In the Journal of Genocide Research (2005, 7[2], June, 255-277), Taner Akcam composed a ditty entitled, “Anatomy of a Crime: the Turkish Historical Society’s Manipulation of Archival Documents,” where he goes to lengths to demonstrate the THS’s dishonesty. The irony of the situation is something to behold, given Mr. Akcam’s known disregard for the facts.

I’m not one to automatically defend the Turkish Historical Society (herein referred to as the THS) myself; as far as I’m concerned, the “anti-genocide” forces need to be squeaky-clean with their presentation, and I have seen inattention to detail with some of the things I’ve read... which hasn’t been much, as I have mainly concentrated on Western documentation to make my case. However, it is a stretch to claim any slip-ups are intentional distortions. It seems to me most of these “genocide scholars” from Turkey are relative newcomers... in other words, they haven’t had the lifelong obsession of one such as Akcam’s mentor, Vahakn Dadrian... and when mistakes are made, as unfortunate as it is for “professionals” to make mistakes, there is no room for hysteria-speak, like determining such mistakes to be a “crime.”

The only time to go into such territory is if the scholar in question has a history of making willful distortions... like Dadrian and Akcam, purposely concentrating on only one side of the story, and turning a blind eye to other realities. I myself have gone through, and am continuing to go through, a learning curve... and there are some facts I used to swear by, until I discovered things were not the way I believed. At that point, one must “revise” one’s views, as better information comes to light. And such revision is the business of history... presuming the writer is motivated by truth and honor.

 In typical pro-genocide fashion, the propagandist must focus on singular facets while ignoring all other realities. If Ottoman imperfections and ineptitude existed, it is an irresponsibly simple matter to draw conclusions such as "genocide." Meanwhile, never mind the fact that the majority of Armenians survived, some of those who committed crimes against Armenians were punished, hostile foreign agents were permitted to aid the suffering Armenians, there were exemptions of some Armenian groups and localities, and the list goes on.

Akcam informs us the book is composed of three sections: [1] Review of Armenian literature of the period [2] Population figures [3] Additional figures via missionary and Armenian sources.

Akcam criticizes the THS for giving much credence to the Ottoman census of 1.3 million. "It has been argued that the Ottoman government, for political reasons, intentionally undercounted the Armenians."

What is "argued" does not lead to what is a "fact." The Ottoman Empire did not gear their national policies with the Armenians in mind. The idea of taking a census was to count the numbers as accurately as possible. Indeed, the previous censuses all show a natural progression leading to the later 1.3 million figure.

Now there might have been an undercounting, but "intentional" can only be the speculation of an agenda-ridden propagandist. Nevertheless, the book’s conclusion for the "'acceptable' figure for [Ottoman Armenians before 1915] found in all studies of a scientific bent... is not less than 1.5 million" is a fair one. Even Akcam’s pro-genocide and fellow ex-communist buddy, Halil Berktay, has accepted 1.5 million as the accurate pre-war count. (In an April 2005 Hurriyet "genocide" series that Akcam was also part of.)

Taner Akcam

  As I haven’t read the book Akcam is criticizing and am forced to accept Akcam’s dubious word, he accuses the authors of making use of existing arguments for why the Armenians might have over-counted and undercounted. (Of course, the Armenian argument for undercounting — attempting to reduce communal tax obligations — doesn’t make sense, because the Armenian Patriarch’s figure of 2.1 million, which even Arnold Toynbee allowed to be possibly exaggerated in his 1916 "Treatment of Armenians" work, is wildly above all reasonable estimates; in addition, the Patriarchate is on record to have purposefully exaggerated to have satisfied their cause of ingratiating themselves to the Europeans as a populous and legitimate nation, and this raison d’etre logically would have superseded all else.) If Akcam is correct, he would have a point; since one can’t have it both ways. Yet, the contradictory assertion from the book ("[Armenian] community leaders always tended to present their population as small[-er than it actually was], for the purpose of evading taxes") may not necessarily be a contradiction. LOCAL community leaders might have done exactly as such, but the numbers that the Patriarch picked out of the air for the cumulative total is an entirely different configuration. In other words, the patriarchs had their own way of figuring these numbers, like counting up to sixty Armenians per household in 1880.

