Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  House of Propaganda: The University of Minnesota  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

The headline is not to suggest everyone connected with the University of Minnesota is unconcerned with the truth. No doubt there are fine educators in what was undoubtedly a once-honorable institution of higher learning. However, the forces of propaganda have wrapped their corrupting tentacles around this university from the top down. When such an institution's principles for truth have become so seriously compromised, it can no longer pretend to to continue as a House for Education. Propaganda and truthful Education are polar opposites.

Beyond the University of Minnesota's inadequacy and unreliability as a university that offers truth, the University of Minnesota has allowed itself to become an instrument that spreads hatred and racism, all the more insidious, as some of its departments pretend to serve the concept of human rights.

A source for the poisoning of this institution is Stephen Feinstein's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, or CHGS, evidently financed in large part by the Armenian genocide-serving "Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair in the College of Liberal Arts." (As reported in the Winter 2006 issue of MinneHyelites, the Newsletter of the Armenian Cultural Organization of Minnesota, Arsham Ohanessian, a prominent Minnesota-Armenian, was the "son of a survivor of the 1915 Armenian Genocide," and he "made it his life’s humanitarian mission to educate people about genocide, justice and peace.")

The CHGS publishes one of the most vicious and propagandistic Armenian genocide sites in existence, all the more devilish, as the CHGS hides behind the veneer of what appears to be a respectable and legitimate U.S. university. Back in 2003, I attempted to open the eyes of what I hoped were the far more honorable history professors and administrators of the University of Minnesota, the letters for which may be read at TAT's CHGS page. Predictably, I received no responses, save for a somewhat sarcastic note from Prof. Feinstein (who, incredibly, served as a professor of history at one time in his life; unfortunately, the meaning of history has a whole different meaning among too many who dare to call themselves "historians," instead of the one and only meaning history should have), to the effect that such letters serve to attract greater funding for the CHGS. (I suppose the idea was that any facts presented in the letters were unworthy of consideration, and that the very notion that such a noble institution as the CHGS would dare be criticized would automatically reduce the critic to the level of a neo-Nazi crank.)

My problem back then was with the CHGS. But now I see the problem is not only the CHGS. The greater problem is the "boss" of the CHGS, the University of Minnesota.

Certain letters from a few principals of the University of Minnesota, regarding their perspective on genocide matters, have come to my attention. We're going to take a look at how some of these people think. (Of course, because these were private communications, I do not have the right to reproduce them in their entirety.)



Naturally, a great problem for the University of Minnesota stems from their having hired the paid propagandist with a background in terror, Taner Akcam. Taner Akcam was groomed by the forces of Armenian propaganda, for his priceless value in coming across as a "Turkish scholar" fully in agreement with practically all "Armenian genocide" claims (supporting the validity of the propagandistic Blue Book, for example, and even to the extent of supporting the Aram Andonian-forged "Talat Pasha telegrams." An Andonian telegram has also been featured at the CHGS site, as "genocide proof"). Once Akcam received his Ph.D. degree by practically copy-pasting the research of master propagandist Vahakn Dadrian, and making sure that Dadrian served as one of the two approvers of this doctorate, Dr. Dennis Papazian gave Akcam his first job as a "visting scholar" at the University of Michigan. But because Akcam has no home university to be "visiting" from (he apparently never previously served in any university's faculty), the university's rules on visitors had been shown to be violated, and Akcam needed a new home. Enter Stephen Feinstein, whose CHGS is exceptionally well-connected with the forces of Armenian propaganda, and his bosses at the University of Minnesota, who heartily approved. All worked together to give Akcam the image of legitimacy that was necessary for his one-note academic career, suddenly endowing him with the title of "professor," and allowing him to influence impressionable minds with the Armenian propaganda that he has been allowed to teach in a few classrooms. Armenian foundations have been most happy to subsidize this invaluable "Turkish" tool of Armenian propaganda.

A Turkish-American wrote the University of Minnesota's president, Robert H. Bruininks, asking how the university, in good conscience, can support such a scholarly fraud. President Bruininks was kind enough to respond.

Robert H. Bruininks was the chief recipient of the letters I had penned back in 2003, in my hope to appeal to the honorable administrators of the University of Minnesota. The buck, after all, stopped with Robert H. Bruininks. Robert H. Bruininks' administration serves as, say, Ronald Reagan's presidency, in charge of an illegal Iran-contra operation, just as the University of Minnesota allows a vicious propaganda arm as the CHGS, serving as the antithesis for education. That does not necessarily mean either Reagan or Bruininks were or are directly responsible for allowing a corrupt arm to function, or to know the corruption of an arm they have allowed to function. (In Reagan's case, he claimed he did not remember. Yet, the case of Robert H. Bruininks was a complete unknown, for the outsiders among us.)

In his letter, President Bruininks termed Akcam "a respected scholar" and defended the paid propagandist by claiming that Akcam's academic accomplishments were "many" and that "there is strong international recognition of his work."

President Robert H. Bruininks

President Bruininks supported his contention by how "enthusiastically" Akcam's latest book had been reviewed in "important media outlets." But let's bear in mind that the genocide forces have become powerful, a good result of those within the industry presenting themselves as noble (because they happen to be against genocide, which is a no-brainer, as who among us would be for genocide?), and thus lazy-thinkers who accept others' surface views quickly jump on this bandwagon. (Because it's such an effortless way for us to demonstrate how "good" and "moral" we can be.) In addition, Turks have the stigma of being "Terrible," and too many people are prejudiced, and whatever negatives said about Turks are automatically accepted — particularly when the negatives come from a fellow Turk, the idea of which is simply irresistible. Hardly anybody stops and seriously analyzes Akcam's Dadrian propaganda.

And just as missionary propaganda fed off each other as to present the appearance of a great consensus back in the old days, these days the genocide network has become so tremendous, we have like-minded individuals feeding off one another. Thus, one of the book reviews Bruininks provided as an example, appearing in the The New York Review of Books, happened to be written by the genocidist Michael Oren, who irresponsibly accepted Akcam's mainly-Dadrian claims as though they were the gospel truth. Of course Taner Akcam is going to be "respected" if all these other lazy-thinkers or bigots are going to be completely uncritical. (Rare are the book reviews written by genuine historians, whose business is to be meticulous and nothing but objective, as when one took a crack at Dadrian's "scholarship.")

The points raised are nothing new, and form common sense. What is new is our learning of how closely President Bruininks has aligned himself with these propagandistic forces, endangering his own personal academic credibility. The fact that he has vouched for Akcam's "many" academic accomplishments tells us something about President Bruininks, because all of Akcam's works (he has produced only two books to date, the second forming the English translated version of "A Shameful Act"; that's many? [The president may have been alluding as well to Akcam's countless genocide articles, prepared with the help of his genocide network, and these surely would constitute "many," inasmuch as it is debatable whether such work would fall under the category of academic accomplishments.] And both books are on the one-note genocide topic; a third Akcam book is slated to appear in 2008) have appeared in genocide-supportive publications, or published by Akcam's benefactors, as his mentor Dadrian's Zoryan Institute.

President Bruininks then explained how "deeply committed" the University of Minnesota is in "protecting academic freedom," perhaps justifying what a rogue like Taner Akcam is doing at his university.

But was the president being sincere? Everything offered at his university appears to be 100% propagandistic, as regards the "Armenian genocide." Is there a real historian at the university's history department, giving us the genuine history of these WWI events? If the university has made no attempt to balance the scales whatsoever, then what does that say about "academic freedom"? Quite the contrary, decisions have been made to support only one view regarding this topic, and a deliberately distorted and hateful view at that.

President Bruininks further went on to justify Akcam's presence by stressing how important it is for faculty members "to research and publish important work that brings ideas into the scholarly and public realms for discussion and debate." The problem is, of course, that there is no debate. Everything is evidently 100% propaganda, as far as the "Armenian genocide," at the University of Minnesota, appearing to be beholden to the probable stipulations, or at least wishes, of a primary monetary benefactor, the "Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair in the College of Liberal Arts." This goes totally against the truism that a university should be open to a variety of ideas, if the university goes out of its way to support only one view. A view that, not incidentally, propagates hatred and racism.

