Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  A Correspondence with Taner Akcam (and a Rescuer)  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

 This is part of a series examining the ways and works of the Armenian-supported perpetual "visiting professor" Taner Akcam; here is the lead page for this series.


In early 2004, Taner Akcam was persuaded to join a discussion group (Truth-Anatolia1915) that I happened to be a member of, and I couldn't resist throwing Dr. Akcam a challenge. I told him this would be his golden opportunity to prove himself with a crowd that does not accept everything he says at face value, like the rest of his prejudiced and lazy-thinking "genocide" world. He immediately withdrew from the group, and I wrote him a second letter, wondering why a cat had grabbed hold of his tongue. Finally, he replied, calling me "brother," which was very kind of him. He basically said he didn't have the time to teach me, since he was such a professor and all, I suppose. (Which is curious, because I'd have thought the duty of a professor would be to teach.) But he revealed his real thoughts about me to the group's moderator, who decided not to make a secret of Akcam's response, and the professor's feelings were anything but brotherly. Naturally, I had to follow up with a third open letter. In the meantime, Dr. Dennis Papazian jumped to Taner Akcam's rescue, offering to debate me, but he first wanted to know who I really was. I decided to throw my response to Dr. Papazian into this series, as well.

There are a good number of letters that I've written in my hopes for correcting the terrible wrongs that are prevalent, in this unfair world where Armenian "genocide" claims are accepted at face value. These are private communications, but when I came across these open letters a year-and-a-half after they had been written, I decided to make an exception and share them (in slightly edited versions) with readers of this site. Because I don't pretend to know everything about this history and am always on a learning curve (many times I've come across better information, shedding my older beliefs, as the perpetual "revisionist" all truth-seekers must be in historical matters), I added comments at the bottoms of these older letters, correcting the areas where I had gone wrong. There are areas that I would write differently today... for example, I'm now largely refraining from referring to Turkish pro-genocide opportunists as "turncoats." (There are many earlier pages of this site that I would like to go back and re-write in a similar vein, but this site has already taken up so much of my time.)

This first letter was written in late March of 2004.


Open Letter Number One to Taner Akcam


Dear Mr. AkÁam,

Taner Akcam

Taner Akcam, posing for the
March 2004 N.Y. Times article

I havenít been active with the Truth-Anatolia1915 group of late, but I was intrigued to see you have accepted the moderatorís invitation to join. The one message you left (message/813) did not come across as especially sincere... if I understood correctly, you referred to the March 6, 2004 New York Times article ("Turks Breach Wall of Silence on Armenians") featuring yourself as somewhat being out of your hands when, really, the purpose of that article was to lend evidence that Turks are finally owning up to their criminal past... giving yourself as the main, mold-breaking Turk who has been brave enough to defy the sinister line of the evil Turkish government. I donít understand why you would attempt to distance yourself from the articleís point-of-view, when in fact your entire purpose is exactly as stated... and has been, ever since you decided to reinvent yourself as the first Turkish scholar to break what is often referred to as Turkeyís Armenian genocide taboo.

Your comment that numbers donít matter is straight out of Richard Hovannisianís book (during occasions when it is not convenient for him to stress the numbers, as he usually often does), and your conclusion that we need to regard what happened to the Armenians as "genocide," because of the "intention," cannot be taken seriously. That is precisely the pointÖ "intent" has never been impartially proven. Several of the members got back to you on this point, and you chose not to reply. Next time you make such statements, donít forget to neglect that annoying little matter known as "evidence."

Regardless, I commend you for making this attempt to publicly address your position to a not necessarily friendly audience, and I believe you should make the most of what may be a golden opportunity for you.

Iím sure you have endured your share of contempt from the "deniers" within the Turkish community. I happen to be offended by that word myself, as I fully recognize the implications behind it. Before you were a blip on the radar screen of this debate, beginning in the late 1970s and particularly the 1980s, some Turks finally began to counter what has been a terribly lopsided argument... with the Armeniansí story having been presented almost exclusively in the West, since the late 19th century. Suddenly, the Armenians began to lose their stranglehold on what had been universally accepted ó the barbaric Turks persecuting and exterminating the poor, innocent Armenians, in the same fashion as the Nazis doing their number on the Jews ó as doubt began to set in the minds in some corners of the West. Since the Armenians couldnít afford to lose what had been so carefully cultivated for so long, they had to get serious. Some of their weaponry involved their characteristic smear campaigns, the sponsorship of certain Turkish academicians who were required to agree completely with Armenian views, and the nurturing of alliances with hypocritical genocide scholars and institutes, many of the latter at least partly financed by the deep pockets of this traditional merchant class.

The Armenian campaign has been all too successful, as the new generation of Western scholars has been afraid to step into this historical minefield during the last generation.... I donít see any new Justin McCarthys, Heath Lowrys and Stanford Shaws on the horizon. Meanwhile, there is no end to the crop of so-called scholars who lazily accept whatever everyone else says, without bothering to see for themselves if the earth truly is flat.

Dismissing those who donít agree with the Armenian perspective as "deniers" is a tactic that is yet another offshoot of attempting to find a parallel with the Holocaust. Nobody would want to be seen as the young men you no doubt came across during your years in Germany, the ones who wore black boots, shaved their heads and scrawled "T‹RKEN RAUS" messages on public walls. Yet, that is what we associate with "deniers".... either those who are deluded, or the kind of people who know fully well the genocidal truth, and yet attempt to cover up matters for their own contemptible reasons.

Especially since the same can be said about pro-Armenian propagandists ó they are "denialists" for denying the Armenian "Genocide" did not take place ó this kind of name-calling has nothing to do with academic debate. Nor does the dishonest usage of other types of false statements or implications, such as the often repeated claim that it is only the Turkish government that believes there was no Armenian "Genocide." However, of course, the one thing the pro-Armenians do not want to encourage is genuine academic debate.... and why they resort to below-the-belt strategies well familiar to many in their community.

However, I am glad you decided to come to the forefront by joining this group, and are not afraid to have your views dissected by those who donít agree with you. You do realize the pro-Armenians dishonestly try to portray you as representing the other, or "Turkish" side, attempting to create the illusion of a real debate. Those of us who know better can only sigh, since the whole idea of a debate is to bring together parties of opposing views.

As I was saying, Iím sure you have endured your share of contempt from those who perceive you as having sold out. I canít speak for others, but I will say I personally have not come across any reason to feel respect for you. This is why I am telling you your decision to join a group involved in honest debate may be a golden opportunity for you; finally, you have come up from hiding behind Armenian coattails, and participating in their one-sided and usually closed door workshops/conferences. Now is your chance to right yourself in the eyes of those who donít think all that highly of you.

It is fortunate for you that the ones you have decided to confront are traditionally big-hearted people who, unlike many Armenians, are not raised with hatred in their hearts. Iím sure most everybody in your opposing camp wishes you well, generally speaking... I enjoyed learning more about your personal life in the New York Times article, for example, and I get the sense youíre not a "bad guy" at heart. You should take advantage of the fact that most people in this opposing camp will not resort to dirty, low-down tactics such as calling you names ó as with how the Armenians (via the $2.5 million budgeted Armenian Assembly of America) falsely love to refer to Samuel Weems, for example, as a "convicted felon." (Keeping in mind that, in your case, the term may not be entirely inapplicable.) And, God forbid, you can pretty much count out anyone thinking of bombing your house ó the way Armenians dealt with Prof. Stanford Shaw ó or anything of a violent nature. I would bet, over the years, perhaps with the exception of an isolated lunatic here or there, you havenít even received any death threats to speak of. (By the same token, Iím certain youíve had no shortage of those who have labeled you as a traitor... and if the word suggests betraying your own people for reasons that arenít clearly ethical, then I would believe such accusers would have had cause to hurl such a charge.)

I donít know how much you still remain in touch with your kind (and Iím not referring to the Armenians, here), but one great thing about them is that they generally play fair and square. Historically, even the Turksí enemies have acknowledged that they are a stand-up people... one other reason why it is galling the biased world largely believes the Turks could be guilty of the worst crime against humanity. The very humanity that the Turks worked to preserve for centuries, as opposed to other multi-cultural empires... one reason that ironically led to the Ottomansí downfall.

Speaking for myself, if I were to come across genuine evidence there was an actual government-sponsored attempt to exterminate the Armenian people, I would have absolutely no problem with admitting it. I would have no reason to wish to defend a criminal regime, particularly one that was overthrown by the current Turkish government. The truth supersedes all, including tribal loyalties.

(One reason why the Briton, C. F. Dixon-Johnson, who wrote 1916ís "The Armenians," going against the policy of his governmentís wishing to portray the Turks as inhuman creatures, was not a traitor... quite the contrary, such integrity serves as an inspiration. By the same token, Lord Bryce and Arnold Toynbee, who knowingly lied for their Majestyís government, cannot be judged with total harshness... as they decided ó helped along with their pre-existing prejudices ó to patriotically compromise their principles for the benefit of their warring nation. It is only when you betray your own brethren for dishonest reasons do you become a low form of humanity... which is precisely why you must defend your position not with those who already agree with you, but with those whose image you have helped to dishonor.)

