In my first letter of April 9, 2004, I wondered what his sources were for the concentration camp, and whether he investigated the validity of the Andonian forgeries that he embarrassingly set forth as legitimate. (You know, the ones that Andonian himself referred to as propaganda sixteen years afterwards, and the ones even Taner Akcam doesn't accept, exhibiting a rare disagreement with his mentor, Prosecutor Vahakn Dadrian.) The text of that letter may be [Read Here].

Hello Dr. Theriault:

I read your review of Norman M. Naimark's "Fires of Hatred," and I hope you can enlighten me on the following:

1) What was your source for the "infamous barbed-wire-enclosed death camp at Der-el-Zor"? I'd appreciate your assessment of the actual evidence of whether there was a concentration camp at Zor. I'm not saying you're incorrect, but to my knowledge there were no such enclosures. Who came up with the barbed wire claim? Were there perhaps photographs you came across? Otherwise, did you scrutinize the credibility of the source(s)?

Since you appear to have a problem with the author's "objectivity and neutrality," I presume you would value an impartial study of this issue, without emotional attachment, and have conducted your studies accordingly.

2) Have you researched the Talat Pasha telegrams that you provide as proof of an extermination policy directed toward the Armenians? You must have heard these were forged. Did you scientifically study the reasons why, or did you dismiss such conclusions offhand? These telegrams came out in a book by Aram Andonian and associates, where the author claimed he had somehow "lost" the incredibly valuable originals. The book came out in 1920, allowing for the Ottoman Interior Minister's tidily worded "Kill all the Armenians" message to be available for the British, who -- well over a year after the book's release -- were still desperately seeking evidence to convict Ottoman officials at the Malta Tribunal.

If this and other telegrams were genuine, why wouldn't the little-known "Nuremberg" of WWI have been over and done with in 1920? After all, there is the genocidal proof in black and white, by a high state official: to paraphrase, "Kill all the Armenians."

In appreciation of your furtherance of my knowledge.

Yours in truth,

Holdwater

[Close]

 I never heard from him, even though the charges he was making were very serious. I wrote a second time, asking for the "specific facts that allowed (him) to make these claims." He didn't respond to that one either.

 The interview was conducted while Prof. Theriault was making a tour in Beirut, "initiated by the Lebanese-Armenian Heritage Club of the American University of Beirut. He gave public lectures at the American University of Beirut, Haigazian University, the Hagop Der Melkonian hall, and the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia."

Here’s something I don’t understand about these "genocide scholars." There is simply no end to the examples of "Man’s Inhumanity to Man" throughout history. Yet, aside from paying the occasional lip service to Bosnia and Rwanda, genocide institutes almost wholly concentrate on the Holocaust and the alleged Armenian Genocide. Genocide-obsessed, deep-pocketed Armenians have certainly helped finance these institutions, as with the case of Stephen Feinstein's "Council of Holocaust and Genocide Studies," one of the worst hotbeds of Turcophobic Armenian propaganda to be found anywhere.

Professor Robert Melson

   If we take a look at which topic commands the attention of many of these genocide scholars by running searches on their names, very often we find their lecturing and writing activities focus on denying the historical reality of what they term the Armenian 'genocide.' It's very suspicious. For example, non-Armenians Robert Melson and Roger Smith have devoted themselves wholeheartedly to the Armenian cause — even to the extent of belonging (at least in 2003) on the seven-member Academic Council of the very partisan Armenian National Institute (ANI)... which openly declares its "overarching goal" as "the worldwide recognition of the Armenian Genocide."

What kind of a scholar would sacrifice his or her objectivity and pursuit for truth by being part of such an agenda-ridden organization? Wouldn’t we say, "We feel strongly that there's been a violation of academic standards," as smear campaign participant Robert Jay Lifton unfairly said about Heath Lowry? All of these gentlemen have been highly active in pushing the Armenian cause for perhaps over a generation; the "retired" Dr. Smith appeared in a talk in Fordham University in April 2005, and Dr. Melson appeared similarly in Purdue, in March of that year.

