificing your entire raison d'etre. Armenians sadly NEED the "genocide," as an affirmation of their identity. (As Prime Minister Hovhannes Katchaznouni said in his 1923 Manifesto, [One of the main aspects of Armenian] "national psychology... [is] to seek external causes for [Armenian] misfortune.") By contrast, the Turks forgave and forgot the heinous atrocities committed by the Armenians against the Turks, in the interest of love and brotherhood (which is what clearly motivated the Turkish businessmen, above). Only with the Armenians' continued harping on the issue (and other incidental, little things... such as the murders of innocent diplomats and their families) have many more Turks discovered the crimes committed by the Armenians against the Turks. So, thank you, Armenians... for letting the cat out of the bag. And for perpetuating the defeating "eye for an eye" psychology.

What a pity reasonable voices among Armenian historians can be counted on only one hand. (Well, in my case, off the top of my head, only one finger... that finger belonging to:) Robert John (Hovanes), who said, "The time has come to stop psychologically damaging ourselves and our children by 'Holocaust studies' and 'Holocaust  museums' ... The Armenian, the Jew, or the African, should not damage their development with a continual conditioning of hate, neither should spurious guilt be visited upon others. These negative preoccupations and obsessions are obstructing our evolution."



"For the Armenians, the legal disabilities included the denial of the right to bear arms in a land where their adversaries were armed to the teeth, especially in the interior and the distant provinces. For extended periods, both the Armenians and the Jews were politically disenfranchised and, barring some incidental exceptions, were excluded from the governmental power structure of their respective societies."

Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian, attempting to draw a parallel between the Jewish Holocaust and the case of the Armenians. "The Historical and Legal Interconnections Between the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust: From Impunity to Retributive Justice, The Yale Journal of International Law" (1998 Vol.23 No 2)

"Summing up the participation of the communities other than Armenian, it is clear that none of them had such a large and permanent co-operation with the Ottoman Government in the public affairs of Eastern Anatolia and Syria as the Armenian 'millet.' "

Mesrob K. Krikorian, "Armenians in the Service of the Ottoman Empire" (London 1977) p.107; the author asserts in his book's preface that Armenians held high level posts in the Ottoman Administration... such as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Secretary General of the same Ministry, Ambassadors, Ministers of Finance, Treasury, and Public Works, Presidents of the State Banks and Post Services and as Governors.

"Under the constitution all men might bear arms. From the delightful novelty of the thing, many thousands of revolvers were purchased. Even schoolboys had them and, boy-like, flourished them about. But worse followed. The swagger of the arm-bearing Armenian and his ready tongue irritated the ignorant Turks. Threats and insults passed on both sides. Certain Armenian leaders, delegates from Constantinople, and priests (an Armenian priest is in his way an autocrat) urged their congregations to buy arms. It was done openly, indiscreetly, and, in some cases, it might be said wickedly."

British Embassy report describing the atmosphere in Adana before the Armenians precipitated events in 1909; British archives, F.O. 424/220, No. 48, enclosure



HELPFUL MEMORY TRICK:

Anyone who has trouble remembering Mr. Dadrian’s unusual name could resort to this memory trick: Simply think of the Old English verb "Didrian." What’s that? You don’t know what “Didrian” means? Okay... perhaps this memory trick isn’t very helpful, since Didrian’s usage popularity died out eight or nine centuries ago. Still, perhaps not all is lost. Simply think of the meaning of Didrian: "to deceive."


Turkish Professor Türkkaya Ataöv tears apart Professor Dadrian's shoddy findings in true scholarly and reliably documented fashion.

Further reading: Vahakn Dadrian's Genocidal Evidence

On Dennis R. Papazian

 

Professor Dennis Papazian

Professor Dennis Papazian

   Dr. Papazian refreshingly attempted to address several of the other circumstances usually ignored in the Armenian viewpoint, when he tried to guide the faithful in "What Every Armenian Should Know." The sad thing is... he cannot possibly believe in many of his own absurd statements; integrity is a concept to be spat upon. ("...Exterminates an unarmed minority of three million old men, women, and children..." indeed.)

You might have already had the opportunity to check out where the doctor is coming from in this site's "Armenian FAQ" page... or perhaps you might have already discovered his very own Misplaced Credulity.

