Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Justin McCarthy's "Scholarly" Critic: Frédéric Paulin  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems




Those who wish to discredit Prof. McCarthy have little ammunition, save for trying to make him look like an "agent of the Turkish government" (as Peter Balakian despicably attempted, during a PBS debate show). And as TAT readers know so well by now, the art of the "ad hominem" attack is the one thing genocide advocates must practice, since their factual evidence — at least in the case of the Armenian myth — is difficult to come by.

The one "scholarly" picking apart of McCarthy that the better informed Armenian rank and file sometimes point to, in forum discussions and public book reviews, is a ditty written by Dr. Frédéric Paulin, entitled "Négationnisme et théorie des populations stables : le cas du génocide arménien." ("Denialism and Theory of Stable Populations: the Case of the Armenian Genocide"; the English translation referred to was performed by an Armenian with the moniker "Imasdun," tweaked here in sections featuring poor English.) Let's take a look at how Frédéric Paulin made his case.

Already we can see from the giveaway word ("Denialism") in the title that Dr. Paulin has the makings of a "genocide scholar," and we all know what that means. He must cover up the truth, either knowingly or out of blind religiousness, in pursuit of his duty to affirm genocides. In familiar "smokescreen" fashion, Paulin will throw fancy bits of mumbo-jumbo our way; yet how much offers actual substance is one thing we will be examining. Another is, it's one thing to be a critic; yet will this "scholar" offer better answers in lieu of the ones he will be knocking?

It must be added that Paulin does not claim to be a genocide scholar. His specialty is in mathematics. That means he does not qualify as a historian either, and has based his historical conclusions strictly upon acceptance of genocide literature. So immersed is his dogma, unfortunately, that even when he comes across the real history of what actually occurred, he feels compelled to ridicule it.

In his composition's very first sentence, Dr. Paulin begins with a gigantic falsehood, attesting that a U.N. sub-commission recognized the "Armenian genocide" in 1985 (this would be the Whitaker report), placing his scholarly credibility on the ropes. (Of course, it is unlikely that he made the false claim knowingly; he simply accepted the assertions of Armenian propaganda.) The work of McCarthy (whom Paulin terms as a "turcologist," not once but thrice; in the English translation, at any rate), "Muslims and Minorities," is presented as a creepy effort ("based on modern mathematical demography") to counter what should be universally recognized as "the reality of this genocide." McCarthy attempted to figure the number of pre-war populations, Paulin wrote, and then subtracted the number of survivors. Given that such a method offers a very logical way of figuring how many would have — more or less — lost their lives, it's difficult to figure what Paulin's beef is. We get an excellent idea of his gripe, at the end of his first paragraph: he does not like the idea that others should be presented as suffering, relative to his chosen people. You see, for a man such as this, only one group ordained by the genocide scholars deserves the status of victimhood, and the ones who have been delegated as the villains deserve no tears.

Paulin lays his cards on the table: "The object of this article is to analyze how the model of the stable populations is applied from a methodological point of view, and, how the results are used politically with the aim of historical negation." Forget about any objectivity, and the seeking of the truth; Paulin has formed his conclusions, and Justin McCarthy must be accused of dishonesty, and of having ulterior motives.


"The Armenian population is known for us only from incorporated statistics, worked out by the Ottoman 'state' and the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople at the beginning of this century. The statistics which they published before the war and after are contradictory. The State claims that the number of Armenians before the war was lower than 1.3 million whereas the Armenian Patriarch advances the figure of 2.1 million."

Interestingly, while Arnold Toynbee wrote in the Blue Book (1916's infamous "Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire") that the Ottoman figure was 1.1 million (referring to the 1906 census; the 1914 "update" must not have been available to him), he had vouched for the Ottoman-Armenian population at only a cool million or so the previous year (in his 1915 book, Nationality and the War, before he joined His Majesty's propaganda division, Wellington House); that is, Toynbee's own estimate was actually less than the Ottoman figure he would make sure to ridicule. As a propagandist, of course, he naturally hoped to give credence to the Patriarch's 2.1 million. (Very much in line with his counterpart of more recent times, Frédéric Paulin.) To be fair, however, Toynbee selected the midpoint figure between 1.1 million and 2.1 million: 1,600,000 Armenians, which was a little over what almost every other "neutral" (i.e., Western) party was saying at the time.

