200) The University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (CHGS)

 

 There are no end to the educational institutions in the United States that have been bamboozled by Armenian propagandists. Some, however, have sadly become active agents of this propaganda. Two American universities serving as the largest hotbeds of Armenian influence are The University of Michigan (and its branch, The University of Michigan-Dearborn, which one of the Armenian "Joint Chiefs of Staff," Dennis Papazian, has formed into a central headquarters for Armenian propaganda; it was this university that sponsored the first Turkish Turncoat, Taner Akcam, and gave the ex-terrorist with a German sociology degree a job as a "visiting professor of history") However, we will concentrate on this page with the other... the one that gave Taner Akcam his second job, once it was reportedly pointed out that his credentials may have been insufficient to remain as a visiting professor at the Michigan university or, for that matter, any other university.

 

That other academic Armenian hotbed is the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, or CHGS, directed by Dr. Stephen Feinstein, a professor of history... at least at one time.

 

While constructing this site in 2003, I was bowled over by the web site of the CHGS; it was truly "more Armenian" in its savagery than many of the ubiquitous other Armenian web sites that are out there. It certainly helps that one of the major benefactors of this hypocritical genocide institute (which turns a blind eye to countless historic examples of "Man's Inhumanity to Man" it has no political interest in) is an Armenian (the Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair in the College of Liberal Arts)... however, there can be NO excuse for a credible American university to support an organization that dismisses the facts and blatantly serves an agenda... and irresponsibly provides baseless and racist material, serving to propagate hatred.

 

I turned to the "regular" historians in the university's faculty during September of 2003, hoping to open their eyes... partly writing: Your sense of integrity should force you to be very troubled by such an association... particularly the historians among you...
Consider this: if your university presented Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda as fact, how many of you would stand for it? Then why would any of you be comfortable with the racist, missionary & Armenian concocted stories... that present the Turk as savage and bloodthirsty..?
 

 

Prof. Stephen Feinstein

 

Not one of them replied to two letters I sent, along with copies of communications with Dr. Feinstein. It is now March of 2004, and I've decided to make these letters public. The CHGS web site has not changed, as of this writing... for example, it still features an Andonian-forged Talat Pasha telegram as fact... and if the University of Minnesota's historians have no trouble with their institution's presenting false historical information, and thus making a laughing stock of the University of Minnesota's credibility among those who value the truth... then they should be held accountable.

 

Not to say some of the historians are not aware of the shenanigans of their university... I'm sure many are fine people, and they're just caught between a rock and a hard place. Since, however, nobody outside their circles can determine the "good" ones from the "bad," unfortunately they all have to lumped in the same unethical category. (Hmmm... just like the innocent Ottoman-Armenians, who were swept into the tide of most Ottoman-Armenians who blindly followed their revolutionary leaders, and turned treacherous.)

 

Below:

 

1. A report by a Turkish-American who attended one of CHGS' regular "Armenian Genocide" presentations

 

2. Holdwater's letters to the university's leaders and faculty of history

 

3. Excerpts of 2. Holdwater's letters to CHGS' director, Dr. Stephen Feinstein, examining their web site's practice of "ethocide." (To be made available at a later time.)

  
A CHGS Genocide Presentation 

 

 

The following report was written by Dr. Meltem Deniz

 

 

In all of its activities, the University strives to sustain an open exchange of ideas in an environment that embodies the values of academic freedom, responsibility, integrity, and cooperation: that provides an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice and intolerance.

 

The above is from the mission statement of the University of Minnesota. Unfortunately, the College of Liberal Arts/Department of History and the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (CHGS) and the European Studies Consortium are violating the mission of the University and endangering its prestige in the public.
 

 

Professor Richard Hovannisian

 

  The first event I witnessed was in year 2000. The CHGS organized a public lecture series on the so-called ‘Armenian Genocide’ on the campus around October of 2000. The host speaker was  Professor Richard Hovannisian. The ‘public’ was composed  primarily of the students of the the university, including myself.

 

I attended the lectures with the hope of learning a different point of view or a detail I have not heard before. However, it was a total disappointment. Prof. Hovannisian did not only have quite a shaky background about Turkish history, but also was intentionally lying.

 

I would like to underline a couple of things here, which I believe are quite important and deserve attention.

