419) Taner Akcam and a Fellow Terrorist Exchange Views

The works of the Armenian-supported perpetual "visiting professor" Taner

Terrorist Leader "APO" labels TANER AKCAM a Provocateur . . .

"I get to break my silence about Taner Akcam, since he spoke of me the other day," said Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the PKK who is now serving a life sentence for being the leader of a terrorist group which caused the death of 35,000 people in Eastern Turkey. He now sits alone in a comfortable jail in the island of Imrali, off the coast of Istanbul. 'He almost cussed me' says Abdullah Ocalan about Taner Akcam.

Holdwater adds: Getting "cussed" by Taner Akcam is an honor the terrorist leader shares (Apo states he had been cussed, leaving out the "almost," as you'll read later) with the web master of this web site. Dr. Akcam, while addressing me as "brother" during our correspondences from the past, later addressed me as a "cur," to another, behind my back. Now, a "cur" is kind of a quaint expression in English (no self-respecting street gang member would use "cur" to put down someone else), but in Turkish, it's very insulting. If you really want to diss someone, you could go one step further and call him what would amount to 'a son of a cur's cur.' At least I was only a cur.

Many thanks to Fatma S., Turkish Forum Advisory
Board Member, for translating what follows. Mostly, we get the gist of the interview; this is not always a literal translation. Fatma adds a few of her insightful comments along the way.

We first get Taner Akcam's views, from an interview published in the Turkish daily, Milliyet. Abdullah Ocalan gave a "rebuttal," appearing in a PKK organ published in Europe (at one time, the PKK was one of the darlings of Turk-bashing Europe, before some countries awakened to the fact that they were cuddling terrorists in their midst.)

Both articles provide marvelous illumination as to the "trustworthy" character of Taner Akcam. In short, would you want this man to be your nurturing "visiting professor"?

Taner Akcam Interviewed
Jan Dundar's interview with Taner Akcam was published in Milliyet newspaper on January 11, 2002. In his interview Taner Akcam said he and his friends thought that Apo was a lunatic in the years 1973-1975 (A comment which alone is enough to anger the terrorist leader, Apo Ocalan). 'The organization that Apo founded seemed to have ill intentions and his relationships looked too dubious to us, so we kept our distance from him' says Taner Akcam about his former ideologist.

These did not stop Taner from collaborating with Abdullah Ocalan and joining forces with his terrorist organization PKK in the Fall of 1980, because Taner wanted to fight against the Turkish Army with a bigger force ("My enemy's enemy is my friend" concept). These and how Abdullah Ocalan's opponents disappeared into thin air are written in Jan Dundar's interview with Taner Akcam.

Apparently around 1984 Taner broke ranks with Apo and settled in Hamburg. He says his only financial support until then was from the illegal organization that he founded to discredit the Turkish Army. Once you are used to being the leader of a powerful organization (never mind that it is a terrorist organization) it becomes difficult to do mundane things like job searching and standing on welfare lines.

Skeletons in Taner Akcam's closet

Many of his friends continued to organize new groups, however; Taner went to live with his father (he uses a term like "sponge-off" his father), and occasionally found odd jobs, such as newspaper reporter. Then he enrolled in a university, deriving from a hunger (whether the hunger refers to the stomach or the intellect is not clear from the original article). Some people who knew him obtained an invitation for him from the Oldenburg University. As a guest lecturer he was to teach History of the Turkish Finance System. But this was to be interrupted in 1986 due to some upsetting news. (I do not know how this is possible, because Taner did not even graduate from college. He was enrolled in the Middle East Technical University the same year as I was. I graduated in 1975 with an engineering degree, but he dropped out of school in pursuit of his "extra curricular" activities. Could Oldenburg be one of those universities which offer underwater basket weaving classes?)

Taner Speaks; PKK friend becomes foe

'The leftist organizations of Turkey could not defend their honor
against the PKK. They wanted to defend human rights only against the government. They did not like to defend human rights against PKK's terrorism as well. According to them, the PKK should have been allowed to kill people because they were freedom fighters. They considered it acceptable if illegal organizations abused human rights. The leftist organizations could not stand up to the PKK. Also the Human Rights Organizations were still-born in Turkey for this very same reason.'

'The Political Party of Freedom and Solidarity (Ozgurluk ve Dayanisma Partisi â€” ODP) was in a similar boat. They were all my friends. I remember literally begging them in 1995-96 to extend the same level of criticism to the PKK that they leveled against the government. I told them to stand for human rights in general and don't be soft when the offenders are the PKK or Kurdish terrorists. Because they did not listen to me they did not gain many supporters'.

'Were you comfortable with the decision to join ranks with the PKK?' asks Jan Dundar.

'We all had question marks on the back of our mind. Because the PKK ruthlessly killed many fighters from its own ranks as well as innocent civilians. They also wiped out many leftist organizations leaving a dubious legacy among the leftist Kurdish and Turkish organizations. Apo did not mind burning bridges within his ranks and he did not keep his promise to us.

They killed my best friend in February 1986, instead of me. I
considered Kursat my brother. He was in jail since 1981. My mom whose face was paralyzed on one side due to her life long struggles, was visiting me in Germany. We were going to search for a cure for her. I was continually changing location for fear of being killed by the PKK. One day my mom answered the phone. We received word of my best friend's murder. I was sad that I had lost my best friend, and also angry that they had killed him because they could not find me. Later some PKK deserters also confirmed that I was the real target. I felt responsible for Kursat's death sentence. If we had not collaborated with the PKK form 1981-1984 this could have been avoided. I have not yet overcome the shock of Kursat's death to this day. Half of me was lost together with him. I had to end the university life that I so longed for. With trembling fingers I wrote my resignation letter.

I became a fugitive again. This time in the country that I had escaped to be free. I was exiled in exile. My past was not going to allow me to live a normal life. I started to play hide and seek again.

One year after Kursat's slaying, another one of my close friends Aydin (Yavuz) Erol was killed by an accidental bullet from a PKK member's gun. I knew Yavuz since 1960, we lived on the same street. After his death, continuing a political life became meaningless for me. This would have only led to more deaths and new clashes. So, I quit playing this dangerous game.

I often think that I was saved from many a trouble by coincidence. My stubbornness must have played a role in this as well. I consider myself a lucky man. Who knows my luck may turn for the better from now on. It doesn't matter any ways since I am over 27!

"Apo" Ocalan Strikes Back

After the above interview was published, Apo had a few words of his own to say about his former terrorist friend; the following appeared about a week later, in the January 19, 2002 edition of Ã–zgÃ¼r Politika, a propaganda organ of the PKK within Europe. (The original article has been reproduced at the tetedeturc site, for those who prefer to follow in Turkish: tetedeturc.com/Armenien/Taner_Akcam/Taner_Akcam.jpg.)

"Taner gave the order for the murder of the people that he claims to have protected. He caused heavy casualties."

"His personality is dubious... He is open for manipulation in the future."

'Taner Akcam's smear campaign against the Turkish leftists, Kurdish literati and the PKK is a provocation against these groups' unification' says Apo Ocalan. I have read his interview and find its timing quite provocative. Just when we are about to join forces among our ranks they gave him the opportunity to speak. The (political party for an independent Kurdistan) HADEP may be closed, but a valuable people's freedom concept has precipitated and they don't know how to use this situation. I warned them many times about the importance of these things. Taner gave the order for the murder of the people that he claims to have protected. He caused heavy casualties. He should have owned up to his dead as much as the MHP (a right nationalist party known to attend in huge masses to the burial ceremonies of the fallen soldiers during the PKK fight. They brought in 20,000 people last week). Taner sent his friends to their death. His personality is dubious. Many times he was destructive on the PKK as well. He is open for manipulation in the future.'

Pointing that Turkey is at a crossroads, Apo wanted to send the
following messages; 'Taner Akcam's interview is a provocative initiative against joining forces of the Turkish and Kurdish intellectuals for democracy. I remind them not to fall for this provocation. Rather than criticizing me, Taner Akcam has used cuss words for me.

In order to understand Taner's behaviour we need to go back to the 1970's and 80's. We were together with Taner in 1975 in ADYOD. I was the president and he was a member of the directory board. In 1976 my friends and I split and founded AYOD. The reason for this separation was none other than Taner Akcam himself. One day Haki Karer and Kemal Pir came to me and said that Taner is too much of a showman. He wants to be on the front pages all the time. Let us organize without him.

Haki Karer and Kemal Pir were almost violated. They were approached with denial and provocation. So we had to organize in a different organization. Taner Akcam was the person who provocated the anti-fascist front in 1982. You can verify this information from Teslim Tore. He knows those years too.

"With one leg he stands on America and the other on Yerevan. Where his loyalty lies is unknown to us."

Abdullah "APO" Ocalan

In reply to Taner's words that Apo ordered his killing; 'I never felt the need to have him killed. On the contrary we received word that some of the killings from our side were organized by his group. He openly disseminated Dev Yol. He is cussing our past. There may have been errors but even the MHP owns up to their dead. He should not attack our martyrs this way.

We can not understand his motives. With one leg he stands on America and the other on Yerevan. Where his loyalty lies is unknown to us. He disseminated the democratic leftist ideological organizations, he was the most influential person in dissolving the leftist movement in Turkey.

Ocalan warned the left leaning Turkish intellectuals not to fall for
Taner's provocation and invited them to unite and collaborate under the roof of a new political party.

Taner Akcam has been credited as the first Turkish "scholar" (that word is in quotation marks because real scholars dispassionately consider all sides of a story) to have used the word "genocide" to describe the Armenian events.

A leftist revolutionist who advocated violence and who was imprisoned for terrorist activities, Akcam escaped from jail and later reinvented himself as a scholar, focusing on the one-note Armenian "Genocide" as his bread-and-butter. His mentor was Vahakn Dadrian, and the way was mysteriously paved for Akcam to become a perpetual "visiting professor" in the USA. (American immigration officials are usually very picky, often frowning on those with criminal records.)

While there are no major disagrements between the master propagandist and his obliging student, Akcam has reportedly disappointed Dadrian in not going far enough with established genocide principles. At times, Akcam has even broken with his master; he rejects the Andonian forgeries, for example, while Dadrian once hugely embarrassed himself in an attempt to legitimize them. Moreover, Akcam does not currently appear to subscribe to the traditional theories as to why the Ottomans should have exterminated the Armenians, principally the theory of pan-Turanism, the idea of Turkifying the ethnic groups of the Empire. (Although earlier in his career, specifically with his "The Genocide of the Armenians and the Silence of the Turks," Akcam was very much part of the genocide choir, gung-ho for all the "pan" words. This is the relatively brief paper, by the way, where Akcam repeated the "genocide" word an unbelievable 64 times.)

Vahakn Dadrian

Akcam makes extensive use of Master Dadrian's dizzying, one-sided research over the many years.. Dadrian does not feel it beneath him to occasionally cite Akcam (as an example, Dadrian threw Akcam a footnoted bone in America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915), but it's becoming apparent the master propagandist feels a good degree of disrespect for his protÃ©gÃ©. Dadrian reportedly does not feel Akcam has what it takes to share the stage with Dadrian. (Although it may be argued Dadrian's ego is large enough where his contempt is not reserved strictly for Akcam. Example: in a 2005 interview, Dadrian was asked about his "recent lifetime achievement award," and Dadrian's response was, "Which one there are many," going on to further gush over himself.)

Taner Akcam therefore suffers in some genocide circles, regarding his academic credibility. In a battle with the Turkish Historical Society's Prof. Kemal Cicek (analyzed below), Akcam has been characterized as a "village idiot" among some of his peers.

Taner Akcam will forever have the stigma of being a stooge for the Armenians, and such status can never bode well for the integrity and recognition he must crave.

Currently, as reported by one of his younger colleagues from the genocide club, one of Akcam's sources of financing is the prominent Cafesjian Foundation (cafesjianfoundation.org) This Armenian foundation, according to the report, is partly responsible for the payment of Akcam's upkeep at his current headquarters, the University of Minnesota. Now this is different than the Turkish government's providing grants to establish Turkish studies departments in universities, because once the grant is given, educators in these departments can go in any direction they please. However, if Akcam were to begin reporting true history that is critical of the Armenians, it would very likely be the quickest way to kiss this foundation money good-bye.

How is Akcam struggling against being perceived as an object of ridicule? He is using the one asset going for him, his "Turkishness." With the knowledge of his homeland's language and customs, and with the help of pro-Armenian bases within Turkey (Armenian and leftist media outlets, along with a network of like-thinkers in the mode of Halil Berktay), Akcam has a better finger on the "genocide developments" in the country which allows him to go on a plane of attack not easily available to his genocide cronies.

Having learned well from his Armenian master, Akcam appears to be concentrating on "seek and destroy" missions. He is looking at the historical truths that expose the holes in the "Armenian genocide," and attempts to throw Dadrian-style smokescreens at these truths. (Thus, the relocation exemptions granted the Armenians, for example, become "legends," as in the title of one of his works, examined below.) He zeroes in on the small errors of the Turkish academicians doing research in this area, knowing full well that these handful of scholars are comparative neophytes to Akcam's firmly established genocide forces. (The forces that have scared practically all the neutral non-Turkish scholars away, with their awful smear campaign tactics.) Because he can't deny the forest of truth, Akcam's plan is to set isolated fires in the weedy areas, all in the time honored pro-Armenian practice to detract and confuse. With each attempt, he is further withering the minute traces of credibility some people would still like to accord him... but what else can he do? He has to justify his propagandistic existence somehow.

Unfortunately, hardly anyone dissects the writings of these ethically-challenged "genocide scholars," and thus people like Akcam keep getting away with murder (quite literally, in the "Rufmord" meaning of the word)... particularly since the genocide industry runs practically unopposed (who will argue with anyone who speaks against genocide? We all know genocide is "bad"), and the false "Armenian Genocide" has become the accepted wisdom throughout a lazy-thinking and/or bigoted world.

On this page, some of Akcam's works will be analyzed, exposing his degree of honesty and scholarship.

Of Taner Akcam's "Legends"

This is a response to a 2003 Akcam essay (entitled "About 1915 and Some Legends" appearing in the leftist Turkish newspaper, "Radikal") where Dr. Akcam attempted to throw smoke at certain historical realities, one being that some Ottomans were punished for crimes against Armenians. In addition, he minimizes the exemptions granted the Armenians, and smears the author of "The Armenian File," following the age-old pro-Armenian tactic of shooting the messenger instead of analyzing the message.

Taner Akcam Interviewed on Radio
On February 6, 2005, "Historian" Taner Akcam was invited to give a talk on CBC's Sunday Edition, a Canadian radio program. Akcam provides his theory on why the Armenians were exterminated, which differs from the traditional speculation. There are fascinating revelations regarding his sordid past. The radio show had the integrity to solicit the views of the "other side" of the story, which infuriated Taner Akcam. He fired off a letter, reproduced in its entirety, which must be read to be believed. He actually characterized this historical counter-view as a... fatwa!

Taner Akcam charges Turkish historians with a "crime"
Examines the methodology of Taner Akcam as he desperately attempts to discredit Turkish historians, in his relentless efforts to affirm the Armenians' genocide. He goes so far as to accuse academicians with a differing point of view as being criminals. (In an article entitled, â€œAnatomy of a Crime: the Turkish Historical Societyâ€™s Manipulation of Archival Documents") Is he overstating his case? Or has he adopted the smear tactics of his Armenian benefactors to an overbearing degree? These would be the ones who feel no compunction in accusing others of crimes when there is no genuine proof... particularly when the charge is "genocide."

