Several times he mentioned the so-called "Andonian papers"

I kept notes of my host's most provocative statements in this fascinating discussion. Several times he mentioned the so-called "Andonian papers". In the early twenties, an Armenian by the name of Aram Andonian published a "collection of documents" (actually they were photographs of "documents"), which he presented as "proof" that the Ottoman government had planned the extermination of the Armenian people. Basically, these "documents" consisted of "orders" that could certainly be compared to the insane acts of a Hitler or Himmler.

Franz Werfel based his splendid novel, The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, entirely on these "extermination orders" of the Ottoman government. Of course, he originally did this in good faith, and when he found out that he had been taken in by a forgery, it was too late. Out of fear of Armenian reprisals, he did not even dare to publicly acknowledge his error. 

On Vahakn N. Dadrian 

 

According to the web site of a Dutch TV production entitled "The Wall of Silence," Professor Dadrian, reported to be 70 years of age at the time, was raised in Istanbul. Upon arriving elsewhere in Europe, he came across a copy of Franz Werfel's "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh." The fiction transformed him, and his crusade to affirm the Armenian "Genocide" was born.

Another site reports the professor has taught in five languages, and some of his research has been funded by The National Science Foundation and The H.F. Guggenheim Foundation.

 

-------------------------------------

Professor Malcolm E. Yapp is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Middle Eastern Studies journal and is the author of The Near East Since the First World War: A History to 1995.

The following are excerpts from his commentary on The History of the Armenian Genocide by Vahakn N. Dadrian

"...The key issue, Dadrian contends is the genocidal nature of the massacres and this issue supersedes all others. The book is therefore a further contribution to the campaign waged by Armenian writers in recent years in an endeavour to persuade the public that a major crime against humanity was carried out by the Ottomans before and especially during the First World War and this crime has gone unpunished and unacknowledged at least in its full dimensions. It's probably unnecessary to remind readers that the contrary view maintained by Turkish historians and by many other historians of the modern Middle East is that although massacres of the Ottoman Armenians undoubtedly took place, the available evidence suggests that those chiefly responsible were local Kurdish tribes and brigands and that there was some connivance even participation by local Ottoman officials, but that the central Ottoman government did not order or plan the 1915 massacres; what it did was to order the deportation of Armenians from areas made sensitive by the progress of the war without adequate arrangements for their transport, food or security. The question is: has Dadrian produced sufficient new evidence to turn the debate decisively in favour of the view that the massacres were planned by the Ottoman government with a view to the extinction of the Ottoman Armenians?

Professor Vahakn Dadrian

   The book begins with the emergence of an Armenian question in 1878 when the Treaty of Berlin provided for internationally supervised reforms in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire and Armenian hopes and expectations were accordingly raised. From then on the Ottomans feared that the same process which they had witnessed in the Balkans would be repeated in eastern Asia Minor; autonomy would be demanded, found to be inadequate, and eventually full independence would be demanded and conceded under international pressure. But there was one major difference between eastern Asia Minor and most of the Balkans; in eastern Asia Minor the Armenians were a minority in a Muslim majority region. Moreover among the Armenians only a small minority wished for independence; it's a weakness of this book that there is no adequate analysis of the very varied Armenian population of the Empire.

...Although Dadrian produces many reports tending to suggest that members of the Ottoman government wanted to destroy the Armenian, he fails to find any document which constitutes a definite order for massacre...

In the last sections of the book, Dadrian describes the various post-war efforts by the Ottoman and Allied authorities to bring those responsible for the massacres to book. The 1919 courts martial, however cannot be taken entirely at face value because they were conducted by a government which was anxious to pin any blame on the CUP leaders...

Despite the numerous documents cited and the careful assembly of information about individuals and organizations, there is no decisive evidence to support Dadrian's case.... Of course one may argue that even without clear unambiguous documentary evidence the weight of so many pieces of indirect and circumstantial evidence brought together could be persuasive, even conclusive, but one must enter a caveat. The author's approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system. What he wants are admissions of guilt from the defendants, first Germany as the easier target and then Turkey. What is missing is any adequate recognition of the circumstances in which these events took place; the surge of Armenian nationalism, the ambitions of Russia, the fears of the Ottomans and the panic and indiscipline of war. Dadrian is so obsessed by his theory of the long plan that he too often overlooks the elements of the contingent.