Another thing thatís very nice about those who donít agree with your views is that they generally treat you pretty decently. Just recently I came across an article by Levon Marashlian who went completely ballistic on a proven, fellow "Armenian AND? Anthem" singer, the co-editor of Armenian Forum, Vincent Lima. Because Mr. Lima dared to step out of line in a tiny little footnote, referring in passing to Richard Hovannisianís possible racism and lack of courage, Marashlian nastily wiped up the floor with Lima, even implying (as I interpreted it) that Lima might be an agent of the sinister Turkish government! The irony is, of course Hovannisian is a racist... in a small slip-of-tongue, he even referred to the inhuman Turks as things, during a rare 1983 PBS debate with Prof. McCarthy; and of course he is a coward, having avoided debate with genuine "Turkish scholars," for the most part. (http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/marashlian-attacks.htm)

Along with this big-heartedness of the Turks comes their general willingness to side with truth. Here is the danger, as hopefully you are aware: the reason why Turks in Turkey are largely ignorant about this genocide matter is not to cover up crimes of the past, but because it was the policy to forge ahead in peace and brotherhood, and not to dwell on wrongs committed by both sides; the idea was to still the cycle of hatred. My father informed me, for example, that when he was a child, history books would refer to the Greeks during periods of conflict not by name, but as "the enemy." What a mature and humanistic policy that is twisted by those you have pitched your tent with.

As a result, it seems to me, many Turks are blank slates.... and are ripe for the picking. I donít know many Turks, but when Iíve had occasion to test the knowledge of the few Iíve come across... itís easy to see their ignorance and apathy, regarding this matter. The Armenian "Genocide" is simply not an obsession with Turks who have better things to do with their lives. So when you have your genocide books printed in Turkish for distribution in Turkey, or when you go on Turkish TV, as Armenian mouthpiece Robert "Tsk-Tsk" Fisk reported in (the Kirk Kirkorian co-owned) "The Independent" years ago... you have an ultra-special responsibility to speak the truth. The land of your birth has enough enemies trying to tear it apart from outside, and it doesnít need any help from those within.

Not to say you have no less responsibility to tell truth with non-Turks, particularly Westerners such as the Americans you are currently teaching.... who are also ignorant in Turkish matters, and who carry a high degree of negative imprinting, regarding Turkish people and culture. You may look up another definition of the word "Turk" in any dictionary, if youíre not sure what Iím alluding to.

It is my conclusion that you have made a very selfish and opportunistic move, and the consequences are deeply hurtful. However, Iím not going to put you on the hot seat by asking uncomfortable questions regarding yourself... such as how you were so easily able to find a job in an American university, teaching history, when your foreign degree was in Sociology, and your academic background appears largely not to have been established. And how is it that, of all the universities in the United States, you just happened to become employed in the one that one of the Armenian "Joint Chiefs of Staff," Dennis Papazian, calls home? (You know, the one that your fellow turncoat, Fatma MŁce GŲÁek, somehow also found a job in.) And since you were reportedly kicked out of that institution when Michiganís local Turkish-American community questioned your credentials, Iím at a loss to understand how you happened to find employment so easily in another university known for its unfriendliness to Turks.... the one that houses the genocide center, Stephen Feinsteinís CHGS? (The one that has the indecency to put up a forged Talat Pasha telegram as evidence for the Armenian "Genocide"Ö citing just one outrageous example.)

(I know of someone with a Ph.D) not having an easy time finding work, the same fate of many Americans armed with a doctorate degree. Iím going to resist the temptation of asking for your employment advice and taking advantage of your magical job-finding skills, this go-round.... since we mainly need to focus on the historical issues.

Regarding the CHGS, by the way, it is in their disgusting "Armenian Resources" section that we can read an often-repeated quote of yours... this time advertising the video, "The Wall of Silence." Thatís the one where you state Turkey can only become a democracy once she comes clean with the Armenian "Genocide." If Turkish society has problems, itís naive and/or deceptive to point to this fast-becoming ancient historical episode as a potential cure-all. Moreover, there are plenty who donít see the nation of your birth as akin to an oppressive dictatorship (your buddies Peter Balakian and Dennis Papazian, for example, prefer to use the word "totalitarian"), but already as a democracy ó perhaps not exactly in the mold of the United States, but what country is? Canada? Greece? Switzerland? France? (You know, Switzerland and France, where you can be taken to court for saying there was no Armenian "Genocide," as Professor Bernard Lewis experienced in the case of the latter country.)

Anyone who says one knows with certainty what went on during those tumultuous years of "genocide" is not being true to oneself, or, if a professor, to oneís profession. I wasnít there, and you werenít there. That is why we only can rely upon historical evidence, and the only kind that counts is the impartial variety, from ones that wouldnít have had conflicts-of-interest.

In other words, you generally ought to refrain from pointing to the following... if you want people here to believe you:

1) Armenian Oral History 2) The missionaries 3) Ambassador Morgenthau and his band of consuls 4) The German wing, including Lepsius and Armin Wegner 5) A multitude of press accounts, particularly from the prestigious New York Times 6) Bryce, Toynbee and the Wellington House reports 7) The Hitler Quote, and fake quotes from Ottoman officials 8) Franz Werfel's "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh," and the Andonian telegrams 9) Pronouncements from the 1919 Ottoman kangaroo courts

Hearsay, canards, and court findings under enemy occupation must be treated most gingerly, if our purpose is to examine unbiased truth. Much of the above is akin to presenting an accurate portrayal of blacks, using documentation from the Ku Klux Klan.

Since the juggernaut of the Armenian Genocide industry (or "genocide.com," as Prof. Mahmut Ozan coined it) vastly holds the upper hand in this discussion, I usually find myself patiently explaining the countless charges of the pro-Armenians. That is because you cannot win your argument without obliterating every point from the other side. Such follows the usual pattern: the Armenians act, and the Turks react. (Ironically, the very reason that led to the tragic events the Armenians love to call "genocide"; despite what your hero, Vahakn Dadrian, preaches.)

(If I may take a moment, regarding this hero of yours, did you know what snapped his mind and convinced him... like a calling from beyond, similar to the voices Soghoman Tehlirian heard in his head... to embark on a lifetime crusade of selecting only what appears to be facts to demonize the Turkish people? Dadrian was apparently an Armenian-Turk, living in Turkey, and as a young man he read "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh," according to an Armenian site. Thatís right [assuming one can believe what one reads in an Armenian site], it was a work of fiction that got Prosecutor Dadrian going, working for the Zoryan Institute, and digging up all the anti-Turkish mud he could find. "Musa Dagh" was a work the author of which became ashamed of having written, once Franz Werfel discovered he had been duped by the Armenians... as Werfelís friend, Rabbi Albert Amateau, testified. This is the man you chose to cozy up with, according to the recent New York Times article? The man who is so ethically challenged, he actually produced a work attempting to validate Aram Andonianís forgeries?)

However, since you are technically not an Armenian, Iíd prefer not to give you this luxury. If you donít mind, instead of your going up to the podium and saying, What about this? And what about this? I would like you to be on the receiving end of questions that you need to come up with explanations for. After all, you are the one making the allegations... therefore, the burden of proof rests upon you.

I have many questions for you, actually. Just for starters:

Do you accept Aram Andonianís words that were put in Talat Pashaís mouth? How do you account for authenticated telegrams written by Talat Pasha that demonstrated sensitivity toward the Armenians? (That is, the ones translated accurately ó and not by "Turkish scholars" who pretend to be experts on Ottoman Turkish, where one little alphabetical sign can change the entire nuance of what is being said.) Would you conclude a conflicting set of orders were deliberately sent during the chaos of war, for the sole purpose of fooling future historians?

Why would the Ottomans have convicted Turks of crimes committed during the war, at times to the point of execution? (Yes, "during the war"; Iím not referring to the 1919 post war kangaroo Ottoman courts, where many were convicted.) Hitler did not punish any SS man for harming a Jew.

Why would the Armenians of the cities in the west and Ottoman Europe have been generally exempt from the relocation policy? Did Hitler exempt the Jews of Berlin? (Furthermore, there were other exemptions granted, such as for Catholics and Protestants, certain workers, soldiers, the ill and blind. Regarding the latter group, Hitler embarked on a program of involuntary euthanasia to rid Germany of her handicapped, to further the aim of racial purity; one would think the Ottomans would have had a double reason to target the Armenian disabled, instead of deciding to protect them. )

Why would the bankrupt Sick Man of Europe have spent the equivalent of today's millions of dollars to relocate the Armenians, when they could have simply slaughtered them?

Why were there some 600,000 Armenian survivors from the relocation policy? Since they were under the Turks' control, who would believe these people could not have been murdered, if murder was the Turks' true intention?

If there were one million to 1.5 million "exterminated" Armenians, where are their skeletons? If they were all dumped in the desert to die, as the Armenophile Christopher Walker and so many others love to tell us, it seems like multi-millionaire Armenians could afford to subsidize the Armeniansí raison díetre, by excavating this critical evidence in places like Zor.

Why wasnít a single Ottoman found guilty by those who wished to wipe the Turkish nation off the face of the earth, via the Sevres Treaty? Deceptive Armenian reasons such as war-weariness and P.O.W. exchanges donít count, if one studies the sequence of British archival evidence. The Malta Tribunal lasted from 1919-1921, donít forget, and the British could have decided to be over and done with this matter in 1919[-20], just like the false 1919[-20] Ottoman courts.

The truth-seeker must determine from these and other questions whether there really was a systematic policy directed against the Armenians... or whether the tragedies that occurred took place from ineptitude and severe shortages of resources/manpower. No Ottoman-Armenian would have been harmed (at least not by Turks) had Armenian revolutionary leaders not incited their people to rebel in their nation's darkest hour... just like no Ottoman-Jew was harmed (at least not by Turks).

