Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  When Marashlian Attacks  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

 Levon Marashlian earned enough points with me to rank up there among My Favorite Armenians, when he had the guts to attend a REAL academic debate on the genocide subject, in 1990... as detailed in Dr. Marashlian's Report on an Important "Genocide" Debate.

However, here it is, many months later in the preparation of this site (March 2004)... and I ran into another essay written by Levon Marashlian that... this time... caused my heart to sink. Truly, there is no room to misinterpret where the Glendale Community College professor (and, currently, "visiting professor" of UCLA, the university of his mentor Richard Hovannisian) is coming from — he is unabashedly singing the Armenian AND? Anthem.




In an article entitled “Armenian-Turkish Dialogue and Unfounded Accusations,” the former protegé of Richard Hovannisian has gallantly stepped up to the plate, to defend his mentor’s honor... but wait until you see the manner and the style with which Marashlian has decided to handle the matter! 

We all know there can be no room for dissent in the Armenian camp. This is why those Armenians who have fond memories of the old country must secretly hide their feelings of resentment, as their “Silent Majority” hysterically continues their campaign of “Hate the Turk,” and poisoning minds everywhere. There are few  who dare to deviate from the norm, for two reasons: 1) Even if Armenians know they are in the wrong, they must keep silent... as the rule to be followed is: “My People, Right or Wrong,” and 2) Those Armenians who believe truth and integrity hold sway over tribal loyalties are afraid to speak, with full knowledge of what has historically happened to those who have pointed fingers at their own. This is what Dr. Heath Lowry called “The Curtain of Fear,” and what has allowed for more Armenian victims from Armenians than from Turks at certain points of history... and when Armenians don’t hero-worship their assassins by setting up defense funds or holding national ceremonies for their mass-murderers (Marashlian himself is on record for calling these terrorists "patriots"), they can’t bear witness to the actions of their criminals, as Armenian-American colonists demonstrated in 1933... when their own priest was killed in front of the entire assembly! 

In the last generation, Armenian terror tactics have largely shifted from knives, bombs and bullets to defamation campaigns. And it doesn’t matter if the targets are historians the Armenians consider as “pro-Turk,” such as Heath Lowry or Bernard Lewis (level-headed others will substitute the term “pro-Truth” for “pro-Turk”), or if the targets are Armeni-Lemmings who have established a solid history of singing the Armenian AND? Anthem. This is what missionary James Barton was bemoaning to Admiral Mark Bristol, in his famous letter... after a quarter-century of dutifully vilifying Turks in the service of Armenians; once the Armenian servant became hesitant to go all the way, then he became subject to attack. ("I probably have suffered as much from the lack of appreciation on the part of Armenians as anyone. For twenty-five years I have worked for them, I doubt if there is anyone in the country that has been more frequently attacked than have I, from Cardashian down.") In Barton’s case, the shameless and ungrateful attacker was lawyer Vahan Cardashian. Armenians and loyalty.... like oil and water. 

On TAT, we already took a look at one rare example of “An Armenian Tangles with an Armenian”... that was when Dr. Rouben Adalian viciously jumped down the throat of Armenian Forum co-editor, Ara Sarafian, when Sarafian dared to question the validity of the infamous “10,000 Drownings” story. Adalian defended the cornerstone of Armenian genocidal “proof,” Lord Bryce’s “Blue Book,” and practically accused Ara Sarafian of being an agent for the Turkish government. (I guess Ara Sarafian felt the need to prove to the Armenian community that he was no traitor, since he served as editor for 2000’s Armenian-reprinting of the discredited war propaganda work... trying to make the Blue Book appear as valid history.)



Lima and Sarafian; under the gaze of William Saroyan

Vincent Lima stands at center, with Armenian Forum partner Ara
Sarafian at his side. A portrait of the great Armenian writer William Saroyan
keeps an eye on them. Have these boys read Saroyan, or did they purposely turn
a deaf ear when Saroyan declared, "‘’The real enemy of the Armenians
were the Russians, not the Turks’’?

 The victim of attack in this episode: the other co-editor of Armenian Forum, Vincent Lima.

Levon Marashlian begins his emotional attack by declaring:

A far-reaching issue involving Armenian-Turkish dialogue and unfounded accusations by Vincent Lima, co-editor of Armenian Forum, has been brewing for several months. It boiled over this summer when we learned in July, in an interview conducted in Istanbul, that Turkish deniers of the Genocide have exploited unjustified and destructive charges by Mr. Lima against Dr. Richard Hovannisian, Armenian Educational Foundation Chair in Modern Armenian History at UCLA.

