Kurtulmuş’tan, hainlere mektup
Kurtulmuş’tan, hainlere mektup
Türk Amerikan toplum liderlerinden ve aktivist İbrahim Kurtuluş,Türkiye’ye dil uzatanlara gönderdiği mektupla sert yanıt verdi.
Lee Bollinger Pulitzer Board Member
President, Columbia University &
Elazar Barkan, Director Staff and Advisors: Irene Atamian, Joanne Bauer, Kristina Eberbach, Stephanie Grepo, Gergana Halpern, Ariella Lang, Lara Nettelfield, David Phillips, Andrew Rizzardi, Liz Ševcenko, John Washburn, Elsa Stamatopoulou, Inga Winkler, Sarah Cleveland, Mamadou Diouf, Yasmine Ergas, Pamela Graham, Jennifer Hirsch, J. Paul Martin, Andrew Nathan, Anupama Rao, Bruce Robbins, Jack Lewis Snyder
Institute for the Study of Human Rights (ISHR)
116th St & Broadway New York, NY 10027
March 27, 2018
Dear Prof. Barkan, “Human Rights” Personnel (as Well as Others at Columbia University),
Dear Faculty Members and Others at Columbia University,
I am deeply concerned about how those who should know better feel hateful prejudice can be allowed, with little care for truthfulness, and especially under the cloak of morality.
I wanted to discuss the March 28 presentation featuring the genocide activist Taner Akcam that your department has consented to co-sponsor; this “hero” tells us he has finally found the evidence for an “Armenian genocide.”
It must be so very satisfying for all of you at the ISHR to be perceived as “human rights” moralists. On one hand, who is not for human rights in this corrupt and unethical world? Yet there is great hypocrisy and prejudice on the part of the human rights crowd as far as at least the Armenian claim, under the inexcusable cloak of morality; we do not care for those who pretend to combat injustice while creating injustice, and those who deem one human group as less worthy than another, while hiding behind “Human Rights.” Here is what’s really behind this “Armenian genocide” allegation:
“The Turk is … thoroughly and incurably barbarian. He is habitually tyrannical, passionate for plunder, and a lover of blood — his tastes are barbarian, extravagant splendor, gross indulgence, savage indolence of mind and body — he enjoys none of the resources of civilization — …no national literature…no language…no picture, no statue, no music.”
Excerpted in The Christian Register, Jan. 13,1827. We are rid of most negative stereotypes, but the one for the “Terrible Turk” is encouraged. Turkish inhumanity is the idea behind the hateful and unproven “Armenian genocide” charge. Go to any “Armenian genocide” page on the Internet and focus on the comments. Here is a typical example: “The Turks are the worst and lowest people on earth… Turks are nothing but monstrous and sadistic people.” Right below, “I can’t live with Turkish animals.” In other words, the idea is to impugn present-day Turks, not the long-ago Ottoman variety. The charge invites haters to be a part of a lynch mob.
We see the two other co-sponsors of this event were Armenian. They cannot help themselves. A Sept. 3, 2004 article in The Nation clarified: “…Many diaspora Armenians are reared to hate Turkey with a fervor that seems completely at odds with their daily lives as typical — even liberal — American citizens.” From the book, Armenia at the Crossroads (1991): “…To curse at Muslims and especially at Turks, to talk much about the Armenian Genocide, and to remind others constantly of the brutality of the Turks are all regarded as expressions of patriotism.” It is this fake genocide of theirs that feeds their fetish, and the good liberals who purport to be for “human rights” serve as their most willing accomplices, in helping to create and foster the worst prejudice.
We see Khatchig Mouradian, who has been allowed to denigrate Columbia’s faculty, had a hand with this event. This man has been obsessed with his precious genocide for a long time. Note how he was at work back in 2004, interviewing the genocide scholar Henry Theriault. The latter is not even a historian, as so many of his ilk. This has been the greatest setback for genocide scholars, because they had no comeback for the line, “Let the historians decide.” Their solution was to get genocide hubs as Clark University, the one that made certain to hire Taner Akcam, to start issuing “history” degrees. Now we have a propagandist such as Mouradian who can be called a “historian.”
Take the case of a real genocide, the Holocaust. We know the Holocaust is real because, unlike the “Armenian genocide,” there is evidence for the Holocaust. Yet if a true-blue historian were to take a look at the details of the Holocaust and find something amiss, what do you think would happen to the reputation of that historian if even the slightest discrepancy were to be pointed out?
This is why real historians have learned to stay away from the genocide minefield. This is why the politics-driven charlatans known as “genocide scholars,” the polar opposites of real historians, are the only ones who exclusively hold the field, to tell us about genocides. A real scholar is duty-bound to examine all of the relevant information, in order to reach an impartial conclusion. The genocide scholar begins with the conclusion, ignoring or distorting the facts that run contrary to the genocide scholar’s all-important genocide agenda.
