An article illustrative of the many brainwashed and lazy-thinking genocide-accepters appeared in insidehighered.com (appropriately entitled "Genocide Deniers," making clear the stance of the author, Scott Jaschik; Oct. 16, 2007). It begins by complaining about the advertisements taken by "Turkey" (I am not familiar with these advertisements, but I would not be surprised if Turkish-American organizations were behind some of them; in the minds of the prejudiced, these would be one and the same. Incidentally, a search on keywords provided by Jaschik's article did not bring up anything on these ads, making me wonder whether the impression of a series of advertisements could have been misleading) to protest the fallacy of the genocide resolution before Congress. (Resolution 106 was analyzed on TAT in February; it is remarkable that any fair outsider who would take the time to analyze its claims could not see what a blatant piece of propaganda it really is.)

Jaschik takes Turks, or reprehensible "Genocide Deniers," to account for daring to run such advertisements, reminding the rational ones among us that determining history is not the domain of politicians (who, at best, would not have the time to conduct appropriate research, and at worst, are beholden to powerful interest groups, as the Armenians), but historians. Jaschik tells us, "Normally, you might expect historians to welcome the interest of governments in convening scholars to explore questions of scholarship." Causing historians with different points-of-view to come together has nothing to do with this resolution; the idea of the resolution is to present vicious propaganda as fact, so already Jaschik's article displays disingenuousness.

The article continues:

"Turkey’s government also has been quick to identify American scholars (there are only a handful, but Turkey knows them all) who back its view that the right approach to 1915 is not to call it genocide, but to figure out what to call it, and what actually took place."

Is it only Turkey's "government" that identifies scholars of non-Turkish origin (not all of whom are "American", of course; there are Britons as Norman Stone and Malcolm Yapp, Italians as Augusto Sinagra and Stefano Trinchese, French as Gilles Veinstein, and others, as the Austrian, the late Erich Feigl), or anyone who wishes to demonstrate the falsehood of genocide claims? Once again, a naive lazy-thinker buys into the claim of Armenian propaganda that only the Turkish government says there was no genocide. And what offensive wording, "there are only a handful, but Turkey knows them all."

If there is a "handful," that is no indication something must be wrong, since majority opinion and truth do not always go hand in hand. Consent may easily be manufactured by those who hold the cards; not long ago, the majority believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and only a "handful" dared to oppose this view, before the war on Iraq began.

In point of fact, there is more than a mere "handful" who are aware of what transpired during those tragic years, and knowing fully well that these events did not amount to "genocide," but since the bullying Armenians and their genocide scholar supporters waged a campaign of character assassination beginning in the mid-1980s, it has been the rare historian with the courage to step into this minefield. Naturally, Scott Jaschik is off the mark once again, by implying what happened was so obviously a genocide, that "Turkey's government" is misleadingly trying to "figure out what to call it, and what actually took place." Those who know the genuine history know exactly what took place: a rebellious minority sided with their nation's enemies, as even their leaders are on record for admitting; they hit the beleaguered Ottoman army in the back, and Armenian men who refused to be conscripted, in addition to those who had deserted, joined the enemy in the thousands by crossing the borders, or by staying behind and serving as guerilla units. These Armenians massacred defenseless Ottoman villagers in horrific numbers, and in the most sadistic ways possible, as documented by the officers of their own allies. (One example.) Anyone honest enough to see the facts as they actually transpired knows exactly what to call it: not "genocide," but war.

"'Ultimately this is politics, not scholarship,' said Simon Payaslian, who holds an endowed chair in Armenian history and literature at Boston University. Turkey’s strategy, which for the first 60-70 years after the mass slaughter was to pretend that it didn’t take place,'has become far more sophisticated than before' and is explicitly appealing to academic values, he said.

