^1. Ambassador Morgenthau never left the environs of Istanbul during 1915, and he never saw anything "first-hand." Quite the contrary, all of his information was hearsay, provided by his Armenian interpreters, other Armenians, and the missionaries.

^2. Vahakn Dadrian himself has instructed us, "...in 1916... the genocide had all but run its course.” Yet we don't need Dadrian to tell us this; the Ottoman officials first considered an amnesty for the Armenians in 1917, which would have been impossible if there was a genocide policy in the works. Armenians were already returning to their homes before being officially permitted to do so at the tail end of 1918. And let us not forget what Avetis Aharonian himself had written to Armenian Prime Minister Hovhannes Katchaznouni: "[T]he Armenian nation would never forget that it was the Ottoman Government which first conceived the idea of founding an independent Armenia, and recognized it." This was late May of 1918, when Armenia had come into being, well before the war had ended. Would Hitler have worked toward the establishment of Israel in 1944?

Yet Pallone will shamefully tell us the "genocide" had lasted until 1918. At least it is not as bad as what his partner-in-crime, Rep. Schiff, will claim, as we will see soon.

^3. Before a person of integrity claims something, particularly if the something is a terrible crime, as an "irrefutable fact," one must possess the factual evidence. Pallone's laughable evidence in this instance: the unconscionable Henry Morgenthau. When one does not have the evidence, it is hardly "impossible to deny that this was genocide"; in fact, it is the duty of the honorable person to do so.

^4. If Henry Morgenthau is Pallone's idea of a "first-hand account," then Pallone is making it especially easy for the rest of us to nail him as one who regards real facts as meaningless. Aren't U.S. congressional representatives required to take an oath to uphold justice?

Hagop S. Andonian

^5. If a diplomat allows his Armenian assistants to write letters in his name (as Morgenthau directed Hagop Andonian, writing that it also relieved him "of all responsibility for any errors"), I don't how how much "dignity" such a diplomat would possess. A U.S. ambassador is also expected to serve in objective fashion. (Morgenthau shared his "Armenian" information with Lord Bryce and Johannes Lepsius, helping them to prepare their own deadly works of propaganda. Morgenthau was supposed to be representing a "neutral" power at the time.) For the record, Morgenthau served until January 1916, which means that he was not really around for the year of 1916.

^6. Practically every minority of the Ottoman Empire was surging in "nationalism," except the Turks. The Turks in charge believed in and hoped to preserve "Ottomanism," stressing a heterogeneous outlook, as with the United States of America. Nationalism only took place with the Turks when the nationalism of the treacherous minorities helped destroy the Ottoman Empire, as when many Armenians and Greeks openly sided with the enemies of their nation and became "belligerents de facto." The Turks were forced to become nationalists in the early 1920s, in order to save their own necks. (Morgenthau himself wrote in early 1915: "The Turkish people have so little spontaneous patriotism or enthusiasm of any kind.")

^7. Yet Morgenthau himself testified in early 1915 that the Ottoman government was practically nonexistent. When there is weak central command, it is difficult for a federal government to implement a plan for "race extermination." Morgenthau added: "Among the subject races the spirit of revolt was rapidly spreading. The Greeks and the Armenians would also have welcomed an opportunity to strengthen the hands of the Allies." That gives evidence against "genocide"; any nation would have taken steps to counter a rebellious and treacherous part of their community. The USA and Canada had done so in WWII even when their Japanese were not disloyal. Britain and Russia had done so in WWI even when their German men/Germans were not disloyal. Henry Morgenthau also happened to write (in May 1915) that "...It would seem as if an Armenian insurrection to help the Russians had broken out at Van," estimating the number of Armenian insurgents as high as 25,000.