Then the really difficult question for the pro-Armenian with integrity to consider is: did the Armenians engage in a systematic extermination policy of their own, directly killing over one half million Turks and Muslims? The Jewish Times opined in 1990 that the Armeniansí actions were the real ones analogous to the Holocaust... in terms of a "genocide" taking place. In this other and woefully-neglected side of the coin, there is definite evidence of the all important "intention" you wrote of.

Mr. AkÁam, as I mentioned, this is your golden opportunity. This is your chance to redeem yourself in the eyes of those who donít hold you in the highest esteem, or who donít regard you as a particularly moral man. I canít speak for everyone else, but I for one have nothing to do with the "evil" Turkish government.... and I have no reason to believe anyone else here does, either. We are mainly truth-respecting individuals attempting to independently find out what really happened in the Anatolia of "1915." Please provide us with the answers to the questions above, backed up with evidence we can all respect. Itís possible you might make believers of us all.

By the same token, if you cannot appropriately put up, then it should be time for you to shut up. Assuming, of course, that you consider yourself a man of honor.



P.S.: I believe this communication is of enough importance to share with a wider audience, and thus Iím also submitting it to the Turkish Forum. That doesnít mean they will publish it; if they do, the address of the group that wishes to get to the bottom of this hot-button issue is: ...


Current Comments:

I learned subsequently that Taner Akcam, to his credit, does not support the authenticity of the Talat Pasha telegram forgeries by Aram Andonian, unlike Akcam's mentor, Vahakn Dadrian.

Not to Taner Akcam's credit, he has been hard at work attempting to discredit the exemptions granted the Armenians as "tall tales," as examined on another Taner Akcam page of this series.

  Open Letter Number Two to Taner Akcam

Subject: Follow-up Open Letter to TANER AKCAM from HOLDWATER, Fri, 16 Apr 2004

Dear Mr. AkÁam:

Regarding the open letter commending you for having joined the Truth-Anatolia1915 group, presenting yourself with the golden opportunity to prove to objective truth-seekers that there was an Armenian Genocide, I notice there has been no response.

Perhaps you havenít yet had a chance to reply (the Turkish Forum did put this open letter up in their March 29th edition, for your information; I would presume there would now be a slightly larger crowd interested in hearing your explanations), but Iím aware you have subsequently withdrawn from the group. Therefore, I am going to take your non-response as a response.

Frankly, thatís exactly what I was expecting. The generally deceitful Armenian professors whom you have befriended, excelling in typically closed-door pseudo conferences where a sham is made of genuine academic debate, shy away from true dialogue as well... having had the luxury of presenting usually unopposed monologues for so many years.

I see this as a pattern. Armenians and "genocide scholars" whose flimsy arguments are obliterated put their tails between their legs and go away. (Many, I suspect, continue with their agendas, regardless.) Those who are too hysterically and emotionally attached to bear the thought of their beloved genocide not actually being based on real evidence, resort to the equivalent of a childís sticking out his tongue and stomping his feet. Such reactions actually come from those who call themselves "professors."

I presented you with a beginning list of questions, asking you to provide explanations and the solid evidence to back them up. (Since you have joined the crowd of those making the allegations, itís only fair that you prove what you are alleging; itís simply not enough to say the Turks had "intentions," as you stated in your one message at the group.)

It appears that you have failed the test of demonstrating the courage of your convictions. (Assuming that you are privately convinced of what you preach.)

How is that going to make you look in the eyes of those who are from the land of your birth? Donít you care about that?

Is it only enough for you to be regarded as a hero by the Armenians and those many people they have succeeded in bamboozling? You realize these people donít have real devotion for you. Those who are in the know (as opposed to the rank and file of hysterically emotional Armeni-Lemmings) only regard you as the Russians and the British regarded the Armenians during WWI. I surmise the difference is that you are no mere pawn ó you are using them back.

You and I know you are sitting very prettily; youíve got the juggernaut forces of "genocide.com" behind you, and most of the world dumbly accepts what you and they have to say. The Turks are generally sleeping and complacent, as usual.

Coincidentally, I ventured into the web site of the Institute of Turkish Studies. Of course, Iím well familiar with this wonderful institute. It came into being as a small propeller airplane sent into the perpetual hurricane of pro-Armenian propaganda. We can all be grateful for their gallant efforts to open Turkish studies departments in universities across America... they have succeeded to the tune of less than one university per year of their operation. Hardly much to counter the manifold Armenian-financed operations, but itís certainly better than the "zero" number of Turkish studies not all that long ago.

Iím also familiar with Prof. Heath Lowryís invaluable research during the heated years of this debate, in the 1980s, while working for the institute. He didnít take that job because he couldnít find any other... as a Peace Corps volunteer (as I understand Prof. Justin McCarthy might also have been... thanks, President Kennedy!), he got to know the Turks firsthand and learned they werenít the monsters he may have been led to believe while growing up. He took that job because of his principles, not in spite of them. When Peter Balakian despicably co-led a smear campaign against Dr. Lowry in the 1990s ("The Professor Feels the Heat" period, as a Princeton student newspaper titled an article), I donít believe too many Turks rose up to defend the good professor.

The victimization of Heath Lowry ó which continues to this day, as an Internet search for his name reveals; over one-half are character-defaming pro-Armenian links ó very probably served as a good lesson to the new crop of American academicians hesitant to step into this minefield, attesting to the success of the latest Armenian terror campaign.

And what of the Institute of Turkish Studies, probably the sole gun against the scores of Zoryan/Gomidas Institutes that are working night and day to blacken the image of the Turks? While I suspect their position hasnít changed regarding the "genocide" (I wrote them and havenít heard back), I couldnít find a single reference to this issue on their site. (Not to say one may not exist; I didnít examine every nook and cranny.)

I think what probably has happened is that the "genocide" has become so hot to handle, even the Institute of Turkish Studies has decided to stay clear, worried that "denying" the genocide might affect their credibility. Furthermore, they even listed a work of Fatma MŁge GŲÁek, legitimizing your fellow Turkish Turncoat who reportedly hosted your first American employment opportunity in Dennis Papazian's university. (I am not saying Ms. GŲÁek might not be an otherwise competent academician ó I donít know much about her, except for some works where she appears to be 100% in line with Armenian-speak ó however, if she is claiming there was a genocide without offering definite proof, then such compromising of her integrity would put into question her entire body of work. After all, she is not frivolously accusing her fellow Turks of stealing office supplies from the storeroom, but of the worst crime against humanity.)

For the moment, you havenít much to worry about; the forces you have aligned yourself with are just too powerful, and the opposition is mainly in hibernation... aside from the Turkish government stepping up to the financial plate from time to time, by default (since nobody else has the big money to spend), trying to defend the truth against relentless genocide resolutions ó along with the handful of brave, past generation American academicians (perhaps that last word should be singular, these days) ó the only ones who are squawking in the USA are a few Turkish-Americans here and there. Not many are consistently at the game, many get quickly burnt out, and their letters usually wind up in the trash bins of The New York Times and The Boston Globe. (However, I know from my experience that even one letter can make a huge difference; so they are not a force to be belittled, as comparatively puny as they may be.)

Regardless of whether you are sitting prettily, why did you (so far) refuse to utilize your golden opportunity? Donít you have a professional sense of obligation? Here is your chance to convince the "deniers" of how much in the dark they are.

What are you afraid of? Hopefully you are aware people in this opposing camp are basically civilized, and wonít resort to below-the-belt tactics the Armenians too often resort to. All we are into is the truth.

If you think this communication is coming from a deranged neo-Nazi denier, or a paid propagandist of the sinister Turkish government, put your "cojones" on the table and defend your position. If I am any of those things, then you would have the truth on your side... and you should have nothing to worry about. Moreover, here is your chance to clear yourself with those from your part of the world who think you have sold out. People here unquestionably will listen to you with an open mind... as long as you can present the verifiable facts.

If my assignment for you was too tough, and you are having trouble answering the questions I presented for you, then letís make it easy. Provide the respectable evidence for why there was an Ottoman government sponsored plan to exterminate the Armenians. Keep in mind the interest-conflicted Morgenthau-Bryce-missionaries-Lepsius-1919 courts-New York Times-nowhere near the scene religious/bigoted German sources wonít go too far around here. The preferably first-hand evidence must come from sources that had no reason to lie, or to be duped.

Send your best believable evidence to the Turkish Forum and weave your professorial magic. (I have nothing to do with the Turkish Forum, but there is an excellent chance they would publish the best of what youíve got, for the scrutiny of the truth-seekers in their membership.) If you love the land of your origin and wish to help make that backward, oppressive nation into a democracy ó as youíve indicated ó itís time for you to convince a tougher audience than the ones you are accustomed to, that there really was an Armenian Genocide. You can be like Paul, spreading the word of Jesus... venturing to a nation of unbelievers... and emerge as a hero, among your own people.

While only the facts matter, I canít help wondering why you have embarked on the course that you have. Certainly you have found a comfortable means to provide for yourself and for your family; if you have done so on a foundation of prevarications, then your gains would amount to blood money. You would then be committing "Rufmord," as Prof. Erich Feigl put it, helping to kill the reputation of your people... accusing them of the worst crime against humanity.

I canít believe your incentive can purely be financial, however. Something must have driven you.

An article referred to your having grown up in Kars, a province with many Armenian-Turks. Just as your hero Dadrianís mind snapped when he read the fiction of ďThe Forty Days of Musa Dagh,Ē maybe you heard stories, and you were hooked. Itís been pointed out the photograph of your youthful face featured in www.PKK.org features undeniable Kurdish characteristics. (I wouldnít know.) Perhaps your ultra-leftist past resulted in genuine hatred toward Turkey, and your current course is your way of having revenge.