In addition, Akcam is not approaching his topic honestly and objectively. Whatever research Akcam is performing is to affirm his agenda, while omitting inconvenient facts, or by trying to discredit them. So, yes, a university should support faculty members "to research and publish important work," that needen't be said. But when a university supports the research of one who is a blatant propagandist, then the university helps destroy its own credility. What also need not be said is that the foremost allegiance of a university is to truth, and nothing but the truth.

President Bruininks concluded his August 3, 2007 letter by offering another noble truism, that society is best served through knowledge advancement, and "knowledge is best advanced when academic inquiry is free from restraints by the state, by the church or other institutions, or by special-interest groups." Who can argue with that? But the hypocrisy in this case is thunderous. The University of Minnesota, when it comes to the "Armenian genocide," appears to be totally beholden to "special-interest groups." And in the service of these special-interest groups, the university actually supports, in the form of employment as well as the implied legitimacy of employment at a seeminly honorable university, to characters of dubious background, and/or questionable academic competence, acting as agents of the special-interest groups.


Another Turkish-American wrote to President Bruininks, wondering about Taner Akcam's qualifications, and this time President Bruininks got a couple of others to respond. One was the university's "Associate General Counsel," Brent P. Benrud, in an August 31, 2007 dated letter. We are informed Akcam's primary duties center upon "scholarly research and writing," with "some classroom teaching." So even the university does not recognize Akcam's talents as a teacher. Isn't that curious? Why would Akcam have been brought in to the university at all, if his main job is "research and writing"? Akcam could have easily performed these roles in the research facility at Hamburg he was once affiliated with, before being brought into the USA by the forces of Armenian propaganda. It's almost as though we are being told that Akcam's primary role is indeed that of propagandist, and that the University of Minnesota is supporting Akcam actively in this role.

Mr. Benrud informs us that Akcam will likely remain with the university for "several more years." and perhaps the Guinness book should take note of what may become the longest stretch ever for a "visiting scholar/professor." He has already been at it, we are told, for "the past several years," as a "Visiting Professor in the University's Department of History, College of Liberal Arts."

Note that the College of Liberal Arts is precisely where "the Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair" is located. No surprise there, right, ladies and gentlemen? But of course we must pause as we allow for the particular department of this college to sink in: it's the "Department of History."

Taner Akcam's degree was in sociology. For someone with a sociologist's degree to get a job at a department of history is rather inexplicable. It is as though one with a degree in anthropology would be employed in a university's psychology department, or someone who graduates in the field of philosophy would be qualified to teach geometry.

What these forces of propaganda are doing, and doing so blatantly, is providing legitimacy to their agent of propaganda. Their agent received a degree in sociology? No problem; they will make him a "historian" anyway. He's not a real professor? (A doctorate degree in Germany does not qualify one for such a title.) No problem; they will simply call him a "professor," and thus our "visiting scholar" magically becomes a "visiting professor." All the better when Akcam is given carte blanche to produce his propaganda books and articles, and the lazy-thinking bigots in the Western world who uncritically accept Akcam as a bonafide "scholar" are none the wiser.

And the University of Minnesota is the perfectly willing accomplice to the scam.

The university's attorney explains further in his letter that "the University conducted a thorough review of Prof. Akcam's academic credentials, and his eligibility to work in the United States. The University found no basis to deny him the appointment."

If there was a reality television show requiring contestants to produce the loudest groan, the above statement would offer sure-fire value. The statement brings to mind how the forger Aram Andonian suggested, in his "Naim Bey" work, that the telegrams he supposedly received from Naim Bey (but which Andonian himself produced, of course, in Clifford Irving style) were put through the most stringent tests to determine their authenticity, and the tests were conducted by... Armenians!

One supposes not much work was required for that "thorough review of Prof. Akcam's academic credentials," since Akcam had no academic credentials to speak of, save for his stint at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. (Of which a review-conductor would have had to ask very seriously: how was such a position obtained in the first place, by a foreigner with no academic track record?) In addition, beyond Akcam's academic background and regarding "his eligibility to work in the United States," didn't this "thorough review" get into Akcam's criminal past?

The "thorough review" probably boiled down to Dr. Stephen Feinstein's getting the call to support Akcam, and it didn't take much doing for Feinstein to convince the university authorities to play along. One may imagine such a gesture would invite further donations from grateful Armenian foundations, fattening the university coffers.

Mr. Benrud wraps up with a similar argument used by his university's president, that the discussion of controversial issues is a historic role of colleges and universities and that the "ability to explore and discuss such issues in a reasoned, scholarly manner is one of the things that make the university community a rich and vibrant place." Once again, however, Akcam's methodology has little to do with a "scholarly manner," since scholarship entails objectivity and the consideration of all relevant information. Akcam omits and/or tries to discredit historical truth in pursuit of a propagandist agenda. Secondly, to reiterate, the University of Minnesota has made no visible attempt to present anything but a one-sided and hateful view, regarding Akcam's area of expertise. The only way a student can thus exercise the "ability to explore" is through independent research, as (in the case of the Armenian "genocide") evidently one can officially get only racist propaganda from the University of Minnesota.


The last letter from University of Minnesota officialdom, dated September 19, in response to the query of the second Turkish-American, was written by James A. Parente, Jr., the Interim Dean and a Professor of German, Scandinavian and Dutch.

Now, what is a "German, Scandinavian and Dutch" department doing in support of "genocide"?

A search resulted in a possible connection; Dr. Parente is additionally part of the university's Center for German and European Studies (CEGS, a separate and perhaps related department, at least as far as the "German" angle), which Taner Akcam is also affiliated with. Perhaps these two got close because of Akcam's German background. This department (CEGS, and not the CHGS) "produced a public television show on the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire on the occasion of the 90th anniversary." How very peculiar that they would go so far as to actually produce a television show. (Or... is it?)

The page shedding light on the CHGS (which provided the above TV show revelation) also tells us that the 1997-founded CHGS "works on campus with the Centers for German and European Studies; the Center for Bioethics; the Department of German, Scandinavian,and Dutch; History; Sociology; Art History; the Law School; and others, including CAS." The reach of the CHGS obviously goes far and wide.

Returning to Dr. Parente's letter, we again get the shpiel on what an "accomplished scholar" Taner Akcam is. It is unfortunate that Dr. Parente appears to have suffered from temporary amnesia, regarding the meaning of the word "scholar" (it can't be repeated often enough: one who considers all relevant information in order to arrive at a dispassionate conclusion. Akcam has begun his genocide thesis with the conclusion first, which, of course, makes him a "propagandist"); we are also told that Akcam is a specialist "in late Ottoman and modern Turkish history," without the explanation that in academic circles one needs a degree in history in order to be recognized as a historian, as well as "the sociology of the Middle East." Is anyone familiar with Akcam's work touching on any Middle Eastern nation, particularly in a sociological vein? (In a 2005 radio interview, Akcam led listeners to believe his work was on genocide, and only "the Genocide.") How disingenuous of Dr. Parente to make Akcam more than the one-note genocidist that he is.

Dr. Parente classifies Akcam's research as "path-breaking" (what is so remarkable about mostly copying and pasting the propaganda work of his mentor, Vahakn Dadrian?), and informs that "The College of Liberal Arts is honored to consider Professor Akcam a valued member of our faculty." (Absolutely! The chair of the College of Liberal Arts, Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian, would certainly want to get their money's worth.)

And then:

"The College of Liberal Arts upholds the principles of academic freedom and responsibility affirmed by the University of Minnesota's Board of Regents." You see, they are "Rooted in the belief that the mind is ennobled by the pursuit of understanding and the search for truth." (Emphasis Holdwater's.)

"The College of Liberal Arts and University of Minnesota welcome differing viewpoints and perspectives, and encourage an open and free exchange of ideas."