 

During the first lecture (12 noon-1 pm), Dr. Hovannisian, throughout his lecture was trying to do his best to convince people there had been genocide. To do this, he particularly tried to use Islam and Islamic belief as one of the primary underlying causes. What struck my attention was how he presented this.

 

During the lecture, almost like out of blue, he asked a question to the students:

 

“ Which religions recognize one God?� A student sitting in the front replied: “Judaism and Christianity.� Dr. Hovannisian approved. He confirmed by repeating: “Yes, there are two religions that recognize one God. Judaism and Christianity.�

 

Shortly after this, he said: “Moslems were killing Christians everywhere in the 19th century.�

 

 Hovannisian's racism and "lack of self-confidence"

 

 

 

I would like to underline the following here:

 

Why did Dr. Hovannisian ask the class which religions recognize one God?

 

Was this question within the scope of the lecture?

 

Dr. Hovannisian is the editor of the following: Islam’s understanding of Itself, Atlanta: Scholars Press (1983), Ethics in Islam, Atlanta: Scholar Press (1985), Poetry and Mysticism in Islam: The Heritage of Rumi, Atlanta: Scholars Press (1994); The “Thousand and One Nights� in Arabic Literature and Society, Atlanta: Scholars Press (1997); The Persian Presence in Islam, Atlanta: Scholars Press (1998)

 

Would he not know that Islam as well recognizes one God? Is it possible that he would not know? A layman may not know that ‘Allah’ means God in the Arabic language and could assume the word means ‘Idol.’ However, the chance of someone who has apparently did extensive research in Islam not knowing that Islam recognizes one God would be nonexistent.

 

If that is the case, what was his objective?

 

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

 

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

 

IS THIS NOT AGAINST THE MISSION OF THIS UNIVERSITY? IS THIS NOT AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS?
 

 

Vincent Lima

 

  Please read what Vincent Lima writes in Armenian Forum:

 

“The only clue at my disposal is Professor Richard Hovannisian’s amazing statement on 13 September 1998 suggesting that there is a need for special caution in any “dialogue with the Turks�. The statement is amazing not only for its racist content but also for its lack of self-confidence. (The statement was reported in several newspapers at that time; the report can be found at gomidas.org/forum/pasadena.htm.)

 

The University of Minnesota should not allow any one to stereotype any race, religion or ethnicity, nor should the university allow a racist to come and lecture on the premises. However, some departments of the University such as the Department of History and The CHGS continuously are violating these principles.

 

 
Very Serious Academic Misconduct… 

 

Dr. Hovannisian and his host Dr. Stephen Feinstein, during the second (afternoon) lecture of this lecture series in the year of 2000 also committed academic misconduct to my understanding.

 

I will bring this to your attention as well:

 

During the second lecture of the three lectures, Dr. Hovannisian showed a map to the audience. The map was just like the one drawn here:

 

 

Dr. Hovannisian, while he was showing this map stated: ‘Armenia (or Armenians) was/were here before there was Turkey/or Turks. I do not recall exactly how he phrased this sentence, but I do remember very well the impression given was that there was a ‘Great Armenia’ during the years 1919-1920 in what every one knows today as Turkey.

 

I waited until he started taking questions. I asked him if he could put the map back. They put the map back. I turned to Dr. Hovannisian and asked him a very simple question: ‘Is this map the actual map of Turkey from any time?’

 

Dr. Hovannisian lowered his voice and said: ‘This is from Sykes-Picot’.

 

Because I was sure probably no one knew about Sykes-Picot and he was not answering my questions clearly and in a straightforward manner I wanted to make certain the audience would understand clearly, and I wanted to continue with my questioning. However, Dr. Feinstein came to help Dr. Hovannisian and wanted me to stop asking questions, interrupted me and said I had asked enough. When I insisted that this should be explained, Dr. Feinstein said he would go and call the police. I felt I have to give up and stop questioning. The Turkish student who was sitting next to me turned and whispered: ‘Is this map actual, really?’

 

That touched me. Very badly. I was very upset and angry. I felt wishful to have called the police myself, and have that map reported.

 

I wrote to Dr. Feinstein and expressed my concerns about the map and the way Hovannisian presented Islam. Dr. Feinstein in his email said:

 

“He did not show it anything as actual and I was the one who picked that map. He showed that map to show where the major destruction took place and it’s from Sykes-Picot. So the map is not fiction.�

 

I replied: According to the dictionary…..fiction means : imagined; made up. I am afraid we have to accept this map as fiction.

