196) The Dishonesty of Genocide Scholars

"There are two histories : official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events"


Honoré de Balzac

It is now October of 2003, and I have put the writing of this site mostly behind me... and it was because of this site that I have come to recognize the dishonesty of the so-called "genocide scholars."

It's one thing for Armenian prosecutors such as Vahakn Dadrian and Richard Hovannisian to lie through their teeth.... they're Armenians, and who knows what psychological and Turk-hating problems bedevil them to pursue their unprofessional course of deception. However, what is the excuse of non-Armenians?

There is a whole gang of them... Richard Falk, Roger Smith, Robert Melson, Eric Markusen. It's like they are all part of a club.

How could they close their minds so near-completely to the other side of the story? How very mind-boggling.

I'm only beginning to get into this breed of dogmatic defamers... who have little consideration for the truth, like their Armenian counterparts. I wanted to write a little exposé, but time considerations being what they are... let me present, for the time being, excerpts of an open letter I sent to Dr. Stephen Feinstein and his Affiliated Faculties, and other parties associated with the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (CHGS). (This site is more Armenian than the countless sites out there... since the center is financed by at least one wealthy Armenian benefactor. They even have had the gall to put up a Talat Pasha telegram forgery.)

Let us examine what might be driving some of these genocide scholars.

The letter to Stephen Feinstein carried these excerpts...

It is true, a lot of these genocide conferences operate behind closed doors, and are only open to members of the "club" that already affirms the Armenian "Genocide." What is that all about? Contrast with a conference given in Turkey in 1990, when almost all the big names from the Hovannisian/Dadrian camp were invited… and only Levon Marashlian was brave enough to attend.

If the idea is to get at the truth, why be afraid of dissenting views? Could it be because there are other reasons to perpetuate the Armenian "Genocide," besides the truth?

How many of these genocide centers and related genocide-bodies are sponsored by Armenians? I subsequently discovered that the Holocaust Memorial Center in Washington (the one that went on to recognize the Armenian "Genocide") had a carrot-on-stick dangling in front of its face, to recognize the Armenian "Genocide"… in the form of one million dollars, from a wealthy Armenian (who later reneged on his promise; not unlike the time when Armenia, after her post-WWI formation, reneged on a fifty million dollar loan at five per cent interest, from the United States government… afterwards betraying the USA by willingly — according to the young nation’s first prime minister's 1923 Manifesto — joining the Soviet Union). Dr. Feinstein and I both attended New York University, and recently yet another NYU building is going up in Greenwich Village… with the name, "The … Kevorkian Institute of Near East Studies."

When Turkey tried to even the stakes by financing an institute of its own, beginning in the 1980s (during the spree of violent Armenian terror, which reopened the discussion of the Armenian "Genocide"), eventually all hell broke loose. Turkey was accused of trying to cover up past crimes, instead of countering the awful lies spread by the massive Armenian propaganda machinery. (Individual Turks are either too apathetic or too ignorant or too poor to finance such operations, in contrast to the fanatical Armenians, whose genocide is a raison d'etre... so the only entity with enough financial muscle to make a difference remains the Turkish government... which has a negative reputation to deal with.) The Institute of Turkish Studies came under attack (with its whopping staff of two, according to Eric Markusen's co-written paper), and primarily its director, Heath Lowry. However, nobody said anything against another partisan operation, the probably much better financed Zoryan Institute, where Vahakn Dadrian comfortably eked/ekes out a living, working for many years to defame the Turks (the fruits of much of his labors are proudly on display in CHGS's Armenian Resources section.) Eric Markusen decried the "Professional Ethics" of Dr. Lowry, and yet reveres Dr. Dadrian… whom Dr. Markusen invited not long ago to speak at the Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, where Markusen works part-time.

Richard Hovannisian has similarly held the Armenian Educational Foundation (AEF) Chair in Modern Armenian History at the University of California, since it was endowed in 1986. Yet, Dr. Markusen finds nothing wrong with Hovannisian's professional ethics. Why are "genocide scholars" like Eric Markusen and Stephen Feinstein so blatantly subjective, giving a bad name to what the ideals of historian and professorship represent?