Of Taner Akcam's "Legends"
Below is a response (that appeared in the Turkish Forum and is slightly edited) to an Akcam essay where Dr. Akcam attempted to throw smoke at certain historical realities, one being that some Ottomans were punished for crimes against Armenians. In addition, he minimizes the exemptions granted the Armenians, and smears the author of "The Armenian File," following the age-old pro-Armenian tactic of shooting the messenger instead of concentrating on the message.

Regarding a letter in the June 30 edition of the Turkish Forum, where Ara Ashjian proudly pointed to a May 11, 2003 Taner Akcam article from "Radikal," entitled "About 1915 and Some Legends" (ermeni.org/english/1915tallstories.htm):

Dr. Akcam complains about certain points in a previous article written by an Ayse Hur, beginning with the statement, "1397 persons were given various sentences; more than half of them were sentenced to death for the crime of harming Armenians."

Running a cursory search on AyÅŸe HÃ¼r, it appears some have labeled her a proponent of the Armenian genocide myth. She is a columnist of Turkey's left wing newspaper, "Radikal."

Unfortunately, there is a tendency among some Turkish writers to be careless with the facts, and if that's what Ms. Hur wrote, I don't believe she was correct with the claim that over half were sentenced to death. I imagine the source was Kamuran Gurun's "The Armenian File," where the number of those executed was not specified. (Elsewhere in the book, Gurun indicated the number as "quite a few.") Adm. Colby Chester wrote in 1922 that twenty Ottoman officers were executed in 1915.

Dr. Akcam calls this claim "simply a tall story," and characterizes Kamuran Gurun as a civil servant "given the responsibility of creating a 'tall story'." What a terrible affront, implying that Mr. Gurun made things up, even though it appears he wrote the book after his diplomatic career was over, and wasn't taking orders from anyone but himself. The book is an amazing work of research, often supported by pro-Armenian sources (good enough to reportedly turn around the thinking of Prof. Bernard Lewis); it is the job of Taner Akcam, the perpetual "visiting professor," to discredit anything getting in the way of his one-note propagandistic career, in typical extremist Armenian fashion.

He apparently has learned enough from his Armenian bedfellows to ungratefully bite the hand that feeds him. Dr. Akcam writes, "There is no proof of the fact that a number of persons were put on trial or that they were executed for having mistreated Armenians." Vahakn Dadrian was Akcam's mentor, and Akcam has now damaged Dadrian's credibility... for Dadrian himself has claimed in a number of his writings that General Vehib court-martialed and hanged two perpetrators. (The crime was a terrible one, the massacre of many Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman army. As disgusting as the crime was, at least some punishment was meted out... more than could be said for the "zero" Armenians who were punished for murdering hundreds of thousands of non-Armenian Ottomans in cold blood.)

Dr. Akcam writes, "As for those sued, they were not people who committed crimes against Armenians, but rather those who appropriated the possession of Armenians." Yet Gurun referred to the 1,397 convictions as those against "life and property." Of course those who have stolen from the Armenians falls under the category of "crimes" as well. Perhaps Dr. Akcam, who loves to repeat the word "genocide" in every other sentence (in one of his relatively brief papers, "The Genocide of the Armenians and the Silence of the Turks," the word was repeated an unbelievable 64 times), has to be reminded there are other crimes besides massacres... such as theft, and (at least in an ethical sense) for making statements that have no basis in fact.

Perhaps not all of these 1,397 were convicted of crimes against Armenians, but only a study of the reference and further research will substantiate the number. It's unfortunate we can't take the word of Taner Akcam who implies he has read the source material "by overcoming certain difficulties" (actually, he says "one" has read them; at least he's on record admitting the archives are open, contrary to the claims of his industry), but he has already demonstrated his penchant for falsehood by flat out stating there is no proof anyone was executed for crimes against Armenians.

Dr. Akcam complains "the Ittihadists used Armenian possessions in accordance with a very well prepared plan." Naturally, that "very well prepared plan" rides at the root of the genocide allegation, and in order to prove this plan, "speculation" can never be substituted for cold, hard evidence. Certainly there were abuses; it was a chaotic wartime situation, and those who robbed from the Armenians no doubt included people who felt disgusted by the Armenians' treachery during their nation's darkest hour. Vindictiveness is not admirable, but such a reaction is a human trait. This particular reaction (i.e., revenge for betrayal) was lacking on the side of the Armenians when they took immense amounts of money, livestock, and other assets from the many thousands of Ottoman people they murdered and expelled. (One example, among many.)

"The allegation that compensations for the seized possessions of Armenians were paid to them is not correct." I'm sure many Armenians got a raw deal, no different than the Japanese-Americans who were robbed by giving away their assets at fire-sale prices. However, this was the law on the books. According to documentation given by the Armenian Patriarch to the British, just before the implementation of Sevres, there were up to 644,900 Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. (This is another of the "tall stories" to be found in Gurun's book... backed up by a rock-solid 1921 source in the British archives. Gurun provided the basic sum of the report, 625,000.) If Dr. Akcam is trying to sell us on the idea that not a single one of these many returning Armenians got a single kurush in compensation as the law required, then he is welcome to provide the proof, rather than his "opinion."

259 - HANDING OVER THE POSSESSIONS OF THOSE WHO HAVE RETURNED TO THEIR LANDS [Ciphered telegram from the Ministry of the Interior to the province of Bitlis, regarding that the properties of those individuals who were deported and who returned to their homes, be returned to them and not to their executors or to their agents] 3 S. 1337 (4 May 1919)

More orders on the protection of Armenians may be read here. Were these genuine orders written for show, to fool future historians?

Next, Dr. Akcam is in a frenzy to tell us Armenians were "deported" (the translator of the article should have known better; "deportation" means banishment outside a country's borders) throughout Anatolia, and there were no exceptions. In other words, Armenians exempted from western cities/provinces (such as Istanbul, Edirne, Izmir, Aydin and Kutahya) is another "tall story."

Taner Akcam

Has Taner Akcam become so Armenianized that he will stop at nothing to distort the real picture? We already know from the 235 Armenian ringleaders who were arrested and sent away on April 24 (they were from Istanbul) that there are exceptions to every rule. Of course, there must have been selective examples of fishy characters who were subjected to "deportation" from all corners of the land. The idea, however, is that western Armenians were exempted AS A WHOLE. For example, within the 1921 Patriarch information mentioned above, 150,000 Armenians were in "Constantinople." If Istanbul-Armenians were not mainly exempt from the relocation policy, it stands to reason the figure could not have remained in six digits.

Finally, Dr. Akcam has a problem with the orders exempting Catholics and Protestants, yet another "tall story." It's true, the order came a couple of months after the late-May 1915 relocation policy, but whomever claimed the Young Turks were perfectly organized regarding this colossal task of transporting many thousands? This program was the last thing they needed with a desperate war on their hands.

U.S. Consul and Morgenthau Henchman Leslie Davis, a man Taner Akcam must admire, complained this order came late as well (in his terribly biased notes that became "The Slaughterhouse Province") and that a lot of the Catholics and Protestants had already been subjected to the move.

"I should estimate that at least three-fourths of the Armenians in this region have now gone. A few are now getting the benefits of the order exempting Catholics and Protestants from deportation, but most of these were sent away before the order was received." [P.169]

As much as pro-Armenians hate "revision," it is a fact of life that complicated procedures sometimes need to be tweaked and revised; not everything can be expected to be perfect off the bat. As with the orders to compensate Armenians for lost property, even if not everything went according to plan, the important FACT is the Ottomans implemented these orders. These papers show the Ottomans had their hearts in the right place.

Dr. Akcam writes, "From many documents, we understand that those telegrams of Talaat Pasha were sent 'merely for the sake of doing it'." Really? There are admissions that these orders were just for show? That sounds like ground-breaking evidence, the "smoking gun" the pro-Armenians have been looking for all these many years.

Or is Taner Akcam entering his familiar "speculation" territory once again? Of course.

(I wonder why Talat Pasha felt compelled to prepare these orders merely for the sake of doing it, in the thick of wartime? Was it because he felt the need to fool future historians?)

"Later, verbal instructions were sent to the same governors so that they would not take those telegrams seriously."

And the proof of this? Very likely the 1919 Ottoman kangaroo courts that Akcam's mentor, Vahakn Dadrian, calls his life's blood. Unfortunately, the testimony of men attempting to save their necks, under enemy occupation, can only be referred to as legitimate by those who prefer to hide the real truth.

Rationale offered from a Dadrian page, to help us follow the "logic"

What we are being asked to believe here is that while the governors probably had copies of the official â€œhumanisticâ€� directives originating from the Ottoman government (as we touched upon above), someone came along and told the governors, no, no, those orders were fake. They were really a cover-up for our diabolical plan to kill off all the Armenians.

If you worked for the government and had in hand an official order from your "President"... and some other government flunky showed up at your doorstep telling you to ignore the Presidentâ€™s order and replace them with criminal ones... would you automatically accept the flunkyâ€™s word?

Especially if you could be held accountable for disobeying the official order from the President???

(...)

(Dadrian tells us) Dr. Sakir travelled by automobile throughout the region, giving verbal orders to kill... If Dr. Sakir travelled around ordering people to kill, why did the people follow his orders? Dadrian draws up his cherished comparison to the Holocaust, explaining fanatics functioned like the SS and the Gestapo. So letâ€™s say Gestapo Man Dr. Sakir orders a governor to kill off the Armenians living in his district. Unless the governor is a similarly inclined fanatic â€” and there was no hate network present in the land of toleration, the Ottoman Empire, a la the school system of the Nazis that taught hatred of the Jews.... so I do not believe the hateful fanatics formed the majority â€” why would the governor go along? Is Dr. Sakir going to say that he represents the Ottoman government? If someone shows up at your doorstep claiming he is such a representative and orders you to participate in mass murder, would you go along with it? Myself, I would ask for substantiation from the highest levels of the government. If corroborated, I would resign.

As an example Dadrian provides, a Governor Jelal told the Ottoman authorities, "I can deport the Armenians but I cannot have them massacred! I cannot soil my hands in the blood of innocent people."

The Turks are a moral people, despite the incredible efforts to make them out to be bloodthirsty sub-humans, through the centuries. Their religion particularly gives reverence to women and children, as many western travelers have testified in the 19th century, especially when contrasted with their own Christians in the region, and elsewhere. Werenâ€™t all the governors more like Governor Jelal than not? Say the Ottoman leadership really wanted to push a plan for extermination. Local officials would have had to know about it. Would Governor Jelal have been an exception in his response? If you were in Governor Jelalâ€™s place, would you have reacted any differently? And if you feel, like Vahakn Dadrian, that we shouldnâ€™t compare you with the savage Turk, since Turks are less-than-human and their natural tendency is to kill, then shame on you â€” and please force yourself to think otherwise.

Taner Akcam has at his disposal a mountain of obsessively researched tidbits from his genocide industry that he can conveniently point to as "facts." Unfortunately, his claims have been seeping into the minds of many ignorant and gullible Turks, through the "free hand" he has apparently been given in some Turkish publications. What needs to be done by genuine Turkish scholars (since the non-Turkish variety have been frightened away by pro-Armenian terror tactics) is not just to perform "genocide" research in a vacuum. What is needed is to pay attention to what the "Taner Akcam/Zoryan Institute" side is saying... since that is the side the world is listening to... and to make an effort to counter their many distortions with the genuine facts. (And the writings need to be in English.) The scales are vastly uneven at present, because there seem to be few scholars in Turkey paying serious attention to this matter, and fewer who are doing their jobs attentively and comprehensively.

Holdwater

A Turkish Scholar Sponsored by the Armenians

OPINION March 19 , 2001
From Terrorism to Armenian Propagandist:
The Taner Akcam Story

Mustafa Artun

You may have heard that the ranks of those who accuse Turkey of having committed a "genocide" against the Armenians now include a Turkish citizen named Taner Akcam. Akcam who is affiliated with a German research center and claims a doctorate in history, has become the darling of the Armenian diaspora activists in this country and in Europe. He has been invited to the United States several times â€” all expenses paid by Armenian organizations â€” to give talks and participate in conferences.

Currently, he is a "visiting scholar" at the Armenian Research Center (ARC) at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. The ARC serves as one of main mouthpieces of anti-Turkey Armenian propaganda in the U.S. Its Director, Dennis Papazian, is a well-known professional falsifier of history who has consistently denied that Armenians were involved in the deaths of thousands of Turks in Eastern Anatolia during World War I.

Taner Akcam
During the past decade, Akcam has published several books in Turkey on the Armenian issue, including Turk Ulusal Kimligi ve Ermeni Sorunu (Turkish National Identity and the Armenian Question). Akcam's publications show no evidence that he knows Ottoman Turkish or that he has ever worked in the Ottoman archives. In his writings, Akcam parrots the familiar arguments that have become the staple of the Armenian propaganda machine. He wholeheartedly endorses the Armenian claim that the Armenians were the victims of a horrible "genocide" that was planned and carried out by the Ottoman government during World War I.

While dismissing the actions of the Armenian terrorist organizations against the Empire's Turkish and Muslim populations, he puts the blame for the tragic events that took place more than 80 years ago solely on the Young Turk leadership. Moreover, in line with the standard Armenian arguments, Akcam asks that Turkey formally apologize for its "crimes" to cleanse its national and collective conscience from this "horrible" burden. In his only publication to appear in English so far â€” an essay that was translated from German by none other than the well-known protagonist of the Armenian version of history, Vahakn Dadrian â€” Akcam goes so far as to argue that there was a close connection between the Armenian "genocide" and the national resistance movement in Anatolia led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and that the foundations of the new Turkish Republic reflected the involvement of its leadership in a genocidal policy. At the conclusion of his essay, Akcam wonders how traumatic it would be for Turks to discover that the individuals they regarded as "great saviors" and "people who created a nation from nothing" were in fact "murderers and thieves".

To understand how a person who claims Turkish citizenship can express such outrageous views, it is important to know something about his background. Taner Akcam was born in Kars â€” a province where there is a sizeable number of Turkified Armenian families â€” and he is the son of the leftist writer Dursun Akcam. Taner Akcam became involved in radical leftist activities while he was still a lycee student. His radicalism intensified while he studied at the Middle East Technical University in the early 1970s. Akcam moved from student activism into political terrorism by joining the THKP-C (Turkiye Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi-Turkish People's Liberation Party-Front) in 1972 â€” a terrorist organization that was implicated in the assassinations and killings of numerous far-right militants, Turkish security officials, and American and NATO military personnel. In the mid-1970s, Akcam became a leading member of DEV-YOL (Devrimci Yol-Revolutionary Path) and the editor of its periodical Devrimci Genclik Dergisi (Revolutionary Youth Magazine). It might be recalled that DEV-YOL was one of the two principal leftist terrorist organizations (the other being DEV-SOL) that played a major role in the bloody escalation of political violence in Turkey during the 1970s. In the bizarre ideological divisions among the leftist groups that proliferated on the Turkish political scene at the time, DEV-YOL was known as following a "pro-Soviet" line in terms of its international loyalties. DEV-YOL's bloody terrorist activities, which claimed hundreds of fatalities and a large number of serious injuries, included assassinations, armed attacks, bombings, and bank
robberies. The group also achieved notoriety when it set up a so-called "liberated zone" in the town of Fatsa
on the Black Sea coast where DEV-YOL militants established their control for several months before being routed by the security forces.

