Granted, quantity of publications is no indication of good scholarship (see, for example, the example of Sir Martin Gilbert); however, the variety of different and tough topics certainly promises a higher degree of intellectualism. As opposed to some agenda-ridden "renowned scholars" who concentrate only upon one propagandistic topic, and assume the position of telling us what good scholarship is about.

I like the way Prof. Guenter Lewy titled one of his books with the word, "Gypsies," which is not considered politically correct in some circles. One thing that can be said about this ace scholar; he possesses the courage to go against the tide, instead of mindlessly accepting what others tell him.

Let's move on to Dadrian's claims, in his attack upon Lewy.

"The principal vehicles used hereby are the publications of a rather small group of authors purporting to be detached and disinterested investigators. Upon closer scrutiny, however, these very same authors reveal themselves as committed partisans boldly pushing certain denialist agendas that are subtly and skillfully woven into texture of their discourses."

Dadrian starts off with a predictable smear. Now why in the world would Prof. Guenter Lewy be a "committed partisan"? Propagandists like Dadrian like to brand anyone who differs in opinion with their genocide as agents of the Turkish government. Is that what Dadrian is trying to say, here? Has Lewy had a history, or even a reason, of being "pro-Turkish"?

No. Guenter Lewy is a true scholar who looked at this massive con job of the pro-Armenians and courageously stepped forward to analyze the true facts. To do so means leaving oneself open to unfounded accusations as the unscrupulous Vahakn Dadrian is sneaking in, threatening one's valuable reputation. So let us not minimize the fact that what Guenter Lewy has done was very, very brave.

Guenter Lewy, not incidentally, is a Holocaust survivor (his family reportedly escaped Germany for Palestine in 1939) and scholar. (Although he has the integrity not to belong to the hypocritical and self-serving "genocide club.") If Lewy is "casting doubt on the appropriateness of the use of the label 'genocide'," then the only reason he would have to do so would be to pursue the truth.

Dadrian next moves on to tell us what an unworthy scholar Lewy is, as he harrumphs that Lewy's knowledge of Turkish makes him unqualified to judge such matters. I must say, I have never run into Dadrian's outrage over the lack of Turkish language knowledge exhibited by a score of "Armenian genocide scholar" cronies such as Roger Smith, Robert Melson, Tessa Savvidis Hofmann, Sir Martin Gilbert, Rudy Rummel, and a host of others.

He next states Lewy has a "very limited familiarity with the subject." Compared with Dadrian's obsession with the most minute and one-sided "smokescreen" details, everyone's familiarity would be comparatively limited, including and especially Dadrian's mostly ignorant "genocide scholar" friends.

Dadrian has pitifully devoted his life to this subject, after his lid was flipped over the fiction of "The 40 Days of Musa Dagh," the first of his three inspirational story books. Yes, Lewy has only comparatively begun to get his feet wet on this subject, and certain errors might have resulted. Dadrian has pointed out these little errors, which are akin to getting the name of a moon in our solar system wrong, as if such would change the integral fact that the planets still revolve around the sun.

Speaking of outer space, here's where Dadrian lays on his Big Bang: "One is prompted to wonder as to the origin and nature of the outside help (Lewy) may have received."

We all know what Dadrian is implying. What a cheap, underhanded tactic, isn't it? Certainly not befitting such a "renowned scholar" as Vahakn Dadrian. He can't offer any proof of his charge; he's merely putting it on the table in his typically slimy way, all in a day's work of trying to discredit a fellow academic whose views go against Dadrian's grain.

This is the tactic of a loser. Can't win with the truth? Get personal.

(An elaboration: Only the work matters. When Lewy gives the idea that Dadrian might be fudging truth at times, that is based only on Dadrian's work, and not on attacks of character based on the opponent's personal life. The pro-Armenians have been known to use, without reservation, smear attacks that aren't even based on truth, such as being an agent of the Turkish government, a convicted felon, a child molester. Now, would it be completely irrelevant if the opponent were a child molester? After all, wouldn't one's being a child molester be a reflection upon one's character? A respected scholar writing at an academic level has no business going there; only the work should matter. But other analyzers could bring such a factor into consideration, if, and only if, there is solid evidence. This is the trouble with Dadrian's unethical camp; they don't care about factual evidence. If they did, of course, they wouldn't be making "genocide" claims.)