In the case of the “Armenian genocide,” obsessed Armenians embarked upon a global campaign of terror in the 1970s-90s, preying upon the anti-Turkish prejudices of the West, in order to get their fallacy to become widely accepted. Part of the strategy was to target real historians, through violence and death threats. The genocide scholars chased the rest away by conducting smear campaigns. For example, back in 1985, sixty-nine U.S. academicians attempted to address the politicians in Congress considering yet another resolution, with the truth. Genocide scholars such as Israel Charny went after the historians; if any of them received a grant from an organization with “Turkish” in its title, for example, the historians were made out to have been “paid off” by Turkey. You all know professors receive grants all of the time, but the ploy worked — because the Turkish nation and people are widely seen as deplorable.
Back then there were occasional voices in the media who were permitted to speak the truth, such as Washington Post journalist Colman McCarthy who wrote (July 31, 1983) about the great prejudice against Turkish people (“In choosing sides, we go against the Turks. Images of murderous sultans wielding… sabers remain. The stereotype of the savage Turk… persists. Then, too, they are Moslem…”); he correctly praised the true historian, Prof. Justin McCarthy, “who is on neither the Turkish nor the Armenian side. He sides with whatever truth emerges from reliable research,” and finished with, “A false impression has been created that Turkey is stonewalling the facts of the past by not admitting that genocide occurred. In fact, it didn’t.”
He behaved in the way we expect journalists to behave: honestly examine, and consider nothing but the truth. Please ask yourselves how it may be possible for two diametrically opposed facts to co-exist. Either we have what the genocide scholars are pushing, the idea of innocent victims, helpless prey in the hands of uncivilized savages, or we have a treacherous minority who allied themselves with the enemies of their country (like the Arabs from Lawrence of Arabia) during a life-or-death war, as real historians validate.
Sir Charles Eliot, “Turkey in Europe” (London, 1900): “The Turks and Armenians got on excellently together”; the Armenians were the favored minority for centuries. Rear Admiral Colby M. Chester (who got to know Turks firsthand) wrote in “Turkey Reinterpreted” (The New York Times Current History, 1922): “The Turk, contrary to the general impression, is a tolerant man, not only willing but extremely anxious that others should do as they please in religion, as in other things.” The propaganda instead builds upon the false Holocaust parallel of racial and religious discrimination.
The disastrous 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War sealed the fate of the “Sick Man.” Armenians formed terror groups, so as not to be left out when the end came. The strongest to emerge, the Dashnaks (Armenia’s leaders today), took over nearly every Ottoman-Armenian village since 1890, assassinating loyal Armenians (in 1904-06, two of three victims were Armenians), recruiting the men, having their way with the women (per a British consular report), and teaching Armenians they were racially superior. (There is a book entitled Patriotism Perverted, by the Turk-hating K.S. Papazian. It is online, and will give some idea about the Dashnaks.) The Dashnak ideologue M. Varandian wrote of “the seed of the poisonous flower of racism and nationalism… sown and carefully cultivated in the minds of the (Armenian) youth.” This “rabid and delirious form of nationalism,” as Varandian continued, in The Rebirth of a Nation and Our Mission (1910), “appears in the form of inordinate pride and arrogance,” producing “scandalous excesses, obviously found in the most intense pleasure in indulging in the most irreconcilable scorn and hatred of the Turks. ‘The Turk is a cretin!’ ‘The Turk is a mongrel!’ ‘Wherever the Turk rules there is rule and decay!'” As mentioned, this is the driving attitude among too many diaspora Armenians today, abetted by those who profess to be for “human rights.”
Garo Pasdermadjian was a Dashnak who had taken part in the 1896 Ottoman Bank takeover, murdering many. In later years, the forgiving Ottomans actually allowed Garo to serve in Parliament. As the mercenary Rafael Nogales wrote in 1926’s Four Years Beneath the Crescent, this mass-murderer had “passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and officers of the (Ottoman) Third Army to the Russians… burning hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Musulman villagers that fell into their hands.” We will later explore the more profound revelation of Armenian criminality; let’s now note how Armenians were full-fledged Ottoman citizens, as otherwise they could not have been allowed in the military — any more than Jews could have been allowed in the Wehrmacht.
Garo himself revealed from his propaganda book, Why Armenia Should Be Free (1918; it’s online), in passages such as: “The Armenians resolved to aid the Russian armies in every possible way,” how the treacherous Armenians rebelled, making the genocide charge moot. Other than the fact that the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide requires proof of “intent,” which does not exist, and also requires competent tribunals to determine genocides (not just any “human rights”-touting and falsely moralizing racist), the Convention exempts political groups. Victims need to be entirely innocent, as with WWII’s Jews.