Wrong! Turkey's strategy has basically been no strategy at all. Turkey deliberately kept the matter under wraps in Turkey itself, so as not to breed hatred among Turks, for the heinous atrocities committed by Armenians and Greeks. Even Fatma Muge Gocek is on record (she repeats the assertion even in Jaschik's article, here adding that she only learned about the Armenian "genocide" while studying in Princeton) for telling us Turks were "not taught anything about it in school." (This is in direct contrast with how the youngest Armenian children have this poison forced down their throats by parents, teachers and churches, in order to enlist soldiers for Hai Tahd, the Armenian Cause.) This fact puts a damper on what Armenian propaganda claims, that Turks are mindless drones of the evil Turkish government, and therefore "brainwashed," when in fact it is the Armenians who have been brainwashed. (Yet another example of Armenians performing the crime, and blaming Turks with the same crime.)

It was only in the 1970s-80s when Turks began to seriously speak up, emphasizing the real history, in response to the destructive global Armenian terrorism unleashed during those years, in order to put genocide on the map. Particularly after more and more scholars' eyes began to open up to the real truths, as with this 1985 advertisement of sixty-nine academicians, the Armenians stepped into high gear in order to stifle these voices. It was around this time when the Turks were "appealing to academic values," but now that most Western historians' voices have been effectively silenced through the underhanded and fanatical genocide forces (Turkish academicians, too, were largely inactive in this area until the last few years; not that it mattered too much, because in the prejudiced Western world, Turkish sources are automatically looked upon as worthless — assuming Turkish sources are made available, since the clueless Turks largely neglect the necessity of translating their works into English), Turkey's unwise strategy has boiled down not as much to emphasize the history, but to remind congressmen (through expensive lobbying firms) that such a proven Western ally should not be antagonized. (Jaschik alluded to this point with the following: "...[M]any raise political arguments that don’t attempt to deny that a genocide took place, but say that given Turkey’s sensitivities it isn’t wise to talk about it as such. This was essentially the argument given by some House members last week who voted against the resolution, saying that they didn’t want to risk anything that could affect U.S. troops. Similarly, while Holocaust experts, many of them Jewish, have overwhelmingly backed the view that Armenians suffered a genocide, some supporters of Israel have not wanted to offend Turkey..." One chief reason why "Holocaust experts" are pro-Armenian, of course, is because if they question the Armenian tale, they irrationally fear that the Holocaust itself may be questioned.)

And wasn't that the most ironic statement, Payaslian's "Ultimately this is politics, not scholarship." That is exactly what it is, but certainly not on the part of the Turks — among the least talented people in the world, when it comes to public relations. Once again, the Armenians commit the crime, and blame the hapless Turks with the same crime.

The next paragraph was very funny, as Payaslian criticized the Turks for focusing "on the idea of objectivity," which was "very attractive on campuses to say that you should hear both sides of the story.” (Attractive, or necessary, particularly in institutions devoted to higher learning? How else does one get at the truth but to consider all of the relevant information?) But then Payaslian makes sure to add that he "doesn’t favor censoring anyone or firing anyone for their views." This kind of hypocritical "having one's cake and eating it too" type of presentation provides a chilling reminder of how, during the years of Armenian terrorism, respectable members of the Armenian community would give the idea that what the terrorists were doing was somehow good, while making sure to add that they did not condone terrorism.

(Payaslian's justification for the hypocrisy: he thinks that, in Jaschik's words, "it is irresponsible to pretend that the history of the period is uncertain." The history is certainly not uncertain; the Armenians turned traitor, and were resettled during a period when everyone was suffering immensely; in other words, they took a gamble, and lost. As an "endowed chair in Armenian history and literature at Boston University," we must wonder how Payaslian proves his genocide, when even Richard Hovannisian reportedly conceded [in 1982's "Congress on the Problems of World Armenians"] that "The Armenian problem could not be proved. The genocide is not valid legally and it is exposed to prescription." .Who is doing the real pretending, and who, ultimately, is the real irresponsible party of this equation?)

Finally, Payaslian talks about “the collaboration between the Turkish Embassy and scholars cooperating to promote this denialist argument.” Exactly what form does this collaboration take? Does Bernard Lewis, for example, have a hotline to the Turkish Embassy? (Assuming "the Turkish Embassy" is adept enough to prompt academicians on what to say or do, as if they would have no other matters to attend to?) And what exactly do these scholars hope to gain, other than having their reputations under fire, being compared to neo-Nazis, or as Peter Balakian alluded about Justin McCarthy, to "white supremacists"? Is Payaslian saying, as Margaret Lavinia Anderson speculated about a 19th century German writer, without proof, that these scholars are "almost certainly on the take" from the sinister Turkish government? Is this the same manner by which Simon Payaslian teaches his version of Armenian history at Boston University, forming conclusions that cannot be backed up by factual evidence? (Conclusions, in this case, amounting to below-the-belt ad hominem attacks, too.)

