Let Turkey and Armenia Work Out Their Differences

-

Sargsian-Erdogan-Davos.jpg
Armenian President Serzh Sargsian and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at Davos.
The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the administration is reconsidering President Obama’s campaign promise to declare that the Armenians were victims of a genocide during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire nearly one hundred years ago.
Also yesterday, the House of Representatives introduced H. Res 252, which declares the killings genocide.
To understand these recent announcements, it is important to understand the underlying politics.
To paraphrase Brent Scowcroft, the issue of whether to declare the killings genocide is not a foreign policy issue, but a domestic political issue. Similar to our policies toward Israel and Cuba, a well-mobilized and well-funded minority – in this case led by the Armenian National Committee of America and the Armenian Assembly of America – wields disproportionate influence.
President Obama’s decision to “postpone” his genocide declaration should not come as a surprise. Former Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton each also refrained from using the word as president after pledging to do so as candidates.
The reason for this is simple.
A genocide declaration would be deeply harmful to our relationship with Turkey, a relationship that has already suffered in recent years – due primarily to disagreements about the Iraq war, but also because of Turkey’s increasingly independent foreign policy and prominent regional role under the moderately Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) that assumed power in 2002.
Washington needs Turkish cooperation on a wide range of issues – Iraq, Afghanistan, energy security, and Iran to name a few – and is in no position to alienate the Turks.
Those who doubt the likely severity of the Turkish response should note the uproar that the “I apologize” campaign – an initiative by Turkish intellectuals and journalists to apologize for the “Great Massacre” of Armenians – has caused.
Furthermore, this year there is another, perhaps even more compelling reason to leave history to the historians.
Turkey and Armenia are closer to normalizing relations than at any point since Turkey closed the border in 1993. But a genocide declaration by Washington would likely undo more than a year of diplomatic progress.
As part of the ongoing dialogue between Ankara and Yerevan, Turkish officials have offered to compose a joint commission of historians to determine whether a genocide occurred or not – and Armenian president Serzh Sargsian has left the door open to this possibility.
If Turkey and Armenia can let the historians decide, then so too should the United States.
As Sameer Lalwani has written on this blog, we have skeletons in our own past – including what might be considered the genocide of Native Americans and more than 75 years of racial slavery.
Supporters of the resolution tend to make arguments like Scott Paul’s (from October 2007) – “that setting an example by doing the right thing might build some goodwill and encourage others to behave similarly, which would advance our interests in the long run.”
While I agree that setting examples that lead to genuine norm creation and that raise the global moral bar are important, it would make more sense for us to confront our own historical memory than to meddle in the historical memories of others.
We also need to abide by the Geneva Conventions, outlaw torture, and honor civil liberties. Those are the kinds of examples that we need to set.
— Ben Katcher

Comments

142 comments on “Let Turkey and Armenia Work Out Their Differences

  1. tim tom, MPH, DrPH says:

    Saying “Let this issue be worked out by Turkey” is just like saying in the 1940s, “Let the Nazis work out the problems it has with Jews”.
    Rediculous and pathetic!
    Turkey is guilty of GENOCIDE, (nearly the entire world agrees on that, and the entire INTELLIGENT world does agree on that), and they need to grow a conscience and admit their GUILT!

    Reply

  2. Erdal says:

    http://www.ethocide.com
    Definition: ethocide (antonym of genocide): malicious mass deception for political gain
    The bogus Armenian genocide promoters are committing a crime of ethocide.

    Reply

  3. Ergun Kirlikovali says:

    It is an unfortunate fact that Armenia is not interested in peace, but only expansion at the cost of its neighbors.
    Armenia currently occupies 20% of Azerbaijan, causing 1+ million internally displaced refugees at gun point. Why is this ignored? Becuase the victims or Turkic?
    Armenia forcibly occupies Karabagh. On Feb. 26 1992, the Armenian army committed a grave crime against innocent Azerbaijani civilians. It is one of the largest massacres of modern times in the region of South Caucasus and Caspian Basin.Why is this ignored? Becuase the victims or Muslim?
    Armenia covets lands from Turkey which the Armenian constitution still refers to as Western Armenia. That, according to the UN, is grounds for expulsion from the international community.
    Armenia wants to annex the Javakhketi region in the neighboring Georgia.
    Armenian wants Nakhcivan (Azerbaijan) and northwestern Iranian territories abutting Armenia.
    Armenia still supports internationa terrorism by Armenian fanatics who call themselves ASALA, JCAG, Ramgavar, etc. etc.
    On whom, then, does this tiny, land-locked, poverty-stricken, corrupt, aggressive, and violent Armenia rely to take on such powerful neighbors with Armenia’s racist policies, aggression, and irredentist projects?
    Russia.
    Russia already owns pretty much everything in Armenia as we speak and has many military bases there. When you enter Armenia, for example, Russian border agents meet and greet you and check your papers. Armenian independence has long been an oxymoron. Is it safe to extrapolate, then, that what we are seeing as Armenian trouble-making is actually a post-Soviet / neo-Russian threat on peace and stability?
    When we all focus on the little puppet that is Armenia, we seem to miss the big picture: Russia. Genocide debate will never end because Russia benefits from it. The debate ends when Russia wants it, which is never.
    According to some scholars like Esat Uras, genocide claims, Armenian terrorism, Armenian aggression, Armenian treason, and anything else Armenian, are clvere Russian inventions. Perhaps one needs to shake off those self-serving superficial narratives for a minute to peek a look into the backdrop and see what’s lurking behind the facade.
    Armenian apologists, lobbysist, activists, and others are just proxies… limited, powerless, visionless, and boringly repetitive.

    Reply

  4. yerevan says:

    South Australia Passes Armenian Genocide Motion
    ADELAIDE: An Armenian National Committee of Australia (ANC Australia)
    delegation was present as South Australian Parliament’s Legislative
    Council passed a motion recognising the Armenian Genocide as “one of
    the greatest crimes against humanity”.
    The motion, introduced by the Hon. David Ridgway MLC (Leader of the
    Liberal Opposition in Legislative Council) and seconded by the
    Hon. Bernard Finnigan (Member of the Labor Government in Legislative
    Council) went through unopposed, and sees the Upper House of South
    Australia’s parliament join the New South Wales parliament in
    condemning “the genocide of the Armenians and all other acts of
    genocide”.
    However this motion is unique, as it is the first to include
    recognition of recently-uncovered material detailing the significant
    humanitarian effort by the people of South Australia who aided the
    victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide almost a century ago.
    http://anc.org.au/news.php?extend.140

    Reply

  5. Vicmak says:

    ‘The difference is that after having written “bla bla bla”, I argue. Unlike you.’
    Thnak you – as you put it – ‘you argue’ – a discussion/conversation is different – you argue for the sake of arguing – grow up, accept the truth and let everyone move on.

    Reply

  6. Lucrece says:

    “Lucrece – to put in your own words ‘bla bla bla …..'”
    The difference is that after having written “bla bla bla”, I argue. Unlike you.

    Reply

  7. Vicmak says:

    ‘The Armenian propagandists are definitevely unable to have an ordinary discussion. They must insult all those who support different views.’
    Lucrece – to put in your own words ‘bla bla bla …..’

    Reply

  8. Lucrece says:

    “Lucrece, Ergun, you guys are lunatics.”
    The Armenian propagandists are definitevely unable to have an ordinary discussion. They must insult all those who support different views.

    Reply

  9. Rich says:

    Lucrece, Ergun, you guys are lunatics.
    Get a grip, listen to yourselves.
    Do both of you actually believe our readers are so ignorant as to believe Armenian genocide deniers such as yourselves? Lol

    Reply

  10. Lucrece says:

    “If the US does not recognise the Genocide, this issue will not go away, it will carry on next year and the next and the next”
    Armenian nationalists attempted it around twenty times since 1984. Armenian nationalists failed every time. You will be soon tired. If Mr. Obama does not use the word “genocide”, many of your firends in USA will understand that they will fail again and again.
    In France, one of the most important reasons of the Armenian collapse, since 2007, is that Mr. Sarkozy has not kept his promises (to stop the negociation of full EU membership with Turkey; support the censorship law).
    The assimilation is destroying the “Armenian communities” in France and USA. The interests of the so-called “Armenian diaspora” and the Republic of Armenia are absolutely not the same; they are opposite. This fact is now obvious, and the leadership of Armenia knows it.

    Reply

  11. Lucrece says:

    http://historyoftruth.com/news/latest/jerusalem-post-israels-position-has-not-changed.html
    Speaking to Jerusalem Post newspaper, a high level Israeli diplomat said that their approach to so called Armenian genocide resolution remains the same although harsh reaction of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan to the Gaza operations of Israel. On the other hand, President of one of the major Jewish organization in United States ADL, Hordes said that they think so called Armenian genocide resolution will not be approved by Congress.
    After introducement of a fresh ‘genocide’ resolution to U.S. House of representatives, discussions over approaches of Jewish lobbies to the resolution started again. Officials said that approach of Jewish lobbies to so called Armenian genocide resolution did not change after harsh reaction of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to operations of Israel in Gaza.
    Jerusalem Post newspaper wrote that U.S. Jews may be ready to participate discussions on so called Armenian genocide, pointing newly introduced so called Armenian genocide resolution. Newspaper wrote that despite a serious strain in relations with Turkey as a result of harsh Turkish criticism of Operation Cast Lead, Israel has not changed its policy on the question of whether 1915 events could be called as genocide.
    “Our position has not changed”, a senior Israeli diplomat told to Jerusalem Post. Newspaper wrote that Israel does not deny unfortunate events that took place in 1915 but holds a policy for Turkey and Armenia to resolve the problems between them. Newspaper also gave place to the approaches of American Jews on the issue and pointed that neither the approach of Jewish diaspora in U.S. has not change. Jerusalem Post reported that the relations between Turkey, U.S. and Israel keeps its importance.
    On the other hand, Jerusalem Post pointed that support to Turkey decreases among some Jewish groups in United States.

    Reply

  12. Lucrece says:

    “The regimes where history is written by politicians, for politicians purposes, are totalitarian democracy.”
    Sorry, I wanted say: totalitarian REGIMES.

    Reply

  13. Lucrece says:

    “South Australia Recognizes Armenian Genocide”
    History is not business of politicians. This resolution is unworthy of a democracy. The regimes where history is written by politicians, for politicians purposes, are totalitarian democracy. But this is logic, in a sense: the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (holding of the Armenian National Committee of Australia) is a totalitarian party, who supported the Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1943, then the USSR from 1972 to 1988.

    Reply

  14. Vicmak says:

    Turkey currently has a programme of ‘funding’ not only historians but also ‘establishes’ Turkish Studies departments in Turkey – all well documented.
    A couple of years ago the head of the Turkish Historical Society of America – funded by the Turkish Government – said in an interview that what happened to the Armenians was Genocide, according to him he was told by the Turkish ambassador to the US he had to resign. If Turkey is really honest about finding out what happened – why was he fired.
    Don’t think any of your posts are being screened, if its the same problem I’m having, then just refresh the page after typing your post and then enter the new captcha code.

    Reply

  15. TheTruth says:

    South Australia Recognizes Armenian Genocide
    Published: Wednesday March 25, 2009
    ADELAIDE, Australia–The South Australian Parliament’s Legislative Council passed on Wednesday a motion recognizing the Armenian Genocide as “one of the greatest crimes against humanity,” the Armenian National Committee of Australia reported.
    An Armenian National Committee of Australia delegation was present as the motion, was introduced by the David Ridgway, the Leader of the Liberal Opposition in the Legislative Council and seconded by Bernard Finnigan, a member of the Labor Government in the Legislative Council. The motion received a unanimous vote by the Upper House of South Australia’s parliament.
    The motion is unique, as it is the first to include recognition of recently-uncovered material detailing the significant humanitarian effort by the people of South Australia, who aided the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide almost a century ago.
    South Australians, as part of the global Near East Relief effort, answered calls for aid by donating clothing, money and infrastructure – an orphanage in Lebanon which housed the children who survived the genocide.
    “I would like to recognize South Australia’s role in the first major international humanitarian relief effort. As was the case for the genocide itself, that effort was not broadly publicized,” Ridgway said.
    “It goes without saying that such acts as the Armenian genocide epitomize prejudices against race, religion and culture. For most Australians those attitudes are difficult to comprehend but, unfortunately, they remain commonplace in many societies today,” he added.
    Finnigan also addressed the house in seconding the motion. “In light of growing international awareness of the Armenian genocide – and given the horrific nature of the genocide itself – it is time for we South Australians to do our part,” he said.
    ANC Australia Political Relations Officer, Vache Kahramanian commended Ridgway, Finnigan and their Legislative Council colleagues for recognizing what he described a “proud intertwining of histories for Armenians and Australians.”
    “It is fitting that South Australia is the first to honor this significant moment in Australian history–the first time this great nation came to the aid of a needy people a whole world away,” Kahramanian said. “It is important for nations like Australia to recognize and condemn all acts of genocide, as some – like the Armenian Genocide – remain unpunished.”
    Ridgway commended the Armenian-Australian community and ANC Australia for their excellent leadership.

    Reply

  16. TheTruth says:

    Posters aren’t spewing four-letter words at each other. So, then, what’s the point?
    This is ridiculous.

    Reply

  17. Lucrece says:

    “Is anyone else having to go through a screening process”
    Me. Welcome in the club 😉

    Reply

  18. TheTruth says:

    Is anyone else having to go through a screening process and why would that be? Censorship?

    Reply

  19. TheTruth says:

    “you and Kirkovali and it seems another Turk nationalist Van Der Galien”
    Michael van der Galiën is a Dutch citizen, without Turkish origins. I am not a Turkish citizen, neither a people with Turkish/Turkic/Ottoman origins. Ergun Kirlikovali is a US citizen, and not a “Turkish nationalist”.
    1) Michael van der Galien
    http://michaelvandergalien.nl/index.html
    BTW, Michael, I like the fez. Did you know that its origin is Greek? Yes: when the Ottoman Turks ravished, they ravished thoroughly.
    Another BTW: Could it be that “Lucrece” and “Michael van der Galien” are the same person? Michael van der Galien is the “editor-in-chief” of PoliGazette, and Lucrece has more than a few posts on that site. Further research needed. 😉
    You can read “commentary” by Michael and Lucrece, here:
    http://www.poligazette.com/2008/06/13/swedish-parliament-no-armenian-genocide/
    Also, to get a better understanding of Michael’s (Lucrece’s?) mental state/mind-set and, perhaps, a sense of why he is part of the Turkish Denial Machine, read the following:
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018752.php
    Michael,
    If you aren’t a Turk, are you a Muslim? That fez and your short bio (for instance, with references to Turkey and Azerbaijan) would lead one to believe so.
    2) Ergun Kirlikovali
    As I stated in an earlier post, Ergun contributes to [at least] one site that engages in hatemongering.
    BTW, Ergun (Short for Ertegun?), did you know that the late Ahmet Ertegun (co-founder of Atlantic Records) supported the idea that Turkey should recognize the Armenian Genocide? Yes, another Turk believed that his ancestors committed genocide against its most loyal “subjects.” Boy, I bet you love that word. It must make you long for the good ol’ days, when you could look down on the rest of us from your high horse (the result of an inferiority complex).
    Another BTW for you, Ergun:
    You claim to have lost relatives during the Armenian Genocide. Are you sure that your relatives weren’t Armenian and, perhaps, they were killed by Turks? You may be an Armenian, and you just don’t know it (because your family might have gone through the process of Turkification). Yes, that’s not intended to be an insult. The fact is that there are countless “Turks” that are of non-Turkish origin, but are unaware. Many are coming to terms with that fact, and many others are choosing not to know. But never say “never.” 😉

    Reply

  20. TheTruth says:

    — Posted by Lucrece, Mar 22 2009, 6:39AM – Link
    “you and Kirkovali and it seems another Turk nationalist Van Der Galien”
    Michael van der Galiën is a Dutch citizen, without Turkish origins. I am not a Turkish citizen, neither a people with Turkish/Turkic/Ottoman origins. Ergun Kirlikovali is a US citizen, and not a “Turkish nationalist”. —
    1) Michael van der Galien
    http://michaelvandergalien.nl/index.html
    BTW, Michael, I like the fez. Did you know that its origin is Greek? Yes: when the Ottoman Turks ravished, they ravished thoroughly.
    Another BTW: Could it be that “Lucrece” and “Michael van der Galien” are the same person? Michael van der Galien is the “editor-in-chief” of PoliGazette, and Lucrece has more than a few posts on that site. Further research needed. 😉
    You can read “commentary” by Michael and Lucrece, here:
    http://www.poligazette.com/2008/06/13/swedish-parliament-no-armenian-genocide/
    Also, to get a better understanding of Michael’s (Lucrece’s?) mental state/mind-set and, perhaps, a sense of why he is part of the Turkish Denial Machine, read the following:
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018752.php
    Michael,
    If you aren’t a Turk, are you a Muslim? That fez and your short bio (for instance, with references to Turkey and Azerbaijan) would lead one to believe so.

    Reply

  21. TheTruth says:

    Why are my posts going through a screening process?

    Reply

  22. TheTruth says:

    — Posted by Lucrece, Mar 22 2009, 6:39AM – Link
    “you and Kirkovali and it seems another Turk nationalist Van Der Galien”
    Michael van der Galiën is a Dutch citizen, without Turkish origins. I am not a Turkish citizen, neither a people with Turkish/Turkic/Ottoman origins. Ergun Kirlikovali is a US citizen, and not a “Turkish nationalist”. —
    1) Michael van der Galien
    http://michaelvandergalien.nl/index.html
    BTW, Michael, I like the fez. Did you know that its origin is Greek? Yes: when the Ottoman Turks ravished, they ravished thoroughly.
    Another BTW: Could it be that “Lucrece” and “Michael van der Galien” are the same person? Michael van der Galien is the “editor-in-chief” of PoliGazette, and Lucrece has more than a few posts on that site. Further research needed. 😉
    You can read “commentary” by Michael and Lucrece, here:
    http://www.poligazette.com/2008/06/13/swedish-parliament-no-armenian-genocide/
    Also, to get a better understanding of Michael’s (Lucrece’s?) mental state/mind-set and, perhaps, a sense of why he is part of the Turkish Denial Machine, read the following:
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018752.php
    Michael,
    If you aren’t a Turk, are you a Muslim? That fez and your short bio (for instance, with references to Turkey and Azerbaijan) would lead one to believe so.
    2) Ergun Kirlikovali
    As I stated in an earlier post, Ergun contributes to [at least] one site that engages in hatemongering.
    BTW, Ergun (Short for Ertegun?), did you know that the late Ahmet Ertegun (co-founder of Atlantic Records) supported the idea that Turkey should recognize the Armenian Genocide? Yes, another Turk believed that his ancestors committed genocide against its most loyal “subjects.” Boy, I bet you love that word. It must make you long for the good ol’ days, when you could look down on the rest of us from your high horse (the result of an inferiority complex).
    Another BTW for you, Ergun:
    You claim to have lost relatives during the Armenian Genocide. Are you sure that your relatives weren’t Armenian and, perhaps, they were killed by Turks? You may be an Armenian, and you just don’t know it (because your family might have gone through the process of Turkification). Yes, that’s not intended to be an insult. The fact is that there are countless “Turks” that are of non-Turkish origin, but are unaware. Many are coming to terms with that fact, and many others are choosing not to know. But never say “never.” 😉

    Reply

  23. Ergun Kirlikovali says:

    Akcam is a paid Armenian agent. He failed to tell his unsuspecting students, audiences, and others that his paymesters were the Cafsjian Foundation and the notoriously anti-Tyrkish Zoryan Institute. We found out about it through our own efforts, as Akcam had no intention of coming clean.
    Akcam was caught red handed, tried, convicted of terrorism, imprisoned, and escaped his prison cell. Akcam conveniently hides these dirty details, too, about his past. He tell people “He was caught hanging posters!” Yeah, right, like the El kaida terorist caught with an unexploded bomb in his pocket claims he was going to a 4th of July party!
    Akcam has no credibility. The diaspora Armenians have even less…

    Reply

  24. Vicmak says:

    The Truth,
    Taner was convicted, because of the articles he wrote in a student paper regarding the treatment of Kurds in Turkey. His cause was taken up by Amnesty International who helped him attain assylum in Germany. Would Amnesty International have helped him if he was a ‘terrorist’ , to Turkish nationalits of course because Amnesty Int. is prob a terrorist group or hates Turks or etc etc – there is always an excuse, nothing is the truth everything is a lie unless it fits the Nationalists point of view!
    Sadly Lucrece is too blinded by his hatred to see any sense, I just hope he is getting paid in some manner by his Nationalist compatriots. I did try to have a proper discussion as an experiment to see whether an intelligent ethical debate could take place, but as you can see when they are fed with misquote and misinformation they will always believe that rather than any proven fact which they see as against them. They are making the situation even worse for themselves.
    If the US does not recognise the Genocide, this issue will not go away, it will carry on next year and the next and the next, more people in the world will know Turkey can only blackmail countries into not saying it Was Genocide. People will not forget – they will believe that Turkish culture is still mired in 1915, todays Turks will be considered to be the same monsters who committed the Genocide.
    It is even sadder that Lucrece and Kirk actually believe they are making a difference by ‘cut and pasting’ this misinformation, there are probably only 5-6 people who are bothering reading these posts, I get the impression that they think this is a game in scoring ‘points’ etc.

    Reply

  25. Lucrece says:

    Another review of Taner Akçam’s book:
    http://www.ataa.org/reference/pdf/akcam.pdf

    Reply

  26. Lucrece says:

    Holdwater is fully right in saying that Mr. Akçam is a former terrorist. He was sentenced in Turkey for his articles, asking the assassination of all the US citizens resident in Turkey. Mr. Akçam was a member of an ultra-leftist terrorist group, who killed several THOUSANDS of peoples (mostly unarmed civilians) during the 1970’s, and several dozens after. A. Öcalan, former chief of the terrorist group PKK, former friend of Mr. Akçam, currently in jail, said that Mr. Akçam is a bloody murderer. Why Mr. Akçam did never attack Mr. Öcalan in justice for defamation? Why?
    The work of Mr. Akçam are absolutely not scholar, it is pure pro-Dashnak propaganda:
    http://www.tc-america.org/Erman%20Sahin-Review%20Article.pdf

    Reply

  27. TheTruth says:

    Ergun Kirlikovali is a contributor of the falsehoods that litter “Tall Armenian Tale,” an anti-Armenian website that propagates nothing less than virulent hostility and is a subject of the following story:
    http://akcamindanger.blogspot.com/2007/07/shoot-messenger.html
    Monday, July 16, 2007
    ‘Shoot the Messenger’
    by Taner Akcam
    July 16, 2007
    In May 2007, I revealed the identity of Murad“Holdwater” Gümen, the secretive Webmaster of TallArmenian Tale, an extensive and influential sitedevoted to “the other side of the falsified Genocide”and the defamation of genocide scholars, myselfincluded. Mr. Gümen has been a leading voice in anongoing campaign to denounce me as a traitor to Turkeyand as a terrorist who ought to be of interest toAmerican authorities.For the last three years, disinformation aboutme from Tall Armenian Tale has been disseminated allover the Internet, eventually reaching the open-sourceencyclopedia, Wikipedia. This campaign, whichintensified after the November 2006 publication of mybook, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and theQuestion of Turkish Responsibility, culminated in mydetention by Canadian and American border authoritieslast February, on suspicion of terrorism. As evidence,they showed me my vandalized Wikipedia biography.Just one month before this incident, theassassination of Istanbul-based journalist Hrant Dinkby an ultranationalist gunman had put Turkey’sintellectuals on high alert. We knew that in themonths before his death, Mr. Dink had been targeted byan increasingly vicious media campaign intent onportraying him as a traitor. Among other things, Dinkwas pilloried for revealing the Armenian identity ofSabiha Gökçen, the adopted daughter of Turkey’sfounding father, Kemal Ataturk. Leading the packagainst Dink was Hürriyet newspaper, one of the mostinfluential publications in Turkey.In the campaign against me, disinformation fromTall Armenian Tale was copied to YouTube videosdescribing my “terrorist” activities. I received deaththreats by email. My lectures and book tour weredisrupted, and poison-pen letters were sent to thehosting universities. Following my lecture on November1, 2006, at City University of New York, I wasphysically assaulted.My detention was the last straw. I challengedMr. Gümen to stand up in public.The unmasking of an individual who had beenrunning a campaign of slander against me was presentedto readers of Hürriyet as a criminal or unethical act.I was said to have endangered Mr. Gümen’s life.“Murad Gümen, who has been defending Turkey for over30 years under the assumed name ‘Holdwater,’ had hisidentity unmasked by Taner Akçam, supporter of theclaim of a so-called genocide….Upon publication of hisidentity, Gümen became a target and has been thesubject of a hate campaign.”—“Secret LobbyistDeciphered,” Hürriyet, June 21, 2007“Murad Gümen, whose identity was unmasked by TanerAkçam, has been the target of a flood of insults sentby Armenians via the Internet. Gümen, who’s beenaccused of racism, has had his photograph published onthe Web….[Taner Akçam]’s disappeared. It has not beenpossible to reach Taner Akçam….Murad Gümen is asuccessful illustrator and film producer who lives inAmerica.”—“Immediate Target,” Hürriyet, June 22, 2007“Taner Akçam fled Turkey years ago. He lives overseas,in the United States at this point, and gets fed bythe Armenian lobby. He vomits hate towards our countryin all of his books and his speeches. Recently heunmasked the Web site that was maintained by MuradGümen, who has been defending the Turkish position onArmenian issues in the United States, and he revealedthe latter’s identity which had been kept secret untilnow. This individual named Taner Akçam who has spenthis life living outside of the country, writingarticles and giving speeches against Turkey…[T]hisindividual…escaped overseas, works in opposition toTurkey, betrayed his country, and serves the Armenianlobby by promoting the position that ‘there was anArmenian genocide’ all over the world!”—Emin Çolasan,“Bravo Atilla Koç! This is How You Introduce Turkey!”,Hürriyet, June 23, 2007Hürriyet’s reportage concerns me deeply, forthree reasons.First, it bears an uncanny resemblance to thelynching mentality that was created against Dink.Having revealed the identity of a secret slanderer, Iam now being denounced as a traitor who “vomits hatetowards our country.”My second cause for concern has to do with ananonymous email that I received on June 11, 2007:“Today we have started fighting you and thosecreatures you call your friends, within the boundariesof the law. But if we don’t get the result we’relooking for, we’ll start trying other alternativeways. It would be better for world peace and truth ifsewer germs like you were taken off theplanet…tomorrow is going to be much more difficult foryou. Pray that the devil takes you away soon becauseotherwise you’ll be living a hell on earth… you thinkyou’ve discovered who “Holdwater” is …you havegotten it all wrong. Right now the world is full ofmillions of Holdwaters…One day you and your wildArmenian blood brothers will drown in this sea ofHoldwaters…The truth hurts…it really does. One day youare going to feel the pain so badly that when you readthese lines, you’ll remember how you were.” Thesimilarity in character between the campaign againstme by Hürriyet and the language used in thisthreatening email is frightening.The writer of that letter concludes, “Who am I?You’re going to find out, Taner, you’re going to findout.” Was it a coincidence that the Hürriyet campaignbegan just 10 days later?Third, Hürriyet cold-bloodedly disregarded themost basic principles of journalism. Their headline onthe second day of coverage proclaimed that I had“disappeared.” Readers were given the impression thatI had gone into hiding the day after Hürriyet reportedmy unmasking of Murad “Holdwater” Gümen.The fact is that my office address, telephonenumbers, and email address are all available online.The University of Minnesota, College of Liberal Arts,the Department of History, and the Center forHolocaust and Genocide Studies have full-time staff.There is no record of a call, not one single email,from Hürriyet. They never bothered to contact me. Theydidn’t check their facts or attempt to interview me.And when I demanded a correction, the editor-in-chiefignored my letter.Thus, in Dink’s case and also in mine, one ofthe most influential and widely circulated nationalnewspapers does not hesitate to transform itself intoa weapon. Once again, intellectuals and activists whodare to question the government’s “official history”are being put on notice. This shameful campaign notonly endangers my life and the lives of my colleagues,my family and friends; ironically enough, the verynotion of free expression is being undermined by thevery institution that depends on it most: the publicpress.And what is the point, after all? I published ascholarly study that deviated from the officialposition of the Turkish State. One should ask theTurkish authorities whether they truly believe thatshooting the messenger will prove that their positionon 1915 is the correct one.