Once the Armenians’ 1890s strategy (1. Massacre Muslims, and enrage them to massacre Armenians 2. Wait for imperialists to step in and take over, under the pretext of protecting Christians) did not work, arms were stockpiled all over the Ottoman Empire, waiting for the glorious moment to strike. “The most opportune time to institute the general rebellion for carrying out the immediate objectives was when Turkey was engaged in war.” (Louise Nalbandian, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, 1963.) Per the 1929 research of the Soviet-Armenian historian B.A. Boryan, the Russians provided over $13 million at war’s outset for “the provision of arms and training to the Turkish Armenians as well as for organizing revolts.” As soon as war involved the Ottomans on Nov. 4, 1914, the Armenians went into action. (In fact, they couldn’t even wait; here they were, two months prior. Note the links’ Armenian-partisan newspaper.)
Despite the deceitful genocide scholars’ many armchair theories, the one and only reason for the resulting temporary relocation to distant villages (what any other country would have done; our country and Canada did the same in WWII with three differences: 1) The affected Japanese were innocent, 2) The Japanese were imprisoned, and 3) The USA and Canada were not in danger of extinction), because there was a “massive Armenian armed rebellion,” in the words of Prof. Bernard Lewis, who also called the analogy with the Holocaust a “downright falsehood.” Even our partisan Secretary of State Robert Lansing (who would work with Ambassador Morgenthau to produce the latter’s 1918 admitted propaganda book, which “genocide scholar” Samantha Power relied upon extensively for her A Problem From Hell; your president, Lee Bollinger, personally presented Power with her Pulitzer Prize), in a 1916 letter to President Wilson, found the temporary relocation decree as “justifiable,” given the Armenians’ “well-known disloyalty.”
It is this relocation that has been made into a “genocide.” There is no evidence for an “Armenian genocide.” Even the British, who were planning on forever extinguishing the Turkish nation from the pages of history (which they put into effect with their French allies, via 1920’s stillborn Sèvres Treaty; in short, the British were as bad an enemy as an enemy could get), could find no evidence despite looking from 1919-21 (especially in the Ottoman archives under their control) for the abortive Malta Tribunal, the planned precursor for Nuremberg. Before giving up, they desperately even searched our nation’s archives. The UK embassy in Washington sent a July 21, 1921 telegram to Lord Curzon: “I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta.” Practically everything that is presented as evidence today was rejected by no less than the British; all the British could find were hearsay, as well as forgeries.
When any of us are charged with a crime, we are met with contempt. Anyone who says there was an “Armenian genocide” without presenting the evidence is guilty of racism. It’s as simple as that.
The cruel forces for genocide have played upon the “Terrible Turk” stereotype, making it seem as though this “strange human species,” as Amb. Morgenthau wrote in his book about these subhuman creatures (“humanity and civilization never for a moment enters their mind”), purposely used this relocation as a means to exterminate, calling it a “death march,” leaving the Armenians out in the middle of the desert without food or water. (The fact is, the Armenians were transported to the highly inhabitable region called “The Fertile Crescent.” Please note that even a more “reasonable” genocide activist of Armenian heritage, Ronald Suny, used a quote that Amb. Morgenthau put in the mouth of Talat Pasha as part of the title for Suny’s latest book: “They Can Live in the Desert.”) Yet it is the ambassador himself who has revealed, through a Sept. 1915 private diary entry, that there were some 500,000 displaced Armenians who “were fairly well satisfied… have already settled down to business and are earning their livings.”
If we may put aside factual history for a moment and simply consider logic: After the bankrupt “Sick Man” barely had time to recover from two recent and ruinous wars (1911-12 vs. Italy, 1912-13 First Balkan), suffering from severe shortages of manpower and resources, and when three dismemberment-minded superpowers invaded, beginning in 1914, on 7,500 miles of fronts, every able-bodied man was needed to defend the nation from certain death. Do you think that would have been an opportune time to conduct an expensive “extermination campaign,” even if the Turks, for some mysterious reason, suddenly considered the Armenians to be racially and religiously inferior? (These feelings would have had to be really intense, you realize, in order to allow for the extreme decision for extermination.)