Professor Roger Smith

(Prof. Turkkaya Ataov listened to Melson's talk, but Melson declined to reciprocate, in what I think was a somewhat cowardly fashion. Prof. Ataov told the audience he felt bad Melson was no longer around, as he corrected some of Melson’s claims, and Ataov would have preferred nothing better than to have engaged Dr. Melson. Regardless, Melson's arguments did not win over this particular audience, a danger the pro-Armenians face whenever they lose their luxury for monologue. Moderator Ani Kalayjian did her level best to curtail the discussion of the issues in the talk Smith was part of.)

Israel Charny has taken part in numerous speaking engagements, the principal topic for most being the so called "Armenian genocide." He doesn't seem to be in much demand even for his own Holocaust.

Henry Theriault with Ms. Heroian at a symposium presented by the Strassler Family Center for the Holocaust and Genocide Studies

It would be interesting to research the financial sources supporting these activities and speaking arrangements around the world. Why would the Lebanese-Armenian Heritage Club all the way in Beirut pick Henry Theriault to go across the world and give his series of talks? Henry Theriault has obviously made himself enough of an expert on the Armenians' genocide to become such a commodity. One wonders if he is in much demand for other topics, to be invited at a destination so far away. It's a good thing the opposition for these genocide scholars conduct themselves in gentlemanly fashion and don’t investigate these matters. The "deniers" don’t have a multi-million dollar budgeted "Armenian Assembly of America" to dig up wrongful "convicted felon" dirt on authors in an attempt to discredit them, nor do they conduct organized smear campaigns in an underhanded way to attempt the ruin of reputations and to ultimately stifle debate. No, what the "deniers" do is honorably focus on what comes from genocide advocates' mouths and pens. Luckily, they get themselves in so much trouble when they express themselves, there is no reason for below-the-belt blows, even if the "deniers" were as unethically inclined.

If it wasn't for the Armenian genocide industry, who would even be talking about people like Roger Smith, Taner Akcam, and Henry Theriault? Thar's gold in them Armenian genocide hills, fer sure.

Henry Theriault at a genocide conference in Japan, where
his topic was "denial." I Wonder which "genocide" he mainly
referred to?

 So let's examine Henry Theriault's mind, and try to see why he feels so strongly about the Armenians’ genocide, much to the exclusion, it appears, to the many unheralded historic examples of ethnic cleansing campaigns. Maybe we can even get a clue to see whether he is "brainwashed or something."

The most striking overall impression is that his criticisms about the "deniers" are exactly what his kind is guilty of.

Henry Theriault begins by advocating his area of expertise, "philosophy," to analyze history. To his mind, the Armenians' genocide is already a done deal, and there is no general need to fuss with the annoying historical details. No, what is of primary importance is to stifle any debate by labeling those who don't agree as "deniers."

Labeling is the last thing a true scholar ought to resort to, perhaps unless the opponent is truly and hopelessly without credibility, and is possessed of overriding fanaticism. Labeling is a tactic for the desperate, not for the intellectual.

He says: "People often respond to denial on the level of presenting the facts. However, denials are really never about the facts, they are about trying to manipulate a target audience and make them see the realities of the world in a way that's not accurate."

It’s embarrassing! Embarrassing that a "professor" would be caught on record saying such incredible nonsense.

He is actually telling us the facts are not important. Because he is presumably so convinced in the truth of this alleged genocide, a "genocide" that even the British could not prove at the Malta Tribunal when they examined the ridiculous evidence, he is telling us we must move on and focus on the dishonesty of those who disagree. It sounds like he's advocating the time-honored pro-Armenian smear campaign, instead of honorable discussion.

How dare he make such a ridiculous statement such as, "denials are really never about the facts”"? In the case of this genocide con, it is the facts, and only about the facts.

Let’s take the testimony of someone who sounds like he might have been a genuine eyewitness, UPA correspondent Henry Wood, who reported (in Briton C. F. Dixon-Johnson's 1916 work, "The Armenians"):

"It appears obvious that the Turkish authorities, anxious for the safety of their lines of communication, had no other alternative than to order the removal of their rebellious subjects to some place distant from the seat of hostilities, and their internment there. The enforcement of this absolutely necessary precaution led to further risings on the part of the Armenians. The remaining Moslems were almost defenceless, because the regular garrisons were at the front as well as the greater part of the police and able-bodied men. Already infuriated at the reports of the atrocities committed at Van by the insurgents, in fear for their lives and those of their relatives, they were at last driven by the cumulative effect of these events into panic and retaliation and, as invariably happens in such cases, the innocent suffered with the guilty."