 

In addition, how else could a professor present an imaginary map as actual?

 

Did Dr. Hovannisian inform the audience and say ‘This is not an actual map; Do not think there was a Great Armenia over Meltem’s hometown in 1919. This is drawn based upon an Armenian’s imagination. This is what Armenians were hoping for this territory to be, but Meltem’s grandfather did not want to give up his freedom.’ ???????……The answer is NO.

 

 

Was this map indeed from Sykes-Picot?

 

The answer is NO.

 

Is it possible history professors such as Drs. Hovannisian and Feinstein did not know that?

 

The answer is NO.

 

Did this map have any kind of historical value, presenting a historical reality or a copy of an ancient map, etc?

 

The answer is NO.

 

Is it possible this map was picked to show where the ‘major destruction took place’ as Dr. Feinstein claimed?

 

The answer is NO. People versed in this topic know that the major destruction occurred in the East…

 

Then why did they pick this map?

 

The reason to present such an image was to make the genocide hypothesis look real. The visual image is very important. Every lecturer knows that as a fact. Sometimes a picture, a slide, a map, a diagram, tells more than what you can say in an hour.

 

Anybody that would look at that map would naturally assume there had been a ‘Great Armenia’ in Turkey in 1919-1920. Therefore one naturally would question: “What happened to this Great Armenia?�

 

And that would make the genocide look real, one more step closer to reality (!)…

 

All the maps that show Armenian claims (‘GreatER Armenia’) occupy such a big space, one would think the Armenians were asking for too extensive an area. The Wilsonian Armenia is quite similar to the Armenian State of today, which is not in Turkey; it is in the northeast…All other maps show how Asia Minor looked like in the "BC" period, or in the 11th or 12th centuries.

 

 

There is no single map -- at least not one that I've been able to find -- that shows a “Great Armenia� right in the middle of the Turkish land of what people today know as Turkey.

 

That is why they picked this map.

 

However, this is not any different than being a salesman who is trying to sell a hypothetical product.

 

Holdwater's letters to the History Faculty at the Univ. of Minnesota 

 

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003

 

Subject: Does the University of Minnesota value historical Truth?

 

 

Robert H. Bruininks, President
CC:
Christine M. Maziar, Exec. VP
Mary Jo Maynes, Chair, History Dept.
Sara Evans,
Steven Ruggles
Allen Isaacman
Bernard Bachrach
Hyman Berman
Anna Clark
Gary Cohen (Ctr. for Austrian Studies)
John Evans
Caesar Farah
Edward Farmer
Mary Jo Maynes
Robert McCaa
J K Munholland
William Phillips
Kathryn Reyerson
Joel Samaha
James Tracy
Rudolph Vecoli
Ann Waltner
Paul Bamford
Clarke Chambers
John Howe
Thomas Kelly
David Kopf
Stanford Lehmberg
Byron Marshall
Richard Rudolph
Romeyn Taylor
John Thayer
William Wright
Sarah Chambers
George Green
Lisa Norling
Barbara Welke
David Kieft
Allan Spear
David Chang
Tracey Deutsch
Tamara Giles-Vernick
Christopher Isett
Erika Lee
Michael Lower
Patrick McNamara
Kevin Murphy
Thomas Wolfe

 

Dear President Bruininks, Vice-President Maziar, and distinguished historians of the University of Minnesota:

 

I am troubled by the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies coverage of the Armenian "Genocide."

 

I have a feeling you've had no reason to question the validity of this center, since any organization or body that examines the evil act of genocide is automatically presumed to represent the side of "good." However, the CHGS, at least when it comes to the matter of the Armenian "Genocide," is motivated by factors other than the truth. My understanding is that the center has at least one wealthy Armenian benefactor, and perhaps this has something to do with their willingness to distort history. Nevertheless, such one-sided reportage… along with the unbelievable inclusion of outright proven forgeries (specifically, a Talat Pasha telegram)… not only does great damage when the center purports to be an educational institution, spreading prevarications to unassuming schools and individuals throughout the world… but once the truth becomes known, the credibility of the University of Minnesota will one day suffer for being associated with such a dishonest organization.