As opposed to one such as Samantha Power, we (as Americans, having nothing to do with the Turkish government) use sources without conflicts-of-interest, Western/Armenian, those who often despise Turks. The Ottoman archives are practically the only Turkish source we consult, because they were secret reports prepared for the internal operation of the nation, and never meant to be publicized. A real Ottoman order began with: “A convoy of 500 Armenians who were evacuated from Erzurum has been killed by tribes,” and ended with: “It is absolutely necessary that every possible measure is taken to protect the Armenians against attacks by tribes and villagers, and that those who attempt murder and violence are severely punished.” [Ministry of Interior, File 54,864/62, June 14, 1915/6-1-1334]
This tells us a state-sponsored genocide would have been impossible. Forty-eight gendarmes died while defending Armenians en route. This tells us a genocide would have been impossible. The Ottomans took to court 1,673 Turks for harming Armenians during the war, punishing ten percent of the decided cases with no less than execution. (We wrist-slapped only one officer for the My Lai Massacre.) This tells us a genocide would have been impossible.
The consensus for the pre-war Ottoman-Armenian population at the time was 1.5 million (e.g., PGF 4). One million survived, as even the activist Peter Balakian and the racist Samantha Power have agreed. (US Senate Resolution, Nov. 10, 1919; Doc. 151, p. 8: 1,293,000 Armenians alive and accounted for.) The difference (1.5M minus 1.0M), one half million, mainly died from famine and disease, causes that took the lives of the majority of everyone else, even three times as many Ottoman soldiers. (The British/French blocked the seaports; people ate grass. Even Morgenthau’s successor, Ambassador Elkus, became infected with typhus.) Armenians who died violently died in battle, and the comparatively few who were murdered were victims of tribes and revengists, not soldiers acting under orders.
Every “Armenian genocide” article now is a rubber stamp of one another, because academicians never challenge the mendacity of the “human rights”-propelled genocide world. Compare the “Armenian genocide” recognitions of three genocide-delirious nations: Canada, Holland and Sweden. Notice how each utilize the same nonsense about 1.5 million dead and how the “genocide” lasted until 1923. (Five years after WWI ended, when the Young Turks fled, and the Allies occupied.) Robert Lansing, as the head of the Commission on Responsibilities at the Paris Peace Conference, presented a formal report dated March 29, 1919, in which the total Armenian losses were (preliminarily) only 200,000, of which only 8,200 died from butcheries and 54,000 of other reasons in transit. Furthermore, these figures were determined by three different sources, all of which were Armenian. Note: that’s 8,200 vs. 1.5 million.
During the ’70s, when the world was hit by pseudo-Marxist revolutionary groups (i.e., “terrorist groups”), such as Italy’s Red Brigades, Japan’s Red Army, and in our country the Symbionese Liberation Army (which Patty Hearst made famous), your guest, the Kurdish-Turk Taner Akcam, first joined THKP-C (Turkish People’s Liberation Party-Front) and later became a founding member of DEV-YOL which called for armed struggle; Akcam wrote articles showing he had no love for our country, and felt the West was “dangerous for all mankind.” During this period of anarchy when dozens were being shot daily on the streets of Turkey, his armed group “kept cities and districts under our control” (in his words, from the following interview), and Akcam was arrested for his part, later escaping from prison. A January 11, 2002 Milliyet newspaper interview with the man indicates he joined what is still recognized by our nation as a terrorist group, the PKK (Kurds are now the darlings of the West, but the over 40,000 lives the PKK took in Turkey, relative to our population, would be some 170,000; we all know how we felt after terrorists killed 3,000), who later tried to murder him. His old friend and ex-superior, the now imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan (Özgür Politika, Jan. 19, 2002): “Taner gave the order for the murder of the people that he claims to have protected. He caused heavy casualties.”
Of Vahakn Dadrian, Dr. Eric Ericson wrote in The Middle East Journal (2006): This is the man whose “influential work from the 1980s and 1990s became the intellectual bedrock for the modern Armenian claim that the Young Turks conducted a premeditated genocide.” Prof. Malcolm Yapp on Dadrian’s “The History of the Armenian Genocide”: “The author’s approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system.” (It was in this 2003 book, by the way, that Dadrian had written [p. 210, FN 19]: “In the Fall of 1915… the anti-Armenian extermination campaign had all but run its course.” It’s very ironic that everyone now believes the “genocide” lasted until 1923, when even Dadrian has admitted it was practically over by 1915, which begs the question: if there were an “extermination campaign,” why would it have stopped?)
Prof. Guenter Lewy approached the subject as a true scholar by examining “all” of the information in The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide. In Commentary, Feb. 2006, Lewy found Dadrian to be “guilty of willful mistranslations, selective quotations, and other serious violations of scholarly ethics.” Dadrian is a propagandist, and has been discredited. His shady character may also be revealed by his brushes with the law; on sex charges involving the sodomy of a ten-year-old boy (Chicago Tribune, Jan. 6 1955), and after repeated gropings through the years, in April 1991, he finally got fired from his university (ending his academic career) for sexually harassing a teen.