^8. In November 1917, Morgenthau provided his reason for writing his "Story" book: "We must win a victory for the war policy of the government and every legitimate step or means should be utilised to accomplish it." In other words, the idea was war propaganda. His "efforts to make the Turks the worst being on earth," as George Schreiner criticized Morgenthau regarding his book, served an additional purpose: knocking out the Ottomans would hasten the path to a Jewish homeland in Palestine. (Morgenthau accepted his Ottoman post, which he considered demeaning, largely at the urging of his Zionist friend, Rabbi Wise.) At the time of writing his "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" in 1990, exposing Morgenthau's lies through Morgenthau's own private letters and diaries, Prof. Lowry asked: "What can be said of scholars working on the Armenian 'genocide,' who, in publication after publication, over the past decades quote the outright lies and half truths which permeate Morgenthau's 'Story' without ever questioning even the most blatant of the inconsistencies?" We might excuse such bigoted ignorants back in 1990, but nearly a whole generation has passed. So when Frank Pallone points to this vile propaganda and its dishonest author today, what can be said about Frank Pallone?

^9. Yet Morgenthau himself was surprised in September 1915 when an Armenian representative informed him that "Armenians at Zor were fairly well satisfied; that they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings." If the majority of Armenians were still kicking by the end of the war, under Ottoman control, how could there have been a death warrant? (The Patriarch himself estimated 644,900 were hanging around in 1921; hundreds of thousands had left on their own accord to other lands. The original population was some 1.5 million.) Of those who died, most died of non-murderous reasons, such as famine and disease. These are the same causes that took the lives of the majority of the 2.7 million other Ottomans who died, even the soldiers. Morgenthau himself wrote in his "Story" book that thousands of Turks were dying daily of starvation. In addition, Morgenthau's contention that the Ottoman authorities "made no particular attempt to conceal" their plans for extermination is an outright lie; please consult Lowry's paper to see the manipulations at work.

^10. If Morgenthau accused his nation of being a partner-in-crime in the extermination of Armenians, what of the case where the USA never even recognized the extermination efforts of the Armenians against their fellow Ottomans? The Armenians, sometimes with the help of their Russian and French allies, murdered many, many more Turks, Muslims and others than the Armenians who were murdered by renegade criminals and revengists. (Of course, in those days, non-Christians did not always qualify as part of the human family, particularly Muslims. What do we then make of those today, such as Frank Pallone, who never waste a breath on the Turkish victims?)

^11. What "great personal risk and sacrifice"? Was there a loose floorboard in the U.S. embassy that Morgenthau could have tripped on?

^12. If Morgenthau were truly an "American man of courage and character," he would have made no distinction between Armenians and Turks, regarding each as valuable human beings... in the same manner of his successor, Admiral Bristol. Morgenthau would have spent as much effort raising funds for those thousands of Turks dying daily, of the same causes as the Armenians.

^13. Unfortunately, the genocide industry and much of the world societies they have conned are already making certain to "follow Morgenthau's example," designating one class of humans as more valuable than another... which completely goes against the concept of "human rights."

^14. If the majority of Ottoman-Armenians survived, and there is not one shred of actual evidence demonstrating the government intentionally embarked on a plan to wipe out the Armenians, then an ethical person would never dare classify such business as "systematic elimination."

^15. Most of us recognize that phony "noble purpose" of the genocide industry; if a murderer sets upon committing murder, no law will prevent him from doing so. Certainly, the passage of this Armenian resolution by the U.S. Congress will have no effect whatsoever on future genocides from being committed, or the resolve of the USA to prevent the crime. (Nobody cares today about what is happening in Africa, for example.) The entire reason behind the Armenian resolution is political, and there is nothing like an immoral politician to help make it possible.

^16. The "first genocide of the 20th Century" was most likely U.S. actions in the Philippines (civilian death toll: an estimated 200,000 to possibly as high as 1 million), followed by the Germans vs. the Hereros, the Serbs vs. the Albanians, and the Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs and Montenegrins vs. the Ottoman Turks in the first Balkan war (1,445,179 Ottoman Muslims were affected in 1912-20, paralleling the pre-war Ottoman-Armenian population. That number amounted to a loss of 62%, as related in Dr. Justin McCarthy's "Death and Exile." Of these, 632,408 died, also paralleling the Armenians, in their mortality), all pre-dating "1915."