Dr. Justin McCarthy

McCarthy utilized the last statistical report of the Ottoman Empire, from 1914 (which he found in the Library of the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul, as Paulin informs us; the last thing he wants to reveal is what a fabulous scholar Justin McCarthy is, part of which entails locating musty, forgotten old records. McCarthy has had a knack for doing so, as in the case of the Niles and Sutherland report), which updated the 1.1 million figure to nearly 1.3 million.

Now get this, ladies and gentlemen. Even before we get into the technicalities, as Paulin is sure to do in an attempt to throw his smoke and mirrors, we already know McCarthy did not accept the Ottomans' 1.3 million figure. (Even Paulin pays a nod here: "Admitting the under evaluation of Ottomans figures, the American 'turcologist,' Justin McCarthy, tried to correct those...." he offered. Note the "turcologist" word again. What Paulin seems to be going for with such repeated usage is that McCarthy is not a real historian but a "pro-Turk," who will, for some mysterious reason, apparently falsify for the Turks.) McCarthy's tally is nearly 1.7 million, which is far and above the 1.5 million consensus of most "1915" experts. That sounds extremely fair! Furthermore, 1.7 million happens to be smack-dab in the middle of 1.3 million and the Patriarch's 2.1 million.

And of course, even the Patriarch did not believe in 2.1 million, vouching for 1.85 million when he was not in such a propagandistic mood; that is the figure he provided for the German missionary, Johannes Lepsius.) In other words, the Patriarch's still propagandistic 1.85 million was not far off from McCarthy's near 1.7 million figure. What is Paulin squawking about, in fairness? (But the twain of the "genocide scholar" mentality and the concept of fairness very rarely meet.)

Already we can see Prof. McCarthy's only guiding force was the truth, professional historian that he is. But it is Paulin's goal to try and discredit McCarthy any way he can.


The "First problem," Paulin wrote, was "the exact date of the source." Rather than relating to 1914, you see, the statistics actually reflected 1912, given the different Ottoman calendars. But it is McCarthy himself who provided this revelation. So what's the problem? It's not like McCarthy was hiding anything. And how significant is it, really, if the figure reflected 1912 rather than 1914? Is it going to make that much difference, given McCarthy's generous tally of nearly 1.7 million, already higher than most other legitimate estimates? (And even some traditionally illegitimate ones. For example, the Armenians themselves vouched for a lower figure, at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.)

(McCarthy has written in 1984's Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (1912-1926)": "I have chosen 1912 because the Ottoman statistics for that year were particularly good and because 1912 was the date given for the often quoted but grossly inaccurate 'Armenian Patriarchate Statistics.' The year 1912 was also immediately before ten years of war descended on the Anatolians, thus statistics for that period provide an accurate picture of Anatolia before the disaster." Keep in mind here that McCarthy is correctly telling us there was an element of stability in the Ottoman population. I can live with 1912 very easily. But for Paulin, it is a "problem.")