Akcam’s degree is in sociology, even though he is referred to as a “historian.” The way in which Akcam received his degree had to do with Dadrian’s recognition of the immense value of the “first Turkish scholar” to unabashedly agree with Armenian propaganda. Dadrian conspired with a German genocide scholar at the University of Hanover in order to personally approve Akcam’s dissertation which could well have been written by Dadrian himself. Now that the mentor has been discredited, the protégé has taken on the mantle of recycling Dadrian’s propagandistic research. Akcam was brought to the USA by the Armenian genocide network, first as a “visiting professor” (Akcam was not affiliated with a university to be visiting from, nor was he a professor), and then he eventually found himself at another genocide hub, the University of Minnesota, a director of which is on record for admitting the Armenian organizations were paying Akcam; he finally found himself at a genocide-oriented university which “legitimized” him with a salary.
Once Akcam opened the floodgates, now there is no end of Turks, who for reasons of either gullibility or opportunism (it’s difficult to resist the adulation the West grants them, for being “brave” enough to go up against wicked Turkey) who have joined the genocide club. The last group sponsoring your event is one we have never heard of, “the Research Institute on Turkey (RIT)”; we looked at their site and Facebook page, and what we have here is a slew of mini-Taner Akcams. One you may know is Eylem Delikanli, “an ISHR oral historian,” as described in this article written by one of your genocide-centric students, Rowena Kosher, who “plans to major in human rights.” What a fine embodiment of such “moralists” who do not believe in honest research, and who feel no compunction about making hatred-inducing claims. Ms. Kosher has written: “The Armenian Genocide, from 1915 to 1923, remains one of the most well-known incidents of genocide in the world, when over 1.5 million Armenians were murdered by the Ottoman government.”
The Armenian hoax is indeed “one of the most well-known,” because the genocide world harps on the “big two” that pay the bills, one real, the other fake. (Rwanda and Cambodia pretty much amount to window dressing.) We see Andrew Rizzardi is your Communications Coordinator; he is most likely of Italian descent. Taking advantage of the weakened “SIck Man,” Italy figured Ottoman Libya would be a nice Italian prize, thus resulting in the 1911-12 Italo-Turkish War. The Italians massacred many Libyans from before WWI, lasting until WWII (1981’s Lion of the Desert, starring Anthony Quinn, detailed this episode), and around WWII also killed perhaps a million Ethiopians.
Some genocide scholars claim there is no statute of limitations on genocide, so we may go back centuries as well, when the Romans caused an entire civilization and people (of Carthage) to cease to exist. Why do we never hear about these episodes? It’s because Italy is off the political agenda of these “human rights” trumpeting genocide frauds. What if the genocide world decided upon defaming Italians? What if, over time, Italian-Americans were likened to be the scum of the earth, as has become the image of Turks and those of Turkish heritage? Wouldn’t that be outrageous?
There is no end to similar unheard episodes. When was the last time anyone decried the way in which we massacred hundreds of thousands of non-combatants during the Philippine War (1899-1902)? Where are those who feel pity for the couple of hundred thousand Indonesians the genocide-moralizing Dutch coldly once did away with?
Spain’s relocation of perhaps 1.6 million Cubans (twice as many as the Armenians who were relocated; one of the Armenians’ primary leaders, Boghos Nubar, had estimated in 1918 the relocated at 600-700,000) in the 1896 “reconcentrado” resulted in several hundred thousand deaths. Senator Ted Cruz, who is half-Cuban, was a strong supporter of Texas’ recent “Armenian genocide” resolution (liberals — supposedly fair and open-minded — are shamefully at the forefront of championing the “Armenian genocide” charge; the angle for conservatives as Cruz is usually “Christian innocents vs. Muslim hordes”); do you think Senator Cruz will ever support a “Cuban genocide” resolution? One reason why he will not is because he has almost certainly never even heard of the episode. (The main reason he will not is because no one is making an issue of this long-ago historical chapter, certainly not the false “human rights”-touting genocide scholars, and least of all, the Cubans themselves.)
Are you telling us that Libyans and Ethiopians (and Carthaginians) and Filipinos, Indonesians and Cubans are not as worthy as Armenians? Are Italians, Americans, the Dutch, and Spaniards a more humane people than bloodthirsty Turks? Is it beginning to sink in that once you harp on one genocide (or alleged genocide) and ignore others, the genocide world, hiding behind the shield of “human rights,” becomes racist.
