Dear Mr. Akçam,

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

I haven’t been active with the Truth-Anatolia1915 group of late, but I was intrigued to see you have accepted the moderator’s 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 don’t understand why you would attempt to distance yourself from the article’s 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 Turkey’s Armenian genocide taboo.

Your comment that numbers don’t matter is straight out of Richard Hovannisian’s 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 point… "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, don’t 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.

I’m 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 Armenians’ 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 — the barbaric Turks persecuting and exterminating the poor, innocent Armenians, in the same fashion as the Nazis doing their number on the Jews — as doubt began to set in the minds in some corners of the West. Since the Armenians couldn’t 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 "TÜRKEN 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 — they are "denialists" for denying the Armenian "Genocide" did not take place — 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 don’t 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, I’m sure you have endured your share of contempt from those who perceive you as having sold out. I can’t 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 don’t 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. I’m 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 you’re 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 — 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 — the way Armenians dealt with Prof. Stanford Shaw — or anything of a violent nature. I would bet, over the years, perhaps with the exception of an isolated lunatic here or there, you haven’t even received any death threats to speak of. (By the same token, I’m certain you’ve had no shortage of those who have labeled you as a traitor... and if the word suggests betraying your own people for reasons that aren’t clearly ethical, then I would believe such accusers would have had cause to hurl such a charge.)

I don’t know how much you still remain in touch with your kind (and I’m not referring to the Armenians, here), but one great thing about them is that they generally play fair and square. Historically, even the Turks’ 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 Ottomans’ 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 1916’s "The Armenians," going against the policy of his government’s 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 Majesty’s government, cannot be judged with total harshness... as they decided — helped along with their pre-existing prejudices — 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 that’s very nice about those who don’t 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 Hovannisian’s 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 don’t know many Turks, but when I’ve had occasion to test the knowledge of the few I’ve come across... it’s 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 doesn’t 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 you’re not sure what I’m alluding to.

It is my conclusion that you have made a very selfish and opportunistic move, and the consequences are deeply hurtful. However, I’m 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 Müce Göçek, somehow also found a job in.) And since you were reportedly kicked out of that institution when Michigan’s local Turkish-American community questioned your credentials, I’m 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 Feinstein’s CHGS? (The one that has the indecency to put up a forged Talat Pasha telegram as evidence for the Armenian "Genocide"… 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. I’m 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." That’s the one where you state Turkey can only become a democracy once she comes clean with the Armenian "Genocide." If Turkish society has problems, it’s naive and/or deceptive to point to this fast-becoming ancient historical episode as a potential cure-all. Moreover, there are plenty who don’t 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 — 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 one’s profession. I wasn’t there, and you weren’t there. That is why we only can rely upon historical evidence, and the only kind that counts is the impartial variety, from ones that wouldn’t 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. That’s 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 Werfel’s 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 Andonian’s forgeries?)

However, since you are technically not an Armenian, I’d prefer not to give you this luxury. If you don’t 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 Andonian’s words that were put in Talat Pasha’s mouth? How do you account for authenticated telegrams written by Talat Pasha that demonstrated sensitivity toward the Armenians? (That is, the ones translated accurately — 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"; I’m 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 Armenians’ raison d’etre, by excavating this critical evidence in places like Zor.

Why wasn’t 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 don’t count, if one studies the sequence of British archival evidence. The Malta Tribunal lasted from 1919-1921, don’t 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 Armenians’ 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. Akçam, as I mentioned, this is your golden opportunity. This is your chance to redeem yourself in the eyes of those who don’t hold you in the highest esteem, or who don’t regard you as a particularly moral man. I can’t 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. It’s 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.

Sincerely,

Holdwater

P.S.: I believe this communication is of enough importance to share with a wider audience, and thus I’m also submitting it to the Turkish Forum. That doesn’t 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.

 

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 — the language Akcam prefers to privately communicate in (despite the mysteriously impeccable English of his essays) — 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.
regards,
Alp

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.