 Where the book breaks new ground, according to Akcam, is that it refers to foreign archival sources that have normally been dismissed as unreliable wartime propagandists, in an effort to support the "Official Turkish Thesis" (in Akcam’s words; less biased parties would refer to this "thesis," as condensed above, as "Real History.")

I would imagine the authors did not make the claim that the majority of these foreign sources could assert "Real History," since those like Morgenthau, Lepsius, Bryce and the foreign consuls were largely prejudiced people with conflicts-of-interest and an agenda to serve. Akcam points out the "authors further state that only a small amount of the foreign archival material was used to support their thesis," even though they could have used more. Here is an opportunity for Akcam to try and catch the authors with their pants down, although it doesn’t sound like they’re claiming anything that’s out of bounds with reason. If the authors wrote "the Armenians never encountered anything along the lines of a planned action to wipe them out," that is the truth; those who made such conclusions were religious and racist bigots who merely offered their opinions — based on hearsay and prejudice — and there is no factual evidence. Yet Akcam writes "such a conclusion is remarkable," and it "demands to be examined more thoroughly." Akcam is determined to scrape the bottom of the barrel with his effort to demonstrate a "crime," in his attempt to detract and discredit.

Akcam charges that the context and meaning of German-language documents were deliberately distorted, comparing this "crime" with the alterations of the 1919 German Foreign Ministry and Lepsius, in an effort to exonerate the perceived German complicity. At least Akcam is on record admitting how unreliable Lepsius’ testimony and methods had been. (In a footnote, however, Akcam further damages what little is left of his credibility by writing that the mad missionary and biased head of the German-Armenian Society "would later publish numerous other, fuller histories of the events which included ample documentation," and that Lepsius’ "work remains a fundamental if incomplete source for researchers of the period." Lepsius got a good share of his "ample documentation" from Morgenthau, and these concocted stories were rejected even by the British in the Malta Tribunal process. The rest was hearsay and fabrications, since Lepsius never set foot on the territories he was writing about, at least not during the 1915 years. Any researcher who attempts to give credibility to such false information from a known liar might just as well hang a "do not trust me" sign on his door.)

Akcam also announces with relish that he engaged in battle within the pages of the Armenian-Turkish newspaper AGOS, with one of the authors, Prof. Kemal Cicek. Akcam characterizes Cicek’s Sept. 3, 2004 open letter as "personal attacks" (examples from the footnote demonstrate Cicek had little respect for Akcam, calling him an "alleged historian"; now that is absolutely true, since Akcam’s academic degree was in sociology, not that we're without other examples of his being a failure as a historian... since a true historian considers all sides to a story, not just the ones he likes. Cicek also refers to Akcam as a "village idiot," certainly not gallant, but given the disrespect even some Armenian historians have for Akcam, such a depiction might not be completely off the mark) while it would seem to me it was Akcam who "fired the first shot" with his three-part criticism series. At least Akcam is not breaking stride here; when the Armenians engaged in violence and murder, they would characterize the counter-reaction as "massacres." Here an author is defending himself against Akcam’s initial attack, and Akcam is giving the idea that the defender is the cruel one. Poor, innnocent Taner Akcam.

  A TRANSLATION TEST

I decided to try a little test by giving the German text to one I know whose proficiency with the language should be at least on a par with Akcam’s. I didn’t give a clue regarding any background to the text; I just asked for a translation. You can try this test as well; the text reads:

bald nach dem Abtransport der Armenier aus Trapezunt traten Geruche auf, dass ihre Hinmordung bereits begonnen habe... Die Erfahrung had gelehrt, dass die den Turken feindliche Phantasie in Trapezunt die unglaublischsten Bluten treibt. Die Geruchte wurden daher seitens des Kaiserlichen Konsulats mit grosser Zuruchhalturn auf genommen. Sie verdichteten sich indessen zu derart bestimmten Behauptungen, dass ich mich im Interesse des deutchen und turkischen Ansehens fur verpflichtet hielt, die Angaben auf ihre Wahrheit nachzuprufen.

The translation:

Soon after the transportation (taking away) of the Armenians from Trapezunt, rumors arose (emerged) that their murder (assassination) had already started. Experience taught that hostile fantasies (of the Turks? about Turks? Confusing — See below) in Trapezunt drove to the most unbelievable bloodshed. These rumors were therefore received with great reservation by the imperial consulate. Meanwhile they condensed to certain (specific) assertions, that I feel bound to test the truth of the statements in the interest of German and Turkish standing (esteem, reputation).