What about Turks as victims? You’ll never hear a single “genocide scholar” whispering a word about them. Prof. Justin McCarthy wrote a book (around a quarter-century ago), Death and Exile, detailing how five million Ottoman Turks, Muslims and others were done away with at the hands of Orthodox Christian nations, over the course of a century, with another five million displaced. Those are serious Holocaust-level casualties. (Raul Hilberg’s 1961 research for 5 million was accepted, at least for a time, even by the Holocaust Museum, or USHMM. Yet we always hear the legendary figure of “six million.” The greater the numbers, the greater the sympathy, and the greater the opportunity for financial and political rewards.) Why do you suppose you or other Columbia professors have likely never heard of Turks as “genocide” victims?
In the catastrophic First Balkan War, which ended only one year before WWI began, the numbers each country did away with were as such: Greece (622,025), Bulgaria (148,556) Serbia/”Yugoslavia” (674,598). Of the total, 632,408 Ottoman non-combatants were dead. You’ll note 1912-13 preceded “1915,” the famous “Armenian” year we are often told constituted the “First Genocide of the 20th Century.” The Christian community of this time in Europe and the United States were silent about these atrocities, and there is not a single “human rights” trumpeting “genocide scholar” (we know of) who has ever written about these events. (Jews were among the Orthodox Christians’ victims, as well.)
Another “Armenian genocide” talking point most have mindlessly accepted is that the intentional killing of Armenians lasted until 1923, while Turks, Muslims and Jews were being systematically mass-murdered by (aside from Armenians in the east) invading Greek forces. The “Christian” Inter-Allied Commission concluded (May 23, 1921) in areas “occupied by the Greek army, there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Moslem population.” There were 1.3 million fewer Turks and Muslims in Western Anatolia by the end of 1922, and 640,000 were civilians who died as a result of Greek atrocities. Even Raphael Lemkin classified the Greek invasion as a genocide; it is never mentioned by “moral” genocide scholars, nor the “moral” USHMM. (A federal agency which affirmed the Armenian hoax in 1981, one year after Armenian-American Set Momjian pledged one million dollars. So our U.S. Government has been sanctioning racism for thirty-seven years, which should disturb every American.)
Given the omnipresence of the false “Armenian genocide” charge, the worst example of ignored Turkish “genocide”-victimization is the way in which the hateful Armenians conducted the factual systematic extermination campaign, doing away with 529,000 (per the district-by-district secret records of the Ottoman archives; Col. Wooley of the British Army estimated the Armenians had slaughtered 300,000-400,000 Muslims in two districts alone, Van and Bitlis. U.S. Archives, 12.9.1919, 184.021/265); that is well over ten times as many as the Armenians who were arbitrarily murdered, and many Turks (Muslims and Jews as well) were killed in the most sadistic manner, given the Dashnaks’ immersion in racial supremacy ideology. (From mutilated vaginas, to cooked children served to their mothers.)
Red Cross Attendant Tatiana Karameli (1917-18 memoirs): “I arrived in Bayburt on August 8, 1917. What I saw was terrifying. Armenians under the Russian administration were committing horrifying, wild atrocities against Turks in Bayburt and Ispir. The rebels named Arshak and Antranik, slaughtered the children in the orphanage I worked at with their daggers. They raped young girls and women. They took away 150 children with them while they were withdrawing from Bayburt and killed most of them while they were still on the way.” (That is not an isolated firsthand eyewitness account provided by the Armenians’ allies; here is, e.g., another. This is not Samantha Power’s “hearsay.”)
Prof. Barkan, we see you received your BA in Tel Aviv University, which means you are probably Jewish. Turkey, both Ottoman and Republic, has arguably been the greatest historical friend of the Jews, until our country took over the role after WWII, for probably less pure reasons. After the Ottomans rescued Jews from oppressive Byzantine rule in the 14th century, every time Jews were expelled, as they were from Hungary, from France, from Sicily, from Greece (under Venetian control), and from Bavaria, and most famously, during the Inquisitions, from Spain and from Portugal, what was the country that primarily took them in? It was not just a matter of rescuing Jews, it was a matter of allowing Jews to live and prosper in safety, for centuries. Haim Nahum, last Ottoman Grand Rabbi, 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…”
During WWII, Turks saved many Jews, as UCLA Prof. Stanford Shaw, whose house was bombed by Armenian terrorists in 1977, and who was harassed by Prof. Richard Hovannisian’s thuggish students on an almost daily basis, instructs. Too many Dashnak-influenced Armenians, on the other hand, hate one people almost as much as their almost insane hatred of Turks. Common joke on their forums: “What do we call a child between a Jew and a Turk?” Answer: “A Jurk.” (Jews had a near 2,000 year presence in today’s Armenia, and today hardly any are left. Unlike murdered Tatars — victims of the Armenians’ second extermination campaign; when Russia conquered today’s Armenia, 45% were Muslims, a percentage soon reduced to 0% — most Jews of Armenia were “pressured” to leave.)
Jews were also among the 529,000 victims of the Armenians; see Rabbi Albert Amateau’s sworn statement. You are aware the business of the USHMM is remembering the destruction of the Jews, so please consider the inexplicability of how the Armenians, who were “bent on destroying anything and anybody remotely Jewish and/or Muslim,” as Elihu Ben Levi wrote (last link above, also claiming 148 of his family members were killed by Armenians) have been completely ignored — when the Armenians engaged in their systematic extermination campaign against the Jews, no less than the Nazis? Why would the USHMM go out of its way to avoid mention of those who have persecuted the Jewish people, Armenians who had served as Nazis in WWI, as well as serving as actual WWII Nazis (a Jerusalem Post article touching on this secret Nazi past of the Armenians; judged mainly to be of poor fighting stock, most Nazi Armenians were relegated to policing the occupied territories) while the USHMM has affirmed an Armenian genocide?
The propagandist Taner Akcam, the one your department has so lovingly embraced, is a man totally without scruples. He is on record, as with a 2006 PBS appearance, for proclaiming Armenian killings of Muslims was a “legend” and “not true.” As his mentor Dadrian, he gives credence to the 1919-20 mock courts held by the postwar puppet Ottomans, the findings of which even the British had rejected. He twists the meaning of Ataturk’s phrase “A Shameful Act” (used as the title for Akcam’s 2006 book.) He twists the words of Talat Pasha meant to safeguard Armenians, to ones demonstrating genocidal intent. (See page 144 of this wonderful exposé of Akcam, by French scholar Maxime Gauin.)
The hysterically Armenian-partisan New York Times published “‘Sherlock Holmes of Armenian Genocide’ Uncovers Lost Evidence” on April 22, 2017, without shedding light on Taner Akcam’s “evidence,” which turned out to have been around for years (e.g., Dadrian in 1991), the contents of which were typically twisted, and spurious to begin with. The most valuable part of the article was that this “evidence” was referred to as a “smoking gun,” in effect admitting the lack of evidence before this worthless revelation. If there is no evidence, there can be no crime.
As Prof. Guenter Lewy politely put it, “Many Armenian scholars use selective evidence or otherwise distort the historical record,” given their penchant for superseding the truth in favor of “Hai Tahd,” or the Armenian Cause; nothing is off the table, as long as they can get away with it. They have steered clear of one juicy item, however. Almost no “Armenian genocide” advocate has lent weight to the notorious forgeries of Aram Andonian, for generations. (In her 2002 book, “liberal darling” Samantha Power pointed to NY Times articles utilizing Andonian’s forgeries twice.) Prof. Erich Feigl, in A Myth of Terror: Armenian Extremism, Its Causes and Its Historical Context (1986), wrote of his meeting with Dr. Gerard Libaridian, at the time heading the Armenian Zoryan Institute, who kept harping on Andonian.
Since it seemed reasonable to assume that Dr. Libaridian knew that the papers were forgeries, I did not want to waste a single word on the subject. There were so many other, more interesting things to talk about. But remarkably enough, he stuck with Aram Andonian’s book, and its “documents”. Finally I had to say, “But Doctor Libaridian, you know as well as I that these ‘Andonian papers’ are forgeries!” I will never forget Dr. Libaridian’s answer or his facial expression as he replied simply and briefly to my reproach:
… and I will never forget that answer. It was not even cold; it was casual, matter-of-fact reply to one who has long since found other strategies but does not even bother to clean house, since he knows that the old dirt can be swept under the rug of history and — who knows? — maybe someday it will come in handy again to help obscure the truth.
That “someday” has arrived. Taner Akcam has a new book called “Killing Orders” (“The denialist school has long argued that these documents and memoirs were all forgeries, produced by Armenians to further their claims. Taner Akçam provides the evidence to refute the basis of these claims and demonstrates clearly why the documents can be trusted as authentic…”). The “Armenian genocide” situation has now become so unopposed, thanks in no small part to unthinking and biased affirmers as yourselves, these amoral and immoral genocide pushers may now fearlessly come out with whatever outrageous claims they can. (Lining their pockets at the same time; the book goes for $29.95.)
(Promotion for this book is behind Akcam’s March 28 appearance.) One of the many reasons the photographs of these purported documents are forgeries is because the Ottomans had a coding system for their telegrams, which Aram Andonian was naturally not privy to, so he invented them. A couple of the other reasons why these forgeries have long ago been dispensed with: 1) “There are important grounds for considering these documents fake.” The author was Taner Akcam himself, Turkish National Identity and the Armenian Question, Istanbul, 1992. 2) “My work was not a historical one, but rather one aiming at propaganda.” The author was Aram Andonian, July 26, 1937 letter to Dr. Mary Terzian in the Dashnak publication, Comité de Défense de la Cause Arménienne, ‘Justicier du Génocide Arménien.’
Yet here you were, Prof. Barkan, you and your ISHR department, allowing for this malicious person to spew forth his nonsense as though it were credible. You and your department, because of your deep prejudices, and your “human rights” agenda, have greatly betrayed Columbia’s mission “to advance knowledge and learning at the highest level.”
Prof. Barkan, we wanted to get a better idea of where you personally stood on this matter. We see the damage you’ve been causing by being summoned as a “moral witness” through driven and “moral” authors as this fellow (who wrote, “The slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians.” Then we were hit with the baseless Holocaust parallel: “All Jews are victims. For the Armenians, the same is true.”) Note the photo of an execution meant to represent arbitrary Armenians being exterminated, in the same fashion that the New York Times disgracefully employed with its April 22, 2017 Akcam article. We informed The Times through a simple image search that the people in the photo captioned as “Tripods used for hanging people during the Armenian genocide that started in 1915” were Hunchak (another Armenian terror group) assassins; according to a Hunchak page, of 140 who spent years in jail, only 20 were executed, which would have made for a strange “genocide” indeed. The Times ignored the correction, which is pretty terrifying; we do not like to think of The New York Times as giving Breitbart a run for its money.
Armenians and genocide scholars (see this example and this example) can use any sensational photo, sometimes several photos put together through Photoshop, even authenticated photos of Muslim victims of Armenians, secure in the knowledge that the bigotry of people are so solidly in place, the photos’ validity will be immediately accepted.
In a Times article from a decade ago (“A $12 billion history lesson”) you tried to maintain some distance, but it’s easy to see your sympathies. You pooh-poohed Turkey’s viewpoint, inadequately described as “the tragic combination of bureaucratic ineptness and particularly harsh climatic conditions,” while stressing the need to be “academic.” If you are so academic, Prof. Barkan, how could you have been giving credence to the hearsay of biased parties as missionaries and consuls (German, too), who often took the word of their beloved Armenian interpreters ¬— while ignoring the multitude of sources lacking conflicts of interest, as with the few firsthand Westerners who were genuinely on the spot, and who kept their prejudices in check. Such as the Swede, Hj Pravitz, who wrote (after admitting his Western anti-Turkish feelings): “I sure got to view misery, but planned cruelties? Absolutely nothing.”
One of your most revealing statements was, “George Orwell warned us about mixing history and politics.” Exactly. They cannot mix. You received your Ph.D. in history. Once you got mixed up in your corrupt world of “human rights” and began to choose sides based on hateful disinformation, you can no longer be called a historian. (Nor a scholar.)
In January of 2017, we sent an email to major news outlets throughout the land, outlining the historical realities. It is disconcerting to become aware our news media is remaining steadfast on this matter; there really appears to be a conspiracy, and we are at a loss to understand how the prejudice/politics can run so deeply. We also sent this letter to some of the history departments of major universities. Our records indicate you and Professors Mamadou Diouf and
Anupama Rao have received this letter. With the provocative subject line of “Letter to Rachel Maddow: Choose History, Not Racism,” the odds are your historian/”human rights” selves compelled you to read the letter. (Many of Columbia’s history professors must have, as well. Where have they been? What kind of “historians” are these?)
Professors Mamadou Diouf and Anupama Rao, once you allowed yourselves to similarly embrace genocide propaganda, you have lost the right to be called historians. Professor Diouf, a great man has taught us a person should be judged by the content of his or her character and not by the color of his or her skin. The only reason why we are calling attention to the latter aspect is because we would have imagined you would potentially be a little more sensitive to the destructiveness caused by hatred and racism. If you read our letter from over one year ago, surely whatever remains of your “historian” self must have had cause to doubt the “Armenian genocide,” and you would have begun to realize how harmful it is to accuse a nation and a people of this greatest of crimes without evidence. If you were to be accused of a crime, especially baselessly, you know it would be catastrophic. Yet you most likely played a part in the hiring of the obsessed Khatchig Mouradian. You have allowed him to warp minds and to spread inaccuracies and animosity to the impressionable minds of the students in your department. We do not understand how you could have permitted yourself to do such a thing. You have betrayed your position as chair of the MESAAS.
We appeal to everyone at Columbia University to objectively educate yourselves, and to confront this evil. This is not an “Armenian-Turkish” issue, nor would we expect you to defend the latter people, for whom most have been conditioned to feel little affinity toward. As professors, you must not tolerate propaganda. As conscientious humans, you must be intolerant of racism, especially when practiced at the place of your work. As that aforementioned great man, Dr. King, has also stated, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”