Halil Berktay

Halil Berktay

Your similarly "lefty" pal, Halil Berktay, was actually quoted as having referred to eastern Turkey as ďWestern Armenia,Ē during an Armenian genocide conference you were reportedly also a part of, according to an Armenian article. Do you think Halil Berktay hates the fact that there was an Ataturk? Maybe Mr. Berktay would have been happier if the Armenians were now in charge of eastern Turkey, the Greeks in charge of western Turkey, and the British and French controlled southern-to-central Turkey... leaving the Turks in a little patch of northern Turkey, depressed and drinking alcohol, in the Indian reservation that the SŤvres Treaty allowed for. Maybe you would be happier, too.

A devoted Turkish-American recently wondered how you could have entered this country, what with your indulgences in Marxist ideology, your prison conviction and working against American interests in the past. Did you enter with Armenian help? The Armenians have a knack for getting people with spotty records past American immigration officials. Iím amazed at how the mass murdering Armenian hero Drastamat ďDroĒ Kanayan was somehow snuck in, American regulations against former Nazis notwithstanding. Dro comfortably lived out the rest of his years in the USA, despite what he did to innocent Turkish women and children circa WWI, and the Jews in World Wars I and II.

If you are genuinely convinced that the Ottoman Turks behaved like the Nazis, you not only have to present the evidence, you also have to satisfactorily explain all the nagging holes in your theories, as provided by the beginning list of questions that were put before you. If you fail to do so, then you have no business continuing with your present one-note "Armenian genocide" profession. If you continue, people who know better will be justified in looking upon you as a traitorous opportunist.

You can get away with continuing on your defamatory track, with forces of this equation currently stacked in your favor. That would be at the cost of your code of ethics, however. Even if we donít always do the right thing as human beings, we know whatís right from wrong.

Personally, I would not be able to live my life in a lie... particularly when the lie slanders an already maligned people, relentlessly victimized by Western prejudice. If my views should change, or if I were being unethical and should be reminded of my conscience, I would do a turnaround. Thatís what Arnold Toynbee did, after WWI... mostly salvaging his reputation as a respectable historian, making up for his lies during his tenure at Wellington House. (Although it was too much for the ďdenialistĒ in him to completely come clean.)

One day, the real truth of this matter will emerge. What will your daughter think of you then, if she comes to believe her daddy deliberately shunned the truth? (Hopefully her head is not being filled with hateful poems, Armenian-style, and she will be objective enough to make such a determination.)

This is a matter of honor. Letís put our ethnicities aside; at the end of our lives, if we as men and women are not deemed to have lived our days honorably and truthfully, then we have nothing. If you canít come up with the proof, I hope you will have the strength to look into your heart, and do some heavy soul-searching.



Current Comments:

Fatma MŁge GŲÁek appears to have been a driving force behind the 2005 genocide conference originally planned to be held in Turkey's Bogazici University that caused a lot of commotion. This conference was later held at Bilgi University, and in typical genocide club fashion, nobody from the opposing viewpoint was invited. Both Akcam and Berktay took part in this conference. Now that there are more Turks getting suckered in to the omnipresent and near-exclusive Armenian propaganda, some from good but ignorant intentions and others hoping to get a free ride from the profitable genocide industry, I wonder if "blank slate" Turks remain as tough a crowd as I originally suspected. (More on Gocek.)

Akcam Responds


I can't present Akcam's response, and you'll have to get an idea about what he wrote from my last open letter, reproduced below. I will, however, provide in Turkish ó the language Akcam prefers to privately communicate in (despite the mysteriously impeccable English of his essays) ó one line he wrote to the group's moderator, when the moderator had forwarded Open Letter Number Two to him, not knowing that Akcam would be getting the letter directly from me:

...[B]u itin kopegin yazilarini yolla[ma].

That translates to "Don't send the writings of this blankety-blank to me." The blankety-blank is somewhat charming if literally translated into English (it's a canine reference), but pretty venomous in Turkish.

I will present a letter written by another group member:


 Greetings to Everyone.
First of all I find it interesting that an Academic like Mr. Akcam
would insult and attack Mr. Holdwater to the point of telling him not
to pursue any understanding of history. Why? No one is asking him to drop his interpretation of history. Why so defensive? Also the Turkish language and tone of the response to the letter was
condensenting and full of contempt. Even if Mr. Akcam took Holdwater accusations personally (Especially the part about a photo on the Internet) Which in reality of the topics discussed is truly trivial, a more civil & dignified response would have helped his reputation as an academic versus the email response dog analogies that was sent.

Personally though I take the most offense in attacking ... the moderator of this board. If certain emails were made public, that is the responsibility of the sender. This reminds of the analogy of killing the messenger for the words of the ruler. If Mr Akcam feels that he has something embarrassing and/or confedential to write about then don't blame the moderator, blame yourself for not having the common sense to think through topics that can't be discussed or aired. A contraversial subject with people who have strong opinions on the matter, expect your emails and words to get around, especially by someone of noteriety on the subject matter as Mr. Akcam. Remember: Dismissing people and/or arguments and moderators does not make them or the ideas go away.

This man is NOT Taner Akcam

This man is NOT Taner Akcam

The photo regarded a youthful Taner Akcam that was identified as Taner Akcam from PKK's site (as far as I could determine; the site was in Kurdish, but Akcam's name was next to the photo), and Akcam complained that the photo was not him. The photo was promptly removed. The false photo is shown at right, just to make sure people have this straight.

I have learned more about Taner Akcam's fascinating past since the composition of these open letters, particularly how he had cozied up with the PKK's terrorist leader, Abdullah Ocalan, at one point... in interviews where both men had few kind words to say to each other. Akcam also claimed, in another interview, the only reason why he was sent to prison was because he had mentioned "Kurds" in a 1976 article, and implied that because Turkey is such an authoritarian country, he received a stiff jail sentence, for the forbidden reference. In a Turkish interview, Akcam was asked if he were Turkish, and Akcam's reply was that he was "Turkoglu Turk," meaning he is 100% Turkish. Since we can only dwell on the facts and not give credence to speculation, unlike the way Akcam and his bedfellows treat this alleged genocide, we have no choice but to agree. However, as the TAT webmaster, I hear things. And the last report on Akcam is that his father was 100% Kurdish. I asked, how can this be verified, and the answer was that the information came from someone from the military who was in a position to check the records. Does this mean it is true? Not necessarily. And Taner Akcam's ethnicity ideally should not make one bit of difference. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people with Turkish sounding names who are  extremists of ethnic groups wanting nothing better than to represent Turkey as the worst nation on earth; it would be helpful to understand why Taner Akcam has taken the course he has chosen.


Open Letter Number Three to Taner Akcam

Subject: Open letter to TANER AKCAM from HOLDWATER No. 3, 11 May 2004

Dear Mr. Akcam:

It was decent of you to address me as your brother, when you finally chose to respond. However, I was saddened to discover that you then turned around and called me disparaging names, behind my back.... as if you were a two- faced person, or something. It made me feel that if we were real brothers, you would be the Cain to my Abel.

Since you basically thought of me as a dog, we should keep in mind that at least dogs are loyal... and they do not betray those who raise them, school them and basically take care of them. That is a civilized quality of Manís Best Friend. Those who behave otherwise might be regarded as the opposite, as barbarians.

The ones you have cast your lot with often subject brutality upon their innocent children, such as in the case of six-year- old Edna Petrosyan, being encouraged to recite hateful poems with lines the likes of "... It's better that I be a dog or a cat, than a Turkish barbarian..." (The Los Angeles Times, February 1, 1990.) In our case, just like the now twenty-year- old poor Edna, I will consider possibly echoing those words.

It appears you have conveniently cast me (and, in effect, those who disagree with you... since your challenge was to provide genocidal proof for your ethnic tribe) in the lot of the ignorant, and not worth the time to attempt to educate. And here I thought it was the duty of the educator to illuminate those not as wise and as well informed. Would Lulu have ever sung "To Sir, With Love" to Sidney Poitier, if he contemptuously looked down his nose at his dumb students? I think not.

As the prime example of my ignorance, you pointed to a photograph that appeared to be of your youthful self, put up at the "Tall Armenian Tale" (TAT) site. An image search with your name came up with that photograph, and the site where it appeared... www.PKK.org.... had only your name in connection. I had no idea what you looked like, and that kind of ignorance is far from shameful. You wrote something to the effect that your picture appears every so often in the Turkish press, as if it should have been my responsibility to consult such sources... but I was born and bred in the United States, and were you suggesting I travel to Turkey, to get your pictures?

Nevertheless, I did away with that photograph the day I read your letter. My intention is never to falsely represent you, as that is what separates those such as myself from those you have become so warmly chummy with.

However, you couldnít resist making one reference to actual history, despite your inclination not to get down and dirty with the facts. This is when you rebutted my Malta argument by giving a quote from a British official as having said something to the effect of no Turkís being worth the life of an Englishman. In other words, you have utilized the Armeniansí reason for attempting to discredit the Malta Tribunal... Ataturk had captured some British soldiers in retaliation, and the Brits wished to bloody well end the affair, to get their lads back safe and sound. (The Armenians also like to say Malta had to be wrapped up because the British were war-weary; yes, the Armenians are experts in coming up with smokescreen explanations to fudge the facts.)