During this period of heightened terrorism, Akcam was an active participant in the planning of assassinations and armed attacks against the targets chosen by DEV-YOL. He was in the inner
leadership circle of the terrorist organization and worked as the right-hand man of its leader Oguzhan Muftuoglu. In addition, as the editor of DEV-YOL's magazine, he wrote numerous articles exhorting DEV-YOL militants to engage in violence to bring down "the oligarchy", to punish "the fascists", and to get rid of "American imperialism." By the mid-1970s, as political violence between the far-left and ultra-nationalist groups escalated, Akcam had become one of the leading "theoreticians" of leftist terrorism and violence in Turkey.

Taner Akcam was arrested in 1976. After a trial that lasted several months he was sentenced to eight years and nine months for his role in fomenting terrorism and political violence. However, Akcam did not stay in jail for long: in a spectacular incident that made the headlines in the Turkish press, he escaped from a prison in
Ankara along with four other convicted terrorists in March 1977. After hiding in Turkey for several months, he managed to find his way to Germany where he asked â€” and received â€” political asylum.

In Germany, Akcam continued his involvement in radical leftist activism and became the leader of a group known as Gocmen Harekat (Migrant's Movement) that sought to reorganize the
other leftist terrorists who had escaped from Turkey. In the aftermath of the 1980 military coup in Turkey, Akcam became a leading figure in mobilizing demonstrations and protests against Turkey in Germany.

He also wrote articles in various leftist publications in which he criticized DEV-YOL's leader Muftuoglu for his "pacifism" and called for the renewal of the "armed struggle" in Turkey. He also maintained his fanatical criticisms and attacks against of the West in general, and the United States in particular. In an interview in
1989, he declared: "I consider saying 'yes' to NATO and the European Union the biggest shame for a revolutionary. I am against the West since I consider it an imperialist power...and because I view the technology, culture, and politics of the West dangerous for all mankind."

Akcam returned to Turkey in 1993 for the first time since his prison escape. Since his 1977 conviction and sentence had expired, he could not be put back into prison. In a press conference that he held upon his arrival to Istanbul, he stated that "DEV-YOL's struggle" was going to continue. However, by the early 1990s, DEV-YOL had become a relic of the past and a new generation of terrorists
had appeared on the scene that did not much care for older militants such as Akcam. Taner Akcam then worked for a period as an "advisor" to another former leftists radical, Gurbuz CapÂ¹n, who had become the mayor of Esenyurt municipality in Istanbul.

In the 1990s, Akcam decided to reinvent himself as a "scholar" by writing books and articles on the Armenian question. Following graduate work in the university, he became affiliated with a research center in Hamburg. His uncritical acceptance of the Armenian version of the events that took place in Eastern Anatolia during World War I quickly gained him the sympathy and support of
the anti-Turkey groups â€” Armenians, Kurds, and Greeks â€” first in Europe, and later in the U.S. At last, after spending years in terrorist organizations, hiding from the police, and living in exile as a refugee, Akcam had found his true calling in life. By gaining the dubious distinction of being the first "Turkish scholar" to agree wholeheartedly with all the Armenian allegations and claims against Turkey, Akcam finally managed to make a name for himself outside of terrorism and also earn a livelihood through the financial support provided by Armenian diaspora organizations.

Akcam's critical views about Turkey and the actions of the Turkish state is typical of a generation of leftist intellectuals and political activists who emerged on the Turkish political scene beginning in the late 1960s. For them, the Turkish state is capable of doing nothing good and worthy and everything that smells foul and nasty.
As their hopes for a leftist revolution in Turkey faded away with the
disintegration of the Soviet Union and the communist regimes around Turkey, they have searched for new venues to vent their anger and opposition to the Turkish state. Some former radical leftists have taken up political Islam as their new cause. Others have become supporters of radical Kurdish nationalism and the PKK. And in the case of Akcam, his lifelong opposition to Turkish state has manifested itself through his unabashed support for the Armenian falsifiers of history.

It is lamentable that a person who has been a fanatical critic of the U.S. throughout his adult life and who has worked in terrorist organizations that were directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens is now warmly embraced by Armenians living in this country. Perhaps this should not come as a surprise since the
Armenian activists have shown, over and over again, that they are willing to provide moral and material support to those who engage in terrorist acts directed at Turkey and Turkish officials. As a former terrorist leader with a long record of involvement in activities against the Turkish state, Akcam should feel at home among his new Armenian patrons.

-----

Akcam's past (via another source):
December 4, 1974
Arrested for unrest at the College of LHG, METU
July 28, 1975
Arrested for obstructing the scheduled exams at the METU, Ankara
November 4, 1975
Participated in an act of violence in Malatya, wich resulted in an injury to a taxi cab driver.
November 20, 1975

Became the executive editor of the periodical "DEV-GENC" (DEV-GENC later on had fractured into DEV-SOL and DEV-YOL. DEV-YOL believed in accomplishing the revolution by peace and education while DEV-SOL believed in terrorism. It's interesting to note that Akcam became part of DEV-SOL.)

March 9, 1976
Imprisoned for 8 years..
March 12, 1977
Escapes from prison into Germany
-----

Holdwater: Mr. Akcam is predictably plastered all over Armenian and Armenian-friendly web sites. Here is an excerpt that reveals his way of thinking (from "Discussing Genocide: Contextualizing the Armenian Experience in the Ottoman Empire," by Ronald Grigor Suny and Fatma Muge GÃ¶Ã§ek, from a genocide conference held at the University of Michigan [which the article below is probably about; by the way, this Armenian-friendly institution is the one with the Michigan-Dearborn branch that Dennis Papazian operates out of]... with familiar faces like Dadrian and Hovannisian, along with plenty of Turkish Turncoats in attendance; Turks not on the "Handy List" below included Leyla Neyzi, Soner Ã‡agaptay, Fikret Adanir, Baskin Oran):

One of the most outspoken and courageous Turkish historians of the events of 1915, Taner AkÃ§am, showed how Ottoman archival documents directly contradict the official Turkish state narrative. He argued that the Young Turks implemented a general resettlement plan for ethnic and religious minorities in Anatolia between 1913 and 1918 and that a decision to cleanse Anatolia of non-Muslim elements was made at the beginning of 1914. These plans applied, not only to Armenians, but also to Arabs, Kurds, Albanians, Bosnians and others, and were directed at the Turkification of Anatolia, which after the Balkan Wars was conceived as the heartland of the Turks. Armenians, however, were thought of and treated differently from other minorities. There were no qualms about killing Armenians, and AkÃ§am stated that the documents suggest "a genocidal intention on the part of the ruling party."

"Suggest"?

Ahhhh, so it wasn't just the Armenians. The other ethnic groups of the empire were all in line to get kicked out, with the resettlement program beginning in 1913, before World War I got underway. It is curious that this program never got implemented in any way, but that's another story. By God, thanks, Taner Akcam... for "proving" the popular "Pan-Turanism" theory of why the Armenians got exterminated. See, it wasn't just the Armenians... it was ALL the ethnic groups. It's just that the Armenians, the favorites of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, "were thought of and treated differently from other minorities." Of COURSE! It all makes perfect sense now...

It is curious that even the Armenian God, Henry "Holier-than-Thou" Morgenthau expressed no sign of this idea of runaway Turkish nationalism (which prompted their attempt to "exterminate" the Armenians... and as Mr. Akcam now informs us, was eventually going to affect all the other ethnic groups) in either his 'Diary' or 'Letters,' although the idea runs rampant throughout the ambassador's phony book.

So Anatolia was thought of as the heartland of the Turks. I would go along with that one, and I believe Anatolia was considered as the heartland of the Turks well before the Balkan Wars. But wait a minute, wait a minute. Akcam's pal, Halil Berktay, says (below) Anatolia was "unknown by the Turks" in 1915. Boys! Get your notes straight, already..!

ADDENDUM:

Taner Akcam appeared on a Minnesota radio talk show in May 2005, and his version of events regarding his criminal past was that he simply published an article about the Kurds in a student newspaper in 1976, and because Kurds weren't supposed to be mentioned, he got ten years. (Not eight, as reported above.) After a year, he got tired and decided to escape... he described this so off-handedly, it sounded like escaping was an option for the having. Once Akcam arrived in Germany, the interviewer mentioned that Akcam's life had been threatened to the extent of plastic surgery being suggested, and was I surprised to learn the ones who did the threatening were not the Turks, but an extremist Kurdish group in Europe. (How ironic.) Akcam went on with his usual blather about Turkey needing to be a democracy and in sticking "the G-word" (as he alternately kept calling it) whenever possible. At one point, he distinguished Ataturk from being genocidal, pointing out that Ataturk criticized the previous administration for its murderous ways... which I found interesting, as he usually blames Ataturk for being another genocidal maniac during his part of the Turkish struggle. I was impressed the interviewer appeared broad-minded and had done his homework. He read an intelligent rebuttal by the Turkish embassy in Ottowa after Akcam had departed, something I gave the producers of the program a lot of credit for.

Taner Akcam Interviewed on Radio

On February 6, 2005, "Historian" Taner Akcam was invited to give a talk on CBC's Sunday Edition, on radio. While host Michael Enright erred in calling the sociologist with practically no academic background (Akcam earned his degree in Germany, and apparently was never attached to the faculty of any institution, nor did he have any important papers published save for ones in minor publications for "Kurdistan" and the like) a "historian," there was a tone of fairness in his voice, evident from the questions he asked... and by giving the "Other Side" a chance, a decision that made Akcam mildly flip out, as we'll soon see. Let's see how the "historian" (aside from the fact that Akcam has no background in history, let's bear in mind a real historian always examines all sides to a story; a better title for Akcam would be "propagandist") handled himself.

The interview has been made available at this place in cyberspace. It is the first time I got a taste of Dr. Akcam's melodious voice.

Michael Enright intelligently begins his program by stating "It is impossible to underestimate the power of the word 'genocide.' And it is equally impossible to underestimate the consequences when the word is NOT used," faulting those who avoided the word when describing events in Darfur. He further adds:

"Armenians themselves call it â€œThe Forgotten Genocide.â€� And while it may have happened 90 years ago, in a far-away corner of the Ottoman Empire, it is as alive for Turks and Armenians today as it was those many long decades ago."

I like the fact that Enright specified the Armenians as mislabeling their raison d'etre as a "Forgotten Genocide.â€� when their money and loudness has insured their myth as the second best researched "genocide" after the Holocaust. However, this "genocide" is not alive for most Turks, who have better things to do with their lives; Turks made the mature decision to move away from these ugly events, to stress brotherhood and a looking to the future. Had Turkish grandparents instilled their children with hatred for the excruciating crimes the Armenians had committed (with Russian help), while ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of fellow Ottomans, then the episode would have been alive. The only reason why it's alive for some Turks is because even the silent Turks have come to realize the ugly charges of the genocide industry cannot remain unanswered.

"Taner AkÃ§am has become the first Turkish historian to call the Armenian killings a genocide. In response, his life has been threatened. No university in his own country will hire him. He has been derided as a traitor, and hailed as a hero."

If his life has been threatened, I hope it was never so seriously. Even those who regard Akcam as a traitor address him in a civil manner as possible, an attitude steeped in Turkish tolerance, in marked contrast to the fanatical Armenian "I will KILL you" mentality (one example) that too often surfaces with perceived slights. (Not to say some Turks are without this "Oriental mentality" either; but Akcam could not have operated as seriously, even in Turkey itself, if he felt his life was in danger. The same applies to his fellow turncoat, Halil Berktay, who actually has been spreading his poison in Turkey itself, at Sabanci University. Since both Akcam and Berktay are the same peas in a pod, if Berktay has found a Turkish university to hire him, there is no reason why the same courtesy couldn't be extended to Akcam, as well.

Akcam's life has been seriously threatened, and we'll soon discover the ones doing the threatening were not the Turks, but those who lie in Akcam's own anti-Turkish bed.

The interview begins

Akcam responds accurately to the host's question as to whether the Turkish "denial" is being taught in schools. Akcam explains, "Until recently, it was not a topic in the Turkish curriculum. Nineteen-fifteen was referred to only as a deportation of the Armenian people in eastern Anatolia because of the war conditions. Only these two sentences, nothing more." Only recently has the matter been introduced in the classroom, from the "denialist" viewpoint. (Although I hear reports that Armenian propaganda has seeped into the nation as insidiously as everywhere else, and there are Turkish teachers who go the route that would make Taner Akcam proud.)

Akcam's pal: Fatma MÃ¼ge GÃ¶Ã§ek

Had the Turks taught what really took place all of these years, Turkish children could have borne hatred for Armenian betrayal and extermination tactics. What has this mature and civilized policy resulted in? Too many Turks today are blank slates, ignorant of the details of these events. Genocide industry forces, with Akcam's friend Fatma MÃ¼ge GÃ¶Ã§ek as one in the lead, are now looking to expand the spreading of their poison within Turkey itself.

A conference was planned in a state institution, Bogazici University, with participants only belonging to the genocide club; those with differing opinions, such as Turkkaya Ataov, were refused. The genocide club best operates in monologue format, shunning dialogue. (As Akcam will make clear, as will soon be seen.) A state representative complained that the Turks involved were treasonous, and the conference organizers figured the matter got too hot and cancelled. (Why didn't they simply hire extra security?) A big hullabaloo ensued, the state rep found a lawsuit on his hands, the Turkish left wailed, and 154 university professors protested â€” apparently completely unaware of the propagandistic exclusivity of this conference. (Very bad taste to hold an anti-Turkish affair in a state-run university.) At the time of this writing, the conference has been rescheduled, with the same "closed door" policy.

Akcam is asked to provide a description of events.

"The beginning of the deportation was in 1915, May, and continued until the beginning of 1917."

My knowledge is that the resettlement policy ended in 1916. Perhaps there was a trickle going on by 1917. Vahan Cardashian quoted Henry Morgenthau (in a March 3, 1916 letter to Lord Bryce, as recorded in The Armenian Review [Winter 1957, p. 107]) that the government's attitude toward the Armenians was passive, and that large numbers of Armenians were found in almost every city. That sounds like it was pretty much over by the beginning of 1916.

"Almost the entire Armenian population of Anatolia was deported to the deserts of Syria and Iraq."

These regions were known as "The Fertile Crescent"; the sand dunes of "Lawrence of Arabia" do not represent the correct picture. One of the many times the "historian" Taner Akcam proves his marriage to the forces of Armenian propaganda.

"The official version, the official reason was that the Turkish authoritiesâ€”or the Ottoman authoritiesâ€”of that time considered the Armenian population, especially in eastern Anatolia, as a threat."

The word "official" has no place here; this was the one and only real reason. The Armenians posed as a significant military threat with perhaps 50,000 fighters behind the lines, posing as a fifth column. The Ottoman Empire was being attacked on multiple fronts by superpower enemies, particularly mortal enemy Russia. Enver Pasha's terrifying Sarikamish mistake meant there was no army left in the east. One of the reasons why Sarikamish failed (aside from direct Armenian sabotage) also had to do with the fact that Enver was counting on Armenian soldiers, once the Dashnaks professed their loyalty in an Erzurum meeting months earlier. This is when the Turks offered Armenians real autonomy, little aware that the two-faced Armenians were accepting what they thought was a better deal from Russia. In their greed, the Armenians conveniently forgot the Russians historically rarely kept their promises, whenever they convinced the Armenians to betray their Ottoman nation, beginning in the late 18th century. True to form, the Russians would not keep their promises this time, either.