No, they do not. By repeating such honorable-sounding but thoroughly empty words (not backed up by any visible deeds, at least not in regards to the Armenian "genocide"), perhaps these University of Minnesota personnel have come to believe in their dishonesty and hypocrisy. To back up his words, Dr. Parente actually offers: "Indeed, the Department of History is home to the University's Center for Holocaust and Gencocide Studies."

In other words, the CHGS, which serves as the root of the University of Minnesota's propagandistic poison, is actually provided as a primary example of how the Ohannisian-funded "College of Liberal Arts and University of Minnesota" offers an "open and free exchange of ideas"!

Hopefully, people reading this page were located in "no fly zones," as we have lost track of the number of times our mouths have dropped.


Regardless, let us try and be fair and at least consider the possibility of the University of Minnesota's commitment to the truth. In order to undo at least some of the horrible damage perpetrated by their twin terrors of propaganda, the CHGS and Taner Akcam, we would expect the university's Department of History to be open to bringing in a real historian, regarding Armeno-Turkish WWI affairs.

We would think the professors working in the university's history department to be immune to the dirty politics and hateful propaganda the University of Minnesota engages in. This is why I appealed mainly to their history faculty members back in 2003. If I were a true historian, as a history professor, I would be appalled if my university's history department had anything to do with the practice or even encouragement of propaganda.

I can see from the list of 2003 history professors who received my letters that Professor Eric Weitz's name is absent: . Perhaps that means Prof. Weitz was not on the faculty at that time, or perhaps I failed to make a list of every single professor in the department.

Regardless, Prof. Eric Weitz is now the chairman of the history department (his term: 2006-09), and also served, since 2001, as the Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair in the College of Liberal Arts. (Which demonstrates he was in the University of Minnesota before the writing of my 2003 letter.) His university's biography page further informs us that his "work on genocides and appointment to the Ohanessian Chair has also led to an ongoing involvement in the Turkish-Armenian Workshop, an important and exciting effort to create dialogue among scholars on the history of the late Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Genocide."

This raises several questions. Aside from the obvious one that "scholars on the history of the late Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Genocide" would not include real historians (since it is a certainty that those with differing views would not be invited to this "Turkish-Armenian Workshop," very much in opposition to Dr. Parente's claim that "The College of Liberal Arts and University of Minnesota welcome differing viewpoints and perspectives, and encourage an open and free exchange of ideas"), serving to discourage dialogue, the main question is:

What is a "genocide scholar" doing in a university's history faculty, let alone serving as the head of the department?

A genocide scholar is the antithesis of the real historian. It is the duty of the historian to be objective and non-partisan. Partisanship, faith and propaganda go hand in hand with the requirements of the genocide scholar, and the real facts frequently serve as anathema.

We can see what has probably happened here. The College of Liberal Arts is in charge of the university's history department. The Ohanessian wealth and connection, requiring the recognition and study of the "Armenian genocide," is an integral component of the College of Liberal Arts. Prof. Weitz served as the head man of the Ohanessian Chair. On the surface, these dots may be connected, in order for us to understand how Weitz came to be appointed the head of the history department.


We must, however, resist the urge to generalize, as it is quite possible that Prof. Weitz serves as the very rare exception to the rule of genocide scholars' aversion to scientific principles. So let's take a look at what Weitz has to say about the "Armenian genocide."

The chairman of the University of Minnesota Department of History has co-authored (or more accurately, intends to co-author) a piece called "Young Turk Decision Making 1914-16," along with... Taner Akcam. Most Holocaust-centric genocide scholars, as Weitz appears to be, are frequently content to give a surface appraisal of the "Armenian genocide," basing their knowledge on the omnipresent propaganda in existence, without conducting any original research that does not involve the annals of Armenian propaganda. It's not difficult to imagine that Weitz has bowed to his Turkish colleague, regarded as a "specialist" on the matter. Since Weitz refers to himself as a "historian of modern Germany," it's possible he will handle the "German" end, as the idea here is to reconstruct "the process of decision making in Istanbul and Berlin in regard to a) the Armenian deportations and massacres during the critical months from late 1914 through 1916, and b) the policies toward other ethnicities in this same period."

The Germans were not that involved, and already Lepsius has performed the work of looking into German reports regarding, at least, the Armenians. What really needs to be done is to look into the archival documents that have been purposely avoided from Lepsius on down (and, similarly, in the case of the Ottoman archives, which will likely be Akcam's domain). Will these two gentlemen act as real historians and consider all of the information that is relevant, or will they cherry-pick the items serving their agenda? (This is, of course, a rhetorical question.)

The proposal gets to the heart of the matter: "Intentionality is the key component of the definition of genocide contained in the United Nations Convention on the Crime and Prevention of Genocide. Scholarly and political conflicts about the events of 1914-15 largely revolve around this issue. Our detailed reconstruction will enable us to address the issue of intentionality more precisely than has yet been possible."

But here's the rub: these two are starting out with the idea that there was a genocide, and will use whatever they can to try and support that thesis. (Or as they precisely termed it, their "working hypothesis.") If they should encounter factual evidence running to the contrary, of which plenty is already in evidence and no big research is required, what are they going to do? The answer focuses specifically on what is expected of real historians.

But let's concentrate on Weitz, as we already know what a shameful propagandist Taner Akcam is.


Prof. Weitz is already sold on the validity of the "Armenian genocide," and has put his efforts into making the all-important Holocaust parallel. (Making sure, naturally, to mostly avoid the differences that are overwhelming.)

Vahakn Dadrian's Zoryan Institute, and their sneaky "International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies" division, made sure to cash in on "the United Jewish Association's Holocaust Education Week in Toronto" on October 17, 2007. Prof. Eric D. Weitz presented a talk entitled "Nazi Germany, the Armenians and the Jews."

The Armenian "noplacefordenial.com" site tells us that Weitz will focus on Rapheal Lemkin's conviction on the Armenians' genocide (without explaining Lemkin, as the one who set the mold for your typical genocide scholar, relied solely upon his emotions and the propaganda of his time, and hardly conducted any genuine research), and we also get hit by the unsubstantiated Hitler Quote. The article caps off by instructing us that "The mission of the Holocaust Education Week is to provide 'truth in education and dignity in remembrance'," according to Chairwoman Lorraine Sandler of the UJA Federation Holocaust Centre of Toronto. One wonders why the word truth is not spelled in four letters, in these genocide articles.

The fact that Weitz takes part in lectures sponsored by the exceptionally agenda-ridden Zoryan Institute (along "with the participation of the Armenian Community Centre, the Armenian General Benevolent Union of Toronto, and the Canadian Jewish Congress-Ontario Region," as told by the following article) hardly bodes well for his credibility. He might as well be wearing a sign declaring that he is a total partisan.

Armtown.com got into greater detail as to how Weitz conducted himself, in what they called "an eye-opening experience for the people of Temple Har Zion." There is nothing like corrupting the minds of ignorant Jews, who have no idea the racist hatred at play is directed against the people who most vigorously defended Judaism, through the centuries.

Weitz covered the photographs of Armin Wegner, which depict suffering. Suffering is not genocide. The photographs of Armin Wegner, even if substantiated (and they are not, according to the director of the museum in Germany which houses them), do not prove "genocide." Yet Weitz brings up Wegner anyway, in order to make the Holocaust connection. (Wegner later protested the treatment of Jews, in a letter to Hitler.)

Here's another "Holocaust parallel":

The use of technology to facilitate the destruction of the Armenians and Jews was used by both the Young Turks and the Nazis. For example, the trains to deport Jews efficiently to the concentration camps have become a widely recognized symbol of the Holocaust. Similarly, the Ottomans used trains to move large numbers of Armenians to eastern Turkey where they were subsequently marched to the desert of Der Zor and their ultimate death.

Propaganda parroters would have us believe
Armenians were dropped off in the "desert."