How ironic your attempt to demonstrate my ignorance only embarrassingly serves to showcase your own.

By the way, I have read your amazing "The Genocide of the Armenians and the Silence of the Turks." (You know, the one where you wrote, "the Turks... have made [the Armenian Genocide] a taboo topic"? So taboo, there are books everywhere regarding the matter, including one written by you, in a nation where youíre able to go on Turkish television attempting to malign ignorant minds, and where youíre allowed a column in an Armenian-Turkish newspaper?) In this essay of yours, it would appear you have conducted research on the Malta Tribunal, displaying a familiarity with a number of the accused. So I canít be sure what youíve written me is a matter of ignorance, or a deliberate concealing of the facts, in true Vahakn Dadrian mode.

Allow me to demonstrate your interesting methodology to come up with "proof": the presentation of a quotation unsupportive of the British archival evidence. It brings to mind the tactics of your friend, Dr. Stephen Feinstein, who is in charge of the appalling web site run by your University of Minnesotaís Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. In order to present how genocide- minded the Turks are, in the "Shadows of a Forgotten Genocide" section (http:// www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/ The_Armenians/Ciller_Denies_Armenian_Genocid/ ciller_denies_armenian_genocid.html), we are presented with a 1967 quote from the Turkish newspaper, "Yeni Istiklal Haftakik (sic) Siyasi Gasete (sic)":

Let Armenians keep in mind that the Armenians of Istanbul are hostages in the hands of Turks. Let them forget the past, if not, not a single Armenian will live in Istanbul. It is true now it is not easy to commit genocide again, but we can make the atmosphere unbreathable for the Armenians.

We have no idea who said this, what context it was said in, and who translated the words. The unwary reader can easily conclude all Turks think in this manner, and are currently a short step away from committing mass murder. Meanwhile, weíre well aware there has been no mass exodus of Armenian-Turks since 1967, running in fear of their lives, as a result of this ugly quoteís frightening implications.

I guess you must approve of this sort of unconscionable scholarly strategy, since it is exactly the sort of methodology your hero Prosecutor Vahakn Dadrian uses. Find a damning statement, close your eyes to all other facts, and point to the statement as "proof."

Mr. Akcam, this is your lucky day. Iím not going to contemptuously throw my nose in the air and sniff that you are not worth my trouble to show where you have gone wrong. Naturally, as the honorable educator that you are, no doubt you are only interested in the neutral and objective facts... therefore, Iím certain youíd be highly interested in the true picture of Malta, so that you may correct yourself in the future.

Fact: the puppet Ottoman government's kangaroo courts were conducted in 1919-20, without due process, the main purpose of which was retribution. This is the reason why the findings of these courts are not deemed valid by anyone but the Vahakn Dadrians of the world.

There was absolutely no reason why the British could not have conducted the Malta Trials (which began in 1919) in the same manner. The whole business could have been gotten over with, in 1919. After all, all the evidence was at hand; Lord Bryce, Morgenthau, the missionaries' reports, the consuls... practically everything except the Hitler Quote that the Armenians are pushing today as evidence were available to convict the Turks. Moreover, every single Ottoman document was at hand, as the Allies had occupied Istanbul in 1918.

In fact, this is what Lloyd George initially intended to do. The British could have easily convicted what grew to be the nearly 150 prisoners in 1919, just like the Ottoman kangaroo courts came up with their mainly pre-determined convictions. Consider: the following year the Andonian telegrams appeared, clearly with the created words implicating the Ottoman government; why would the trial process have continued for another year? There must have been some reason why the prosecutor did not say, Look! Talat Pasha wrote that every Armenian man, woman and child must be exterminated..! By Jove, that is all the proof we need, and now we can get the bloody business over with!

Stephen Feinstein

Stephen Feinstein

Your friend Stephen Feinstein obviously finds these Andonian telegrams legitimate, as in his CHGS site he has put one up as "evidence." However, to the credit of the British (thanks to international pressure), they decided to go with real evidence... unlike Stephen Feinstein.

On March 16, 1921, an agreement was signed in London between Bekir Sami Bey, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Robert Vansittart, a member of the British Foreign Office, which stipulated the release of all 22 British prisoners of war in Turkey, and the repatriation of 64 Turkish detainees in Malta. Certainly the British valued the lives of their soldiers, and such concern no doubt played a part in the decision of the British. However, as Dr. Justin McCarthy states, "The main falsification of history by the Armenian apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say." The reason why the British acted was because the Turkish detainees in Malta formally requested from the Governor and the Commander-in-Chief of Malta Field Marshal Lord Plumer, that they be furnished with the "summary of evidence" or with the actual charges, so that they would know what offenses they were accused of and be prepared to answer the charges. Why? They had already been excessively detained for twenty entire months!

Who out there believes, after the hysterical fever pitch the British public was exposed to regarding the slaughter of the innocent Christians at the hands of the brutal Turks... day in and day out, through the war years... that anyone would have stood for the release of these Ottoman Heinrich Himmlers, simply for the purpose of getting a few of their lads back home? Had a renegade German army group captured Americans at the end of WWII, would the no less war-weary Allies have released their Nazi prisoners at Nuremberg to get the boys back? Would the public at home have stood for such an injustice?

However, here is the key regarding the POW excuse the Armenians have cooked up, and that you are loyally following to the letter: According to a May 20 memo from the British Archives (PROóF.O. 371/ 6502/ E. 5845)ó 45 Turkish prisoners were still left in Malta.

Two months after the British P.O.W. issue had been resolved.

The memo partly stated:

"Our difficulty is that we have practically no legal evidence and that we do not want to prepare for proceedings which will be abortive. We asked Washington if the Americans could produce any evidence of massacres against the internees."

Almost two months later, on July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington came up with the reply that is now famous in "Armenian Genocide" quarters: "I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta."

Indeed: the desperately-seeking-to-convict British looked at all that documentation from the likes of Leslie Davis, Jesse Jackson and the other biased U.S. consuls who only listened to the tall tales of the Armenians and the missionaries, and judged their silly reports to be null and void. How about that?

Itís difficult to understand how you could have missed all of this, since it appears you have looked extensively into the episode of Malta. In your "The Genocide of the Armenians and the Silence of the Turks" (GAST) paper, you wrote (in your efforts to implicate Ataturk in the "genocide"): "When Kemal began to organize the resistance in Anatolia, he received the strongest support from the Ittihadists for whom there were arrest warrants on account of their role in the genocide. Many who were sought or were actually arrested and deported to Malta for their role in the genocide, but fled or escaped later.Ē Since you have written the prisoners were deported to Malta, how could they have "fled or escaped"? Malta is an island, isnít it? It would probably have been as difficult to escape Malta as it would be for Americaís Taliban prisoners to escape the island of Cuba.

Why donít you write the truth, that the Turks were released by the British, for lack of evidence?

(And not all the Ittihadists were sought by the vindictive Ottoman puppet government "on account of their role in the genocide." The 1919 kangaroo courts covered a lot of territory that had nothing to do with Armenians.)

What shall we conclude? Iíd say your research was shoddy and incomplete. The only other explanation is that you learned about the truth and deliberately wished to cover it up... but as the honorable man we know you to be, that would simply defy the realm of possibility.

Since your scholarship capabilities leave a bit to be desired, what could possibly have possessed you to write "I, a Turkish historian" in your GAST paper? You are not a historian... that is obvious. A true historian looks at all sides of an issue. You are also not a historian because your degree was in Sociology. Why do you misrepresent yourself?

Incidentally, I donít know why you chose to write your response to me in Turkish, since your English in GAST is impeccable. Itís remarkable that after having learned German you could have mastered English in such a short period of time. Iíd hate to think somebody else wrote this paper... it sounds exactly like what your hero, Vahakn Dadrian, would have written.

I give you the "Arnold Toynbee 'Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empireí Award" for writing such a wonderful paper, interweaving irrefutable facts with concoctions and theories. Whatís missing? The facts.

What was the Turksí motive for genocide? Pan-Turanism, or Pan-lslamicism? Those are two very different ideas, not necessarily consistent with one another... you canít have your cake, and eat it too. An argument could be made for racial Turkification, since the Turksí nationalism was aroused after the empire began crumbling from the nationalism in occupied territories. (In my opinion, Turkish nationalism only became truly aroused among the common people by the close of the war, when all seemed lost... thanks to Ataturk.) Since the Ottomans were already the keeper of the Islamic flame (the Caliphate), the religious fervor was already in place for centuries; there was no reason for a sudden call for "Pan- lslamicism." (When the Germans got the Turks to call for a Holy War, phonily excepting the Christian Germans, Ottoman Moslems were hardly moved.) Besides, not all Moslems are alike; there have been chapters in Turkish history where Moslems with different beliefs have been persecuted by the majority, just like Christians with different beliefs were deemed as heretical by the Christian majorities in Western countries. (One such episode resulted in what appears to be a true genocide, the Cathars under the French. I wonder when the French Parliament will come up with a "genocide resolution" for this particular historic example of "Man's Inhumanity to Man.")

To elaborate further, one reason that spurred Christian Scholar Samuel Weems to write his "Armenia" book was his outrage of that country's persecution of non-Orthodox Christians, like Weemsí fellow Baptists, along with Moslems and Jews. So would we call Armeniaís policy a Christianization? No, it would be more like an ďOrthodoxification.Ē Similarly, ďPan-lslamicismĒ makes no sense, unless youíre referring to a ďSunnificationĒ... and we know the Ottoman leaders had other concerns than forcing everyone to become Sunnis. Some Moslems, like the Alawites and Alevis, largely donít believe the Sunnis are real Moslems, and certainly the more fundamental Sunnis think the same of these and other sects... not unlike the disrespect Catholics and Protestants sometimes have for one another. Youíre only throwing in "Pan-lslamicism" to further cloud the mind of your unwary reader... "Pan-lslamicism" is just another concocted theory, unsupported by any facts.