Paulin's "Second problem" is that the 1912/1914 figure is not really derived from an official census, and that McCarthy is trying to deceive us by making it seem as such. Now, this is a horrible low blow, as McCarthy does no such thing! He explains very clearly the ins and outs, and even Paulin wrote that McCarthy "certainly employs quotation marks" around the word, "census." Yet, for Paulin, McCarthy must come across as a kind of crook. He resorts to the report of someone named Daniel PANZAC. (Every time Daniel PANZAC's name is mentioned, his last name is capitalized by Paulin. Daniel PANZAC is described as a "reader" who is "attentive." One wonders how that would have made him an authoritative source at the time, although a search reveals that PANZAC has gone on to becoming a historian with Ottomanism as a specialty. Ironically, he was even labeled a "turcologist," on one web page.) To sum up, Paulin can't get over the fact that the "Ottoman figures concerning 1914 were not obtained starting from a census carried out the year in question, but by the update of the census of 1906/7." He doesn't like that the births were added and the deaths were subtracted between 1907 and 1914, without giving consideration to migrations... a factor that will be covered below. He also adds the births might have been under-registered. (How does he know if the births were not over-registered? It would have suited the Ottomans to do so, for tax purposes.) It must be kept in mind no one is claiming that the calculation of these numbers is an exact science. But McCarthy has approached his computations in a highly credible and professional manner. If Paulin has come up with a more accurate method, he does not offer it. His role here is mainly to criticize.

The "Third problem" is that "these statistics... do not detail the population by sex and age." Naturally, McCarthy is aware of this problem (and Paulin pays a nod to McCarthy's awareness), but Paulin finds fault with what he says is McCarthy's utilization of the statistics of 1895/96 ("which detail by province the population by differentiating the age groups and the sexes"). Such corrective factors would not be valid, he belly-aches. Well, does he have a better idea? A scientist works with the best data available. Given the information at hand, McCarthy has come up with the most definitive approximation possible.

And let's not forget the big picture: McCarthy's conclusions are higher than the consensus of the times. It is not as though McCarthy is fudging anything.


Next, Paulin complains of McCarthy's compensation for the under-registration of women: "He considers that there are as many women as men and copies his female half-pyramid on his male one." Well, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? "From this half-pyramid, he calculates the number of children by seeking the standard table of stable population which coincides the best." Paulin then gets into a lecture on the stable population theory ("The stable populations theory constitutes the base of modern developments in mathematical demography"), and argues that the theory cannot apply in this case, as "The years considered by the book of Justin McCarthy were very unstable. All kinds of interior migrations as external are observable." Paulin is not without a point, but the period between 1906-1912 was actually not so bad as far as stability, relatively war-free (save for a limited clash with the Italians in remote Libya). Let's take his examples of migration causes one at a time:

1) "The abrupt immigration of Moslems after the Russian conquest of the Caucasus" His footnote provides examples from the middle of the 19th century, hardly relevant to the period of 1906/7-1912.

2) "The Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878." This was a biggie, and plenty of Muslims (and Jews) from Bulgaria were cruelly ejected, but again hardly relevant to the period discussed.

3) "The emigration of the Armenians following the massacres of the years 1895-1896." 1895/96 is relevant only insofar as using the available statistics from this period to get a "corrective" idea of the women and children from the later period (that is, the "Third problem," above). Yet, if anything, when Armenians left, that meant fewer Armenians. Paulin's evident idea is to tell us McCarthy's 1.7 million is wrong, and the Patriarch's 2.1 million is right, so this example actually hurts his thesis.

4) "The problem of the 'bantoukhds,' the young Armenians who migrated from the provinces to cities or abroad, giving up women and children..." If they left from one part of the Ottoman Empire to another part, is that going to throw such a monkey wrench into the works? One province will show less, and the province they moved to will show more, more or less equaling out. As for the Armenians who moved out of the country, that would once again mean fewer Armenians, hurting Paulin's thesis.

5) "The new surge of Moslem refugees as from 1908-1909." Here he may know something I don't, as I am not aware of where these Moslems "surged" from. Except for the Adana mess from 1909, which would not have had an effect on new Moslem refugees, 1908-1909 were relatively peaceful years.

6) "The Balkan wars in 1912-1913." This was another biggie in terms of waves of newly kicked out Muslims, but has no bearing on statistics compiled by 1912. Paulin was grasping at straws with this particular example.