I can almost excuse Armenian professors for their dishonesty. They might have their psychological problems, raised to hate Turks as so many other Armenians. Prof. Hovannisian, in a rare PBS debate, declared that his father, "when he had an opportunity would kill something." (He couldn't even say his father would kill human beings, but things.) Vahakn Dadrian (according to an Armenian site) was born in Turkey, and began his lifelong mission to make Turks out to be monsters after he read the fictional "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh" (written by Franz Werfel, later discovering he was duped by Armenians, according to testimony by Rabbi Albert Amateau.) After digging into the details over the years, both so-called scholars undoubtedly discovered the Armenian people bore the responsibility for the relocations, having fired the first shot and treacherously betraying their country in the Ottoman Empire's life and death struggle... and yet they continue to deceive by only presenting evidence bearing weight to their genocide. Who knows what their motivational factors are... perhaps being heroes among their people, and enjoying rewarding careers were among them. Regardless, posthumously at least, they will widely be regarded for the charlatans they are, when the truth becomes known. It will take time, but the truth will become known… since, luckily, truth has a way of prevailing.

I became intrigued with the "genocide scholar" breed when I investigated what Roger Smith and Robert Melson had to say during congressional testimonies, regarding the adoption of yet another Armenian "Genocide" resolution. Here were the professorial non-Armenian counterparts of Justin McCarthy, who also gave testimony in the opposing camp. I figured, these men are non-Armenian, and they must only be interested in the truth. However, in contrast to Prof. McCarthy who concentrated on the facts, they didn't say anything of substance (aside, mainly, from quoting Morgenthau)... later, I learned Prof. Smith based his testimony on the "Professional Ethics" paper he also co-wrote... where the big ejaculation was a quote by an Ottoman official which does not stand up to scrutiny... and these men (like Richard Falk, whose CHGS "Foreword" I examined in my last letter) were practically more Armenian than the Armenians themselves.

I have been corresponding with a genocide scholar recently, and he outright stated his goal is to affirm the Armenian "Genocide." Roger Smith belongs to an Armenian organization which states similar affirmation as well. This kind of thinking blows me away. Aren't these men professors, and historians... ideally to remain objective, and get at the truth? I'm not a professor or "professional" historian, but if I came across conclusive evidence there was an official state-sponsored policy for the extermination of the Armenian people, I would have NO trouble in admitting it. All that matters is the truth.

Why are these genocide scholars so dogmatic? The only reasons can be:

1) They are brainwashed and/or bigoted. Like Henry Morgenthau, they have a deep-rooted belief that the Turks are savage by nature, and must have been guilty.


2) As Prof. McCarthy has speculated, some who are Jewish have an irrational fear negation of the Armenian "Genocide" will cause some to question the Holocaust's validity.


3) Some need to justify their positions as genocide scholars, a relatively new field of study, and one that doesn't call for the promulgation of all these genocide centers… and the Armenian "Genocide" is simply too sexy a genocide to let go of.


4) Most cynically, they are being sponsored by the deep-pocketed Armenians... and are under "orders." Some, serving as spokesman, make cash on the side by giving talks on the Armenian "Genocide."

Blindly holding on to the biased Morgenthau/Bryce/missionaries/New York Times "evidence" does not define a true scholar. Nor does any of the four other above reasons, most certainly! A true scholar must be objective, and neutral... a true scholar must be an honest truth-seeker.

Genocide scholars are today's missionaries


I have maintained the Armenian "Genocide" cannot be labeled a genocide, as the 1948 U.N. Convention presents in its articles that there must be "intent" — never proven with genuine evidence — and the targeted group's political alliance may present a problem. (The Armenians were allied with the Russians and other Allies.) Most people interpret "genocide" as what happened to the Jews under Hitler.