 

History is a matter of perspective, and there is an excellent chance you are already sold on the validity of the Armenian "Genocide." Not only because our nation has been exposed to near-unilateral Armenian-friendly propaganda for around a century, but because the Turks make excellent villains, since we rarely hear their side of the story; even our dictionaries define "Turk" as "savage." However, not everything is as it appears, and the perpetuation of falsifications and racism in what has become a politicized historical event is inexcusable.

 

At the end of WWI, only one losing nation was not subject to one of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points… which supported the right to a nation's self-determination. The Ottoman Empire was targeted to be an Indian reservation with the signing of the Sevres treaty, that was later nullified. One victorious nation, Great Britain (under the leadership of the openly anti-Turkish Lloyd George), was particularly interested in wiping the Turkish nation off the face of the earth. However, it was this very condemning British Empire that conducted a "Nuremberg" trial on the issue of the Armenian "Genocide"…. a process that took nearly two-and-one-half years in the form of the Malta Tribunal, with Armenian researchers studying every document easily-available in Allied-occupied Istanbul. All of the 144 Ottoman officials held were ultimately released, innocent of not only genocide but of any war crime.

 

There were massacres of both Turks and Armenians in areas where Ottoman control was weakest… however, there was no government plan to exterminate the Armenians. In fact, if you investigate open-mindedly, you will be heartsick to learn which party conducted itself in the manner of systematic slaughter. (Hint: today's Armenia was far from populated 100% by Armenians.)

 

Almost all the "evidence" dishonestly presented by the CHGS was deemed invalid by the very nation that conducted this trial, as unfriendly a nation as can be to the Turks, at the time.
 

 

Taner Akcam

 

 The University of Minnesota appears to be unreasonably pro-Armenian; when Taner Akcam, a former Turkish terrorist and escaped convict earned a Ph.D. in Germany, he immediately found a job at another pro-Armenian American university; as his shoddy credentials reportedly came to light and he lost that job, it was your university that hired him… a man whose only specialty is to teach history exclusively from the Armenian perspective. Was there that much demand for his one-sided viewpoint, when there are plenty of American professors with Ph.D.s who cannot find university jobs?

 

The history professors among you should especially be alert to this issue. As human beings, we all have our prejudices…. but a true historian is professionally obligated to be neutral, and cannot afford to be influenced by any other issue than the truth.

 

I recently completed an extensive web site on this matter, maintaining an open mind… openly considering viewpoints affirming the Armenian "Genocide." (In fact, I actively sought them out, and hid nothing on the web site.) I came across no conclusive evidence for the validity of the Armenian "Genocide," even though I examined countless Armenian and pro-Armenian sources. If ever irrefutable evidence demonstrates otherwise, I would be the first to say yes…. there was an Armenian "Genocide" (genocide as defined by what the Nazis did to the Jews, the way the Armenian "Genocide" is understood by the layperson); the reason is… I believe with every fiber that nothing should supersede the truth. Nor should any other person of integrity.

 

The director of CHGS, Dr. Stephen Feinstein, contacted me in early July, and I'm sending you a copy of our correspondence separately. I recently wrote a long open letter to the associated parties of the University of Minnesota's Holocaust Center, examining Dr. Feinstein's arguments to defend the Armenian "Genocide" that I found on the Internet, along with an examination of the fairly new breed of "genocide scholars," the historic association of Jews with Turks and Armenians, and the importance of credibility. I intend to send you a copy of this communication in the next days, unless you let me know that you are not interested.

 

Regarding the Armenian "Genocide," Arthur Tremaine Chester wrote in a 1923 New York Times Current History article, "Angora and the Turks":

 

"...Condemnation without hearing both sides is unjust and un-American, and yet many Americans have shown this injustice in regard to the Turks."

 

Eighty years later, Americans are still showing this injustice, and it becomes especially troublesome when a seemingly honorable university throws its weight behind such injustice. Before you align yourselves with a cause and put your precious reputations on the line, you must responsibly research all aspects of the story… if you value your integrity. (And I'm not saying all of you have aligned yourself with this cause — I'm certain most of you are very fine and upstanding people — but you are working for a university that appears very much to be in the corner of this cause… unwittingly, or not.) Moreover, the courageous historians among you should speak up, if you should conclude other factors are at play regarding the perpetuation of the Armenian "Genocide" Myth, besides the only factor that matters: the Truth.