Dr. David Cuthell

Jaschik next goes to the "other side," interviewing David C. Cuthell, executive director of the Institute for Turkish Studies. The ITS is described as "a center created by Turkey’s government to award grants and fellowships to scholars in the United States." In other words, the reader gets the impression that the ITS is yet another "agent of the Turkish government." I don't know the inner workings of the ITS any more than I'm sure Jaschik does, but when I looked into this institution years ago, I was surprised to discover there was nothing regarding the "genocide" (at that time) on their web site. What's more, they featured a work by genocide proponent Fatma Muge Gocek. (I wrote them a letter asking questions on why they were genocide-shy, but received no response.) My understanding is that the ITS was created mainly to create Turkish Studies departments in universities, attempting to fill a huge gap that existed at the time in U.S. education. (The Armenians and their allies have now become so successful, that when a university is offered a grant to set up a Turkish studies department, sometimes these grants can be turned down... in an environment where grants normally never get turned down.) Now the ITS certainly issues grants to scholars (they issued one to Gocek, for example), but I don't know if that is their primary role, as we are told in this article. The big point, however, is that even if the Turkish government created the ITS, that does not mean the ITS is controlled by the Turkish government; (I understand the ITS receives a major portion of their funding from U.S. corporations, likely doing business with Turkey. )

Dr. Quataert, from "The Ottoman War Machine"

As another example to demonstrate that the ITS is out of the clutches of the Turkish government, not long ago its chairman was Donald Quataert, one of the 69 scholars who had signed the 1985 advertisement signifying there was no genocide. Quataert has since revised his views; one must suspect the historian has found striking new genocide evidence in order to have performed his 180 degree turnaround. From the bits and pieces I have gathered, an academician, whom I'm sure has no ties to the Turkish government, pointed out this oddity to some higher-ups, wondering why a "genocide advocate" should be in charge of the ITS, and as a result, Donald Quataert was replaced. If the sinister Turkish government was pulling the strings of the ITS, it stands to reason Donald Quataert would have never been appointed. (That is, if we buy the argument from Armenian propaganda that the Turkish government is sinister. In reality, the Turkish government is so tolerant and/or clueless, they give prestigious awards to genocide advocates.) The question then becomes, why is Jaschik making it seem as though the Turkish government is practically synonymous with the ITS? That kind of thing is Israel Charny territory.

The current ITS executive director is quoted as saying, "There are reasonable doubts in terms of whether this is a genocide” (I'd think if there is no evidence for intent, the better way of phrasing that would have been, what are the reasonable doubts that this is not a genocide? Shouldn't we at least pretend to be abiding by the principle, "innocent until proven guilty"?); Jaschik continues:

"...[S]cholars of genocide (many of them focused on the Holocaust) have broadly endorsed applying the term to what happened to Armenians in 1915, and many refer to that tragedy as the first genocide of the 20th century. When in 2005 Turkey started talking about the idea of convening historians to study whether a genocide took place, the International Association of Genocide Scholars issued a letter in which it said that the “overwhelming opinion” of hundreds of experts on genocide from countries around the world was that a genocide had taken place."