    Reply

  28. Rich says:

    Hey,
    Cut and paste propoganist Turks check link. This will really make your blood boil, but that normal right?
    http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=news&pz=1&hl=en&q=Armenian%20genocide&sa=N&tab=bv#client=news&pz=1&hl=en&q=Armenian+genocide&sa=N&tab=bv&st=week

    Reply

  29. Ergun Kirlikovali says:

    Lucrece,
    You have done such a wonderful job of dismantling the Armenian propaganda embodied in HR 252, that I decided to save your factual refutations for future yuse. My hat is off to you!
    And to the Armenin falsifiers who (unlike I or others who write here) are probably paid by ANCA or AAA or Ramgavars or some Armenian Foundation, I have this to say:
    Your jig is up. Your lies are exposed. History cannot be writtne by the likes of you, paid lobbyists. Judging History is not the business of paid politicians and does not belong to legislative bodies. History belongs to academia (non-partisan academia, that is, not bough-n-sold academia like that represented Taner Akcam.)
    Truth shall eventally prevail as the bogus Armenian genocide charges are exposed one by one.
    No amount of Armenian money can change that.
    And you can take that to the bank!

    Reply

  30. Lucrece says:

    “Sweden recently rejected an Armenian Genocide resolution, so did Bulgaria, Israel. Thus, the French Parliament commission (working on the subject) recently advised “never to bring Armenian genocide resolution to the French Parliament again”. Sweden, France were the countries from that 21-Country list. If you are right, then why don’t there countries fit into your views?”
    Some precisions about France. In 1998, the “recognition” law was voted by around 50 lawmakers only, including 40 deputies who are elected thanks to the nationalist Armenian associations. The 500 other deputies refused to participate to the vote, but did not dare to vote against. The minister of Justice, Ms. Guigou, attempted to prevent the vote in saying: “What you are doing is unconstitutional!” Indeed, the French constitution of 1958 foes not mention the possibily of resolutions (is again possible since 2008), and forbids the declarative laws.
    The majority of the senators refused during two years (1998-2000) to accept this farce. For obtain the vote, the Armenian nationalists defamed, insulted, and almost physically threatened the Senators, EVERY WEEK, not to say every day, during several months. “Le Monde” (a passionately pro-Armenian newspaper until 2006) was so afraid by the extreme verbal violence during some Armenian demonstrations that he feared a come-back of Armenian terrorism.
    Fortunately, the Armenian activism in France is collapsing since 2007, for various reasons, including the followings: many peoples are fed up of Armenian claims; the average age of French-Armenian leaders rises dangerously since many years, and now, the mortality too; Nicolas Sarkozy, despite his promises, refused to support the penalization law, and even to block really the negociation for EU membership.

    Reply

  31. Lucrece says:

    History is not the business of Parliaments. The resolution about the so-called “Armenian genocide” is purely political.
    The question is, in fact: can terrorists be politically winners in USA?
    See this NBC documentary “Armenian Terrorists at Work in USA”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a1c_5APvto

    Reply

  32. Balkar says:

    Rich,
    I read quite a bit on the definition of genocide, so please note that there is no need to copy and paste from “some dictionaries”. Do you know anything about Balkars? Since Hitler did not mention the ethnic name of “Balkars” perhaps you do not, and Balkars and many other nations of Caucasus such as Chechen, Karachay, Ingush, Nogay, and the Circassian know the definition of the genocide quite well even though you might not be aware of their existence.
    Sweden recently rejected an Armenian Genocide resolution, so did Bulgaria, Israel. Thus, the French Parliament commission (working on the subject) recently advised “never to bring Armenian genocide resolution to the French Parliament again”. Sweden, France were the countries from that 21-Country list. If you are right, then why don’t there countries fit into your views?
    If I have return to on the “core” of the subject, I must ask again:
    1. Why do the USA and other Western/European states still deny deliberate extermination of hundreds of million of people? and why did even R. Lemkin’s genocide defininon was contructed upon some denial of the Colonial Genocides and Plundering Campaigns?
    2. In terms of Armenian Genocide, why do the Western/European propagandists/scholars only take the events of 1915-1922 in to consideration whilst omitting the events that happened between 1783-1922?
    3. Why do these circles want to promote the Armenian Genocide as the first Genocide of the 20th Century, when obviously it is not the first genocide even if one likes to agree on the Eurocentric definition of genocide?

    Reply

  33. Lucrece says:

    The Blois appeal (English version):
    “Since 2005 Liberté pour l’Histoire has fought against the initiatives of legislative authorities to criminalize the past, thus putting more and more obstacles in the way of historical research. In April 2007, a framework decision of the European Council of Ministers has given an international dimension to a problem that had until then been exclusively French. In the name of the indisputable and necessary suppression of racism and anti-Semitism, this decision established throughout the European Union new crimes that threaten to place on historians prohibitions that are incompatible with their profession. In the context of the Historical Encounters of Blois in 2008 dedicated to “The Europeans”, Liberté pour l’Histoire invites the approval of the following resolution :
    Concerned about the retrospective moralization of history and intellectual censure, we call for the mobilization of European historians and for the wisdom of politicians.
    History must not be a slave to contemporary politics nor can it be written on the command of competing memories. In a free state, no political authority has the right to define historical truth and to restrain the freedom of the historian with the threat of penal sanctions.
    We call on historians to marshal their forces within each of their countries and to create structures similar to our own, and, for the time being, to individually sign the present appeal, to put a stop to this movement toward laws aimed at controlling history memory.
    We ask government authorities to recognize that, while they are responsible for the maintenance of the collective memory, they must not establish, by law and for the past, an official truth whose legal application can carry serious consequences for the profession of history and for intellectual liberty in general.
    In a democracy, liberty for history is liberty for all.
    Pierre NORA, chairman of Liberté pour l’Histoire”
    http://www.lph-asso.fr/actualites/42.html

    Reply

  34. Lucrece says:

    (Article 17) “The first resolution on genocide adopted by the United Nations at Lemkin’s urging, the Dec. 11, 1946 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96(1) and the Untied Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide itself recognized the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to prevent and punish by codifying existing standards.”
    This is another false claim. The UN never recognized “the Armenian Genocide.” On the contrary, a sub-committee, which gathered in 1985, refused to receive the report of Mr. Whitaker in the light of evidence against the genocide convention and that only “took note” of the report.
    (Article 18) “In 1948, the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the Armenian Genocide “precisely . . . one of the types of acts which the modern term ‘crimes against humanity’ is intended to cover” as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.”
    This article of the resolution is based on wrong conception. First of all, it should be stated that the suspects in the Nuremberg courts were punished for crimes against humanity. In fact, the adverse of it is not possible because the genocide convention was accepted in 1951.
    (Article 19) “The Commission stated that “[t]he provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 ….offenses that had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian or Greek race. This article constitutes therefore a precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of ‘crimes against humanity’ as understood by these enactments.””
    As explained in the previous article, Nuremberg courts were established by the Allied states to punish the defeated governments for the crimes committed in World War II. The lawsuits of those courts were not “genocide lawsuits.” Therefore, 6c and 5c articles of Tokyo agreement can never be an example for the Armenian thesis.
    (Article 20) “House Joint Resolution 148, adopted on April 8, 1975, resolved: “[t]hat April 24, 1975, is hereby designated as the ‘National Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man,’ and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially those of Armenian ancestry.””
    Unfortunately, as a result of that decision taken under the influence of the Armenian propaganda, US presidents discriminate against the victims of World War I by race and religion, and only speak for Armenian losses on the Remembrance Day. It is not a civilized attitude and I believe that one should not use the victims of the wars for their political causes.
    (Article 21) “President Ronald Reagan in proclamation number 4838, dated April 22, 1981, stated in part “like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians, which followed it — and like too many other persecutions of too many other people –the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.””
    If the fact that the speechwriter of President Ronald Reagan was Kenneth L. Khachigian is taken into account, one can understand why the president used this terminology as opposed to that of his predecessors.
    (Article 22) “House Joint Resolution 247, adopted on Sept. 10, 1984, resolved: “[t]hat April 24, 1985, is hereby designated as ‘National Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man,’ and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially the one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry.””
    Even after such a decision, it is important to note that US presidents have since then not recognized April 24 as “Armenian Genocide Day.” The resolution of the House of Representatives was certainly a political one; few of undersigned persons cared about its truthfulness.
    (Article 23) “In August 1985, after extensive study and deliberation, the United Nations SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities voted 14-1 to accept a report entitled “Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” which stated “[t]he Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the 20th century. Among other examples, which can be cited as qualifying, are….the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916.””
    This is one of the untrue articles of the resolution. The UN has never accepted the report of Mr. Whitaker and as we have shown below, the Subcommittee did not receive the report in question, but only “took note of.” (File E/CN.4/1986/5-E/CN.4/Feb.2/1985/57; Para.57) and instead of that, it is added to the special report as “noted” (E/CN.4/1986/5 E/CN.4/Feb.2/1985/57 page 99. Para 1). Unfortunately, we have encountered that big lie even in scientific meetings.

    Reply

  35. Lucrece says:

    (Article 12) “President Woodrow Wilson concurred and also encouraged the formation of the organization known as Near East Relief, chartered by an Act of Congress, which contributed some $116 million from 1915 to 1930 to aid Armenian Genocide survivors, including 132,000 orphans who became foster children of the American people.”
    First, the first formation of this organization was in 1916 under the American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief. The US Ambassador Morgenthau had an important role in the foundation of the committee, also the most active members of this committee were missionaries and consul generals in particular.
    For example the coordinator at Aleppo was Consul General J.J. Jackson. In 1919 all relief organizations in the Near East came under the umbrella of a new organization called Near East Relief. One of the most important details that were not mentioned in the resolution is that these relief organizations helped the Armenians with the help, support and permission of the Ottoman government.
    In the beginning of the war the Ottoman Empire rejected aid from foreign organizations to the Armenians on the grounds that it may have “encouraged resistance against relocation orders” and that all needs of refuges were to be met by the state. However when the economic condition of the state worsened all relief organizations were given permission to work and full access to the camps. The presence of relief organizations at camps is self-evident of the fact that the empire had no intention to implement of race extermination to the Armenians as often claimed by the Armenian historians.
    (Article 13) “Anatolia between 1914 and 1920. During his term in Turkey as high commissioner, Admiral Mark L. Bristol wrote on March 12, 1926, about the Armenian massacres in the East, saying that “the extent of the excesses committed will never be known.””
    He also noted this: “I have received reports from Americans who were there at the time to the effect that the Christians cleared out the Moslem population completely so that ‘there was not a living thing, even a dog, a cat or a chicken left in the country.’
    “Russians also reported that the Armenians had killed most of the Muslims in the districts of Erzurum.” (NARA 767.90g15). Unfortunately, little scholarly attention has been paid to the atrocities committed by the Armenians.
    (Article 14) “The resolution followed the April 13, 1920 report to the Senate of the American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James Harbord, that stated “[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages.””
    Although Gen. Harbord was a pro-Armenian person, he listened to Muslim villagers about the massacres perpetuated by the Armenian bandit Andranik and changed the tone of his report. As a matter of fact, in spite of all Armenian propaganda, Harbord argued that the US must not overtake the mandate of Armenia without the whole of Anatolia — Rumelia, Istanbul and Caucasia included — since Armenia alone could not survive without a large amount of money and military presence. This report seems to have played an important role in changing the attitude of the congressmen to the creation of Armenia under the American mandate.
    (Article 15) “As displayed in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying “[who], after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” and thus set the stage for the Holocaust.”
    To refer Adolf Hitler in the resolution (Article 15) is very deceptive. Armenian historian Dr. Robert John, American historian Heath Lowry and Turkish historian Türkkaya Ataöv have proved that this quote is false. That quote was not found in any speech delivered by Hitler or filed in the documents of Nuremberg. The court had filed two versions of Hitler’s speech to army commanders in August 22, 1939, from the German military records. These have the numbers of US-29/786 PS and US-30/1014 PS and none of these files have this quote.
    (Article 16) “Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide” in 1944, and who was the earliest proponent of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, invoked the Armenian case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century.”
    When Rafael Lemkin defined the crime of genocide he might have used this expression, but that does not prove anything. First of all, Lemkin was not a historian and surely he read only the Armenian version of the story. Since then, many valuable contributions have been made about the details of the relocation of the Armenians, most of which demonstrates that the relocation and settlements were not in line with the definition of the term genocide.

    Reply

  36. Lucrece says:

    (Article 8) “The United States National Archives and Record Administration possesses extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide, especially in its holdings under Record Group 59 of the United States Department of State, files 867.00 and 867.40, which are open and widely available to the public and interested institutions.”
    The documents in the American archives have been classified under various categories. The collection that is mostly used by the Armenians as basis for their claims is from the Records of the Department of State, especially the section classified as “Internal Affairs of Turkey 1910-1929.” Most of these documents were collected with the help of the two Armenian secretaries of Ambassador Henry Morgenthau. Reports from the Armenian political propaganda offices were also included in the mentioned reports. When one studies these documents carefully, and ignores the lines of hearsay cited in the reports, he/she can gather a wealth of information about the implementation of the relocation process. For example, we learn from the reports of J. Jackson, the consul of Aleppo, that the number of Armenians who reached the city of Aleppo was up to 500,000, that these people were settled in the houses and camps in and around the city. The consul also gives lists of arrivals by sex, religion and sect.
    (Article 9) “Henry Morgenthau, US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, organized and led protests with officials from many countries, among them the allies of the Ottoman Empire, against the Armenian Genocide he said occurred.”
    The use of Morgenthau’s book to support genocide claims is not a scholarly approach. Heath Lowry, a professor of history at Princeton, has documented without a shadow of a doubt that the Armenian secretaries of the ambassador changed the contents of the reports that came from towns and cities in Anatolia. As a matter of fact, there are in the archives the original documents of the reports of the missionaries and a scholarly approach requires the use of this material. An important detail about Ambassador Morgenthau is that he had never been to Anatolia and was pro-Armenian throughout his career. Adm. Bristol, who was his successor, accused him of taking sides and exaggerating the reports about the massacres. Historians specialized in American politics share the opinion that Morgenthau wrote his book in support of the Armenian National Delegation at Paris in 1919, which had been waging a campaign to persuade the Allies to carve out independent Armenian state in the eastern part of Anatolia.
    (Article 10) “Ambassador Morgenthau explicitly described to the United States Department of State the policy of the government of the Ottoman Empire as ‘a campaign of race extermination,’ and was instructed on July 16, 1915, by United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing that the `Department approves your procedure . . . to stop Armenian persecution.’”
    Such statements in Morgenthau’s report show how much he had been influenced by his interpreter, Arshag Schmavonian, and his secretary, Hagop Andonian. We must remind the reader that when the ambassador made these remarks, the relocation of Armenians had not started yet or had been implemented in a few strategic towns. It should be kept in mind that the transportation began in many eastern cities after the 1st of July. To name but few, the transportation of Armenians began in Harput on July 4 and in Yozgat on July 18. So, when Morgenthau wrote his report in July, it was very early to call the events “a campaign of race extermination.” This report is an indication of the prejudice of the consul. The quotation in the resolution must be considered in line with the wordings of the reports of the consular since at it is impossible for the US Department of State to have knowledge of the events that took place in the Near East at such an early date.
    (Article 11) “Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 of Feb. 9, 1916, resolved that ‘the President of the United States be respectfully asked to designate a day on which the citizens of this country may give expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised for the relief of the Armenians,’ who at the time were enduring `starvation, disease, and untold suffering.’”
    In fact, Robert Lansing in his report dated Nov. 21, 1916 to President Wilson claimed that the Armenian deportation was due to the betrayal of the Armenians. The resolution in question aimed at initiating a relief campaign to increase America’s support to the refugees in the Armenian camps. Thus, it is obvious that resolution of Robert Lansing did not have a purpose like the resolution worded. It should be underlined that Muslim villagers were also suffering from the same conditions. Justin McCarthy in his book (”Death and Exile”) puts the losses of Muslims above 2 million, most of which were caused by epidemics and starvation. Prof. Hikmet Özdemir, in his book “March with Epidemics 1914-1918,” stated the victims to the epidemics among military personal was exactly 401,859.

    Reply

  37. Lucrece says:

    (Article 5) “In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turks regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people.”
    Besides the findings of Dr. Feridun Ata, historians like Justin McCarthy and Gunter Lewy stated that post war courts-martial were a travesty of justice, the findings of these courts were unreliable, interrogations were not legal, the right of defense for the arrested was denied and the presiding officer, when questioning the defendants, often acted more like a prosecutor than like an impartial judge. As Lewy stated, “The legal procedures of Ottoman military courts, including those operating in 1919-20, suffered from serious shortcomings when compared to Western standards of due process of law.” The court did not listen to any testimony during judgment and the decisions were made by relying solely on false witnesses without considering the answers of the defense.
    (Article 6) “The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide, Minister of War Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all condemned to death for their crimes; however, the verdicts of the courts were not enforced.”
    The courts-martial operating in the occupied Istanbul tried Enver, Talat and Cemal and convicted them to capital punishment in absentia. Yet, they were not found guilty of “organizing and performing massacres against Armenians,” as stated in the resolution, but they were found guilty of political crimes for dragging the country into a terrible war. The fact that the verdicts of the courts were not enforced has nothing to do with ignorance or being indifferent to the suffering of Armenians, but that the guilty parties had fled the country after the war. Anyhow, the untold verity about these people is that they were assassinated by a secret Armenian organization called “Nemesis” in the countries where they sought refuge. Sadly, the Nemesis organization also killed some statesmen like Sait Halim Pasha, Bahaeddin Takir and Cemal Azmi without judgment although the courts found them innocent.
    (Article 7) “The Armenian Genocide and these domestic judicial failures are documented with overwhelming evidence in the national archives of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, the United States, the Vatican and many other countries, and this vast body of evidence attests to the same facts, the same events, and the same consequences.”
    This is also untrue. I have personally dug out the documents preserved at the US National Archives and Research Foundation and found no concrete evidence in the documents that can be qualified for use in court. The documents in the archive contain reports by the consul and the testimony of the missionaries who were biased toward the Muslims and the Turks and reported information that they had not witnessed, but rather heard through secondary sources. It can safely be claimed that an overwhelming amount of these documents and reports are based on hearsay. There are also large amount of documents, or rather statements, from the Patriarchate and Taşnaksutyun political propaganda offices. As a matter of fact, documents and reports from the United States consuls had been examined by the officials “for any mention of forty-five Malta detainees accused of outrages against Armenians and other Christians” and found no information that could “be employed in a court of law.” Thus, one cannot help thinking that this might be the reason why the proposal of the Turkish government to set up an international committee of historians have so far been refused by the Republic of Armenia.

    Reply

  38. Lucrece says:

    “(Article 2) ‘On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing “a crime against humanity.”’
    In the second statement in the proposed resolution, the Allied statement of May 24, 1915 is mentioned, and it is asserted that the Ottoman Empire carried out genocide, although they had been warned before the deportation. The text of the resolution implies that the Ottoman Empire planned and launched a systematic campaign to annihilate the Armenians. It is true that there was such a statement made by the Allies; what is left out is the fact that the states that issued this statement were then at war with the Ottomans, and as we know now, had signed treaties amongst each other to divide the Ottoman Empire, which would complicate any claim they asserted about the Ottoman Empire. What is also striking is that these countries were overlooking their own “crimes against humanity.” For instance Russia was carrying out pogroms on the Jews in their country, and England had already deported citizens of German origin to concentration camps.
    (Article 3) This joint statement stated “the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres.”
    As is stated above, these statements were the propaganda of the Allies. As a matter of fact, the Ottoman Empire, in its reply to the statement issued by the Allies, stated that a massacre of the Armenians in the empire was out of the question. There was also a very interesting detail in the statement of the Ottoman Empire: The sources of these slanders were English and Russian consuls in Romania and Bulgaria. In fact, political propaganda offices for the Taşnaksutyun [Armenian armed gangs] were present in the capitals of those countries, and many reports about the massacres appearing in the “Blue Book” also originated from these offices.
    Article 4) The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the “organization and execution” of the Armenian Genocide and in the “massacre and destruction of the Armenians.”
    […]
    The third article of the resolution asserts that the Ottoman Empire tried those responsible for massacres and thereby implicitly accepted criminal responsibility during the court-martials. Justin McCarthy, a leading American expert on the Ottoman history, describes those courts as “kangaroo courts” and recalls that they were established by a corrupt administration which was eager for retribution. The British High Commissioner S.A.G. Calthorphe wrote to London on Aug. 1, 1919, that the “trials were proving to be a farce and injurious to our own prestige and to that of the Turkish government” (FO 371/4174/118377). According to Dr. Ferudun Ata, the author of a book titled “Deportation Courts in Occupied İstanbul,” the Ottoman government of the time had established the court-martials to better its conditions in the Paris Peace Conference and also to take revenge against the regime of the “Young Turks.”
    The interrogations in the courts-martial were not duly conducted, many witnesses were faked and only testified against the defendants. For example, a certain Artolos, a shoemaker, who testified against Maj. Tevfik during the trials in Yozgat, was brought to İstanbul and was paid to speak against the defendant. According to Dr. Ata, he later appeared before the court in another trial as a Muslim convert. Dr. Ata’s book reveals many false witnesses like this. Those who spoke in favor of the suspects were not brought to court. The chairmen of the courts never charged those false witnesses, although they were sometimes revealed in court. Dr. Ata also found that some false witnesses, before bearing testimony at the court, had been trained and instructed in the “Armenian-Greek Branch” established at the offices of the British High Commissioner. What is most important to note about the decisions of these courts is that the Court of Appeal declared the verdicts null and void. Unfortunately, among such cases was the verdict of Nusret Bey, who had been executed upon his death sentence. Such facts about the nature of the post war courts-martial become more meaningful when we read that the then US high commissioner, Lewis Heck, reported on April 4, 1919 that “many here regard executions as necessary concessions to Entente rather than as punishment justly meted out to criminals,” and that “it is popularly believed that many of them are made from motives of personal vengeance or at the instigation of the Entente authorities, especially the British.” (NARA 867.00/868; M 353, roll 7, fr. 448). Lastly we should remember that England also arrested 144 outstanding politicians of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) for crimes against Armenians and took them to Malta for trial, but later released all of the detainees without charge.