(Well... Levon sure isn't helping his academic integrity with such name-calling as "deniers." That's a catchphrase the Armenians have made excellent use of, in their attempts to equate their beloved "genocide" with the very real Holocaust. Is Levon Marashlian attempting to reduce the character of the very honorable [by his own admission] Turkish scholars he met at the 1990 Ankara conference, by portraying them as crazed neo-Nazis who contemptibly pretend there was no genocide against the Jews?)

(At least Marashlian contained himself and didn't go all the way by using the word "fascist," as Ara Sarafian did... in an interview with The Armenian Weekly, to be found in the pages of Armenian Forum.)

Here is what Vincent Lima said:

"The only clue at my disposal is Professor Richard Hovannisian's amazing statement on 13 September 1998 suggesting that there is a need for special caution in any 'dialogue with the Turks.' The statement is amazing not only for its racist content but also for its lack of self-confidence."

Marashlian declares: “The only thing amazing in the passage above is Lima's bizarre belief that a call for caution has a ‘racist content’ and that it reflects a ‘lack of self-confidence.’ “

Levon Marashlian

Levon Marashlian

We will get to to how Levon Marashlian defends his position momentarily, and whether it is fair to classify Lima’s comment as a “bizarre belief.” Let us first examine how Marashlian’s mentor, Richard Hovannisian, has stacked up in his impartial attitude and quality of scholarship.

In his book, Christian Scholar Samuel Weems dissected Richard Hovannisian’s four-volume “The Republic of Armenia.” Time and again, Weems exposed the inconsistencies, manipulations, fabrications (Hovannisan’s “cooked book” figures, in particular... the same numbers for casualties are used for refugees) and downright stupidities in Hovannisian’s work.

One of many examples (Armenia — Secrets of a “Christian” Terrorist State, p. 128, 2002):

Hovannisan goes on to add another reason why there could not have been a large-scale killing of Armenians by Turks in 1915, “Even though the Ottoman Empire had long since capitulated, Turkish Armenia still languished under the hand of the butcher, the refugee throngs, denied the right to reclaim their villages, died of starvation and disease all along the border, and countless Christian women and children remained prisoners of the harem.” (P295)

How can an unbiased historian use a phrase such as “languished under the hand of the butcher”?

Weems makes an excellent point. My answer is: only a racist historian can make such a statement... unless he has the ironclad facts to back up his case. And impartial truth-seekers are all fully aware Armenian evidence boils down to hearsay and canards, and there is not even one bit of genuine evidence proving the Ottoman government was behind a systematic extermination plan.

Weems goes on:

Clearly, he uses such adjectives in an attempt to write a new and slanted version of history to justify and excuse his native Armenia.

There is no question about it: Thousands upon thousands of Armenians did die of “starvation and disease.” Why? Historical evidence records most of these individuals chose to follow their dictator leaders into a desolate land and this was the terrible price they paid. Other Ottoman citizens of other races (such as Kurds) who remained loyal to their country did not share this fate. To call the Turks “the butcher” is just plain nonsense. A more proper description than “languished under the hand of the butcher” should be “languished under the hand of the greedy Armenian dictator leaders.”

Hovannisian cries out that “countless Christian women and children remained prisoners of the harem.” Again — this is pure nonsense. Hovannisian doesn’t name a single “harem” anywhere in his four-volume series. No names, no addresses, nothing. He couldn’t name any, because there weren’t any.

Sam Weems, by the way, was also vicitimized by yet another grotesque Armenian smear campaign... when the $2.5 million budgeted Armenian Assembly of America committed libel by claiming Weems was a “convicted felon.”

What Weems provides is only one example of Hovannisian’s bias and agenda-laden scholarship. (I can’t even label Hovannisian’s work as “poor” scholarship, because that would mostly imply shoddy research. I believe those such as Hovannisian and Dadrian have researched this arena inside out, and know the real truths and lies; it’s not they are misled, like your typical Armeni-Lemming... what is happening is that they know the real truth and are deliberately misleading, making them the worst type of historian... and guilty of first-degree ethocide.)




Richard Hovannisian

Richard Hovannisian

 Let’s look at a few more examples of Hovannisian’s racist regard for Turks as inhuman creatures. In a PBS-TV debate, Hovannisian was caught on record saying “My father, when he had an opportunity, would kill something.” He couldn’t even bring himself to admit those were human beings his father was killing, and not things.