 

Sincerely,

 

Holdwater

 

 

No Answer from Anyone; Here was the Follow-Up 

 

 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003
Subject: Once more: the University of Minnesota and historical Truth
 

 

Dear President Bruininks, Vice-President Maziar, and distinguished historians of the University of Minnesota:

 

As I wrote you last week, I intended to send the second part of my correspondence with Dr. Feinstein, which should have arrived in a separate e-mail. This one concentrates less on historical facts than other issues... including Dr. Feinstein’s defense of the Armenian “Genocide,� an examination of genocide scholars and Jewish relations between Turks and Armenians (many of these Holocaust-motivated genocide scholars are Jewish), and the issue of credibility.

 

I hope you have all sensed my only motivation for these communications is the truth. Any reasonable and unbiased person who considers both sides of the Armenian “Genocide� debate would conclude the Morgenthaus, Bryces, missionaries and newspapers have Gibraltar-sized holes... with propaganda and bigotry to serve as motivations. Armenian allegations simply cannot be substantiated by non-partisan historical evidence.

 

The Western, Russian and even some Armenian sources that serve as counter-evidence have no other basis for their reportage except the telling of truth… since very few of those sources would have had reason to defend the Turks. There are enough facts unearthed that should dictate conclusions by responsible historians. Sixty-nine American academicians published an open letter in two major American newspapers in May 1985, disputing the Armenian characterization of events. What may be preventing other historians from joining these voices is a successful terror campaign by pro-Armenians that threatens to smear the reputations of such professors.
 

 

Prof. Stephen Feinstein

 

Dr. Feinstein wrote me a short note after I sent my first letter to you... one of you must have contacted him... saying I should keep my letters coming, as they benefit fundraising.

 

Those people who are interested in perpetuating the myth of the Armenian “Genocide� will keep on contributing, regardless... as truth has little to do with their motivations. I don’t know any of you personally, but I prefer to think the best of people until proven otherwise. I’m assuming all of you are people of integrity. The reason why I’m writing these letters is to let you be aware that the university you are associated with supports an organization that presents hearsay, manipulated truths, and outright falsifications/forgeries as fact.

 

Your sense of integrity should force you to be very troubled by such an association... particularly the historians among you. Perhaps the president and executive V.P. of the university who are also receiving copies of these communications are in an awkward position... maybe there are some politically-motivated benefactors they need to answer to; wealthy Armenians who give grants to the university, just as at least one appears to support Dr. Feinstein’s center.

 

Consider this: if your university presented Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda as fact, how many of you would stand for it? Then why would any of you be comfortable with the racist, missionary & Armenian concocted stories (similar to this one that appeared in The New York Times, representative of many of the tales in the CHGS’s “Armenian Resources� section that present the Turk as savage and bloodthirsty, one of the definitions we find in the dictionary?

 

When “Midnight Express� director Alan Parker was asked (at a press conference following one of the first showings of the film) whether the film might not be racist, the director replied (to paraphrase)... perhaps contemplating the issue for the first time... “But they’re only Turks.� Do you feel this way?

 

Do you all remember in our nation how anything that came from the mouths of radical feminists (such as Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon) was automatically accepted as fact, by a media too afraid not to go along politically-correct lines? It was a period (in the 1980s) when man equaled evildoer and woman equaled victim. (A la Turk and Armenian, today.) All it took was one crack in the wall... when it was reported statistics from NOW were exaggerated regarding the many rapes committed per minute or hour (or something to that effect). All of a sudden, practically, the voices of radical feminism were discredited, and the nation returned to normal with what we now call the Feminist Backlash. We no longer had to deal with such foolishness as a man’s requiring formal permission to touch a woman each step of the way, in the natural seduction process.

 

Of course, thanks to the juggernaut of superbly financed Armenian propaganda (well in place for nearly a century, and more), the media is totally in bed with the CHGS version of the Armenian “Genocide�... but all it’s going to take is a few open-minded and non-racist journalists or historians who are going to blow the lid off this huge fraud. Perhaps a television outlet in Minnesota might be concerned enough to bravely question how the University of Minnesota could be behind the presentation of propaganda as fact... (Particularly in a racist way.) If the university is that sloppy in allowing such bigoted, one-sided material to be presented, what would that do to the university’s credibility? What would that do to the credibility of the history faculty members who knew about this ugly propaganda being presented as fact, and remained quiet about it?