^17. Frank Pallone, knee-deep in such malicious falsehoods, is now instructing us on what it means to be "moral."

^18. Not only is this "fact" not irrefutable, it is extremely easy to refute, by pointing to unconflicted sources, and by virtue of the fact that there is no real evidence to prove a genocide. In his next sentence, Pallone will claim that the "genocide" is "impossible to deny," but that is a favorite tactic of such unscrupulous propagandists. By almost hysterically reminding us that a non-fact is a fact in every other sentence, maybe the dimwits in the audience will buy the story.

^19. "Under conditions of great stress people are poorer perceivers, because stress causes a narrowing of attention." For a discussion as to why "oral history can never substitute for real history, please tune in to the "Armenian Oral History Proves: TREACHERY & REBELLION" page.

^20. Born in 1906, that would make our "oral historian" nine-years-old in 1915. We don't know when Mrs. Hanessian "left her story behind," as Pallone will later put it, but it would be the very rare adult genius who can single out events with necessary clarity from their ninth year of life. (Particularly if these memories are recorded in old age, as has been the case with most Armenian "oral historians," generally at the behest and guidance of propaganda-pushers.) In addition, the 1909 incidents must be Adana. Is that what actually happened, that "the Turks were leading a massacre on all Armenians in the area"? (Pallone doesn't miss a beat, does he?) Or did the armed-to-the-teeth Armenians of this time fire the first shot, as usual?

^21. Yet again? When were Armenians "deported" in previous Ottoman history? (Not that the Armenians were "exiled" in 1915, either; they were not sent out of the country, as the innocent Muslims who were forcefully removed from Russia, needing to walk through the dangerous wartime frontlines in 1915. The Armenians were temporarily sent elsewhere in their own country, until the wartime danger had passed. They would have never been sent away had the Armenian community remained loyal, as a whole, to their own country. Even Armenia's first prime minister admitted as such, calling it a "terrible fact."

^22. Were the Armenians "forced" on the trains? It's my understanding that only the ones who could afford tickets could ride the train; that implies the others needed to walk, as their cousins in the east, where there were no railroads. (This was the bankrupt "Sick Man" lacking mass transit, where everyone marched in order to get from Point A to Point B, including the soldiers.) The ones from the west were the lucky ones, allowed to ride the one-track railroad which was already in great demand for war purposes. The conditions were no doubt very bad, but were they bad out of "intent," as strongly implied, or because of the wretchedness of the times affecting all? To get a better idea, the reader is advised to tune in to the diary of Hrant Sarian, written Anne Frank style, as the events transpired, without later embellishment. Sarian's family also took the train, but there is no sign of deliberate persecution.

^23. "Barracks," as in a kind of prison? Highly doubtful. (Were large vacant barracks available for occupancy a common Ottoman building structure?) The idea was to transport the Armenians to villages, without barbed wire or German Shepherds, as long as the Armenians did not exceed 10% of the population. (Limiting their potential to rebel.) Transit camps in between meant tents, if available. It was horrible any way one looks at it, but still a far cry from being locked up. See the Sarian diary to get a better idea of what took place in transit.

^24. Probably some Turks had ill feelings toward what were seen as a treacherous people, along the same lines as how Americans regarded Muslim Americans after 9/11, but no nine-year-old was going to be aware of whether such was a general sentiment. Even in those dark times, hatred would have been a very rare feeling among the characteristically forgiving Turks. The usual reaction among the Turkish "rank and file," as Leon Surmelian (who was also nine-years-old in 1915) put it, was more likely as such: "Why should such things happen? Isn’t there room enough for all of us to live in peace? You have done us no harm, and we wish you no harm. Allah be with you.” As for Mrs. Hanessian's theory that suffering and death was a substitute for murder, sorry; if everyone in the Ottoman Empire was dying from famine and disease, even the soldiers, that does not make Armenians dying from these causes "genocide" victims. We are already getting an excellent idea of how much more our "oral historian" was interested in Hai Tahd (the Armenian Cause) instead of the truth.