...It's indeed the dimensions of that tragedy which have led many to feel that the massacres must have been planned by government. But the scale of the horrors doesn't necessarily point to genocide. Some mass murders of the twentieth century have indeed been the result of deliberate government action; some have been the result of panic, indifference, ignorance or a combination of circumstances. To which category the Armenian massacres belong is still unknown." 

From ataa.org

 

Conference on Genocide

Dean Robert Gilbert Johnston
JMLS, Chicago
March 21, 2000

Dear Dean Johnston:

I am writing with respect to a conference co-sponsored by the JMLS of Chicago on the International Crime of Genocide. 20th century so on in April, 2000. This conference is co-chaired by Profs. Ann Lousin and Ralph Ruebner.

I have two issues to discuss which has not been settled to our satisfaction as the local Turkish-American Community.

The first issue is the presence of Prof. Vakahn Dadrian as an invited speaker. Prof. Dadrian is a well recognized propagandist for the so called Armenian Genocide in the hands of the Turks. This is all he does and publishes about. This man’s usual rumination against the Turks at the conference will be unchallenged academically as there are no presenters invited to counter with the Turkish perspective of the events. Why and is this fair for an academia of jurisprudence to do?

Second is that Conference is closed to people like myself and for “historians only”. Now what defines a “historian”? For myself, I have a 1000-volume library on the so called Armenian genocide. Although I am a scientist by training, I have published a dozen booklets on the historic Turkish and Armenian/Greek/Jewish relations. I submit to you that I know about the subject as much as any “historian” in the audience. Why is this discrimination? Academia thrives on academic freedom and public access to its forums. How can you select your audience and on what basis and why indeed? Certainly if Dadrian is able to satisfy his “historian colleagues” he can certainly field simple-minded questions from folks like me in the audience.

It appears that there is something wrong with this set-up. When two of my colleagues tried to discuss these matters with co-chair Prof. Lousin she would ask their age and tell them that they have been taught the wrong facts. What an insult and pre-disposition. She asked them about the Greek Genocide?? I wonder if she ever saw the Report of the Inter-Allied Commission on the Occupation of Smyrna by the Greeks (circa 1919 chaired by none other than the United States High Commissioner Admiral Mark Bristol). This report would tell her who committed genocide on whom!

It appears that there is frame-up against the Turks here. I strongly suggest that a rectification is needed. This can be inviting a Turkish-view speaker: canceling Dadrian’s presentation; or opening up the conference to the public. I personally prefer option one or the third. I am for open academic dialog but not for a complicity, intended or unintended.

Please give your utmost consideration to our concerns, Sir.

Thank you very much.
Dr. Tunch M. Kuzay
Napersville, IL

Holdwater adds: When first hearing of the high regard Professor Dadrian enjoys within the Armenian community, as an objective researcher a notch above the typically slipshod scholar of Armenian origin ("One finds little as scholarly even as Sonyel in the general run of Armenian historiography on the subject," is the way Gwynne Dyer put it in his balanced report), I figured here is an Armenian who at least tackles the subject professionally. Now I have a better idea of the merit of his work, and of his personality. Listen to some of his statements when he spoke to a hundred San Francisco Armenian-Americans on April 26, 2002 (From ANC's web site in Frisco):

Dadrian said the claim of 2.5 million Turks lost in the war was "... utterly untenable — taking two disparate categories and comparing them — Armenian losses being the centrally ordered mass murder of a population, and Turkish losses being the result of war against Britain, Imperial Russia, and France." So, in other words, the Armenian losses of less than 600,000 were all from "genocide," and all of the Turkish losses were from war casualties? What about famine and disease that even the Armenians' beloved Henry Morgenthau (in "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story") said affected civilian Turks in large numbers... which certainly also affected the Armenians? (For example, Richard Hovannisian himself estimated some 150,000 Armenians -- one-fourth of the higher range of total Armenian casualties -- lost their lives from famine during the Russian retreats, in 1967's Armenia on the Road to Independence.) General Liman von Sanders, as witness for the defense in the trial of Talat Pasha's assassin, spoke from the perspective of Turkish soldiers, and not civilians: "...The economic situation was so dismal that not only many Armenians, but thousands of Turkish soldiers as well died of the lack of food supplies, disease, and other consequences of poor organization in the Turkish government. In my division alone, after the battle of Gallipoli, thousands died of malnutrition." That's even more poignant, if soldiers actually died in such large numbers from famine... since the soldiers were the only thing standing between the nation's life and death. For more perspective, the pro-Armenian U.S. General Harbord believed 600,000 Turkish soldiers died from typhus alone.