 

However, it shouldn’t take the possibility of a media whistle-blowing to spur you into action. What should motivate each and every one of you is the TRUTH; nothing more, nothing less. Since the university you happen to work for is so mysteriously and overwhelmingly in support of the Armenian “Genocide,� it’s your responsibility as historians to study this issue... even if it’s not your area of specialty... objectively and in a neutral manner, as is your professional duty. Try to dispense with your very human prejudices, that the Turks must automatically have been barbarians... and if you should encounter evidence for the Ottoman government’s having perpetrated a state-run policy for extermination, first examine what the motivations of the source could be... and then put it through the MALTA TEST. The Tribunal that was run by the one nation that wanted Turkey to cease existence... why would this nation have finally found all 144 of the Ottoman officials innocent? After nearly two-and-one-half years of searching, with a team of crack Armenian researchers, and with every document available not only in Allied-occupied Istanbul, but as far away as the United States?

 

If you come to conclude the Armenian “Genocide� cannot be supported by the facts (hopefully the insightful among you have already arrived at that conclusion), then perhaps you should discuss the issue with like-minded colleagues, and consider how troubled you are by working for an institution that supports this event with little consideration for historical accuracy.

 

Professor John Dewey (of Dewey Decimal System fame) wrote in 1928 ("The Turkish Tragedy"): "It is at least time that Americans ceased to be deceived by propaganda." The time has far from arrived, and the University of Minnesota serves as an important party to such deception. That is not right.

 

I came across some new figures I wanted to throw your way as a postscript.

 

Thank you for your consideration,

 

Holdwater

 

 

P.S.: I got into casualty numbers in the first part of my correspondence with Dr. Feinstein. As you might be aware, the standard Armenian argument is that 1.5 million Armenians were “annihilated.� Sources like Dr. Feinstein’s that are even more Armenian than many Armenian sites exceed the common figure: 1,745,200 are implied to have been massacre victims out of a total pre-war Armenian population of 2,133,000 … when over half a dozen neutral sources don't go beyond a total pre-war population of 1.5 million. (“Neutral� meaning non-Turkish and non-Armenian... which still generally translates to pro-Armenian; the median pre-war Armenian figure is 1.3 million, a total that agrees with the Ottoman census.)

 

Armenians living in the west were largely not subjected to the relocation policy (cities such as Istanbul, Edirne, Izmir, Aydin and Kutahya), numbering at least 200,000. Add to that the number of Armenians who were exempt from relocation, such as most Catholic and Protestant Armenians, the ill and blind, soldiers and their families, and certain workers.

 

British war propagandist Arnold Toynbee calculated 500,000 of those relocated reached their destinations safely. (Ambassador Morgenthau was surprised about such a firsthand report from an Armenian representative, that I mentioned in the first part of the Feinstein correspondence... in his PRIVATE letters or diary. Morgenthau never made this finding public... ask yourselves why.)

 

(A common figure presented by pro-Armenians is 600,000 murdered in Mesopotamia. Has anybody bothered to ask what became of all those many, many skeletons? Why have none of these wealthy Armenians come up with the idea for an excavation to prove their genocide..? Among other questions few bother to ask.)

 

According to official figures published by the League of Nations Migration Bureau, the number of Armenians who left Anatolia together with the Russian armies came to 400,000 to 440,000.

 

Calculate the difference, to arrive at the number of casualties. (Don’t forget, the Armenians themselves claim one million survived.) Among the casualties, please keep in mind that not all died from massacres (the massacres commonly occurring in areas where Ottoman control was weakest, usually by Kurds who were mostly out for revenge for what the Armenians had done to their families); other reasons were famine, disease and combat, the same causes for all other Ottoman citizens who lost their lives. Armenian “historian� Richard Hovannisian himself wrote in a 1967 book that some 150,000 Armenians died of famine while and after accompanying the Russian retreat.

 

There is your “genocide.�

 

Meanwhile, figures presented to the Paris Peace Conference by the Armenian National Delegation, by the German war report that formed a basis for this and by the population studies conducted by Professor Justin McCarthy all show that while Eastern and Central Anatolia was under Russian occupation, some 1.2 million civilian Muslims died in the Eastern region of the Ottoman Empire.

 

There is your other “genocide,� the one nobody cares about... especially not the politically motivated genocide center run by Dr. Stephen Feinstein, that carries the good name of the University of Minnesota.

 

----------------------------------------------------------
© Holdwater 

tallarmeniantale.com/CHGS-univ-Minn.htm

----------------------------------------------------------