The winner: Taner Akcam. Yes, the above “neutral” translation is closer to Akcam’s chosen words.

Yet, there are a few phrases that equal the THS’ version, in particular "Hostile fantasies."

There are nuances in language that may escape even those who are proficient in that language. Such becomes abundantly clear with the notes my translator provided:

Die Erfahrung hat gelehrt, dass die den Turken feindliche Phantasie in Trapezunt…..

Turks here is used in the dative case which would mean, correctly stated: den Türken gegenüber… Translated this would mean hostile fantasies about Turks… But the author may mean the genitive case – Turks’ hostile fantasies which drove to that bloodshed

(He is definitely not proficient in written German.)

If genitive = the Turks’ hostile fantasies

If dative (as written plus the word gegenüber) = hostile fantasies about the Turks…

The author most probably means the genitive case, given his poor German. On the other hand, since he is saying that the emperor received the rumors with reservation, it could mean that these hostile fantasies were about the Turks, which is why the emperor didn’t want to act upon these rumors, so as not to drive to more bloodshed.

The most important sentence of this meaningless paragraph is grammatically incorrect, which could mean – in either direction.

The word used “Hinmordung” does not exist. There is Hinrichtung (execution) or Ermordung (murder in the sense of assassination). He probably means mass murder.

------

Now I don’t know how "on the button" my translator is, as much as I’m aware of my translator’s expertise. The point is, someone could set upon providing as accurate a translation as possible, and still go off track. It's obvious from this example that the THS translation provides basically the same meaning. Why is Akcam attempting to present the idea that the THS has willfully distorted this translation?

 In order to detract from the big picture, a propagandist like Akcam must look at a little wrinkle in the picture and say, Look! Look! The whole picture is no good.

Akcam does provide a few examples where the meanings were poorly presented, and if he provides an honest accounting, then he’s not without a point. The THS people should have been extremely scrupulous with their work, as they should be aware there are barracudas like Akcam ever waiting and ready to strike at the most mild signs of deficiency.

Yet even in some of these examples, Akcam reaches wildly. For example, he complains that what should have been "a proof that a planned disposal of any possible corpses had not yet happened" wound up being, "this is probable proof that there was no plan to dispose of the corpses."

Akcam’s explanation: "It is obvious to the reader that Bergfeld’s statement 'a plan for the disposition of the bodies had not yet been made' implies that sometime in the future a plan could be implemented. However, the authors translate the sentence as if Bergfeld had said that there was probable proof of no plan for disposing of bodies."

Akcam is trying too hard to find "criminals" here. He might be correct that the literal translation had room for improvement. Yet, I don’t see this as evidence as intentional distortion. Yes, what Bergfeld is saying is that he expected a planned disposal of corpses, but it didn't happen, so there was no proof. If there was no proof, then his expectation was wrong, and maybe there was no plan to dispose of the corpses after all. In this event, "this is probable proof that there was no plan to dispose of the corpses." THS’ version does not sound off the mark at all; the magic word is "probable."

Akcam writes:

"In his response to my comments, Professor Cicek both defends these translation errors and indirectly admits that the translation may have been incorrect. On one hand, he claims there were no distortions in it whatsoever, saying that 'the German Consular report was included almost in its entirety by us in [our] work.' On the other hand, he acknowledges, at one point, 'even if we were to suppose that Akcam's translation is more accurate...' hinting at the possibility that his own translation is wrong."

How does Akcam make the jump that the THS translation is "incorrect" or "wrong," when Cicek is saying what they wound up with might have been less accurate? In other words, if "rumors" is a better word than "speculations," that doesn’t mean "speculations" doesn’t give the similar meaning. Seems like it doesn’t matter whether Cicek stepped on the grass or chopped down the tree. Akcam is going to brand him a "criminal," no matter what.

Akcam continues:

"It appears that for Professor Cicek, the distortion of a translation is unimportant, the meaning remains unchanged regardless of the quality of the translation, and in any case it doesn’t really matter upon which translation one bases one's claims, the document still won’t show that there was a planned massacre. To Professor Cicek, my criticism of the adulterated translation is only a minor irritant. The real issue, in his words, is this: ‘It befits [only] Akcam to accept on the basis of these lines that a planned massacre was carried out’."