^25. This passage confirms what a propaganda-meister Mrs. Hanessian was. First, most who traveled by train safely reached their destinations. If food/water was not provided, we know that was contrary to orders from central command, as with one from June 9, 1915 testifying that 500,000 kurush was sent from the refugees fund for food and lodging expenses. (Archival source: BOA, DH. SFR, nr. 53/305; naturally, local officials did not always do their jobs dutifully, particularly if they were corrupt.) But mainly, there is no way a little girl could have been privy to an order from "General Headquarters" to kill all Armenians, even if such an order actually existed. (Such an order would have been in total opposition to the authentic orders we know to be in existence, safeguarding Armenian lives and property.) In addition, the forced conversion to Islam claim is total propaganda. The reality is that Armenians were converting to Islam on their own accord, in order to be exempted from the resettlement policy, but the government recognized this trick and put a stop to it; they decreed no regard should be paid to such conversions. (Ciphered telegram from the Ministry of the Interior, July 1, 1915; BOA, DH. SFR, nr. 54/254; the reader should be reminded these were internal orders never meant to be publicized, and therefore cannot be construed as propaganda.)

^26. Indeed, the Armenians were forced to find ways to survive, like every other Ottoman. At least she admitted her family was sent to villages, which allowed the Armenians the freedom to live their lives, quite a different matter than to be holed up in a concentration camp or a prison, as the British treated their German men. The diary of Hrant Sarian contradicts the "you couldn't get in touch with anybody" claim; whatever passed for a postal service in Ottoman towns was open to everybody.

^27. Indeed, it was terrible. The Armenians suffered horribly. The point is, however, every Ottoman was suffering; there was no exclusive victimhood. And suffering is not genocide.

^28. No doubt we can count on Frank Pallone to keep these memories alive, but it is contemptible of him to pass these off as actual history. This Armenian woman was very obviously influenced by "patriotism," and she felt no compunction in coloring her statements... and in making things up.

^29. Here is where we can refer to Footnote 2 above, where Pallone was lunkheaded enough to extend the "genocide" to 1918. But Schiff attempts to pledge total allegiance to his Armenian masters by going all the way to 1923, when the Ottoman government was no longer in existence. (And in the years immediately prior, were lackeys of the occupying British.) After 1918, the Turks were completely vanquished, and were hanging on by the skin of their teeth. What a perfect time to expend manpower and resources that were unavailable, in order to conduct a "genocide."

^30. Indeed, how feasible that 1.5 million could be killed from an original population of some 1.5 million (according to the consensus of contemporary Western evaluation), and one million survived, according to hardcore propagandists such as Dadrian and Balakian. In addition, every one of those supposed 1.5 million, regardless of whatever they died from, be it combat or typhus, must have been a victim of "murder." Adam Schiff, by the way, was a product of Harvard Law School, like Samantha Power. How embarrassing that he can lower himself to this degree, without any respect for law, which calls for that annoying little requirement known as "evidence."

^31. Countless historical examples of "Man's Inhumanity to Man," the great majority of which is ignored by the corrupt genocide industry, and this character is telling us we have no right to comment on Darfur before agreeing on the Armenians' propaganda. What a phony! And there is that noble pretension again, reminding us what it means to be "moral."

^32. The Turks have come to grips with this historical chapter, knowing full well that there was no extermination plan against the Armenians, while acknowledging the resettlement policy did not go smoothly, and crimes were committed against some Armenians. The Turks are also aware that many, many thousands of Turks and others were slaughtered by the Armenians. It is not up to stooges like Adam Schiff to lecture on what "coming to grips" entails, when he pursues such dishonesty and, by ignoring Turkish victims, racism.

^33. I'm not aware of when the U.S. government "encouraged" the Turks and Armenians to get together and iron out their historical differences, but they didn't need to bother with Turkey. That nation's leader, Erdogan, called on Armenia for just such an impartial investigation, in early 2005. Since "genocide" is the greatest racket the Armenians have going, Armenia naturally rejected the offer. Its archives, as well as the archives of the A.R.F. in Boston, remain closed to outsiders.