 

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 Akçam.

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 driver’s seat, with much of the world lazily agreeing with them, they don’t 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. I’m proud of the work that I’ve 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 “Tutsu,” 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 “Genocide”?)

If I were writing the occasional letter of protest as in years past, I certainly wouldn’t 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 doesn’t play fair. Aside from the real violence that they can occasionally be capable of, against those whose views aren’t 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 side’s 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; you’ve done it yourself to an extent, as we’ll 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 one’s character, as they’ve been unethically known to do in the past. However, I’ve 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.

You’ve 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 doesn’t believe in a genocide?)

I’m 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" — if you’ll pardon the expression — 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 Müge Göçek, 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... let’s 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',” 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 couldn’t 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 I’m going to remain anonymous, which I suppose means we won’t have the pleasure of engaging in a debate. For argument’s 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. That’s 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 don’t 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 anyone’s 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 doesn’t 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. You’ve got a terrific built-in advantage, as you well know. So please don’t insinuate that I’m purposely lying... people already think I’m lying, so how could I possibly win my argument by telling lies?

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

What about you? Are you a truth-teller?

I’ve taken apart your works in detail, and I’m far from convinced truth is your motivating factor.

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

That’s 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 can’t 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 — Others Operating in Turkish Army’s Rear." The article came out only five days after Russia had declared war. Imagine that! These Armenians, who only fought in "self-defense" as you’ve 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 didn’t 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 there’s little chance you would be related to Kapriel Serope Papazian; he wrote "Patriotism Perverted" in 1934, before the word "genocide" was invented... so he didn’t follow the line of latter-day Armenian historians, but actually upheld the principles of objectivity and truth. (At least in some sections; I didn’t 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 wouldn’t have had anything to fear from these honorable men, I would hope.

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

If we are to debate, Professor Papazian, you know you can’t get away with the kind of material that you have presented. Just about everything you’ve 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 don’t matter.

The Encyclopedia Britannica reported 1.1 million Ottoman-Armenians in 1911. (Years before they “revised” 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 “revised” his figures, after becoming a propagandist. Armenian Patriarch Ormanian and the Turk-hating Lepsius each figured 1.6 million or less. That’s pretty much the high of the range, when it comes to “neutral” sources. Only Armenians fly into fantasyland with numbers approaching 2 million and over. Since Armenians grant one million survived, it’s 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." That’s quite a discrepancy you’ve got there, Professor.

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

I should refer to your part in what Armenians love to do when they can’t defend their positions with the facts: conduct defamation campaigns.

You’ve 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 Commissioner’s 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 wasn’t 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 "Man’s 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 Morgenthau’s 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 American’s character doesn’t deserve the sort of treatment you’ve 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 didn’t want to factually tackle the points they had raised, while sniffing that they weren’t scholars... and you tried to discredit the validity of what they were saying by accusing the authors of being anti-American?

That’s not the correct way you should go about winning your argument. Comes across as underhanded, doesn’t it? (Even if they were anti-American... and I don’t 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 Armenians’ 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 Plato’s Republic." Remember, Dr. Papazian: no Armenians could have been persecuted in Plato’s Republic.) And as far as ridiculing their statement, "In Turkey, all three main religions — Mohammedanism, Judaism, and Christianity — 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 weren’t 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. I’m sure you teach your students how these two repaid their country’s 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 don’t know what purpose it will serve to engage in a debate, Dr. Papazian, because you’re not on the up and up!

I’m aware of the futility of debating Armenians who have erected stone walls in their minds. I’m 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 (I’m not talking about those such as Taner Akçam and Fatma Müge Göçek) 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. I’d 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 “Genocide,” you’d still be blasting away with your tales of 1.5 million (or 3 million, depending on your mood) massacred, and the like.

I’m sure you’re 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 don’t 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 “The First Shot.”

Sincerely,

Holdwater


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.