 

On Peter Balakian


Peter Balakian is an English (and not history) professor, but that doesn't stop him from presenting his "erroneous" opinions when he publicly speaks out. Ironically, Mr. Balakian was behind the successful drive to oust Dr. Heath Lowry, whom Balakian maintains is not a credible professor, because Dr. Lowry has the audacity to speak the truth about what really happened regarding the Armenian "Genocide."

Professor Peter Balakian

Peter Balakian, from PBS' "The Armenians, A Story
of Survival
"

Holdwater has read excerpts of Mr. Balakian's book, "Black Dog of Fate," on the Internet. His mother sounds very cool: in a chapter where the American son tries to find out more about his Armenian past, she answers that they are Americans... that other Armenians are "too ethnic." Little did she realize her son would grow up to be so.... obsessed.

 Later, after Mr. Balakian read that beacon of truth, "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," and "other eyewitness accounts" (sigh), he learned from his Aunt Gladys what happened to his grandmother's cousin, Dovey. First, there were reports of prominent Armenians "being hung" (uhhh... wouldn't the more correct word be "hanged," Mr. English Professor?) because they were "called traitors" (and the possibility that they could have been traitors never enters the picture... of course). When Dovey found herself as part of the relocation, a Turkish gendarme would inspect their feces, sometimes with his hands, to find out if any coins were within. (Those Turks were not only dirty, but stupid! Why didn't they force their captives to go through the kaka? ) One night, the woman lay down and felt the grooves on her back made by "the Turkish whips ease onto the hard ground." That sounds like an incredible bit of poetic detail, doesn't it? (Mr. Balakian is a poet.) A Turkish gendarme sank his boot onto the side of her neck, as she was sucking on a eucalyptus leaf, cruelly having been deprived of water.  The thug then unbuckled his pants and urinated on the woman. She later saw a vision of her mother, just like the assassin of Talat Pasha, and Armenian hero, Soghoman Tehlirian. (However, at least Dovey's mother said sweet things, and didn't say "if you don't kill these Turks for me, you won't be my child," as did, in effect, Soghoman's phantom mom.) Later, Dovey got raped. In 1925, while shopping at Saks Department Store (in New York City, I presume), she fell into the arms of a fellow Armenian victim — from the same march, was it? — Dovey happened to run into. (Sheeeesh! So many survivors, for such an exterminated people.)

I don't mean to make light of the potential horrors Mr. Balakian's family went through. Yes, there were obviously S.O.B.'s among the gendarmes, some comprised of lowlifes, when every good man was needed at one of the many fronts, during the nation's desperate battle for survival. However, as the author himself writes, "This was what we heard. These were stories, rumors of the unbelievable..." That's exactly what these stories are... terror tales that have been embellished and re-embellished with each telling, often from family members far removed, such as from grandmother's cousin to possibly grandmother (in this case), to aunt (and no doubt further embellished by the writers who ultimately put them down on paper.... particularly in such colorful, sad, poetic ways. Here is a pictorial depiction of the validity of these stories.)

As painful as these stories are, especially to the families involved.... stories no less painful than the ones Turkish families have suffered through, at the hands of murderous Armenians.... these still boil down to "My Gran'mama Done Tol' Me" stories of the blues. The main brunt of the Armenians' "genocide.com" is based on these tales of hearsay... rather than cold, hard, provable FACTS.

Perhaps Balakian's family members could have restrained themselves and not have recounted every fanciful, horrendous detail... how could hearing such disgusting tales not affect their grown boy's mind? For example, he revealed elsewhere (despite the apparent "Black Dog" notion that he was relatively free of genocidal influence until adulthood) that his grandmother filled his head with genocide tales, amongst the other "Mother Goose and Grimm yarns." By contrast, here is how a Turkish grandmother handled the telling of her woes: Sure, she let slip certain details that must have been gnawing at her... like how an Armenian goon strutted cockily through town, swinging worry beads made from the cut off nipples of Turkish women; but she made sure to raise her grandchild in a way that prevented the boy from feeling hatred.

A personal account of Orthodox butchery may be found here, with no grisly details. A telling statement from the author: "You are lucky, because you lived to tell about it. My grandparents were not as lucky as you."

(Scroll down to read how Armenian grandmothers are the instruments in passing on their madness to successive generations.)

 

ADDENDUM: Since the above was written, the Balakian Dog of Flake has come up with a book where he threw in everything but the kitchen sink in contemporary Armenian research to prove the Armenian "Genocide": THE BURNING TIGRIS.

And don't forget The Peter Balakian Page.

 

On Levon Marashlian

 

I first got introduced to this California professor of history through a February 2001 letter that appeared in The Washington Times, where Dr. Marashlian presented some quotes from Admiral Mark Bristol that compromised the admiral's typically regarded position. As no source for the information was provided, my jury is still out on the truth involved... however, what confirms Dr. Marashlian's bias and lack of reliability is his choice of the following word describing  the testimony of Ambassador Morgenthau: "Unimpeachable." The ambassador relied strictly on reports from Armenians and missionaries, never having left Istanbul to do a firsthand investigation... his book was ghostwritten and was directly influenced by two Armenian assistants, and deviates unbelievably from the source for his book: his letters and diaries... and he was a Turk-hater of the first order. No scholar worth his salt would accept the ambassador's statements at face value.

------

Professor Levon Marashlian

Professor Levon Marashlian

   After writing the above, I subsequently discovered a report written by Professor Marashlian that documented his attendance of a symposium presented by the Turks, to try and get more to the bottom of the "genocide" issue. Since open and friendly debate between the two sides is exactly what is needed, my respect for the man improved considerably. Bravo, Professor Marashlian. Especially when nearly every other Armenian or Armenian-friendly scholar who was invited to the event either honestly could not attend, or more likely, chickened out. (Many, like Dr. Marashlian's mentor, Professor Hovannisian... whom we'll be getting to in a moment... reportedly didn't even bother to reply. Not only ethically-challenged, but etiquette-ically challenged, to boot!)

I paid specific attention, however, to how Professor Marashlian responded to Dr. Heath Lowry's discrediting of Ambassador Morgenthau, and there wasn't anything Professor Marashlian could say in Morgenthau's defense. This, in a report that was written — understandably — in a way that totally kicked Turkish and Turk-friendly butt! But, really, what could Professor Marashlian have said? Dr. Lowry totally exposed Morgenthau's lack of credibility. So for Professor Marashlian to then write a letter eleven years after the event and still use such a strong word as "unimpeachable" to try and give credence to Morgenthau does not suggest Professor Marashlian is an objective historian. Alas, I must conclude he is no different than the lost list of Armenian scholars who happily march to the tune of the "Armenian AND? Anthem."

 

ADDENDUM: Alas, Dr. Marashlian certainly went out of his way to prove what an unimpeachable singer of the Armenian AND? Anthem he can be... as one can readily determine after reading, "When Marashlian Attacks."



"What kind of people are we?... Instead of reason, blind instinct. Instead of common sense, fanaticism."

An Armenian writer, quoted by Ara Baliozian (Source); Mr. Baliozian himself offers wise words:

"Finally, a warning: One of the worst mistakes an Armenian can make is to view our past through the eyes of our own historians. Imagine, if you can, a law that says, when it comes to character witnesses in a court of law, only mothers are qualified to testify for their sons."

 




24. Do you think an atmosphere has been created in the U.S. where students and academics are reluctant to study these topics and think freely?


Yes I do — no question about it! Case in point as I mentioned earlier is an American professor's home was bombed because he spoke about the horror of Armenian actions. I know a well-known professor of history who was afraid to do a specific research project while working on his Ph.D. degree because of fear of Armenian professors! I know of other terrible Armenian American educators who pressure students and other professors in our colleges and universities. Such conduct in my judgment is unacceptable and it clearly is un-American!

Judge Sam Weems, Interview



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. 

Gwynne Dyer, in his even-handed 1976 essay examining the prejudice of historians on both sides: "Turkish 'Falsifiers' and Armenian 'Deceivers"

 

 

 

 


Egoyan's "Ararat" Lays an Egg (Excerpt)

By all accounts, it appears that the film, "Ararat," is a monumental flop in the tradition of "Ishtar." Cinema critics have recognized it for the crude propaganda piece that it is, and have concluded that this Armenian fellow, Egoyan, is no Stephen Spielberg but simply an opportunist who is trying to cash in on the "Schindler's List" genre by following in the footsteps of myriad other Armenian scam artists who have made a nice living by riding the coattails of the Jewish Holocaust, e.g. Richard Hovanissian, Vahakn Dadrian, Levon Marashlian, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Do the hapless suckers in the Armenian community ever notice that the above-mentioned "cambaz-ians" only travel first class and stay in first-class hotels?

Jean Marais

 



On Richard Hovannisian

 

When Professor Richard Hovannisian was honored for his 40th Year in Armenian Studies on November 9, 2001 by the Armenian Educational Foundation (AEF), Dr. Rubina Peroomian stated: "An achieved scholar is one that leaves an indelible mark in his field. With his scientific methodology, realistic approach, and analytic mind, Richard Hovannisian has broken ground for a national, post-Soviet Armenian historiography...He is a scholar par excellence."

-------------------

Sam Weems, in his book, "Armenia — Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State," relies in large part on Professor Hovannisian's four volume work, "The Republic of Armenia," to make his case.

"In the preface to volume III, Hovannisian writes, 'When I — the historian of the Armenian Republic — was elected in 1990 to membership of the esteemed National Academy of Sciences of Armenia — the implications of that act were profound.' This experience was so profound that when considered in connection with his family experience in what is known today as Armenia, he is not objective. It must also be noted that Hovannisian's four-volume history has been paid for by the taxpayers of California rather than by the dictatorial government of Armenia." (p. 70)

Professor Richard Hovannisian

Professor Richard Hovannisian

  Weems exposes Hovannisian's words when they run contrary to the established Armenian version of events, and when they are shamefully untruthful.  Only on the next page is one example of the latter, among many: 

"He deceives his readers by making the statement that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, though formed in Tiflis, should dedicate itself to the emancipation of Turkish Armenians." By quoting K.S. Papazian, Weems goes on to show Hovannisian's Armenian Revolutionary Federation was nothing more than a terrorist organization.

Further: "The Armenian professor clearly places greater value on the human life of "Christian" Armenians as contrasted to "Muslim" Turks. ...Professor Hovannisian clearly overlooks the terrible deaths and losses of the Turks. The Republic of Armenia fails to provide balanced facts based on full truth. Rather, slanted views, half-truths, and deliberate misrepresentations are written, while other facts are simply ignored and omitted to create a history to please Armenians. This kind of 'custom-made-history' based on selective reviewing of facts and figures has nothing in common with true scholarship or Christianity."


-------------------

Footnotes to "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" reveal that Professor Hovannisian is at one with Professor Marashlian (above) when it comes to regarding the testimony of Ambassador Morgenthau as "Unimpeachable."

A case in point is the Armenian-American scholar Richard G. Hovannisian, who from his early works such as: Richard G. Hovannisian, Armenia on the Road to Independence,1918. Berkeley (University of California),1967: p. 52 until the recent: Richard G. Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick (Transaction Books),1986: pp. 29-30 (in his article entitled: "Historical Dimensions 1878-1923" ' and, again on p. (1)12 in his article: "The Armenian Genocide and Patterns of Denial"), makes frequent use of quotations from Morgenthau. Clearly, Hovannisian, whose current activities focus on Lecturing and writing on those who attempt to deny the historical reality of the Armenian 'genocide' (most recently, his: "Patterns of Denial Fail to Veil Genocide," in Armenian International Magazine. Volume l., No. I (July,1990), pp.16-17), might benefit from a more careful examination of the sources upon which he bases his characterisation of the fate of the Ottoman Armenians. 

Richard G. Hovannisian, The: a Bibliography Relating to the Deportations, Massacres, and Dispersion of the Armenian People,1915-1923. Cambridge, Massahusetts (Armenian Heritage Press),1980. On page 13, in a listing of collections of papers preserved in the U.S. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Hovannisian makes the following reference to the Morgenthau papers: "Henry Morgenthau Sr. (includes hundreds of reports about the massacres and the Ambassador's futile attempts to intercede). Despite the fact that such reports number in the dozens rather than the hundreds, Hovannisian's statement implies (given the absence of published studies in 1980 based on these papers), that he must indeed have examined the 'Papers of Henry Morgenthau' preserved in the Library of Congress. 

--------------

Professor Hovannisian, along with Peter Balakian (and Robert Melson, Christopher Simpson and Roger Smith), serve on the seven-member Academic Council  of the Armenian National Institute (ANI), "composed of individuals who have distinguished themselves in the fields relevant to the Institute's activity," according to its web site. (As of early 2003.) The non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. "is dedicated to the study, research, and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide. Its overarching goal is affirmation of the worldwide recognition of the Armenian Genocide."

If Professor Hovannisian has dedicated himself to a group that openly admits its commitment to affirming the "Genocide," does that not invalidate him (along with the other history professors, which excludes Balakian) as an objective historian? isn't this exactly what Heath Lowry was accused of when he was victimized by an Armenian-directed (headed by Balakian) smear campaign?

In addition, Hovannisian has held the Armenian Educational Foundation (AEF) Chair in Modern Armenian History at the University of California, since it was endowed in 1986. How is this different from the monetary grants Turkey offers to universities that causes such an outrage by Armenians and their sympathizers, such as Robert Jay Lifton? (Lifton is the hypocritical professor who said, "We feel strongly that there's been a violation of academic standards," about Heath Lowry; has the Armenophile been equally outraged over the impropriety of Professor Hovannisian's position?)



In an article by Gohar Gasparian entitled "Germany: Turks, Armenians Discuss 'Genocide' At Conference," where the "Turks" of the March 2001 meeting were Turkish Turncoats such as Halil Berktay and Ercin Kursat Ahler, Richard Hovannisian is reported to have said:

There is no need to prove that the government of Ottoman Empire committed genocide against Armenians in Turkey.

"Hovhanessian told the conference that there are many documents and archive materials proving the genocide occurred. He called on historians on both sides to concentrate mainly on the issues of why the genocide had taken place and what were its historical and legal consequences."

TRANSLATION:

Since the Turks and courageous, impartial academicians have started speaking up in a serious way since the late seventies-early 1980s, and we have lost our comfortable near-century-and-over practice of monologue and now need to deal with annoying dialogue, let us see if we can get away with pretending the "genocide" is an established fact... since, in reality, we are never going to be able to find actual proof of our monumental Con Job.

Nice try, Prof. Only one problem... no genuine truth-seeker is buying it.

 

 

TURKISH-AMERICAN POINTS OUT FALLACY AT ARMENIAN LECTURE

Dr. Richard Hovannisian slips up on his impeccable logic


On October 23, 1988, a group of Turkish-Americans from the greater Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area and from New Jersey attended a program on the "Armenian genocide” at Rider College located in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. The main speaker was the well-known spokesman for the Armenian claims against Turks, Dr. Richard Hovannisian from the University of California.

Although initially a question and answer period had been announced, it was later cancelled after organizers noticed a Turkish group in the audience. However, following the program, the Turkish group mingled with members of the mostly Armenian audience and held informal discussion in a generally friendly atmosphere. Naturally, the Armenians dismissed the Turkish position that the conflict arose from the Armenian aspirations for an "Armenia” on Turkish soil.

During one of these discussions, a member of the Turkish group, Lamia Tanyol, asked Dr. Hovannisian to explain his contention that the “genocide” ‘was the result of the Young Turks’ policy of Pan-Turanism. He replied that the Young Turks wanted to create a Turkish, “homogeneous country." “Then, why just the Armenians, and, say, not the Jews?” asked Tanyol. Dr. Hovannisian answered, “Because the Jews did not aspire to a homeland of their own." He immediately realized his contradiction, and launched into a harangue about Turks being coached by the Turkish Embassy. Tanyol interrupted, “You have answered my question, Dr. Hovannisian.”

Another Turkish-American could be heard remarking that the spokesman for Armenians claiming innocence in the tragedy of 1915 had invalidated his arguments in one unguarded moment.


ATA-USA, Winter 1989

 

 


When I was a child, there were those special occasions when my grandmother would come and pay my family a visit. I remember waking up in the mornings and running to my grandmother’s room and jumping on her bed, waiting to hear the stories of her life. She told stories of the old country and her experience surviving the Genocide of 1915. These stories took fairy-tale form in my imagination, full of childlike impressions of a far away land and a mythic struggle of good against evil."

Richard Hovannisian gives insight as to how his mind might have gotten psychologically disturbed, as a victim of yet another oddly surviving Armenian guardian who heaped bloody tales of the Terrible Turk, upon innocent youth. ("Hovannisian Introduces Students to Study of Armenian Genocide," Edward Thurber)

====================

Dr. D. Calonne indicated that grandmother figure was also important in the writings of Saroyan, Najarian and Balakian, as it was in Alishan's poems. The grandmother was the factor that transmitted the disaster to the following generations and thus establishing a link with the past. The grandmother was "mad as her people's history." Her madness passed onto her grandson. Calonne noted that the grandmother gained the stature of "Magna Mater" as explained in the book titled "The Great Mother" by Erich Neumann. Certain Jungians claim that this pre-monotheistic figure reflected a very regressive characteristic and was close to madness.

"Psychology of the Armenian incidents"

(In case you missed it above, Peter Balakian's mind was also meddled with by his grandmother... in fairy tale form! Here is another, albeit lesser, example:

''No one can take being Armenian away from me... My grandmother always told me that I am Armenian and we are the most wonderful people in the world.''

Prof. Ronald Grigor Suny, in an April 24, 2005 Globe article entitled "Common Ground," written by Meline Toumani, where we also learned: "Suny, whose great-grandparents died in the 1915 massacres in Yozgat and Diyarbakir..." Were these deaths really caused by "massacres"? The reader will notice Prof. Suny has not been included in this page; this Armenian-American educator deserves credit for not going as "overboard" as so many of his other colleagues.)

A recording of Prof. Norman Itzkowitz who relates a story about an Armenian student, and where the student learned his history.


 

--------------

Further insight into the professor's "academic misconduct," as he engages in yet another paid talk (in 2000) conducted by one of America's most unapologetic pro-Armenian universities:

The University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (CHGS)

--------------

 

Insight into the professor's objective mind as he participates in the first Armenian-Turkish TV debate, on PBS, back in 1983

-----------------

Paradoxically, Professor Hovannisian is reported to have said in the "Congress on the Problems of World Armenians" held in 1982: "The Armenian problem could not be proved. The genocide is not valid legally and it is exposed to prescription." What in the world was THAT all about? Did the professor have an "honesty attack"? 

 


Examples of Richard Hovannisian's scholarship, from his four-volume work, "The Republic of Armenia," that Armenians in particular would do well to read; after all, if these excerpts came out of Professor Hovannisian's pen, they must be true.


Professor Richard Hovannisian dukes it out with the Greeks over who "owns" the Pontus


Holdwater's Vote for
"Scariest Armenian Professor"

 

And the winner is...

George Bournoutian

The only thing I know about Professor George Bournoutian is what I saw in the TV-program, The Armenians, a Story of Survival... presented by major Armenian Advocate, America's Public Broadcasting System (PBS). The professor reminded me of Hansel and Gretel combined, and the Turks were the Gingerbread House... he was almost ready to put on a bib, and eat the Turks alive.

You could just feel the fury and hatred bursting out of his pores... almost see the artery in his neck forming into a knot, and hear the anger in his voice; every time it seemed like he was going to finish a point putting the Turks in a less than completely devilish light.... the inevitable zinger would not be far behind. Clearly, the Turks are just the worst race on earth.

 

"The worst collection of falsehoods, fabrications, misrepresentations, deceptions and just plain old-fashioned taradiddle that I have ever read."

The words of business writer Don Larson in his criticism of a story perfectly convey the efforts of Armenian (and many genocide) scholars in their single-minded effort to affirm the Armenian "Genocide," once their historiography is examined responsibly and  objectively.



Related: Questions Armenians truthfully need to answer. "TRUTHfully."

ARTICLES
Analyses
"West" Accounts
Historical
Academic
Crimes
Terrorists
Politics
Jewish
Miscellaneous
Reference

 

REBUTTAL
Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars

 

MEDIA
General
Turks in Movies
Turks in TV

 

ABOUT
This Site
Holdwater
  ©