Why should anyone listen to these agenda-ridden frauds who don't know the first thing about real scholarship, and who indulge in falsehoods from beginning to end? Consulting propaganda makes them propagandists, not scholars. We get their usual goop, about the Ottomans conducting a "systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens" (a highly immoral accusation, if there simply is no factual evidence), beginning on April 24 (the resettlement policy actually went into effect over one month later; why should the April 24 arrests of the Armenian rebellion's 235 ringleaders constitute a genocide? Don't these "genocide scholars" at least know what genocide means? Comparative note: while ruthless repression of Armenians in Russia wound down by 1905, as late as 1912 — just three years before "April 24" — 500 Dashnaks were tried in Russia, and all but 50 were found guilty. Why, then, is not this episode similarly called a "genocide"?), and that "More than a million Armenians were exterminated" (it cannot be argued that the total mortality was around half a million, if the pre-war population was around 1.5 million and there were, as propagandists agree, 1 million survivors; note also that every death was a result of "extermination," which must also include the 150,000-odd who died of starvation, as Richard Hovannisian wrote in 1967, while they were with the Russians), with the rest having "fled into permanent exile." (Nobody was exiled. In 1921, the Armenian Patriarch vouched for 644.900 in what was left of the empire, and around half a million had already left on their own accord to lands not controlled by the Ottomans. Every Ottoman citizen, including Armenians, had the right to return within a specified time, as decreed in the Gumru and Lausanne Treaties.) If there is anything "scholarly" about what these genocide scholars are saying, where is it?

We are next given the obligatory round-up of the views of "Turkey":

"Turkey has put forward a number of arguments in recent years, since admitting that something terrible did happen to many Armenians. Among the explanations offered by the government and its supporters are that many people died, but not as many as the scholars say; that Armenians share responsibility for a civil war in which civilians were killed on both sides; and that the chaos of World War I and not any specific action by government authorities led to the mass deaths and exiles."

Did "Turkey" only acknowledge that Armenians had suffered in "recent years"? I am not aware of a time when Armenian suffering was ever hidden, if the topic was ever raised. Certainly, when this debate began heating up for the first time in a serious way, back in the 1970s-80s, massacres of Armenians were never kept a secret. That was over thirty years ago, and not what we would call "recent."

Here, Scott Jaschik commits the same sin that genocide-affirmers are uniformly guilty of. Are the provided explanations simply what "the government and its supporters" emptily say, or are these explanations based on the real historical facts? The answers would only be a few mouse clicks away in this age of information, and all one would need do is consider whether the sources backing up the above claims had reason to falsify. It's really not all that difficult, but someone like Jaschik has his mind made up, and cannot even bring himself to conduct the necessary research. (Or his beliefs are so ingrained, the rock-solid facts simply become unacceptable. Instead, he prefers to stress the evidence for intent, which is nowhere to be found.)

Now we get to the section we've been looking forward to, The Evidence for Genocide, important particularly since Jaschik allowed Lewy to make the all-important point that there simply is no evidence for intent. Since Jaschik is a genocide believer, here was his chance to prove Lewy wrong.

He starts with casting doubt on Lewy's integrity:

"Many scholars who believe that there was a genocide say that Lewy ignored or dismissed massive amounts of evidence, not only in accounts from Armenians, but from foreign diplomats who observed what was going on — evidence about the marshaling of resources and organizing of groups to attack the Armenians and kick them out of their homes, and the very fact of who was in control of the government at the time."

A problem to be careful of when preparing articles as this is that there can be no shortage of partisans to try and sully the reputation of one of the subjects. Since Jaschik has made no secret of being on the side of the genocidists, naturally he will highlight the kind of quotes that will cast doubt. Yet, wouldn't the honorable thing for Jaschik to have done was to try and overcome his prejudices at least to some extent, and to conduct a little beyond-the-surface homework?

Did Jaschik read Lewy's book? One of the marvelous aspects of Lewy's book was its comprehensiveness; Lewy investigated, and expertly, practically every nuance of this subject. What "many scholars" (not that these one-sided folks could have been actual scholars) are quoted as saying is simply untrue.

Lewy certainly did not ignore personal accounts from Armenians, but correctly did not stress them, since "oral history" can never be a substitute for real history. (He actually protected these accounts, by disagreeing with what Turks say, that many of these Armenians had been coached.) And Lewy relied extensively not only on the accounts of foreign diplomats, but even the potentially corrupt accounts of missionaries, displaying how far Lewy bent over backwards, in fairness to the Armenian perspective.

Lewy was accused of ignoring or dismissing "massive amounts of evidence"; could these have been like the thousands of pages of documents in the U.S. archives, emanating from consuls and missionaries? If the British rejected these documents, in regards to the genuine evidence the British were seeking in preparation for the Malta Tribuanal ("...the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence," is the way the British put it), then why would any real scholar prefer to give them weight? (Which begs the question, who were these "many scholars" criticizing Lewy? They certainly can't claim to be true scholars, by preferring to give weight to hearsay-ridden propaganda.)