"At the beginning of this war, once again Aram [Manoukian] relinquished his comfort and business, resorted to arms, and took the leadership of those who rebelled in Van. Russia, who now controls this province, appointed Aram as governor to please the Armenians who did their part extremely well in this war against Turkey."
Le Temps, Paris, August 13, 1915

Dadrian continues to embarrass himself further (I'm kidding! Does anyone believe the egotistical and ethically-challenged Vahakn Dadrian would be prone to embarrassment?) by writing, "According to professor Lewy, the Armenian claim of genocide is predicated upon 'the pillars,' namely, (1) the Turkish Courts- Martial of 1919-20, (2) the role of the Special Organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa), and (3) the memoirs of Naim Bey ...This highly inaccurate description again is reflective of his seemingly limited familiarity with the literature involved." [4]

Israel Charny

Ouch! Another low blow by our favorite "renowned scholar." Footnote [4]: along with a book documenting reports by biased, Christian-sympathizing Germans (which Dadrian loves to refer to as "the political and military ally of the Ottoman Empire," as if centuries of prejudice could be magically dispelled from a reluctant alliance), the sources are Richard Hovannisian, and Vahakn Dadrian himself. (Along with another book edited, as usual, by the prototypical "genocide scholar," Israel Charny; how someone who primarily serves as a book editor could be called a "scholar" is the next riddle for the Sphinx.) In other words, it's these dubious sources— including Dadrian himself ("Genocide Scholar" Sir Martin Gilbert also enjoys backing up his claims by pointing to himself: Dadrian often enjoys doing so, as well) — that are supposed to prove what a poor scholar Lewy is.

Dadrian next promises to "set the record straight." Quite a trick for one who is notoriously not a straight-shooter.

Get ready, ladies and gentlemen; Vahakn Dadrian is about to shoot himself in the foot, big-time.

"Of these, the one involving a lengthy discussion, based on his claim that they are 'forgeries,' covers the Naim-Andonian documents. That claim is mainly, if not exclusively, based upon a book produced by two Turkish authors..."

EXCLUSIVELY! I beg to differ. Aside from the two Turkish authors, another source indicating the illegitimacy of these documents is... Aram Andonian himself.

Aram Andonian not only "lost" the incredibly valuable originals of these documents (although he "guaranteed" their authenticity in a June 10, 1921 letter addressed to the lawyers of Soghomon Tehlirian, Talat Pasha's assassin; even this kangaroo court would not accept them), he also made a confession (in a letter dated July 26, 1937; published in the Dashnak publication, ‘Justicier du Genocide’):

"This report [Rössler’s report] is written in German. It contains much criticism about my book, which he considers lacking in objectivity. Moreover, he completely refutes most of the passages relating to the attitude of Germany during the war. There is no doubt that he is right in most of the matters he points out. However, he forgets that my work was not a historical one, but rather one aiming at propaganda."

There you have it! From the author himself... these telegrams — identified as his own work — had no historical foundation. Case closed.

Hilmar Kaiser

Dadrian desperately attempts paddling to the surface without arms and legs by citing Hilmar Kaiser, "a German author having very recently uncovered a number of authentic Ottoman documents from the Interior Ministry Section of Turkish state archives, established that these documents confirm to some degree the contents of two other telegrams ascribed to Talaat in Andonian’s book. Thus the dating of telegrams nos. 840 and 860 as January 1916 appears to be correct"; this assertion appears so meaningless, it brings tears to the eyes.

(Briefly: Andonian had botched up the calculations behind the Rumi and the Gregorian calendars. For telegrams intended to be 1915 demonstrating pre-planning of "genocide" operations, Andonian mistakenly wrote 1916. I don't know how much these Jan. 1916 documents can "confirm to some degree" Andonian's work, since by early 1916, the "genocide" was all but over... attested to by Ambassador Morgenthau himself, in a March 3, 1916 letter, quoted by Vahan Cardashian, to Lord Bryce. [The Armenian Review, Winter 1957, p. 107])

But we have another source attesting to the fact that the "genocide" was done with, by early-to-mid 1916:

Caption by Dr. Erich Feigl, "A Myth of Terror"

While I appreciate that Dadrian has newly legitimized his generation-old "The Naim- Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide," it is pathetic that he is such a singer of the "Armenian AND? Anthem" (in honor of Prof. Gerard Libaridian's reply, when "busted" as to the forged nature of these telegrams) that he will grasp on to any ridiculous piece of "evidence" to affirm his genocidal myth. Has he no conception over the quick path he is carving to Laughingstock Lane?