So let us concentrate on the other theory that carries a bit more weight. Hereís where the silly Armenian made-up reason for Pan-Turanism goes wrong: you canít take a quote by an Ottoman with mad dreams and conclude such was actual Ottoman policy any more than you can take the opinion of a Briton and conclude the illegitimacy of Malta... especially in the absence of any official documents declaring the empire must be cleansed of non-Turkish elements. If there was an actual policy to wipe out non-Turkish elements of the empire, why would it have been only the Armenians who were targeted? The best example is to study the situation of the Ottoman Jews, but I find an even more interesting example to be of the Ottoman Arabs. The idea of Pan-Turanism was to racially purify the nation; the Arabs were of a different race. Furthermore, the Arabs were just as guilty as the Armenians for revolting in the empireís darkest hour. (Since your historian chops are lacking, you can rent "Lawrence of Arabia" at your local Blockbuster to see what Iím talking about.) Why was there no genocide of the Arabs?

By the way, there is one thing I must commend you for in your relatively brief GAST paper; you managed to use the word "genocide" a whopping sixty-four times. That takes talent. Since you have no proof of genocide, I guess your strategy is to repeat this word during every other sentence in order to make it seem true.

I understand you are seeking an apology for being looked upon as having sold out to the Armenians.

This is noteworthy; you have put yourself on record implying that the chapter of your academic success in the United States was achieved entirely by your courageous lonesome.

Here is how it works: no court accuses a person and asks for the person to prove his or her innocence. No, what happens is that it is up to the court to prove the personís guilt. Therefore, nobody has the right to ask you for proof of your innocence. If anyone wishes to conclude you are supported by the Armenians, justly it should be up to them to prove it.

And I believe you have asked for such proof from your detractors, which is your right. On the other hand, it's unfair that you donít follow the same rule... since you cannot come up with proof of the Armenian "Genocide," what you are doing, in effect, is to ask the Turks to prove their innocence.

You are well aware, as opposed to your multi-million dollar Armenian genocide juggernaut, the only ones who speak out against the so-called genocide are a handful of individuals here and there, along with a brave scholar or two. Nobody has the resources or the desire to hire private investigators to sort through Dennis Papazianís trash for proof of potential clandestine operations years ago.

This is why you can comfortably state that those who believe you are a traitor should come up with proof... since you well know such proof would be nearly impossible to come by.

But here is the difference: Armenians who similarly declare that American scholars who have spoken against the "genocide" are paid tools of the Turks have no proof either. Yet many Armenians openly state these scholars have sold their souls to the Turkish devil, the truth be damned. In contrast, I have rarely encountered similar open declarations regarding your case. I canít speak for what everyone has written about you, but youíll notice that I have never written about you so conclusively... at least Iíve tried not to. If there is no definite proof, but strong evidence to the contrary, the proper way to word such conclusions is with softeners such as "apparently" or "alleged."

Is it fair to even presume that you have been supported by the Armenians?

Allow me to first compare you with a similarly accused "counterpart," the brave Edward Tashji... the only Armenian I know who has publicly renounced the Armeniansí precious genocide. Recently, I read an Armenian openly stating that Mr. Tashji has been "paid/recruited" by the Turks.

Edward Tashji grew up in the United States, during a period where there were no Turks or Turkish organizations to speak of. He grew up in Armenian neighborhoods, exposed to the typical Armenian anti-Turkish prejudice. Only his parents steered him in the correct, non-hateful direction... parents who went through the same hell in the Ottoman Empire as their co-religionists, but who were people of integrity, unwilling to be a part of false conclusions such as "Pan-Turanism." The parents never advertised their beliefs to the outside world, keeping these discussions solely under their own roof, and therefore could not have been propagandists. The "sinister" Turkish government had no idea of the Tashjis during Edward Tashjiís formative years. Edward Tashji began to act upon his conclusions during the 1960s, a time when Turks were practically invisible in the United States.

Conclusion: no Turk could have influenced Edward Tashji. Anyone who says Mr. Tashji has been paid or recruited by the Turks would have nothing to base their claim upon. People who make declarations as fact based on nothing are not honest people.

Letís take a look at your situation.

You grew up in an ultra-political household that likely had an axe to grind with the unfair Turkish government, in a part of the nation where there probably were "Armenian neighborhoods" to influence your young mind. After escaping from a Turkish prison, where you were sent for unlawful acts against the state, you were welcomed in the liberal wing of Europe, always anxious to brand Turkey as an oppressive heavy. After earning your doctorate in Sociology, it seems your only academic experience was spent in a Hamburg institute conducting research; it doesnít look like you finished your second dissertation or were hired by a German university to serve in their faculty, so at least by German standards you may not even be a real professor.

It would be possible for you to have immersed yourself in this one-note "Armenian Genocide" specialty, researched the handful of American universities that are gung-ho in this area, and gotten the job entirely on your own. (The official story is your fellow turncoat, Fatma MŁge GŲÁek, "hosted" you to come to America all by herself.) However, there is the nagging fact of your friendship with Vahakn Dadrian, a man who surely holds tremendous influence in the world of "genocide.com," along with the immeasurable propaganda value of your becoming the first Turkish scholar who admits to the "genocide." You surely opened up the floodgates of other opportunistic Turkish academicians who recognized there is financial and fame-inducing gold in advocating the Armenian "genocide" ... none of whom, not incidentally, have ever been charged with having received direct benefits from the Armenian genocide industry, to my knowledge; that dubious honor only belongs to you.

However, you must admit; your own personal situation looks highly suspicious. it would be one thing if you were a Turkish scholar who happens to believe the Ottoman Turks conducted an extermination policy against the Armenians, but it is troubling that your beliefs are so seemingly 100% in line with the official Armenian line, also following their penchant for disregarding the facts. The occurrence of your apparently having got kicked out of the University of Michigan, the institution that houses Dr. Papazianís Armenian Research Center, for your lack of scholarly credentials also does not help your case. Moreover, how you got past tough American immigration officials with your criminal background, without outside help, also raises an eyebrow or two.

If you have truly achieved your American academic success on your own, gaining employment from the Universities of Michigan-Dearborn and Minnesota strictly on your own merits, then you have become a victim of your own circumstance... since there are strong factors that indicate you have been sponsored by the Armenians. Advice: The Armenian Assembly of America falsely accused Samuel Weems of being a "convicted felon," a charge Armenians are still gleefully and unfairly spreading far and wide. Weems wasted no time in attempting to clear his good name. You should be similarly concerned with your own honor... perhaps you should consider providing the evidence to prove your innocence. Yes, in a fair world, the burden of proof should lie with those who think there is something very fishy about you... but as those who are convinced there was no Armenian "Genocide" and are in the uncomfortable position of constantly responding to the mindless voices of hysteria fully know, the world can be anything but fair.




Current Comments:

I was wrong about no prisoners having escaped from Malta; a British source I came across claimed two of the detainees somehow broke out of the joint. (The date was after April 1, 1921; FO 371/6502/E. 5845.) This is a far cry from the "many" Akcam referred to (although there is another British source, M.C. Keeling, who claimed there were 15-16 escapees which, if true, would certainly qualify as "many." See Addendum, below.) In addition, I learned afterwards the P.O.W. exchange did not go through, as the Turkish representative did not follow his "all for all" orders; so this matter was not resolved, as I had written. I made a correction on the Malta page, under a July 2004 addendum. I recognize many of these Malta excuses from Dadrian's writings (including the selective quote Akcam borrowed, about one Briton's life being worth those of many Turks), which were covered here. According to the British archives, the British regarded not the British prisoners being held by Ataturk's forces, in retaliation, as hostages; the ones the British regarded as hostages were the Turks at Malta.

ADDENDUM, 3-06: "On September 6 (1921), sixteen detainees escaped from Malta, thus further weakening British bargaining power."
On Sept. 20, the British agreed to an "all for all" exchange, and on Nov. 1, the remaining fifty-three Turkish captives were released. (Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed Genocide, 2005, p. 125. Simsir's account states 59 detainees boarded two ships on Oct. 1, and Nov. 1 corresponds to the date the Turks arrived in Turkey.) This means Akcam was being highly misleading in his contention that the "many" detainees' escape derailed the punishment process, when this escape had occurred only two weeks before the long Malta process came to a halt, at a time when all was pretty much said and done.



Akcam shared his letter with Prof. Dennis Papazian, and the director of the Armenian Research Center offered to debate me, if a few conditions were met.


Subject: Reply to Dennis Papazian from Holdwater, Fri, 16 Apr 2004


Dear Prof. Papazian:

I wish you had told me which essay of mine you were referring to; I presume it was the open letter to Taner AkÁam.

Dennis Papazian

Dennis Papazian

Thank you for writing. Since you wrote that you do not respect those who are "ashamed" to admit their names, allow me to inform you that I have one measure of respect for you: you have at least attempted in your writings to counter anti-genocide claims. Many pro-Armenian scholars are so sitting in the driverís seat, with much of the world lazily agreeing with them, they donít even feel the need to refute the anti-genocide position.

Unfortunately, the way in which you have countered claims against your genocide (I have analyzed your incredible "What Every Armenian Needs to Know," and your equally remarkable "Misplaced Credulity") leaves something to be desired in earning respect, as well.