As far as the "organizing of groups to attack the Armenians," let's hope these "scholars" were not referring to Dadrian and Akcam's "invented Gestapo fall guy," the Special Organization. There is no real proof that their activities included massacre duties, and there is no evidence for the organization of any other kind of group. Finally, as for the "who was in control of the government at the time," that, of course, would be the CUP government. Yet even Ambassador Morgenthau is on record (March 1915) for testifying that the CUP's "authority throughout the empire was exceedingly tenuous." In other words, it becomes nearly impossible to run a systematic extermination campaign of the scope the Ottoman Turks are accused of, if the machinery is rusty, and there is plenty of room for renegades to act independently.

"Rouben Adalian, director of the Armenian National Institute, called the Lewy book part of an 'insidious way to influence Western scholarship and to create confusion.' He said it was “pretty outrageous” that the Utah press published the book, which he called 'one of the more poisonous products” to come from “those trying to dispute the genocide.'"

"Insidious"? Is Rouben Adalian trying to tell us that Guenter Lewy is somehow an "agent of the Turkish government"? (And this regarding a book that was overly protective of Armenians.) Why must Armenian "scholars" specializing in "genocide" be so without integrity, feeling free to make such defamatory statements as this?

Jaschik is getting into the late rounds for his "Evidence for Genocide," so he may need a knock-out punch. (Then again, he is so far ahead on points made on his terms, perhaps not.) He continues:

Among the scholars attracting the most attention for work on the genocide is Taner Akçam, a historian from Turkey who has been a professor at the University of Minnesota since 2001, when officials in Turkey stepped up criticism of his work. Akçam has faced death threats and has had legal charges brought against him in Turkey (since dropped) for his work, which directly focuses on the question of the culpability of Young Turk leaders in planning and executing the genocide. (Akçam’s Web site has details about his research and the Turkish campaigns against him.) Opposition to his work from Turkey has been particularly intense since the publication last year of A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility.

Indeed, Akcam is attracting a lot of attention thanks to the P.R. team, probably from the Zoryan Institute, blasting the media with interviews where Akcam is now fond of proclaiming that he is fearing for his life, not only to play up his importance, but also to play up how fascist his country of origin is. (Yet he has no problem traveling back and forth to Turkey; here he explains — in the following paragraph of this article (not shown) — that he tries to keep a low profile, but does he really expect anyone to believe that "keeping a low profile" would save him, if there are those seriously out to get him?)


Akcam's Ph.D. cover; if his books serve as indication, this doctorate
almost certainly comprised of Dadrian's research from beginning to
end, and then we have Dadrian — not affiliated with the German
universtiy or with any university — as one of the two approvers,
approving, in effect, his own work. What we have in Taner Akcam
is one who has been carefully groomed by sly Armenian propagandists.

Taner Akcam, of course, is not a "historian." His Dadrian-approved Ph.D. was in sociology. It's too bad Jaschik does not explain how this "visiting scholar" who magically became a "visiting professor" could be teaching in a foreign university since 2001. Isn't it fishy that "visiting professors" are expected to head back to their home universities after, at most, a few short years? (But it doesn't appear Taner Akcam ever taught in a faculty before, so how could he have been a visiting scholar/professor to begin with? The answer has to do with the Armenian genocide network making sure to bring this "Turkish scholar" into the United States to work as their propagandistic agent, subsidized generously by Armenian foundations.

(Jaschik writes that Akcam began his stint at the University of Minnesota, evidently as a consequence of Turkish officials having "stepped up criticism of his work"; of course, that isn't true. Akcam was probably not a blip on the radar of any Turk's mind, since Akcam was in Germany years prior, dodging the bullets of his former PKK teammates, and started his U.S. career in the University of Michigan-Dearborn. (Where he eventually got kicked out, for not following the university's regulations on visiting scholars/professors. However, it's not like Akcam was unknown in Turkey either, as he found limited distribution for his Dadrian-inspired books; his "Shameful Act" is the English translation of one of these from 1999.)