Dadrian whines that Lewy has overlooked Dadrian's own 1986 analysis that became a booklet, where the master deceiver attempted to validate these forgeries. Unfortunately, however, it is difficult for any true scholar to give credence to propaganda work supporting the work of another propagandist.

Stephen Feinstein

As to the worth of Dadrian's analysis, Prof. Norman Stone offered the following in an exchange with Dadrian (along with Dadrian's genocide scholar ally, Stephen Feinstein of the CHGS; Feinstein actually put up one of these telegrams as "proof" in his terribly hateful site):

"Professor Dadrian had a wonderful time trying to salvage the [Andonian] documents [in the 1986 article/ booklet], and I vastly admired the prestidigitation involved — for instance, if the paper was of the type used in French schools, and not of the type used in government offices, this can be explained by the paper shortage, he says. But if he cannot convince his major ally, who knows the Ottoman documents, well, there we are."

The major ally is Taner Akcam, Dadrian's own protege, who wrote in 1992: "There are important grounds for considering these documents fake." As Prof. Lewy noted, even the British could not use these forgeries during the Malta Tribunal, where the British desperately searched far and wide for the evidence to convict the accused Ottomans.

Dadrian makes no attempt to address Dr. Lewy's other fine points, such as "Talat Pasha may have turned into a vicious fiend (in Andonian's hands), but the opinions of his contemporaries do not support this characterization," citing impressive examples of how friendly Talat was regarded toward the Armenians before the war. I'll add another, from one of those books that popped Dadrian's cork, persuading him to devote his life to genocide: "I Ask You, Ladies and Gentlemen," by Leon Surmelian: "It’s common knowledge in Constantinople that the minister of the interior, Talat Pasha, dines and plays backgammon with our party leaders," according to Surmelian's Dashnak uncle. As I wrote in my analysis of the book, "can you imagine the pretense of dining with the object of racial hatred, and playing board games with them? Would Hitler have asked a Jew to share a few beers?"

Aram Andonian

Dadrian tries to dismiss Erik Zürcher's agreement on the forged nature of these telegrams, writing that Zürcher was only "content" to come upon a conclusion, not having ("as far as it is known") conducted "any comparable research." (Is it just me, or has Dadrian dissed the academic chops of Erik Zürcher, making it seem as though the Dutch historian frivolously and unprofessionally formed an opinion? Dadrian had better be careful, since Erik Zürcher appears to have great respect for Vahakn Dadrian, for some reason). But it's not like Erik Zürcher has the minority opinion. Everyone knows Andonian's work was a fake! Yet Dadrian has the nerve to write, "In the light of all this, Lewy’s standards of research are cast in stark relief, especially with respect to his conclusion that 'most historians and scholars dismiss "these documents'." I can think of two offhand that don't; Stephen Feinstein and Henry Theriault. But these are "genocide scholars," ones who come up with the conclusion first, and try to find the convenient evidence later; if we are talking about genuine historians or scholars who value objectivity, Lewy's conclusion is dead on. Even most genocide scholars know better than to play cheerleader for Aram Andonian's greasy work.

But thank you, Vahakn Dadrian, for clinging to this fakery, demonstrating a sorry level of desperation and a lack of integrity. Further ins and outs of Andonian's hocus-pocus may be examined here.

(We are well into the first decade of the 21st century, and the merits of an obvious forgery are still being discussed. What a remarkable testament to the power of Armenian propaganda.)


(ADDENDUM, mid-2006: Guenter Lewy did consult Dadrian's 1986 Andonian-defending work after all, as Lewy made clear in a reply to Dadrian in The Middle East Quarterly. Dadrian's Andonian work has been analyzed on TAT: Vahakn Dadrian's Greatest Embarrassment.)

Dadrian next tries to justify the 1919-20 Ottoman kangaroo courts. He had to close the book on the embarrassing Andonian chapter within a paragraph or two, but here he turns into a regular firecracker. These ersatz courts are Dadrian's bread and butter; without these courts, Dadrian basically has nothing. (Maybe that is why he is hedging his bets by trying to keep the legitimacy of the Andonian papers alive.)

Dadrian tries to defend the legitimacy of these courts by writing the Ottoman legal system was based upon the French system, where the judges get the facts from both sides in inquisitorial style, rather than the lawyers going at each other as is commonly known. But even in this inquisitorial system, where judges took a more active role, the judges maintained a level of neutrality. That is not what happened with these courts.

The reason why these were kangaroo courts is that the judges practically joined the side of the prosecution.

The reason for that was mainly the puppet Ottoman administration, under the occupation of the British, felt the need to satisfy the British. Why don't we let Dadrian himself explain, as he did during his 2001 Harvard lecture:

"When Turkey at the end of October 1918 laid prostrate and asked for a suspension of hostilities, the victorious allies — France, Britain, and Italy — stipulated, among others, a condition to postwar Turkish authorities... They said, ‘Unless you prosecute and punish the authors of Armenian deportations and massacres, the conditions of the impending peace will be very severe and harsh.’ In part, to accommodate the victorious allies, successive postwar Turkish governments established court martials in Istanbul, Turkey."

A gun was being held to the puppet Ottomans' head. Along with the fact that the administration of Damad Ferid Pasha was corrupt and would do anything to hold onto power... as well as being out for revenge against those in the previous administration... the search to find culprits was on. Otherwise, it would be curtains for the Turkish nation. The lackeys of the Allies bent over backwards as far as possible, finding nearly every defendant guilty. The British saved the lives of some of the defendants, ironically, by taking them away for their own planned trial, the Malta Tribunal. The end result was that the Allies' lackeys were rewarded, via the Sèvres Treaty, with the death of the Turkish nation.

Regardless of the outcome, anyone can see the big picture here; these courts were illegitimate. Just like the Vichy courts under Nazi control could not be found legal, by any stretch of the imagination.

But it's not the big picture Dadrian is concerned with; otherwise his whole life's work would crumble. His aim, as usual, is to throw countless little details in our faces, this time the testimony of men who would say anything to try and save their own necks.

Hmayak Khosrovian

To give an idea of how invalid these courts were, Armenian lawyers such as Hmayak Khosrovian were allowed as "personal prosecutors" and "private plaintiffs." So on one team, we had the defense. (Where the defendants could not choose their own lawyers.) On the other team, we had not one prosecutor, but multiple ones. Add the judge as one of the prosecutors, and the guilt of the accused was practically a done deal. (Khosrovian would go on to defend the "Nemesis" assassin of an Azeri official in 1921 Istanbul, Missak Torlakian. The killer walked in this other kangaroo court, this time held by the British.)

Lewy: "Probably the most serious problem affecting the probative value of the 1919-20 military court proceedings is the loss of all their documentation. What is known of the sworn testimony and depositions is limited to that related secondhand in selected supplements of the official gazette of the Ottoman government, Takvim-i Vekayi, and press reports. What is not known is the accuracy of the transcription and whether the newspapers reprinted all or only part of texts entered as evidence." Lewy then refers to Vehib Pasha's deposition, featuring an excerpt of what sounds like the general's condemnation of Behaeddin Shakir, informing us that "Parts of this deposition were included in the indictment of the main trial and in the verdict of the Harput trial, but an indictment is not proof of guilt. The context of the quoted remarks has been lost. While the entire text of the deposition was allegedly read into the record of the Trabizond trial on March 29, 1919, the proceedings of this trial are not preserved in any source; only the verdict is reprinted in the official gazette."

Dadrian counters with: "Contrary to Lewy’s declaration that its text, along with the text of other proceedings, is 'not preserved in any source,' the fact is that the text of General Vehib’s deposition was not only read into the record in its entirety at the second sitting of the Trabzon trial series (March 19, 1919), but that entire text was published also in several newspapers of the period." It sounds like we are talking about two different things: (1) the proceedings of the Trabzon/Trebizond trial in its entirety (which is what Lewy meant as not having been preserved in any source), and (2) "Vehib’s deposition ... in its entirety," which is what Dadrian is referring to as the "entire text... published ... in several newspapers of the period." Is a trial transcript supposed to equal a deposition?

Other than the fact that we can't conclusively say the newspapers printed the "entire" text (how do we know the newspapers managed to cover Vehib's deposition accurately and entirely?), where is this "record" of the trial? The only record is what the newspapers managed to salvage. And this is exactly what Lewy was talking about. Even if the Vehib deposition was transcribed accurately and completely, is this one mere example supposed to shatter Lewy's argument?

Let's give an ear to how Lewy described Takvim-i Vekayi, as "the official gazette of the Ottoman government." What does that mean? It means if the government was corrupt (once again: the government was under occupation by the enemy), why does Dadrian expect us to assume the government's newspaper would be trustworthy? (Dadrian assures us "several" newspapers were involved, without naming the others, as if they would have all been working independently. If others printed this Vehib deposition, the odds are the information was taken from Takvim-i Vekayi.)

Lewy also wrote (citing a 1999 Dadrian work from the Zoryan Institute): "According to Dadrian, 'before being introduced as accusatory exhibits, each and every official document was authenticated by the competent staff personnel of the Interior Ministry who thereafter affixed on the top part of the document: "it conforms to the original."' However, few historians would take period officials at their word without verification." Who could argue with that? Dadrian does, as famous as he is for throwing out anything to add his famous smoke and mirrors.

Dadrian tells us, the "competent staff personnel" were men who "were holdovers of the defunct and banished Young Turk Ittihadist Party, i.e., the CUP. In other words the residual partisans of the organization, whose top leaders were being prosecuted for a capital crime, are being accused of assisting the prosecution by way of accommodative dishonesty—because, as Lewy puts it, they are 'period officials.' What is the definition of the term 'stretching an argument'?"

First of all, how in the world could Dadrian possibly know the identity of "the competent staff personnel," and whether they were members of the previous CUP administration, when these records are no longer available? And even if "the competent staff personnel" were composed 100% of ex-CUP people, doesn't Dadrian get it? These courts were out for blood. The ex-CUP people knew they were at the new administration's mercy, since the new administration was out for revenge upon the ex-CUP people. With nooses tied loosely around their necks, who wouldn't wag his tail to make sure that noose doesn't get any tighter? Especially with the knowledge that these were illegitimate, kangaroo courts.

(Let's make a note here that Dadrian is vouching for the competence and honesty of these courts, because he'll be contradicting himself later.)

Since Dadrian asked, a related definition of "stretching an argument" is to base your response upon dishonesty, in hopes of clouding the mind of the observer.

One of Dadrian's favorite witnesses is Vehib Pasha, the Third Army Ottoman general, because Vehib apparently believed in state involvement. I got into this in my other pages examining Dadrian's works, and don't wish to tread over old ground. Suffice it to say I don't know why Vehib Pasha felt this way, as of yet. (Unfortunately all the information I have on Vehib, with the exception of what I will provide below, stems from Dadrian, at this point.) Maybe Vehib was right. But as far as I can see, he couldn't have taken time off from his desperate war duties to actively investigate, and I don't believe he offers anything besides his opinion. Frankly, opinions we have plenty of, whether they come from biased Western sources like Heck or Stange, or even from some Turkish sources, who could have been influenced by the hearsay of others; what we need is factual evidence.

Dr. Bahaettin Shakir

Maybe Vehib didn't like the man he accused, Shakir, and was petty enough to figure this would be a good way to put Shakir in a vice-grip. (While Shakir is presented as the personification of evil in Armenian propaganda, I'm not convinced; he did raise two Armenian boys.) Maybe Vehib was rattled from a genuine crime he encountered, the awful slaughter of Ottoman-Armenian troops (which he conducted a court-martial over, providing proof against the "genocide." No German general tried and hanged Nazi SS officers for crimes against Jews during WWII), and was predisposed to believe his government was just no good, not far from how certain current-day Turks feel about their own government today. Maybe he sensed that his nation was in great danger from merciless conquerors, and patriotically hoped to appease them with the condemning words he hoped the Allies would want to hear. (If Arnold Toynbee could lie for his government, perhaps Vehib Pasha could lie for his.) I don't know.

But let me throw some of Dadrian's own tactics your way, in an attempt to take the heat off Vehib's testimony supporting the idea of "genocide" (source: Justin McCarthy's 'Death and Exile,' pp. 198-9):

All people old enough to use weapons were rounded up, taken to the Sarikamis direction for road-building and were slaughtered. The remaining people were subject to cruelties and murder by Armenians following the withdrawal of the Russians and were partly annihilated, the corpses thrown into wells, burnt in houses, mutilated by bayonets, their abdomens ripped open in slaughterhouses, their lungs and livers torn out, girls and women hung up by their hair, after all kinds of devilish acts. The few people who were able to survive these cruelties, worse than those of the Spanish Inquisition, are in poverty, more dead than alive, horrified, some driven insane, about 1500 in Erzincan and 30,000 in Erzurum. The people are hungry and in poverty, for whatever they had has been taken away from them, their lands left uncultivated.

The people have just been able to exist with some provisions found in stores left over from the Russians. The villages round Erzincan and Erzurum are in the worst condition. Some villages on the road have been levelled to the ground, leaving no stone on stone, the people completely massacred.

Now note when Vehib Pasha made this report [13/14 March 1334 (1918), Belgeler I, no. 65] to his superiors in Istanbul, he never intended for these words to be publicized, unlike the testimony he provided a year later for the 1919 kangaroo courts. So you can bet what he said above was nothing less than the truth. He got into further detail at another time, where he estimated 1,000 homes had been destroyed, and where military colleague Ahmet Refik reported in another private communication that "Erzincan is a scene of tragedy. Wells are full of the corpses of Moslems. Dismembered bodies, hands, legs, heads are still spread all over the gardens of the homes":

[Vehib Pasa] From Chardakli-Bogaz to Erzincan I have seen all the villages destroyed to the point that not one villager's hut has escaped destruction. The trees in all the orchards have been cut down and all the villagers are dead. History has not recorded atrocities such as those committed by the Armenians in Erzincan. For three days we have done nothing but gather up the bodies of Muslims killed by Armenians then cast aside. Among these innocent victims are children not yet weaned, ninety year old men, and women cut to pieces.

How did I do? Did I convince you that Vehib's other testimony was illegitimate?

If not, then keep in mind... that is exactly how Vahakn Dadrian, and other propagandists like him, hope to throw you off track.

(And while we're at it... since Vahakn Dadrian loves Vehib Pasha and can't easily claim that Vehib Pasha was lying with this testimony showcasing the unbelievable and REAL savagery of the Armenians... why does "renowned scholar" Vahakn Dadrian never cover this other side of the coin? Do you think a real scholar could conscientiously turn a blind eye to all the horrors the Armenians had committed, the hundreds of thousands that the Armenians systematically exterminated?)

Let's continue our examination of Dadrian's Lewy-attack. From above, Dadrian adds:

"As to the other two, in this case, British High Commissioners, viz., Vice Admiral Sir S.A. Gough Calthorpe and Admiral Sir J. de Robeck, their disapproval and derogation of these trials was, as I have in detail explained elsewhere, [11] primarily derived from their belief that in prosecuting the authors of the massacres the Military Tribunal was lax and inept, and hence the trials were 'a farce' and 'a failure,' to the detriment of the Armenians, the victims. Nor was Malta, a mere temporary detention center, in any way intended to serve as a venue for any kind of 'trials'."

Dadrian's [11] footnote refers to Calthorpe and Robeck's lack of faith in how the puppet Ottomans conducted these trials in U.S. Archival documents dated January 9 and 10 of 1919. Here, Dadrian is trying to worm his way into making us believe that the two British admirals meant not that the trials were a legal travesty, but that the prosecution was inadequate, "to the detriment of the Armenians." Since practically all the defendants were found guilty, and the top guns of the CUP administration were all sentenced to death in absentia, I don't know how the puppet Ottomans could have been more harsh. (But of course, these sentences took place months later; so these British officers couldn't have been criticizing the fact that the Ottomans weren't tough enough, since in early January 1919, these trials hadn't begun.)

(Just to clarify, as Lewy wrote: "The most famous trial took place in Istanbul [in April 28, 1919], but it was not the first. At least six regional courts convened in provincial cities where massacres had occurred, but due to inadequate documentation, the total number of courts is not known. The first recorded tribunal began on February 5, 1919, in Yozgat." That's about one month after the early January criticisms; the Britons were clearly not alluding to either the lack of commitment or to the outcome of these trials.)

When S.A.G. Calthorpe wrote that these trials are 'proving to be a farce and injurious to our own prestige and to that of the Turkish government,' he clearly couldn't have included the Turkish government if he thought the Turkish government was being lax or inept. (What was he going to do, protect the Turkish government at the same time he was putting it down, for not having the wherewithal to prosecute adequately?)

If the way these trials were conducted were so lax or inept, Dadrian would be shooting himself once again in the foot, since Dadrian assigns so much importance to them. (Has what Dadrian written earlier made it sound like the Ottomans were being lax or inept? Quite the contrary, Dadrian stressed how legally perfect everything was.)

Clearly the British were referring to the unfair "kangaroo court" proceedings of the trials, which is why they completely threw out what these trials came up with, when the British decided to go with their own trials, known as the Malta Tribunal.

To emphasize this point further, let's examine the British archival footnotes Lewy provided: For Calthorpe: Aug. 1, 1919. For De Robeck: Sept. 21, 1919.

Well over half a year after the January footnotes Dadrian provided. This clearly establishes the officers were unhappy over how fixed and illegitimate these trials were. It is incredible Dadrian provided such misleading information.

As far as Dadrian's "Nor was Malta, a mere temporary detention center, in any way intended to serve as a venue for any kind of 'trials,'" this competes as one of Vahakn Dadrian's greater examples of shameless prevaricating ever. All one has to do is read the British archives to learn how intent the British were to convict the up to 144 accused Turks of "Armenian massacres" for over two years. What prevented them? No factual evidence, a foreign concept to those such as Dadrian. Note how Dadrian, the "renowned scholar," doesn't dare to go into Malta farther than the one sentence he wrote above. He even gives himself away with this one sentence. If Malta were a mere temporary detention center, what was the "venue" for the imprisonment? Were these internees locked up so far away for laughs? (More on Dadrian and Malta.)

In response to Lewy's point that the 1919-20 trial documents had been lost, Dadrian writes, "Did the documents disappear by themselves," or did the "new masters of Turkey" make sure of the loss? Since the answer will never be known, Dadrian can speculate all he desires. The answer is irrelevant; even the British rejected the trial information for their disputable nature and ultimate uselessness.

ADDENDUM, 4-06: From Dadrian's own pupil: "Dr. Taner Akçam ... insisted that the belief that nearly all Ottoman documents concerning the Genocide were destroyed by successive Turkish governments is a misconception. Although no proverbial smoking gun has been discovered to prove conclusively that the Young Turk government planned and executed the physical destruction of the Armenian people, there is extensive documentation relating to the genocidal intent of the regime." Three Turkish Voices at UCLA, Sevan Yousefian,
The Saints Sahag and Mesrob Church Newsletter, Jan./Feb. 2006, p. 9.

Trap: Armenian propagandists should be aware that by stressing the value of Ottoman archival evidence... that is, by making a stink about how the evidence was allegedly destroyed... they are admitting, in a sense, how worthless the rest of their "evidence," like the Blue Book, really is. If they had credible evidence that there was a genocide, in other words, they would not feel the need to resort to Ottoman records.

Then we have Ahmet Refik Altinay, who wrote a 1994 book called, "Two Committees, Two Massacres," and here's how Dadrian describes him: "Another reserve officer ... at the start of World War I, and subsequently with duties as deportation official, in a book published in the wake of that war with great compassion lamented the nightmare of the Armenian genocide. In doing so, he singled out the brigands, the 'chettes' of the Special Organization who, he said 'committed the greatest crimes,' (en buyuk cinayetteri) during that genocide." A 1994 book is described as having been published in the wake of World War I? Aren't we off by eighty years? (Perhaps this was a reprint, as the author was likely dead by 1994... but note how contradictory the provided information sounds) And can we be sure the "chettes" referred to are not the usual bandits, but actually attached to the Special Organization? (I'm suspicious here, because Dadrian did not include "Special Organization" as part of the quotation, and he has a tendency to "editorialize." Only a reading of the book will tell how well in context these claims are.

If we substitute the word "relocation" for Dadrian's word of "genocide," then I'll bet we would get a truer picture of the author's intent. (Relocation is not genocide. If the Turkish author wrote relocation, is it right for Dadrian to misrepresent this meaning?) Any human being, especially Turks, would be compassionate to the great suffering of the Armenians, as they were being displaced. Yes, this relocation process must have been a "nightmare." (Although the majority of Armenians reached their destinations unmolested. But the journey was no fun for anyone.) And there were "chettes" of Kurds and others that attacked the convoys, committing "the greatest crimes." (Whether the "chettes" in the book were specifically described as belonging to the "Special Organization" remains questionable.)

It seems like this is the same Ahmet Refik as the one referred to above, who had witnessed the savage acts of the Armenians in 1918. (If the same person, Death and Exile describes him, on pg. 240, as "Head of Section, General Headquarters"; perhaps Dadrian took liberty with the description of "deportation official." Granted, Refik might have had a different job two to three years prior to 1918. But if there were a job of "deportation official," it doesn't sound like a valuable military man would have been spared for this secondary role during desperate wartime.) I'd imagine the second half of his "Two Committees, Two Massacres" book details the massacres overseen by the Armenian committees. Is it fair for Vahakn Dadrian to try to neutralize Gwynne Dyer's testimony, as Dadrian does with footnote 27, by pointing to times Dyer came across as pro-Armenian... when Dadrian is content only to take the damning portions of Ahmet Refik's testimony, leaving out the parts where Refik likely condemned the Armenians? (Mar. 2006 ADDENDUM: My suspicions were correct. Since Dadrian has utilized Ahmet Refik as such a reliable witness, then the prosecutor should have no trouble in having us accept these other revelations from "Two Committees, Two Massacres." In addition, the book appears to have first been published in 1919 Istanbul.)

There is now an obsessive "genocide network" within Turkey itself, working just as diligently to dig up the genocide dirt for this profitable industry. One way I've become aware of this was through a correspondence with Dennis Papazian, where the Armenian Research Center professor forwarded a pro-genodice Turkish clipping that was sent to him by a Turkish genocide believer within Turkey. So the army of genocide advocates has extended to Turkey, and they are helping by going through past and present Turkish books and articles, singling out the damning parts... and Dadrian, who has a whole reservoir of these Turkish sources by now, is throwing at us every single Turk who thinks there was a genocide, or any other Turkish "massacre" reference. If he makes it seem like there is a plethora of such Turks giving their individual opinions, then he will have it even more made, because the lazy-thinking world will have greater reason to ignore the facts, since even all of these lazy-thinking Turks agree there was a genocide.

(Not to say if a Turk, or anyone else for that matter, who says there was a genocide should be dismissed. Of course, we have to listen to these people, because if there really was a genocide, then we would need to accept it. But in order to determine whether there was a genocide, we need facts. Real facts. Not hearsay. And certainly not twisted misrepresentations as Vahakn Dadrian offers, in the service of his agenda.)

(Perhaps I should elaborate as to what would be considered real evidence. For example: when an important Armenian leader like Boghos Nubar flat-out admitted that all Armenians [especially including Ottoman-Armenians] had militarily allied themselves against the Ottomans, that is real evidence to be respected. When an important Armenian leader like Hovhannes Katchaznouni flat-out admitted — contrary to the usual presented reasons, such as "jihad" — that the one and only reason as to why the Armenians suffered their fate was because the Ottoman-Armenian revolutionary groups plotted against their country, that is real evidence to be respected. When an important Ottoman leader like Talat Pasha flat-out admitted that every Armenian man, woman and child needed to be killed, that is real evidence to be respected. Because the last one never happened, and because Armenian propagandists recognized the dire need for such respectable evidence, they went ahead and invented the evidence. The reason why there is no true genocidal evidence is the reason why an unscrupulous propagandist like Vahakn Dadrian would still strive to make you believe the last one actually happened, with Dadrian's pathetically lingering support of the Andonian forgeries.)

So when Dadrian refers to one of his favorite "liberal" writers to bear witness, Ahmed Emin (Yalman), what do we make of his claim (via Dadrian) "referring to the same 'chettes' of the Special Organization, testified that these criminal bands 'directly pursued the goal of