There is no reason for me to be ashamed of admitting my name. Iím proud of the work that Iíve been writing, as I only approach this subject from the standpoint of truth; I would never defend the Turks if there were clear evidence of their having committed a genocide, Nazi-style, as they are accused. Thus, the meaning of my pen name, Holdwater. (No, it has nothing to do with a translation from another language, as you speculated... especially not Turkish. I believe the translation in that case would amount to ďTutsu,Ē which sounds like an altogether different genocide. You know, one of the few that hypocritical genocide scholars love to pay some lip service to, when all they really want to talk about are the Holocaust and the Armenian ďGenocideĒ?)

If I were writing the occasional letter of protest as in years past, I certainly wouldnít be using a pen name. However, since I got into this debate in a more heavy-duty fashion, I decided not to sacrifice my entire life. The potful of e-mail viruses from Armenians and the occasional death threat I can deal with, but more than that would stop being worthwhile.

You know your side doesnít play fair. Aside from the real violence that they can occasionally be capable of, against those whose views arenít agreeable... as the Professors Shaw painfully experienced years ago... the violence and harassment of phone calls and death threats can be a serious obstacle in living life. Samuel Weems was constantly tortured by the fanatics who live and breathe your hate-inducing history, possibly precipitating his relatively early death from a heart attack. Of course, smear campaigns are your sideís favorite terror tactic in recent years, as Heath Lowry sadly experienced in the hands of (chiefly) Peter Balakian and three genocide scholar cronies, and the outrage Bernard Lewis experienced at the hands of a French court.

You know about all that; youíve done it yourself to an extent, as weíll get to in a moment.

If I were getting paid, I might be willing to step out of my anonymity. (Not that payment has proved persuasive in enlisting the next generation of "pro-Turk" American academicians; the Armenians have done their work all too well.) Otherwise, anyone can do without the $2.5 million budgeted Armenian Assembly of America to spread horribly unfounded rumors against oneís character, as theyíve been unethically known to do in the past. However, Iíve come to discover another advantage for keeping my identity cloaked: your side becomes very frustrated in not having a background to check, and a reputation to try and destroy. With no visible messenger to shoot, they are then forced to concentrate on the messages of this debate, which is all that matters.

Youíve written that you "cannot take seriously an essay perhaps written by several foreign office officials or members of Turkish internal security."

Dr. Papazian, do you really believe that? Do you believe there are Turkish Gestapo agents who are working undercover, spreading lies and propaganda? (And are you also giving me the familiar tune that it is only the Turkish government that doesnít believe in a genocide?)

Iím shocked that you might have actually reached the point where you believe in these assertions, akin to the big movie star who begins to believe his own press. You are a highly intelligent man, and I am in "denial" ó if youíll pardon the expression ó that you actually think the Turks would conduct such intricate operations as a matter of policy.

If there were such operations, do you think your side would have become as successful as they are, currently? Can you name me one counterpart to the many well-funded Zoryan/Gomidas type institutions working night and day to blacken the image of the Turks? I would have thought the only one that would have offered a small counterweight would have been the Institute of Turkish Studies... but a visit to their site reveals not a peep about the Armenian "Genocide" (that I could find), and even a legitimizing of Turkish Turncoat Fatma MŁge GŲÁek, who has happily been working at the main branch of your very own university... for just about her entire professional life. (How these turncoats with sociology degrees are allowed to teach history is beyond me.)

The reason why your side is so ahead in this game is because the Turks are as complacent as can be; so unless paranoia is getting the better of you, please... letís get real.

"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," is what Dr. Gwynne Dyer wrote in "Turkish 'Falsifiers' and Armenian 'Deceivers',Ē the rare even-handed look at this debate (so rare, I had to go all the way back to 1976 to find it; curiously, there is not one example of Turkish falsification Dyer pointed to, despite the promise of the title.) I bring up this passage to remind you that you are not speaking to the kind of "convinced and emotionally committed" audience member you are accustomed to. So we can drop the talk about the sinister undercover Turkish secret agents.

The reason why Dyer couldnít point to an example of Turkish falsification was because the Turks are the ones being charged, and that puts them on the defensive; as a result, Turkish scholars (that is, "real" Turkish scholars) usually point to sources that would have had no reason to lie. Very much the opposite of how Armenian scholars typically operate, asking a lazy-thinking world to accept second-hand reports of hearsay as actual evidence. Luckily for those pursuing the Armenian agenda, the western world has been conditioned enough, and is bigoted enough, to swallow just about anything handed them.

You can see Iím going to remain anonymous, which I suppose means we wonít have the pleasure of engaging in a debate. For argumentís sake, however, what if I were the realization of your worst fears, a sinister Turkish agent who has been paid to lie and cover up this alleged Ottoman crime? How could my being a Joseph Goebbels in disguise possibly hurt you in a debate? After all, we would only be concerned with sorting out the truth from the fiction. If Dr. Goebbels found himself in an authentic debate, his Ph.D. would not have been able to save him from being exposed as the liar he was.

Propagandists work best in monologue, not dialogue. Thatís why genocide conferences often take place behind closed doors, and the only "Turkish scholars" in sight are the ones who have agreed to the existence of a genocide. But I donít have to tell you that.

I thank you for the compliments you paid when you wrote, "Your essay was well written, and certainly persuasive for those who do not know the facts." However, I take great exception to your last few words. There is no way that I could pull the wool over anyoneís eyes, even if that were my intention. What I do is look at the objectivity of each source. (An area where you are at a disadvantage, because nearly all of your sources from the period had conflicts of interest.) If the source appears credible, I use that source. So how could I possibly fool anyone who doesnít know the facts... particularly the many who are already predisposed to believe in your side, thanks to the relentless barrage of nearly one-sided propaganda over the years?

Case in point: the recent National Geographic article parroting your 1.5 million claims. One of the editors: an Armenian. I noticed ANCA has pointed to the extremely credible Library of Congress to validate your genocide. (Yes, the Library of Congress completely backs you up: using the then-worldwide population of 3 million Armenians as the pre-war number in the Ottoman Empire alone, and claiming up to 2 million as systematically killed and tortured.) Imagine... the harbinger of truth in our country, the honorable Library of Congress, itself! The man in charge? You guessed it; an Armenian. (The Armenians really know how to stick together, I must say; kind of like in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," where the pod people have been sent far and wide, infiltrating from all corners.)

Not that people in charge have to be Armenians to support your claims, since everyone has been so brainwashed... but this is the lopsidedness of our debate. Youíve got a terrific built-in advantage, as you well know. So please donít insinuate that Iím purposely lying... people already think Iím lying, so how could I possibly win my argument by telling lies?

Itís the same old story... Armenians act, and the Turks react. Exactly what happened in pretty much every single Armeno-Turkish conflict, from 1796 on. Iím only reacting to the actions of those as yourself.

What about you? Are you a truth-teller?

Iíve taken apart your works in detail, and Iím far from convinced truth is your motivating factor.

I love the way you actually say, in "Misplaced Credulity" (which Iíll refer to as MC) that "No... (Armenian) revolt ever took place."

Thatís a big whopper there, Professor Papazian.

You know how much Peter (whom I affectionately refer to as "Peternocchio") Balakian enjoys pointing to the 145 articles in the New York Times in 1915, as genocidal proof? (Did you take a look at his recent book? Quite an educational read... I never knew Turks made such fine craftsmen, since I keep reading in Armenian literature what unskilled brutes they were. Peter tells us there was not one, but at least two Ottoman Turks who had mastered the art of nailing horseshoes onto Armenian feet. Now that takes real talent, because I canít figure how the horsehoes would stay on... but one of these Turks was gifted enough to get the Armenians to actually walk through town on these horseshoed feet.)

Interestingly, we can turn to this very anti-Turkish source, The New York Times, and read a 1914 article entitled, "ARMENIANS FIGHTING TURKS; Besieging Van ó Others Operating in Turkish Armyís Rear." The article came out only five days after Russia had declared war. Imagine that! These Armenians, who only fought in "self-defense" as youíve written, followed the Dashnak charter instructions to a tee, striking when the Ottoman Empire was at her weakest... while at war.

This is the kind of material I like to use in my attempt to be "certainly persuasive for those who do not know the facts."

Also interesting how Boghos Nubar didnít stress your genocide when he did his best to grab free goodies from the Allies at the Paris Peace Conference; no, in his 1919 Times of London letter, he was bragging about the fighting force of nearly 200,000 Armenians. (I guess these ranks must have been composed of women, children and the elderly, because according to you, all the Armenian men were savagely killed by the Turks.)

I have a feeling thereís little chance you would be related to Kapriel Serope Papazian; he wrote "Patriotism Perverted" in 1934, before the word "genocide" was invented... so he didnít follow the line of latter-day Armenian historians, but actually upheld the principles of objectivity and truth. (At least in some sections; I didnít read the entire work.) "Thousands of Armenians from all over the world, flocked to the standards of such famous fighters as Antranik, Kery, Dro, etc. The Armenian volunteer regiments rendered valuable service to the Russian Army in the years of 1914-15-16."

Antranik and Dro strictly targeted enemy soldiers, is that correct? Undefended Turkish villagers wouldnít have had anything to fear from these honorable men, I would hope.