Here, Wood is outlining the facts. He has no reason to have done so for devious purposes. The censors during the war frowned on this kind of testimony, so he was going against the grain. Certainly, Wood was not a tool of the Turkish government. Did Wood attempt to "manipulate a target audience and make them see the realities of the world in a way that's not accurate"? Quite the opposite.

H.J. Pravitz, in his April 23, 1917 report, "The situation of the Armenians: By one who was among them,"
hated the omnipresent propaganda of the period in the West, based on religious and racist bigotry. The Swede was a genuine eyewitness in 1915, starting "with a certain prejudiced point of view, partly received from American travelers, about the persecution of the Armenians by their Turkish masters." Pravitz saw the Armenians firsthand, "in the trains in Anatolia, in oxen wagons in Konia and elsewhere, by foot in uncountable numbers up in the Taurus mountains, in camps in Tarsus and Adana, in Aleppo, in Deir-el-Zor and Ana." He concluded: "I sure got to view misery, but planned cruelties? Absolutely nothing."

(Including none of Henry Theriault's "barbed wires," at the Deir-el-Zor camp. In order for there to be barbed wires, you'd need an enclosed concentration camp. There were no constructed Dachaus and Auschwitzes in areas the Armenians were relocated to.)

"In summary, I think that Mrs. Stjernstedt, somewhat uncritically, has accepted the hair-raising stories from more or less biased sources..." Pravitz wrote.

These are the same "hair-raising stories from more or less biased sources" that Henry Theriault accepts without question, in ways that would shame the genuine scholar. Could these same hare-brained stories have “brainwashed” him, or something? I don't know.

 Henry Theriault tells us the "deniers" (he uses this labeling over and over again, hoping to achieve his moral superiority, but eating away at his credibility each time he uses it) "create a situation where there's no clear truth." No, the clear truth is there, for anyone objective enough to study it. It’s the pro-Armenians who dishonorably must try and discredit, every chance they get. Why does Henry Theriault think the Armenians never took their case to an international court, and instead try to connive their way into people's minds with meaningless political resolutions?

Now let’s check out how Henry Theriault gets himself in hot water:

"I find the claim put forth by some extreme deniers that the Armenians committed genocide by killing Turks and other Muslims very striking. If anyone with a basic understanding of history just looks at the number of Armenians who were in the Ottoman Empire and what possible access of arms they had, the notion that Armenians committed genocide becomes so absurd."

Is Henry Theriault "brainwashed or something"? Or is he just being a racist at this point?

"Anyone with a basic understanding of history"?? Sounds like that counts Henry Theriault out.

"Anyone with a basic understanding of history" and is not biased will quickly learn the Armenians waged a terror campaign with a separatist goal for forty years or so, clearly outlined in their charters as Armenian historians (Nalbandian, K. Papazian) have outlined. Actual documents verify the Russians financed part of the operation, not to mention the wealthy Armenians arming themselves with sophisticated weaponry (like mausers) for years... waiting for their opportunity to strike. (Even Henry Morgenthau knew this, writing in his "Story" book: "...In the early part of 1915, therefore, every Turkish city contained thousands of Armenians who had been trained as soldiers and who were supplied with rifles, pistols, and other weapons of defense. The operations at Van once more disclosed that these men could use their weapons to good advantage...")

A glamour shot of Dro

  Practically the moment war broke out, the Armenians attacked, as pro-Armenian sources tell us. Tens of thousands of Ottoman-Armenian men joined the Russians (comprising an army of 150,000, according to an Armenian source; another Armenian source claimed nearly twice as many) or stayed behind (50,000) to pose a significant military threat to the Ottoman army. Those fighting under cowards Dro, Antranik, Kerry and others waged a systematic extermination campaign because Armenians were a minority everywhere; they even targeted Jews, and Greeks in Trabzon. Of course, their main victims were Ottoman Muslims, which they polished off with blood-curdling savagery, according to testimony even from their allies, Russian and French officers. The victims were easy pickings, since the Turkish men were mostly away, and the mortality for the Turks exceeded half a million, according to internal government documents never meant to be publicly released. Since Turkish lives did not count, few Westerners can corroborate, but there are some — like British Col. Wooley —  verifying these dizzyingly high numbers. The Armenians merely continued the Orthodox campaign of "Death & Exile" (as Prof. McCarthy documented in his book by the same name) that had been going on the previous century, claiming the lives of over 5 million Turks/Muslims, and exiling a similar number.