Also, I wonder why the great Ottoman Armenian, Berch Keresteciyan Efendi... a man of high enough position (Director of the Ottoman Bank; Vice President of the “Turkish Red-Crescent”), to certainly have been aware of the gruesome struggle his people endured during the war... served his nation in the amazing ways he did as late as 1919, well after the brunt of the Armenian "Genocide." He saved Mustafa Kemal's life, and provided decisive funds [from his own pocket, cleaning out his personal account] to battle the enemy when the nation was in most desperate need; if he believed the Ottoman Turks were guilty of wiping out his fellow Armenians, what was he? Out of his mind?

Take a look at the census page; at that page's bottom, you'll learn at least one-fifth of the Turkish losses were caused directly at the hands of the massacring Armenians. (Notice that mum's the word with the prejudiced professor on the topic of his Armenian own having innocent blood on their hands.)

Addressing the Turkish claim that Armenians were victims of a civil war, Dadrian called it "... full of frivolity, exceeded only by absurdity." He explained that Turkey began the conscription of Armenian men into the army within hours of signing its treaty with Germany in August, 1914, leaving only a terrified Armenian population of women, children, and the elderly. Gee. Even the Armenians' beloved anti-Turkish New York Times reported in a 1914 article that the TURKISH ARMENIANS (were) IN ARMED REVOLT. (The article appeared five days after Russia had declared war on the Ottoman Empire.) Seems there were plenty of young Armenian males "ready to join the invading army, explaining that they had prepared themselves for the Russian approach by constant drilling and by gathering arms secretly." Boghos Nubar himself preferred to highlight how the Ottoman Armenians waged war against their countrymen, shuffling aside the so-familiar victimhood angle, when he hoped to sway the Allies during the Paris Peace Conference. Oh, and here are over half a dozen other examples of Armenian treachery, so "full of frivolity, exceeded only by absurdity."

Although the Turkish government has purged its archives of much of the evidence of the Armenian Genocide, Dadrian said "Given the magnitude of the crime, it is impossible to make every trace of evidence disappear." Huh? What's the proof that the government purged its archives? Did Dadrian visit the Turkish archives and re-visit again to find what he encountered before was no longer there? He's only speculating here. Then he says, "The Turkish archival material amply implicates premeditation." What a contradiction! Even if it's impossible to make every trace disappear, you'd think the alleged purgers would do a good enough job not to leave behind AMPLE proof. And if the premeditative evidence is so omnipresent, why did the British disregard them... when they were desperately seeking proof to implicate the Ottoman officials they holed up in Malta for nearly two-and-a-half years... with Armenian researchers digging up whatever evidence they could find in Istanbul, under full control of the Allies, before the Turkish government had a chance to "purge" any of its archives?

The Armenians claim one million survived. Subtract that from the 1.3 to 1.5 million Armenians who lived in the Ottoman Empire. Now look up the word "annihilation" in the dictionary.  Somebody put the word "annihilation" in Vehib Pasha's mouth, and chances are that somebody's initials are "V.D." Would you want to get close to anyone who believes in V.D.?

  The professor comes up with an incriminating statement by Vehib Pasha, who wrote, "To sum up, the massacre and annihilation of the Armenian population and the plunder and robbery of their possessions was an order from the Young Turks. All took place under the sponsorship of the government." Unfortunately, it's taken from Vehib Pasha's December 5, 1918 court affidavit (honorably translated by... well, your guess is as good as mine; I'd highly doubt the word "annihilation" was used, because over two-thirds of Ottoman-Armenians survived)... that is, the vengeance-oriented kangaroo court under Allied control where people were saying anything and everything for their own purposes. Perhaps the pasha saw Armenian victims of massacres, but what was his proof that these were state-sponsored? (General Vehib executed two Ottoman perpetrators for crimes against Armenians. Could Rommel have gotten away with executing SS men for crimes against Jews in WWII? In other words, if "annihilation" was state policy, would the state have permitted anyone from getting in the way of that policy?)