Paulin also gripes about the uneven mortality. "For example, the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 concerns only the male Moslems (only mobilizable), whereas as from 1910 non-Moslems were incorporated in the army. " Again, the example of 1877-78 goes too far back as to be relevant. If his point is that before 1910, non-Muslims were not included into the army, I don't see why that should make such a big difference in terms of figuring out the change from 1906/7-1912. Paulin reiterates the gripe: "McCarthy uses the model of stable population to calculate his corrective factors on a source of 1895/96 and applies the result to a source of 1912." Yet once again, no one is saying demographics is an exact science, and obviously the records of the Ottoman Empire had some imperfections. But it's the best data we've got, and a historian as meticulous and as truth-oriented as Justin McCarthy is going to provide the most reliable conclusions. Once again as well, Paulin is not providing for how he would improve the accuracy of these numbers; his job is only to point fingers.

Destruction is easy; construction involves hard work. Where is Paulin's construction? And in the event that he should come up with his own version, would his construction be better than McCarthy's? Even if he tried, he is showing his scholarly merit to be low.

Another example he provided in order to demonstrate that mortality did not remain constant are "the Hamidian massacres of the years 1895-1896 and the massacres of Cilicia in 1909 aimed exclusively at the Armenians." Let's address this point in not one, but three ways. First, if these massacres really made such a huge difference, Paulin would once again be hurting his thesis, as that would mean fewer Armenians. Second, the numbers of massacred Armenians were hardly in the stratosphere, as Armenian propaganda tells us. Instead of 200,000 for 1895-96, the number was closer to 20,000. (The Ottoman number for killed Armenians was 13,432. Even Lord Bryce did not go much higher than 100,000 in his preface to "Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire." ) As for 1909 Adana, Hagop Babiguian's authoritative tally was 18,660 Armenians, out of a total of 21,000 killed. These figures are not inconsequential, but a total mortality from both periods figuring in the tens of thousands is not going to be all that critical.

As for the third point, the Muslims killed in Adana was around 2,000; had the population ratios been reversed, the Muslims would have gotten the worst of the deal. During the mid-1890s, the Muslims killed by Armenians amounted to some 5,000, save for the boast of the Hunchak rebel Aghasi, claiming to have killed 20,000 Turks in one battle alone. And this is the most important point, ladies and gentlemen. In both of these events, as well as "1915," the Armenians had fired the first shot. It was always the Muslims getting massacred first. But for Paulin, these victims are invisible. Note how the prejudiced writer made a point of writing that these massacres were "aimed exclusively at the Armenians."

Paulin now takes off the gloves, in his section entitled "McCarthy’s conclusions":

"The objective of McCarthy was above all to compare Armenian and Moslem losses during the war. Even by admitting his figures, one notes that the thesis of the author on the equal weapon confrontation between two communities both [victimizers] and both victims defies logic. Everywhere the proportion of non-Moslems killed was quite higher than that of Moslems killed. Unencumbered by scruples, McCarthy counterbalances the percentages by absolute numbers explaining why there were more Moslems dead than Christians (25). "

The footnote provided from Muslims and Minorities was this: "In numbers, the Muslims lost many more persons than did the Armenians; in percentage of total population, less. The great mortality of both Muslims and Armenians does not fit into any theory that posits one group of murderers, another group murdered. Both Muslims ans Christians were killers, both Muslims and Christians were killed."


Now to the ignorant and prejudiced monsieur, this view is totally unacceptable. Why, how dare his chosen "genocide victims" share the spotlight with anyone, particularly those Muslim humans of lesser value! Because he cannot bear the absolute truth of McCarthy's above statement (it simply boggles the mind that any educated person could argue with the factual purity that the statement offers), he goes so far as to accuse McCarthy of being unscrupulous! The fact is, there were many more Ottoman Muslims killed than Armenians; the total was around 2.7 million, versus 500,000-600,000 for the Armenians, killed from all causes combined, mainly famine and disease. While we will never know how many of the Armenian dead were murdered, the best guess is in the low tens of thousands, and certainly not over 50,000. (A Turk-unfriendly newspaper from his own country, Le Figaro, investigated in 1977, prompted by the Armenian terrorism raging globally; their figure only amounted to 15,000 Armenians dead from shootings, sickness and deprivation on the march... only 1% of Paulin's preferred 1.5 million figure! And note these 15,000 victims were not all murdered.) On the other hand, the Armenians (with a little help from their Russian and French allies) killed over 500,000 Turks, Jews and others not fitting into the Christian Armenian prototype. The Armenians murdered many, many more "Turks" than the other way around, yet Dr. Paulin is up in arms at the mere suggestion that the Armenians were killers.