Anyone who calls himself a "historian" would be absolutely embarrassed to mention these two "train" examples in the same breath. The Nazis were technological masters, and we all know precisely what the intention of their cattle cars was. The bankrupt "Sick Man of Europe" was hardly a technological marvel, and Armenians who rode on the one-track railroad, so necessary for wartime need, were the lucky ones. As Dr. Gwynne Dyer reported, "Armenians living in areas served by the railway could buy tickets and travel safely, there were no further attacks on Armenians who reached Syria." Most Armenians who were relocated did not die (otherwise the survival rate would have been closer to "zero" instead of the "one million" even propagandists agree upon; the pre-war population was some 1.5 million), and their destination certainly was not the "desert"; the ones who died lost their lives mainly from non-murderous reasons, such as famine/disease, causes claiming most of the 2.7 million other Ottomans who died as well. This is terribly dishonest of Eric Weitz, and he ought to be ashamed of himself. (Here is further elaboration on "train talk," on a page that was readily available to Dr. Weitz, if his concern was not propaganda, but the truth.)

"...[W]hen German consular officials in the Ottoman Empire continually wrote to Berlin protesting the Turkish annihilation of the Armenians, the German government by and large chose to ignore it." Let's remind ourselves of the meaning of Vahakn Dadrian's favorite word, "annihilatiion," in case Dr. Weitz employed the poor taste in using this word: "Not a trace is left." As far as the German government's avoidance of Armenian suffering, it is utterly preposterous; as the American journalist George Schreiner accounted for, even the Germans refused to publish the "no genocide" truth of what was happening, so much did the forces of pro-Armenian proopaganda permeate German society (thanks to the efforts of Lepsius, and other religious bigots; Schreiner tried desperately to get the truth out, but Ambassador Wangenheim warned the American that he was going to strike out. As Schreiner put it: "The religious societies of Germany had finally managed to present the case of the Armenians to the emperor and had prevailed upon him to interest himself in these fellow Christians" ). Perhaps the Kaiser's government did not go to pieces when some of their more hysterical consuls filed reports, in the knowledge that these Christian sympathizers were getting their information from Armenians and missionaries. Meanwhile, the reports of reliable German officers on the scene provided far greater value than the typical "hearsay."

"This is the same policy followed during World War II in its expansion eastward into Poland and beyond," the article reports as Weitz's argument. The policy followed by the Nazis was to treat Slavic peoples as "less-than human." There was no racism involved in the fate of the Armenians ("The Turks and Armenians got on excellently together... The balance of wealth certainly remained with the Christians,” as Sir Charles Eliot, pointed out in 1900’s "Turkey in Europe"), and the one and only reason why they were subjected to temporary resettlement was because the Armenians had joined their Ottoman nation's enemies during a treacherous life-or-death war, as documented even by a primary Dashnak terrorist leader.

It was simply inexcusable for Eric Weitz to have equated Turks with Nazis in such a false manner, if that is what he did. In his bio, Weitz revealed he is "series editor of Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity," but what he is doing, with the blessing of his propagandistic university, is propagate hatred — and he does so by providing false information. Undoubtedly he is doing so not because he is a closet Ku Klux Klansman, but because in his heart he believes he is fighting the evil of genocide. Yet he is actually causing great harm, apparently blinded by his "genocide" emotions as he is.

He is not conducting objective homework. As a faithful genocide scholar, he must have much conflict with honestly trying to get to the bottom of the real facts. Eric Weitz is certainly commiting a great disservice to his duty as a historian.

If any people regarded another as untermenschen in this tragic conflict, it was the Armenians, conditioned (by their fanatical leaders and the missionaries, over prior generations), and their "pride of race" (as Sir Mark Sykes worded it), to look upon Ottoman Muslims and Jews, in fact, anyone who was different, as racially inferior. This is what made possible the Armenians to systematically exterminate hundreds of thousands of fellow Ottomans, with Russian help, often in the most sadistic of ways, as recorded by the officers of their own Entente allies, as well as typically pro-Armenian Americans who investigated from 1919 on.

Yet this great "human rights" champion evidently utters not a peep of this other side of the coin. Why? Is it because he takes the word of his "Shameful Liar" colleague, Taner Akcam, who enjoys presenting the idea of Armenian killings of fellow Ottomans as a "legend"? Or is it because Eric Weitz is so mediocre a scholar, and/or because his prejudices are so thick, that he can't conduct the slightest independent research?


"The absence of punishment for the perpetrators of the Armenian by the Allied Powers gave confidence to Hitler to declare in August 1939, 'Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians,' while justifying to his generals his plan to kill, oppress, and brutalize the Poles, and to conclude that he could get away with exterminating the Jews and committing other crimes against humanity."

Let us please bear in mind that we don't know how much of what is being said emanated from Dr. Weitz's lecture, and how much is the work of the Armenian writer of this article. However, if the point was made that Hitler referred to Jew extermination in his 1939 speech, that was an absolute fallacy. (The passage above correctly singles out the Poles, the sole object of Hitler's 1939 speech, but makes it seem like it was this allegedly Armenian-referenced 1939 speech that allowed Hitler to "conclude" his Final Solution would be a breeze. Sounds like Hitler must have talked himself into it!) What we do know in the reliable versions of this speech, and not in the embellished Lochner version that was rejected by Nuremberg authorities, is that Hitler did not make that Armenian reference. If Weitz actually referred to the "Hitler Quote," then he truly offers little hope, as that fabrication has been blown out of the water for well over twenty years. The chairman of the University of Minnesota's Department of History is a real propagandist, and woe to any real history professors in the department that hopefully exist. What could be worse than working under a leader who sets such a poor standard, inspiring little respect?

In addition, it is not that there was "absence of punishment" for potential Ottoman genocide perpetrators. The fact is that the British searched for real evidence from 1919 to 1921, while in occupation of the defeated Turkish empire and its archives (the one that Taner Akcam promises to show evidence of "intent" for, in his upcoming 2008 book; the Armenian, Haig Khazarian, that the British appointed to take charge of these archives must have missed them), and could not find any evidence. In fact, the evidence they did find vindicated the Turks. No evidence of a crime means no crime, at least among those of honor.


"The radical nature of both political parties—the CUP in the case of the Turks and the Nazis in the case of the Germans—took control of the government and succeeded in mobilizing significant sectors of society to be involved in the mass killing, or at least condone it."

We won't get into how significantly German society was aware of the Holocaust (most were certainly aware of Jewish-oppression, but not extermination; Hitler and his thugs wisely kept this repulsive nature of their work from ordinary Germans), but if Weitz actually told his audience that a good portion of Ottoman society was aware of Armenian extermination, to the point of participation, then we can begin to conclude Taner Akcam is far from the only "Shameful Liar" at the University of Minnesota. This would have been a hideous thing for Weitz to claim, as there was no extermination of Armenians. (Again, if there were, close to "zero" Armenians would have survived.) Moreover, the CUP's central command was weak, as even Ambassador Morgenthau attested (not in his "Story" book, of course). That is why sometimes locals felt free to act independently. That is why local officials sometimes ignored Talat Pasha's orders to cease the further relocation of Armenians, beginning in August 1915.

(How could any reasonable party with even minimal true knowledge compare the CUP with the Nazis? There was nothing "radical" about the CUP, and there were certainly no pan-Turkish racial policies as pro-Armenian propagandists enjoy claiming; leaders of the CUP were Ottomanists, and were hoping to preserve Ottoman, and not Turkish, society. Turkish nationalism only came into play after the war had ended, once the nation was devastated in good part through the nationalism of others.)


"Prof. Weitz closed his lectures by stating that genocide is not only a political decision but a personal choice, not an accident. He stated that the 'Holocaust and Armenian are too important to be left just to the Armenians and Turks or the Jews and Germans, as the common history and lessons they contain should be used to help ensure that no community has to suffer in the future what they did in the past.'"

The last part is a highly dishonest argument, so typical of the genocide scholar who desperately strives to justify genocide studies causing much racial hatred and general harm. As we know from the events in Darfur (not that quick conclusions should be made that this current tragedy conforms to the 1948 U.N. rules of "genocide," much as we are aware of the many innocents who have been brutally slaughtered), no one is really doing anything. Communities will suffer in the future regardless, and all the many dishonest and partisan and hypocritical genocide conferences will not have any effect whatsoever. (In other words, one can have all the laws or morality rules on the books to try and prevent murder, but if a murderer is intent on committing murder, not much can be done to prevent it.)