To give the reader an idea of how much more difficult an undertaking it is to translate Ottoman Turkish, Dr. Deniz wrote:

First, I tried to list all the possibilities why Akcam would misinterpret…While doing that, I realized how “sensitive” it is to read the archives. For example;

This is “hậl” in Ottoman Turkish…which means condition, situation…

This is “hậl” as well, in Ottoman Turkish…but this one means “uncle”... mother’s brother….(watch the little dot on L shape letter which is the only difference and excuse my drawings..) but for some reason it also means the nevus on your body….

Briefly, reading the “Ottoman Archives in Ottoman Turkish” requires extensive and special training. An archive expert is some one who knows the Arabic Alphabet, Arabic, Persian and Turkish grammar.

 

 In his next example of criminality, Akcam refers to the report by Dadrian favorite, the Turk-ever- hating Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter. Again, I’m at a disadvantage for not having the original work to see how the THS handled matters. But it is the prerogative of an author to sometimes paraphrase a source; if every word is literally transcribed, the resulting work could reach encyclopedic proportions.

With this in mind, Akcam accuses the THS authors of further criminality:

Scheubner-Richter: "At the beginning of June, the first group of Armenian notables were given a period of 14 days to leave Erzurum." Cicek and his colleagues are accused of rendering this statement "in a general sense": "In June, the Armenians were expelled after a period of 14 days."

Unless that rendering was meant to be a direct translation, there is nothing wrong with such paraphrasing.

Scheubner-Richter: “Most of them was given a period of 14 days to prepare for the journey.” THS (and Akcam identifies this as a paraphrasing, so we can assume these are not meant to be direct translations):

"On the other hand, it appears in this report that a 14-day period for the migration was accorded in almost every location."

Akcam complains: "In short, Scheubner-Richter’s report on 'most of' the Armenians in the city of Erzurum has been stretched to cover the entire Armenian population in almost every location [in Anatolia]."

The term "it appears" allows saving grace to make such speculation. It would be unrealistic to assume the Ottoman officials in Istanbul would calculate different time periods for different locations. If they (assuming it was the main leaders, and not the local officials) came up with two weeks for Erzurum, it would be natural to speculate such would be the time period for most of the other locations. So, yes; judging from this report, and for possible lack of other information, it is a reasonable conclusion to assume that it would appear 14 days was the allotment for almost every location.

Perhaps 14 days was an exception, as Scheubner-Richter indicates that the Erzurum Armenians got better treatment "as a consequence of the Vali’s concession and [Scheubner-Richter’s] efforts," and Akcam tells us "It is well known that in the rural areas of Erzurum, outside the city limits — to say nothing of the rest of Anatolia — the Armenians were deported within hours, not days, of notification." In the footnotes, his "evidence" boils down (aside from a report by another German officer, Dadrian-favorite Stange) to a work from fellow genocide club member Hilmar Kaiser. I am sure there were Armenians who were treated heavy-handedly, and a 14 day-notice does sound a little too leisurely as the norm. To get to the bottom of the average length of time the Armenians were alloted requires examination by an objective party. Perhaps the THS authors knew better, or perhaps this is an example of their shoddy scholarship.

The THS authors do appear to be aware of Scheubner-Richter’s report where Armenians were forced to leave in a short time because of Scheubner-Richter and the Vali being temporarily absent. In the book, there is this passage: "But this special permission was at one point revoked by the army command. These persons were forced to leave Erzurum within a very brief period."

So that is odd, for the THS authors to have recognized this 14 day allotment as a “special permission”; I wish I had the original book to see in which context they pointed to the 14 days appearing to be the norm.

(By the way, the American consul Oscar Heizer, in a Sept. 25, 1915 telegram to Morgenthau, gave an extra day to this period: "[The Erzurum governor] had given [the Armenians] 15 days to dispose of their goods and make arrangements to leave.")

Let’s digress for a moment, and explore the rule for presenting passages ethically. Earlier, I mentioned that Morgenthau had written in his "Story" book that thousands of Turks were dying daily of starvation. Since Morgenthau gave a rare display of "sympathy" for the Turks here, am I obligated to mention the racist ambassador’s hateful stance on the Turks as well? No; I’m only wishing to make a point of how the entire population was subjected to starvation, so I am allowed to take out this singular passage without needing to reveal the Turks were subhuman creatures, as Morgenthau attempted to demonstrate.