Despite your insincere attempt to distance the Armeniansí treachery from Russian promises ("Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky, foreign minister of Russia in 1895, summed it all up by saying, ĎYes, Russia wants Armenia, but without the Armeniansí") it was pretty crazy how the Armenians, blinded by their greed, believed the Russiansí lies time and time again. No wonder William Saroyan acknowledged the Armeniansí greatest enemy was not the Turks, but the Russians.

If we are to debate, Professor Papazian, you know you canít get away with the kind of material that you have presented. Just about everything youíve written, I have to shake my head in sadness. For example, in "What Every Armenian Should Know," you attempt to instruct your rank and file to be careful of Turkish claims that only 600,000 died, and not 1.5 million. Your defense? "Would this change the basic truth that a genocidal massacre occurred in 1915?"

This kind of reasoning is highly disingenuous. You know very well your side knows the value of inflating mortality figures to get the maximum sympathy value. (For the mid-1890s, you go way off the top of the charts by stating "hundreds of thousands," in MC... implying the number may possibly be even more than the highest Armenian fairy tale number, 300,000. The Turk-hating Lepsius figured 89,000, an already exaggerated figure that likely quadruples the real casualties.) Yet when cornered to prove these wild claims, you take the moral high road by saying numbers donít matter.

The Encyclopedia Britannica reported 1.1 million Ottoman-Armenians in 1911. (Years before they ďrevisedĒ their figures, to conform with the propaganda. We know the Armenians regard historical revision as a sin.) Arnold Toynbee went with around a million, the year before he ďrevisedĒ his figures, after becoming a propagandist. Armenian Patriarch Ormanian and the Turk-hating Lepsius each figured 1.6 million or less. Thatís pretty much the high of the range, when it comes to ďneutralĒ sources. Only Armenians fly into fantasyland with numbers approaching 2 million and over. Since Armenians grant one million survived, itís obvious the mortality figure is not going to exceed 600,000. And not all died from massacres, to say the least. Mr. Hovannisian figured in 1967 that some 150,000 died of famine while accompanying the Russian retreats, and 2-3,000 faced a similar fate while accompanying the French retreat at Marash. Is it honest of you to blame the Turks for these deaths?

I really enjoyed your line, "The Turks play with numbers in a grotesque way." That was in the paragraph where you claimed 1.5 million was the total of the murdered, when just seven questions earlier, you had written that the Turks had "exterminate(d) an unarmed minority of three million old men, women, and children." Thatís quite a discrepancy youíve got there, Professor.

Now, why would you say "The Turks play with numbers in a grotesque way"? Iím not making up any of these figures. Iím actually basing them on largely pro-Armenian sources.

I should refer to your part in what Armenians love to do when they canít defend their positions with the facts: conduct defamation campaigns.

Youíve written of Admiral Mark Bristol in a way to lessen his credibility. (You have your facts wrong, by the way, as to which year Bristol began his term; it was not 1920.) His writings do not demonstrate he loved the Turks over the Armenians and the Greeks; the High Commissionerís only crime was that he did not take after Ambassador Morgenthau, and preferred to be a man of integrity... treating all of these human beings equally.

You refer to him as a "stern" military man. You mean sort of like Patton, who wasnít always humanistically inclined toward his troops? Or perhaps like the pro-Armenian General James Harbord, who likely led some of the American troops committing atrocities against Filipino civilians, after being stationed in the Philippines in 1902? (What was the toll in that one? Possibly a few hundred thousand? I wonder when our conscientious Congress will consider a genocide resolution for that episode of "Manís Inhumanity to Man.") Harbord apparently liked throwing our lads into the line of fire without proper artillery support, as he did at the Second Battle of the Marne, in July 1918. Is that what you meant by "stern"?

Why, even one of the maddest dogs among Morgenthauís consuls, George Horton (you know, the one who got off on likening the entire Turkish people to the "anti-Christ"; good thing those consuls like J. B. Jackson were free of any sort of racial or religious bias) referred to Admiral Mark Bristol as "brave" and "honest."

I feel you should remember the "American" in your "Armenian-American" before you defame Admiral Bristol. Bristol served our country magnificently by getting the Turks to regard the United States as a friend, unless you would have rather had Turkey join the Soviet Union as Armenia willingly did, betraying her friends in the West (also reneging on a $50 million loan at 5% interest our USA gave Armenia, in good faith); this great Americanís character doesnít deserve the sort of treatment youíve been giving him.

Then there is the way you attacked the character of Arthur Moss and Florence Gilliam, one of the few Western voices who dared to explain the other side of the story back in those days, when they wrote their 1923 article for The Nation. (As few as such people were back then, I think there are even less of them writing similar articles now. Amazing.) You didnít want to factually tackle the points they had raised, while sniffing that they werenít scholars... and you tried to discredit the validity of what they were saying by accusing the authors of being anti-American?

Thatís not the correct way you should go about winning your argument. Comes across as underhanded, doesnít it? (Even if they were anti-American... and I donít believe you conducted the research to have gotten to know their personal lives...what could that possibly have to do with their historical analysis of the Armenian chapter? Remember, by 1923, the Americans had "betrayed" the Armenians... so if the authors hated the United States, and if they were the kind of dishonorable characters you strongly suggested, that would have given them the incentive to take the Armeniansí side.)

You did make two attempts at specifics, first by pooh-poohing their claim that "The Bryce reports have been proved to be without tangible evidence and to have been based entirely on hearsay" without explaining why; however, even Toynbee is on record for having confessed the Blue Book garbage was propaganda. (After regaining his scruples, Toynbee also said in the respectable chapter of his career as historian: "The Ottoman institution came perhaps as near as anything in real life could to realizing the ideal of Platoís Republic." Remember, Dr. Papazian: no Armenians could have been persecuted in Platoís Republic.) And as far as ridiculing their statement, "In Turkey, all three main religions ó Mohammedanism, Judaism, and Christianity ó are on an equal footing. . . . A Catholic cannot go as far politically in secular America as a Christian can go in so-called theocratic Turkey," that was no exaggeration.

You werenít aware there were many Armenians who attained high posts in government well before the Ottomans were overthrown, while Catholics in the USA were being discriminated against? It is highly unlikely that you would be ignorant of that fact, should we entertain the notion that incompetence is your sin. In later years, two Armenians who served as parliamentarians were the Hunchak Hamparsum Boyaciyan and the Dashnak Armen "Garo" Pastermadjian. Iím sure you teach your students how these two repaid their countryís generosity (particularly the Ottoman Bank-takeover terrorist Garo, pardoned by the "Bloody Sultan," one of your preferred ways to refer to the Turkish leader, in 1896)... they sliced and diced Turkish women and children during WWI and after.

I donít know what purpose it will serve to engage in a debate, Dr. Papazian, because youíre not on the up and up!

Iím aware of the futility of debating Armenians who have erected stone walls in their minds. Iím referring to emotionally committed rank and file Armeni-Lemmings, and not their historians who certainly know the real truth. A private exchange between ourselves will serve little purpose, because you are married to your cause. If you really have the courage of your convictions, you ought to put your history up against professional pro-Turkish scholars (Iím not talking about those such as Taner AkÁam and Fatma MŁge GŲÁek) in genuine, public debates... as Levon Marashlian bravely (yet ineffectually) attempted in 1990, when he was treated most fairly, as he documented.

When was the last time you were part of a genuine debate?

However, my door is always open if you have some true evidence. Iíd change my tune in a minute, should I ever encounter actual, ironclad proof. However, I fear that even if God were to tell you there was no Armenian ďGenocide,Ē youíd still be blasting away with your tales of 1.5 million (or 3 million, depending on your mood) massacred, and the like.

Iím sure youíre a nice man at heart, but you have allowed your agenda and your emotions to supersede your professional duties.

Regardless of the opinion you may have of the following writer, I donít believe you can argue with his glorious words:

Historians should love the truth. A historian has a duty to try to write only the truth. Before historians write they must look at all relevant sources. They must examine their own prejudices, then do all they can to insure that those prejudices do not overwhelm the truth. Only then should they write history. The historians creed must be, "Consider all the sides of an issue; reject your own prejudices. Only then can you hope to find the truth."

Do historians always follow this creed? They do not, but good historians try.

There are ways to tell if a historian has been true to his craft. All important sources of information must be studied: A book on American history that does not draw upon American sources and only uses sources written in French cannot be accurate history. All important facts must be considered: a book on the history of the Germans and the Jews that does not mention the death of the Jews in the Holocaust cannot be true.

Uncomfortable facts, facts that disagree with one's preconceptions and prejudices must be considered, not avoided or ignored: Any book on the history of the Turks and the Armenians that does not include the history of the Turks who were killed by Armenians cannot be the truth. This is obvious. It should be so obvious that it need not be said. But we know it must be said, because so many have forgotten the rules of honest history.

Those words were written by the HONEST historian, Professor Justin McCarthy, in ďThe First Shot.Ē



cc: Henry Huttenbach, The Genocide Forum; he was kind enough to conduct communications with me, which I appreciated.

Current Comments:

The Encyclopedia Britannica reported  an Ottoman-Armenian population of 1.1 million on one page, but the more conclusive number was 1.5 million, on the page better referring to the matter.

I sadly learned after the writing of the above that the one who helped the Library of Congress get infiltrated with Armenian propaganda, as much as the Armenian professor, was the head librarian himself, James Billington.

Dr. Papazian and I had another round about a year after the above exchange. He again accused me of being a Turkish agent. It's astounding what extremist Armenians won't stoop to, in their defensive methods to avoid the real historical truths.




Further reading:

"From Terrorism to Armenian Propagandist: The Taner Akcam Story" 







"West" Accounts


Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site