Here's an excellent analysis of the word by two writers who later irresponsibly enjoy applying the word to everyone's favorite whipping boy... the Turks, and their treatment of the Kurds:

"Genocide," like "terrorism," is an invidious but fuzzy word, that has long been used in propaganda to describe the conduct of official enemies. It conjures up images of Nazi death camps and is frequently used along with the word "holocaust" to describe killings that are being condemned. On the Nazi-Jewish Holocaust model, genocide implies the attempt to wipe out an entire people. But in the Genocide Convention of 1948 the word was defined more loosely as any act "committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such." The Convention even included in genocide acts that were causing serious "mental harm" or inflicting "conditions of life" aimed at such destruction. This vagueness has contributed to its politicization... the word genocide has been applied loosely wherever people are killed who are deemed "worthy" victims. In our view this is not only opportunism but also a corruption of meaning of a word whose unique sense implies not just killing or massacre but an attempted extermination of a people, in whole or substantial part. (The NATO-Media Lie Machine: "Genocide" in Kosovo?, Edward S. Herman & David Peterson, Z magazine, May 2000)

So there are different interpretations of this word. A legal body (The International Center for Transitional Justice) the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Committee approached, for example, throws out a bunch of loopholes... such as, a government need not be behind a genocidal policy and that only one or more persons need to be killed. In this context, the Armenian "Genocide" can definitely be labeled a genocide, but so can nearly every other conflict. The My Lai massacre can be labeled a "genocide."

Jean Marais has written a passage that hits the nail on its head:

Genocide this!!! Tell me something. I have been wondering since 1973. In that year, while playing poker with a bunch of Greeks, Armenians and Italians in the back room of a Greek restaurant in New Jersey, I punched a Greek named Manoli and broke his nose, as he was trying to cheat. I am wondering if this incident went down in Greek annals as the "Greek Genocide of 1973 at Town Diner in Paterson, New Jersey."

The word genocide has become so watered down, it has become meaningless; consequently, the genocide scholars gain further importance. Since the genocide scholar now has as wide a field of study as possible... practically anything can be labeled a genocide.

However, I do not acknowledge these detracting definitions of genocide. I believe such watering down presents an insult to the victims of real genocides, as the Jews during WWII.

If there are those of you who irrationally fear the real facts behind the Armenian "Genocide" might cause people to question the Holocaust, perhaps you should consider another side of the coin… as related by Dalia Karpel, from her article "There Was No Genocide" (Ha'aretz, January 23, 1998):

"The Armenians ... compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute."

(Holdwater, Later note: probably Prof. Bernard Lewis was behind those words, and not Dalia Karpel.)

The genocide scholars, by appearing to study a subject so abominable, come across as noble and honorable. However, many of these genocide scholars are far from honorable, if they refuse to consider the whole truth. Such genocide scholars are today's missionaries. During the war years, missionaries within the Ottoman Empire appeared honorable, as well; everyone knew clergymen did not lie.

Jewish genocide scholars

I'm at a loss to understand why a historically friendless people as the Jews don't pay homage to one of their very best friends in history. Certainly, many American Jews are ignorant of their history... and American Jews have as much right to be affected by the negative image of Turks like every other American... but even those who know better sometimes turn the other cheek. For example, I remember watching episodes of the PBS series, "Civilization and the Jews." In the episode that discussed the Spanish Inquisition (a period of history where practically every Christian nation in Europe closed their doors to the Jews desperately attempting to find refuge), only the city of Amsterdam was mentioned as a locale that accepted some Jews. Surely the Jewish scholars involved with the program knew fully well which European country really saved those Jews' necks, en masse... yet, mum was the word on the Ottoman Empire. Frankly, I didn't get it.

I'm not implying all Jewish people exhibit such thoughtless ingratitude... the Sephardic Jews of the Ottoman Empire remained loyal until their nation's dying day, and the knowledgeable among them today are great friends with the Turks. (Fairer-weather Jewish-American friends of Turkey include groups that warmed up only after Turkey and Israel forged their military partnership in 1996.)

However, it shouldn't be solely the Sephardim; historian Cecil Roth has written:

"Jewish people must always recall the Ottoman Empire with gratitude who, at one of Judaism's darkest hours, flung open its door widely and kept them open."