^34. "What a complete fool!" is the first reaction that comes to mind, but Mr. Schiff is cleverly calculating these remarks, as the shrewd propagandist he has allowed himself to become. Yet if we think as honorable truth-seekers, how could there not be doubt, with such a complex and controversial historical episode? Too bad Ms. Rice did not respond to this non-intellectual in the manner he deserved to be addressed.

^35. We did? Have Americans come to terms with the many crimes America has historically committed? For example, if the "first genocide of the 20th century" was American actions in the Philippines, how many Americans would be aware? Further, how many would care? What a naive statement to make.

^36. There is no historic debate outside of Turkey, because the world is still overwhelmingly prejudiced against the "Terrible Turk," and more importantly, the real historians have been intimidated away from the debate, thanks to the underhanded tactics by Armenians and their supporters. As far as Schiff's question regarding reputable historians, is he normally this anxious to demonstrate what a dunce he is? Prof. Guenter Lewy has written, "A large number of Western students of Ottoman history reject the appropriateness of the genocide label for the tragic fate of the Armenian community in Ottoman Turkey. This list includes distinguished scholars such as Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis, and Andrew Mango." I suppose Schiff must have concluded that just because a propagandist such as Harut Sassounian has compared a reputable historian as Andrew Mango to "David Irving, the infamous Holocaust revisionist," Dr. Mango can safely be removed from the "reputable" category, but that is not the way the world works among people of conscience and integrity. (In 1985, before the vicious smear campaigns were begun, the reputable historians could be more readily found.)

^37. Here we go again, being lectured to on what is "ethical" and "moral." Note how Schiff has no concern over the interests of his own nation, if Turkey is indeed a strong ally. He does not care at all about the ramifications that may follow, hurting U.S. interests. Yes, sometimes in the world of politics, hard choices need to be made. The USA has had a long history of going to bed with despots, in order to preserve U.S. interests. If Ottoman Turkey was really guilty of a century-old genocide, would harping on that be more important than endangering U.S. interests in today's dangerous world? Particularly when so many other criminal historical events go ignored? What false sanctimony. (He will go on to vent about "Why is it only this genocide that we should let the Turks acknowledge or not acknowledge?" Is that true? Is the Armenian business the only "genocide" that the USA has "let" alone? Embarrassing.)

^37b.  Have you noticed Schiff did not include Bosnia? The reason is, earlier in 2007, the highest U.N. court in the Hague declared that Serbia did not commit a genocide. Yet before this ruling, "Bosnia" would routinely be included in the same breath with "Cambodia" and "Rwanda" as examples of genocide. What does this mean? To prove a genocide is an extremely difficult matter, because there are hardly any examples as black and white as the prototypical one regarding the Nazis and the Jews; it is very easy to use the "genocide" label for manipulative purposes, but doing so does not necessarily make it so. What this Schiff-ty character has inadvertently revealed is that of course there is always room for debate (among honorable truth-seekers at any rate, and not agenda-ridden stooges), because today's orthodoxy may be tomorrow's dissent. And those certain of their facts should never be afraid of debate. (Particularly as long as one's opponent is rational and fairly intelligent, and not a hopeless or fanatical dogmatist or propagandist.)

^38. How does the murder of Hrant Dink, committed by a deranged and/or brainwashed individual, reflect upon the honor of an entire nation? Are there no murders committed in the USA? What a horribly unfair low blow. As far as his outrage over Turkey's "insulting Turkishness" law (and his victim in this case, not incidentally, mainly won his Nobel Prize because of his willingness to join the genocide forces. Also not incidentally, he was not convicted), it sounds as though Schiff disapproves of curtailing freedom of speech. Why, then, has he probably never criticized nations such as France and Switzerland that forbid genocide denial? His hypocrisy is truly something.