    Reply

  39. Lucrece says:

    http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=186
    “‘(Article 1) The Armenian genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.’
    In the article under dispute, it was claimed that genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923. We know that V. Dadrian and many other leading Armenian historians have claimed the loss of the Armenian life during World War I due to the actions of the Ottoman Empire was 1.5 million. Before we comment on these exaggerated figures, we must emphasize that the Ottoman Empire had exited the stage of history in 1923. This fact indicates that the Armenian lobby is directly targeting the Republic of Turkey and aims to keep Turkey from avoiding punishment for the refusal to acknowledge its heritage. As for the figures, we may state with certainty that the claimed number of Armenian victims is an exaggeration. First of all, many independent researchers have estimated that the Armenian population in 1914 ranged between 1,400,000 and1,700,000. Even such pro-Armenian scholars as Dr. Johannes Lepsius do not accept the figures asserted by the Patriarchate, at 2.2 million Armenian citizens in that area at that time, and instead calculated the Armenian population to be around 1,845,450 (‘Der Todesgang des Armenischen Volkes’, Potsdam 1919, p. 308). There is not a single source that would indicate the population of the Ottoman Armenians was as high as 2 million. (See H. Özdemir and others. ‘Armenians: Exile and Migration’, Ankara, 2004, p.49-50.)
    The claim that 1.5 million Armenians were killed is also a myth. This myth originated from the report of Leslie Davis, the US consul at Harput. He wrote on July 24, 1915 — the 44th day after the order for deportation — that “It is impossible to say how many Armenians have been killed, but it is estimated that the number is not far from a million” (NARA 867.4016/269). Even Dadrian vouches for 1 million survivors and estimates the number of Armenian victims at 1.1 million. During the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the Armenian leader, Bogos Nubar Pasha, spoke about the deportation of 600-700,000 Armenians. In addition, the Patriarchate calculated in 1919 that the total number of Armenians living in Anatolia was 644,000. A document released by the League of Nations stated the number of Armenians in 1922 who originated from Turkey was 817,873 and states that “the total given does not include the able-bodied Armenians” who still lived in Turkey. (NARA 867.4016/816) Last but not least, in a memorandum sent to English and French embassies by the Patriarchate in 1919, it claimed that “200,000 Armenians were buried alive or were drowned in Van Lake, the Fırat River and the Black Sea between 1914 and 1918.” (Report presented to the Preliminary Peace Conference by the Commission for the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on the Enforcement of Penalties, March 29, 1919). These figures clearly demonstrate that the Armenian historians have exaggerated the figures about the number of Armenian victims during the war.”

    Reply

  40. TheTruth says:

    Ergun Kirlikovali: “Case in point: HJR 106 had more than 200 co-sponsors in the U.S. Congress about this time two years ago. Do you know how many they have for HR 252 now? Only 77. What happened in a span of two years? Truth has finally reached some.”
    It was at 100 co-sponsors. It didn’t get to over 200 until later that year. You can’t rewrite the facts and expect to get away with it. That goes for Lucrece’s rubbish, too. You two can’t sincerely believe that you’re posting information that the major body of scholars has not examined closely and repeatedly, and refuted each and every one of them. A person cannot do so, unless he is out of touch with reality.
    For more reality:
    H. Res. 252
    This version: Introduced in House. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill available on this website.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-252
    HRES 252 IH
    111th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. RES. 252
    Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    March 17, 2009
    Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. KIRK, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Ms. WATSON, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. WU, Mr. SIRES, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. WEINER, Mr. HONDA, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. WALZ, Mr. PETERS, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. COSTA, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. WOLF, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mrs. CAPPS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. HIMES, Mr. BACA, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. FATTAH, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. SPACE, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. LANCE, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. OLVER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. TITUS, Mr. STARK, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. TSONGAS, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. DREIER, Mr. NUNES, Mr. TONKO, and Mr. TIERNEY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
    ——————————————————————————–
    RESOLUTION
    Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.
    Resolved,
    SHORT TITLE
    Sec. 1.
    This resolution may be cited as the ‘Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution’.
    FINDINGS
    Sec. 2.
    The House of Representatives finds the following:
    (1) The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.
    (2) On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing ‘a crime against humanity’.
    (3) This joint statement stated ‘the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres’.
    (4) The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the ‘organization and execution’ of the Armenian Genocide and in the ‘massacre and destruction of the Armenians’.
    (5) In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people.
    (6) The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide, Minister of War Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all condemned to death for their crimes, however, the verdicts of the courts were not enforced.
    (7) The Armenian Genocide and these domestic judicial failures are documented with overwhelming evidence in the national archives of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, the United States, the Vatican and many other countries, and this vast body of evidence attests to the same facts, the same events, and the same consequences.
    (8) The United States National Archives and Record Administration holds extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide, especially in its holdings under Record Group 59 of the United States Department of State, files 867.00 and 867.40, which are open and widely available to the public and interested institutions.
    (9) The Honorable Henry Morgenthau, United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, organized and led protests by officials of many countries, among them the allies of the Ottoman Empire, against the Armenian Genocide.
    (10) Ambassador Morgenthau explicitly described to the United States Department of State the policy of the Government of the Ottoman Empire as ‘a campaign of race extermination,’ and was instructed on July 16, 1915, by United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing that the ‘Department approves your procedure . . . to stop Armenian persecution’.
    (11) Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 of February 9, 1916, resolved that ‘the President of the United States be respectfully asked to designate a day on which the citizens of this country may give expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised for the relief of the Armenians’, who at the time were enduring ‘starvation, disease, and untold suffering’.
    (12) President Woodrow Wilson concurred and also encouraged the formation of the organization known as Near East Relief, chartered by an Act of Congress, which contributed some $116,000,000 from 1915 to 1930 to aid Armenian Genocide survivors, including 132,000 orphans who became foster children of the American people.
    (13) Senate Resolution 359, dated May 11, 1920, stated in part, ‘the testimony adduced at the hearings conducted by the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have clearly established the truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which the Armenian people have suffered’.
    (14) The resolution followed the April 13, 1920, report to the Senate of the American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James Harbord, that stated ‘[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages’.
    (15) As displayed in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying ‘[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?’ and thus set the stage for the Holocaust.
    (16) Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term ‘genocide’ in 1944, and who was the earliest proponent of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, invoked the Armenian case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century.
    (17) The first resolution on genocide adopted by the United Nations at Lemkin’s urging, the December 11, 1946, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96(1) and the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide itself recognized the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to prevent and punish by codifying existing standards.
    (18) In 1948, the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the Armenian Genocide ‘precisely . . . one of the types of acts which the modern term ‘crimes against humanity’ is intended to cover’ as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.
    (19) The Commission stated that ‘[t]he provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 . . ., offenses which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian or Greek race. This article constitutes therefore a precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of ‘crimes against humanity’ as understood by these enactments’.
    (20) House Joint Resolution 148, adopted on April 8, 1975, resolved: ‘[t]hat April 24, 1975, is hereby designated as ‘National Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man’, and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially those of Armenian ancestry . . .’.
    (21) President Ronald Reagan in proclamation number 4838, dated April 22, 1981, stated in part ‘like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians, which followed it–and like too many other persecutions of too many other people–the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten’.
    (22) House Joint Resolution 247, adopted on September 10, 1984, resolved: ‘[t]hat April 24, 1985, is hereby designated as ‘National Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man’, and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially the one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry . . .’.
    (23) In August 1985, after extensive study and deliberation, the United Nations SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities voted 14 to 1 to accept a report entitled ‘Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,’ which stated ‘[t]he Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the 20th century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are . . . the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916’.
    (24) This report also explained that ‘[a]t least 1,000,000, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany.’.
    (25) The United States Holocaust Memorial Council, an independent Federal agency, unanimously resolved on April 30, 1981, that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum would include the Armenian Genocide in the Museum and has since done so.
    (26) Reviewing an aberrant 1982 expression (later retracted) by the United States Department of State asserting that the facts of the Armenian Genocide may be ambiguous, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1993, after a review of documents pertaining to the policy record of the United States, noted that the assertion on ambiguity in the United States record about the Armenian Genocide ‘contradicted longstanding United States policy and was eventually retracted’.
    (27) On June 5, 1996, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to House Bill 3540 (the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997) to reduce aid to Turkey by $3,000,000 (an estimate of its payment of lobbying fees in the United States) until the Turkish Government acknowledged the Armenian Genocide and took steps to honor the memory of its victims.
    (28) President William Jefferson Clinton, on April 24, 1998, stated: ‘This year, as in the past, we join with Armenian-Americans throughout the nation in commemorating one of the saddest chapters in the history of this century, the deportations and massacres of a million and a half Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the years 1915-1923.’.
    (29) President George W. Bush, on April 24, 2004, stated: ‘On this day, we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1,500,000 Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire.’.
    (30) Despite the international recognition and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, the failure of the domestic and international authorities to punish those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is a reason why similar genocides have recurred and may recur in the future, and that a just resolution will help prevent future genocides.
    DECLARATION OF POLICY
    Sec. 3.
    The House of Representatives–
    (1) calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution; and
    (2) calls upon the President in the President’s annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24, to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.

    Reply

  41. Ergun Kirlikovali says:

    DIALOG, NOT DIATRIBE
    There has never convened a “competent tribunal”, as foreseen by the article 6 of the 1948 U.N. Convention on Genocide where the accused were given a chance of fair representation, cross-examining the evidence, and producing own evidence in defense. Therefore, a genocide verdict does not exist. How can one deny something that does not legally exist?
    Resorting to name calling and denigrating descriptions like “genocide denier” when there is no court verdict to support such a label, therefore, is nothing less than “ lynching” of dissenters.
    Genocide charges are political and cannot be substantiated with historical evidence. That is why the Armenian claimants have never resorted to legal ways to establish the veracity of their claims and that is also why Armenia still does not come forward to accept Turkey’s 2005 offer of creating a joint commission of historians, scholars and researchers to sort out the contentious and complex matter. Turkish offer still stands.
    That is also why the Armenians left the table at VAT (Viennese Armenian Turkish platform) after exchanging the first 100 documents. The deal was that the sides would take six months to review those documents and exchange 80 more after that. That would be the final stage after which the research, arguments, and theories would be limited to those 180 documents. Turkish Historical Society enthusiastically agreed to the second set of 80 documents but the Armenians, once again, left the table in, what can only be described as, panic. Time and again, Armenians hit the rocky wall of truth as represented in the meticulous Turkish archives.
    Because of lack of historical evidence to substantiate their bogus genocide claims, Armenians push this debate into political arenas where allegiances and resolutions can be manipulated AND WHERE aRMENIANS THINK THEY CAN WIN. For a while, maybe, but in due time, truth will catch up with politicians, too.
    Case in point: HJR 106 had more than 200 co-sponsors in the U.S. Congress about this time two years ago. Do you know how many they have for HR 252 now? Only 77. What happened in a span of two years? Truth has finally reached some.
    Asking someone “Do you accept or deny genocide”” is a racist and dishonest way of approaching history. The question should be rephrased: “What is your stand on the Turkish-Armenian conflict?”
    Turks believe it was a civil war in a world war where the Armenian war crimes are summarized by the “Six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict”: tumult (armed revolts), terrorism, treason, territorial demands, Turkish suffering and losses caused by the first four T’s, and the TERESET (temporary resettlement of 1915) caused by the first 5 T’s. Armenians believe it was a one way genocide, ignoring all Armenian revolts, raids, murder, and mayhem.
    This issue should be resolved by more dialog, more research, and more openness; not by name calling, division, and polarization.

    Reply

  42. Lucrece says:

    Guenter Lewy responds to the first version of V. Dadrian’s attack:
    http://www.meforum.org/895/correspondence
    “I welcome Mr. Dadrian’s close reading of my article, which indeed caught a few minor factual errors. However, regarding the points of substance, Dadrian again displays his skill in the use of selective evidence. For example, the alleged thirty-one telegrams of Talât Pasha contained in the Naim-Andonian volume, some of which order the killing of all Armenians, are rejected as crude forgeries not only by Turkish historians but also by almost all Western students of Ottoman history. Hilmar Kaiser, cited by Dadrian and the one exception to this rule, did say documents from the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior “confirm to some degree” two telegrams, but he concluded that “further research on the ‘Naim-Andonian’ documents is necessary.”
    If Dadrian wants to consider the verdict of the Turkish courts-martial as proof of the guilt of the Young Turk regime in the premeditated murder of Ottoman Armenians, he is, of course, free to do so. However, his readers should know that the evidence relied upon by the military tribunals—”confessions, witness and expert testimony, official records, discovery, judicial notice, searches and seizure”—is of doubtful reliability. Among other shortfalls in due process, it was never subject to cross-examination. More importantly, this evidence does not actually exist. Wherever the blame for this situation is to be placed, the fact is that all of the original documentation of the trials is lost, and we have nothing but copies of some documents in the gazette of the Ottoman government and the press. It is doubtful that the Nuremberg trials would ever have attained their significance in documenting Nazi crimes had only unauthenticated copies of documents existed.
    I know of no authentic sources that prove Stange’s service as a commander of a Special Organization unit engaged in the massacre of Armenians. It is in Dadrian’s gloss and not in the original documents that Stange confirms the transfer of brigands employed in guerilla war to mass murder duties, and it is Dadrian, not Stange, who equates the “scum” involved in massacre with released convicts and enrolls them into the ranks of the Special Organization. Similarly, the leading Special Organization official, Eşref KuşÃ§ubasi, after his capture indeed bragged about his exploits in secret operations, but it is only through the shrewd juxtaposition of words taken from different parts of the book in question and Dadrian’s insertions that this account becomes an acknowledgment of involvement with the Armenian deportations.
    Hilmar Kaiser, on whom Dadrian relies for his defense, has drawn attention to “misleading quotations” and the “selective use of sources” in Dadrian’s work, and he has concluded that “serious scholars should be cautioned against accepting all of Dadrian’s statements at face value.”[10] I concur in this judgment.”

    Reply

  43. Lucrece says:

    Another example of V. Dadrian’s mythomania:
    “Notwithstanding, Dyer repeatedly acknowledged the fact of the Armenian genocide in the following two articles, namely, (1) “Turkish ‘Falsifiers’ and Armenian Deceivers’: Historiography and the Armenian Massacres,” Middle Eastern Studies v.12, no.1 (January 1996). On p. 100 he speaks of “a policy of extermination” in 1915 by “the Ottoman Government;” on p. 107, he even refers to the “final solution” inflicted upon the Armenians.”
    1) “Turkish Falsifiers and Armenian Deceivers” was published in 1976, not in 1996.
    2) The quotation are falsification, as everybody can see in reading the whole article, available online:
    http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst373/readings/dyer.html
    Excerpts:
    “Housepian’s account of the eventual grudging Allied agreement after the fire to an evacuation of the minorities (except the men of military age, whom the Turks kept as prisoners and marched into the interior, whence fewer that ever returned), and of the subsequent politicking over the appropriate degree of outrage to express at the events in Izmir, is perhaps her strongest and original work. Her thesis is that the majority of the senior American officials under Bristol’s influence, deliberately avoided rousing Turkish hostility to America by first pretending that the savage events at Izmir were not taking place, and afterwards by maintaining that they had not been of any large scope, while only Consul Horton, on whom she relies most heavily, struggled against them. It is probably true: surely the loss of life was far greater than Bristol’s reported 2,000 dead, though probably not as high as the 100,000 Housepian accepts’.
    There is throughout the work an unpleasantly dualistic approach to massacre: Muslim massacres of Christians are a heinous and inexcusable outrage; Christian massacres of Muslims are, well, understandable and forgivable. Referring to the killings of Turks in the villages round Izmir at the time of the Greek landings, Housepian can only praise the Greek community leaders who went about counselling restraint: ‘That [order] could be so restored was nothing less than a miracle when one considers the persecutions which the Greeks had so recently suffered.’ The trail of death and devastation left by the Greek armies and refugees in their flight to the coast in 1922 is dismissed in a single sentence: ‘Now the defeated Greeks, in their panicked flight through a detested land, set the torch to their own villages, killed and maimed some of the Turkish inhabitants, and took to the roads.’
    […]
    European historians, certainly, would now mostly agree on the wide extent of Armenian disloyalty to the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, and also on the relatively narrow compass of the overt acts of treason and revolt. They are perhaps rather less united in shedding the old propagandistic view of the CUP leaders as savage dictators ruthlessly exploiting a long sought opportunity for a much desired genocide. Closer to the truth, I think, is that there was a genuine, though mistaken, belief among the Ottoman leaders in Istanbul that there was a deliberate and coordinated Armenian uprising in the East, with Empire-wide ramifications. Further, that this belief originated in such unrelated events as the formation of Armenian volunteer corps in the Russian Army and the participation in them of Ottoman Armenians; the insistence by the Ottoman government on the application of conscription to the Armenian community, which until recently had been exempt, and the passive and eventually the armed Armenian resistance to this in some areas, especially Zeytun in ‘Cilicia’; the casual savageries inflicted by Kurdish tribesmen or Armenian bandits in the course of robberies, which not only rose in numbers in the conditions of insecurity in a war zone, but also gained a new communal significance in the tense atmosphere; and, finally, the inexcusable but probably unsanctioned tyranny of Cevdet Bey, the Vali of Van, which drove the Armenians of that city to revolt. All this occurred before Istanbul made any move.”
    3) Gwynne Dyer praised Guenter Lewy’s book as early as 2005, and rejected the appropriatness of the “genocide” label: http://www.arabnews.com/services/print/print.asp?artid=74969&d=20&m=12&y=2005&hl=A%20Question%20of%20Genocide%20in%20Turkey
    Quote:
    “What happened to the Armenians was dreadful, but as Lewy documents in his new book “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide,” which will most likely become the standard work on the subject, both premeditation and an intention to annihilate, two preconditions for genocide, were either absent or at least open to considerable dispute.”

    Reply

  44. Lucrece says:

    Jihadwatch is an extrem right Web site. By comparison, Mr. Bush Jr. seems to be a socialist and a lover of Muslims. So, it is the perfect location for a V. Dadrian’s article.
    V. Dadrian’s lies and forgeries about the Special Organization were definitevely crushed by Edward J. Erickson:
    http://www.meforum.org/991/armenian-massacres-new-records-undercut-old-blame
    Conclusion of this article:
    “Many historians find military chronicles dry and difficult to comprehend. Nevertheless, when it comes to the controversy over the fate of Armenians in 1915, they are crucial. Many contemporary historians accuse the Special Organization and Major Stange of complicity in genocide. The records, though, do not lend such accusations credence.
    The official military histories of the modern Turkish Republic portray the operations of organized Ottoman Special Organization units on the Caucasian front from December 1914 through the end of 1916 as largely conventional. There is little evidence of a cover-up, especially as these histories are technical, not intended for the public, and predate the scholarly controversy over allegations of Special Organization complicity in Armenian genocide. Importantly, the official histories fully cite archival sources and often reproduce reports and orders.
    Early Special Organization operations near Batum were unconventional and involved guerilla warfare operations. However, the Sarikamiş offensive provided the engine that drove the Special Organization into the arms of regular army commanders like Stange. Subsequent and perennial manpower shortages kept the Special Organization engaged in conventional military operations. From the record of unit assignments and locations on the front, it appears that the Special Organization units associated with Stange were not redeployed from the Caucasian front to deport and massacre Armenians.
    Nor does it seem possible that Stange was involved in the deaths of Armenians. The modern Turkish histories show that he commanded regular army forces engaged in conventional offensive and defensive operations until late March 1915. Although he technically commanded all Ottoman forces near Ardahan in 1914, he exercised no real control over the Special Organization or volunteers. After Stange gained command of the Lazistan Area Command, he held direct command over Special Organization forces, which he employed on the defensive line in a conventional manner. In effect, from December 11, 1914 through March 20, 1915, Stange can be characterized as a detachment commander who cooperated with the Special Organization in conventional operations. After March 20, 1915, Stange was an area commander who commanded Special Organization forces for conventional defensive operations. The record demonstrates that Stange was neither a Special Organization commander, nor was he a guerilla leader. Indeed, Stange was unhappy with the discipline and training of both the Special Organization and irregular forces, reflecting his lack of authority over them.[46]
    The Turkish histories do reveal an intriguing alternative possibility concerning who might have been redeployed to deport Armenians. The reserve cavalry regiments (the former aşiret or tribal cavalry) were grouped into four reserve cavalry divisions that were mobilized into the Reserve Cavalry Corps in August 1914. The tactical performance of this corps was abysmal, and its levels of discipline and combat effectiveness low.[47] Consequently, the Ottoman General Staff inactivated the Reserve Cavalry Corps on November 21, 1914,[48] and only seven of the twenty-nine reserve cavalry regiments remained with the colors in the Third Army.[49] The remaining regiments were dissolved, and “10,000 reserve cavalrymen dispersed throughout the region and returned to their villages.”[50] Most of these men were tribal Kurds or Circassians and, unemployed following demobilization, many may have been attracted to the work of deporting the Armenians in the spring of 1915. Clearly, many Armenians died during World War I. But accusations of genocide demand authentic proof of an official policy of ethnic extermination. Vahakn Dadrian has made high-profile claims that Major Stange and the Special Organization were the instruments of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Documents not utilized by Dadrian, though, discount such an allegation.”