Professor Eric Weitz

But what is truly offensive was for Weitz to equate the traitorous Armenians with a completely innocent people who were targeted for no other reason than for belonging to members of a group, the Jews of WWII, and to equate the Turks with the monstrous Nazis, although the bankrupt Ottoman Turks conducted a relatively humane policy, much as their resources would allow in the thick of wartime desperation. The Ottoman Empire acted no differently than any other nation would have acted, and it could be argued the Ottomans displayed far greater tolearance than others who were potentially in the same situation, but mistreated innocent minorities who could have turned rebellious. (As with the Americans/Canadians versus their WWII Japanese, and with the British versus their WWI German men, and with the Russians versus their WWI Germans and Muslims.)

As far as Weitz's statement regarding genocide as not only a political decision but a personal choice, what is of far greater importance measuring the honor of a human being is adherence to the truth, no matter how much it hurts, and no matter how much the truth goes against one's deep beliefs and emotions. Truth is also a personal choice, and one that, as far as we can see in the Armenian example, Eric Weitz has decided to ignore.


The above analysis on Eric Weitz relied on secondhand information, and before we close, let's take a look at Weitz's direct "Armenian" thoughts, from a portion of his own 2003 book made available on the Internet, A Century of Genocide: Utopias of Race and Nation.

"Genocides have occurred since the earliest recorded history, from the Israelite destruction of numerous communities in Canaan, depicted in the Book of Joshua, to the Roman annihilation of Carthage and its population. But beginning with the Armenians, genocides have become more extensive, more systematic, and more thorough."

Yes, folks, that passage evidently serves as the book's beginning, and already Dr. Weitz has put the Armenian experience as a kind of end-all of genocides. The dishonesty of genocidists is truly hard to stomach. Not only is an episode that was not a genocide pointed to as an example of genocide (and not just any example, but a mold for future genocides to follow), thanks to the power and influence and wealth of those who reap benefits from victimhood status and/or possess psychological problems (as the financiers of the chair Weitz served on since 2001), but all the many, many examples of historical "Man's Inhumanity to Man" are conveniently shoved under the rug — either because the victims have no clout, or because there is too much prejudice against the victims, and the unscrupulous genocide industry has designated that such victims must be presented as villains. It is truly awful what these people are committing, and all under the guise of being so noble, and being so for "human rights."

As an example, even the Wellington House propagandist and hopelessly pro-Armenian Arnold Toynbee has written:

...[T]he nomad’s death-cry is seldom heard. During the European War, while people in England were raking up the Ottoman Turks’ nomadic ancestry in order to account for their murder of 600,000 Armenians, 500,000 Turkish-speaking Central Asian nomads of the Kirghiz Kazak Confederacy were being exterminated—also under superior orders—by that ‘justest of mankind’ the Russian muzhik.

Now why should this episode be so totally unknown, especially in these "genocide-sensitive" times? Particularly if most of these Kirghiz killings stemmed from real extermination efforts the Russians were so accustomed to by WWI, unlike the main cause of death for Armenians, the majority of whom died from non-murderous reasons, the same as most of the 2.7 million other Ottomans who died, the ones Eric Weitz does not care about either? (And as mentioned above, he certainly does not care — since he likely has not made acknowledgement, let alone any study — about the some 500,000 Ottoman Muslims and Jews the Armenians slaughtered with Russian help; it is the duty of the genocide scholar to champion the cause of the politically powerful Armenians.)

In this book I try to provide a historical account for the escalation of genocides in the twentieth century by examining in detail four cases: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, especially the ethnic and national purges initiated by Stalin, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and the former Yugoslavia.

Unfortunately for Eric Weitz, the example of modern genocide that was frequently added to the genocide list on everyone's lips (the "former Yugoslavia"), simply because the consent was manufactured by those with the power to get their message through, has been subsequently declared not a genocide, by no less an authority than the U.N. itself (through its court in the Hague; save for the example of Srebenica). What does that tell us about our "genocide scholar" who has erroneously classified a non-genocide as a genocide? It tells us that few exaamples are as cut and dried as the Nazi-Jewish prototype, and Weitz presents yet another example of the agenda-affirming and shallow thinking "genocide scholar." (In his next paragraph he tells us that he hopes to bring "clarity" to the word, genocide.)

(Weitz does get credit, however, for paying attention to the frequently avoided Lenin/Stalin period. Perhaps one day he will go farther back in Russian history, and examine the Tsars' extermination policies of the 19th century, but let's not hold our breath; often, the victims were politically incorrect Turkic and Muslim Caucasian peoples.)

(Upon further reading of this book sample, he does make note of Soviet actions against Chechens and Crimean Turks as genocides, so I may have spoken prematurely. How extensively such areas have been covered remains another matter, and may only be ascertained by the reading of his book. In other words, poltically-concerned genocide scholars are usually interested in episodes with financial muscle behind them, and either ignore or provide mere lip service to the politically powerless ones whose "death-cry is seldom heard.")

Weitz later examines the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention where he notes: "The Convention specifically does not include groups defined by their political orientation or class background." In other words, for example, "Indonesia could not be accused of genocide for the roughly 500,000 people... killed in 1965 because they were purportedly communists. The charge of genocide would be operative only if it could be shown that they were killed because of their Chinese ethnicity (as was true of so many of the victims)."

BINGO. The Armenians (that is, the ones who were killed by renegade forces, as no evidence demonstrates the Ottoman government was behind such killings) were not killed for their ethnicity, as no "racial hatred" network existed in the Ottoman Empire. The relocation of the Armenians, which is the pro-Armenians' synonym for genocide, occurred solely because the Armenians rebelled. (As mentioned above.) On this "political orientation" exclusion, already the "Armenian genocide" cannot be classified as a genocide. So why is Eric Weitz doing so? (Is it because Taner Akcam told him the Armenian rebellion was a "lie"?)

Isn't it embarrassing when a genocide scholar can't even apply the basic rules?


...Intentionality is clearly a critical criterion. For genocide to occur, there needs to be demonstrable intent to destroy "in whole or in part" particular population groups.

DOUBLE BINGO. There is certainly no evidence for "intent" on the part of the Ottomans, despite the pathetic protests of Taner Akcam to the contrary. So why is Eric Weitz classifying the Armenian episode as a "genocide"? He later explains that "intention" is not always easy to define, and that the case needs to be built "from the evidence of actions on the ground and often circumstantial links in the chain of command..." All right, then, where is even this indirect evidence in the Armenian episode, when all such "evidence" derives from hearsay and forgeries? For example, when missionaries or German consuls or even the rare Ottoman official provided personal opinions based on secondhand information, is that the kind of evidence that any legitimate courtroom would stress? Remember, we are asking a man who actually appears to have given credence to the "Hitler quote."

To compound matters, Weitz actually admits (emphasis Holdwatwer's):

Through its focus on intentionality, the fate of defined population groups, and physical annihilation, the Genocide Convention, despite its weaknesses, provides us with a fruitful working definition that can guide the study of past regimes and events. It is the definition I abide by in this book, though with perhaps a more restrictive interpretation than others might employ.4

Wow! Then Weitz really has no excuse for being an Armenian genocide advocate, does he. (Much as he deserves credit for at least trying to abide by the Convention's definition, as otherwise, the "genocide" term would degenerate into meaninglessness.)

He also writes, after dismissing how some historians have tried to minimize the Holocaust (emphasis Holdwatwer's):

I also think that we should not allow our historical perspectives to be narrowed because comparisons have been done poorly or for notorious political purposes.

Isn't that incredible? His affirmation of the non-genocidal "Armenian genocide" has nothing to do with historical facts and everything to do with politics. For those of us who don't know Eric Weitz, as myself, it is plain to see from this book sample that he is an extremely intelligent man, and he appears to be an affable guy as well. On the surface, he sounds so fair, too. Since there are no real facts to support the validity of the Armenian story, why is Weitz so gung-ho about it? The reader's speculation is as good as mine, but the politics of the genocide industry must have a lot to do with it. (Unless he happens to dislike Turks, which we can't say, not knowing the man. Unfortunately, many Westerners suffer from at least some dosage of anti-Turkish prejudice, in any event.)