^39. And isn't that absolutely the truth? (It can actually be pretty hysterical how American presidents feel compelled to recite Armenian propaganda so obediently and to the letter on April 24, in order to appease their obsessed Armenian constituency; it goes to show what a powerful minority Armenian-Americans are.) The whole problem is that just because the "genocide" word is not used, congressional stooges allow themselves to get bent out of shape, and to put on display their gross partisanship to Hai Tahd; meanwhile, they are supposed to be representing all of the people, and ultimately, the truth.

^40. Schiff is pretty rude, the way he kept cutting Rice off throughout this exchange.

^41. Could the answer be... let's see now... oh, yes. That the "Armenian genocide" is not a real genocide?

^42. At least Rice managed to come up with something that offered substance, to Schiff's viciousness. Too bad she likely couldn't feel free to really let him have it, such as challenging him as to what makes him so sure this business constitutes a genocide. Such frankness would be tantamount to political suicide, of course. And as funny as it would be to see Schiff providing examples such as "Morgenthau" and an "Armenian oral historian" as his pathetic "evidence," the reality is that these unscrupulous forces have forged so far ahead, it does not even become feasible for someone to speak the truth in such an official forum.

^43. At the very least, Turkey did not borrow $50 million from the USA in good faith, back in 1919, at 5% interest, and then reneged on the deal, as Armenia has done. Schiff would rather side with the benefactors that follow the strategy Sam Weems outlined: "Armenians, in the last 10 years, have probably spent about 14 million dollars to support all the political candidates that they did. When those candidates got elected, Armenia got 1.4 billion dollars in the same 10 years as US Foreign Aid. That is, for every one dollar Armenian Americans "invested", they got $100 back in US Aid to Armenia! 100 to 1 return! This is a better return than Las Vegas casinos! "

^44. "...Our clear statement of the truth." This character truly has no shame, speaking of "the truth." And yes, that sounds like an amazingly intelligent policy, boiling down U.S.-Turkish relations to nothing but the "Armenian genocide."

^45. Ironically, information on Schiff reveals that "Schiff also co-founded the Congressional Caucus for Freedom of the Press in May 2006... (aiming) to advance press freedom around the world by creating a forum to combat and condemn media censorship." On the other hand, the hypocrite is a proponent of encouraging academic censorship by frowning upon "conferences of historians." What may be said of such a man?

^46. "Less than twelve hours after Bob Livingston's genocide denial video was posted..." How can the poor Turks compete with such determined efficiency?

^47. The charge of genocide when there is no proof is the real attack. The response would be called a "defense."

^48. Crowley charges in his article that at one point Gephardt was a genocide supporter. No surprise there; in American politics, it's almost a necessity for a politician to express support for the "genocide," given the power and wealth of the Armenian-Americans. Yet when Gephardt joined the Turkish team (while getting handsomely compensated through his lobbying firm), he became a "flip-flopper." Being a flip-flopper naturally connotes a lack of character, changing one's mind when there is something to be gained. (As Crowley put it: "It's one thing to flip-flop on, say, tax cuts or asbestos reform. But, when it comes to genocide, you would hope for high principle to carry the day.") Yet could not one change one's mind if better facts come along? Isn't it the duty of the honorable person to revise one's views, if one finds the old information to be wrong? I'm not saying this is what happened with Dick Gephardt, but it's entirely possible. It happened with Prof. Bernard Lewis, once he read (as Dadrian claimed) Kamuran Gurun/s "The Armenian File." In short, if a genocide turns out to be a fake, then one of "high principle" would surely not keep insisting on the genocide's validity, simply because many fuzzy-headed proponents lazily regard genocides as sacred and set in stone.

^49. It's hard not to be sympathetic to those requiring anonymity, given the ruthlessness and the utter lack of scruples of genocide proponents. Crowley's article is a good example; he seems intent at times on debasing the character of those whose views are different, instead of focusing on the issues.