But if Morgenthau had his ghostwriter tell us thousands of Turks were dying daily only to make a later conclusion that the reverse was true, then it would be unethical for me to use the part I liked, and make no mention of the real point that followed.

So if the THS authors tried to give the impression that the 14 day period was the norm when the source they were using later wrote the contrary, that would have been wrong. That’s what Akcam is telling us they did; maybe he’s right, but since the THS authors did go on to reveal that this 14 day period was a "special permission," I can’t be sure. Maybe they started out by writing that it "appeared" the 14 day period was the norm, building up to the later revelation that such couldn’t have been, and Akcam neglected to tell us the later part. Only a reading of the book will get to the bottom of this alleged "crime."

Even if the THS fouled up here, Akcam is really applying tiny-threaded needlework to the sweater he is knitting. For example, Akcam translates the German in the above passage to read, "They had to leave Erzurum within an extremely short period of time..." Akcam is outraged that the authors "delete(d)" the "adverb intensifier 'extremely'," "in order to make the document fit their thesis." In other words, does "within a very brief period" give a very different connotation?

(Incidentally, how many of us native English speakers can identify what an "intensifier" is? Taner Akcam's mastery of the English language is truly something.)

Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter

Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter, born 1884, had a Doctorate in Engineering; he was vice-consul in Erzurum during 1915. Eight years later, he would be shot dead, during Hitler's premature misstep in challenging the State.

Max Erwin von Scheubner Richter wrote, "The Armenians of Turkey for all practical purposes have been exterminated." Given that one million Armenians survived from a pre-war population of some 1.5 million, we can determine exactly how much credibility Nazi-to-be von Scheubner-Richter deserves.

It is said von Scheubner-Richter was introduced to Hitler by Alfred Rosenberg in 1920, after which Richter joined the Nazi party. During this brief relationship, some pro-Armenian scholars (and other apologists, like Mike Joseph) would have us believe Richter whispered genocidal thoughts in the future Fuehrer's ear, implanting the notion of the Holocaust.

Such are the simplistic conclusions offered by the genocide scholars. You have a little fact here... you have a little fact there. A-ha. A handy connection.

Hitler needed no incentive to dream up his mad visions. If previous historical models of extermination are sought, there was a long list to inspire Hitler, if indeed he needed such inspiration... one being his own colonialist nation's attempt to eradicate the Hereros of Southwest Africa in the 1900s, where some 70% were cleaned out. Moreover, there were many during the 1915 period who believed the "genocide" was directed by Germany itself (A little fact here... Herero extermination a few years before 1915. A little fact there... Germany  basically in charge of the Ottoman military during 1915. A-ha. Instant connection, one that "genocide scholars" should love. However, historical facts indicate this was the episode serving as Hitler's true inspiration.) So if the Armenians' genocide actually inspired Hitler, perhaps the Ottoman Turks didn't deserve the credit.

For example, Armenians love Dr. Clarence Ussher, a missionary doctor who was a "witness to genocide"; Atom Egoyan's film ARARAT was based upon parts of the American physician's racist book. Here is what Ussher ushered in:

  "That the deportations were planned by the Prussian Government cannot be doubted by anyone who has had first-hand knowledge concerning them. If Germany was to rule Turkey in the end, she would avoid trouble with the progressive and nationalistic Armenians by scattering them among the Turks…any territory occupied by her must be rid of its original inhabitants, or they must be so scattered as to form no longer a homogenous population." He added: "Germany was also largely responsible for the massacres and atrocities that accompanied the deportations."

Maybe this is why Germany is currently running like a chicken without its head, trying to get Turkey to recognize the Armenian myth. The Germans have tried this kind of stunt before, in an effort to get the world to believe the Germans should be off the 1915 hook; that was when they allowed the murderer of Talat Pasha to walk away, a free man.

 Akcam gives another example of a Scheubner-Richter passage, with incriminating words like "policy of extermination," that were left out by the THS authors.