    Reply

  45. TheTruth says:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008594.php
    October 18, 2005
    Vahakn Dadrian responds to Guenther Lewy
    In the Fall 2005 issue of Middle East Quarterly, Professor Guenther Lewy of the University of Massachusetts examines the mass murders of Armenians in Turkey before, during and after World War I and concludes: “The three pillars of the Armenian claim to classify World War I deaths as genocide fail to substantiate the charge that the Young Turk regime intentionally organized the massacres. Other alleged evidence for a premeditated plan of annihilation fares no better.”
    Dr. Vahakn N. Dadrian, the world’s leading authority on the Turkish genocide of the Armenians and author of The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, has drafted this comprehensive reply, and kindly given us the privilege and honor of posting it exclusively here at Jihad Watch:
    By its very nature historiography can neither be expected to be complete in every respect, nor be free from any number of other shortcomings. This truism is even more pertinent to the study of such a subject matter as the Armenian genocide the historical reality of which for one reason or another is presently being degraded to the level of dubiousness. The principal vehicles used hereby are the publications of a rather small group of authors purporting to be detached and disinterested investigators. Upon closer scrutiny, however, these very same authors reveal themselves as committed partisans boldly pushing certain denialist agendas that are subtly and skillfully woven into texture of their discourses. Hence the denial is attempted indirectly rather than directly; the historical reality of the World War I Armenian genocide is called into question by casting doubt on the appropriateness of the use of the label “genocide.”
    When by recourse to a variety of techniques he is decrying as unwarranted the use of such a label with respect to the Armenian case, Professor Lewy is thereby providing a measure of confirmation in this respect. In the process he also is betraying his very limited familiarity with the subject. His article is replete with factual errors, misinterpretations that are accented by some outright falsehoods. On top of all this, he further betrays lack of an adequate level of knowledge of Turkish, not to speak of extinct Ottoman Turkish, on both of which he is significantly relying as primary source medium. One is prompted to wonder as to the origin and nature of the outside help he may have received.
    What follows firstly is — given exigent space limitations -– some samples only of the type of errors mentioned above:
    The Yozgat trial series were not conducted in Yozgat but in Istanbul; Kemal was Kaymakam of Bogazliyan county only but not of Yozgat district of which he subsequently became an interim mutassarif by way of transfer and promotion; Cemal Pasha was not the governor of Aleppo, but the commander-in-chief of Ottoman’s IVth Army deployed in Lebanon and Syria (all these on p. 2); Dr. Liparit Nasariantz was not a German missionary (p. 5) but an Armenian political activist who later became a member of the Armenian National Council, an émigré political outfit. Moreover, Lewy’s claim that “there is no indication that German colonel Stange had any role in the Special Organization” is flatly contradicted by several authentic sources. Foremost among these is Dr. Ernst Kwiatkowski, Austria-Hungaria’s Consul at Trabzon, the port city where the Special Organization had its center for logistics. In one of his several reports to Vienna he revealed that “convicts were also enrolled” in Stange’s detachment which actually was the 8th Regiment of the 10th Army corps of the Ottoman III Army operating in the eastern province of Turkey. [1] Even more compelling is the disclosure of a Turkish officer who not only participated in Stange’s military operations, but kept a record of them in his notebook. According to him “Stange was in charge of the Special Organization Regiment that was named ‘Teshkilati Mahsusa Alayi’ ” and that it encompassed the notorious killer bands of two noted chieftains, Topal Osman and Deli Halit, who played a paramount role in the implementation phases of the Armenian genocide. That regiment consisted of eleven battalions (tabur) and was thereafter called the Lazistan Detachment (Lazistan Mufrezesi). [2] Unable to strictly control the secret and covert operations of these contingents of this Detachment, Stange at the end blasted them in his “secret” report to his German superiors in which he expressed his contempt of these “chettes” by calling them “scums.” [3]
    According to professor Lewy, the Armenian claim of genocide is predicated upon the “the pillars,” namely, (1) the Turkish Courts- Martial of 1919-20, (2) the role of the Special Organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa), and (3) the memoirs of Naim Bey (p. 6). This highly inaccurate description again is reflective of his seemingly limited familiarity with the literature involved. [4] Notwithstanding, they call for scrutiny to “set the record straight.”
    Of these, the one involving a lengthy discussion, based on his claim that they are “forgeries,” covers the Naim-Andonian documents. That claim is mainly, if not exclusively, based upon a book produced by two Turkish authors who, following an extensive examination, maintained that the documents are forgeries. Even though at the end of his discussion he finds it expedient to hedge somewhat by allowing that these documents are “at best unverifiable and problematic,” the bulk of Lewy’s arguments with emphasis focus, however, on the forgery angle. Yet, as far as it is known, the two non-Turkish scholars cited by him for support of his claim did not themselves conduct any comparable research, including Zürcher who was content to state that the documents “have been shown to be forgeries.” But on the other end of the spectrum, a German author having very recently uncovered a number of authentic Ottoman documents from the Interior Ministry Section of Turkish state archives, established that these documents
    confirm to some degree the contents of two other telegrams ascribed to Talaat in Andonian’s book. Thus the dating of telegrams nos. 840 and 860 as January 1916 appears to be correct…[The two Turkish authors] Sinasi Orel and Süreyya Yüce who have agued that Andonian forged his material, did not consider the source under scrutiny here. Thus their thesis is to be put into question and further research [on this matter] is necessary. [5]
    Equally significant in this regard is the fact that Lewy is either unaware or he chose to ignore completely the existence of a very extensive analysis of the validity of these documents which I undertook and which in its entirety was published in the peer reviewed official journal of the Middle East Studies Association of North America. [6] In the light of all this, Lewy’s standards of research are cast in stark relief, especially with respect to his conclusion that “most historians and scholars dismiss ‘these documents’” (p. 5). When dismissing another “pillar” mentioned above, he criticizes the Ottoman criminal justice system as having subverted the basic principles of such justice. Evidently he is unaware of the fact that the Ottoman Penal Code and the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure were compendiums essentially modeled after their French counterparts. The entire system is inquisitorial. The judges take the lead in getting the facts in the pre-trial investigative stage as well as in the subsequent actual trial, whereas in the Anglo-Saxon common-law system, called adversarial, lawyers develop the facts thereby consigning the judges to a neutral role. Accordingly, the pre-trial investigation and the preparation of prosecution are conducted in privacy, namely, in secrecy. Defense counsels are denied access to the resulting files and the right to accompany the accused in these pre-trial examinations. Even though in the law of evidence the principle of the “intimate,” i.e., “a deep seated conviction” was adopted in the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the judge freely accords credence to the best of his conscience, for proof of guilt, however, he depends on concrete evidence, as well as defense’s counter-arguments. The composite ingredients of such evidence involve confession, witness testimony, the writings and records of officials, evidence secured through discovery, judicial notice, searches and seizures, and expert testimony (Articles 232 and 233). In all the trial series by and large those conditions obtained, especially with respect to massive testimony provided by dozens of Turkish and Muslim witnesses. [7] Furthermore, contrary to Lewy’s declaration that its text, along with the text of other proceedings, is “not preserved in any source” (p. 3), the fact is that the text of General Vehib’s deposition was not only read into the record in its entirety at the second sitting of the Trabzon trial series (March 19, 1919), but that entire text was published also in several newspapers of the period. [8]
    Lewy further complains that the indictment “is not proof of guilt” (p. 3), whereas in the present case it legally served as a major source of evidence-in-chief, unlike in the case of all the other subsidiary indictments. Articles 130, 214 and especially 222, section, 1 and 2, of the Ottoman Criminal Code of Procedures spell out this function of the indictment. [9] The forty two pieces of authenticated documents attached to the key indictment comprised twelve cipher telegrams, three memos, two “communications,” ten signed (and three unsigned) statements obtained by the prosecution in the course of pre-trial interrogations, three depositions, two letters, and “several” other documents relative to the role of the “Special Organization.”
    Lewy’s references to three Western High Commissioners, serving in Istanbul following its occupation by the victorious Allies in 1919, as supporting material for his thesis are such as to beg the question. It may be true for example, that U.S. High Commissioner Lewis Heck was critical of some of the procedural aspects of the trials in question. But it is also true that on several occasions he unequivocally recognized and denounced “the great crime” as when he declared, “The great majority of the Turkish officials in the interior either actively participated in, or at least condoned the massacres of the Armenians.” On another occasion he reinforced his view by stating that “…the vast majority of the Turkish race heartily approved” of these massacres. [10] As to the other two, in this case, British High Commissioners, viz., Vice Admiral Sir S.A. Gough Calthorpe and Admiral Sir J. de Robeck, their disapproval and derogation of these trials was, as I have in detail explained elsewhere, [11] primarily derived from their belief that in prosecuting the authors of the massacres the Military Tribunal was lax and inept, and hence the trials were “a farce” and “a failure,” to the detriment of the Armenians, the victims. Nor was Malta, a mere temporary detention center, in any way intended to serve as a venue for any kind of “trials” (p. 3).
    Apparently determined to by all means discredit and invalidate the findings of this Tribunal, Lewy proceeds to dispute the method of authenticating the official documents used in the trials — in complete disregard of the fact that almost all of these officials of the Interior Ministry in charge of verifying these documents were holdovers of the defunct and banished Young Turk Ittihadist Party, i.e., the CUP. In other words the residual partisans of the organization, whose top leaders were being prosecuted for a capital crime, are being accused of assisting the prosecution by way of accommodative dishonesty-because, as Lewy puts it, they are “period officials” (p. 3). What is the definition of the term “stretching an argument”?
    Lewy rightly deplores “the loss of all their [i.e., the military courts’] documentation” (p. 3). The fact, however, that this loss remarkably coincides with the seizure of Istanbul by the Kemalist forces in 1922 when the huge archive of the Turkish Military Tribunal vanished without a trace, raises an abiding question:
    Did the documents disappear by themselves, or having been collared and despoiled by interested parties, mainly the new masters of Turkey, they met the fate of a “loss”? [12]
    His discussion of the Special Organization is no less marked by a plethora of errors and questionable assertions. They were briefly touched on in notes 1 and 2. Unfortunately, Lewy’s sources and data are wanting in some critical respects. The Turkish Military Tribunal through documents attached to the main indictment on four occasions, noted on pp. 4 and 5, of that indictment, reveals the close and very intimate links between the Special Organization and the top leaders of the Ittihad party, CUP, who are characterized as the organization’s central authority. On pp. 6 and 7, there are specific details about the wide-spread massacres the brigands of that organization have committed against the Armenians; on pp. 5, 6, and 7, there are further details as to how these perpetrators were released from the empire’s prisons and deployed in the provinces for massacre duty. Still on pp. 5 and 7, there are six specifications as to how two army commanders and the military governor of the Ottoman Capital, Istanbul, combined their resources to streamline these lethal operations of the Special Organization with the help of Dr. B. Chakir, one of the chief architects of the wartime genocide. [13] These disclosures independently and decades later are largely corroborated by the two most competent Turkish authors and authorities on the subject. [14]
    Lewy’s bold contention that “there is no evidence beyond the indictment of the main trial that the Special Organization, with large number of convicts enrolled in its ranks, took the lead role in the massacres,” (p. 4) is flatly contradicted by first-hand Turkish evidence. A prominent editor and close associate of Atatürk in his memoirs reveals that when he at the start of World War I applied for reserve-officer training under a special program initiated by Dr. Nazim, another architect of the Armenian genocide, the latter ended up shocking the young volunteer when revealing that the task did involve commanding para-military units which consisted of ex-convicts, the so-called ”chettes.” Indeed Jevad, the military commander of the Ottoman capital, in the course of the second sitting of the Cabinet Ministers trial (May 4, 1919) testified that Dr. Nazim was in charge of recruiting volunteers (gönüllüs) for operations that were “non-military.” (askerlik haricinde) (T.V. 3543, p. 27). The young applicant wrote that he was repulsed by the idea of such an “army of massacrers” (Katiller Ordusu). [15] In a subsequent article in his newspaper, he went so far as to suggest that the massacres against the Armenians could well be characterized as “genocide,” using exactly this composite Latin-Greek term. [16] Another reserve officer with duties in the Department II, Intelligence, Ottoman General Headquarters, at the start of World War I, and subsequently with duties as deportation official, in a book published in the wake of that war with great compassion lamented the nightmare of the Armenian genocide. In doing so, he singled out the brigands, the “chettes” of the Special Organization who, he said “committed the greatest crimes,” (en buyuk cinayetteri) during that genocide. [17] Still another Turkish publicist and author of several volumes, referring to the same “chettes” of the Special Organization, testified that these criminal bands “directly pursued the goal of extermination” by attacking and destroying countless Armenian deportation convoys. [18] In another book he stated that these deportations “…meant the extermination of the Armenian minority in Turkey.” [19]
    Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that “the Ottoman government released convicts…in order to increase its manpower pool for military service” (p. 4). Available evidence points to a different direction. The most striking testimony contradicting this assertion is provided by Colonel Behic Erkin, the chief of the department for procurement of supplies (Ikmal Subesi) in the Ottoman War Office. In his testimony before the Ottoman Parliament during the war he declared: “The majority of the convicts is not being sent directly to the frontlines but rather to the Special Organization thereby [affording them a chance] to render patriotic services.” [20] As to his argument that there is no evidence that these Special Organization brigands “took the lead role in the massacres” (p. 4), here is a documented evidence ascertained by the Turkish Military Tribunal — beyond the confines of the Indictment. Harput (Mamuretul Aziz) Verdict “In his capacity as a member of the Central Committee of Ittihad party (CUP), and as Chief of the Special Organization, Dr. Chakir personally oversaw the release of the convicts from the prisons of the empire’s capital, and of Trabzon and the Erzurum provinces. The criminals were subsequently organized into brigand units during the Armenian deportations. These “chettes” then proceeded to engage in killing operations under his leadership” (Takvimi Vekayi, [thereafter T.V.] no.3771, p. 1). A similar condemnation with respect to the murderous role of the same organization is recorded in the Responsible Secretaries Verdict (T. V. no.3772, p. 3).
    Even the top leaders of the S.O. did reluctantly admit during their trials the fact of the engagement of those ex-convicts and their cohorts in the operations of “Armenian deportations.” What is so remarkable about this development is that these admissions were made following the abrupt production by the prosecution of documents mostly cipher telegrams, bearing their signatures. The surprised and startled defendants, who until this uniformly [21] and persistently had been denying the involvement of the S.O. in these deportations, reversed themselves and confessed. These defendants also revealed in the course of these trials, and for the first time that the S.O. had two divisions and missions for the purpose of combating external but also internal enemies (T.V. no.3549, pp. 59-60). At the next, i.e., the fifth sitting, S.O. leader Yusuf Riza finally conceded that indeed there were two S.O.s, the second of which was involved, he said, in Armenian “deportations” (tehcir) (T.V. no.3553, p. 88). Of all these S.O. leaders, Atif Kamcil was the one who was most aghast when being forced to face the set of these surprise cipher telegrams. As a result, in two different sittings, the 5th (p. 86) and the 6th (T.V. 3557, p. 103), especially in the latter, he went so far as to admit that he sought and obstained the help of CUP’s Secretary General for the enlistment of CUP’s provincial party cells in the engagement of S.O. cadres and operations. Atif, after indicating that the terms chette (brigand) and “volunteer” (gönüllü) were more often than not coterminous and hence interchangeable, further admitted that Talaat’s Interior Ministry was involved not only in recruiting and deploying the S.O. convict-brigands, but assisted in the enactment of the law allowing their release from the prisons. (T.V. 3557, p. 104).
    Three noted Turkish specialists of the S.O. explicitly declare that the Central Committee of CUP served as both the brain and the actively involved organizer of the S.O. [22] Moreover another student of CUP concluded that the S.O. was the creation of CUP’s Central Committee and that while Interior Ministry Talaat chose the operational commanders of the S.O. units, the Central Committee itself specified its modus operandi. [23] Reference may also be made to the biographer of Talaat who referred to the latter’s penchant for illegal undertakings by way of “nurturing and exploring CUP’s secret designs though the creation of a separate organization.” [24]
    Lewy evidently failed to understand all these sinister and criminal missions of the S.O., all recorded in Ottoman and modern Turkish, because of the failure to understand the underlying and hence more consequential mission motivating the top leaders of the S.O. The nature of that mission was exposed by a Turkish author investigating it. He wrote “The Special Organization and trustworthy Ittihadists (i.e., CUP), pursued the goal of radically solving (temelden cözülmesi) the Armenian question…they [in fact] organized and carried out the deportations on a large scale and systematically. Dr. B. Chakir championed this policy at the councils of the CUP’s Central Committee.” [25] In fact the same reference to radical, i.e., “final solution” is found in Interior Minister Talaat’s petition to the Ottoman wartime Cabinet when he went through the formalities of seeking authorization for the deportation of the Armenians. The critical import of this formula of radical solution is evinced by the fact that in practically all Turkish works, including that of Y. H. Bayur, the dean of Turkish historians, citing this document, the passage referring to this formula is carefully excised-except in one. [26] Perhaps the most devastating rebuttal of this assertion that the S.O.’s main mission was “covert operations behind Russian lines” (p. 4), which Lewy makes by relying on two American authors, [27] is offered by two most authoritative sources. One of them Arif Cemil (Denker), an insider who singularly chronicled the minute details of these operations on the Caucasus front, stated that “the activities relative to reconnaissance and brigandage (istihbarat ve cetecilik) imputed to S.O. were a cover for the pursuit of such “lofty ideals as the Islamic Union and Turkism.” An almost identical statement is presented by Esref Kuscubasi, whom Lewy identifies as “the leading Special Organization official” (p. 4). Speaking of “the basic objective” (temel gayesi) of the S.O., he disdainfully dismisses “the belief and the supposition that the S.O.’s mission consisted in securing unadulterated information, reconnaissance, and in triggering uprisings and incidents in enemy countries….” He goes on to say that objective in reality consists in “enabling Islam, which we embody as the essence of our moral order, to become an effective force in our foreign policy.” [28] When elaborating on the threat, which these S.O. leaders claim the non-Muslim minorities of the Empire, especially the Greeks on the Aegean coastline, were purportedly posing, this S.O. chief proceeds to offer the following confirmation of the existence of a secret decision to eliminate these minorities.
    The S.O., operating outside the sphere of the government but through the agencies of the War Ministry and the CUP’s Cental Committee, primarily became concerned, as a result of a series of secret meetings at the War ministry, about the goal of liquidating (tasfiyesi) the non-Turkish masses of populations which were located in strategic areas and were under foreign and negative influences. [29]
    In categorically declaring that this very same S.O. chieftain, Esref Kuscubasi, was in no way involved in the Armenian massacres and, as he puts it, “closer inspection reveals Esref made no such admission” regarding involvement (p. 4), Lewy, inadvertently perhaps, is exposing the stark possibility of his lack any knowledge of Turkish. If so, was he abused or misled by interlopers or any other kind of outside help? The fact is that “closer inspection,” on the contrary, reveals exactly that and then through Esref’s own words as recorded by his biographer, Cemal Kutay, and subsequently verified in writing by him, Kuscubasi. Indeed, in vehemently reacting to wartime Grand-Vizier Said Halim’s assassination by an Armenian avenger in Rome 1921, Kuscubasi voluntarily inculpated himself while exculpating the Grand Vizier. The latter had emphatically denounced “The Armenian massacres” twice in his testimony before the Fifth Committee of the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies investigating the wartime Armenian “deportations and massacres,” and in the same vein had decried the sinister role of the Interior Minister Talaat. [30] The admission by Kuscubasi in question reads:
    The assassination of this martyr as a guilty party is a crime and an injustice without example. I categorically reject this accusation in my capacity as a person who performed secret duties in the events [i.e., the Armenian deportations and massacres] that transpired in this respect. [31]
    Moreover, he also confirms that the S.O. performed tasks that went beyond “intelligence gathering” and involved the resort to secret operations that served to effectively deal with those non-Turkish elements who were suspect in terms of their fidelity and attachments to the central authorities. “It is certain that these truly secret operations were kept secret even from Cabinet Ministers. They were operations that the regular organs of the government and even security organs could absolutely not handle.” In the same vein he castigated these targeted victim populations as “separatist microbes.” [32]
    In the light of all this, Lewy’s apologia that not the Special Organization but “more likely the perpetrators were Kurdish tribesmen and corrupt policemen out for booty” (p. 5), speaks volumes about the level of seriousness with which he evidently has approached this gruesome event in modern history that two prominent eyewitnesses in so many words denounced as genocide. U.S. American Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, on duty in Turkey during the genocide, for example, called it “The Murder of a Nation,” [33] and the German-Jewish Zionist leader, Richard Lichtheim, who throughout the stages of that genocide was also on duty in Turkey. He compared “this act of liquidation” of “a people, the majority of whom were peaceful and diligent peasants,” with “the first phase of Hitler’s campaign of extermination against the Jews…. Organized by Interior Minister Talaat, it was the result of a deliberate, cold-blooded policy of mass murder, claiming over one million victims.” [34]

    Reply

  46. Lucrece says:

    How become a pro-Armenian lawmaker? History is irrelevant. Money is a stronger argument:
    http://www.poligazette.com/2008/08/05/buying-policies/

    Reply

  47. Lucrece says:

    “Lucrece said it was all a fabrication and and I think he/she actually believes it is complete fabrication based on info from I don’t know where”
    This personal attack is completely dishonest. I indicated all my sources of critics against the Blue Book, including the strongly pro-Armenian US scholar James Morgan Read.
    “in fact only eyewitnesses which could be verified were included, and only when an independent seperate eyewitness had reported the same”
    Bla bla bla.
    James Morgan Read again:
    “It is only fair to add, however, that the Turks were given a clean bill of health in Parliament during the Dardanelles campaign. They were praised by an English officer for ‘the clean, manly manner in which they fight’. It is also necessary to add that the general impression after reading pages of harrowing details concerning such enormities, as gathered together in the Blue Book, is that most of them were based on hearsay evidence.”
    James Morgan Read, “Atrocity Propaganda. 1914-1919”, New Haven-London, Yale University Press/Oxford University Press, 1941, p. 221.
    “Hearsay evidence”: do you understand?
    As early as 1929, US scholar Edward Mead Earle published a devastating account about the half-truths and biased meanings of the missionaries: “American Mission in the Near East”, “Foreign Affairs”, VII-1929 (especially p. 417). The missionaries are among the favorite sources of the Blue Book.
    As an addition, there is this interestin analysis of the other Blue Book produced by the same Bryce-Toynbee gang, during the same period of war, and for the same purposes:
    “The report was a collection and not an analysis. A large percentage of the events making up the report was based upon second and third hand information. Rumors and opinions were included uncritically. It is not impossible that many of the statements were the product of leading questions. Incomplete versions of actual events were the basis of the report. […]
    Sex stories in the report were among the most effective and were given wide circulation by the American traveling-salesmen public. The supply did not approach the demand. […]
    This, of course, is a rewrite of a standard wartime atrocity story. Senator Allend of Nebraska used it in 1898.”
    H. C. Peterson, “Propaganda for War. The Campaign Against American Neutrality, 1914-1917”, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1939, pp. 53-55.
    I repeat my question: why Bryce would be less dishonest about the Turks than about the Germans?

    Reply

  48. Lucrece says:

    “We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial.”
    Roderic H. Davison, Paul Dumont, Gwynne Dyer, J. C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Justin McCarthy, Andrew Mango, Robert Mantran, Norman Stone, Malcolm E. Yapp, Gilles Veinstein, Robert Zeidner and many others historians are (were) not “affiliated” or “advisers” of the government.
    On the other hand, the great majority of the Armenian and pro-Armenian “scholars” are openly activists of Armenian ultra-nationalists parties.
    For example:
    Taner Akçam is a former ultra-leftist and pro-Soviet terrorist, currently a sociologist (absolutely not an historian) entirely funded by Armenian associations.
    V. Dadrian (sociologist, not historian) was expelled from New York State University after two scandals of sexual harassment, and is currently chairman of the Zoryan Institute, a non-scholar foundation, entirely funded by Armenian nationalists, and close to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.
    Tessa Hoffman was awarded by the Ramkavar party, and recognized recently one of her numerous lies (the famous picture of skulls).
    Yves Ternon (a physician, not an historian) participated to every demonstration of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation in France, was awarded by the Ramkavar party, then by the illegal “government” of Karbakh (i.e. the Armenian counterparts of S. Milosevic).

    Reply

  49. Lucrece says:

    “1) The Armenian Thesis (supported by the overwhelming body of evidence and scholars) has been proven; it is a matter of fact.”
    Bla bla bla.
    “Other historians, including well-known scholars of Ottoman history such Roderic H. Davison, Bernard Lewis and Andrew Mango, while not questioning the horror that transpired, have raised doubts about the appropriateness of the genocide label for the occurrences of 1915. Ignoring this formidable array of learned opinion, Armenians continue to assert with superb arrogance that the Armenian genocide is a incontrovertible fact and established history, that can be denied only by lackeys of the Turkish government or morally obtuse individuals. Unless there is a change in this attitude and Armenians accept the existence of a genuine historical controversy, I see little hope for ending this almost century-old conflict.”
    Guenter Lewy, “The Slavic Review”, 67-4, Winter 2008.
    The “genocide” allegations are the single justification for the hegemony of the ultra-nationalists within the so-called “Armenian diaspora”, and even the “Armenian” (rather anti-Turkish) identity of peoples of Armenian decent. During the first half of the 1960’s, Armenian churches were closed in USA, and the simple word “Armenian” seemed endangered in France.
    Kapriel S. Papazian pointed correctly that the real end of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) is the ARF itself.

    Reply

  50. Lucrece says:

    “They have no plausible explanation of why 500,000 Assyrians, in addition to Greeks, Jews etc were massacred.”
    The Ottoman Jews who were massacred during the WWI were victims of Dashnaks, i.e. the principal nationalist Armenian party! There are several reports of Ottoman jandarma, which describe the massacres of Jews by Dashnaks.
    The Assyrians (Nestorians) killed during the WWI were victims of Kurdish reprisals, AFTER the participation of several thousands of Assyrians (Nestorians) to the nationalist Armenian rebellion at Van, and to the various atrocities against Muslims (and Jews).
    Arnold J. Toynbee himself demonstrated in his numerous articles of 1921, then in his book “The Western Question in Greece and Turkey” that the massacres of Turks by Greeks (helped by some Armenians) were much more important than the massacres of Greeks by Turks.
    “As ever any group or person such as IAGS or international historians who contradict their theories are branded as paid by Armenians etc.”
    It is your whole response to the fact about IAGS and the former Marxist-Leninist terrorist Taner Akçam?
    “Their continual support for historians such as MCcarthy also shows how out of touch they are with the current academic world – most historians don’t take Mccarthy seriously any more.”
    Justin McCarthy’s studies are the standard for the demography of late Ottoman period. Even historians like Nadine Picaudou (professor at Paris-I-Panthéon-Sorbonne), who uses the word “genocide” for the Armenian case, notice ONE reference for the demographicale losses of Anatolian Muslims and Armenians: Justin McCarthy (Nadine Picaudou, “La Décennie qui ébranla le Moyen-Orient”, Bruxelles-Paris, Complexe, 1992, p. 200).
    Justin McCarthy’s book were published by publishing houses such the New York University Press (“Muslims and Minorities”, 1983) and Oxford University Press (“The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire”, 2001).
    The attempts to dismiss Justin McCarthy’s work are absolutely baseless.
    “Since they get most of their information from dubious sites”
    What “dubious sites”? Baseless accusation, again.
    “Their complete inability to see the shortcomings and the inherent racism which is still inherent in Turkey is also of great significance.”
    You were absolutely unable to find a single racist sentence within this film. On the other hand, there is nothing easier than to find racist speeches from important Armenian associations, especially the Dashnaks.
    Small best-of:
    “The Armenians [meaning only Dashnags] have helped the Romanians not to become slaves of the Jewish elements.”
    “Hairenik Weekly”, May 10, 1935 (about a pogrom where several hundreds of Jews were killed by Romanian and Armenian Fascists).
    “Today Germany and Italy are strong because as a nation they live and breathe in terms of race.”
    “Hairenik Weekly”, April 10, 1936.
    “And came Adolf Hitler, after herculean struggles. He spoke to the racial heart strings of the German, opened the fountain of his national genius, struck down the spirit of defeatism… At no period since the World War had Berlin conducted so realistic, well organized, and planned policy as now, since Hitler’s assumption to power… And whatever others may think concerning Hitlerism and Fascism as a system of Government, it is proved that they have revitalized and regenerated the two states, Germany and Italy.”
    “Hairenik Weekly”, September 17, 1936.
    “You [the Turks] are the offspring of those who butchered my people, and I have no love for you whatsoever. Yes, God made you and your fathers. But he also made snakes and jackals and hyenas, and Oswald, and Manson.”
    John D. Hagopian, “The Armenian Reporter”, January 23, 1982.
    “If terrorism is a contributing factor in getting people’s attention, I can go along with it.”
    Harry Derderian, leader of the Armenian National Committee of America, statement of 1982.
    In January 2008, the most important French-Armenian Web site, Armenews.com, closed his forum of reaction to the articles, because, according to Armenews itself, “a rush of racist messages”. The French-Turkish associations of Lyon filed a complaint for “provocation to racial hate” and “incitation to murder”.*

    Reply

  51. Vicmak says:

    The Truth,
    Thank you for your concern and I know exactly what you mean. I have seen Lucrece’s and Kirkovali’s posts on many a blog, New Statesman, NewsWeek etc. etc..
    This is the first time I have tried to have a ‘discussion’ with Lucrece, Kirkovali is too long gone for any help whatsoever, but thought Lucrece was lucid enough to be able to have a an experimental discussion with.
    I have got a lot out of this – as I have said very few people read these blogs yet take any credence in what the writers have said. I haven’t considered this a ‘spat’ as PissedofAmerican has put it. The findings of my experiment has been the following (bearing in mind both Kirkovali and Lucrece primarily use fanatical Turkish websites for their info):
    1. They have no plausible explanation of why 500,000 Assyrians, in addition to Greeks, Jews etc were massacred.
    2. They can only reproduce a handful of witnesses to produce against the hundreds of witnesses, including German officials who reinforce the Genocide Thesis. They have absolute faith in their statements and find excuses not to accept anyone else. The good point is that they are so short sighted that they actually believe historians and politicians are stupid enough to fall for that. For example I brought up the Blue Book – Lucrece said it was all a fabrication and and I think he/she actually believes it is complete fabrication based on info from I don’t know where (in fact only eyewitnesses which could be verified were included, and only when an independent seperate eyewitness had reported the same). A few years ago Halacoglu convinced all the Turkish parliamentarians to sign a petition asking/telling the British Government to say that it was fake and they should now say it was pure propoganda. The subject was actually discussed at the House of Lords – they replied that they stand completely by the Blue Book report and that as far as they were concerned there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. Imagine what a stupid move that had been especially when you consider that the Blue Book was not in Turkish and hardly any, if any Turkish parliamentarians had actually read it. The Turkish government had told the British government to change what was in essence part of their archives! There are hundreds of other independent reports in the US archives, but most of these were not included because they could not meet the absolute strict criteria the Blue Book had used.
    3. They have absolutely no explanation of why there are no deportation or relocation records for the Armenians or Assyrians, yet by law there had to be records kept – and records exist for previous Greek population relocations. Yet all the writers and the Turkish state has been insisting that the archives are complete and accurate.
    4. The Talat Pasha notebook proves that most of the Turkish thesis does not stand up to scrutiny; He has scrupulous details on numbers of Armenians deported even from the West – the Turkish thesis says there were no deportation from the west whatsoever. It also proves that Talat knew exactly what was happening, together with his orders for relocation which exist in the Turkish archives – it shows there was no chaos – everything was carried out in a controlled manner.
    The fact that he has such exact records come from other sources which again cannot be found in the current Turkish archives – there is no explanation forthcoming why they do not exist, our friends on this site obviously have no idea either.
    5. Since they get most of their information from dubious sites – there are considerable inaccuracies in their info (won’t mention, ultimately these inaccuracies help because they perpetuate the mistakes and information)
    6. As ever any group or person such as IAGS or international historians who contradict their theories are branded as paid by Armenians etc. This in itself is of huge benefit to the Armenian and Assyrian cause – they don’t realise the rest of the rational world (more importantly policy makers) are not stupid and will always believe the more qualified historians, the historians themselves as well as policy makers, who are accused of being paid and of not knowing anything will themselves become more aware of the extremism of the blind nationalism of the Turkish thesis supporters.
    7. Their continual support for historians such as MCcarthy also shows how out of touch they are with the current academic world – most historians don’t take Mccarthy seriously any more. For the past few years he has been promising at his talks thousands of pages of archive info will be provided which will prove beyond doubt their thesis – exactly the same as Holagolu has been stating – (nothing yet) all academics are aware of his direct contacts with the Turkish state, but it seems nationalists will still refer to him as an impartial historian – the more reference the better.
    8. Their complete inability to see the shortcomings and the inherent racism which is still inherent in Turkey is also of great significance. I brought up the Sari Gelin DVD issue, because here in Europe there have been several articles , Times, BBC etc. on the subject, the European Union follow these actions in Turkey as well as the prosecutions extremely closely. (they have half yearly reports for EU membership). The Sari Gelin as well as the prosecutions have been huge own goals – it has reinforced the EU’s perception that Turkey has a long way to go with regard to freedom of speech and it still has huge steps to take with regard to Human rights and the Armenian question. It is sad yet helpful that nationalists like the ones which try to ‘prove’ no genocide have absolutely no idea of the damage caused to Turkeys image and still back things like the Sari Gelin DVD etc. In fact because of these actions more and more politicians are having doubts about Turkey and reinforce their perception of the fact that Turkey is indeed covering up Genocide with state legislation and abuses of free speech.
    It has been interesting although I thought PissedofAmerican was much more fun.