Interestingly, he breaks ranks with many Jewish genocide scholars in attesting that the Holocaust was not unique, unprecedented though it was: "Historians compare all the time, most often implicitly; indeed, the only way one could even sustain an argument of uniqueness is by comparison. If we insist on the incomparability of the Holocaust, we place it outside of history.8 Instead, I work in this book in an explicitly comparative manner." Well, he sure proved himself by going out of his way in the Zoryan-sponsored Toronto lecture, by practically making the Holocaust and the Armenian myth one and the same. It must not have occurred to him that by comparing a real genocide with a fake one, he worked to dishonor the Jewish victims of the Nazis.

Weitz continues:

In writing this study, I have violated one of the historian's cardinal rules: to work only on areas where he or she knows the language of the people and has access to the primary sources. I have ventured far from my core areas of knowledge but felt that the last two of my selections—Cambodia and the former Yugoslavia—were at least partly justified by my familiarity with the history of twentieth-century communism. Yet I did not feel free to roam just anywhere, and readers will note that I do not deal with another very large and virtually undisputed case of genocide, that of Rwanda. There I felt that my lack of knowledge of African histories and cultures was too great...

The man can certainly be a study in contrasts. There are many historians who have broken those particular rules, and have still produced valid works of history. (And if he considers knowledge of language and primary source access as necessities, he sure has violated these "cardinal rules" in a monumental fasion, in his attempt to write Ottoman history.) But since he is so sensitive to rules, in his presentation of the Armenian myth, he has broken the greatest historical rule of all. That would be the requirement to be honest and objective, and certainly refuse to consider sources that are blatantly proopagandistic.

For openly accepting the Armenian matter as a genocide, not only by disregarding easily accessible and irrefutable facts, but even by ignoring the requirements of the Genocide Convention that Weitz indicated he would be faithful to, Prof. Weitz has proven himself to be an anti-historian. An anti-historian leads the history department of the University of Minnesota, which does not speak well for the reputation of such a department of history. And when the entire university is beholden to forces of hateful propaganda, such does not speak well of the University of Minnesota. Not to say every department is necessarily soiled, but unfortunately, at this point of its history, the University of Minnesota is doing a wonderful job in convincing students in consideration of attending a good university that, if the students desire truth, they had better look elsewhere.

 Getting Back to The University of Minnesota

This page evolved into an examination of a genocide scholar, seemingly leaving the main theme aside: the criticism of the University of Minnesota for deviating from the truth, and for advocating harmful propaganda. In this case it was necessary; since genocide scholarship ("faith") and history ("fact") are woefully incompatible, it speaks volumes that the head of the university's history department would be a genocide scholar.

The following letter was penned by the Turkish-American activist, Ergun Kirlikovali, to the President of the university, Robert Bruininks:


Robert H. Bruininks
University of Minnesota

December 13, 2007

Dear President Bruininks:

I am indebted to Erkin Baker for sharing with me her correspondence with you and responses on your behalf she received from Counsel Benrud and Dean Parente Jr. (latter with a copy to Chair Weitz.) I would like to present my views. Please allow me to organize my thoughts under the following headings:


I am aware Dr. Akcam receives his share of praise, but this must be observed in the context of political correctness and prejudice. The area of genocide scholarship has become powerful, and not many are willing to question their claims, for fear of being intimidated and labeled as Holocaust deniers .

In addition, there exists an age-old prejudice against Turks, making the claims of Dr. Akcam all the more acceptable, by people unwilling to study the issues objectively. Dr. Akcam has certainly not proven that there was a genocide conducted against Armenians, nor has anyone else; many legitimate historians disagree with this conclusion, as the evidence for genocide rests upon hearsay and forgeries. Even a few scholars have faulted Vahakn Dadrian, the mentor of Dr. Akcam, with distortions questioning his scholarly ethics. More importantly, since Dr. Akcam's research seems to contain too many similar manipulations, is it a recycling of Dadrian's work?

While Dr. Akcam may have a rudimentary knowledge of Ottoman language, a rich and complex amalgam of Turkish, Arabic, and Persian, steeped in Islamic religion and age old customs, Vahakn Dadrian does not seem to have even that much. In any case, neither gentleman’s ability to accurately handle the Ottoman language and interpret the intricacies contained in the Ottoman documents can be claimed to satisfy the academic standards meticulously observed by Turkish experts in Ottoman language and history. This lack of mastership of Ottoman language may help explain, but not excuse, Dr. Akcam’s misinterpretations of Ataturk’s words in his last book (see the reference below.) This may also explain why Vahakn Dadrian has not been seen pouring over the Ottoman archives in Turkey, while researchers from 80 countries have. Yet, these obvious deficiencies somehow do not seem to stop either gentleman from making outrageous and unsubstantiated accusations against the Ottoman Empire, as well as Ataturk and Turkey. One would surely expect higher standards of scholarship from “genocide scholars”.

If the Armenian genocide claim is a politicized one, equating Turks with Nazis leads to further prejudice and hatred against Turkish people. If the University of Minnesota supports highly selective source materials, akin to Ku Klux Klan literature attempting to present a portrayal of blacks and Jews, that is a matter all honorable people need to be concerned about.

Counsel Benrud has written that "…the University conducted a thorough review of Prof. Akcam's academic credentials, and his eligibility...", but I am wondering about the thoroughness of this review.

My understanding is that a visiting professor needs to have a home university to be visiting from, lasting on average a relatively short duration, no more than a few years, after which the professor is expected to return to his home university. It does not seem like he was ever part of a university's faculty, before arriving in the United States from Germany. Does Dr. Akcam have a home university to return to?

Furthermore, it looks as though Taner Akcam was groomed by Armenian activists; his Ph.D. was co-approved by Vahakn Dadrian (as well as one other person, a cooperative genocide scholar), who was not affiliated with any university at the time. This is troubling on several levels. For one, it brings to mind many questions — if Akcam's books serve as examples: Was the thrust of his Ph.D. unoriginal? Was it relying heavily on the work of Dadrian himself?

Dr. Akcam was brought into the United States through the University of Michigan's Armenian Research Center, and appears to have lost his job there, probably after this university was made aware of its "visiting professor" rules being violated. Dr. Akcam was called a "visiting scholar" when he first arrived, and it is very curious as to how his title was changed to "professor." In Germany, one doctorate is not sufficient to earn the professor's title. It seems fair, therefore, to ask the following questions:

Is Dr. Akcam's position being subsidized by an Armenian foundation directly or indirectly?

If this is the case, is there not a conflict of interest involved, endangering the credibility of the University of Minnesota?

Are the "visiting professor" rules of the University of Minnesota being violated now by Dr. Akcam’s status, credentials, record, and/or qualifications?

Does the American public have a right to know if the University of Minnesota’s rules are being violated?

Furthermore, Dr. Akcam admitted in a Turkish newspaper interview (Milliyet, January 11, 2002) that he had collaborated with the PKK in the early 1980s, designated as a terrorist organization by our own government in Washington D.C., by Europe, and by The Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel (www.ict.org.il ) The PKK is responsible for deaths over ten times the toll of 9/11. Taner Akcam was involved with other violent organizations in Turkey during the 1970s as well, including one with PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan. Abdullah Ocalan, who is in a maximum security island-prison in Turkey since his capture with U.S. help in 1999, responded to Dr. Akcam's interview in the January 19, 2002 edition of Ozgur Politika, an organ of the PKK, where the terrorist leader claimed that Taner Akcam had "…caused heavy casualties..."

"…The ability to explore and discuss such issues in a reasoned, scholarly manner…",as Counsel Benrud has written, is to be encouraged, but to provide an outlet for vicious propaganda by biased scholars with dubious research, spreading racism and hatred, is another matter entirely.