"They covered up their operations as a necessity of the war. During this deportation, they organized a paramilitary organization, and this organizationâ€”a secret organization, a military organizationâ€”attacked the Armenian convoys."

There was nothing to cover up. The Ottomans provided genuine orders designed to protect Armenian lives and property. The reason why things did not go smoothly had to do with wartime chaos and corruption, a lack of manpower and resources, and, yes, animosity against the Armenians from individuals thanks to Armenian treachery in the nation's darkest hour. If the Ottomans wished to cover up, they would never have allowed, for example, this hostile missionary to have joined a convoy of Armenians on the march. As she herself related (at the time of the events; she later "revised" her views), the government had nothing to do with the attacks from, mainly, Kurds. While there were renegade troops who committed crimes against Armenians, there was no "military organization" that attacked the convoys... that is totally preposterous. What Akcam is using is the hearsay dug up by his Armenian mentor, Prosecutor Vahakn Dadrian. Dadrian relies on half-reported testimony of the 1919 trials conducted by a puppet Ottoman government, where people were saying anything to save their necks. (Here is how a real historian interprets these trials.) The trials were so farcical, even the British turned a blind eye to their findings for their planned separate tribunal.

Shame on Taner Akcam

How could any scholar make such claims when there is no real evidence? Shame on Taner Akcam for being so unscrupulous. There are many forces out to destroy his country, and double shame on him for joining these forces.

"The number of dead is between, according to Turkish numbers, three hundred and six hundred thousand, and according to Armenian or scholarly estimation, around 1 and 1 million Armenians perished during that period. Most of the reasons for the deaths were killing, hunger, starvation, health conditions, disease, and so on. At the end almost the entire Armenian population was deported and eliminated."

"Scholarly" estimates? It's repulsive this blatant propagandist dares to even use such a word. Fact: there were around 1.5 million Ottoman-Armenians before the war, a median figure from most "neutral" sources; even Akcam's pod pea, Halil Berktay has settled on this number, in a recent interview from a Hurriyet genocide series that Akcam also took part in. Fact: Before the declaration of the stillborn SÃ¨vres Treaty in 1921, the Armenian Patriarch recorded up to 644,900 Armenians within what was left of the Ottoman Empire. Hundreds of thousands of refugees had moved elsewhere, such as the 50,000 in Iran and the 500,000 (according to Richard Hovannisian) in Transcaucasia, and the hundreds of thousands in other regions. Fact: the Armenians themselves concede one million Armenians survived. (From the Patriarch in 1921 to Boghos Nubar, to today's cast of Armenian characters â€” including Akcam's mentor, Vahakn Dadrian.) Subtract 1 million from 1.5 million, and you get the actual scholarly result that approximates the "Turkish numbers." (Substitute "Truthful" for "Turkish"; barring the claims of certain pseudo Turks.)

At the end "almost the entire Armenian population" was NOT "deported and eliminated." These 645,000-odd Armenians moved out for various reasons (greener pastures were offered through sympathetic Christian nations, for one; for another, many herded to Cilicia to establish an Armenian country, before France chickened out), ultimately leaving a tenth of that number making up the Armenian community in Turkey today. The fact is, the Turks allowed the Armenians to return under several edicts and agreements.

Most of the reasons for the Armenian deaths were famine and disease, the same reasons that claimed the lives of most of the Turkish/Muslim civilians. Bread was almost unobtainable since the start of the war, according to biased U.S. consul Leslie Davis. (Pg. 38, "The Slaughterhouse Province.") His fellow biased diplomat, Ambassador Morgenthau, explained few were left to till the fields because of massive mobilization, and Henry estimated an entire quarter of the Turkish population died from starvation. Diseases were rampant; fellow pro-Armenian General Harbord believed 600,000 Turkish soldiers died from typhus alone. Outright killings did not constitute a large percentage of Armenian deaths; the "murders" were in the low 10s of thousands, perhaps. (Le Figaro figured [in 1977] a total of 15,000, including all causes of deprivation on the marches, not just massacres.) Compare with the over half-million Turkish/Musllim lives the Armenians (with Russian help) took, when nearly all the Turkish soldiers were away and could not defend their villagers... or when the Armenians occupied eastern Anatolia. Why does this "Turkish historian" not care about these lives, taken from what approximated an actual genocide? The same reason William Gladstone poured his outrage over the 10,000 Bulgarians who died in the Bulgarian bid for independence (they were all "massacred," of course), and didn't say a word about the 262,000 Turks who were killed, and a further half million who were expelled. (McCarthy, "Death and Exile.")

Taner Akcam's willful dishonesty (assuming he is not ignorant of these facts) is truly hard to stomach. We all need to make a living, but what can drive a man to sell out on such a wholesale fashion?

To Akcam's credit, sometimes he has rare "honesty attacks," as demonstrated by the following reply to the host's question regarding the reason for why the Armenians were killed:

"...Undoubtedly the culture of tension between Christian and Muslim populations is one of these reasons. But both peoples, the Muslims and Christians, lived in the area more than 500 years without any problem."

Good for Akcam that he did not espouse one of the favorite Armenian theories providing a murder motive, that "Muslims hate Christians"; he also didn't travel down the road of the favorite theory, "Pan-Turanism"... that Turks hoped to Turkify the empire. (Curiously leaving other Ottoman non-Turks intact.) Akcam provides his own theory:

"There are of course different reasons, but, if you ask me, I would underline one important reason, and I would define this more as a political reason. The basic fear of the Ottoman Empire was that they were going to lose the eastern part of Anatolia. In 1914, before World War One, there was an agreement between the Russian government and the Ottoman government. According to this agreement, the Ottoman authorities should implement certain reforms in eastern Anatolia. These reforms should give certain autonomy to the Armenians. According to the Ottoman authorities, this was the beginning of Armenian independence in eastern Anatolia."

Definitely, the Ottoman Empire was well aware that the European imperialists succeeded in stirring up the peoples in the Balkans, resulting in the massive loss of territories and Turkish lives. The Europeans were now pulling the same trick with the Armenians. The handwriting was on the wall.

What Akcam is not telling us is that the Armenians were accorded "internal autonomy" (as Hovannisian described it) centuries ago. The Turks wanted to get away from the dictates of its mortal Russian enemy, and offered a real autonomy to the Armenians themselves, as we covered earlier, through the work of Nassibian. The fact is, the Armenians prospered under the Ottomans unlike any other time in their history; they were treated worse by the Russians and even the Armenians themselves.

Here is the flaw in Akcam's theory: the Turks didn't have to respect this treaty that Russia twisted the Turks' arm with. Once war started and the Turks annulled this treaty, why should they have been afraid of the implications of the treaty? That was not a reason to get rid of the Armenians. The Ottomans were saying "screw you" to the world; they also eliminated the humiliating Capitulations during WWI... the whole idea was to reclaim their sovereignty, as the nation had degenerated into little more than a European colony. War was not an excuse to implement a large-scale, expensive relocation policy when resources and manpower were so scarce. If killing off the Armenians was on the Turks' minds, it would logically have been much smarter to use them as much as possible during desperate wartime, and murder them after the war had been won.

"The Turks had just sustained in the Caucasus a severe defeat. They needed every available man and every round of ammunition to cheek the advancing Russians. It is therefore incredible that without receiving any provocation they should have chosen that particularly inopportune moment to employ a large force of soldiers and gendarmes with artillery to stir up a hornetâ€™s nest in their rear. Military considerations alone make the suggestion absurd." C.F. Dixon-Johnson's "The Armenians," 1916.

Akcam goes on to explain that each time reforms were granted, "Ottoman authorities never implemented these democratic rights." That is absolutely an untrue statement. As an example, Armenians were granted the right to bear arms along the way. (That is what caused Adana in 1909 to become a powderkeg.) What prevented the reform process from running smoothly was the constant interference of the powers, and the subsequently emboldened minorities who took advantage of their greater freedoms by working against the state.

Akcam's diabolical conclusion: "They thought that instead of creating an establishment of an Armenianâ€”allowing of a nation-state there, to kill them, to homogenize the region, is the best political solution." After the Turks actually offered the Armenians autonomy in the Dashnak conference of Erzurum in the autumn of 1914. What a despicable distortion. The true sequence of events was that the Armenians were offered a reward of what resembled "actual" autonomy (this would have likely been under some Ottoman control) if the Armenians had only done their patriotic duty and fought against the enemies of the state. The Armenians decided to stab their nation in the back by becoming, as Boghos Nubar put it, "belligerents de facto." The existence of the nation was threatened with this betrayal, combined with the need to fight hostile superpowers (already in agreement through secret treaties as to how to divide the Ottoman lands between themselves), and the entire Armenian community had to be moved elsewhere, for reasons of national survival. The reasons were much more pressing than why the United States resettled their Japanese during WWII, because the United States' existence was not immediately threatened, and their Japanese community was loyal. The relocation of the Armenians was meant as temporary, and they were allowed to come back; even before the official decree of return was issued, Armenians were trickling back anyway. (Already present in large numbers, in 1916. See Morgenthau reference, above.)

In fact let's dwell on that Morgenthau reference for a moment. Now, let us please bear in mind this is coming from Henry Morgenthau, one of the worst accusatory Turcophobes from the period who lied through his teeth to satisfy his own agenda, and who relied exclusively on Armenian sources. If Morgenthau himself is saying in early 1916 that "Armenians were found in good numbers in almost all the interior cities of Turkey," and that the government's role was "passive" toward the Armenians, what kind of an extermination policy is that? What kind of a homogenization is that, if around half the number of pre-war Armenians still remained in the state at the end of the war, according to the often-deceptive Armenian Patriarch himself? (Remember, the ones who lost their lives mostly died of famine and disease, the same reasons that claimed the lives of most of the 2.5 million-plus Turkish mortality.) It is the duty of immoral "historians" with an agenda to completely overlook the facts (not the "official" facts from the "Turkish government," but the facts presented by AKCAM'S OWN pro-Armenian sources), and make terrible "genocide" accusations..

Shame. Shame on Taner Akcam.

The host asks Akcam why today's Turkish historians deny Akcam's reality, and Akcam replies "they donâ€™t want to be reminded of that past." Isn't this explanation absolutely ridiculous? As if today's Turks (let along professional historians whose business deals with the past) have any care or even concept of events that happened so long ago. Perhaps Akcam is mixing "Turks" up with "Armenians" (with the crucial difference that Armenians live to be reminded of this past).

Another reason is that "founders of the Turkish Republic were either participants in this genocidal process or they enriched themselves from this process." When the host asks whether Ataturk should be among the implicated, Akcam replies, "Mustafa Kemal AtatÃ¼rk was one of the opponents of this genocidal policy."

I'll admit, Akcam surprises me sometimes. His pattern is lie, lie, lie, lie, and all of a sudden... out of nowhere... truth. Here he admirably breaks from the ranks of the genocide forces, those such as Levon Marashlian, Rudy Rummel and countless others, who squarely pin the genocidal blame on Ataturk as well. (At least regarding the post war "Phase Two." So when Ataturk's forces clashed with the Armenian Republic, a war that Armenia provoked according to its own prime minister, Ataturk is blamed for further massacres... even though Near East Relief representatives themselves are on record (in the case of 1920 Kars... incidentally, the province with many Turkified Armenians where Akcam was born) for stating that there were no massacres.

Yet Akcam has a way of undoing even his rare moments of truth; in this case, he adds, "(Ataturk) openly accused the Unionist leaders who organized this genocide of being murderers." Is Akcam referring to the mysterious Los Angeles Examiner article (August 1, 1926) by a Swiss journalist of whom no traces could be found, and the one where Ataturk's own schedule book does not record any interviews given? That is, the one all major biographies of Ataturk avoided mentioning because of the knowledge that this interview was a fake? To get the real scoop on Ataturk's Armenian views, the interview to consult would be March 27, 1921's Public Ledger, conducted by Clarence Streit. (On the same page as the link provided directly above.)

What Akcam is telling us is that "It is a psychological difficulty to call these founders thieves and murderers." Too bad Akcam harbors no such difficulties, psychological or otherwise... making false statements come all too naturally to him. Before one accuses anyone of being a "thief" or a "murderer," what does one need? (Assuming one possesses morality.) One needs evidence. Not hearsay or fabrications, such as the testimony from the 1919 puppet courts.

Here is the reality, as provided for by former P.O.W. and later assistant to the British High Commission (the ones who supervised the occupation of the beaten Ottoman nation), Harold Armstrong (from "Turkey in Travail," as he describes the Turkish officials imprisoned for the Malta Tribunal; Armstrong's accent is understandably on P.O.W.s, but the near-entirety of these men â€” 144 at one point â€” were being held for crimes against Armenians):

"The story of these deportees is a sorry one. Among them were evil criminals, who had murdered prisoners-of-war. Many were ordinary normal Turks who had been leading men in Turkey during the war. Some were arrested on the poor evidence of a couple of Armenian women or on that of an enemy. More than one was arrested in error. They were imprisoned in conditions quite out of keeping with their rank or position. They were kept two years in confinement without being charged with any crime. They were herded all together, those arrested for political offences old and new, and those for massacre, murder and evil crimes. Thus the foul beast Mazlum Bey from Afion-Kara-Hissar, who had murdered British prisoners-of-war and committed loathsome crimes and offences, was confined with Said Halim Pasha, the old Grand Vizier, who had opposed the declaration of war and had been persuaded by Enver Pasha against his better judgment to sign. It was as if the victorious Germans had shut Lord Balfour in with a gang of criminals like Crippen and Mahon... the affair dragged on, and late in 1921 all these prisoners without distinction were released, and those who wished it were shipped back to Turkey. The results of these deportations were considerable...

The belief in British justice suffered a rude shock. Many of the deportees were men of great importance. When released they became ministers and deputies in the Angora Government, and their hatred of the British was not diminished by their imprisonment, degradation and general treatment in Malta."

Of course these ordinary normal Turks and patriots who had experience in government were going to lend their expertise to the depleted, struggling new nation, by becoming ministers and deputies in the Angora Government. Therefore, according to Akcam, one reason why today's Turkish historians are "deniers" is because... they need to protect the reputations of these men? Men who couldn't be found guilty, even by the desperate British who hoped to wipe the Turkish nation off the earth's face, through the SÃ¨vres Treaty?

Akcam refers to the aversion of the "G-word," but not by "twenty, thirty percent of Turkish academia," who are aware "a crime against humanity" had taken place, but are afraid of speaking up, for fear of losing their jobs. As an example of the foreboding atmosphere, Akcam cites the success of his 1991 book, one that has sold well for an academic work, but one that was not reviewed once in the nation's media.

No nation is without blood on its hands, and ones that were superpowers during their time are especially susceptible. Turkey past and present has certainly behaved badly at times, like any other nation, and in the Armenian example, I wish they could have done more to alleviate the Armenians' suffering. But given the wartime desperation for survival and lack of resources... and given the vindictive human nature at play, anxious to punish those who double-crossed their nation, the "Sick Man" did a fairly good job regardless. The majority of Armenians survived; the Ottoman Turks could have truly "deported" the Armenians, banishing them outside the country forever, as the Russians heartlessly did with what amounted to over 700,000 of their innocent Muslims. (See this telegram, where Enver was considering this more inhumane step, while considering what to do with the rebellious Armenians; certainly, the state could have saved a lot more money and resources by simply booting the Armenians out to Russia.) Moreover, any other country in the same boat probably would not have even bothered with a "deportation," employing a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy, as Arthur Tremaine Chester suggested with what might have happened in this American scenario.)