    Reply

  52. Lucrece says:

    “1) The Armenian Thesis (supported by the overwhelming body of evidence and scholars) has been proven; it is a matter of fact.”
    Bla bla bla.
    “Other historians, including well-known scholars of Ottoman history such Roderic H. Davison, Bernard Lewis and Andrew Mango, while not questioning the horror that transpired, have raised doubts about the appropriateness of the genocide label for the occurrences of 1915. Ignoring this formidable array of learned opinion, Armenians continue to assert with superb arrogance that the Armenian genocide is a incontrovertible fact and established history, that can be denied only by lackeys of the Turkish government or morally obtuse individuals. Unless there is a change in this attitude and Armenians accept the existence of a genuine historical controversy, I see little hope for ending this almost century-old conflict.”
    Guenter Lewy, “The Slavic Review”, 67-4, Winter 2008: http://www.tc-america.org/slavicreview_lewy.pdf
    The “genocide” allegations are the single justification for the hegemony of the ultra-nationalists within the so-called “Armenian diaspora”, and even the “Armenian” (rather anti-Turkish) identity of peoples of Armenian decent. During the first half of the 1960’s, Armenian churches were closed in USA, and the simple word “Armenian” seemed endangered in France.
    Kapriel S. Papazian pointed correctly that the real end of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) is the ARF itself.
    “We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial.”
    Roderic H. Davison, Paul Dumont, Gwynne Dyer, J. C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Justin McCarthy, Andrew Mango, Robert Mantran, Norman Stone, Malcolm E. Yapp, Gilles Veinstein, Robert Zeidner and many others historians are (were) not “affiliated” or “advisers” of the government.
    On the other hand, the great majority of the Armenian and pro-Armenian “scholars” are openly activists of Armenian ultra-nationalists parties.
    For example:
    Taner Akçam is a former ultra-leftist and pro-Soviet terrorist, currently a sociologist (absolutely not an historian) entirely funded by Armenian associations.
    V. Dadrian (sociologist, not historian) was expelled from New York State University after two scandals of sexual harassment, and is currently chairman of the Zoryan Institute, a non-scholar foundation, entirely funded by Armenian nationalists, and close to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.
    Tessa Hoffman was awarded by the Ramkavar party, and recognized recently one of her numerous lies (the famous picture of skulls).
    Yves Ternon (a physician, not an historian) participated to every demonstration of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation in France, was awarded by the Ramkavar party, then by the illegal “government” of Karbakh (i.e. the Armenian counterparts of S. Milosevic).
    See also:
    http://www.tc-america.org/media/lobby.pdf
    http://www.tc-america.org/media/policies.pdf

    Reply

  53. Ergun Kirlikovali says:

    Another Armenian “trick” exposed by rock solid facts: Akcam, used by Armenians as a “Tyrkish scholars who believes in genocide” to persuade the unsuspecting American citizens, is , in fact,a paid Armenian agent and here is the proof:
    UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
    Office of the General Counsel
    January 17, 2008
    Re: Letter to University President Robert Bruininks
    Dear Mr. Kirlikovali:
    University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks asked me to respond to your December 13, 2007, e-mail regarding Dr. Taner Akcam.
    Dr. Akcam is currently employed by the University as a Research Associate in the College of Liberal Arts (CLA), Department of History. This is an annually renewable, Professional & Administrative (“P&A”) position…
    …In your e-mail, you asked whether Dr. Akcam’s position is funded, in whole or in part, by an Armenian foundation.…It is my understanding that Dr. Taner’s current position is funded in large part by the Zoryan Institute, and the Cafesjian Family Foundation.
    …In your e-mail, you expressed concern regarding Dr. Akcam’s scholarly work concerning the Armenian genocide. Clearly, the Armenian genocide is a controversial issue with strong proponents on all sides. The University respects your views on the issue…
    …Finally, you expressed concern in your e-mail regarding Dr. Akcam’s background and qualifications. The University is aware of the various allegations regarding Dr. Akcam…
    …Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.
    Brent P. Benrud
    Associate General Counsel

    Reply

  54. Lucrece says:

    “1) The Armenian Thesis (supported by the overwhelming body of evidence and scholars) has been proven; it is a matter of fact.”
    Bla bla bla.
    “Other historians, including well-known scholars of Ottoman history such Roderic H. Davison, Bernard Lewis and Andrew Mango, while not questioning the horror that transpired, have raised doubts about the appropriateness of the genocide label for the occurrences of 1915. Ignoring this formidable array of learned opinion, Armenians continue to assert with superb arrogance that the Armenian genocide is a incontrovertible fact and established history, that can be denied only by lackeys of the Turkish government or morally obtuse individuals. Unless there is a change in this attitude and Armenians accept the existence of a genuine historical controversy, I see little hope for ending this almost century-old conflict.”
    Guenter Lewy, “The Slavic Review”, 67-4, Winter 2008: http://www.tc-america.org/slavicreview_lewy.pdf
    The “genocide” allegations are the single justification for the hegemony of the ultra-nationalists within the so-called “Armenian diaspora”, and even the “Armenian” (rather anti-Turkish) identity of peoples of Armenian decent. During the first half of the 1960’s, Armenian churches were closed in USA, and the simple word “Armenian” seemed endangered in France.
    Kapriel S. Papazian pointed correctly that the real end of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) is the ARF itself.
    “We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial.”
    Roderic H. Davison, Paul Dumont, Gwynne Dyer, J. C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Justin McCarthy, Andrew Mango, Robert Mantran, Norman Stone, Malcolm E. Yapp, Gilles Veinstein, Robert Zeidner and many others historians are (were) not “affiliated” or “advisers” of the government.
    On the other hand, the great majority of the Armenian and pro-Armenian “scholars” are openly activists of Armenian ultra-nationalists parties. For example:
    Taner Akçam is a former ultra-leftist and pro-Soviet terrorist, currently a sociologist (absolutely not an historian) entirely funded by Armenian associations. The evidence (a letter from Minnesota University) is here: http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2009/03/2777-minnesota-university-taner-akcams.html
    V. Dadrian (sociologist, not historian) was expelled from New York State University after two scandals of sexual harassment, and is currently chairman of the Zoryan Institute, a non-scholar foundation, entirely funded by Armenian nationalists, and close to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.
    Tessa Hoffman was awarded by the Ramkavar party, and recognized recently one of her numerous lies (the famous picture of skulls).
    Yves Ternon (a physician, not an historian) participated to every demonstration of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation in France, was awarded by the Ramkavar party, then by the illegal “government” of Karbakh (i.e. the Armenian counterparts of S. Milosevic).
    See also:
    http://www.tc-america.org/media/lobby.pdf
    http://www.tc-america.org/media/policies.pdf

    Reply

  55. Lucrece says:

    “Armenians have destroyed the last bit of credibility they had with the American people because of such Armenian tricks employed to persuade people.”
    The Swedish Parliament disliked to be considered as a group of stupids by Armenian and Assyrian (Nestorian) lobbyists. Indeed, the supporters of the Swedish “recognition” resolution said, in 2008, that ONU “recognized” the “Armenian genocide” in 1985, allegation which is wrong. The same lie was used in 2000 for deceive the commission of Foreign affairs of the Swedish Parliament; and two years later, this commission published a report where this lie was crushed.
    So, the “genocide” resolution was rejected by a huge majority of the Swedish Parliament, the last year.

    Reply

  56. Gusan Yedic says:

    It’s guaranteed that most of the genocide screamers can not even point to Armenia on the map. I guarantee that none of them care about the people on both sides who lost their lives a century ago. While the recession is on the rise, why not use the Armenian grave diggers as a tool? Have their puppet masters send high interest loans(!) to the Turkish Government to please the London Bankers or should I say London Loan Sharks, huh… Ignorant people will never wake up from their slumber and realize the NWO’s (New World Occupation) fabricated genocides are part of the imperialistic plan created by London Bankers… Wasn’t WWI also planned by the same imperial elites? There is a huge difference between the people who have a brain in their skull instead of a sponge.

    Reply

  57. Rich says:

    Ergun, stop belittling the people of the United States. You think they are asleep because they do not believe Turkish Propoganda?
    I have faith that or citizens will learn and understand more about the Armenian genocide without you spoon feeding them Turkish “cut and past” propoganda.

    Reply

  58. Ergun Kirlikovali says:

    The International Association of Genocide Scholars is another invention of the Armenian lobby, just like the so called genocide scholars. None of them are historians the works of whom are rewarded by the Armenian lobby directly or indirectly (in the form of honoraries, travel costs, fees, book sales, key note speaking arrangements, research contracts, grants, scholarships, parts in audio/visual products like films, documentaries, radio shows, partial or complete salaries, and many other such forms of personal benefit.)
    The poster boy of the Armenian camp, Taner Akcam, was exposed recently to have been paid by the the Cafesjian Foundation and the notoriously anti-Turkish Zoryan Institute.
    Armenians have destroyed the last bit of credibility they had with the American people because of such Armenian tricks employed to persuade people. This might explain why HR 252 could only collect 77 co-sponsors in the Congress this year as opposed to the idential (ill-fated, as always) HR 196 two years ago which could sign on 200+ cosponsors almost effortlessly.
    People are waking up to the Armenian lies… slowly, but surely!

    Reply

  59. Tatevik Movsisyan says:

    Mr. Katcher,
    You are saying the issue of Armenian genocide should not be raised because Turkey and Armenia are now close to normalizing relations. Do you understand that the desire of the Turkish side to show commitment to rapprochement is in fact a result of raising the issue of the Armenian genocide in the first place? and that the efforts of reconciliation are aimed primarily to shut the Armenians up!
    I am sure you do! but in case if you have truly been misguided into thinking that reconciliation can be established on the basis of genocide denial, then let me remind you that even today the Turkish government is refining its methods to teach hatred of Armenians to its youngest generation, in this height of its “kindness”
    toward Armenia – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7956056.stm
    Mr. Katcher, do you have an idea about what the Turkish government might be aiming at with this policy? and are you so sure that by supporting a partner government in its efforts to raise generations of genocide deniers filled with ethnic hatred are not going to come back to haunt you one day?!

    Reply

  60. TheTruth says:

    Vicmak,
    You’ve made the unfortunate mistake of engaging in a debate with an obfuscator. Lucrece is a standard of the Turkish deniers of the Armenian Genocide. You are, indirectly or not, giving credence to the Turkish denial machine by engaging in a discussion with it. Lucrece and the like have a sole purpose, and that is to divert attention from the irrefutable evidence. Those that are unfamiliar with the history of this matter are unaware of two of the most important points; and as inept as the deniers are, it is against these points of fact that Lucrece and the like engage in obfuscation:
    1) The Armenian Thesis (supported by the overwhelming body of evidence and scholars) has been proven; it is a matter of fact.
    2) The Turkish Thesis (supported by a small group of questionable “historians”) has been proven to be false (among other things) and is best defined by an excerpt from the IAGS letter:
    “We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called “scholars” work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide. In preventing a conference on the Armenian Genocide from taking place at Bogacizi University in Istanbul on May 25, your government revealed its aversion to academic and intellectual freedom—a fundamental condition of democratic society.”
    The Armenian Genocide isn’t up for debate; it’s up for recognition. The best thing to do against deniers is to thrust the truth upon them, not engage in a discussion that only serves to legitimate their deceit. Post facts, but don’t give credence to the denial machine by getting yourself caught up in a seemingly legitimate discussion.

    Reply

  61. Lucrece says:

    “I’ve seen the same letters of Toynbee in several of your and your nationalist compatriots blogs, but still haven’t seen an actual reference or the context it was written in.”
    And what kind of context could dismiss these quotations?
    “(by the way the leading Assyrian historian was murdered a few years ago in Sweden – at the same time a genocide memorial there was vandalised – any coincidence?)”
    Fanatic Armenians insinuated that the murder was linked with the anti-Turkish propaganda activities of the victim, but the Swedish police does not share this opinion. Swedish is definitively not a good country for Armenian lobbyists!
    “If you also bother reading the latest Turkish newspapers you will find that daily more and more remnants of bodies are being found, bodies of missing Kurds (still hundreds missing) the murderers – JITEM – part of the Turkish secret service.”
    Against the PKK terrorist group (who killed several thousands of innocent peoples from 1978 to 2008, including 130 teachers), Turkey was not best than Spain against ETA. Do you know the GAL? They assassinated several dozens of ETA’s members and supporters, and were funded by the Spanish Interior ministry. Just like the Turkish killers of Kurdish terrorists. According to Constantin Melnik, supervisor of the French secret services from 1959 to 1962, these services committed several hundreds of extrajudicial assassinations (mostly Algerian separatists) during this period. And we can also talk about the numerous CIA’s crimes, from Mossadegh to the tortures during Mr. Bush’s presidency.
    A secret service is not a humanitarian association, do you know?
    “Apart from Hrant Dink other Turkish journalists have been killed and even more have had death threats because of their views on Kurdish issues.”
    Hrant Dink’s assassination was probably decided by the Ergenekon gang, for destabilize Turkey. Indeed, Ergenekon is a group of former members of the Gladio networks, who used the tension strategy (like in Italy and Belgium during the 1970’s-1980’s).
    Some supporters of PKK received perhaps deaths threats, and that is stupid, but the PKK sent not only death threats, he kills.
    “If Turkey as you say is fully open to debate then Why were Zarakolu and his co-editor sentenced? Why was Demirer sentenced ?”
    I will respond to this question after you will respond to my precedent questions: How many books of Yusuf Halacoglu, Guenter Lewy, Justin McCarthy, Andrew Mango, Robert Mantran, Norman Stone or Gilles Veinstein are translated into Armenian and available in Erevan’s bookshops?
    Why Peter Balakian pressured the Oxford University Press and eleven other publishers, in 2004-2005, for not publish Guenter Lewy’s book about the events of 1915-1916? Why Richard G. Hovannisian and his like-gangsters students threatened physically Stanford J. Shaw’s publisher during the 1970’s-1980’s? Why S. J. Shaw’s house was bombed by fanatic Armenians in 1977? Why Prof. Shaw and his family received many death threats until the 1990’s? Why all the important Armenian associations of France asked, with an ultra-violent tone, that Gilles Veinstein be prevent to become a professor at the Collège de France, in 1998-1999? Why Prof. Veinstein was physically attacked in May 2000, by young Dashnaks?

    Reply

  62. Lucrece says:

    “I’m sure you don’t know, but there is a documentary about the Blue Book and a lecture given on the subject in Turkey – your friend Mccarthy was there – after the lecture he talked to the person giving the lecture – he was not even aware that the full names of the eyewitnesses had been fully disclosed and the Blue Book had been reprinted with these names. The original copy did not include all the names because some eyewitnesses were still working in Turkey after WWI.”
    1) The Armenian propagandists streamed too canards about Prof. McCarthy (“a Turk”, “married with a Turkish woman”, “paid by the Turks”) to believe this new allegation.
    2) The list of the alleged names of the authors was published also for the Blue Book about German army. Despite this fact, H. C. Peterson, James Morgan Read, after their, all honest scholars, deny any value to the Blue Book about German army.

    Reply

  63. Lucrece says:

    “But low and behold he confesses to Shaw – is this the same Shaw who if I’m not mistaken is a member of several Turkish societies has been decorated by the Turkish government with honors and medals”
    It is not a very valuable argument for your thesis. If you want talk about the honors received by Prof. Shaw, mostly the last years of his life (i.e. many years after 1977), I will talk about the honors received by peoples like Yves Ternon and Tessa Hoffman (shortly after their first books about Armenian affair, unlike S. J. Shaw), or the close relations between the Zoryan Institute and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.
    “If you beleive this theory then why were the Christian Assyrian population annihilated? Were they revolting too?”
    1) The Assyrians (Nestorians) were not “annihilated”, there are Assyrians in Turkey until today.
    2) Several thousands of Assyrians (Nestorians), in the Van vilayet only, participated to the Armenian rebellion. Moreover, there were an old conflict between Assyrian and Kurdish tribes. Assyrians destroyed Kurdish villages, raped women, killed children; in reprisals, Kurds destroyed Assyrian villages, raped women, killed children.
    3) This document for finish:
    “As a result of three month touring the area occupied and devasted by the Russian army and Christian army of revenge, during the spring and summer 1916, I have no hesitation in saying that the Turks would be able to make out as good a case against their enemies as that presetend against the Turks in Col. Agha Petro’s letter. According to the almost universal testimony of the local inhabitants and eye-witnesses, the Russian acting on the instigation and advise of the NESTORIANS and Armenians who accompagnied them, the leading of whom seems to have been Agha Petro himself, murdered and butchered indiscriminately any Moslem member of the civil population who fell into their hands. A typical example that might be quoted is the extermination of the town of Rowanduz and the wholesale massacre of its inhabitants.
    While Col. Petros is able to quote isolated examples of Turkish atrocities, a traveler through the Rownaduz and Neri districts would find widespread and wholesale evidence of outrages committed by Christians on Moslems. Anything more thorough and complete would be difficult to imagine. I might also mention that according to the testimony of the Kurdish population, Col. Agha Petros proved the Russians’ evil genius and was to a greast extent directly responsible for the excesses committed by Russian troops.”
    Major Edward W. C. Noel, political officier of the British Army, report of 1919, Archives of Foreign Office, 371/4173/80976, quoted in Stanford J. Shaw, “From Empire to Republic: the Turkish War of National Liberation”, Ankara, TTK, vol. II, p. 922.

    Reply

  64. Lucrece says:

    “Please don’t refer to Halacoglu, Most people even in Turkey know he is a propoganda tool”
    Ah ah ah! Even the strongly pro-Armenian Hilmar Kaiser praises Yusuf Halacoglu, especially in this interview to the “Armenian Weekly”, an ultra-nationalist newspaper:
    http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/fea03080804.htm
    Quote:
    “K.M.—How would you qualify Halacoglu’s scholarship…
    H.K.—The book on the 16th century is very good…
    K.M.—No, I mean his scholarship on the Armenian genocide…
    H.K.—This is not so easy, you have to see who is he. He is the representative of the Turkish state. If there is a real debate between persons with intellect and command of sources, Halacoglu leads the Turkish team.
    Dismissing him for past weak scholarship or political fanaticism—or whatever argument you want to bring up and you may even have something in support of your point—will not necessarily be productive. Don’t underestimate Yusuf Halacoglu. I respect him. I might disagree with him emphatically but I’m comfortable that I don’t have a fight with him at this point. The academic resources of an entire state converge on this one person. The Armenians have nobody coming even close to the shadow of him.
    On the other hand, he is not antagonistic like the fascist I just mentioned. Halacoglu is interested in dialogue, the question is on what terms. He has no problem to talk with me, to talk with others…
    K.M.—The way you are describing a notorious genocide denier might come as a surprise to many…
    H.K.—First of all, the description of deniers as a group is false. You have people who are fully paid talking heads who have nothing to offer; they are, unfortunately, the people who write the briefs for Erdogan when he goes abroad. Then you have the kind of politically well-connected third-rate academic creatures who are only interested in escalating the situation because they can only live on escalation, because they have nothing to offer. And then you have people who have serious disagreements with you. ”

    Reply

  65. Vicmak says:

    Lucrece,
    Taking these into account the number of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey would have exceeded 1.6 million at the least, by his estimates.”
    It is not true. Talat uses the figures of the Ottoman census, i.e. 1,3 million of Armenians.
    You obviously didn’t read his footnotes that -go back and read them again – he states that these figures are at least 30% below the actual number of Gregorian Armenians – read them – this is Talat Pasha – don’t tell me even he was wrong.
    Please don’t refer to Halacoglu, Most people even in Turkey know he is a propoganda tool, why exactly was he fired from his post?? Are you seriously saying that Halacoglu knew more about what was going on in Western Turkey than Talat – who was signing the deportation orders and keeping track of actual numbers – you cannot be serious! do you really want to be taken seriously if you can use what he writes in a book to correct Talat’s personal notebook……You also assume that everything in the Turkish archives are truthful and honest – again where are all the deportation details and resettlement details of those being moved?
    Don’t quote me from Louisville Uni. . Is this the same place where Mccarthy teaches by any chance?
    You are right some historians have been invited and have talked in Turkey .I’m sure you don’t know, but there is a documentary about the Blue Book and a lecture given on the subject in Turkey – your friend Mccarthy was there – after the lecture he talked to the person giving the lecture – he was not even aware that the full names of the eyewitnesses had been fully disclosed and the Blue Book had been reprinted with these names. The original copy did not include all the names because some eyewitnesses were still working in Turkey after WWI.
    I’ve seen the same letters of Toynbee in several of your and your nationalist compatriots blogs, but still haven’t seen an actual reference or the context it was written in. But low and behold he confesses to Shaw – is this the same Shaw who if I’m not mistaken is a member of several Turkish societies has been decorated by the Turkish government with honors and medals and in 1977 came up with the thesis that the Armenians in fact were to blame because they revolted – a theory introduced by him and his Turkish wife ! If you beleive this theory then why were the Christian Assyrian population annihilated? Were they revolting too? (by the way the leading Assyrian historian was murdered a few years ago in Sweden – at the same time a genocide memorial there was vandalised – any coincidence?)
    If you also bother reading the latest Turkish newspapers you will find that daily more and more remnants of bodies are being found, bodies of missing Kurds (still hundreds missing) the murderers – JITEM – part of the Turkish secret service. A tool used to kill any Kurd who spoke to much apparently.
    Apart from Hrant Dink other Turkish journalists have been killed and even more have had death threats because of their views on Kurdish issues.
    If Turkey as you say is fully open to debate then Why were Zarakolu and his co-editor sentenced? Why was Demirer sentenced?
    Gunter – slander – give me a break – the term he used was more that the Armenians (ASALA) continued their uncalculated use of force to get what they want. Admittedly he is a bit obsessed with ASALA – he has written a book on it, but interestingly he has written nothing of substance on Turkish Nationalists – and don’t tell me it doesn’t exist everybody is talking about it – remember Ergokan

    Reply

  66. PissedOffAmerican says:

    From a post I made upthread…
    “I imagine, should I be bored enough to actually look into your pet spat, I would find two sides of the story, and an impossible maze of distorted history and indignant accusations, driven by fanatical declarations of divine rights and moral high grounds that neither party really has the right to assume”
    Thank you, you two, for proving my point.