Paulin goes on: "But beyond the proportions, McCarthy is unaware of the chronology while trying to measure the impact of the events between 1914/1922. He forgets to specify that the main part of the Armenian losses took place between spring and winter 1915 whereas the main part of the Moslem losses occurs from 1916 to 1919." How does Paulin know when the bulk of the Armenians died? (That is a rhetorical question. He knows, because he only consults propaganda.) Richard Hovannisian instructs us, for example, that some 150,000 Armenians died of starvation while accompanying the Russian retreats. (In addition, thousands died while accompanying the retreat of Paulin's own imperialistic countrymen, after war's end.)

Now, 150,000 amounts to around a third to one-quarter of the entire Armenian mortality, which is a hefty chunk. These were the Armenians who had stayed behind in eastern Anatolia, obviously, and were not among the resettled. The time period was mainly the years after 1915, as the Russians kept going back and forth, according to the tides of war. In fact, it is these eastern Armenians left behind who suffered the greatest. Many eventually made their way to Armenia, and that is when the real "genocide" of the Armenians took place, at the hands of their corrupt and uncaring Dashnak leaders. As Richard Hovannisian instructs us, "In 1919, for each 1000 persons in Armenia there were 8.7 births and 204.2 deaths, a net loss of 195.5. It was verily a land of death." (You can bet these deaths have been added to the 1.5 millon "genocide" mortality Paulin has wed himself to.)

If McCarthy did not describe this chronology the way Paulin would have preferred, that has nothing to do with McCarthy's being "unaware." Being a bonafide scholar who takes all relevant information into account, McCarthy is going to report the truth, and only the truth. A propaganda-pusher such as Paulin is not even in McCarthy's league, but of course that is not going to stop him from criticizing McCarthy.

To back up his points, Paulin again refers to the word of his "expert," the reader Daniel PANZAC, who tells us that if the numbers of the Muslim dead was indeed very high, they were victims of the Russian war, whereas the "dispersion and the destruction of the Armenian community would result especially from the will of Ottomans authorities." Now what can one say to a fellow like this? First of all, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the Ottomans willfully planned the destruction of the Armenians. The actual orders point to the safeguarding of the Armenians, and most Armenians who were resettled survived. But these kinds of facts are not going to make a dent in the minds of those such as Paulin and PANZAC. To them, those innocent Christian angels, the Armenians, were simply incapable of causing harm, because everyone knows they were born to be martyred. The one and only victims were the Armenians, and the righteous minds of Paulin and PANZAC over what killed them all was the Nazi-style intent of the Ottoman government. The facts only serve as annoyances to people as these, and their first response to such facts is "How can I discredit this fact that gets in the way of my precious genocide belief/agenda?"

(The mysterious Monsieur PANZAC's thoughts may be found, by the way, in " Analyses bibliographiques : Muslims and Minorities de Justin McCARTHY ", Revue de l'Occident Musulman et de la Mediterranée, 39, Aix, 1985. By the way, a search credited PANZAC with an estimate of 1.5 million-1.6 million Ottoman-Armenians before the war. If true, it would be ironic that Paulin's ally would have arrived at a conclusion that was less than McCarthy's.)