Then the professor references Morganthau's description of the drowning deaths he saw in Erzinga. He's actually giving credence to the Turk-hating Ambassador Morgenthau, who never left the confines of the Istanbul environs of the American consul (so he couldn't have "seen" these drowning deaths) and who mainly relied on reports by missionaries, missionary-and-Armenian influenced American consuls (such as this one regarding "drowning deaths" that even a proponent of the Armenian "Genocide" refuses to buy) and his Armenian right-hand men! (Let's see now.... for a true, stand-up scholar on the "genocide,"  that would be... ohhh... minus two thousand points?)

In other words, the professor has taken the occasion to goose-step his lily-white derriere to the tune of "The Armenian AND? Anthem."

Dadrian then tries to tie the Armenian "genocide" with the Turks' actions against the Kurds (!), and then tries to tie the Holocaust with the "genocide" by suggesting Germans wanted Germany for the Germans, free from Jews, and Turks wanted Turkey free from Armenians. Mother of mercy! Then the Turks sure did a lousy job, since a good number of Armenians are happily living in Turkey, today. Perhaps the professor should ask how many Turks are living in Armenia, where they constituted a majority during the 19th Century; Mikael Kaprilian wrote in 1919: "The Armenians did exterminate the entire Muslim population of Russian Armenia as Muslims were considered inferior to the Armenians by the prominent leaders of the Dashnaks," while Sahak Melkonian wrote (in "Preserving the Armenian Purity," 1920): "In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists a single Turkish soul."

The article says: "On the question of the lack of a specific order for the enactment of the Armenian Genocide, Dadrian said it's ridiculous to expect criminals to create and keep such a record, adding that there is similarly no such record of an order for the Jewish Holocaust, yet that does not lessen the legitimacy of the event." In other words, the Turks' chief priority, during the hustle and bustle of a life-or-death war, would have been to cover their tracks, afraid of how historians might regard them nearly a century later. Quite the contrary, if the Turks had decided on a policy of extermination, they would have needed to send such orders to all corners of the empire, to implement the policy... isn't that only logical, for expedience to have come first? And the legitimacy of the Holocaust is extensively documented with irrefutable evidence (not incidentally, there is only "no such record" of an order specifically linked to Hitler; all we need to know for proof of the Holocaust is the Wannsee Conference — although there is much more than that)... no such evidence for state-sponsored genocide exists in the case of the Armenians. The real reason why a specific order cannot be found is because no such order was given! However, there is documentation that reveals quite the opposite.

The article concludes with Dadrian's ridiculing the efforts of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission... saying, "I consider it a diversion and deflection by the Turks." That's really mean-spirited. (Duh!) When some Turkish businessmen approached him regarding the establishment of a Turkish Chair at Princeton University (did they actually want Dadrian to head this Turkish chair? Horrors..!), Dadrian said that the Turks expected them to "drink together, eat together, and forget the past..." To a captivated audience, Dadrian said, "We will never forget!".

That, ladies and gentlemen, reveals volumes as to the personality of the man... he is much too cynically and emotionally bent out of shape on this issue to possess anything even approaching objectivity. This putative professor's credibility is NIL.

Of course you will "never forget." To forget will mean sacrificing your entire raison d'etre. Armenians sadly NEED the "genocide," as an affirmation of their identity. (As Prime Minister Hovhannes Katchaznouni said in his 1923 Manifesto, [One of the main aspects of Armenian] "national psychology... [is] to seek external causes for [Armenian] misfortune.") By contrast, the Turks forgave and forgot the heinous atrocities committed by the Armenians against the Turks, in the interest of love and brotherhood (which is what clearly motivated the Turkish businessmen, above). Only with the Armenians' continued harping on the issue (and other incidental, little things... such as the murders of innocent diplomats and their families) have many more Turks discovered the crimes committed by the Armenians against the Turks. So, thank you, Armenians... for letting the cat out of the bag. And for perpetuating the defeating "eye for an eye" psychology.