    Reply

  67. Lucrece says:

    “even today Turks are risking their lives to talk about not only the Armenian issue, but the Kurdish issue as well.”
    Joke again. Turkey invited Armenian and pro-Armenian authors since 1990. Levon Marshlian pronounced a lecture during the 1990 congress of the Turkish Historical Society. Ara Sarafian and Hilmar Kaiser pronounced several lectures in Istanbul, Ankara, and other Turkish cities, from 2005 to 2009.
    Turkey is currently much more tolerant vis-à-vis the DTP (which became a puppet of the Islamist-Maoist terrorists of PKK) than Spain vis-à-vis Batasuna (the puppet of the ETA terrorist group). Turkish army is frequently defamed by the half-truths and the gross exagerations of the ultra-leftist daily “Taraf” and other propagandists.

    Reply

  68. Lucrece says:

    “With regard to Gunter or Gunther (I can find several mistakes in not only your typing but your grammer and spelling as well – lets not go there)- on one historical society website he wrote a lengthy article in which he thought Armenians were and are murderers and to back this up he like you and others point to ASALA.”
    Prof. Gunter did never write it. That is pure and desesperate defamation.

    Reply

  69. Lucrece says:

    “Taking these into account the number of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey would have exceeded 1.6 million at the least, by his estimates.”
    It is not true. Talat uses the figures of the Ottoman census, i.e. 1,3 million of Armenians.
    “The Patriarchs numbers based on birth and death certificates, put the number over 2 million.”
    Justin McCarthy pointed correctly that the estimation produced by the Patriarchate in 1914 (2,1 millions) is base on absolutely nothing. The Patriarcate itself produced a figure more close to the truth in 1912: 1,8 million.
    “he has notes on even the smallest Armenian communities in western Turkey where apparently under your and the Turkish thesis ‘there were no deportations of Armenians from western Turkey’ yet his notes prove that there were.”
    Both Ottoman and Western archives demonstrate that the Armenians of Edirne and Izmir were not deported. Ottoman archives demonstrate that the Armenians of Aydin, Antalya and Kastamonu (in Western Anatolia) were not deported. Morevoer, some Armenian of Anatolian villages were not resettled in the Arabian provinces, but within other Anatolian villages! See Yusuf Halacoglu, “The Story of 1915. What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians?”, Ankara, TTK, 2008.
    “Just the Blue Book lists the eyewitnesses which commented on the Genocide as it happened”
    Arnold J. Toynbee himself called the Blue Book a piece of “war propaganda” (“The Western Question in Greece and Turkey”, London-Bombay-Sydney, Constable & Co, 1922, p. 50). During private talks with Robert F. Zeidner in Beiruth, June 1957, and with Stanford J. Shaw in Harvard, 1959, Toynbee was more severe with his work. He said to R. Zeidner: “I was employed by the
    Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I obeyed orders. It was war propaganda material.”; and to S. J. Shaw that it was not a scholar work, but pure propaganda (Robert F. Zeidner, “The Tricolor over the Taurus”, New York, Peter Lang, 1996, p. 112; Stanford J. Shaw, “From Empire to Republic: The Turkish War of National Liberation”, Ankara, TTK, 2000, volum I, p. 62, n. 21).
    As early as 1916, Toynbee wrote the following private letter:
    “Dear Professor Margoliouth,
    I am enclosing the proofs of an introduction I have written to a fairly large collection of documents relating to the treatment of the Armenians in Turkey during 1915. I wonder if you could spare time to glance at it and pillory any glaring misstatements of fact or wrong points of view. My knowledge on the greater part of the ground is very shaky and second-hand. I hesitated to trouble you with this request, but the documents are going to be published as a Government Blue Book, so it is important to make sure that the introduction should come up to a decent level of historical correctness.”
    And in a letter sent to Toynbee by the US Foreign Office, dated May 1, 1916, we can read:
    “My dear Toynbee,
    I very much regret that we were unable to fill the blanks in the documents that our committee published in the galley form for the press under the date of Oct. 4, 1915. Most of these documents are not here; in fat, many of them are not accessible to us.”
    What a good job, isn’t it?
    Horace C. Peterson demonstrated, 70 years ago, that the Bryce-Toynbee gang produced another Blue Book against Germany, based on so-called “eyewitnesses” who were mythomaniacs or dishonest propagandists (“Propaganda for War. The Campaign Against American Neutrality, 1914-1917”, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1939, pp. 53-59). Why Bryce, who was a fanatical anti-Turkish racist, would be more honest about the Turks than about the German?
    Despite his strong pro-Armenian bias, James Morgan Read notice the following things:
    “It is only fair to add, however, that the Turks were given a clean bill of health in Parliament during the Dardanelles campaign. They were praised by an English officer for ‘the clean, manly manner in which they fight’. It is also necessary to add that the general impression after reading pages of harrowing details concerning such enormities, as gathered together in the Blue Book, is that most of them were based on hearsay evidence.”
    “Atrocity Propaganda. 1914-1919”, New Haven-London, Yale University Press/Oxford University Press, 1941, p. 221.
    Justin McCarthy demonstrated that some of the documents of the Blued Book are, like the Andonian material, crude forgeries. The so-called authors of it were not even existent peoples.
    One of the very few honest peoples who wrote a report published in the Blue Book said that his information about massacres of Armenians were only unconfirmed rumors, and that reliable information about it were very difficult to find for US citizens living in Anatolia.
    “Don’t rely on finding what you should read from Turkish nationalist sites – you will only be disappointed and misled.”
    The first-hand testimony of Twerdokhleboff and the Niles-Sutherland report, for example, are not available on a random “Turkish nationalist site”, but on the site of the Louisville university:
    http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Khlebof War Journal.pdf
    http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Niles_and_Sutherland.pdf
    Twerdokhleboff’s diary was translated into English and into French by opponents to the CUP regime.
    By this way: how could you oppose the Blue Book, which was published in 1916, to the Twerdokhlebof’s diary, which is about events of 1918, and to the Niles-Sutherland report, which describe both 1916 and 1918 events? Even the fanatically pro-Armenian propagandist Yves Ternon acknowledge that the Armenian volunteers of Russian army massacred the Turks of Erzincan and committed “unspeakable crimes” in February 1918.

    Reply

  70. Vicmak says:

    Lucrece,
    Thank you for noting Talat Pashas notebook and the numbers involved and cut and pasting what you found- did you read the subtext and the annotations he made regarding the numbers – you obviously did’t because you have just copied and pasted from somewhere else – most probably a Turkish site – stop using these sites you are only deluding yourself. There are annotations regarding by what percentage these numbers are underestimated and the fact is that these numbers only refer to Orthodox Armenians. Taking these into account the number of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey would have exceeded 1.6 million at the least, by his estimates. The Patriarchs numbers based on birth and death certificates, put the number over 2 million.
    The number of 927,000 is not for – not in Anatolia – get the original copy and read it.
    You are big on books written on Turkish historical sources. Where are all the missing or non-existent reports on number of Armenians deported, Turkish law was categorical in that records of deportations, list of possessions and assets, relocation records should be kept – where are they – if they didn’t exist how did Talat come up with his figures , he has notes on even the smallest Armenian communities in western Turkey where apparently under your and the Turkish thesis ‘there were no deportations of Armenians from western Turkey’ yet his notes prove that there were.
    With regard to commenting on quotations made in the past which back your thesis. There’s no point there are hundreds and hundreds of quotes I could refer you to. Just the Blue Book lists the eyewitnesses which commented on the Genocide as it happened, the significance of the Blue Book is the fact that although there are hundreds and hundreds of letters and statements made and are for example in the American archives regarding the Genocide, the Blue Book was compiled so that it did not include any unsubstantiated comments or uncorroborated eyewitness reports. For every one of your ‘quotation’s there are a dozen others just in the Blue Book alone which say something completely different.
    Don’t rely on finding what you should read from Turkish nationalist sites – you will only be disappointed and misled.

    Reply

  71. Vicmak says:

    Lucrece,
    I am sorry I took you for someone of someone with intelligence and a slither of understanding and you obviously haven’t read anything apart from what you believe will back your thesis. But you obviously lack both and you obviously don’t read Kirk’s comments on website blogs – he is a Turkish Nationalist full of hate – sad that you would think he is not.
    Even Turkish History groups have asked the Sari Gelin DVD to be removed because it lacks factual historical basis (Didn’t make this up read it yourself in Turkish papers)
    With regard to Gunter or Gunther (I can find several mistakes in not only your typing but your grammer and spelling as well – lets not go there)- on one historical society website he wrote a lengthy article in which he thought Armenians were and are murderers and to back this up he like you and others point to ASALA. That is pure racism – did you know that there was huge protest against those attacks, one Armenian in Turkey even set himself alight as protest. It is like Kurds saying that Turks are all murderers and oppressors because they have been killed and oppressed for generations – that the actions of JITEM and the hundreds of murders they committed in the 80’s in Turkey, the massacres of Assyrians, Jews, Greeks in 1914s, the wealth tax WWII, the 1955 Greek massacres the fact that they Kurds were not Kurds, but actually ‘Mountain Turks’ points to Turks being racist and murderers, the fact that Ergokan had a hand in terrorist attacks in Turkey, the Malataya murders of Christians, Turkish laws in the past saying the only language to be spoken in public places was to be Turkish, the illegal confiscation of Greek, Assyrian,Armenian church lands (EU court rulings in the past year) surely one might think according to Gunters chain of thought, nothing much has changed in Turkey over the past hundred years. It is also interesting that Gunter thinks the murders committed by the PKK and the Kurds struggle for human rights is legitimate, but the human rights of Christians as a whole pre WWI were not important.
    If I didn’t think we are all people and there are good and people amongst all of us – I wouldn’t be bothering to write to you on this blog (as I said you won’t solve anything on blogs like this) I am well aware that even today Turks are risking their lives to talk about not only the Armenian issue, but the Kurdish issue as well.
    Talat Pasha was surely not paid by Armenian lobbyists even back then in 1915 when he started his notebook . I would suggest you read it – even then I doubt that your ‘open mind’ will accept what it really infers and find a way of twisting it to fit your reality. Hope you and Kirk can also find closure on this whole issue you need it as much as anyone else.

    Reply

  72. Lucrece says:

    “I want to recall you that France recognized the Armenian genocide without worrying about the bad political repercussions with Turkey.”
    What a good joke. The “recognition” law did enormous damage to the French-Turkish trade. French companies lost many military contracts. Turkey chose, for his high speed train a… Spanish company, rather than French companies, despite the obvious fact that the French techology is the best in the World for high speed trains. EDF’s candidacy to Nabucco was rejected because Turkish veto. The disaster was just stopped by the failure of Armenian associations to obtain the penalization law, thanks to Liberté pour l’histoire, and Armenian collapse in France during the year 2008.

    Reply

  73. Lucrece says:

    Sorry, some omissions in my precedent posts. Correction:
    “This old Turk”.
    “His brother”, without “s”.
    And I forgot to mention that Abbas Gunes’ allegations of massacres by Armenians against unarmed Turks were corroborated in 1999 by another excavation of mass-grave.

    Reply

  74. Lucrece says:

    Vicmak and others,
    Do you believe that this man is a simulator, a liar?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPsrqDGr6zc (for those who do not understand Turkish: this old is saying that Armenians beheaded his brothers, who was 21 years old).
    And what about the archeological evidence of atrocities perpetrated by Armenian volunteers of Russian army?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acsn-De8vCQ (subtitles in English).

    Reply

  75. Lucrece says:

    Vimack,
    Why did you not comment my quotations of Lieutenant-Colonel Twerdokhlebof, Captain Emory Niles, Admiral Mark Bristol and Col. Charles Furlong?

    Reply

  76. Lucrece says:

    “Just out of interest have read the Notebook of Talat Pasha which was published last year, or actually read any other pro- Genocide thesis books?”
    In Talat Pasha’s notebook, it is written that 927,000 Anatolian Armenians were no more in Anatolia in the end of 1916. Around 700,000 Anatolian Armenians were relocated in Arabian provinces, and at least 300,000 others were resettled in the Russian Caucasus by Russian army, during the years 1915 and 1916.
    So, what is the problem? Talat Pasha did not write that 927,000 Anatolian Armenians were killed, and much less that he asked the murder of these peoples.

    Reply

  77. Lucrece says:

    “Galien – is of Turkish decent.”
    Are you a civil servant within Dutch Vital Statistics?
    “So what you are saying is that all the Armenians US citizens, especially those in the Lobby groups, cannot be ‘Armenian Nationalists’ because they do not live in Armenia, or does that chain of thinking only apply to Turks.”
    I said that Mr. Kirlikovali is not a Turkish Nationalist, because his positions are not nationalist. That is simple. Obviously, there US citizens who are Turkish nationalists, but it is not sufficient to be Turkic and not agree with you for become a “nationalist”.
    “I think Kirk would wholeheartedly agree with the factual basis of the Sari Gelin DVD – I certainly hope you don’t.”
    The author should make more development about atrocities committed by some Muslims against Armenians, there are few montage awkwardness, and few errors (for example, the Turkish embassador in Vienne was not killed by ASALA but by Justice Commandos of Armenian Genocide); anyway, it is not a bad film.
    What’s wrong within this film? Armenian terrorists killed many Turkish diplomats from 1973 to 1984. Is it false? Armenian nationalists killed many Muslims and Jews, before during and after the WWI. Is it false? Do you believe really that the Russian documents, like Tatiana Karameli’s report, used in Sari Gelin are not authentic? That old Turks like Abbas Gunes, Sirri Huseyinoglu or Mehmet Saar are liars?
    “If you truly want to be a patriot – someone who wants the best for his country don’t just read the pro-Turkish thesis writers”
    I do not read only pro-Turkish thesis writers, and became to reject the genocide thesis before to read my first book of Turkish author.
    And you, what you did read?
    “I am sure even you will not deny the fact that even though there has been great strides forward, there is still no open debate in Turkey”
    There are books of pro-Armenian and Armenian authors, including Taner Akcam (a former ultra-leftist terrorist who asked the assassination of all the US citizens resident in Turkey during the 1970’s), Yves Ternon and the Blue Book of Toynbee and Bryce, translated into Turkish and available in Istanbul’s bookshops. The publishers were never convicted.
    How many books of Yusuf Halacoglu, Guenter Lewy, Justin McCarthy, Andrew Mango, Robert Mantran, Norman Stone or Gilles Veinstein are translated into Armenian and available in Erevan’s bookshops?
    Why Peter Balakian pressured the Oxford University Press and eleven other publishers, in 2004-2005, for not publish Guenter Lewy’s book about the events of 1915-1916? Why Richard G. Hovannisian and his like-gangsters students threatened physically Stanford J. Shaw’s publisher during the 1970’s-1980’s? Why S. J. Shaw’s house was bombed by fanatic Armenians in 1977? Why Prof. Shaw and his family received many death threats until the 1990’s? Why all the important Armenian associations of France asked, with an ultra-violent tone, that Gilles Veinstein be prevent to become a professor at the Collège de France, in 1998-1999? Why Prof. Veinstein was physically attacked in May 2000, by young Dashnaks?
    “You say Lewy’s book was well received by … and …., these are the same names of a small group of people who back each others books, did you know for example Gunther whom you say commended the book actually wrote the preface for it?”
    ??? The single preface of Guenter Lewy’s book is written by Prof. Lewy himself. Anyway, your comment is irrelevant. Michael Gunter (without “h”) is a respected political scientist, who demonstrated his independence, especially during the beginning of the 1990’s, publishing several works about Turkish Kurds, which were not praised by Turkish General Staff.
    “If Lewy can’t read Ottoman Turkish – he should at least provide the names of the translators and researchers, whats wrong with that?”
    It would be better, surely, but the most important question is not who were Guenter Lewy’s translators, it is: are these translation good? And I did never read, including within your posts, a single critic against the quality of the translation from Turkish. That is definitively not the case of Armenian authors, like V. Dadrian or Haigazn K. Kazarian.

    Reply

  78. Vicmak says:

    Lucrece,
    “Michael van der Galiën is a Dutch citizen, without Turkish origins. I am not a Turkish citizen, neither a people with Turkish/Turkic/Ottoman origins. Ergun Kirlikovali is a US citizen, and not a “Turkish nationalist”.
    Galien – is of Turkish decent. You say you and Kirk are not ‘Turkish Nationalist’, but Kirk is a US citizen. So what you are saying is that all the Armenians US citizens, especially those in the Lobby groups, cannot be ‘Armenian Nationalists’ because they do not live in Armenia, or does that chain of thinking only apply to Turks. I think Kirk would wholeheartedly agree with the factual basis of the Sari Gelin DVD – I certainly hope you don’t.
    If you truly want to be a patriot – someone who wants the best for his country don’t just read the pro-Turkish thesis writers – I would ask you to read other Historians’ work and not just rely on Turkish websites and not just pro Turkish thesis books. This issue will not be resolved on blogs like this, the only way this problem can ultimately be resolved is if and only if Turkish citizens in Turkey are freely allowed to say what they want to say (the only question will Turkey do so on its own terms or will other nations have to force it do so with resolutions such as this). One needs (like on these blogs) to be able to openly advocate both sides of the argument to have a proper debate – I am sure even you will not deny the fact that even though there has been great strides forward, there is still no open debate in Turkey (bear in mind convictions against Demirer, Zarakalo and his co- editor, the initiators of the we apologise campaign,etc..)
    You say Lewy’s book was well received by … and …., these are the same names of a small group of people who back each others books, did you know for example Gunther whom you say commended the book actually wrote the preface for it? If Lewy can’t read Ottoman Turkish – he should at least provide the names of the translators and researchers, whats wrong with that?
    Just out of interest have read the Notebook of Talat Pasha which was published last year, or actually read any other pro- Genocide thesis books?

    Reply

  79. Lucrece says:

    US supporters of Armenian claims are not even able to made a honest research within US archives. An example of US document not used by these propagandists:
    “In the entire region from Bitlis through Van to Bayezit we were informed that the damage and destruction had been done by the Armenians, who, after the Russians retired, remained in occupation of the country and who, when the Turkish army advanced, destroyed everything belonging to the Musulmans. Moreover, the Armenians are accused of having committed murder, rape arson and horrible atrocities of every description upon the Musulman population. At first we were most incredulous of these stories, but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous and was corroborated by material evidence. For instance, the only quarters left at all intact in the cities of Bitlis and Van are the Armenian quarters, as was evidenced by churches and inscriptions on the houses, while the Musulman quarters were completely destroyed. Villages said to have been Armenian were still standing whereas Musulman villages were completely destroyed.”
    Captain Emory Niles and Mr. Arthur E. Sutherland (investigators in Eastern Anatolia), report to US government, 1919, US national archives, 184.021/175; reproduced in Justin McCarthy, “The Report of Niles and Sutherland”, “XI. Türk Tarih Congresi”, Ankara, 1994, pp. 1809-1853.
    Another example:
    “While the Turks were all the peoples said they were, the other side of the coin was obscured by the flood of of Greek and Armenian propaganda painting the Turks as completely inhuman and undeserving of any consideration, while suppressing all facts in favor of the Turks and against the minorities.”
    Admiral Mark L. Bristol, cable of 1920, quoted in Laurence Evans, “US Policy and the Partition of Turkey, 1914-1924”, Baltimore, John Hopkins Press, 1965, p. 272.
    And again:
    “We hear much, both truth and gross exaggeration of Turkish massacre of Armenians, but little or nothing of the Armenian massacres of Turks. The recent so-called Marash massacres [of Armenians] have not been substantiated, in fact, in the minds of many who are familiar with the situation, there is a grave question whether it was not the Turk who suffered at the hands of the Armenian and French armed contingents which were known to be occupying that city and vicinity.”
    Colonel Charles Furlong, letter to President Wilson, March 23, 1920.

    Reply

  80. Lucrece says:

    “Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.”
    Yes. But Lemkin cited also the destruction of Carthage as an example of genocide. Very few specialists of Ancient History could agree with this kind kid’s of anachronism.
    Lemkin wrote few lines about the Armenian, and these words demonstrated that he did know nothing about it. For example, he believed that the Malta’s deportees were released only by political agreement. He did not search within British and US archives the documents about the investigation made by Britishs magistrates and their Greek and Armenian assistants.

    Reply

  81. Lucrece says:

    “you and Kirkovali and it seems another Turk nationalist Van Der Galien”
    Michael van der Galiën is a Dutch citizen, without Turkish origins. I am not a Turkish citizen, neither a people with Turkish/Turkic/Ottoman origins. Ergun Kirlikovali is a US citizen, and not a “Turkish nationalist”.
    “Mr Lewy by his own statement has said he doesn’t know Ottoman Turkish”
    That’s right, but:
    1) The majority of the Armenian and pro-Armenian authors (like Donald Bloxham and Yves Ternon) doesn’t know Ottoman Turkish, too. V. Dadrian is said to can read Ottoman Turkish, according to pro-Armenian historians like Hilmar Kaiser, he made many misltranslation and dishonest quotations.
    2) Several volumes of Ottoman documents were translated into English and published, since 1978. Prof. Lewy used these documents, unlike Donald Bloxham and Yves Ternon.
    “In addition he isn’t even a specialist in that era or that region – his work jumps from period to period and place to place.”
    Yes. And? “The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany” (1964; second edition, 2000) is among the few basic books for the huge controversy about Pius XII, and only the most fanatical catholic critic this study; more than 30 years after, Guenter Lewy’s book “America in Vietnam” is among the references about Vietnam war; “The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies” (OUP, 2000) is considered by almost all the specialists (including Raul Hilberg, Saul Friedländer, Hans Mommsen and Henriette Asséo) as THE book about the subject.
    “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey” was praised by several specialists of Ottoman History and/or Eastern front of WWI, including Gwynne Dyer (Ph.D. in Ottoman Military History), Edward J. Erickson (Birmingham University), Michael M. Gunter (Tennessee University) and Norman Stone (Bilkent University).
    “In the first edition of his book he didn’t even know what rank Kemal Ataturk held during WW1.”
    I did read the first edition, and I do not remember such an error. In his 2005 article “Revisiting the Armenian Genocide” (available online), Prof. Lewy describes Kemal as “a highly decorated Turkish officer”. What is wrong?
    You are perhaps confusing with pro-Armenian authors like Taner Akçam, Donald Bloxham, Yves Yernon, who committed huge errors within some of their books about Ottoman history.

    Reply

  82. Vicmak says:

    Lucrece,
    ‘Unlike the grotesque staff of the IAGS, Prof. Lewy made an extensive research within archive documents (US, British, German, French, Ottoman, Russian) and testimonies (Armenian, Turk, Western).’
    I doubt a lot of people actually follow the threads on these site, but you and Kirkovali and it seems another Turk nationalist Van Der Galien who spreads most of the mistruths through their websites sem to think you can change reality. This statement in particular is incorrect – Mr Lewy by his own statement has said he doesn’t know Ottoman Turkish, he has failed to supply the names of the people he says helped him translate and find documents in the archives. In the first edition of his book he didn’t even know what rank Kemal Ataturk held during WW1. In addition he isn’t even a specialist in that era or that region – his work jumps from period to period and place to place. If you can’t get these simple facts right after so many years writing on these sites – what are you good for?
    PissedoffAmerican, or is it Pissed off at America
    You have my sympathies!!
    Why exactly is Sibel Edmonds in trouble? which countries are actually involved and are helping put the US in danger?
    Go and see an optician/psychiatrist about your world vision myopia before you actually turn into your online persona.

    Reply

  83. Lucrece says:

    “From the International Association of Genocide Scholars (“the” authority on the subject):”
    IAGS? Ah ah ah!
    “I am less than impressed by the unanimous vote of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Armenian case “was one of the major genocides of the modern era.” The great majority of these self-proclaimed experts on Ottoman history have never set foot in an archive or done any other original research on the subject in question.”
    Guenter Lewy, “Commentary”, February 2006.
    Unlike the grotesque staff of the IAGS, Prof. Lewy made an extensive research within archive documents (US, British, German, French, Ottoman, Russian) and testimonies (Armenian, Turk, Western). That is probably the reason why the Armenian nationalists and their supporter refuse, since 2005, to discuss with Prof. Lewy, and attempt to silence him, by various kind of threats and pressures (in vain, fortunately).

    Reply

  84. Rich says:

    I see “Mr. Cut and Paste Ergun” is at it again.

    Reply

  85. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Lastly, if you truly believe that the matter between the Armenians and the Turks is about “age-old foreign feuds,” you’ll need to do more than just pull your head out of your ass; you’ll need a thorough cleansing (to get rid of the stench of ignorance); and, then, you’ll need to take a good look at the overwhelming evidence that proves the case on the Armenian Genocide (as an attempt, by the Ottoman Turks, to exterminate the Armenians)”
    Ho hum.
    Yes, I’ll admit I’m ignorant of the intimate details of whatever has stuffed a corncob up Armenian ass in regards to the Turks.
    And vice versa as well.
    Frankly, I don’t give a shit. I’m perfectly content being ignorant about whatever has the two sides gnashing teeth. Seems to me this country has enough on its plate without taking up sides with whatever squabbling whiner seeks to win the support ($$$$) of these posturing pieces of shit in Washington.
    I imagine, should I be bored enough to actually look into your pet spat, I would find two sides of the story, and an impossible maze of distorted history and indignant accusations, driven by fanatical declarations of divine rights and moral high grounds that neither party really has the right to assume.
    So I’ll just muddle along in my ignorance, considering myself spared the discomfort of fretting about yet one more dismal clusterfuck of the human condition that I can do absolutely nothing about.
    Sometimes its all I can handle just wishin’ someone would fix the fuckin’ pothole in the middle of my cul de sac before they ship another few billion to the country that has the loudest snivelin’ mouthpiece in Washington playing the poor innocent victim.
    Look, if our own house was remotely close to being in even partial order, I might be more sympathetic to American involvement in your offshore imbroglios. But truth be told, this planet is in such a fuckin’ mess right now I have no idea how we can morally prioritize the expenditure of treasure and manpower, militarily and diplomatically. Which tragedy of the human condition are we to put in the forefront?
    Hello? In case you haven’t noticed, we’re pretty bankrupt ourselves, both morally and economically.
    Besides, we have our own pet genocide we are currently subsidizing. I’m a firm believer we oughta just concentrate on one genocide at a time. So, after we get through helping Israel, (the ultimate “victim” role player), eradicate the Palestinians, you might wanna get back to me. Maybe I’ll be more receptive to bemoaning the fate of the poor innocent Armenians at the hands of those nasty ‘ol monsters, the Turks. I doubt it though. I’m kinda sick of everyone playin’ the victim.
    And, uh, I’m kinda proud of having my head up my ass. At least my head isn’t up someone else’s ass. Seems to me our so called “representatives” could learn a thing or two from me.