Hovannisian, who authored or edited several works on Islam (which would indicate he has more than a basic knowledge of the religion) asked during a presentation sponsored by the Armenian-hotbed University of Minnesota’s CHGS, “ Which religions recognize one God?”

The answer was, “Judaism and Christianity.” Dr. Hovannisian followed up with: “Moslems were killing Christians everywhere in the 19th century.”

Dr. Meltem Deniz, who bore witness to this presentation, reports:

Would he not know that Islam as well recognizes one God? .....

If that is the case, what was his objective?

What made him think that he has the right to insult my religion and faith? What made him think that he has the right to convey wrong information such as ‘Moslems were killing Christians everywhere, when actually it was the “Christians” who occupied the “Moslem” lands in the 19th century? Was he trying to imply and emphasize that Christianity is an evolved religion, but Islam is a primitive one, and so the Moslems are primitive and barbarians?

What he did overall was use the manifestation of religion to propagandize or advocate national and/or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination and hostility. I would also consider this as a verbal harassment on the basis of religion and national origin.

As far as the other charge of Richard Hovannian’s ‘lack of self-confidence,’ Levon Marashlian himself is in a good position to shed light on that one. The very conference Marashlian attended that I give him huge credit for was turned down by Richard Hovannisian. The propagandist-professor reportedly did not even extend the courtesy of a reply.

If Hovannisian was so confident of his historical position, wouldn’t he have jumped at the chance to prove the “pro-Turk” scholars wrong?

In this very conference, there was another telling clue; let us have Dr. Marashlian tell us, in his own words:

(Dr. Salahi) Sonyel also recalled that in 1984 he had met Marashlian and his mentor Dr. Richard Hovannisian in San Francisco, where "I personally asked Prof. Hovannisian, why don't we come together (?) I said to him and set up a sort of organization to study the Turkish-Armenian relations, and let's publish papers together. I will help you come into the Turkish archives, you help me go into the Armenian archives, we put our heads together, and we'll try to get at the root of the problem. All I received from him was a grin and a hand shake. The offer still stands." 

Dr. (Mehmet) Saray: "I think we must come together. We must arrange joint sessions, symposiums. There is no point in hating, refusing to shake our hands, etc. etc. I think as a civilized people, we can come together."

That was in 1990, and you can bet your bottom dollar Richard Hovannisian still has trouble bringing himself to agree with Dr. Saray, and hasn't lifted a finger to take Dr. Sonyel up on his offer.

Isn’t it obvious those like Richard Hovannisian cannot stand the idea of "come together," since they can only pull the wool over peoples' eyes through monologue, rather than dialogue?



This is why biased presentations given by the “Armenian Genocide Club” are often operated behind closed doors. Filmings and tapings are generally prohibited. (Exactly the way the Chicago workshop this Marashlian attack concerns was conducted.)  When Dr. Deniz questioned a map presented by Richard Hovannisian at the aforementioned CHGS conference, the director of CHGS, Dr. Stephen Feinstein, threatened to call the police.

The degree of dishonesty is simply stomach-churning.

Let us continue our exploration of Levon Marashlian’s self-exposure to the charade.

Dr. Marashlian asks:

Given the decades of dispute involving the scholarship and politics surrounding the historiography of the Genocide, it is quite natural to exercise caution in a dialogue between Armenians and Turks. In fact, it would be amazing not to exercise caution. What would Lima want? Should Armenians exercise no caution?

What is “caution”? The way to conduct true debate is to invite participants from both ends of the spectrum and engage in a real academic exchange of facts and thoughts... exactly as was the case in the 1990 Ankara conference that Marashlian attended. Practically all the major Armenian scholars were invited, and only Marashlian apparently accepted; the only way for the organizers of this Ankara conference to have exercised caution would have been NOT to invite propagandists/prosecutors such as Dadrian and Hovannisian... and yet, the Turkish organizers were confident and big hearted enough to invite even these pseudo-scholars.

Similarly, the only way members of the “Armenian Genocide Club” exercise caution is NOT to invite scholars who have opposing views (and who are objective, without the hysterics of the Dadrians and Hovannisians... such as Professors Justin McCarthy and Bernard Lewis)... but they usually don’t dare. Instead, they pretend to display objectivity by including Armenian-sponsored Turkish Turncoats such as Taner Akcam (and some of the turncoats have had other reasons to turn, besides direct sponsorship... see the Turkish Scholars page), and then dishonestly turn to these Armenians-in-Turkish-clothing, and then say, See! The Turks agree with us.