Turkish Professor Türkkaya Ataöv tears apart Professor Dadrian's shoddy findings in true scholarly and reliably documented fashion.

Further reading: Vahakn Dadrian's Genocidal Evidence

On Peter Balakian

Peter Balakian is an English (and not history) professor, but that doesn't stop him from presenting his "erroneous" opinions when he publicly speaks out. Ironically, Mr. Balakian was behind the successful drive to oust Dr. Heath Lowry, whom Balakian maintains is not a credible professor, because Dr. Lowry has the audacity to speak the truth about what really happened regarding the Armenian "Genocide."

Peter Balakian, from PBS' "The Armenians, A Story of Survival"

Holdwater has read excerpts of Mr. Balakian's book, "Black Dog of Fate," on the Internet. His mother sounds very cool: in a chapter where the American son tries to find out more about his Armenian past, she answers that they are Americans... that other Armenians are "too ethnic." Little did she realize her son would grow up to be so.... obsessed.

 Later, after Mr. Balakian read that beacon of truth, "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," and "other eyewitness accounts" (sigh), he learned from his Aunt Gladys what happened to his grandmother's cousin, Dovey. First, there were reports of prominent Armenians "being hung" (uhhh... wouldn't the more correct word be "hanged," Mr. English Professor?) because they were "called traitors" (and the possibility that they could have been traitors never enters the picture... of course). When Dovey found herself as part of the relocation, a Turkish gendarme would inspect their feces, sometimes with his hands, to find out if any coins were within. (Those Turks were not only dirty, but stupid! Why didn't they force their captives to go through the kaka? ) One night, the woman lay down and felt the grooves on her back made by "the Turkish whips ease onto the hard ground." That sounds like an incredible bit of poetic detail, doesn't it? (Mr. Balakian is a poet.) A Turkish gendarme sank his boot onto the side of her neck, as she was sucking on a eucalyptus leaf, cruelly having been deprived of water.  The thug then unbuckled his pants and urinated on the woman. She later saw a vision of her mother, just like the assassin of Talat Pasha, and Armenian hero, Soghoman Tehlirian. (However, at least Dovey's mother said sweet things, and didn't say "if you don't kill these Turks for me, you won't be my child," as did, in effect, Soghoman's phantom mom.) Later, Dovey got raped. In 1925, while shopping at Saks Department Store (in New York City, I presume), she fell into the arms of a fellow Armenian victim — from the same march, was it? — Dovey happened to run into. (Sheeeesh! So many survivors, for such an exterminated people.)

I don't mean to make light of the potential horrors Mr. Balakian's family went through. Yes, there were obviously S.O.B.'s among the gendarmes, some comprised of lowlifes, when every good man was needed at one of the many fronts, during the nation's desperate battle for survival. However, as the author himself writes, "This was what we heard. These were stories, rumors of the unbelievable..." That's exactly what these stories are... terror tales that have been embellished and re-embellished with each telling, often from family members far removed, such as from grandmother's cousin to possibly grandmother (in this case), to aunt (and no doubt further embellished by the writers who ultimately put them down on paper.... particularly in such colorful, sad, poetic ways. Here is a pictorial depiction of the validity of these stories.)

As painful as these stories are, especially to the families involved.... stories no less painful than the ones Turkish families have suffered through, at the hands of murderous Armenians.... these still boil down to "My Gran'mama Done Tol' Me" stories of the blues. The main brunt of the Armenians' "genocide.com" is based on these tales of hearsay... rather than cold, hard, provable FACTS.

Perhaps Balakian's family members could have restrained themselves and not have recounted every fanciful, horrendous detail... how could hearing such disgusting tales not affect their grown boy's mind? For example, he revealed elsewhere (despite the apparent "Black Dog" notion that he was relatively free of genocidal influence until adulthood) that his grandmother filled his head with genocide tales, amongst the other "Mother Goose and Grimm yarns." By contrast, here is how a Turkish grandmother handled the telling of her woes: Sure, she let slip certain details that must have been gnawing at her... like how an Armenian goon strutted cockily through town, swinging worry beads made from the cut off nipples of Turkish women; but she made sure to raise her grandchild in a way that prevented the boy from feeling hatred.