Akcam is not entirely without a point, as petty and overblown as he is with most of his charges. These accounts by diplomatic consuls, wholly affected by their Christian sensibilities, their age-old contempt and bigotry for the "inferior" and terrible Turks, and rarely if ever witnessing these events firsthand (like the other consuls, the Germans accepted what the Armenians and missionaries reported), serve as treacherous waters. I don't see why the THS folks went near these mine fields to support their case, but since they decided to make an analysis, they had to more fully consider the endless negative accounts as well. It’s not like they have avoided the "bad" things, it’s just that they don’t appear to have considered the "bad" things more comprehensively. So they left themselves open to the genocide vampires.

In other words, it would have been better to acknowledge Scheubner-Richter’s conclusions like "policy of extermination." Maybe the THS authors took it for granted that such conclusions were not worthy of consideration, since it only amounted to the personal opinion of one biased man, based not on evidence but on hearsay.

Yet Akcam has nerve making awful statements such as "Thus Cicek and his accomplices [as in 'accomplice to a crime'] have behaved in the same manner as Lepsius and German Foreign Ministry officials... in an attempt to 'doctor' them in accordance with their own designs." Again, it’s not like the THS has turned a blind eye to the incriminating passages, and most of the distortions/mistranslations have been bloated by the likes of Taner Akcam. The real parallel to Lepsius, those who deliberately alter the facts or don't consider the harmful ones, are the genocide club members.

The THS authors cite the German Consul Rössler as a source to back up their numerical calculations: "he wrote ‘that nearly 500,000 Armenians were exempted from deportation, and 500,000 [others] were brought to Mesopotamia and Syria."

Here is the part of Rössler’s writings the authors took that from: "The number of those in all of Asia Minor [who have been exempted] from the deportation is 1/2 million at the very most... no more than 1/2 million have arrived in Syria and Mesopotamia..."

It’s an exact match.

Akcam tries to "criminalize" the authors by offering some of the other statements Rössler has made... such as Rössler’s opinion that there were 2.5 million pre-war Armenians, that the convoys have been at least 75% decimated, the women and girls carried off to Muslim harems, and other biased balderdash.

Referring to the rules of passage-presentation, the authors did not have to stop and point out Rössler’s naivete and bigotry. They were perfectly entitled to single out the specific information Rössler provided.

Akcam's next example is more on the mark; US Consul Nathan’s "thousands" of Armenians arriving in Mersin had been changed to "hundreds of thousands." I don’t believe this was deliberate (Akcam is quick to nastily charge this was an alteration made to "bolster their case"); such an error is inconsistent with the rest of the book. It is an example of sloppiness, and it's an unfortunate one.

In the next example, the THS authors apparently exhibited lack of attention to detail by confusing the name of one consul (Nathan) for another official (Greg Young). Mr. Young has apparently taken the rare trouble of checking out conditions for himself, and relates the awful miseries. Akcam accuses the THS authors of one mistranslation, and of selectively using the good parts, to the exclusion of the rest.

Akcam cites a few more examples, including a troubling one by Consul Bergfeld where he claimed responsibility for gaining exemptions for certain classes of Armenians. Three days later, most of these exemptions were revoked, Bergfeld wrote, "apparently under instructions from Constantinople." Akcam charges, "Cicek and his colleagues have withheld embarrassing sections of the very document on which their case rests." I have a feeling the reason has more to do with a lack of attention for detail, which is not very commendable either.

Akcam concludes by accusing the THS authors of "systematically 'doctoring' the data." There appear to be a few that are serious, but many of the examples Akcam provides are overblown. The ex-convict "visiting professor" comes across as so upstanding, I fear he has actually come to believe that his own standards are nothing short of impeccable ("Suspicion within the academic community as to whether or not sources have been honestly and accurately presented is something that can poison the entire scientific milieu" and "[the THS authors] have violated the ‘sense of trust’ that is the necessary basis for relations among scholars.")

Walter Rössler was another German consul (Aleppo) who, like his fellow consuls from Europe and America, rarely took personal note of the goings-on, instead relying upon the word of those whose Christian sensibilities hit far greater home than the alien Turks. Armenian sites claim that Rössler was prevented from testifying at the Tehlirian trial. The court, however, allowed only witnesses for the defense (save for Talat Pasha's wife, whose testimony did not get into any history, like the others)... one reason why von Schellendorf protested in outrage for the suppression of the truth. Why would Rössler have been "prevented"? Probably there was only so much room for defense witnesses in the fixed, cursory two day trial, and Rossler's services just weren't needed. (ADDENDUM: a closer look.) There is so much dishonesty with pro-Armenian claims.