Levon Marashlian

Levon Marashlian

Marashlian criticizes Lima for inconsistency in criticizing Hovannisian, and at the same time for congratulating the pro-Armenians who organized the paranoid and conducted-behind-closed-doors Chicago workshop (including the Armenians Ronald Suny and Kevork Bardakjian, the "genocide scholar" Robert Melson, and the Armenian-in-Turkish-clothing Fatma Müge Göcek [with cameos by her turncoat comrades, Engin Akarli, Selim Deringil, Halil Berktay and a few others], the latter of whom, along with other pro-Armenians from this Chicago event —Stefanie Platz and Kenneth Church — have jobs in Dennis Papazian’s Armenian Hotbed, the University of Michigan.) Marashlian might have a point... but Vincent Lima can’t be TOO critical of Armenian policy, so let’s give him a break. For him to reveal the degree of honesty he has revealed is already in the “rare and unheard of” category.

Marashlian is not bashful when it comes to mercilessly skewering Vincent Lima, using such terms as “arrogant intolerance.” Marashlian complains: “Raising the specter of (racism) serves to discredit a renowned scholar who for 25 years has been at the forefront of the academic effort against the denial. The discrediting of Hovannisian, of course, would be welcomed by deniers. What in the world does Lima think he is doing?”

(If you thought you noticed your computer vibrating just now, that could only have been Marashlian's shock resonating your way: why, this is outrageous! One of our very own is traitorously compromising our entire raison d'etre! What in the world does Lima think he is doing?)



Marashlian is correct in one sense; Hovannisan has been renowned. The reason is, the near-unilaterally presented Armenian “Genocide” propaganda for some ninety years and longer has had the longest time to incubate, and is now perceived as the general wisdom. Naturally, a fraudulent historian such as Richard Hovannisian would be regarded as “renowned” by the ignorant and biased, lazy-thinking Western world community. However, what separates a true intellectual or academician is braving the waters beneath the surface... and it’s not difficult to ascertain where the heart of this “renowned scholar” truly lies.

The purpose of a real scholar is not to openly be part of an agenda, such as being “at the forefront of the academic effort against the denial,” as Marashlian openly admits. The purpose of a real scholar is to tell the truth, no matter how much it may hurt.

Why, even Vincent Lima paid lip service to this "foreign concept" to the Armenians:


"The job of honest scholars is to question and correct and debunk."

Vincent Lima

From his "Another Crack in the Wall of Silence" that Levon Marashlian decided to savage. (Maybe it was the quote above that got Levon Marashlian to bare his teeth.)


 Let us keep in mind that even Richard Hovannisian was affected by a bout of “temporary sanity” in 1982, when he declared, (at the "Congress on the Problems of World Armenians"): "The Armenian problem could not be proved. The genocide is not valid legally and it is exposed to prescription."  If Hovannisian himself once admitted the genocide could not be proven, what would a legitimate scholar be doing, placing himself “at the forefront of the academic effort against the denial”? The reasons obviously wouldn’t have much to do with respecting genuine historical facts.

Marashlian begins a following sentence in the following manner: “Added to Lima's dangerous irresponsibility is his unscholarly and mean-spirited manipulation of Hovannisian's statement which...” WHEW! Calm DOWN, Professor Marashlian! Poor Vincent Lima simply expressed an opinion based on real facts, for goodness’ sake...

Let us once again examine Lima’s little footnote (that's correct; this statement wasn't even in the main body of his essay):

"The only clue at my disposal is Professor Richard Hovannisian's amazing statement on 13 September 1998 suggesting that there is a need for special caution in any 'dialogue with the Turks.' The statement is amazing not only for its racist content but also for its lack of self-confidence."

Hovannisian warns against dialogue with the Turks. Turks exactly like Marashlian’s opponents at the 1990 Ankara conference that Marashlian himself found generally kind and fair and warm. (The only one Marashlian mainly criticized was a non-Turk, British Professor Andrew Mango.) Does Marashlian believe, based on his own experience, that such Turks would purposely distort Hovannisian’s conclusions (which would be a reason for “caution”) instead of debating such conclusions on their own merit? If these Turks came across as human beings with integrity, then why WOULD Hovannisian be afraid of any dialogue with them? The only two logical reasons are that 1) Hovannisian is contemptuous of Turks (which would be racism), and 2) Hovannisian knows his findings rarely have a leg to stand on (which would betray a lack of self-conidence).