Having made his "case" against McCarthy, Paulin then moves to the "Political context of the publication." He reports that the "genocide" has been accepted by the non-entity of "the Permanent Tribunal of the People" (and who are these people? Do they belong to a legal body? No. Are they historians? No. They are merely other lazy thinkers who consult strictly propagandistic sources, and who already have a bias against the Terrible Turk), repeats once more his non-fact that the U.N. has accepted the truth of this "genocide" in 1985 (which he terms as a "tower." Naturally, should the institution that made the rules for genocide actually recognize the Armenian myth, that would be a big deal. Unfortunately for the non-fact-checking Paulin, it never happened), adds that the similarly bigoted European Parliament went for the con in 1987, and then laments that a genocide resolution to the U.S. Congress was stopped because Senator Robert Byrd held up a copy of McCarthy's accursed book, "thus joining the position of the Turkish State." (In other words, there is the implication that McCarthy, a professor employed in a U.S. university, is a representative of the Turkish state. Is that truly not dirty pool, without providing any proof? Are these genocide advocates truly incapable of discerning right from wrong?)

Paulin finishes his paragraph with the assertion that non-recognition not only serves as a refusal of "any responsibility," but serves to "deny the historical fact." If this non-scholar wishes to deem the mythological Armenian genocide as a historical fact, he is welcome to provide the factual evidence of intent, and to fulfill the other requirements of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention. (He would need, for example, to get by the stipulation that political groups are disallowed. But first, he would need to come to the understanding that the Armenians were indeed "belligerents de facto," as Boghos Nubar flatly admitted, and that the Armenians were the "Seventh Ally" of the Entente Powers, which included his own French nation. How does Paulin really think that French warship picked up the thousands of Armenian fighters from Musa Dagh? Does he believe in the story about the cross painted on a bedsheet, summoning the ship to the shore?)

"Les Arméniens," by Yves Ternon

"Les Arméniens" is one of the "masterpieces" written
by Yves Ternon. The genocide industry has managed
to get this hogwash published in Turkey.

Paulin then cites Yves "Freaky Frenchy" Ternon, another pea in Paulin's non-scholarly pod, who examined the ways in which the Turkish government conducted its policy on denial (in "Enquête sur la négation d'un génocide," 1989). The strategy includes pamphlets and books published by that shameless government of Turkey, as if they should not have the right to protect their national honor from this wicked falsehood. And then there are those "contributions of American academics whose complicity with Turkish diplomacy" is evident. (Is it only American historians? There are a few brave French historians who know the truth and who have been mercilessly harassed, such as Gilles Veinstein).

And this is where Paulin really zings McCarthy: "The book of Justin McCarthy fits in this third circle. A few years after its publication, the intention to help Turkey to correct its image is acknowledged by the author himself in his speech at the University of Bosphorus where he was made doctor 'honoris causa.'”

  ‘It is certain that there won’t be any regret over how, during the 1915 genocide, France was fighting against the Ottoman Empire. The same France helped those Armenians to settle in the south and even fight against the new republic of Mustafa Kemal in French uniforms.’

Alexander Adler, reminding the French of their responsibilities, Le Figaro column, ‘Glasnost torque sur la question armenienne,' May 18, 2006, when the bill to criminalize "Armenian genocide" denial was being debated in the French Parliament.

The disasters brought upon the remnant of the Ottoman Armenians by the Anatolian War deserve attention. It is true that there would in any case have been trouble in China, owing to the irresponsible policy of the French authorities, who tried at first to lessen the burden of their regular army by partly garrisoning Cilicia with the Armenian volunteers of the Légion d’Orient. They even permitted the Armenians to raise and arm irregular bands. If the Armenians took this opportunity to revenge themselves upon the local Turkish population for what they had suffered (principally from other Turks) in 1915, they can hardly be blamed. The French, who exposed them to the temptation and afterwards allowed them to suffer for having yielded to it, have more to answer for.