A personal account of Orthodox butchery may be found here, with no grisly details. A telling statement from the author: "You are lucky, because you lived to tell about it. My grandparents were not as lucky as you."

(Scroll down to read how Armenian grandmothers are the instruments in passing on their madness to successive generations.)

 

ADDENDUM: Since the above was written, the Balakian Dog of Flake has come up with a book where he threw in everything but the kitchen sink in contemporary Armenian research to prove the Armenian "Genocide": THE BURNING TIGRIS.

And don't forget The Peter Balakian Page.

 

"What kind of people are we?... Instead of reason, blind instinct. Instead of common sense, fanaticism."

An Armenian writer, quoted by Ara Baliozian (Source); Mr. Baliozian himself offers wise words:

"Finally, a warning: One of the worst mistakes an Armenian can make is to view our past through the eyes of our own historians. Imagine, if you can, a law that says, when it comes to character witnesses in a court of law, only mothers are qualified to testify for their sons."

Gwynne Dyer, in his even-handed 1976 essay examining the prejudice of historians on both sides: "Turkish 'Falsifiers' and Armenian 'Deceivers"

Egoyan's "Ararat" Lays an Egg (Excerpt)

By all accounts, it appears that the film, "Ararat," is a monumental flop in the tradition of "Ishtar." Cinema critics have recognized it for the crude propaganda piece that it is, and have concluded that this Armenian fellow, Egoyan, is no Stephen Spielberg but simply an opportunist who is trying to cash in on the "Schindler's List" genre by following in the footsteps of myriad other Armenian scam artists who have made a nice living by riding the coattails of the Jewish Holocaust, e.g. Richard Hovanissian, Vahakn Dadrian, Levon Marashlian, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Do the hapless suckers in the Armenian community ever notice that the above-mentioned "cambaz-ians" only travel first class and stay in first-class hotels?

Jean Marais

On Richard Hovannisian

 

When Professor Richard Hovannisian was honored for his 40th Year in Armenian Studies on November 9, 2001 by the Armenian Educational Foundation (AEF), Dr. Rubina Peroomian stated: "An achieved scholar is one that leaves an indelible mark in his field. With his scientific methodology, realistic approach, and analytic mind, Richard Hovannisian has broken ground for a national, post-Soviet Armenian historiography...He is a scholar par excellence."

-------------------

Sam Weems, in his book, "Armenia — Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State," relies in large part on Professor Hovannisian's four volume work, "The Republic of Armenia," to make his case.

"In the preface to volume III, Hovannisian writes, 'When I — the historian of the Armenian Republic — was elected in 1990 to membership of the esteemed National Academy of Sciences of Armenia — the implications of that act were profound.' This experience was so profound that when considered in connection with his family experience in what is known today as Armenia, he is not objective. It must also be noted that Hovannisian's four-volume history has been paid for by the taxpayers of California rather than by the dictatorial government of Armenia." (p. 70)

Professor Richard Hovannisian

  Weems exposes Hovannisian's words when they run contrary to the established Armenian version of events, and when they are shamefully untruthful.  Only on the next page is one example of the latter, among many: 

"He deceives his readers by making the statement that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, though formed in Tiflis, should dedicate itself to the emancipation of Turkish Armenians." By quoting K.S. Papazian, Weems goes on to show Hovannisian's Armenian Revolutionary Federation was nothing more than a terrorist organization.

Further: "The Armenian professor clearly places greater value on the human life of "Christian" Armenians as contrasted to "Muslim" Turks. ...Professor Hovannisian clearly overlooks the terrible deaths and losses of the Turks. The Republic of Armenia fails to provide balanced facts based on full truth. Rather, slanted views, half-truths, and deliberate misrepresentations are written, while other facts are simply ignored and omitted to create a history to please Armenians. This kind of 'custom-made-history' based on selective reviewing of facts and figures has nothing in common with true scholarship or Christianity."