There were crimes against humanity on both ends; there is no disagreement regarding massacred Armenians on the part of the Turks. (Although practically nonexistent is the pro-Armenian who will admit the massive ethnic cleansing crimes perpetrated by the Armenians.) But before fools irresponsibly point fingers, they better make sure they have their facts (as defined by unconflicted sources) straight. The only issue is whether the Ottoman government systematically attempted to exterminate the Armenians. Propagandists like Akcam can unethically offer all the theories they want, but what counts for truth-seekers is genuine and factual evidence. At present, there is no such evidence. Even Professor Hovannisian is reported to have said in the "Congress on the Problems of World Armenians" held in 1982: "The Armenian problem could not be proved. The genocide is not valid legally and it is exposed to prescription."

The "Historian" Gets Personal
Akcam offers insight into his life by stating, "...between 1990â€”I was in Germany, and my Ph.D. is also from Germany, and I was living in Germany. In 1995 I returned to Turkey and tried to settle there and tried to find a job."

"I had certain agreements with certain institutions. One private university in Istanbul agreed to hire me, but at the last second, they decided to drop their decision. "

They were all afraid: "I must add that there was no official pressure at that time towards these universities, but these scholars, the academicians who are going to decide on that issue, got certain letters, unsigned or signed as 'A Group of Turkish Intellectuals.' In these letters, these scholars and universities were warned [not] to get in touch with me. This is an indirect threat. Everyone knew that these letters were coming from the authorities, the Secret Service, or groups within the Turkish state, and so the universities were scared to hire me."

That's nonsense. Akcam is speculating again. Pro-Armenian propaganda always has it that the sinister Turkish government. will always be behind the opposing forces to the Armenian myth. The reality is that the Turkish government is completely at a loss in handling this "genocide" business. As Harold Armstrong deduced with some overstatement, "The Turks... were incommunicative people with no power of self-expression nor of propaganda in their own interests."

I'm not in a position to conclusively say whether the "sinister" Turkish government was behind these threats; what I'm saying is that if I were a Turk living in Turkey, and if I were to hear a poisonous propagandist like Akcam were being considered to soil impressionable students' minds, I'd surely fire off such a letter. I wouldn't care what the "Turkish government" had to say.

Akcam explains why it is important to tell the story of the genocide:

"I was a member of this generation who were really fighting for human rights and democratic rights, in Turkey. Thatâ€™s why I know what torture means, I know what violence means. Itâ€™s part of my own history."

He's got that right. What he doesn't reveal is that he was a convicted terrorist who played a part in the violence of that tumultuous period. For example, on November 4, 1975, he reportedly participated in an act of violence in Malatya, which resulted in an injury to a cab driver.

Here is how Akcam explained this part of his past:

"...I was arrested in 1976 because of the article I wrote in a studentsâ€™ newspaper. The reason why I was arrested is that I wrote that there are Kurds living in Turkey. In fact, the Turkish state claimed at that time that there were only Turks in Turkey. In the 1970s, this was a founding myth of the modern Turkish state. It was a criminal offense. It was against the law to acknowledge the existence of Kurds in Turkey. Because of that reason, I was put in jail and sentenced to ten years. Then, after one year, I thought â€œit is enough,â€� and I escaped from the prison. Then I came to Germany, where I was given political asylum in 1978. After some personal tragedies as a result of my political role, I decided to quit politics and change the direction of my life. It was the middle of the 1980s. I went to academia."

If only all prisoners could get out of jail when they think, "it is enough." Despite their vile MIDNIGHT EXPRESS reputation, Turkish prisons must be the easiest in the world to bust out of. Those who have blown Turkish joints include Billy Hayes, Mehmet Ali Agca [the criminal who shot the Pope], Peter Balakian's "action priest" relative...

So Akcam innocently provides as the reason for his imprisonment that he wrote an article about Kurds. I'm betting the "Kurd" word was not so much a taboo in 1976's Turkish media as Akcam hoped for the radio listener to believe. No, the reasons for his imprisonment were far more serious.

From "From Terrorism to Armenian Propagandist: The Taner Akcam Story," by Mustafa Artun, March 19 , 2001:

...Akcam moved from student activism into political terrorism by joining the THKP-C (...Turkish People's Liberation Party-Front) in 1972 â€” a terrorist organization that was implicated in the assassinations and killings of numerous far-right militants, Turkish security officials, and American and NATO military personnel. In the mid-1970s, Akcam became a leading member of DEV-YOL (Devrimci Yol-Revolutionary Path) and the editor of its periodical... It might be recalled that DEV-YOL was one of the two principal leftist terrorist organizations (the other being DEV-SOL) that played a major role in the bloody escalation of political violence in Turkey during the 1970s. In the bizarre ideological divisions among the leftist groups that proliferated on the Turkish political scene at the time, DEV-YOL was known as following a "pro-Soviet" line in terms of its international loyalties. DEV-YOL's bloody terrorist activities, which claimed hundreds of fatalities and a large number of serious injuries, included assassinations, armed attacks, bombings, and bank robberies. The group also achieved notoriety when it set up a so-called "liberated zone" in the town of Fatsa on the Black Sea coast where DEV-YOL militants established their control for several months before being routed by the security forces.

During this period of heightened terrorism, Akcam was an active participant in the planning of assassinations and armed attacks against the targets chosen by DEV-YOL. He was in the inner leadership circle of the terrorist organization and worked as the right-hand man of its leader Oguzhan Muftuoglu. In addition, as the editor of DEV-YOL's magazine, he wrote numerous articles exhorting DEV-YOL militants to engage in violence to bring down "the oligarchy", to punish "the fascists", and to get rid of "American imperialism." By the mid-1970s, as political violence between the far-left and ultra-nationalist groups escalated, Akcam had become one of the leading "theoreticians" of leftist terrorism and violence in Turkey.

Taner Akcam was arrested in 1976. After a trial that lasted several months he was sentenced to eight years and nine months for his role in fomenting terrorism and political violence. However, Akcam did not stay in jail for long: in a spectacular incident that made the headlines in the Turkish press, he escaped from a prison in Ankara along with four other convicted terrorists in March 1977. After hiding in Turkey for several months, he managed to find his way to Germany where he asked â€” and received â€” political asylum. In Germany,

...He criticized DEV-YOL's leader Muftuoglu for his "pacifism" and called for the renewal of the "armed struggle" in Turkey. He also maintained his fanatical criticisms and attacks against of the West in general, and the United States in particular. In an interview in 1989, he declared: "I consider saying 'yes' to NATO and the European Union the biggest shame for a revolutionary. I am against the West since I consider it an imperialist power...and because I view the technology, culture, and politics of the West dangerous for all mankind." Akcam returned to Turkey in 1993 for the first time since his prison escape. Since his 1977 conviction and sentence had expired, he could not be put back into prison.

...It is lamentable that a person who has been a fanatical critic of the U.S. throughout his adult life and who has worked in terrorist organizations that were directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens is now warmly embraced by Armenians living in this country. Perhaps this should not come as a surprise since the Armenian activists have shown, over and over again, that they are willing to provide moral and material support to those who engage in terrorist acts directed at Turkey and Turkish officials. As a former terrorist leader with a long record of involvement in activities against the Turkish state, Akcam should feel at home among his new Armenian patrons.

Note how the prison term in the above account differs from Akcam's claim, to the tune of one year and three months. Why isn't Akcam more careful with his "facts"? Maybe he hoped that "ten years" sounded more monstrous, for such an innocent crime as writing an article about Kurds.

For one who once declared that the technology, culture, and politics of the West [is] dangerous for all mankind, how ironic that Akcam embraced the land of all evil, the United States, with such open arms.

When Armenian forces arranged for Akcam to enter the United States and get a professor's job (many Americans with Ph.Ds are hard-pressed to get those) at Dennis Papazian's University of Michigan-Dearborn (the "official" story is that fellow genocide-advocate, Fatma Muge Gocek, sponsored him), I wonder how such a "scholar" of no apparent repute (aside from his willingness to sling mud at his country) managed to get past immigration officials. My knowledge is that those with criminal pasts are frowned upon. Not to mention communist sympathizers.

The host asks, "...people were trying to kill you, right? I mean, the German police offered you protection. They even offered you plastic surgery so you could change the way you looked."

That sounds like the sinister Turkish government was after Akcam's hide, doesn't it? The interviewer made it sound that way mainly at the show's beginning (when he said that "Taner AkÃ§am has become the first Turkish historian to call the Armenian killings a genocide. In response, his life has been threatened").

Now take a look at who the culprit was:

Alcam: "Yes, I was threatened by the PKK at that time."

Michael Enright: Thatâ€™s the Kurdishâ€”

Akcam: Thatâ€™s the Kurdish separatist organization. One can compare this organization with Pol Pot or Stalin or even with Saddam Hussein. The number of people that the leader of that organization liquidated is more than, unfortunately, 3,000. They liquidated more than 3,000 of their own members. I was opposed to that also. They wanted to kill me. They couldnâ€™t find me, and so they killed one of my best friends in Hamburg. This was the turning point for me.

If this isn't the worst hypocrisy!

Akcam had an understanding at one point with the PKK's Ocalan.... they were both working for the same cause, after all, the weakening of the Turkish state. Akcam was a champion of the Kurds (he went to prison for the Kurds, by golly), and at that time, the PKK served as the darlings of the anti-Turkish West. Something must have gone wrong between them (note Akcam makes no reference as to why he was targeted for murder; was he one of the 3,000 members the PKK wanted to liquidate? Isn't it odd, by the way, that an organization would want to liquidate its own members? That is not the kind of policy which would sustain an organization's membership, over the long term), and now... suddenly... Akcam is slinging mud at his former friend, PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan.

(See both men go at each other, in published interviews, shedding light at the peculiar goings-on.)

I can't resist adding the former part of the above exchange:

Enright:: Well, youâ€™re going to write your memoirs, I hope. Are you?

Akcam: Everyone wants [me to write them], but I donâ€™t have time. I think working on the Genocide is more important than my personal story, at the moment.

Well said. The "genocide" is Akcam's whole cause for existence... why, just like many extremist Armenians!

Now what kind of an answer is that for a REAL scholar? Why would Akcam be so obsessed with the genocide exclusively, like his mentor, Vahakn Dadrian? If he wants to concentrate on this so-called genocide among other subjects, that would be one thing. But no. His whole academic career is based on this one-note topic. What does that tell us?

"Only between 1921 and 1938, in the first sixteen years of the Republic period, there were more than twenty Kurdish uprisings against the Turkish authorities, and there were a lot of violence, massacre, human rights abuses."

From my limited knowledge of this part of Turkish history, I'd have to agree there were abuses. Yet it is only Turkey that is singled out for being "barbaric" when there are uprisings within its borders. The Kurdish tribes were accustomed to living semi-independently and many times did not wish to recognize the authority of the central government. Now what would any nation have done? Say, okay, live and let live? That's not the way the world works. And the Turks have a special sensitivity to the issue of its minorities stabbing the nation in the back and breaking away. Turkish tolerance through the centuries ultimately endangered the entire Turkish nation with extinction. Of course the authorities would be on guard against further rebellions. The way in which these rebellions were put down may be questioned, but it's unfair to do so without putting in perspective how other nations have dealt with their own rebellions.

The interview ends with Akcam predicting Turkey "will apologize." I hope he's wrong. If Turkey apologizes because of desperation to get into the European Union (who would want to belong to a club that requires its member to lie, as a condition?) or because its leaders curry favors from the West, that would be terrible. It would be a grave insult to Turkey's national honor. If anyone needs to apologize, it is the Western nations that have created and perpetuated this myth for so long... and the Armenians themselves, for working day and night to cultivate Turkey's image as a monster.

But maybe Akcam is correct. He has opened the floodgates to many other Turkish sell-outs. I hope the Turks will be careful and responsible. Prof. Justin McCarthy was more optimistic, when he gave a speech in March 2005:

"...I have faith in the honor of the Turks. What I know of the Turks tells me that they will never falsely say there was an Armenian Genocide. I have faith in the honesty of the Turks. I know that the Turks will resist demands to confess to a crime they did not commit, no matter the price of honesty. I have faith in the integrity of the Turks. I know that the Turks will not lie about this history. I know that the Turks will never say their fathers were murderers. I have that faith in the Turks."

The Turkish Response

The program deserves a lot of credit for including the lengthy statement prepared by the Ottowa Turkish Embassy. It was so nicely prepared, here it is in its entirety:

Enright: Now, we asked for a response from the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa. Here is part of the Embassyâ€™s official statement to The Sunday Edition.

[ME reads from statement:]

The question â€” whether the events in Anatolia during the First World War can be termed a genocide â€” is too complex to treat in a short time. The Turkish people, not only the Turkish Government as many times mistakenly put, firmly believe that what happened to the Armenians was not genocide. This stance does not aim to belittle the suffering of Armenians as well as of Turks or to deny that high numbers of lives have been lost in Anatolia. Every loss of life is deplorable and tragic. To mourn these losses and learn about our common history is one thing but attempting to use these tragic â€” tragic equally to both sides â€” events for political or material gains today is another.

In the years that the Ottoman Empire was getting closer to its final collapse, Armenians had decided to wage an armed struggle against Ottomans with the aim of creating an independent state of their own in Eastern Anatolia.

The problem with the Armenian case was that in the territory that they were claiming, they were only a minority. Therefore, for them to be able successfully to form an independent state was possible only by ethnically â€œcleansingâ€� the majority Turks from these lands, something which they planned and started to do. They actually attacked and did whatever harm they could inflict on Turkish interests. For the Ottoman Government, they were terrorists instigating rebellion.

Alarmed by this imminent security risk and the strategic threat posed by the Armenian support of the enemy, that is, the Allied forces, the Ottoman Government decided in May 1915 to relocate only the eastern Anatolian Armenians from the six provinces with Armenian population to other parts of the Empire, away from a war zone in which they were collaborating with invading Russian armies.

Many Armenian convoys, once uprooted, became victim of unlawfulness prevailing in the region as well as the harsh natural conditions aggravated by the war. As a result, many Armenians were killed while many others made into one of these cities and formed todayâ€™s Diaspora. But, one has to remember that the number of Muslim and Turks perished in those years in those conditions is no less than those of Armenians.

The Turkish people are deeply offended by the accusations branding them as being genocidal- They find it disrespectful of their unmentioned millions of dead in a time of desperation not only for Armenians, but more so for the Turks. It is not accurate if the issue is presented as one between the Armenian Diaspora and the Turkish Government.

What determines genocide is not necessarily the number of casualties or the cruelty of the persecution but the â€œintent to destroyâ€� a group. Historically the â€œintent to destroy a raceâ€� has emerged only as the culmination of racism, as in the case of anti-Semitism and the Shoah. Turks have never harbored any anti-Armenian racism.

There is no evidence that the Ottoman Government wanted to exterminate Armenians by this decision of relocation. On the contrary, all the evidence shows just the opposite that they wanted to implement this relocation decision without risking lives.

Killing, even of civilians, in a war waged for territory, is not genocide. The victims of genocide must be totally innocent. In other words, they must not fight for something tangible like land, but be killed by the victimizer simply because of their belonging to a specific group.