Arnold Toynbee, still apologizing for Armenians in The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, 1922

McCarthy knows the historical truth, and as an honorable academician, it is his duty to enforce the truth and to change a mistaken belief, particularly a harmful one leading to hatred and racism. If the truth will help Turkey correct its unfairly malinged image, that is only a natural byproduct. It is truly despicable of Paulin to make it seem as though McCarthy's motivation is to help Turkey, rather than to serve the truth. And what is McCarthy getting in return? Is he getting paid off? Luckily Paulin doesn't sink so low as to make such a claim, as even he realizes there is no such proof. He then goes for the next best thing: why, McCarthy must have been serving Turkey so that he can get his hands on that precious academic award, as if this award was going to make any difference in his academic career! (Given what a "bad guy" partisan forces as Paulin and PANZAC have made of Turkey, such an award is probably a detriment, and scholars who have received such awards may think twice before including the honor on their resumés. ) Then there are genocide advocates, such as Erik Zurcher, who have also received Turkish awards. Does that mean Zurcher is also an agent of the Turkish government? What absolute, bigoted stupidity.

Paulin is sorrowful over how the so-called denialists work to "narrow the documentation base on which the historiography of the genocide is founded," and also on how they work at "minimizing the number of the victims to reduce the event." For you see, according to Dr. Frédéric Paulin, there really were 1.5 million Armenians killed (as he makes clear in his closing paragraph, “Demographic denialism”).

So let's figure out the mind of this mathematical "scholar," shall we, ladies and gentlemen? Early in his paper, he provided the upper limit of the Patriarch's pre-war population figure, 2.1 million. This implies that Paulin is not going to go above that figure. So as much as he hates taking "before" and "after" figures and performing the subtraction, there really is no way to get at the result of what he thinks was the number of Armenian survivors: 2.1 million [minus] 1.5 million killed would equal 600,000 survivors.

That's right. This "scholar" actually is content with a tally of survivors that is less than even the worst Armenian propagandists, such as Vahakn Dadrian and Peter Balakian, who have conceded 1 million Armenians as survivors. Can you believe it? Dr. Frédéric Paulin is actually willing to obliterate whatever there is of his scholarly credibility by outdoing the propaganda of these patriotic agents for Hai Tahd, the Armenian Cause! And as if that is not bad enough, here's how the Patriarch himself split the difference, with his inflated 2.1 million figure (to repeat, the Patriarch's "real" figure was 1.85 million): 1,260,000 survivors, and 840,000 dead. Yessir, these numbers came from the Patriarch Zaven himself. ("Greece's Anatolian Venture — and After [1915-1922]," Pallis, London, 1934.) Now look again at where Paulin has allowed himself to stand. It's embarrassing! He actually criticizes McCarthy of having given "an over-estimate of the number of survivors," which would be, in McCarthy's case, an original population of 1.7 million [minus] 600,000 dead = 1.1 million survivors. Yet McCarthy's figure for Armenian survivors is still not as high as that of the Armenian Patriarch, himself.

(If we use the figure PANZAC has accepted for the pre-war population, 1.5-1.6 million, assuming this figure has been reported correctly, then probably the number of survivors would be less. Particularly if PANZAC, like Paulin, tells us 1.5 million died, in which case the number of survivors would be around zero. Now that kind of result would be music to the ears of any genocide advocate.)

"The objective is always to show that the Armenian losses are not higher than the Moslem losses or that the Jewish losses are not higher than the German losses." The overriding concern for the honorable truth-seeker would be whether the Muslim losses were indeed higher, and they certainly were. Not only in the case of those who died from all causes, but in the case of those murdered through the Armenians' ethnic cleansing policy. Everyone was suffering from the same causes, and the entire point is that there was no exclusive victimhood. And as much as we are well aware of the deceptive reasons why the "Holocaust" parallel is brought up, it is obscene for these two historical tragedies to be mentioned in the same breath. The Jews were targeted simply for being Jews, and were completely innocent. The Armenians had allied themselves with their nation's enemies, and there was no intent from the government to exterminate them; resettlement is not genocide.