If opposition to his work has increased since the publication of his thoroughly propagandistic "A Shameful Act," that would be understandable. (However, the signs I have picked up in recent times is that the Turkish press has been overly reverential with this fellow, actually referring to him as a "historian," so this, too, may be an exaggeration.)

"To those like Lewy who have written books saying that there is no evidence, 'I laugh at them,' Akçam said, because the documents he has already released rebut them, and the new book will do so even more. 'There is no scholarly debate on this topic,' he said."

Spoken as a true propagandist. Akcam's level of scholarship cannot come close to the authenticity of Lewy's work, and the only defense from one such as Akcam would be to make statements such as "I laugh at them." (In a March ‘07 review in The Journal of Genocide Research, Akcam actually had the gall to write that   Lewy’s exceptional book “was not a work to bother with.”) Now, there would be an enormous amount in Lewy's comprehensive book to rebut, and I am not aware of any documents Akcam "has already released" that rebuts anything. What I am aware of is that his "Shameful Act" book is a series of one Dadrian-distortion after another; here's a look. (Akcam has gone so far as to legitimize the Andonian forgeries in this one, while most Armenian propagandists no longer go near Andonian. When Lewy analyzed Andonian's fakery, could it have been one of the things that made Akcam "laugh"?)

"There is no scholarly debate on this topic." This reminds me of the time Akcam repeated the word "genocide" a mind-boggling sixty-four times in his first English work, "The Genocide of the Armenians and the Silence of the Turks," as though repeating the word so often would make it true. Similarly, perhaps Akcam feels making such bold and utterly untrue statements as "no scholarly debate" would similarly get the suckers in line. The only thing such an assertion demonstrates is the man's patent dishonesty.

Akcam is promising that his new research in the Turkish archives will close the door on the matter, but genocide fanciers had better not get their hopes up. Following in Dadrian's footsteps, what Akcam does is single out any bits useful for genocide affirmation, and ignores all the rest (a real scholar, of course, would only be interested in seeking truth. Akcam has nerve for even using words such as "scholarly"). What he will be doing is compiling a list of such bits (I noticed one used by Fatma Muge Gocek not long ago; some old document had an Ottoman official refer to Armenians in a derogatory fashion. A-ha! "Genocide proof.") Secondly, while Akcam might have developed a rudimentary knowledge of Ottoman (I'm not sure if he has any), the slightest nuances of Ottoman "hieroglyphics" can throw the whole meaning off. There aren't many who can do a professional job of translating Ottoman, and since Akcam almost certainly is not one of these people, how can he be trusted? Particularly since he has been caught with his pants down so often, with his own Dadrian-style distortions? (My understanding is that there are separate divisions of the Ottoman archives, as Michael A. Reynolds described in his 2003 dissertation; some don't allow copies to be made. If Akcam conducted his research in such a division, that would mean he would need to make a quick translation then and there.)

Fatma Muge Gocek next gets the spotlight as one of those "Turkish" scholars shedding new light on genocide research. We are told that "Armenians she met at Princeton talked to her about it and she was shocked and angry. Upon reading the sorts of materials she never saw in Turkey, the evidence was clear, she said." In other words, Gocek took a look at Armenian sources and actually found real evidence? (What IS this evidence?) She surely demonstrates herself to be one ace scholar.

(One wonders what exactly made her so "shocked and angry." Could it have been Toynbee's Blue Book? Armenian oral history, as I recall reading was part of her indoctrination? Didn't it occur to this "scholar" that these could have been exaggerated? And should not a "scholar" keep her cool, in any event? It sounds like her shock and anger might have played a part in the one-note course she has subsequently pursued, where the Turks' guilt needed to be highlighted at any and every turn.

We learn that Gocek's next book will also be on the "genocide," and then... that's it.

We were promised the "evidence" for "genocide," but we didn't get any. All we got was the word of those like Akcam and Gocek that the evidence is there.

Why was this word good enough for Scott Jaschik?

The troublesome thing here is that Scott Jaschik is supposed to represent "Higher Ed.," or education. Arriving at serious conclusions based on no evidence seems to me a sign of lower education, or no education at all.