    Reply

  86. TheTruth says:

    PissedOffAmerican,
    You need to get your head out of your ass. “American” only serves to identify a nationality; in this case, citizens of the United States. But, last I checked, Canada and Mexico are [North] American countries, also; and that would make “American” of Canadians and Mexicans. As for the “Indians” (of North America): Well, they come from various tribes; we don’t need to get into the foolishness of the “Indian” misnomer.
    In this regard, hyphenated terms are used to identify ethnicity and nationality (although “ethnos” means “nation” and the two are interchangeable, and can be the same (as an identifier of a person’s background)). So, unless you are a descendant of Amerigo Vespucci, you can’t claim to be an American-American; even then, you would be an Italian. With that in mind, I can proudly say that I am an Armenian-American; that would make “Armenian” my ethnicity and “American” my nationality.
    Lastly, if you truly believe that the matter between the Armenians and the Turks is about “age-old foreign feuds,” you’ll need to do more than just pull your head out of your ass; you’ll need a thorough cleansing (to get rid of the stench of ignorance); and, then, you’ll need to take a good look at the overwhelming evidence that proves the case on the Armenian Genocide (as an attempt, by the Ottoman Turks, to exterminate the Armenians).

    Reply

  87. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “So to summarise – you don’t think America has any responsibilty to its own citizens”
    Why would I read any further?

    Reply

  88. Vicmak says:

    PissedoffAmerican,
    So to summarise – you don’t think America has any responsibilty to its own citizens.
    But you did not say anything about the backing and support countries around the world gave America after 9/11, was that wrong? Are you saying America should not have been given support after 9/11? You yourself say it hasn’t helped – the world in your eyes is not safer. Its already been ages since 9/11 – are you saying other countries should stop helping America in Afghanistan? How many more American soldiers’ lives will be lost because of that? You want what you want – as long as its of benefit to you – if its not in your benefit you don’t care (and this dispute is not an age old dispute – you obviously don’t know what the current situation in Turkey is), but you don’t care because Turkey is such a good ally that it threatens the safety of American soldiers should it not have its way. Birds of a feather flock together – thank goodness America is not wholly inhabited by ‘real true redneck Americans’ such as yourself.
    If you think Sibel Edmonds is a more important story then go and write about that, this debate is based on human rights, ethics and morality, you obviously are not interested in humanity or where you think humanity is headed or what values it should be based on. You are only interested in, as you have said yourself, your ‘tax dollars’. What do you think of what is happening in Darfur today? Anything? Do you think Turkey is right in backing the Sudanese Government? you probably don’t care – because there’s nothing in it for you – that says a lot about you – again thank goodness the true values of America and true Americans are not represented by you and your ilk.

    Reply

  89. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Go on – you know that’s what you really want to do, as the only true American-American, that’s what you want – to rid yourself of everything ‘non -American’ , just hope you don’t have easy access to an automatic rifle or a machine gun or a grenade launcher – mind you with the lax gun laws and the NRA”
    Gads, what a bunch of horseshit. I read this garbage from so many of you, and it becomes easy to understand why so many of you wack-jobs hold grudges for generations at a time.
    And no, any hyphenated American that puts his hyphen first is not “as American as I am”. Frankly, I’m sick of our politicians pursuing policies and actions that involve us in age-old foreign feuds concerning territorial, religious, or ethnic squabbles. If you really have a bone to pick with Turkey, get your head out of yesterday and try tweaking our heart strings with something more relevant to the present and our oewn national security. You might start with Sibel Edmonds. Now theres a story this American-American would like to see brought out into the light of day.

    Reply

  90. Vicmak says:

    PissedofAmerican,
    I’m sorry you feel the way that you do – not sure about what you’re saying.
    In my previous post I said that American-Armenians are asking for the US – the country they live in to recongnise what happened to their relatives and what has in essence led them to live in America as what it was -Genocide. I also very much doubt if you understand the concept of being American (no offense meant) The only American Americans are the Indians – who were – yes – killed. I doubt you yourself are American-American, but most probably a second/third generation American.
    On the subject of spending, are you saying I should I as a British Armenian be upset and angry about paying my taxes so that my pounds Sterling (£1 = $1.45) can be spent on supporting American troops because of what happened on 9/11. I’m not angry about Afghanistan, but am about Iraq.
    American – Armenians are asking for the recognition – they are as American as you are – if you don’t think they are or second generation American poles or American Jews or American Italians are really not American and that only you are American American – then you are ‘Pissed off’ because you are racially bias (racist) and you can’t handle the wider world or can’t accept you live in a world which is in fact much bigger than just America and uncontrollably intertwined. Maybe you should do what Ottoman Turks did – those that believed that they were the only true Turks i.e. killed all the Assyrians, Greeks, Jews and Armenians (and all the non Muslims)
    Go on – you know that’s what you really want to do, as the only true American-American, that’s what you want – to rid yourself of everything ‘non -American’ , just hope you don’t have easy access to an automatic rifle or a machine gun or a grenade launcher – mind you with the lax gun laws and the NRA….
    Please don’t do it – don’t – its not worth it we – live in a big beautiful world full of diversity, you should try traveling more instead (but not the UK please)

    Reply

  91. TheTruth says:

    The Armenian Genocide is a historical fact. The matter is irrefutable.
    From the International Association of Genocide Scholars (“the” authority on the subject):
    International Association of Genocide Scholars
    President
    Israel Charny (Israel)
    First Vice-President
    Gregory H. Stanton (USA)
    Second Vice-President
    Linda Melvern (UK)
    Secretary-Treasurer
    Steven Jacobs (USA)
    June 13, 2005
    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
    TC Easbakanlik
    Bakanlikir
    Ankara, Turkey
    FAX: 90 312 417 0476
    Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:
    We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an “impartial study by historians” concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
    We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:
    On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.
    The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.
    The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:
    1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.
    2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
    3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.
    4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the “incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide” and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.
    5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.
    6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.
    We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide—how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.
    We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called “scholars” work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide. In preventing a conference on the Armenian Genocide from taking place at Bogacizi University in Istanbul on May 25, your government revealed its aversion to academic and intellectual freedom—a fundamental condition of democratic society.
    We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as a proud and equal participants in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.
    Approved Unanimously at the Sixth biennial meeting of
    The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)
    June 7, 2005, Boca Raton, Florida
    Contacts: Israel Charny, IAGs President; Executive Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia of Genocide, 972-2-672-0424; encygeno@mail.com
    Gregory H. Stanton, IAGS Vice President; President, Genocide Watch, James Farmer Visiting Professor of Human Rights, University of Mary Washington; 703-448-0222; genocidewatch@aol.com

    Reply

  92. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The president of Turkey was in Sudan last year and he said ‘Muslims are not capable of Genocide'”
    Similiar to what the Israelis are saying as they fry civilians in white phosphorous, eh? Or as we murder a million or so Iraqi non-combatants.
    Honestly, I really don’t give a rat’s ass what ANY of the hyphenated American special interest group’s agendas are. We have enough on our plate without immersing ourselves in your age old destructive feuds. If there was any constructive end to this shit you people would have stopped feuding a coupla generations ago.
    You say that on a personal level thewre ain’t much in this for me as an American-American. But guaranteed, you will sure as hell spend my dollar, or the life of an American soldier, to push through an agenda that has NOTHING TO DO with the actual security of the United States, but is instead founded on hatred that has festered through generations of growth.
    No thanks. Clean up your own shit. Stop trying to use us as your mop.

    Reply

  93. Vicmak says:

    PissedofAmerican,
    You asked how fighting the Taliban had helped.
    (Just to make it clear – I was for the invasion of Afghanistan, but not Iraq – that definitely hasn’t helped!)
    I look at it from the point of view that it has weakened the fanatics who believe they can kill innocent people and think they can get away with it – that they can continue to do what they are doing without impunity. If America others had done nothing the ideology which helps Al Quaeda, more so its supporters would think they could do it again and again – not only America, but everyone else would be in greater danger.
    In the case of Genocide – did you know Turkey and China are the biggest supporters of the Sudanese Government, not only financially, but militarily? The president of Turkey was in Sudan last year and he said ‘Muslims are not capable of Genocide’ (sadly anyone is capable of genocide – especially if they know they can get away with it!)
    On a personal level there is not a lot in it for you personally, but it is American-Armenians who are asking for it to be recognised by Americans. Are you saying American-Armenians have less rights than American-Jews or American-Rwandens – now we’re getting into the realm of racism or of bias based on who our friends are – you are telling countries that as long as you are our friend or that there is something in it for us – go ahead rape and kill…

    Reply

  94. Vicmak says:

    PissedofAmerican,
    You asked how fighting the Taliban had helped.
    (Just to make it clear – I was for the invasion of Afghanistan, but not Iraq – that definitely hasn’t helped!)
    I look at it from the point of view that it has weakened the fanatics who believe they can kill innocent people and think they can get away with it – that they can continue to do what they are doing without impunity. If America others had done nothing the ideology which helps Al Quaeda, more so its supporters would think they could do it again and again – not only America, but everyone else would be in greater danger.
    In the case of Genocide – did you know Turkey and China are the biggest supporters o

    Reply

  95. Lucrece says:

    “Antranik [Armenian general] has promised the artillery officers in their barracks, that order and discipline would soon be restored [in February 1918]. But this promise was in no way fulfilled, although the government of Transcaucasia had delegated Antranik and Dr. Zavrief to Erzeroum for this special purpose. In town, the tumult calmed down to a certain degree and peace came back to the villages where no one was left alive! But when the Turkish troops came near to Illidja, the Armenians began again to imprison the Turks in Erzeroum, and, especially on the 25th of February, the arrests had reached vast proportions. In the night of the 26th, the Armenians, eluding the vigilance of the Russian officers, indulged again in massacres, but, frightened by the Turkish soldiers, fled. These massacres were not at all by chance. On the contrary, they were so well organized that all those who had not been arrested at first were so afterwards, and then put to death one by one. The Armenians congratulated themselves on having massacred that evening three thousand persons. The number of those defending the town was so few that they could not hold out against two cannons and 1,500 Turkish soldiers and fled. But the number of persons massacred that evening was very high. The Armenian notabilities were quite capable of preventing the massacres.”
    Lieutenant-Colonel Twerdokhlebof, “War Journal of the Second Fortress Artillery Regiment of Erzeroum”, Istanbul, 1919 (document seized by the Ottoman Army during the Spring 1918, then translated into English and into French).

    Reply

  96. Lucrece says:

    “The former Lucrece’s points sound a lot like Holocaust denialism, often claiming that “not that many Jews” died via gas chambers, but by natural causes, etc.
    It’s funny how denialist “reasonings” often sound the same.”
    I quoted Guenter Lewy, a Jewish shcolar, born German, who was beated by Hitler’s thugs in 1938, and fought within the Bristih Army against Nazis and Fascists in Italy, during the years 1943 and 1944.
    I could quote also Eberhard Jäckel, the most respected historian specialist of the Shoah, who praised Guenter Lewy’s book “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey” in his chronicle to “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”.
    You may be glad to be USA for defame me, if we would be in my country, I would file a complaint for defamation against you.
    On the other hand, at least 31,000 nationalist Armenians fought within German army during WWII, including 20,000 Dashnaks of the 812th Armenian battalion of the Wermacht (who arrested Soviet Jews) and 11,000 Waffen-SS.
    “The French philosopher Henri-Bernard Levi had a great speech examining the nature of genocidal campaigns.”
    This poor Bernard-Henri Lévy is not even a deceiver, he is a living imposture. Several books published in France showed his crude forgeries and his like-stalinian methods (Xavier La Porte and Jade Lindgaard, “Le B-A BA du BHL”, 2004; Philippe Cohen, “BHL : une biographie”, 2005; Nicolas Beau and Olivier Toscer, “Une imposture française”, 2005; Richard Labévière and Bruno Jeanmart, “Bernard-Henri Lévy ou la règle du je”, 2007). Several British of US newspapers published accounts about these books, especially about (excellent) Philippe Cohen’s study.

    Reply

  97. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Countless countries are helping in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan (including Armenia) – do you know/understand why? – BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO”
    And, uh, hows that worked out for us, thus far? Feel safer yet? See any end in sight? Ready to declare “mission accomplished”? Tell me, VicMak, what is the payback to us getting involved in this Armenian/Turkey/genocide feud?

    Reply

  98. Vicmak says:

    Ben – are you really saying that individual countries should deal with each other solely without other countries getting involved when it comes to atrocities?
    I know you are still young, but don’t be so naive. What would you say to people who might say that ‘America and Afghanistan should have sorted out their own problems after 9/11’?
    Countless countries are helping in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan (including Armenia) – do you know/understand why? – BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO – you might appreciate the meaning of that when you mature and age with time.
    Oh by the way in 2004 a gallop pole in Turkey should 70% of the Turkish population did not believe 9/11 was committed by Arabs/Muslims.

    Reply

  99. Van der Galien says:

    Again thank you Lucree and Kirkovali for joining this important debate. These Armenians have to be taught a lesson, as one of our foreign ministers recently said in Brussels “Turkey would not be the great country it is had the Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians,…been allowed to stay in Turkey”.
    ‘Happy is he who is a Turk’
    We as Turks have to continue our fight with these liars and murderers

    Reply

  100. Ergun Kirlikovali says:

    VERDICT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AMOUNTS TO LYNCHING
    Those who take the Armenian “allegations” of genocide at face value seem to also ignore the following facts concerning international law:
    1- Genocide is a legal, technical term precisely defined by the U.N. 1948 convention (Like all proper laws, it is not retroactive to 1915.)
    2- Genocide verdict can only be given by a “competent court” after “due process” where both sides are properly represented and evidence mutually cross examined.
    3- For a genocide verdict, the accusers must prove “intent” and “motive” at a competent court and by allowing due process to run its natural course. This could never be done by the Armenians, whose evidence mostly fall into the following categories: hearsay, mis-representations, exaggerations, forgeries, and “other”.
    4- Such a “competent court” was never convened in the case of Turkish-Armenian conflict and a genocide verdict does not exist (save a Kangaroo court in occupied Istanbul in 1920 where partisanship, vendettas, and revenge motives left no room for due process.)
    5- Genocide claim is political, not historical or factual. It reflects bias against Turks. Therefore, the term genocide must be used with the qualifier “alleged”, for scholarly objectivity, honesty, and truth.
    6- Recognizing Armenian claim as genocide will deeply insult Turkish-Americans as well as Turkish-Europeans, and Turks around the globe. Such a conduct would negatively influence the excellent relations currently enjoyed between the U.S. and Turkey, if not the West and Turkey. It will, no doubt, please Armenian lobbies in the U.S. Europe and Turkey but disappoint, insult, and outrage Turkey, one of America’s closest allies since the Korean War of 1950-53. Turks stood shoulder to shoulder with Americans in Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and more while Armenia helped Iran build a nuclear capability with Russian technology. Armenian lobbies will have been allowed to poison the U.S.-Turkey relations, again.
    7- History is not a matter of “conviction, consensus, political resolutions, or op-eds.” History is a matter of research, peer review, and thoughtful debate, within the context of honest scholarship. Even historians, by the U.N. definition, cannot decide on a genocide verdict, which is reserved only for a “competent tribunal” with its legal expertise in due process.
    8- What we witness today, therefore, amounts to lynching of the Turks by Armenians and their supporters to satisfy the age old Armenian hate, bias, and bigotry. American values like fairness, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, objectivity, balance, honesty, and freedom of speech are stumped under the fanatic diaspora Armenians’ feet. Unprovoked , unjustified, and unfair defamation of Turkey, one of America’s closest allies in the troubled Middle East, the Balkans, and the Caucasus, in order to appease some nagging Armenian activists runs counter to American interests.
    9- Hate-based, divisive, polarizing, and historically biased proclamations, such as Adam Schiff’s resolution last week, have never been an American way to conduct diplomacy. Why start now?
    10- Those who claim genocide verdict today, based on the much discredited Armenian evidence, are actually engaging in “conviction and execution without due process”, which according to the dictionary, is “lynching”.

    Reply

  101. Ergun Kirlikovali says:

    THE SIX T’S OF THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT
    The allegations of Armenian genocide are dishonest because they simply dismiss
    1) TUMULT (as in numerous Armenian armed uprisings between 1882 and 1920)
    2) TERRORISM (by Armenian nationalists and militias victimizing Ottoman-Muslims between 1882-1921)
    3) TREASON (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies as early as 1914 and lasting until 1921)
    4) TERRITORIAL DEMANDS (from 1877 to present, where Armenians were a minority, not a majority, attempting to establish Greater Armenia. Ironically, if the Armenians succeeded, it would be one of the first apartheids of the 20th Century, with a Christian minority ruling over a Muslim majority )
    5) TURKISH SUFFERING AND LOSSES (i.e. those caused by the Armenian nationalists: 524,000 Muslims, mostly Turks, met their tragic end at the hands of Armenian revolutionaries during WWI, per Turkish Historical Society. This figure does not include Turkish victims of Armenian atrocitied in the Cicliia region and Western Anatolia.)
    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, themselves effectively put an end to their millennium of relatively peaceful and co-habitation in Anatolia with Turks, Kurds, Circassians, and other Muslims by killing their Muslim neighbors and openly joining the invading enemy. Muslims were only defending their home like any citizen anywhere would do.

    Reply

  102. Ergun Kirlikovali says:

    BIAS IN THE PHRASE “ARMENIAN GENOCIDE”
    If one cherishes values like objectivity, truth, and honesty, then one should use the phrase “Turkish-Armenian conflict”. Asking someone “Do you accept or deny Armenian Genocide” shows anti-Turkish bias. The question, in all fairness, should be re-phrased: “What is your stand on the Turkish-Armenian conflict?”
    Turks believe it was a civil war within a world war, engineered, provoked, and waged by the Armenians with active support from Russia, England, and France, and passive support from the U.S. diplomats, missionaries, media, and others with anti-Turkish agendas, all eyeing the vast territories of the collapsing Ottoman Empire.
    Most Armenians claim it is a one way genocide, totally ignoring the Armenian complicity in war crimes ranging from raids, rebellions, and terrorism to treason, causing many casualties in the Muslim, mostly Turkish, community.
    GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS IGNORE “THE SIX T’S OF THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT”
    While some amongst us may be forgiven for taking the ceaseless Armenian propaganda at face value and believing blatant Armenian falsifications merely because they are repeated so often, it is difficult and painful for people like us, sons and daughters of the Turkish survivors most of whose signatures you see below.
    Those seemingly endless “War years” of 1912-1922 (seferberlik yillari) brought wide-spread death and destruction on to all Ottoman citizens. No Turkish family was left untouched, those of most of the signatories’ below included. Those nameless, faceless, selfless Turkish 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 imply only Armenian dead count, the Turkish dead do not. The former must be remembered and grieved; the latter must be ignored and forgotten. Do you know how many Muslims, mostly Turks, were killed during World War One?
    Answer: About 3 million, including more than half a million of them at the hands of well-armed, well-motivated, and ruthless Armenian revolutionaries and para-military thugs.
    Compare that with less than 300,000 Armenian casualties which number is gradually magnified to 1.5 million over the years through Armenian propaganda.

    Reply

  103. Lucrece2 says:

    The former Lucrece’s points sound a lot like Holocaust denialism, often claiming that “not that many Jews” died via gas chambers, but by natural causes, etc.
    It’s funny how denialist “reasonings” often sound the same.
    The French philosopher Henri-Bernard Levi had a great speech examining the nature of genocidal campaigns. You can view it on youtube by searching for “solidarity for the befallen.” It’s in French but has English subtitles.

    Reply

  104. Ergun Kirlikovali says:

    We, the Turkish-Americans, are hardworking, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens, who are fed up with narrow-minded politicians like Adam Schiff who for years has repeatedly placed Armenian interests above American ones.
    We find Schiff’s attitude on the Turkish-Armenian conflict extremely racist and dishonest. Schiff takes Armenian allegations at face value, totally ignores Turkish suffering caused by Armenians, and dismisses Armenian terrorism, armed rebellions, supreme treason, and territorial demands, all of which caused their TERESET (temporary resettlement.) There was human suffering on all sides. It was a civil war within a world war, not genocide.
    It is interesting to note that everything Turkish-Americans do is quickly attributed (by Armenians) to “the Turkish lobby” whereas everything Armenians do, to “grass roots activism”. Every function Turkish-Americans organize is chalked off to “denialism” whereas every act of harassment, intimidation, and even terrorism Armenians relentlessly conduct is credited to “advocacy”. This approach reeks of ethnic discrimination.
    In view of the above, it is wise to leave the matter to Turkey and Armenia, taking the racist Armenian diaspora out of the equation.

    Reply

  105. Lucrece says:

    The “genocide” resolution is one-sided and motivated by policy, not by honest historical research. It is not acceptable to discuss the tragic events of 1915-1916 without mentioning:
    — The context of epidemics, like typhus, who killed many peoples, Christian, Muslims and Jews, in the whole Ottoman Empire, and more especially in Eastern Anatolia and Arabian vilayets;
    — The armed rebellion of nationalist Armenians, in Van, Zeytun, Bursa, rural Cilicia, etc., and the numerous crimes perpetrated by the rebels;
    — The lack of food, especially in Eastern Anatolia and Arabian province, because British-French blocus (in 1914, the half of the boats in the world are British boats, and the second fleet of the globe is the French fleet) and the flood of Muslims refugees, who flet Russian invasion and Russian-Armenian atrocities.
    — The efforts of several Ottoman leaders, including Talat Pasha (number one of the CUP regime) and Djemal Pasha (governor of the Near East) for help the Armenian deportees and punish the Muslims who killed of robbed Armenians.

    Reply

  106. Lucrece says:

    Historical issues are business of historians, not of politicians:
    “Yes, a large number of Western students of Ottoman history reject the appropriateness of the genocide label for the tragic fate of the Armenian community in Ottoman Turkey. This list includes distinguished scholars such as Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis, and Andrew Mango. Ignoring this formidable array of learned opinion, most Armenians and their supporters among so-called genocide scholars assert with superb arrogance that the Armenian genocide is an incontrovertible historical fact, similar to the Jewish Holocaust, which would be denied only by lackeys of the Turkish government.”
    Guenter Lewy, professor emeritus of Political Science at Massachusetts Universiy (Amherst), “The Middle East Quarterly”, Winter 2006.

    Reply

  107. ralfmalf says:

    There is one thing I seem to be confused about, who’s calling
    the shots?
    US State Department
    EU
    Israel
    Turkish Government
    Lobby groups
    Historians
    The acts carried out against the Armenian people close to a
    century ago was a calculated act to exterminate a minority group
    of people living within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire – a
    genocide. It will still be considered as such hundreds of years
    from now.
    it’s that simple!

    Reply

  108. Rich says:

    Erkin and Balkar,
    The internationally known definition of Genocide;
    “gen⋅o⋅cide   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
    –noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”
    Redefining genocide under another entity does nothing but show your allusivness on the subject at hand (Armenian Genocide Recognition).
    21 countries around the world acknowleged and described the events as such, a genocide. Has the “International Court” reprimanded any country for calling what they acknowledge as a genocide? No
    The rest of free society i.e. Nation States can and should make pubic statements and declarations on issues (hopefully) that will help humanity and not hinder it.
    I don’t see you advocating for the rightfull recognition of Germans in this case. Unfortunatly for the sake of an arguement to quash recognition of the genocide.
    Maybe if Turkey and the rest of Nation states acknowldge genocides in all its forms we would take positive steps to help stop it.
    Challenge yourself to help humanity rather then give excuses to stop it.
    Go back to Turkey and demand proper recognition of the Armenian genocide. Would you be jailed, fined, labled a traitor, or even killed by renegade nationals as they killed News Paper Editor Hrant Dink who advocated human rights?

    Reply

  109. Balkar says:

    Rich,
    If a political intitution of a given state names some historical event as a “genocide”, and calls for another state to comply with that interpetation, then it is indeed “lecturing”, particularly if that lecturing body fails to apply the concept to the events accosiated to its own past.
    Genocide is not a concept, but an internationally defined crime. However, it is constructed upon concepts defining the boundaries of the crimes its self. Unfortunately, the definition has contraversaries. For example, R. Lemkin, who was the key figure coining the definition, did see the extermination of 10-15 million Congolese by Belgium as necessary steps taken to “civilize the savages of Africa”.
    The German case is important since it falls into the definition quite well. If you read it carefully on the subject, then you could find out that there are reliable scholars who claim that the ethnic cleansing of Germans could be deemed as a genocide. Thus, if you read the UN Article on Genocide carefully, then you might notive what matters is the intentions, not the proportions.
    If reevaluating the history is a concern for Western/European nations, then they must start to assess the black pages of their own history, which involved deliberate extermation of hundreds of millions of innocent people all around the world since the Modern Ages. Today, the US governments still deny deliberate genocides and wars of agression in other words targeted the Native Americans, Philipinos, Vietnamese, Cambotians, Iraqis, and so on. Same applies to almost all Western/European governments and societies, and you tell me that my arguments are baseless?