Haim Nahum, last Grand Rabbi of the Ottoman Empire, declared in 1924:

"It is actually an understatement that there was no anti-Semitism in Turkey. In fact, there was a pro-Semitism. Ottoman governments treated their Jewish subjects with a special consideration and compassion as one of their own, as one of the most loyal and devoted subjects of the empire."

Isn't that fantastic? When and where in history have these terribly persecuted people lived and prospered in such freedom and safety... for so many centuries?

In a 2001 letter to "Forward," Sephardic Jewish-American Dr. J.E. Botton spoke for all Jews when he wrote: "It should be our moral obligation to defend Turkey"

What is also ironic is that some Ashkenazi Jews...… those like Henry Morgenthau and not always friendly to the Turks... possibly are descendants of a Turkic tribe, the Khazars. (A concept which allows us to re-think association of Jews as a Semitic people.)

And here we have Jewish genocide scholars such as Israel Charny who perpetuate the notion that the Ottoman Turks systematically behaved like monstrous Nazis, even though there is no genuine evidence. Elie Wiesel, having suffered horrors firsthand, might have a good excuse for being genocide-obsessed... but he has no excuse for lazily accepting the word of the Dadrians of the world, without objectively doing his homework. Particularly if he has as good a reputation as he enjoys, insuring many other lazy-thinking people to automatically accept his false conclusions at face value.

ADDENDUM:

The Rare "Genocide Scholar" Who Arrived at a Different Conclusion!

The brutal Armenian tragedy, which the perpetrators still refuse to acknowledge adequately, was conducted within the context of a ruthless Turkish policy of expulsion and resettlement. It was terrible and caused horrendous suffering but it was not part of a process of total annihilation of an entire people.

Deborah E. Lipstadt, DENYING THE HOLOCAUST

Holdwater: I became aware of Ms. Lipstadt while watching a PBS show on Auschwitz in early 2005... and was curious to see what she had to say about the so-called Armenian Genocide. She's not saying there was no genocide, from the above (since there are so many wacky definitions)... but at least she was responsible enough to conclude the Armenian episode should not be regarded on an equal plane with what the Nazis did to the Jews.

It's possible Ms. Lipstadt might have "revised" her views since the writing of her book, as the consensus of her "genocide scholar" brethren might have proven too overwhelming, regarding their second favorite topic [after the Holocaust] of the Armenians' experience. I didn't see direct evidence of this via an Internet search, but I wouldn't be surprised. (ADDENDUM, 8-06: Indeed, Ms. Lipstadt is fully in line with her club, regarding the Armenian story. She hypocritically signed her name to this 1998 commemoration, and here is a small look at the "defeater of deniers.")

I feel Jewish genocide scholars should be especially careful, before they play fast and loose with the facts. Unless they are absolutely positive a state-sponsored policy of extermination against the Armenians occurred (backed up by real facts; The Genocide Forum's Henry R. Huttenbach has written: "There is no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual proof"), they ought to be ashamed about pointing to (for example) defamatory passages from the discredited Blue Book.

Evil

When genocide scholars disregard the truth in the pursuit of their agendas, making one side of a historical event look completely bad and the other side completely good, what they are doing is fanning the flames of hatred. They operate in this fashion behind the shield of coming across as "human rights" champions, and in exercising the noble goal of "preventing future genocides," which makes their efforts all the more insidious. They are really committing a great evil, particularly when many knowingly use propaganda information that so clearly deviates from true historical facts.

Let us allow Arthur Ponsonby (FALSEHOOD IN WARTIME, New York, 1917, p. 18) to explain what the creepy genocide scholar indulges in:

"[T]he injection of the poison of hatred into men's minds by means of falsehood is a greater evil in wartime than the actual loss of life, the defilement of the human soul is worse than the destruction of the human body."

One can almost excuse this "evil" during wartime, as "all's fair in love and war." But what is the genocide scholar's excuse for injecting this poison of hatred during ordinary times?

----------------------------------------------------
© Holdwater
The source site of this article gets revised often, as better information comes along. For the most up-to-date version, and the related photos, the reader may consider reviewing the direct link as follows:

www.tallarmeniantale.com/GenocideScholars.htm
-----------------------------------------------------