What happened between Turks and Armenians was a struggle for land; branding it as genocide, a term coined to depict the Shoah, is in our opinion, the greatest disgrace to the innocent victims of the Holocaust. It is deplorable that, some Armenian groups in the Diaspora would like to exploit the horrors generated by the Holocaust as a tool in their bid to realize their self-centered, dreamy national aspirations, terribly hopelessly far from the realities.

ME: Thatâ€™s the official statement from the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa.

Holdwater: They slipped up, though, in their claim that only the "eastern Anatolian Armenians from the six provinces" were relocated. The rest is excellent.

Taner Akcam is Infuriated!

Why, how dare there be any nuance representing the historical reality when the pro-Armenians would prefer an uninterrupted, propagandistic monologue! Taner Akcam embarrassed himself with the following reply:

Thank you again for your invitation to appear as a guest on CBC's "Sunday Edition." I certainly appreciated sharing my findings on the Armenian genocide with a Canadian audience through the medium of a free press and am looking forward to contribute further.

I was, however, extremely surprised to learn that a long statement from the Turkish Embassy was read by host Michael Enright immediately following my remarks. This is shocking not only because I was given no opportunity to respond, but also, and more seriously, because Canada's national radio broadcaster felt it necessary to solicit an official position-statement from a foreign state, which had the effect of making the whole interview seem pointless and refuting my position. To me, this statement and its broadcasting are equivalent to issuing a fatwa. As you might know the fatwa is a kind of verdict issued by religious authorities, known as Muftis, to settle disputed questions in Islamic culture. A fatwa guides the believers in how to act and think and is tantamount to the â€œfinal wordâ€� on an issue. The Turkish state continues this Islamic tradition and considers it necessary to have one official â€œlast wordâ€� on any historical topic.

I have had enough personal experience with authoritarian governments to know the difference between legitimate free speech and the legitimizing of an official party line. But my problem here is not only with the Turkish government, which considers that it has the right to dictate what its citizens should think about history; rather, my problem here is with CBC and its need to seek an official statement. You invited me as a scholar to talk on a historical topic and the Turkish state is not my counterpart. Surely this is not a standard which you follow for your historical problems here in Canada. To put it another way, had I been asked to comment on the historical treatment of Native Americans, surely the CBC would never have dreamt to ask the American State Department for an official stance on my position and broadcast it after my interview. This kind of action has the effect of a double standard; what you would not do with your own history, please donâ€™t do it with others.

If you really want to support free speech in general, and, especially in Turkey, please donâ€™t legitimize the Turkish stateâ€™s official â€œfatwasâ€� by broadcasting them as a normal follow-up to an academic debate. The best way to aid Turkish society in its struggle for human rights and democracy is to remind the Turkish state that in Western societies the states, as a rule, donâ€™t have official lines or positions on certain historical events.

You might also be interested to know that Turkeyâ€™s current official state position on the Armenian genocide is â€œlet the historians discuss the issue; itâ€™s not state business.â€� However, it seems that Turkey does not actually stick to this position and quickly intervenes if one of its citizens has a position other than its official â€œfatwa.â€� Likewise, CBC doesnâ€™t want to leave the Turkish state out of the debate and felt it was necessary, or was compelled, to seek their official position; if the latter is the case, CBC owes us an explanation for what forced them to do so.

Thank you again for the opportunity to share my view of history. I hope that in the future CBC will be more sensitive in constructing discussions on historical topics.

Sincerely,

Taner AkÃ§am
Visiting Associate Professor
Department of History
University of Minnesota

(History... and Taner AkÃ§am, in the same sentence. Chilling.)

Unbelievable. The above is such a comical example of self-destruction, it needs no response... speaking for itself. I can understand why some have given Taner Akcam the nickname, "village idiot."

However, I can't resist pointing to some of the statements within this disastrous letter.

There is no shortage of those who advocate the Armenian "Genocide," but when thoughtful media outlets attempt a sense of fair play, finding those to counter the lies can be next-to-impossible. (Reason: pro-Armenian terror tactics, looking to ruin reputations. Nobody dares to go up against the pro-Armenian fanatics who operate from the unethical standpoint of the end justifying the means.) Naturally, the only outlet serving as opposition then becomes the various Turkish embassies. Thus, the CBC was not looking for an "official statement" from the Turkish government. CBC was looking to even the scales of what it recognized as a hot button, controversial topic. The Turkish government was the only one available to approach.

So what should it matter whether the opposition comes from another professor, or from the "sinister" Turkish government? It is only the message that should be considered important, not the messenger. Here, Akcam has the audacity to equate the messenger with a fanatical Islamist issuing a "fatwa." This is a regrettable approach, to be kind.

Such is the sleazy tactic of the pro-Armenians, looking to discredit their opponent in irrelevant ways. Akcam makes the outright charge of labeling Turkey as an "authoritarian" government... even though he has had his own poisonous books freely published there since 1991. This kind of allowance would not come from a government that "considers that it has the right to dictate what its citizens should think about history."

The "Native American" parallel is not analogous, as everyone knows the Indians got the short end of the stick of their conflict, with the "white man" breaking every treaty and decimating the Indian population. The Armenian myth is far from as cut and dried; there is a lot of funny business going on with the bigoted sources the pro-Armenians point to.

"The best way to aid Turkish society in its struggle for human rights and democracy is to remind the Turkish state that in Western societies the states, as a rule, donâ€™t have official lines or positions on certain historical events." Taner Akcam and others like him are the last to lecture on "human rights and democracy," because by concentrating on only one side of the story, they are undemocratically turning a blind eye to the "less-than-human" others who suffered at least as equally, if not more. (Numerically, many more non-Armenians were directly killed by Armenians than the other way around.) And if Western societies avoid official lines on historical events, we wouldn't have the politicians of these "enlightened" nations voting on genocide resolutions without a care for the actual historic events.

If Akcam is outraged over the lack of free speech, he should be up in arms at the way Western nations such as France and Switzerland make it a crime to disagree with the Armenian mythology. In the "authoritarian" country he evidently despises so much, I'm not aware of people being taken to court for advocating the Armenian "genocide." If this were the case, Akcam would have been arrested the next time he set foot in his homeland, for writing "genocide" books released in Turkey.

Akcam had a nerve hit when his rubbish (and I thought the brunt of his claims had been in existence already through the obsessive research of Dadrian and others, yet he has the nerve to term them as his findings) was countered with the actual historical realities, undoing his foul work; he desperately lashed out, hitting below the belt as much as he could muster. This imposter "historian" should be thanked for showing his true amateurish stripes. The whole idea of the forces he represents is to try and stifle academic debate; if he were so certain about his "facts," he wouldn't have felt as intimidated.

Taner Akcam charges Turkish historians with a "crime"

The following examines the methodology of Taner Akcam as he desperately attempts to discredit Turkish historians, in his relentless efforts to affirm the Armenians' genocide. He goes so far as to accuse academicians with a differing point of view as being criminals. Is he overstating his case? Or has he adopted the smear tactics of his Armenian benefactors to an overbearing degree? These would be the ones who feel no compunction in accusing others of crimes when there is no genuine proof... particularly when the charge is "genocide."

In the Journal of Genocide Research (2005, 7[2], June, 255-277), Taner Akcam composed a ditty entitled, â€œAnatomy of a Crime: the Turkish Historical Societyâ€™s Manipulation of Archival Documents,â€� where he goes to lengths to demonstrate the THSâ€™s dishonesty. The irony of the situation is something to behold, given Mr. Akcamâ€™s known disregard for the facts.

Iâ€™m not one to automatically defend the Turkish Historical Society (herein referred to as the THS) myself; as far as Iâ€™m concerned, the â€œanti-genocideâ€� forces need to be squeaky-clean with their presentation, and I have seen inattention to detail with some ot the things Iâ€™ve read... which hasnâ€™t been much, as I have mainly concentrated on Western documentation to make my case. However, it is a stretch to claim any slip-ups are intentional distortions. It seems to me most of these â€œgenocide scholarsâ€� from Turkey are relative newcomers... in other words, they havenâ€™t had the lifelong obsession of one such as Akcamâ€™s mentor, Vahakn Dadrian... and when mistakes are made, as unfortunate as it is for â€œprofessionalsâ€� to make mistakes, there is no room for hysteria-speak, like determining such mistakes to be a â€œcrime.â€�

The only time to go into such territory is if the scholar in question has a history of making willful distortions... like Dadrian and Akcam, purposely concentrating on only one side of the story, and turning a blind eye to other realities. I myself have gone through, and am continuing to go through, a learning curve... and there are some facts I used to swear by, until I discovered things were not the way I believed. At that point, one must â€œreviseâ€� oneâ€™s views, as better information comes to light. And such revision is the business of history... presuming the writer is motivated by truth and honor.

Off the bat, Akcam reports the THS book he has set upon to discredit (entitled â€œThe Armenians: Expulsion and Migration,â€� Ankara, 2004) claims some 200,000 Armenians lost their lives, a number I donâ€™t happen to agree with. Akcam quotes a passage where the book explains:

"The Armenian Deportations must not be conceived as a decision which was enacted against a community living in a vacuum within Ottoman society. On one hand, the Armenians themselves are not entirely innocent in the matter. And even so, what sort of legal measures would any other state adopt against a community that collaborates with the enemy and carries out a planned revolt during a period in which a life-and-death struggle was taking place in Gallipoli? In the end, it was the Armenians who lost. If they had won, they would have established another independent state like Greece, Serbia or Bulgaria. [But] this action on the part of the Armenians ultimately resulted in their expulsion from Anatolia."

Thatâ€™s it â€” the big picture, in a nutshell... and everything written is backed up by sources without conflicts-of-interest, and the Armenians themselves. What has been described is irrefutable history. (Although Iâ€™d beg to differ with a few of the statements. The life-and-death struggle was occurring in other regions besides Gallipoli, and the Armenians were allowed to return, the resettlement having been a temporary measure; of the [up to] 644,900 Armenians within Ottoman borders after warâ€™s end, according to the Patriarch, many left on their own accord... and many didnâ€™t dare to come back.)

Because one like Akcam cannot deny this expressed truth, what he must do is nit-pick... to needle... to throw smokescreen evidence or claims in an effort to cast doubt. Look at what he says:

"Even if we accept this thesis that the state can deliberately deport hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, knowing that many of them will perish, it amounts to nothing less than the legitimation of state-sanctioned mass killing."

So simple... so neat, and tidy. So completely unmindful of the realities, such as:

1) Itâ€™s wartime. Super-powered enemies, having agreed to dismantle Ottoman Turkey via secret treaties, are knocking at all gates.

2) The nation is in serious danger of extinction, particularly after the decimation of the eastern armies at Sarikamish, not helped by the absence of thousands of Ottoman-Armenian soldiers who had deserted to the enemy.

3) The nation is bankrupt. There is no manpower, and no resources to spare.

4) The Armenians are rebelling, posing a significant military threat. There are perhaps 50,000 behind-the-lines, posing as a fifth column.

5) Ottoman orders point to the protection of Armenian lives and property. Lack of planning, chaos and corruption sometimes hindered the carrying out of these orders. Big operations donâ€™t always go smoothly, especially if they are undertaken at the last minute.

6) Thousands of Turks were dying daily of starvation, according to Ambassador Morgenthau. General Harbord believed 600,000 Turkish soldiers succumbed to typhus alone. If Armenians had remained in their homes, no one can say they would have escaped death by famine and disease, when droves of their countrymen were dying of the same.

7) In1915, the rail system was limited. What takes precedence in this desperate situation is that the treacherous Armenian community needed to be moved away. The government bears responsibility for not protecting these people better... just like they bear responsibility for not protecting Turks/Muslims who were being massively murdered by the Armenians.

8) Any other nation under the same circumstances and time period would not have behaved differently. In fact, as Arthur Tremaine Chester logically pointed out in a parallel, imaginary case against Mexico with rebellious â€œNegroes,â€� the United States government would probably not have even bothered with a "deportation."

In typical pro-genocide fashion, the propagandist must focus on singular facets while ignoring all other realities. If Ottoman imperfections and ineptitude existed, it is an irresponsibly simple matter to draw conclusions such as "genocide." Meanwhile, never mind the fact that the majority of Armenians survived, some of those who committed crimes against Armenians were punished, hostile foreign agents were permitted to aid the suffering Armenians, there were exemptions of some Armenian groups and localities, and the list goes on.

Akcam informs us the book is composed of three sections: [1] Review of Armenian literature of the period [2] Population figures [3] Additional figures via missionary and Armenian sources.

Akcam criticizes the THS for giving much credence to the Ottoman census of 1.3 million. "It has been argued that the Ottoman government, for political reasons, intentionally undercounted the Armenians."

What is "argued" does not lead to what is a "fact." The Ottoman Empire did not gear their national policies with the Armenians in mind. The idea of taking a census was to count the numbers as accurately as possible. Indeed, the previous censuses all show a natural progression leading to the later 1.3 million figure.

Now there might have been an undercounting, but "intentional" can only be the speculation of an agenda-ridden propagandist. Nevertheless, the bookâ€™s conclusion for the "'acceptable' figure for [Ottoman Armenians before 1915] found in all studies of a scientific bent... is not less than 1.5 million" is a fair one. Even Akcamâ€™s pro-genocide and fellow ex-communist buddy, Halil Berktay, has accepted 1.5 million as the accurate pre-war count.

Taner Akcam

As I havenâ€™t read the book Akcam is criticizing and am forced to accept Akcamâ€™s dubious word, he accuses the authors of making use of existing arguments for why the Armenians might have over-counted and undercounted. (Of course, the Armenian argument for undercounting â€” attempting to reduce communal tax obligations â€” doesnâ€™t make sense, because the Armenian Patriarchâ€™s figure of 2.1 million, which even Arnold Toynbee allowed to be possibly exaggerated in his 1916 "Treatment of Armenians" work, is wildly above all reasonable estimates; in addition, the Patriarchate is on record to have purposefully exaggerated to have satisfied their cause of ingratiating themselves to the Europeans as a populous and legitimate nation, and this raison dâ€™etre logically would have superseded all else.) If Akcam is correct, he would have a point; since one canâ€™t have it both ways. Yet, the contradictory assertion from the book ("[Armenian] community leaders always tended to present their population as small[-er than it actually was], for the purpose of evading taxes") may not necessarily be a contradiction. LOCAL community leaders might have done exactly as such, but the numbers that the Patriarch picked out of the air for the cumulative total is an entirely different configuration. In other words, the patriarchs had their own way of figuring these numbers, like counting up to sixty Armenians per household in 1880.

Where the book breaks new ground, according to Akcam, is that it refers to foreign archival sources that have normally been dismissed as unreliable wartime propagandists, in an effort to support the "Official Turkish Thesis" (in Akcamâ€™s words; less biased parties would refer to this "thesis," as condensed above, as "Real History.")

I would imagine the authors did not make the claim that the majority of these foreign sources could assert "Real History," since those like Morgenthau, Lepsius, Bryce and the foreign consuls were largely prejudiced people with conflicts-of-interest and an agenda to serve. Akcam points out the "authors further state that only a small amount of the foreign archival material was used to support their thesis," even though they could have used more. Here is an opportunity for Akcam to try and catch the authors with their pants down, although it doesnâ€™t sound like theyâ€™re claiming anything thatâ€™s out of bounds with reason. If the authors wrote "the Armenians never encountered anything along the lines of a planned action to wipe them out," that is the truth; those who made such conclusions were religious and racist bigots who merely offered their opinions â€” based on hearsay and prejudice â€” and there is no factual evidence. Yet Akcam writes "such a conclusion is remarkable," and it "demands to be examined more thoroughly." Akcam is determined to scrape the bottom of the barrel with his effort to demonstrate a "crime," in his attempt to detract and discredit.

"It is unlikely that a precise order to exterminate every single Armenian came down from the ruling Turkish triumvirate of Tallat [sic] Bey, Minister of the Interior, Enver Pasha, Minister of War, and Djemal Pasha, Minister of the Navy. The responsibility of these men for collective deportation is clear; but deportation â€” a time-honoured strategy in nineteenth-century Turkey â€” while tantamount to death for the old, the weak and the infirm, was not genocide."

Prof. Jay Winter, "Armenian genocide club colleague," THE GREAT WAR, 1996, P. 148

Akcam charges that the context and meaning of German-language documents were deliberately distorted, comparing this "crime" with the alterations of the 1919 German Foreign Ministry and Lepsius, in an effort to exonerate the perceived German complicity. At least Akcam is on record admitting how unreliable Lepsiusâ€™ testimony and methods had been. (In a footnote, however, Akcam further damages what little is left of his credibility by writing that the mad missionary and biased head of the German-Armenian Society "would later publish numerous other, fuller histories of the events which included ample documentation," and that Lepsiusâ€™ "work remains a fundamental if incomplete source for researchers of the period." Lepsius got a good share of his "ample documentation" from Morgenthau, and these concocted stories were rejected even by the British in the Malta Tribunal process. The rest was hearsay and fabrications, since Lepsius never set foot on the territories he was writing about. Any researcher who attempts to give credibility to such false information from a known liar might just as well hang a "do not trust me" sign on his door.)

Akcam also announces with relish that he engaged in battle within the pages of the Armenian-Turkish newspaper AGOS, with one of the authors, Prof. Kemal Cicek. Akcam characterizes Cicekâ€™s Sept. 3, 2004 open letter as "personal attacks" (examples from the footnote demonstrate Cicek had little respect for Akcam, calling him an "alleged historian"; now that is absolutely true, since Akcamâ€™s academic degree was in sociology, not that we're without other examples of his being a failure as a historian... since a true historian considers all sides to a story, not just the ones he likes. Cicek also refers to Akcam as a "village idiot," certainly not gallant, but given the disrespect even some Armenian historians have for Akcam, such a depiction might not be completely off the mark) while it would seem to me it was Akcam who "fired the first shot" with his three-part criticism series. At least Akcam is not breaking stride here; when the Armenians engaged in violence and murder, they would characterize the counter-reaction as "massacres." Here an author is defending himself against Akcamâ€™s initial attack, and Akcam is giving the idea that the defender is the cruel one. Poor, innnocent Taner Akcam.

The first example of distortion Akcam provides is a July 25, 1915 letter by the German Consul in Trebizond. Since Akcamâ€™s "professional" foreign language is German (he got his sociology degree in Germany), he puts his knowledge to good use with his version of the translation. He shouldnâ€™t have needed anybody to go over his words, as he must with these reports that he presents in suspiciously immaculate English.

Akcamâ€™s translation:

Soon after their deportation from Trebizond, rumors began to emerge that the massacre of the Armenians had already begun... The experience demonstrated that the anti-Turkish fantasies in Trebizond had borne the most incredible fruit. The rumors were received by the Imperial [German] Consulate with great reservation. They tended to concentrate around certain claims whose veracity I felt obligated to investigate for the sake of the reputations of both Germany and Turkey..

The THSâ€™ translation:

After their deportation from Trebizond, speculation began to circulate that the massacre of the Armenians had already begun... Hostile fantasies (Dusman fantazisi) emerged which lay the responsibility for the bloodshed in Trabzon upon the Turks. The speculations were investigated by the German Consulate within a profound silence. The task was taken on of confirming their veracity with a view toward the advantages of German and Turkish prestige, and the consular functionaries labored tirelessly over certain of these claims.

Brother!

Sure, the translation of the latter version may not be as polished as Akcamâ€™s... But if one compares the above two versions sentence-by-sentence, whereas perhaps better words might have been used in Akcamâ€™s version (â€œrumorsâ€� instead of the less smooth â€œspeculationsâ€�), I donâ€™t perceive any difference in the overall meanings.

A TRANSLATION TEST

I decided to try a little test by giving the German text to one I know whose proficiency with the language should be at least on a par with Akcamâ€™s. I didnâ€™t give a clue regarding any background to the text; I just asked for a translation. You can try this test as well; the text reads:

bald nach dem Abtransport der Armenier aus Trapezunt traten Geruche auf, dass ihre Hinmordung bereits begonnen habe... Die Erfahrung had gelehrt, dass die den Turken feindliche Phantasie in Trapezunt die unglaublischsten Bluten treibt. Die Geruchte wurden daher seitens des Kaiserlichen Konsulats mit grosser Zuruchhalturn auf genommen. Sie verdichteten sich indessen zu derart bestimmten Behauptungen, dass ich mich im Interesse des deutchen und turkischen Ansehens fur verpflichtet hielt, die Angaben auf ihre Wahrheit nachzuprufen.

The translation:

Soon after the transportation (taking away) of the Armenians from Trapezunt, rumors arose (emerged) that their murder (assassination) had already started. Experience taught that hostile fantasies (of the Turks? about Turks? Confusing â€” See below) in Trapezunt drove to the most unbelievable bloodshed. These rumors were therefore received with great reservation by the imperial consulate. Meanwhile they condensed to certain (specific) assertions, that I feel bound to test the truth of the statements in the interest of German and Turkish standing (esteem, reputation).

The winner: Taner Akcam. Yes, the above â€œneutralâ€� translation is closer to Akcamâ€™s chosen words.

Yet, there are a few phrases that equal the THSâ€™ version, in particular "Hostile fantasies."

There are nuances in language that may escape even those who are proficient in that language. Such becomes abundantly clear with the notes my translator provided:

Die Erfahrung hat gelehrt, dass die den Turken feindliche Phantasie in Trapezuntâ€¦..

Turks here is used in the dative case which would mean, correctly stated: den TÃ¼rken gegenÃ¼berâ€¦ Translated this would mean hostile fantasies about Turksâ€¦ But the author may mean the genitive case â€“ Turksâ€™ hostile fantasies which drove to that bloodshed

(He is definitely not proficient in written German.)

If genitive = the Turksâ€™ hostile fantasies

If dative (as written plus the word gegenÃ¼ber) = hostile fantasies about the Turksâ€¦

The author most probably means the genitive case, given his poor German. On the other hand, since he is saying that the emperor received the rumors with reservation, it could mean that these hostile fantasies were about the Turks, which is why the emperor didnâ€™t want to act upon these rumors, so as not to drive to more bloodshed.

The most important sentence of this meaningless paragraph is grammatically incorrect, which could mean â€“ in either direction.

The word used â€œHinmordungâ€� does not exist. There is Hinrichtung (execution) or Ermordung (murder in the sense of assassination). He probably means mass murder.

------

Now I donâ€™t know how "on the button" my translator is, as much as Iâ€™m aware of my translatorâ€™s expertise. The point is, someone could set upon providing as accurate a translation as possible, and still go off track. It's obvious from this example that the THS translation provides basically the same meaning. Why is Akcam attempting to present the idea that the THS has willfully distorted this translation?

In order to detract from the big picture, a propagandist like Akcam must look at a little wrinkle in the picture and say, Look! Look! The whole picture is no good.

Akcam does provide a few examples where the meanings were poorly presented, and if he provides an honest accounting, then heâ€™s not without a point. The THS people should have been extremely scrupulous with their work, as they should be aware there are barracudas like Akcam ever waiting and ready to strike at the most mild signs of deficiency.

Yet even in some of these examples, Akcam reaches wildly. For example, he complains that what should have been "a proof that a planned disposal of any possible corpses had not yet happened" wound up being, "this is probable proof that there was no plan to dispose of the corpses."

Akcamâ€™s explanation: "It is obvious to the reader that Bergfeldâ€™s statement 'a plan for the disposition of the bodies had not yet been made' implies that sometime in the future a plan could be implemented. However, the authors translate the sentence as if Bergfeld had said that there was probable proof of no plan for disposing of bodies."

Akcam is trying too hard to find "criminals" here. He might be correct that the literal translation had room for improvement. Yet, I donâ€™t see this as evidence as intentional distortion. Yes, what Bergfeld is saying is that he expected a planned disposal of corpses, but it didn't happen, so there was no proof. If there was no proof, then his expectation was wrong, and maybe there was no plan to dispose of the corpses after all. In this event, "this is probable proof that there was no plan to dispose of the corpses." THSâ€™ version does not sound off the mark at all; the magic word is "probable."

Akcam writes:

"In his response to my comments, Professor Cicek both defends these translation errors and indirectly admits that the translation may have been incorrect. On one hand, he claims there were no distortions in it whatsoever, saying that 'the German Consular report was included almost in its entirety by us in [our] work.' On the other hand, he acknowledges, at one point, 'even if we were to suppose that Akcam's translation is more accurate...' hinting at the possibility that his own translation is wrong."

How does Akcam make the jump that the THS translation is "incorrect" or "wrong," when Cicek is saying what they wound up with might have been less accurate? In other words, if "rumors" is a better word than "speculations," that doesnâ€™t mean "speculations" doesnâ€™t give the similar meaning. Seems like it doesnâ€™t matter whether Cicek stepped on the grass or chopped down the tree. Akcam is going to brand him a "criminal," no matter what.

Akcam continues:

"It appears that for Professor Cicek, the distortion of a translation is unimportant, the meaning remains unchanged regardless of the quality of the translation, and in any case it doesnâ€™t really matter upon which translation one bases one's claims, the document still wonâ€™t show that there was a planned massacre. To Professor Cicek, my criticism of the adulterated translation is only a minor irritant. The real issue, in his words, is this: â€˜It befits [only] Akcam to accept on the basis of these lines that a planned massacre was carried outâ€™."

If a translation is not literally squeaky clean but still gives the same overall impression, that is not perfectly professional. But itâ€™s still a far cry from being a willful "distortion." I am not sure Cicek would have concluded, "the meaning remains unchanged regardless of the quality of the translation," the words Akcam is trying to put in his mouth. Cicek is only referring to this particular translation, and judging by the passages Akcam has presented, there is not a critical difference in the overall meaning. Prof. Cicek is 100% correct in treating Akcamâ€™s attack as a "nuisance suit," for Akcam is not a real scholar. Akcam has the intended goal to affirm his bread-and-butter genocide no matter what. So the charge is true: "It befits [only] Akcam to accept on the basis of these lines that a planned massacre was carried out."

As Akcam claims the "conscious alteration of a document for the purpose of making it support oneâ€™s argument may be considered a crime against scholarship," let's bear in mind that he has gained a reputation as a history scholar who can read the Ottoman Archives in Ottoman Turkish. Yet, Dr. Meltem Deniz took it upon herself, with the aid of an Ottoman-Turkish dictionary, to check up on how scrupulously Akcam went about such translations. She wrote:

"Taner Akcam... apparently does not even know Ottoman Turkish or is not hesitant to step on ethics accepted in academia. I was always wondering where and when he found the time to learn and read the archives, taking his past into consideration."

Dr. Deniz provided examples of where Akcam went "wrong" (in "Taner Akcam's Ethics as a Scholar," soon available). The reader can judge whether the conclusion may be fairly reached that Akcam is "not only uneducated but also untruthful."

To give the reader an idea of how much more difficult an undertaking it is to translate Ottoman Turkish, Dr. Deniz wrote:

First, I tried to list all the possibilities why Akcam would misinterpretâ€¦While doing that, I realized how â€œsensitiveâ€� it is to read the archives. For example;

This is â€œháºlâ€� in Ottoman Turkishâ€¦which means condition, situationâ€¦

This is â€œháºlâ€� as well, in Ottoman Turkishâ€¦but this one means â€œuncleâ€�... motherâ€™s brotherâ€¦.(watch the little dot on L shape letter which is the only difference and excuse my drawings..) but for some reason it also means the nevus on your bodyâ€¦.

Briefly, reading the â€œOttoman Archives in Ottoman Turkishâ€� requires extensive and special training. An archive expert is some one who knows the Arabic Alphabet, Arabic, Persian and Turkish grammar.

[A] Up to this point in his essay, Akcam has not demonstrated any alterations that change the overall meaning of the documents, [B] If the German and English words are not as on the ball as they should have been, that could mean the translator wasnâ€™t adept enough and a "conscious alteration" is in the eyes of the beholder, and [C] Anyone who willfully presents one side of an issue while closing his eyes to the rest cannot be termed qualified to judge on "scholarship."

So I find it quite ironic that this putative scholar would write the following words: "It is... even obligatory, to consult other sources dealing with the events described in the document in question if one wishes to better understand the events..."

Akcam next complains that another document (American Consul Heizerâ€™s) was used to evaluate the Bergfeld one. Cicek makes the "admission" (note how a word like "revelation" is put aside in favor of words we might better apply to a "criminal") that the Bergfeld report is not the original but a version "adulterated by Lepsius." Heizer referred to "Turks" when Lepsius chose the more incriminating word "workers." (Hired hands "who were ordered" â€” in words Lepsius added, not found in Heizerâ€™s report â€” to get on with the dirty genocide business, instead of people who just happened to be there.)

Akcam faults Cicek for adjusting translations based on more reliable accounts, and for accusing Akcam of remaining bound to a conflicted source such as Lepsius. ("Authors who cite those things written by Lepsius at face value, who do not see the passages he has crossed out, this is ... truly... â€˜disgracefulâ€™.")

So here Akcam picks at straws again, asking many questions, some not without justification, such as why the Lepsius alterations were not revealed. But, again, the big picture is as Cicek charged. An agenda-ridden propagandist like Akcam has no compunction against referring to sources bereft of credibility, such as Lepsius. "Disgraceful" is an appropriate word to describe such â€œscholarlyâ€� tactics.

In his next example of criminality, Akcam refers to the report by Dadrian favorite, the Turk-ever- hating Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter. Again, Iâ€™m at a disadvantage for not having the original work to see how the THS handled matters. But it is the prerogative of an author to sometimes paraphrase a source; if every word is literally transcribed, the resulting work could reach encyclopedic proportions.

With this in mind, Akcam accuses the THS authors of further criminality:

Scheubner-Richter: "At the beginning of June, the first group of Armenian notables were given a period of 14 days to leave Erzurum." Cicek and his colleagues are accused of rendering this statement "in a general sense": "In June, the Armenians were expelled after a period of 14 days."

Unless that rendering was meant to be a direct translation, there is nothing wrong with such paraphrasing.

Scheubner-Richter: â€œMost of them was given a period of 14 days to prepare for the journey.â€� THS (and Akcam identifies this as a paraphrasing, so we can assume these are not meant to be direct translations):

"On the other hand, it appears in this report that a 14-day period for the migration was accorded in almost every location."

Akcam complains: "In short, Scheubner-Richterâ€™s report on 'most of' the Armenians in the city of Erzurum has been stretched to cover the entire Armenian population in almost every location [in Anatolia]."

The term "it appears" allows saving grace to make such speculation. It would be unrealistic to assume the Ottoman officials in Istanbul would calculate different time periods for different locations. If they (assuming it was the main leaders, and not the local officials) came up with two weeks for Erzurum, it would be natural to speculate such would be the time period for most of the other locations. So, yes; judging from this report, and for possible lack of other information, it is a reasonable conclusion to assume that it would appear 14 days was the allotment for almost every location.