    Reply

  110. Erkibn Baker says:

    No media outlet, parliament of a country, or the US Congress (or President) has the authority to declare past events a “genocide”. Only an International court of Justice can do that. While the Jewish Holocaust was proven to have occurred by the Nuremberg Trials, the Turks were never convicted of committing a genocide. The British Malta trials after WW I ended for lack of evidence. In October 2000, the United Nations declared that “The United nations has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian exprience as Genocide.” and, to date, it stands.
    Furthermore, no one seems to acknowdedge that the Armenians, besides recognition of a genocide, want territory and monetary cmpensation from Turkey. What an oxymoron would it be for the United States to bolster Armenian ambitions of acquiring land from a NATO country, when the very core of NATO is to proserve the territorial integrity of its member countries?
    Mrs. Erkin Baker

    Reply

  111. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    To grow thaw in the Armenian-Turkish relations seems to have been a crying exigency for the EU policy toward the eastern partnership-an emerging imperative for having a balanced European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

    Reply

  112. Rich says:

    Balkar,
    Your arguement is baseless. First off, no one is “lecturing”. If you believe you are being lectured too, it must be a psychological challenge.
    Genocide is not accepted as a “concept”.
    You have the victims in this case Armenians and the perpetrators who was the Ottoman Government, now under the rule of the Turkish Government.
    Are the Germans in the case you describe claiming genocide against them? Are you advocating recognition of genocide against them? Has the international community recognised this so-called genocide you describe? If not, are you willing to see that it is recognised as such??
    Also the proportions of those killed relative to the number of those who existed at the time is a significant factor to consider as well. One in a half million Armenians killed from the already small population was beyond devastating.

    Reply

  113. Balkar says:

    Do Americans have any moral ground to lecture any other group of people on humanity?
    I think the author is implementing some wise approach to question profound dilemma exisnig in Western societies even though he falis to tackle the contraversies related to the “Concept of Genocide”.
    For example, after the WWII, about 10-14 million Eastern Germans were forced to emigrate from Eastern Europe to Germany under the guidance of the allied forces. At least one million German civilians died due to hunger, sickness and violence even though there was no war around.
    Was this a genocide?
    If one names this ethnic cleansing campaign as a genocide, then one might call the exodus of Armenians as a genocide too, but then again, one must also apply the same principle to those hundreds of millions of peoples exterminated by of Western/European nations since the Modern Ages. In that sense, “nobody denies that” is not the approach that makes sense anymore.

    Reply

  114. SamuelS. says:

    Mr. Kisser is worried sick about Turkey’s reaction to an
    acknowledgment of genocide. He need not be so wimpy.
    Pres. Reagan issued an official proclamation on the Armenian
    genocide (see http://www.armenian-genocide.org) and nothing
    happened. The US House twice passed resolutions that cited the
    Armenian genocide and nothing happened (again, see the web
    site I referenced). (So has the EU but I digress.)
    What Kisser seems to have forgotten, you see, is that the US, not
    Turkey, is the superpower. Turkey is dependent on the US for
    military, economic, and political support. And Turkey would get
    *no* IMF/WB loans if not for America’s assent. The US gives
    political backing for Turkey’s entry into the EU, when even the
    EU itself is leery of letting Turkey in.
    Mr. Kisser forgets this. Then again, he forgets a lot.
    I am afraid that Kisser is a victim of Turkish huffing and puffing.

    Reply

  115. Abraham N. says:

    Is this the same Davos meeting where Erdogan went ballistic on Israel?

    Reply

  116. Abraham N. says:

    Mr. Katcher, do you really want to talk about lobbyists working DC or the media? Your article is one we will be studying for many years in PR spin classes around the world.
    As Turkish money has corrupted our educational institutions by buying scholarship and professors who have countered the obvious, i.e. that the Armenian case is a clear example of Genocide – today they have powerful Washington lobbyists ghostwriting for “journalists” who take their talking points and reformulate them into an opinion piece.
    I have been reading too many articles referring to the exact same arguments against this recognition from people who have never even heard of the issue to believe that this is genuine interest on your behalf.
    Shame on you! From one side of your mouth you speak of “raise the global moral bar” and then say it’s ok if we let this one by, cause it’s simply convenient.
    History remembers the names of great leaders, not people who cowardly give in to foreign governments.
    Let’s get one more thing straight, Mr. Katcher, WE ARE NOT FOREIGN LOBBYISTS, WE ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS DEMANDING THAT OUR GOVERNMENT DO THE RIGHT THING!

    Reply

  117. Henry says:

    Mr. Katcher,
    Stop asking the Turkish embassy to write articles for you.
    Thank you.

    Reply

  118. arthurdecco says:

    As usual, POA, you’ve managed to get to the nub of the matter:
    “History only serves us as a teacher. Don’t you think its time we learned something?”

    Reply

  119. Daniel Shays says:

    75 years of race slavery? It’s not like slavery didn’t exist in British North America; you might want to change that one, it’s fairly egregious.

    Reply

  120. Tatevik Movsisyan says:

    Mr. Katcher,
    I wonder what is your opinion on the repeated failure of US government officials to carry out their pledge in front of their own constituency, fully aware obout the complexity of the matter at the time of the pledge. Far from “setting examples that lead to genuine norm creation that raise the global moral bar,” isn’t there an issue of moral responsibility of the US government before its own citizens, who are being betrayed with false promises so many times?
    Furthermore, President Obama came to power promising inter alia and most importantly to bring about CHANGE in US foreign policy and to “regain America’s moral stature in the world.” Don’t you think that it is in fact illegitimate for President Obama to not just fail to carry out a pledge or to betray the hopes of genocide survivors over and over again, but very importantly also to undermine the very foundations of his political agenda, for which he was elected in the first place?

    Reply

  121. Pat Lamish says:

    Mr. Katcher, your arguments are insulting and morally bankrupt.
    They come straight out of the Turkish-Israeli strategic
    playbook. Since when do historians run the ways of the world?
    Did they when the Stern Gang and the Irgun worked their magic
    in 1948? And when academia isn’t free in Turkey (much less in
    the US, where it is also severely compromised) suggesting that
    the world should “let historians” decide takes on grotesquely
    absurd and offensive proportions.
    If you want to see a “powerful lobby” at work, take your eyes off
    the toothless Armenian ones, and take a long hard look at
    AIPAC, the AJC and the ADL and what their unAmerican efforts
    have done to “harm US relations” with the rest of the civilized
    world.
    What the destroyed and dispossessed civilizations of the world
    (be they Armenians, Palestinians, Native Americans, Assyrians,
    Pontic Greeks, Rwandans, Cambodians, Tibetans, African-
    American slaves and others) deserve is not only Nuremberg
    Trials of their own and formal recognition for these crimes
    against humanity and their irretrievable losses, but formal
    APOLOGY, ATONEMENT, PROMISES NOT TO REPEAT and all
    forms of REPARATION, including confiscated lands from which
    the perpetrators and their inheritor regimes STILL BENEFIT!

    Reply

  122. Armen Garabedian says:

    Mr. Katcher:
    Your article brings to light a number of interesting points. I thank you for your opinion and taking the time to discuss a topic that is near and dear to me.
    Having said that, to suggest that the Armenian Genocide should be a matter left for “discussion” between the Turkish and Armenian states misses the point for 4 reasons:
    First, the notion questions the validity of whether genocide is the appropriate label. Despite the overwhelming accord amongst scholars, and most notably, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, that, in fact, the Ottoman Turks perpetrated genocide against the Armenians is ignored and pushed to the margin.
    Accordingly, to think that Turkey’s willingness to have a joint team of scholars look into the matter to decide if a genocide took place is illogical, distracting, and flat out insulting. It is like the advertisements in the banner above about “Armenian Atrocities, But Armenian Archives are Closed” and “Sexy Armenian Ladies” – its distracting, its unethical, and just wrong.
    Second, and a point that is consistently overlooked, Armenians in diaspora are entitled to take part in the “discussion” since our displacement, and thus the diasporan community, is a direct outgrowth of the Ottoman Turks’ bloody actions. After all, had my grandfather’s family not been slaughtered in front of his eyes, had he not ended up in Lebanon, and had he not finally settled in the U.S. I would not be sitting here in my office in Orange CA writing this note.
    Third, the Turkish government’s blockade of the Armenian-Turkish border since the earlier 1990’s does not put the Armenian government in the most advantageous negotiating position (to say the least). To think that some back room talks between Turks and Armenians changes that reality or that all the problems between the two governments and cultures are suddenly resolved is simply naive.
    Lastly, concerns about Turkish threats against the U.S., and the argument that the U.S. is dependent on Turkey for its agenda in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran is, on its face a compelling. However, when we take a look closer we see that Turkey didn’t play nice when the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq through Turkey, nor did Turkey play nice when the U.S. asked them not to stage attacks against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Not exactly the best track record for a purported NATO ally.
    Also, Turkey made threats to European nations regarding business interests and diplomatic relations hinged on acceptance of Armenian Genocide resolutions. Europe called their bluff. Why are we folding?

    Reply

  123. JamesL says:

    The two families of arguments in the comments above circle round and round. They will never go away. “We/they are not ready.” “This is an especially sensitive moment, not one for opening old wounds.” They can be trotted for show repeatedly.
    Exactly when would be a propitious time to set the record straight with a neighbor? That is, what future generation will have the courage (if this one does not) to acknowledge one’s true history?
    In the past century or two, every major nation and many minor ones have the stain of genocide on their hands. The question is whether we of the current generation wish to acknowledge and honor the innocents who perished, or instead protect those (mostly dead now) who caused those deaths?
    When will Turkey not be an internationally important nation? When will the denial of wrongful deaths of innocents acceptable? How will the enmity rresulting from those deaths be disempowered?
    We of the curent generation are playing with weapons too dangerous to continue this charade. We place ourselves in unnecessary peril when we allow the young of our societies who have their fingers on the triggers to be guided by unresolved enmities of the past. Hoarded, protected, and prized enmities increase the probability that new, unnecessary deaths of innocents will occur. This is foolish. The only way to escape the past is to have the courage to accept it.

    Reply

  124. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Sometimes I think the fog of history clouds the clarity through which we should see the present.
    Long rambling diatribes about yesterday’s horrors haven’t seemed to dampen our appetite for creating modern horrors to rue tomorrow.
    Thirty years, fifty years, a hundred years from now will we be arguing the facts of Israel’s eradication of the Palestinian people? And, like Ben says about the American people in denial about the genocide of native Americans, will the Israelis be denying their own sordid and murderous history?
    To be honest, I don’t give a rat’s ass about what happened to the Indians, or to the Armenians. Or, for that matter, the Jews. There is absolutely nothing I can do about what happened to them. The only possible benefit to arguing the facts surrounding these three holocausts is the lessons we can learn about man’s ability to inflict horrors upon his fellows. And it is a “benefit” that we are obviously not taking advantage of. We have learned nothing.
    So, as you scholars of history debate yesterday, today Israel is frying Palestinians in white phosphorous, starving them, penning them up, denying them the basic essentials of health and hearth, razing their infrastructure, with pure and simple racism rising to the forefront as the only tenable motive. And they are using our tax dollars to do it.
    My advice to you pseudo-humanitarians would be to get your heads out of yesterday and wake up to the present. If you really must debate holocausts, why not debate the one unfolding as we speak? Are the dead victims of yesterday more important than those who will die today because we are doing NOTHING to stop the carnage?
    History only serves us as a teacher. Don’t you think its time we learned something?

    Reply

  125. Sonayk says:

    Let’s also put these points right:
    1- Turkey does not provide its citizens maybe the most liberal
    atmosphere in Europe, but the Armenian issue is not a taboo
    anymore. Go to any book store in Turkey where you can find
    numerous books on the issue by various scholars, including
    those of Varakh Dadrian and Taner Akcam. Also, in the
    academia, if you want to study this issue from any perspective,
    you’re allowed to do so. I wrote a paper on the issue 8 years ago
    from a critical point of view to be submitted to one of the most
    conservative members of the faculty. Guess, what happened? I
    got my good grade and my professor encouraged me to work
    more on the issue. So, in this respect, Turkey is more liberal
    than France if you’re one of the true advocates of freedom of
    speech! (I am sure you know what I am talking about here!)
    2- Yes, the conference on the Ottoman Armenians faced some
    challenges, also from the officials of the government. This was
    good though because we started a debate, public got involved.
    Other politicians raised their voices in favor of the conference
    and for the first time we had a major conference on Ottoman
    Armenians where more than 95% of the panelists used the “G”
    word freely. And believe me, this was not the last conference on
    the issue. Others were not that controversial since noone
    attempted to stop them. Therefore, you might not have seen
    them on the media.
    3- There is already rapproachment between Turkey and Armenia
    because some people truly want it. There’re around 70.000
    Armenian guest workers in Turkey, no negative incident was
    reported since their arrival. Although most of them are illegal,
    the government does not deport them and they live side by side
    with Turkish neighbors, and work at Turkish-owned businesses.
    Furthermore, there are student exchanges, workshops, summer
    programs, funded both publicly and privately where young
    people call each other “Jans” during and after. There are three
    times direct flights from Istanbul to Yerevan. Armenian tourists
    come and see their villages, their relatives and the other side of
    Ararat, in all aspects. Turks and Armenians already started
    crying for their own and each other’s losses, for their common
    tragedy before the demise of an empire they shared.
    Diaspora:
    if you could please let Turks and Armenians understand each
    other and at the same time help your country of origin to
    develop and flourish as a democratic, social, truly independent
    state which does not need to consult with the big brother all the
    time, peace will loom in the region.
    In the name of humanity, this is what needs to be done, not
    another House Resolution.

    Reply

  126. Ertank says:

    Let me put my cards on the table from the beginning:
    * I’m a Turkish citizen, born and bred.
    * I believe what the military officers of the late Ottoman Empire planned and executed qualifies as genocide.
    * I also believe that the political atmosphere in Turkey is not liberal enough to freely discusss this issue.
    * I argue that the Armenian Genocide is not the only issue in Turkey’s history of nationalisation. As a matter of fact, my country has a very bloody history, because of nationalism, the most disastrous concept that could have been introduced to the Balkans.
    * Nevertheless, I find the US intervention on the issue a) imperial, b)patronising, c)having a great potential to backfire. although, I have to make it clear that the US avoiding to use the term ‘genocide’ solely because of realpolitik is highly unethical. It’s either genocide or not.
    * As far as I observe, a substantial majority of the Armenian population in the US adopts the patronising approach that Turkey can and should be ‘forced’ to admit genocide, partly because Turkey’s political dynamics will never get to the level that requires facing the past, the truth.
    * I think such an approach damages the just and fair Armenian demand that their right to own their memory, their sufferings, should be respected. However, no one asks the question whether this would help a true experience of coming to terms with history.
    * On the other hand, it would be a big mistake to define AKP, the current conservative political party on power, as a potential actor to solve the issue. Addressing Dany Beylerian’s comment, let me remind you that it was the spokesperson of AKP, who is a prominent extreme right-wing figure, denounced the organisers of the Armenian Conference in Istanbul, as ‘traitors and backstabbers’ in his highly fervent speech in the Parliament.
    * Even the liberal people in Turkey are not sure whether the Armenians ask for respect, or ask for territory, compensation, etc. It’s technically very difficult to make it clear, because legally, anyone who is a relative of the genocide survivor can establish a precedent. I think it’s very important to make the distinction. And I wonder what other commentators think on that.

    Reply

  127. Harout Ekmanian says:

    I’d like to be more specific about this part:
    “… and Armenian president Serzh Sargsian has left the door open to this possibility.”
    This is another example of how one sided is this article, in other words, its writer.
    In Moscow, President Serzh Sargsyan has declared that “after establishing diplomatic relationships we are open for any discussion”.
    I don’t think that diplomatic relationship means in any way a commission of historians, which draws doubts about the fact that a genocide has occurred. Way too different.
    It was just an intended mal interpretation by the Turkish newspaper “Zaman”, which was answered back then by the President’s office and made clear that the President doesn’t accept the Turkish preconditions about the Armenian Genocide.
    Apart from that, the foreign minister of Armenia Mr. Edward Nalpantyan himself has declared in France that “Armenia will welcome every step forward in the process of worldwide campaign of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide”.
    “If Turkey and Armenia can let the historians decide, then so too should the United States.”
    As mentioned above, Armenia have made it clear in several occasions that there’s no place for discussion about the fact of the Armenian Genocide.
    I think Mr. Ben should check the press about the topic he chose to write, before publishing.
    Thank you.

    Reply

  128. Richard says:

    This emotional issue is pushed far more in the US by the Armenian Committee in America than by native Armenians. Armenia is an ally of the Russian Federation, whose troops provide security as a trip wire. There is no real industry of any sort and the comparisons of Armenia to Switzerland, which I often heard from government officials, is laughable.
    After living three years in the impoverished, land-locked and barely democratic Armenia it was clear that the Armenians and its government should be left alone by the American, in particular, diaspora to resolve their disputes with Turkey and Azerbaijan. They want to come to an agreement, open their borders and settle generational issues but can’t do it because of outside interference, particularly on this issue. The diaspora sends it children to Armenia for a couple of weeks vacation to supposedly get in touch with their heritage. They might learn more from actually working in the country and actually providing much needed assistance for a long period of time, such as happened in Israel.
    Finally, if we want to look at this from a purely geopolitical point of view, Armenia is strategically insignificant to US interests while Turkey is a NATO ally, a significant economic, military and social player in the entire region. Why on earth should this be jeopordized? And please save us all from people who want to “do the right thing” (and this declaration is really marginal and helps no one)even though it will disrupt whatever progress is being made and further irritate the really important players. This declaration if signed will not be forgotten in Turkey as has been stated and will result in serious damage to Turkish/US cooperation for which the proponents will garner a self-satisfying, meaningless victory to assuage their historical memory. The United States should cease its pandering to groups like this (and the Israeli lobby) especially since they will simply continue to discover issues by their ceaseless patrol of the borders of their own damaged self-esteem.

    Reply

  129. Sebastien J. Vals says:

    Ben, by chance I see your analysis on the Armenian question
    from France.
    I want to recall you that France recognized the Armenian
    genocide without worrying about the bad political repercussions
    with Turkey. This is a fundamental question of Human rights. It
    is also the way to say, no blackmail is not acceptable, while
    Turkey supports Sudan President Omar El Bechir… Where is the
    error?
    Not, this genocide is a black spot in the History of humanity.
    The descendants still suffer from the injustice, as suffered black
    people with slavery. Thank you Abraham Lincoln.
    Ben, President Obama knows this history. Himself enters the
    history by the large door and understands that these people
    have suffered enough for 94 years.

    Reply

  130. temoc94 says:

    The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that
    the administration is reconsidering President
    Obama’s campaign promise to declare that the
    Armenians were victims of a genocide during the
    collapse of the Ottoman Empire nearly one hundred
    years ago.
    Wow, big surprise there. Will Samantha Power call
    Obama a monster now?

    Reply

  131. Rich says:

    Ben Katcher paraphrased by writing;
    “To paraphrase Brent Scowcroft, the issue of whether to declare the killings genocide is not a foreign policy issue, but a domestic political issue. Similar to our policies toward Israel and Cuba, a well-mobilized and well-funded minority – in this case led by the Armenian National Committee of America and the Armenian Assembly of America – wields disproportionate influence.”
    “…disproportionate influence,” from who’s perspective?? Is it the State Department, the past Executive Branches, Eight former Secretaries of State? Past President Bush personally calling Congressmen not to vote on the Armenian genocide resolutions? Limitless millions of dollars by the Turkish Governments media blitz, year after year?
    Surrogates such as yourself witting or un-witting enablers of genocide denial? Threatening public statements by Turkey to US Officials, by phone calls/meetings with US Heads of State? U.S. President’s annual April 24th message shamelessly watered down each year and never accuratly described the genocidal events, as a genocide.
    On the other end of the spectrum grass roots organizing, multiple human rights organizations representing various ethnic groups. Congressmen representing there constituants working to represented the people, tax payers of the United States want fair and just representation!
    How utterly ubsurd equating Cuba and Isreal to a grassroots organisations. Those are State Governments with practically limitless funds.
    You know what has the ultimate value and is NOT on the side of genocide enablers?
    The Truth…

    Reply

  132. Sandie Minasian Orsini says:

    Of course this is another example of yellow journalism. What did we expect?
    If in fact it is true that past presidents have “changed their minds” about declaring what happened to 1.5 million Armenians, then we can only assume The Jerk Turks have something very heavy they are holding over our nations head, just WHAT it is, is to be determined. It is very clear this nation is being manipulated by these mass murders, the question is WHY? WHAT DO THEY HAVE ON THE USA THAT MAKES US ABRUPTLY BACK DOWN every time we take a step forward on declaring it A GENOCIDE? I believe our country has a very dark secret that only the Turks know about. Was the United States somehow involved in the genocide directly or indirectly? What IS the great cover up? It is time to for answers. There is a lot more going on then we are being led to believe by our own government.

    Reply

  133. Bruce Tasker says:

    The problems the US would face should it recognize Armenian Genocide are well understood, as are the reasons for Turkeys steadfast denial. But it is hard to understand, at this time when the US is so close to eventually adding its recognition, following numerous promises from President Obama and the most senior members of his administration, plus a House of Representatives resolution introduced by 77 congressmen, why the Armenian administration has given the US the chance to again back down from its promises by pressing ahead with the establishment of the joint commission of historians for which Turkey has been pressing for many years.
    Armenia –Will you blame Obama this 24th April?
    http://www.khosq.com/en-us/article/2009/02/19/armenia_%E2%80%93will_you_blame_obama_this_24th_april

    Reply

  134. Dany Beylerian says:

    Ben, thanks for your response. I totally agree and strongly believe that the Genocide of American Indians is not properly discussed. That said, I don’t know know of any country or organization that outright denies the Genocide of American Indians. And we have come a long way from the days of Western movies that depicted them as savages. We have extended almost extra-national privileges to descendants and now have a monumental museum in DC. There is plenty more to do…
    As for your inquiry, on the contrary, I believe that passage of this resolution would greatly benefit Turkish-Armenian relations. Both recognition and the opening of the borders are inevitable and must come together. And I believe the administration knows this. By prolonging we are giving hope to the old guard in Turkey. By prolonging the inevitable we are encouraging all sides to dig their heals. By prolonging we are being detrimental to all sides, including to ourselves. There is a new Turkey now, and after the forthcoming elections, I believe passage of the resolution will encourage further crackdown on extremist elements in Turkey, especially those elements linked to Ergenekon. Intellectuals in Turkey have already spoken. A strong, reliable Turkey needs its intellectuals – yet they are still purged and marginalized by fascist elements. They need our help. How else can Turkey come to terms and move forward?
    The issue of the Armenian Genocide was often used as a US foreign policy tool to extract benefits from Turkey and its old guard. We used this as leverage, but it is now antiquated. I strongly believe that the way forward for Armenia and Turkey is total honesty. And by giving hope to extremists, we are sending Turkey in the wrong direction. No doubt, many in Turkey will be disappointed by official US recognition. But that will be short-lived, and in no time Armenia and Turkey can embark on their new journey. I strongly believe that US recognition and leadership is sound policy. it’s good for Turkey in the medium and long run, it’s good for us, for Armenians, and it’s good for the region, for trade, for stability and cooperation — it is inevitable, and I hope writers like you can help all sides move on.

    Reply

  135. Ben Katcher says:

    Dany,
    Thanks for commenting. I do have to take issue with you claim that “everyone knows what happened to American Indians was genocide.”
    I bet that if you polled Americans, most would say that there was no genocide. Therefore, a government recognition would likely make a difference.
    Aram,
    Thank you also for commenting, though I think it is only fair that you identify yourself as the executive director of the Armenian Committee of America.
    I would like to ask you sincerely whether you think that a resolution would complicate Turkish-Armenian relations, and why such a resolution is worth that price.
    Thanks again for reading and commenting.

    Reply

  136. Dany Beylerian says:

    Ben, everyone know that what happened to American Indians was genocide. No one is denying it. Similarly, no one is denying the Holocaust or Slavery. The dangers of denial invite infinitely more problems than outright recognition. It makes us look weak. It hands moral leadership to countries that have already recognized it (and did not suffer retaliation). Turkey can swallow this pill and in the long run will benefit from it. The ongoing denial is pathological considering Turkey’s own documents and tribunals. Worse, your approach helps create a blueprint for genocide denial. Imagine this same article about the Holocaust 30 years down the line when a new right-wing German government decides to ‘revisit’ the Holocaust. See what I mean? I hope you consider this other view.

    Reply

  137. ... says:

    ben – i agree with you… this is one more potential example of the usa getting involved in issues that they’d be better off not.. far better as you said to raise the mantle of the usa’s role in the world by abiding by the geneva conventions, outlawing torture and honoring civil liberties…
    politicians can’t resist a handout from a lobby group… it seems everything goes to the highest bidder with usa’s present political system and values being up for sale like everything else…

    Reply

  138. Aram Hamparian says:

    I read this piece hoping for a thoughtful analysis or insightful treatment of the moral imperative for the U.S. to end its complicity in Turkey’s denial of the Armenian Genocide.
    Instead, I found a rather clumsy reworking of the Turkish Embassy’s standard set of talking point.
    Your readers deserve better.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *