"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.
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 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
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
This 1982 debate is now featured on TAT
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
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
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
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
Again Commits a Serious Violation of Scholarly Ethics"
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):
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
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
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
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
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?
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
other words, the professor has taken the occasion to goose-step his lily-white
derriere to the tune of "The Armenian AND?
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!".
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.
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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..."
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
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."
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Professor Levon Marashlian
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,
An Armenian writer, quoted by Ara
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
Judge Sam Weems, Interview
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
Gwynne Dyer, in his even-handed 1976 essay
examining the prejudice of historians on both sides: "Turkish 'Falsifiers' and
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?
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
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
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
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
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."
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
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
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.
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,
''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
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
Richard Hovannisian dukes it out with the Greeks over who "owns" the Pontus
Holdwater's Vote for
And the winner is...
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.
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