So when I bring up the issue of racism, that is not a cheap shot. I don’t believe in hurling charges like "denier" or “genocide” lightly. Imagine. Henry Theriault is supposed to be a sort of "genocide scholar," and not only is he ignoring the extermination campaign waged against the Turks, he is actually going out of his way to pretend it never happened. Why would he be such a "denier"? Is it because of ignorance, and not having a "basic understanding of history"? Is it because he wants to cover it up, because he has a mysterious agenda? Or is it simply because he is playing God again... just like when he wants you to believe the genocide occurred, and that’s that, because he thinks so... when he now determines Turkish lives were simply not as valuable as Armenian ones? That is the kind of thinking the fellows with the white hoods could be proud of.

 The foreign consuls listened to these missionaries and the Armenians, even the Christian Germans and Austrians who were raised on "Terrible Turk" stories. The newspapers listened to them. Nobody wanted to listen to the Turks. As Pauline Kael wrote in her "Midnight Express" analysis, "Who wants to defend Turks"? Turks already are known as savages; the dictionary even gives us that definition for the word Turk. The Turks must be guilty — who needs evidence?

It is truly repulsive, the idea Henry Theriault is trying to have us swallow here. Is this his idea of "philosophy"? If he keeps that up, he’s going to make me more a believer of Hobbes, rather than Locke.

If we are to listen to witnesses, the "objective" or "neutral" among us should only do so with witnesses we know had no reason to lie. That leaves out almost all the sources for genocidal evidence. There is a voluminous supply of Westerners who had no fondness for Turks, and no reason to lie; these are the ones we should listen to. (We should also start listening to the Turks. Western travellers have documented how honest they were compared to the Empire's Christians, and you'll notice the Turkish perspective is wholly absent in this discussion, so successfully has the propaganda branded them as the criminals and liars.) There are also many Armenians, like Boghos Nubar and Hovhannes Katchaznouni, who have been caught on record countering the propagandistic claims. Why is Henry Theriault not listening to these sources? Are Boghos Nubar and Hovhannes Katchaznouni "deniers"?

We must also keep in mind what genocide scholar Rudolph Rummel has written: "Genocide is horrible, an abomination of our specious, totally unacceptable. It is an obscenity, the evil of our time.." So one had better be damned sure not to make the charge frivolously. We must also not forget what genocide scholar Henry Huttenbach has written: "There is no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual proof."

I am sorry, Henry Theriault. I don't care how much in a tizzy you are to have this con job accepted as the reality, for whatever mysterious reasons you have; don't you tell people that the facts are not important. The facts are everything. You are accusing an honorable nation of the worst crime, as if the crime were on the order of shoplifting. Your honor as a man should prevent you from being a party to a frivolous, political accusation; otherwise, it is you committing the crime — the crime of Rufmord.

"Anyone who studies the events in the Ottoman Empire during that period of time would conclude that what took place was genocide," Henry Theriault tells us, but these would only be lazy-thinking people without "objectivity" or "neutrality," not bothering to scratch beneath the surface. Since Henry Theriault has told us these are two different meanings, he should concentrate on mastering at least one of them, and re-evaluate the annoying genuine facts. That is, if truth is his goal.

I'd like to digress away from the interview subject and examine what the interviewer has stated: "However, the Turks who are not aware of the facts, and who are brought up in schools where the denialist or, at best, the relativist approaches are being taught..." It is only recently where I understand Turks in Turkey are beginning to study this topic, thanks to the dishonest pressure of the European Union, trying to protect their Armenian darlings, as always. This topic was not a curriculum in Turkish schools, generally speaking. I know this from Turks I run into who have arrived in the United States. Their knowledge is zip, and if anything, they have only been exposed to the topic in the United States, because of the vast genocide propaganda machinery. If anything, many of these Turks are becoming "brainwashed," if I may use Henry Theriault’s word, into believing there has been a genocide. The propaganda is so ubiquitous and commonly accepted as fact, and most Turks approach issues from an honest perspective, they are quick to believe in the nonsense everyone else believes in. Turncoats like Taner Akcam (who corroborates that the topic has been mostly absent from the Turkish school curriculum) do the most damage. Ignorant Turkish-Americans who go to see him and other pro-genocide "Turkish scholars" think, oh, here’s a Turk saying these things... it must be true.