^50. In contrast, Crowley described Adam Schiff in a positive manner, as "the tanned and mild-mannered Harvard Law graduate." It's like when the missionary Clarence Ussher wrote, “Armenians had been self-sacrificing, generous, helpful, and cheerful….Turks were callous, indifferent to each other’s sufferings, utterly selfish….They were filthy beyond description.” (Or when Morgenthau wrote in his "Story" book that "The Armenians are known for their industry, their intelligence, and their decent and orderly lives. They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and morally," while the "inarticulate, ignorant" and "brutal" Turks "hardly resemble any people I have ever known. They do not hate, they do not love; they have no lasting animosities or affections. They only fear." Crowley made sure to describe the lobbyists for the Turks as people beneath contempt. Another example soon follows, beginning with, "Crowley's description of Livingston is no more flattering," as the ANCA correctly makes certain to point out.

^51. I would doubt that Livingston would be considered as a "hero" in Ankara; this is an unfounded speculation, revealing the author's bias. Why should Livingston be a hero, if he is being so excessively compensated for his services? A hero is supposed to act selflessly.

^52. "Genocide experts" are predominantly scholarly frauds, for beginning their theses with the conclusion first; a true scholar (as a true journalist) first collects all information before reaching a dispassionate conclusion, and has no agenda to follow. Most do not have a background in history, and the few who do have forgotten the rules of honest history. The real historians have been intimidated away from this dangerous subject matter. But that won't stop these dishonest parties from making such misleading claims. Look at the shameless way in which they label their thoroughly propagandistic figure of 1.5 million, and the non-fact of a genocide being conducted up to 1923, as "the truth." (One would not be surprised if the ANCA penned this stupidity, and these political mediocrities simply added their signatures.)

^53. These conclusions are strongly supported by the credible, unconflicted evidence.

^54. If the only proof of the genocidal myth being "orchestrated at the highest levels of the Young Turk government" are the 1919-20 trials, then these propagandists have entirely lost their argument. Even the British found these trials to be a travesty of justice (the defendants were actually not allowed their own lawyers), conducted as a means for revenge by the successive Ottoman government, who were under the British gun, and these lackeys were also hoping for lenient treatment at the Peace Conference. The trials are akin to the scenario of a Nazi victory in WWII, and the successive puppet U.S. government's being ordered to find villains — or else. If American principals such as Truman, Eisenhower and Patton were to be tried in such kangaroo courts, who would find them legitimate? (The 1919-20 trials were so absurd, even a protector of the Armenians, Jemal Pasha, was condemned to death.)

^55. The U.S. newspaper that perhaps puked the worst anti-Turkish reports, the New York Times, admitted in an Oct. 10,  1915 article: "What has happened... is still an unwritten chapter. No newspapermen are allowed to visit the affected districts and reports from these are altogether unreliable." (Of course there were journalists who had access; few wanted to take the trip into the foreboding interior. One who did, George Schreiner, concluded: no genocide.) This means newspaper accounts on the Armenian matter were comprised of hearsay and propaganda, and are nearly worthless. As for the consular reports (these would be the same already-bigoted consuls who received their information exclusively from their Armenian interpreters and the missionaries), the British examined the best of them in 1921, desperately hoping to come up with genocidal evidence in preparation for the Malta Tribunal; on July 21, their report concluded that "...there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence... the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence." In other words, hearsay. So useless, the embarrassed State Department required that anything from the U.S. archives could only be used as long as "the source of information will not be divulged.” (From an earlier 1921 telegram.)

^56. Once again, Henry Morgenthau did not eyewitness anything. See Footnote 9. In point of fact, Morgenthau's private letters and diaries reveal that he was very friendly with Enver and Talat Pasha. Given the Ottoman authorities' knowledge of tremendous U.S. hostility and prejudice against Turks, they certainly would have never admitted to the American ambassador, of all people, that the Armenians were marked for extermination (assuming that was the goal).

^57. No, it is the hearsay and forgeries that are vast. There is no factual evidence proving a genocide, whatsoever. "Personal opinions" of bigoted people who were not at the scene do not constitute "factual evidence."