-------------------

Footnotes to "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" reveal that Professor Hovannisian is at one with Professor Marashlian (above) when it comes to regarding the testimony of Ambassador Morgenthau as "Unimpeachable."

A case in point is the Armenian-American scholar Richard G. Hovannisian, who from his early works such as: Richard G. Hovannisian, Armenia on the Road to Independence,1918. Berkeley (University of California),1967: p. 52 until the recent: Richard G. Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick (Transaction Books),1986: pp. 29-30 (in his article entitled: "Historical Dimensions 1878-1923" ' and, again on p. (1)12 in his article: "The Armenian Genocide and Patterns of Denial"), makes frequent use of quotations from Morgenthau. Clearly, Hovannisian, whose current activities focus on Lecturing and writing on those who attempt to deny the historical reality of the Armenian 'genocide' (most recently, his: "Patterns of Denial Fail to Veil Genocide," in Armenian International Magazine. Volume l., No. I (July,1990), pp.16-17), might benefit from a more careful examination of the sources upon which he bases his characterisation of the fate of the Ottoman Armenians. 

Richard G. Hovannisian, The: a Bibliography Relating to the Deportations, Massacres, and Dispersion of the Armenian People,1915-1923. Cambridge, Massahusetts (Armenian Heritage Press),1980. On page 13, in a listing of collections of papers preserved in the U.S. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Hovannisian makes the following reference to the Morgenthau papers: "Henry Morgenthau Sr. (includes hundreds of reports about the massacres and the Ambassador's futile attempts to intercede). Despite the fact that such reports number in the dozens rather than the hundreds, Hovannisian's statement implies (given the absence of published studies in 1980 based on these papers), that he must indeed have examined the 'Papers of Henry Morgenthau' preserved in the Library of Congress. 

--------------

Professor Hovannisian, along with Peter Balakian (and Robert Melson, Christopher Simpson and Roger Smith), serve on the seven-member Academic Council  of the Armenian National Institute (ANI), "composed of individuals who have distinguished themselves in the fields relevant to the Institute's activity," according to its web site. (As of early 2003.) The non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. "is dedicated to the study, research, and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide. Its overarching goal is affirmation of the worldwide recognition of the Armenian Genocide."

If Professor Hovannisian has dedicated himself to a group that openly admits its commitment to affirming the "Genocide," does that not invalidate him (along with the other history professors, which excludes Balakian) as an objective historian? isn't this exactly what Heath Lowry was accused of when he was victimized by an Armenian-directed (headed by Balakian) smear campaign?

In addition, Hovannisian has held the Armenian Educational Foundation (AEF) Chair in Modern Armenian History at the University of California, since it was endowed in 1986. How is this different from the monetary grants Turkey offers to universities that causes such an outrage by Armenians and their sympathizers, such as Robert Jay Lifton? (Lifton is the hypocritical professor who said, "We feel strongly that there's been a violation of academic standards," about Heath Lowry; has the Armenophile been equally outraged over the impropriety of Professor Hovannisian's position?)

Examples of Richard Hovannisian's scholarship, from his four-volume work, "The Republic of Armenia," that Armenians in particular would do well to read; after all, if these excerpts came out of Professor Hovannisian's pen, they must be true.

Holdwater's Vote for
"Scariest Armenian Professor"

 

And the winner is...

The only thing I know about Professor George Bournoutian is what I saw in the TV-program, The Armenians, a Story of Survival... presented by major Armenian Advocate, America's Public Broadcasting System (PBS). The professor reminded me of Hansel and Gretel combined, and the Turks were the Gingerbread House... he was almost ready to put on a bib, and eat the Turks alive.

You could just feel the fury and hatred bursting out of his pores... almost see the artery in his neck forming into a knot, and hear the anger in his voice; every time it seemed like he was going to finish a point putting the Turks in a less than completely devilish light.... the inevitable zinger would not be far behind. Clearly, the Turks are just the worst race on earth.

 

The words of business writer Don Larson in his criticism of a story perfectly convey the efforts of Armenian (and many genocide) scholars in their single-minded effort to affirm the Armenian "Genocide," once their historiography is examined responsibly and  objectively.