 Henry Theriault goes into an interesting analysis about how Turkey is a slave to America, nobody likes the Turks, Turkey has many problems... thus, Turks are caught in a corner without a feeling of self-worth, and that's why they are quick to accept the “denialist” point of view; they think, in Henry Theriault's words, "I desperately need to have a proud identity and anybody that says anything negative at all about Turkey as (sic) my enemy and it's got to be wrong."

Frankly, I don’t know much about the Turks in Turkey, and some of the things Henry Theriault tells us are not untrue; caught between east and west, there are times I'm sure the nation can have an identity crisis. But I’m also sure Turkey, like all nations, stresses the positive about their country, and I'd doubt Turks have a sense of self-loathing. They have plenty to be proud of, having had a long and rich history, being part of a nation that was never subjected to the imperialist West, unlike just about every other country on earth. This is not the reason why the Turks reject the genocide argument. They reject it because they know it is not the truth, and I hope Justin McCarthy is correct about the Turks, when he declared:

"...Whatever the European Union demands, I have faith in the honor of the Turks. What I know of the Turks tells me that they will never falsely say there was an Armenian Genocide. I have faith in the honesty of the Turks. I know that the Turks will resist demands to confess to a crime they did not commit, no matter the price of honesty. I have faith in the integrity of the Turks. I know that the Turks will not lie about this history. I know that the Turks will never say their fathers were murderers. I have that faith in the Turks."

Henry Theriault compares this psychological analysis: "But the anger that an Armenian feels at denial and the anger that a Turkish person might feel at having to confront the fact of the genocide are not the same angers...."

If Henry Theriault wants to do good, maybe it’s time for him to tell the Armenians to grow up. Maybe if the Armenians weren't so obsessed with their identity-affirming genocide, they wouldn’t have reason to feel such anger.

As the rare Armenian scholar (Dr. Robert John) with a sense of genocide sanity has written, "The time has come to stop psychologically damaging ourselves and our children by 'Holocaust studies' and 'Holocaust museums.' The Armenian, the Jew, or the African, should not damage their development with a continual conditioning of hate, neither should spurious guilt be visited upon others. These negative preoccupations and obsessions are obstructing our evolution."

But I don't think Henry Theriault is capable of doing so, because he has some growing up to do of his own. He has become a professional part of the process that perpetuates the anger of the Armenians, about which Dr. Gwynne Dyer has written, "The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the diaspora today."

It is this very anger that caused many young Armenian men to "lose it" in the 1970s-1980s and embark on a campaign of terroristic death and destruction, killing so many.

 

Aztag's Mouradian wonders what Henry Theriault thinks of fellow "genocide scholar" Rudolph Rummel's opinion that the Armenians shouldn't ask for reparations. We learn that "The amount of time that passed doesn't matter; it's whether the repercussions of the genocide and the loss of land still have an impact." Henry Theriault compares with American Indians, saying, "I fully support the case of land claims of native Americans."

"The case of Armenians is similar. If you just look at the delicate political situation of Armenia, its vulnerability to Turkey, the dependence on Russia and the US and others for basic survival, what I mean becomes clear. So I think that part of the reparations is to help rebuild the victim community in a way that makes it secure and viable."

Ohh, boy.

I am now praying for a Native American tribe to reclaim lands Henry Theriault's dwelling rests upon. I hope he will set an example for the rest of us by handing over the deed to his house, to "help rebuild the victim community."

This is what happens when a "genocide scholar" who doesn’t care about historical facts offers his dubious opinion. The right for reparations was given up in the Treaty of Gumru/Alexandropol, the terms of which were revealed in a 1955 publication from the Armenian Information Service. Arthur Derounian wrote: "Highly significant Is Article 8, wherein Dashnags agreed ‘to forego their rights to ask for damages . . . as a result of the general war,’ thus closing the doors FOREVER to reparations for the enormous destruction of Armenian life and property." (Similar rights were also renounced in the earlier Treaty of Batum; scroll further down the above link.)

I hope Henry Theriault won't next suggest the Armenians are not bound to past agreements because they are such poor victims, they should be given anything they ask for.