Prof. Michael Oren

^58. It is particularly shameful when an "Israeli historian" (the American-born Oren actually has a Ph.D. from Princeton University, in Middle East History) dishonors the victims of the Holocaust by equating their tragedy with the Armenian fabrication. (In "The Mass Murder They Still Deny," May 10 issue, The New York Review of Books.) When Michael Oren disputes the irrefutable facts that the Armenians traitorously "allied themselves with Russia" (it was England and France as well), and "executed thousands of Turks," then what can be said? It's no wonder; the book he reviewed here was Taner Akcam's thoroughly dishonest (here's a sample) Dadrian-paste-up job, "A Shameful Act," which Oren dumbly labeled "courageous and timely." What kind of a historian would reach conclusions on the basis of one blatantly propagandistic book? It's all here; Oren snaps to dutiful "genocide club" attention by vouching for the Armenians having "Christian roots in Anatolia," when the real evidence suggests they migrated from elsewhere. He vouches for Morgenthau, writing that Morgenthau "had recent proof of the mass killing of Armenians by the Turks." What was this proof? "Between 1894 and 1896, Turkish troops rampaged through Armenian villages, ransacking an estimated one million houses and killing as many [as] 200,000." (Sorry, have to pause; did he actually write "one million" houses? The 1893 Ottoman census, run by the Jewish Fethi Franco, had the Armenian population at 1,001,465; we are being told every Armenian's house was ransacked, folks.) How does Oren know this? An American diplomat wrote, "All the Armenians in sight were killed." Was the American diplomat actually there? Of course not! Oren also cites the New York Times. (Headline: "Another Armenian Holocaust!") What kind of a historian is this? He also gives credence to the missionaries, biased consuls such as the notorious Jesse Jackson, and the opinion of the far away, Turk-despising Theodore Roosevelt; Oren praises as well "Samantha Power, Jay Winter... Peter Balakian [and] Vahakn N. Dadrian," and actually writes of their fellow propagandist, Taner Akcam, that the latter "is meticulous and fair in presenting" the story! Oren also gives credence to the Ottomans' "Turkification" policy ("Entire communities of Greeks and Armenians were to be 'cleansed'"; and what is the proof of this?), and Dadrian's invented Gestapo fall guy, the "Special Organization" ("anticipating the Nazi Einsatzgruppen"; and what is the proof of this? Akcam's proof here is Dadrian again, but as Dr. Lewy investigated, Dadrian equally again turns out to be a fraud). Oren presents as the reason for 1909 Adana that the Muslims were "inflamed by rumors of a coup in Istanbul against the new government" (why would that serve as a reason to slaughter Armenians?) and that 200,000 Armenians were kicked out of Izmir before WWI began * ! It is simply horrifying that a fellow like this has no use for real facts whatsoever, happily joining the ranks of the propagandists by citing total propaganda. This thoroughly prejudiced agenda-ridden amateur also exposes his bigotry by not even being able to countenance the fact that Armenians murdered "thousands of Turks"; the real toll was hundreds of thousands, and there were Jewish victims as well. It's pitiful.

* Here, our "historian" may have been referring to Ottoman reprisals against a few Western Anatolian coastal communities, and fewer token ones inland, mainly carried out by chettes, where Greek communities were driven from their homes in the spring of 1914, in which case he would have been substituting "Armenians" for "Greeks." What he does not mention, if this was the case, is that these rotten events occurred in the aftermath of Greek "Death and Exile" policies from the First Balkan War (1912), where Greek provocation was still continuing. "In 1914 and 1915, 53,718 fresh Turkish refugees from the Ottoman territories just annexed by Greece passed through the hands of the Ministry of Refugees"; Arnold Toynbee, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, 1922. As usual, Turkish reaction to murderous Orthodox action. Naturally, our "historian" strictly utilized propaganda with his ridiculously inflated 200,000 figure, and got his facts wrong with the Izmir ("Smyrna") claim. Toynbee continued: "In 1914 the process was happily checked before it had been applied to larger Greek centres like Vurla, Aivali, or Smyrna itself."