While some amongst us may be forgiven for taking the blatant and ceaseless Armenian propaganda at face value and believing Armenian falsifications merely because they are repeated so often, it is difficult and painful for someone like me, the son of Turkish survivors on both maternal and paternal sides, of yet untold, unfairly dismissed, or prejudicially ignored massacres of Turks during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 (which preceded the World War I of 1914-18 and the Turkish Independence War of 1919-1922.) These seemingly endless “War years” of 1912-1922 brought wide-spread death and destruction to Ottoman Muslims as well as others. Those nameless, faceless victims are killed for a second time today with politically motivated and baseless charges of Armenian genocide.

Allegations of Armenian genocide are racist and dishonest history. They are racist because they ignore the Turkish dead: about 3 million during WWI; around half a million of them at the hands of Armenian nationalists. By ignoring the suffering of one side completely, any war, including the American civil war, may be made to look like a genocide.

And the allegations of Armenian genocide are dishonest because they simply dismiss “The Six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict”:

1) Tumult (as in Armenian armed uprisings)
2) Terrorism (by Armenian nationalists and militias)
3) Treason (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies)
4) Territorial demands (where Armenians were a minority, not a majority)
5) Turkish suffering and losses (i.e. those caused by the Armenian nationalists)
6) Tereset (temporary resettlement) triggered by the first five T’s above and amply documented as such; not to be equated to the Armenian misrepresentations as genocide.)

Armenians, thus, effectively put an end to their millennium of relatively peaceful and harmonious co-habitation in Anatolia with Muslims by killing their Muslim/Turkish neighbors and openly joining the invading enemy. Turks were only defending their home like any citizen anywhere would do.


It may be said that hundreds of thousands of innocent Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians offered none of the harm to America in 1945 that the whole of the Armenian community treacherously performed against the Ottoman Empire, between the late 19th century and 1915. Yet, the Ottomans responded only by Tereset, temporarily resettling some of the Armenians, not all, to other parts of the Empire and only when the last straw broke the camel’s back (i.e. after the bloody Armenian revolt in Van.) Nevertheless, not too many people in America today consider accusing the U.S. of committing genocide with those atomic bombs, although the intent to exterminate the entire population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a matter of uncontested record.

Consider that all this carnage came over and above the wholesale Japanese-American relocation of 1942 which was based on a hunch, a probability of fifth column activities by some Americans merely because of their ethnic origin. President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, except for those in internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity." During the period of 1939–41, the FBI compiled the Custodial Detention index ("CDI") on citizens, "enemy" aliens and foreign nationals who might be dangerous based principally on census records. Upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Presidential Proclamations 2525 (Japanese), 2526 (German) and 2527 (Italian) were signed. Many homes were raided using information from the CDI, and hundreds of aliens were in custody by the end of the day, including Germans and Italians (although war was not declared on Germany or Italy until December 11).

Contrast the above absolutist American acts against the American citizens and Japanese citizens with the Ottomans’ flexibility and tolerance. The latter did not move the Ottoman-Armenian citizens out of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne, Aleppo and other places, even after blatant Armenian treason elsewhere, thus separating “probable threat” from “proven threat”.

Consider further that all absolutist American actions mentioned above came decades after the Tereset of 1915. If temporary resettlement was so wrong, then why did the U.S. resort to it and worse? How come no one is charging the U.S. with the crime of genocide? How can anyone honestly explain these double standards in academia?


If you truly believe in freedom of speech, then please don’t silence people like me who disagree with you and/or others in your university on the characterization of the Turkish-Armenian conflict. Not giving responsible opposing ideas a place in genocide panels is a form of censorship and does violate my freedom of speech as an American. Include the other side of the story in your genocide panels. I would be more than happy to participate as a speaker, for example, in one of your future “genocide panels” to offer the benefits of the other side of the story to unsuspecting attendees. You can perhaps convince the organizers to allow the showing of the 45-minute documentary “Armenian Revolt 1894-1920” during such panels. Freedom of speech should be honored by such “solid deeds”, not simply by “hollow words” in clichés.

As a university president, I believe you have a responsibility to ensure that the public is given a fair chance to hear all sides of a controversy and that “partisan accounts” are not promoted as “settled history”. I coined a new term back in 2003, my humble gift to the English language, to describe the stance of the Armenian-funded genocide scholars vis-à-vis the Turkish-Armenian conflict: “ETHOCIDE”, a brief definition of which is “deliberate and systematic extermination of ethics via malicious mass deception for political and other benefits.”

President Bruininks, fairness, objectivity, and truth are all that I ask.

Son of Turkish-survivors from both maternal and paternal sides

Brent P Benrud
James A Parente Jr.
Eric D Weitz

The University's Response

That was one powerful letter, wasn't it? And we can see some influence of the TAT site, as well.

The university's counsel, Brent Benrud, responded on behalf of President Bruininks, in a letter dated January 17, 2008.

There were two interesting revelations in Mr. Benrud's letter, which predictably ignored some of the powerful realities raised by Mr. Kirlikovali.

The first is that, suddenly, Taner Akcam has no longer become employed as a "Visiting Professor" but in the "annually renewable" position of a P&A (Professional and Administrative) "Research Associate"!

Now, why in the world would Akcam have been taken down more than a notch from the more prestigious-sounding professor's title? Is it possible the university authorities suddenly came face to face with the bending of their "visiting" rules?

Mr. Benrud did not evade the issue of Akcam's previous position as "visiting professor," however; he wrote that he did not find any violation in the University's Tenure Code, in the granting of this status. (A status Taner Akcam apparently still enjoyed at the time of Mr. Benrud's previous letter, written five months prior.) Yet one wonders if Akcam had no home university to originate from (he is reportedly applying for a green card, implying that he intends to stay in the United States, further implying a home university is not waiting for him to return after — how long has it been now, seven or eight years?) whether this sudden change of Akcam's title does not mean the University of Minnesota will do anything to accommodate their star professo — that is, research associate.

The second revelation was that Akcam's "current position is funded in large part" not just by the "Cafesjian Family Foundation," which TAT readers are already aware of, but also by the Zoryan Institute.

We can easily speculate the considerable resources of Zoryan are fully behind Akcam, crossing the T's and dotting the I's of Akcam's many papers, performing much ghost-research for Akcam, and very likely behind the English versions of Akcam's work, in addition to providing exposure to Akcam (some determined P.R. people are in the shadows, getting Akcam to appear in conferences, and to speak out in interviews) and his books (the Zoryan Institute owns the copyright to Akcam's "A Shameful Act"), but the fact that the Zoryan Institute has been helping to finance their front man Akcam's university position is huge.

Mr. Benrud attempted to minimize the significance of Armenian financing, by writing that the University also receives funding from the Turkish Government and the Institute of Turkish Studies (ITS), but (if we put aside how substantial or recent these contributions have been, and where or to whom they were directed) here is the difference: once the Turkish Government provides money, as with the grant establishing a Turkish Studies Department at Princeton University, the Turkish Government has absolutely no say, or at least no power. In fact, even in cases where the Turkish Government has provided such grants, the universities can take the money and do "nothing." (As implied in the statement, "Harvard, Georgetown, and the University of Chicago received similar grants, but only Princeton has established a fully endowed chair in Turkish studies," as reported in The Princeton Alumni Weekly, January 24, 1996.) As for the ITS, that organization is evidently completely apolitical, even giving grants to Akcam's genocidal sister-in-arms, Fatma Muge Gocek. When I first checked years ago, and when I checked again fairly recently, their web site had nothing on the Armenians' genocide.

Such "no-strings-attached" grants are a completely different matter than the funding of an agent whose sole purpose is to further the propaganda of certain hateful historical perspective. Mr. Benrud wrote that he found "nothing unusual or inappropriate regarding the funding of Dr. Akcam's position," making the rest of us wonder whether Mr. Benrud could be that naive. He is obviously a smart man, and can he not see that Akcam is as subjective and as partisan as a "Research Associate" can get, exclusively pushing only one point-of-view?

We again get the blather about a university's noble purpose, where university members are free to pursue their "scholarly work." (Once again, the definition of scholarship is to objectively consider all relevant information in order to arrive at truth. The definition of scholarship is not to begin with a corrupt conclusion, and to seek selective information in order to dishonestly try and legitimize the conclusion.) But Mr. Benrud totally ignored what was pointed out to President Bruininks: what if a pseudo-scholar's propaganda perpetuates hatred?