Perhaps 14 days was an exception, as Scheubner-Richter indicates that the Erzurum Armenians got better treatment "as a consequence of the Valiâ€™s concession and [Scheubner-Richterâ€™s] efforts," and Akcam tells us "It is well known that in the rural areas of Erzurum, outside the city limits â€” to say nothing of the rest of Anatolia â€” the Armenians were deported within hours, not days, of notification." In the footnotes, his "evidence" boils down (aside from a report by another German officer, Dadrian-favorite Stange) to a work from fellow genocide club member Hilmar Kaiser. I am sure there were Armenians who were treated heavy-handedly, and a 14 day-notice does sound a little too leisurely as the norm. To get to the bottom of the average length of time the Armenians were alloted requires examination by an objective party. Perhaps the THS authors knew better, or perhaps this is an example of their shoddy scholarship.

The THS authors do appear to be aware of Scheubner-Richterâ€™s report where Armenians were forced to leave in a short time because of Scheubner-Richter and the Vali being temporarily absent. In the book, there is this passage: "But this special permission was at one point revoked by the army command. These persons were forced to leave Erzurum within a very brief period."

So that is odd, for the THS authors to have recognized this 14 day allotment as a â€œspecial permissionâ€�; I wish I had the original book to see in which context they pointed to the 14 days appearing to be the norm.

What was the average length of time that was given as resettlement notice? Iâ€™ve been keeping a radar out since the writing of this essay, and here are examples from a few sources who were wildly pro-Armenian:

1) Missionary Mary Louise Graffam: "...on the following Monday (this was Friday) the [Sivas] deportations would begin." (Miss Graffam's Own Story.)

2) Leon Surmelian: "...every Armenian in the province of Trebizond [is] to be ready to leave in one week, June 24 to July 1." (I Ask You Ladies and Gentlemen)

3) Soghoman Tehlirian, trial transcript: "In the early part of June, an order was issued for the people to get
ready to leave the city [Erzurum]... Three days later... the people were taken out of the city." (The assassin was fighting with the Russians at the time, so his word is especially dubious.) Another Armenian at the trial states the well-to-do of "Garin" were given eight days notice. That means if the "deportation" was carried out by separate groups, the time from the original notice until the time for the later groups would have been longer.

No doubt there are enough propaganda accounts that say there was a late-hour, Gestapo-style knock on the door, telling the residents to leave NOW. But these are the accounts that claim everything and anything, and only scholars on the level of Akcam should be welcome to accept them at face value. Given the examples Iâ€™ve provided of half a week to one week, from highly propagandistic sources, it is difficult to conclude that a few â€œhoursâ€� notice was the norm, as Akcam claims.

Letâ€™s digress for a moment, and explore the rule for presenting passages ethically. Earlier, I mentioned that Morgenthau had written in his "Story" book that thousands of Turks were dying daily of starvation. Since Morgenthau gave a rare display of "sympathy" for the Turks here, am I obligated to mention the racist ambassadorâ€™s hateful stance on the Turks as well? No; Iâ€™m only wishing to make a point of how the entire population was subjected to starvation, so I am allowed to take out this singular passage without needing to reveal the Turks were subhuman creatures, as Morgenthau attempted to demonstrate.

But if Morgenthau had his ghostwriter tell us thousands of Turks were dying daily only to make a later conclusion that the reverse was true, then it would be unethical for me to use the part I liked, and make no mention of the real point that followed.

So if the THS authors tried to give the impression that the 14 day period was the norm when the source they were using later wrote the contrary, that would have been wrong. Thatâ€™s what Akcam is telling us they did; maybe heâ€™s right, but since the THS authors did go on to reveal that this 14 day period was a "special permission," I canâ€™t be sure. Maybe they started out by writing that it "appeared" the 14 day period was the norm, building up to the later revelation that such couldnâ€™t have been, and Akcam neglected to tell us the later part. Only a reading of the book will get to the bottom of this alleged "crime."

Even if the THS fouled up here, Akcam is really applying tiny-threaded needlework to the sweater he is knitting. For example, Akcam translates the German in the above passage to read, "They had to leave Erzurum within an extremely short period of time..." Akcam is outraged that the authors "delete(d)" the "adverb intensifier 'extremely'," "in order to make the document fit their thesis." In other words, does "within a very brief period" give a very different connotation?

(Incidentally, how many of us native English speakers can identify what an "intensifier" is? Taner Akcam's mastery of the English language is truly something.)

Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter

Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter, born 1884, had a Doctorate in Engineering; he was vice-consul in Erzurum during 1915. Eight years later, he would be shot dead, during Hitler's premature misstep in challenging the State.

Max Erwin von Scheubner Richter wrote, "The Armenians of Turkey for all practical purposes have been exterminated." Given that one million Armenians survived from a pre-war population of some 1.5 million, we can determine exactly how much credibility Nazi-to-be von Scheubner-Richter deserves.

It is said von Scheubner-Richter was introduced to Hitler by Alfred Rosenberg in 1920, after which Richter joined the Nazi party. During this brief relationship, some pro-Armenian scholars (and other apologists, like Mike Joseph) would have us believe Richter whispered genocidal thoughts in the future Fuehrer's ear, implanting the notion of the Holocaust.

Such are the simplistic conclusions offered by the genocide scholars. You have a little fact here... you have a little fact there. A-ha. A handy connection.

Hitler needed no incentive to dream up his mad visions. If previous historical models of extermination are sought, there was a long list to inspire Hitler, if indeed he needed such inspiration... one being his own colonialist nation's attempt to eradicate the Hereros of Southwest Africa in the 1900s, where some 70% were cleaned out. Moreover, there were many during the 1915 period who believed the "genocide" was directed by Germany itself (A little fact here... Herero extermination a few years before 1915. A little fact there... Germany basically in charge of the Ottoman military during 1915. A-ha. Instant connection, one that "genocide scholars" should love.) So if the Armenians' genocide actually inspired Hitler, perhaps the Ottoman Turks didn't deserve the credit.

For example, Armenians love Dr. Clarence Ussher, a missionary doctor who was a "witness to genocide"; Atom Egoyan's film ARARAT was based upon parts of the American physician's racist book. Here is what Ussher ushered in:

"That the deportations were planned by the Prussian Government cannot be doubted by anyone who has had first-hand knowledge concerning them. If Germany was to rule Turkey in the end, she would avoid trouble with the progressive and nationalistic Armenians by scattering them among the Turksâ€¦any territory occupied by her must be rid of its original inhabitants, or they must be so scattered as to form no longer a homogenous population." He added: "Germany was also largely responsible for the massacres and atrocities that accompanied the deportations."

Maybe this is why Germany is currently running like a chicken without its head, trying to get Turkey to recognize the Armenian myth. The Germans have tried this kind of stunt before, in an effort to get the world to believe the Germans should be off the 1915 hook; that was when they allowed the murderer of Talat Pasha to walk away, a free man.

Akcam gives another example of a Scheubner-Richter passage, with incriminating words like "policy of extermination," that were left out by the THS authors.

Akcam is not entirely without a point, as petty and overblown as he is with most of his charges. These accounts by diplomatic consuls, wholly affected by their Christian sensibilities, their age-old contempt and bigotry for the "inferior" and terrible Turks, and rarely if ever witnessing these events firsthand (like the other consuls, the Germans accepted what the Armenians and missionaries reported), serve as treacherous waters. I don't see why the THS folks went near these mine fields to support their case, but since they decided to make an analysis, they had to more fully consider the endless negative accounts as well. Itâ€™s not like they have avoided the "bad" things, itâ€™s just that they donâ€™t appear to have considered the "bad" things more comprehensively. So they left themselves open to the genocide vampires.

In other words, it would have been better to acknowledge Scheubner-Richterâ€™s conclusions like "policy of extermination." Maybe they took it for granted that such conclusions were not worthy of consideration, since it only amounted to the personal opinion of one biased man, based not on evidence but on hearsay.

Yet Akcam has nerve making awful statements such as "Thus Cicek and his accomplices [as in 'accomplice to a crime'] have behaved in the same manner as Lepsius and German Foreign Ministry officials... in an attempt to 'doctor' them in accordance with their own designs." Again, itâ€™s not like the THS has turned a blind eye to the incriminating passages, and most of the distortions/mistranslations have been bloated by the likes of Taner Akcam. The real parallel to Lepsius, those who deliberately alter the facts or don't consider the harmful ones, are the genocide club members.

The THS authors cite the German Consul Rossler as a source to back up their numerical calculations: "he wrote â€˜that nearly 500,000 Armenians were exempted from deportation, and 500,000 [others] were brought to Mesopotamia and Syria."

Here is the part of Rosslerâ€™s writings the authors took that from: "The number of those in all of Asia Minor [who have been exempted] from the deportation is 1/2 million at the very most... no more than 1/2 million have arrived in Syria and Mesopotamia..."

Itâ€™s an exact match.

Akcam tries to "criminalize" the authors by offering some of the other statements Rossler has made... such as Rosslerâ€™s opinion that there were 2.5 million pre-war Armenians, that the convoys have been at least 75% decimated, the women and girls carried off to Muslim harems, and other biased balderdash.

Referring to the rules of passage-presentation, the authors did not have to stop and point out Rosslerâ€™s naivete and bigotry. They were perfectly entitled to single out the specific information Rossler provided.

Akcam's next example is more on the mark; US Consul Nathanâ€™s "thousands" of Armenians arriving in Mersin had been changed to "hundreds of thousands." I donâ€™t believe this was deliberate (Akcam is quick to nastily charge this was an alteration made to "bolster their case"); such an error is inconsistent with the rest of the book. It is an example of sloppiness, and it's an unfortunate one.

In the next example, the THS authors apparently exhibited lack of attention to detail by confusing the name of one consul (Nathan) for another official (Greg Young). Mr. Young has apparently taken the rare trouble of checking out conditions for himself, and relates the awful miseries. Akcam accuses the THS authors of one mistranslation, and of selectively using the good parts, to the exclusion of the rest.

Akcam cites a few more examples, including a troubling one by Consul Bergfeld where he claimed responsibility for gaining exemptions for certain classes of Armenians. Three days later, most of these exemptions were revoked, Bergfeld wrote, "apparently under instructions from Constantinople." Akcam charges, "Cicek and his colleagues have withheld embarrassing sections of the very document on which their case rests." I have a feeling the reason has more to do with a lack of attention for detail, which is not very commendable either.

Akcam concludes by accusing the THS authors of "systematically 'doctoring' the data." There appear to be a few that are serious, but many of the examples Akcam provides are overblown. The ex-convict "visiting professor" comes across as so upstanding, I fear he has actually come to believe that his own standards are nothing short of impeccable ("Suspicion within the academic community as to whether or not sources have been honestly and accurately presented is something that can poison the entire scientific milieu" and "[the THS authors] have violated the â€˜sense of trustâ€™ that is the necessary basis for relations among scholars.")

A Rossler Tidbit

Walter Rossler was another German consul (Aleppo) who, like his fellow consuls from Europe and America, rarely took personal note of the goings-on, instead relying upon the word of those whose Christian sensibilities hit far greater home than the alien Turks. Armenian sites claim that Rossler was prevented from testifying at the Tehlirian trial. The court, however, allowed only witnesses for the defense (save for Talat Pasha's wife, whose testimony did not get into any history, like the others)... one reason why von Schellendorf protested in outrage for the suppression of the truth. Why would Rossler have been "prevented"? Probably there was only so much room for defense witnesses in the fixed, cursory two day trial, and Rossler's services just weren't needed. There is so much dishonesty with pro-Armenian claims.

A scientist is one who dispassionately examines all aspects in search of the truth; it is Akcamâ€™s agenda and livelihood to focus on only one, at the exclusion of all others. He has nerve to include himself in the â€œscientific milieu.â€� He has done a dandy job here in an attempt to discredit the THS authors, many of whom are newly getting into this genocide game and I get the impression may be somewhat green. It is difficult to be a match for the established and powerful genocide forces, who have capitalized on an avalanche of selective research over the past generations. I believe it wasnâ€™t prudent of the THS authors to consider seriously the propagandistic reports, as they were bound to leave themselves open to those as Akcam, who has the entire weight of the genocide industryâ€™s boundless research and resources behind him. There are comparatively more objective foreign accounts to rely on than the bigots forming the consular teams.

Regardless, such is the underhanded ways of a propagandist like Taner Akcam. Nit-picking on the little details, overlooking the big picture. Perhaps one day I will attain a copy of this work he has lambasted; no doubt there are many examples of irrefutable facts Akcam has not dared to go near. It looks like he zeroed in on his opponentsâ€™ weaknesses and went for the kill, overlooking the big truths that shoot many holes in his genocide theories. He would be guilty of the kind of selectivity that he has based his aggressive accusations upon. Akcam demonstrates his bias constantly in his work.

I wanted to mention a footnote [59] where: Prof Cicek took issue: "[t]hose who read Akcamâ€™s critique might well suppose that those Armenians who are Russian subjects were to establish one state, while those belonging to the Ottoman realm were to established [sic] another state... Akcamâ€™s critique make no sense, because the Armenians [of both Russians and Ottomans] acted together for the purpose of establishing an independent Armenian state." Akcam wrote: "According to his logic, it is not worthwhile to mention that Armenian citizens of Russia were not fighting against the Ottoman Empire because there is no difference between one group of Armenian and another. This shows his ideological and partisan approach to the problem."

No, it shows a very realistic and historic approach to the situation. Akcam realizes he can pull the wool over the eyes of the genocide-brainwashed readers of the journal in which his attack appeared, but the reality is, the Armenians acted as one. It didnâ€™t matter what their point of origin was. This is why the Russian and French officers in charge of commanding the Armenian divisions faced an utter lack of control. This special brand of Armenian loyalty has been examined here, with a look at the editor of AGOS, who has allowed a real partisan, Taner Akcam, to poison the minds of the editorâ€™s Armenian kin in Turkey.

In conclusion, certainly there may be weeds in the forest that deserve plucking, as Akcam masterfully attempted with his sleazy aim to discredit the THS authors, preaching to a genocide choir that already thinks little of the "Turkish side," thanks to the industryâ€™s relentless anti-Turkish propaganda. (Letâ€™s remind ourselves of that hysterical title: "Anatomy of a Crime." It seems to me one has to be criminally minded to begin with to make such an unjustified charge.)

In other words, Akcam must concentrate on whatever small slip-ups might have been made, to make his propagandistic case... ignoring the substance of the matter. It is this substance, the foundation of the forest, that still stands: the Armenians attacked, they were resettled, and they suffered. If they didnâ€™t betray their country, nothing would have happened to them. If you decide to go to war, unpleasant consequences can result. It is not honorable to make false charges, using slipshod "evidence," attempting to brand those who counter-react in their own defense as "criminals."

**************************************
Â© Holdwater
tallarmeniantale.com/akcam-PKK.htm
tallarmeniantale.com/akcam.htm
tallarmeniantale.com/akcam-1397.htm
tallarmeniantale.com/TURKISH-SCHOLARS.htm#ak
tallarmeniantale.com/akcam-radio.htm
tallarmeniantale.com/akcam-crime.htm
***************************************

Armenian Genocide Resource Center

23.10.05

419) Taner Akcam and a Fellow Terrorist Exchange Views

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Translate