(After earlier stating in his report that he had met "several Turks... who appeared genuinely open-minded," Marashlian informs us, using the third person):

Reflecting on his week in Turkey, Marashlian said: "It was rewarding on the professional level and quite enjoyable on the personal level. All the Turks I met were friendly, and although I vigorously disagreed with their position on the Armenian Question, I got along quite well with them, especially with Mehmet Saray, Kamuran Gurun, Sinasi Orel, Ezel Kural, Salahi Sonyel, Husamettin Yildirim, Esin, Gulfem Aslan and Recep Guvelioglu of Turkish TV, and Sinan Kuneralp of ISIS Press, who for years has been advocating a scholarly exchange between Turks and Armenians."


So why would Marashlian attempt to present such obvious racism and lack of self-confidence as “unscholarly and mean-spirited manipulation”? Aside from being little different from his mentor, Marashlian’s message is clear:

Step out of line, and your precious character will be open to wild and merciless attack; even if... or especially if... you are an Armenian member of the Armenian Genocide Club.

It’s like the Mafia! Once you rat on your paisans, you’re dead..!

Hunchak volunteer bandsmen in 1915

Hunchak volunteer bandsmen who fought the Ottoman army and committed unspeakable atrocities against Turkish villagers. (From the Armenian Daily "Azk" of March 2nd 1915... a year when Marashlian insisted there was no Armenian army, to Justin McCarthy, during their conflict at the 1990 Ankara conference. )

Marashlian writes, “What does it say about Lima and the virtue of being grateful, when he turns against someone who congratulated him and his partner and wished them success?” In other words, if someone says something nice about you, you should shut your mouth when that someone does something you don’t approve of?

Talk about the irony of “the virtue of being grateful”... a foreign concept to most Armenians. Let us ask James Barton how he felt when Vahan Cardashian savagely came after the missionary’s hide. I wonder how the Armenians’ greatest friend, President Woodrow Wilson, felt when Armenians embarked on their typical campaign of attack once the president refused to totally support Armenians’ hopes to get free Ottoman land, by committing American lives and millions of dollars? And what of Levon Marashlian himself... after Heath Lowry had treated Marashlian so kindly in the 1990 conference, did he make an attempt to still Peter Balakian’s disgusting smear campaign against the Princeton professor, years later? Where was Marashlian’s “virtue of being grateful”?

Marashlian continues with his attack: Lima's ridiculous reference to a lack of self-confidence brings to mind the image of a mouse trying to push over an elephant; it simply makes Lima look silly. But the bigger picture--referring to racism in his criticism of a distinguished scholar who has congratulated him and promoted his publication--makes one wonder whether Lima has any sense of humility, civility, conscience, or common decency.

Talk about looking silly..! What was that about people living in glass houses?



Vincent Lima is no counterpart to Taner Akcam; he is definitely no "Armenian Turncoat." Here is what he had to say during a 1998 interview with The Armenian Weekly:

Vincent Lima and Ara Sarafian

Vincent Lima and Ara Sarafian

Professor Richard Hovannisian has often complained that responding to Turkish government- sponsored denial saps all our energies; it denies us the opportunity to come to grips with the actual events of the Genocide. He is right. But now, as a matter of scholarship, the veracity of the Armenian Genocide is unassailable. Now it's time to move forward with the work of analysis. The possibility of moving forward exists today thanks to the lifetime work of Vahakn Dadrian—whose contributions encompass both meticulous documentation and brilliant analysis; the key role of Professor Hovannisian; the solid work of Donald Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller; the path-breaking research of Raymond Kévorkian, to name a few scholars; and the unsung but vital contribution of all the survivors who have written their memoirs.

This is the full-fledged, fellow singer of the Armenian AND? Anthem that Levon Marashlian set his sights on for his no-holds-barred attack, just for one itty-bitty remark (which actually only appeared as a footnote!) that was not completely in line with the Armenians' genocide facade. Even actual traitors like Taner Akcam don't get the level of viciousness (from this site, for example) that Marashlian has designated for his fellow propagandist. Wild!

 Hovannisian participated in “a panel including the Genocide at the 11th Biennial Conference of the International Oral History Association held in Istanbul in June,” and Marashlian reports:

The "Turkish Historical Foundation had found a strong weapon with which to sustain its argument that `Hovannisian has stated that he will never sit around the table with Turks'," said Hovannisian, adding, it was "deplorable that the opportunity was given to use an Armenian source to further the attempt to suppress the panel."

Isn’t that just like Richard Hovannisian. Criticizing as “deplorable” an inconvenient FACT that gets in the way of his position. Exactly the way Hovannisian regards his treatment of history.

For example, when he was caught off-guard and replied truthfully to why Ottoman Jews were not treated similarly to the Ottoman Armenians (because the Jews did not want their own homeland, he unthinkingly replied; interesting that none of the Armenian pseudo-reasons first came to the renowned scholar’s mind, such as pan-Turanism, Moslems hating non-Moslems, the Turks being after Armenian wealth [as if Ottoman Jews were not wealthy], and a needing to find a scapegoat to feed frustration over lost Ottoman lands), Richard Hovannisian later tried to explain his faux pas by coming up with some smokescreen reason that he found no less deplorable. Prof. Hovannisian, if you’re going to blurt out some comment you’re going to regret later, then be MAN enough to accept the responsibility for your comment. That is what a MAN does; accept the responsibility for one’s statements, or actions. Not the Armenian way, I know... since the only reason why tragedies befell the Armenians was because they betrayed their nation in their nation’s darkest hour. How about being MAN enough to accept the responsibility for your forefathers’ actions, instead of dishonorably trying to make it appear like there was a genocide?

Here is how Marashlian explains the behavior of his villain-of-the-moment, Vincent Lima:

And now, instead of being a gentleman and admitting the harm he has caused, Lima is trying to deflect the blame, for what he calls "the fallout," away from his own blunder to Hovannisian himself. Lima wrote to H-TURK on July 13: "The opportunity [to use an Armenian source] was given by Professor Hovannisian himself," since it was he, "speaking before 300-odd people in Pasadena in September 1998, who suggested that there is a need for special caution in any dialogue with 'the Turks.' Public intellectuals cannot make statements before large audiences and expect to escape responsibility for those statements." He added: "I stand by my [March 2000] report, which can be found online at <http://www.gomidas.org/forum/chicago.htm>."

Well, who could disagree with that? Of course, Levon Marashlian would, and here’s how he expressed his disagreement:

Since Hovannisian's trip to Istanbul in June exposed the holes in the spin Lima posted in March, he is now resorting to an adolescent ruse to cover up his big blunder: "I am glad to see that Professor Richard Hovannisian has revised his longstanding position against conversations with Turkish scholars," wrote Lima.

Did Levon Marashlian consider the reason why Hovannisian made a trip to Istanbul in June might have had a connection to the “fallout” of his own dumb statement that Lima exposed earlier? If Marashlian wishes to expose the holes in Lima’s “spin,” then Marashlian ought to come up with examples of Hovannisian’s sincere dialogue with Turks BEFORE the time of Lima’s “spin.”

And here’s how Marashlian tries to do exactly that:

The co-editor of Armenian Forum needs to learn to write more accurately--after doing his homework. Hovannisian indeed has had "conversations" with Turkish scholars over the course of many years, long before the Istanbul conference. He had even participated in conferences with Turkish scholars before the Istanbul conference. In the paragraph following his comment on "conversations," Lima himself mentions one of those meetings, where Turkish scholars who "have tried to distance themselves from Ankara's official line" on the Genocide "spoke at an ARF-sponsored conference at the Sorbonne in Paris in 1998."

In other words.... Marashlian tries to use the latter-day Dashnaks’ phony talk in Paris with Turkish Turncoats as an example of Hovannisian’s having a dialogue with Turks!




But Lima leaves out a crucial fact: Hovannisian also participated in that same Paris conference! Lima's brazen distortion through omission is outrageous.

There was nothing to omit.... this was not an example of Hovannisian sitting down with REAL Turkish scholars, as Marashlian hiimself did in 1990.... Hovannisian was simply among pals of the Armenian Genocide Club, some of whom happened to include Armenians-in-Turkish-clothing. There is someone engaged in outrageous distortion here, and it’s not Vincent Lima.

Marashlian further damages whatever is left of his credibility by giving another example of Hovannisian’s sharing a podium with Turks (i.e., Armenians-in-Turkish-clothing), in an October 1996 Bochum, Germany conference. “The truth is, neither Hovannisian nor several other scholars who were absent from the Chicago conference--most notably Dr. Vahakn Dadrian--have ever opposed a constructive dialogue.”

The TRUTH is Hovannisian and Dadrian have almost ALWAYS opposed a constructive dialogue with REAL Turkish scholars. The key word is “constructive”: the Armenian definition of this word is when the dialogue takes place with Turkish Turncoats, or
Armenians-in-Turkish-clothing; when REAL Turkish scholars are involved, the dialogue turns “destructive” to the Armenians.

If ”Hovannisian nor several other scholars who were absent from the Chicago conference--most notably Dr. Vahakn Dadrian--have ever opposed a constructive dialogue” with REAL Turkish scholars, then why did they reportedly refuse to give even the courtesy of a simple reply to the kind invitation sent to them at the 1990 Ankara conference... the one that I singled Marashlian out for praise, for having had the courage to participate?

When Levon Marashlian contemptuously writes, “The co-editor of Armenian Forum needs to learn to write more accurately--after doing his homework,” he would do better to substitute “Levon Marashlian” for “The co-editor of Armenian Forum.”

A primary player in this evolutionary (expanding pool of dialogue) process is Dr. Dadrian. Yet Lima criticizes him (indirectly) for not going to Chicago, even though Dadrian already has been having a productive dialogue--predating Chicago by several years--with Turkish scholar Taner Akcam and publisher Ragip Zarakolu.

I can't conclusively comment on Ragip Zarakolu at the moment (a search revealed his name associated with tons of Armenian and "Kurdistan" sites,  and keeping constant company with the likes of Akcam and Halil Berktay), but “Turkish scholar Taner Akcam” is only given as an example to pull the wool over the eyes of those who don’t know better. Marashlian should be ashamed of himself for giving the one-time Armenian-sponsored Akcam as an example of a real Turkish scholar, when Marashlian fully knows the difference between this Turkish Turncoat and a real Turkish scholar; woefully disingenuous of Levon Marashlian.



 Prof. Marashlian continues his eye wool-pulling by stating further:

One of the reasons why the dialogue is evolving in the right direction, why a few Turkish progressives are now stepping back from Ankara's line, is because Hovannisian, Dadrian, and many others (including myself) have been steadfastly countering that official line in scores of scholarly and mainstream publications, public forums, governmental hearings, scholarly meetings, informal conversations, exchanges on the Internet, as well as on radio and television during the last 20-plus years. One example is my participation in the 11th Turkish Congress of History in Ankara in 1990 (where--coincidentally--Sarafian was present as an observer). In those academic, civic, and media exchanges, that started in the late 1970s, intensified throughout the 1980s, and continued in 1990s, in debate after debate, it is the Armenians who prevailed overall--by exposing and discrediting the deniers' disinformation time and time again.

Here are the real reasons that explain the goings-on:

The 1990 conference was one of the FEW authentic debates. Armenian-sponsored talks (taking place at hypocritical genocide institutions, whom the Armenians have cleverly allied themselves with over those past twenty years that Marashlian refers to) that take place behind closed doors and involve only those who are full-fledged members of the “Armenian Genocide Club” (where membership is granted only if you admit to a genocide having taken place) cannot constitute as genuine debates. One can only have a debate if two opposing sides are present, not one side where everyone agrees with one another.

Those like Marashlian might prefer a wool-pulling-over-the-eyes term such as “progressives” to describe Turkish Turncoats. A better word would be “opportunists,” And that word does not apply to those Turkish Turncoats who were sponsored by the Armenians.... such as when ex-terrorist Taner Akcam cozied up with Vahakn Dadrian, and then suspiciously was hired at Dennis Papazian’s university... a job he got fired from, once his shoddy credentials were exposed by Michigan’s Turkish community. Of all the American universities, it is telling that Fatma Müce Göcek happened to land a job at Papazian’s university, as well. I don’t know the circumstances behind her getting this job, but I wonder if the following speculation can be too far off the mark: “Hmmmmm.... if I sell my soul to the Devil and become a complete mouthpiece for the Armenians... I can have this neat, lucrative career in the United States of America, following my neat, lucrative career in Germany.”

In REAL debates, the Armenians have no chance of prevailing. Marashlian did not prevail at the 1990 conference; nobody came up to Marashlian afterwards and said, You’re RIGHT, Levon! By God, you have come up with IRREFUTABLE evidence that there was a government-sponsored plan of extermination directed against your people. If anything, Marashlian was treated courteously but appears to have been humored, overall.... even in his self-written piece, where Marashlian tries hard to come across as having trounced the pro-Turks...  it isn't difficult to read between the lines.

Professor Heath Lowry

Professor Heath Lowry

   There is truth in Marashlian’s statement where he and other propagandists have been “steadfastly countering” what he likes to represent as “the Turkish government says.” (By writing “Ankara’s line”... when the reality is, it’s not just the Turkish government that believes there was no genocide. Sixty-nine Western scholars thought otherwise in their 1985 statement, at the point where this subject matter was intensifying, as Marashlian put it. It was also at this point where the Armenians thought, Hey! We had better do something, otherwise people are going to stop believing the Con Job we worked so long to set up. This is when they began to actively ally themselves with today’s missionaries, the hypocritical genocide scholars... and began their terror campaign of smear campaigns. Few Western historians today dare to enter this minefield today.... who would want to come under the kind of attack Heath Lowry was subjected to?)




Another thing Marashlian and his co-propagandists can rely on are that the Turks in Turkey are misinformed about this matter.... since, unlike the Armenian practice of fostering hatred in their homes and churches, the Turks ignored the Turco-Armenian goings-on of WWI. Not to cover up crimes, as the Armenians conveniently love to claim... but to discourage feelings of hatred and racism against the Armenians, which would become easily apparent when Armenian atrocities and betrayal would come to the forefront. Therefore, the largely ignorant and apathetic Turks of Turkey appear to be ripe for the picking.... a nation that the Armenians falsely present as where the topic is taboo, under threat of imprisonment. Yet, Marashlian himself has written a book in Turkish, obviously for distribution in Turkey.... that he has put up at his own web site. Little by little, there are signs that even Turkish schoolchildren are getting brainwashed, and Turkish Turncoats such as Halil Berktay (who actually refers to northeastern and eastern Turkey as “Turkish Armenia”) have gained ground in Turkish universities. It’s a despicable situation.

The bottom line is, the Turks have better things to think about than a conflict that took place nearly a century ago. By contrast, the Armenians regard their beloved genocide as Raison d’Etre #1. The Armenians have the deep pockets to finance their passion... the $2.5 million budgeted Armenian Assembly of America, for example, has forty to fifty professionals working full time to undercut Turkish interests. (Add to this all the other well-financed Armenian organizations throughout the world... the AGBU has a budget ten times as much as the AAA, for example.) There are no comparable Turkish organizations doing anything of the sort. The modestly-financed ATAA in the USA mainly has less-activist matters in mind, and local Turkish-American organizations prefer to plan for their next picnic.

For the moment, the Armenians are still way ahead in this information war... sitting prettily with Westerners having been brainwashed with only one side of the story, which offers the luxury of quick acceptance of the Armenians’ sinister campaign of recent years: branding anyone a neo-Nazi like “denier” who dares to suggest otherwise. That fringe benefit automatically comes with putting the Holocaust on a parallel with the Armenian “Genocide”... which many Jewish Holocaust scholars unthinkingly abet. As Prof. McCarthy opined, such scholars might have an irrational fear that damaging the credibility of the established and “sexy” Armenian “Genocide” (with its tailor-made cast of characters: the poor, innocent Armenians and the barbaric Turks) might somehow compromise the Holocaust. Whatever the reason, the lack of integrity of these so-called scholars who refuse to objectively examine all of the facts is inexcusable.

Marashlian steps on the soapbox to criticize those like Lima and Suny who weren’t actively present during the bloodier days of this debate... beginning with the late 1970s and, mostly, the 1980s... when Turks finally started speaking up with their side of the story. In other words, how dare the newcomers bask in the limelight and/or deviate from the official line, once the dirty work of scaring away Western historians from entering this minefield (and successfully classifying those who speak the truth in the role of neo-Nazi “denier”) have been done, thanks to the overwhelming superiority of Armenian money and manpower devoted to this “cause.” Sort of like the way today’s feminists are being criticized for taking it too easy, and forgetting about what the radical feminists of yesteryear had to endure.

The Glendale Community College professor’s concluding remarks:

There is a litany of other serious flaws in Lima's report on the Chicago workshop and in other writings by him, but the evidence offered here hopefully is enough to alert readers who may have been deceived by him. People need to know that Vincent Lima's less than professional tactics include destructive manipulation--apparently driven by irresponsible arrogance and some unannounced agenda which appears to have little to do with defending the truth and improving relations between Turkey and Armenia.

Can you believe it? “Unannounced agenda”... shades of Rouben Adalian’s barely concealed implication (see link below) that the other Armenian Forum editor, Ara Sarafian, might perhaps be a tool of the sinister Turkish government! In other words... beware, boys. Deviate just a tiny bit from our established and carefully cultivated Con Job, and you, too, can suffer the smear campaign consequences of Heath Lowry, Bernard Lewis, Sam Weems, James Barton, Woodrow Wilson, and so many others.

The Armenian “Curtain of Fear” is alive and well.




 An Armenian Tangles with an Armenian



"West" Accounts


Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site