As Mr. Kirlikovali worded it, "If the Armenian genocide claim is a politicized one, equating Turks with Nazis leads to further prejudice and hatred against Turkish people. If the University of Minnesota supports highly selective source materials, akin to Ku Klux Klan literature attempting to present a portrayal of blacks and Jews, that is a matter all honorable people need to be concerned about."

Akcam utilizes just such hateful literature, by validating Wellington House's execrable Blue Books, and even by affirming evil Andonian forgeries, as mentioned earlier. In line with his master, Vahakn Dadrian of the Zoryan Institute, Akcam has no compunction about distorting source material, as long as the "genocide" conclusion gets affirmed. (For example, does it serve Akcam's purpose to make it seem as though the Ottomans made a "genocide" decision in March of 1915? No problem; surely the manipulation of historical bits and pieces can make it seem that way to unwary or already prejudiced readers, as Akcam demonstrated in his "Shameful" book. Such dishonesty is anything but "scholarly.")

But President Bruininks and Counsel Benrud simply don't care about vigilance against such dishonesty. Mr. Benrud gets around his university's justification for employing a propagandist by passing the buck to the university community, in terms of assessing scholarly merit. (That is, if there is anything amiss, the genuine and honorable scholars will protest, and check the scholarly wrongs. The world does not work that way, unless the topic of concern is already frowned upon by society, or unless the majority of scholars make a point of putting honor before their careers. As a microcosm, we can see how this theory has failed with the Wikipedia site, where the "honorable" contributors to the online encyclopedia are expected to check the propaganda-pushers, many times far more tenacious and numerous; such a system for truth-maintenance has proven to be a recipe for failure.) However, what if the university community is too brainwashed, prejudiced or cowed to address genocidal truth? Raise an objection, and one can be branded a Nazi-like "denier," which would short-circuit one's scholarly reputation.

More importantly, what kind of a cop-out is this? What if a university administration had white supremacists on board, and purposely recruited a pseudo-scholar to promote the view that non-whites were inferior? Should that pseudo-scholar be free to pursue his hateful vision, simply because of "principles of academic freedom," as Benrud put it?

What if this administration was from, say, an Alabama university of the early 1960s, where the rest of the university community was in agreement, or where there was fear of speaking out? Should hatred be allowed a platform, particularly with the exclusion of contrary views, because of the "principles of academic freedom"?

Mr. Kirlikovali's letter made the essential point that "all sides of a controversy" should be heard. Mr. Benrud did not address this point at all, which certainly flies in the face of "principles of academic freedom." We already addressed this point above, examining the hypocritical letter of President Bruininks himself, but it bears repeating: Is there anyone in the Universtiy of Minnesota's so-called history department, the one supported by the "Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair," who can serve to counter the Armenian propaganda of Taner Akcam, Eric Weitz and the CHGS? It's possible there is someone like that, but if not (as most likely is the case): Why hasn't the Universtiy of Minnesota made sure to hire such a scholar, if they are so concerned about the "principles of academic freedom"?

Mr. Benrud wrapped up his letter by basically holding his breath and by stomping his feet, still insisting that Akcam was on the up and up, and still holding fast to what he wrote in his previious letter. A "thorough review" was conducted before Akcam was hired, you see, everything checked out, and notions to the contrary boil down to mere "allegations." Mr. Benrud might have gotten wind, for the first time with Mr. Kirlikovali's letter, that the "allegations" regarding Akcam's terror background are firmly established in fact (Akcam confirmed his collaboration with terror himself, in an interview; as an attorney, cannot Mr. Benrud distinguish between an allegation and an admission?), and that the Dadrian content of his Dadrian-approved Ph.D. could well be a sham. At this point, an honorable party would stop and say, wait a minute! What's going on here? Is it possible our "thorough review" resulted in a clean bill of health because we only checked sources that were supportive of Taner Akcam, which would have surely made our review anything but "thorough"?

But, no. The University of Minnesota brass does not care about the facts. They are firmly committed to a propagandistic presentation, not only with their employ of a propagandistic agent groomed by obsessed and "professionally patriotic" Armenians, but through their unyielding support of the hateful CHGS.

Once again, this does not mean everyone associated with the University of Minnesota lacks integrity. But, as the history department professors who received my letter in 2003, if no one is speaking out against such deviation from the truth so clearly exercised in their university, that would put them in line as collaborators. Moreover, these people simply do not care that they are causing such immense harm, contributing to the forces of racism and hatred. (The victims, they must unfortunately reason, are only Turks.) Such an attitude and behavior can only serve to diminish the reputation of a once-honorable university.



"West" Accounts


Armenian Views


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site

...Is to expose the mythological “Armenian genocide,” from the years 1915-16. A wartime tragedy involving the losses of so many has been turned into a politicized story of “exclusive victimhood,” and because of the prevailing prejudice against Turks, along with Turkish indifference, those in the world, particularly in the West, have been quick to accept these terribly defamatory claims involving the worst crime against humanity. Few stop to investigate below the surface that those regarded as the innocent victims, the Armenians, while seeking to establish an independent state, have been the ones to commit systematic ethnic cleansing against those who did not fit into their racial/religious ideal: Muslims, Jews, and even fellow Armenians who had converted to Islam. Criminals as Dro, Antranik, Keri, Armen Garo and Soghoman Tehlirian (the assassin of Talat Pasha, one of the three Young Turk leaders, along with Enver and Jemal) contributed toward the deaths (via massacres, atrocities, and forced deportation) of countless innocents, numbering over half a million. What determines genocide is not the number of casualties or the cruelty of the persecutions, but the intent to destroy a group, the members of which  are guilty of nothing beyond being members of that group. The Armenians suffered their fate of resettlement not for their ethnicity, having co-existed and prospered in the Ottoman Empire for centuries, but because they rebelled against their dying Ottoman nation during WWI (World War I); a rebellion that even their leaders of the period, such as Boghos Nubar and Hovhannes Katchaznouni, have admitted. Yet the hypocritical world rarely bothers to look beneath the surface, not only because of anti-Turkish prejudice, but because of Armenian wealth and intimidation tactics. As a result, these libelous lies, sometimes belonging in the category of “genocide studies,” have become part of the school curricula of many regions. Armenian scholars such as Vahakn Dadrian, Peter Balakian, Richard Hovannisian, Dennis Papazian and Levon Marashlian have been known to dishonestly present only one side of their story, as long as their genocide becomes affirmed. They have enlisted the help of "genocide scholars," such as Roger Smith, Robert Melson, Samantha Power, and Israel Charny… and particularly  those of Turkish extraction, such as Taner Akcam and Fatma Muge Gocek, who justify their alliance with those who actively work to harm the interests of their native country, with the claim that such efforts will help make Turkey more" democratic." On the other side of this coin are genuine scholars who consider all the relevant data, as true scholars have a duty to do, such as Justin McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, Erich Feigl and Guenter Lewy. The unscrupulous genocide industry, not having the facts on its side, makes a practice of attacking the messenger instead of the message, vilifying these professors as “deniers” and "agents of the Turkish government." The truth means so little to the pro-genocide believers, some even resort to the forgeries of the Naim-Andonian telegrams or sources  based on false evidence, as Franz Werfel’s The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. Naturally, there is no end to the hearsay "evidence" of the prejudiced pro-Christian people from the period, including missionaries and Near East Relief representatives, Arnold Toynbee, Lord Bryce, Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and so many others. When the rare Westerner opted to look at the issues objectively, such as Admirals Mark Bristol and Colby Chester, they were quick to be branded as “Turcophiles” by the propagandists. The sad thing is, even those who don’t consider themselves as bigots are quick to accept the deceptive claims of Armenian propaganda, because deep down people feel the Turks are natural killers and during times when Turks were victims, they do not rate as equal and deserving human beings. This is the main reason why the myth of this genocide has become the common wisdom.