Paulin's big finish: "By calling upon demography, the denialism seeks to adorn the clothes of science through what one could call a 'demographic denialism.'" (Cue the trumpets.) As if this fellow is qualified to speak of science, immersed in "religious" genocidal belief, as he is.

Nowhere in his criticism does Paulin apply the same stringent tests to the Patriarch's statistics. Is he trying to tell us the Patriarch's figures were more reliable? Of course he would rather have us believe as much; let us wish him luck, if he tries to convince legitimate scholars that the careful, objective demographics conducted by a solid professional such as Prof. McCarthy should be less accurate than the Patriarch's propaganda.






"West" Accounts


Armenian Views


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site

...Is to expose the mythological “Armenian genocide,” from the years 1915-16. A wartime tragedy involving the losses of so many has been turned into a politicized story of “exclusive victimhood,” and because of the prevailing prejudice against Turks, along with Turkish indifference, those in the world, particularly in the West, have been quick to accept these terribly defamatory claims involving the worst crime against humanity. Few stop to investigate below the surface that those regarded as the innocent victims, the Armenians, while seeking to establish an independent state, have been the ones to commit systematic ethnic cleansing against those who did not fit into their racial/religious ideal: Muslims, Jews, and even fellow Armenians who had converted to Islam. Criminals as Dro, Antranik, Keri, Armen Garo and Soghoman Tehlirian (the assassin of Talat Pasha, one of the three Young Turk leaders, along with Enver and Jemal) contributed toward the deaths (via massacres, atrocities, and forced deportation) of countless innocents, numbering over half a million. What determines genocide is not the number of casualties or the cruelty of the persecutions, but the intent to destroy a group, the members of which  are guilty of nothing beyond being members of that group. The Armenians suffered their fate of resettlement not for their ethnicity, having co-existed and prospered in the Ottoman Empire for centuries, but because they rebelled against their dying Ottoman nation during WWI (World War I); a rebellion that even their leaders of the period, such as Boghos Nubar and Hovhannes Katchaznouni, have admitted. Yet the hypocritical world rarely bothers to look beneath the surface, not only because of anti-Turkish prejudice, but because of Armenian wealth and intimidation tactics. As a result, these libelous lies, sometimes belonging in the category of “genocide studies,” have become part of the school curricula of many regions. Armenian scholars such as Vahakn Dadrian, Peter Balakian, Richard Hovannisian, Dennis Papazian and Levon Marashlian have been known to dishonestly present only one side of their story, as long as their genocide becomes affirmed. They have enlisted the help of "genocide scholars," such as Roger Smith, Robert Melson, Samantha Power, and Israel Charny… and particularly  those of Turkish extraction, such as Taner Akcam and Fatma Muge Gocek, who justify their alliance with those who actively work to harm the interests of their native country, with the claim that such efforts will help make Turkey more" democratic." On the other side of this coin are genuine scholars who consider all the relevant data, as true scholars have a duty to do, such as Justin McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, Erich Feigl and Guenter Lewy. The unscrupulous genocide industry, not having the facts on its side, makes a practice of attacking the messenger instead of the message, vilifying these professors as “deniers” and "agents of the Turkish government." The truth means so little to the pro-genocide believers, some even resort to the forgeries of the Naim-Andonian telegrams or sources  based on false evidence, as Franz Werfel’s The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. Naturally, there is no end to the hearsay "evidence" of the prejudiced pro-Christian people from the period, including missionaries and Near East Relief representatives, Arnold Toynbee, Lord Bryce, Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and so many others. When the rare Westerner opted to look at the issues objectively, such as Admirals Mark Bristol and Colby Chester, they were quick to be branded as “Turcophiles” by the propagandists. The sad thing is, even those who don’t consider themselves as bigots are quick to accept the deceptive claims of Armenian propaganda, because deep down people feel the Turks are natural killers and during times when Turks were victims, they do not rate as equal and deserving human beings. This is the main reason why the myth of this genocide has become the common wisdom.