Category: Prof. Mahmut Esat Ozan

  • GENOCIDE.COM A PROFITABLE ARMENIAN ENTERPRISE

    GENOCIDE.COM A PROFITABLE ARMENIAN ENTERPRISE

    THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN IN RESPONCE TO THE BILL INTRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA

    By an Armenian-American senator, to claim $$$$$ from certain parties for
    the decendents of non existing GEnoside…

    “I REGRET TO INFORM YOUR LORDSHIP THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THEREIN
    WHICH COULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE TURKS WHO ARE
    PRESENTLY BEING DETAINED IN MALTA… NO CONCRETE FACTS BEING GIVEN
    WHICH COULD CONSTITUTE SATISFACTORY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE …THE
    REPORTS IN QUESTION DO NOT APPEAR IN ANY CASE, TO CONTAIN EVIDENCE
    AGAINST THE TURKS. R.C.Craigie,of American Archives,Washington,DC to:British Foreign Secretary, Lord George Curzon- 13 July 1922

    FRUITFUL LIKE A COTTAGE INDUSTRY

    Before we go any further, let us review what the expression ‘cottage
    industry’ means. The newest edition of a well known dictionary calls it
    “activity carried out or job done in workplace or at home.” Nothing could
    fit better than this to describe the labor-intensive work of Armenians in
    Diaspora. These people struggle slavishly, day and night, at home or office
    to achieve their obsessive objective: To ruin the good name of Turkey and
    Turks by every possible means. Some of their self-admitted confessions
    indicate that “they live every minute of every day just to hate Turks.”
    This hatred -charged loyal labor force, religious to the core, is supported
    one hundred per cent by the mother Church. Tens of thousands of its members
    work in a strictly organized fashion, following a unified agenda to create a
    product, which will represent to the world, on their behalf, the sum total of
    all the alleged misery and calumny ever befallen on the Ottoman Armenians in
    a far-away land, almost a century ago. The product they’re busy fashioning
    is an item, vital for their existence, as much as the air they breathe. It
    is extremely in demand, because without its indispensable support their house
    of cards won’t have a chance to stand up .
    The name of this much sought after profitable product is “GENOCIDE,” and the
    enterprise set up to produce it is called “GENOCIDE.COM ”
    (armenians@genocide.com) There is a HUGE amount of hunger generated for this
    item. Every Armenian wants to acquire it in large quantities, to be taken
    out hot from the presses, to be distributed lavishly by Armenians of every
    walk of life, to every corner of the world. The item is used during their
    interminable discourses, especially while the non-Armenians are being wooed
    to join their side. These people could be the members of domestic or
    international Media, representatives of various legislatures. They say that
    this article, “Genocide,” should be abundantly used at the beginning, in the
    middle, or at the end of all statements. This official procedure is to be
    strictly followed during all encounters with academics, city and state
    legislative bodies, or plain members of the local Press. As precious and
    indescribable an item the product may be, it is neither vegetable, nor
    animal, nor mineral. One may, however, call it ‘verbal.’ In normal
    conditions, excluding the ‘Armenian sacred’ month of APRIL, the principal
    place and time for this item to be used is very important. It is crucial
    that the propagation of the made-up scenarios, such as the improvised sob
    stories, the sorrowful narration of human sufferings of all kinds,
    experienced by their ancestors, and the “brutal” treatment they received
    from the rulers of the now defunct, Ottoman Empire are sensitive anecdotal
    materials ,and they have to be made quite believable. Needless to say, a
    majority of Americans do believe them. “Genocide” has been an item whose
    definition these people have been improving over the years, ever since they
    heard it first introduced in a publication by a non-Armenian . Now,
    however, having been appropriated from him, it is being honed and refined to
    an etymological perfection. Then it is sent everywhere to be subliminally
    transmitted into the cranium of every peaceful, and unsuspecting American
    citizen. This has been a proven method in which the targeted person or
    persons are made to learn to acclimatize themselves to the wrongdoings of
    the Turks as perpetrators of the “genocide.” Nothing is ever left to
    chance. All captive audiences are lectured time and again on the subject of
    a variety of cataclysms which allegedly occurred to their poor down-trodden
    Armenian relatives. Never mind the fact that the Armenians were the favorites
    of the Turkish Sultans and the
    One thing is certain though, the dates of these horrible events may
    constantly be changing. They could be referred to, at times, as having
    happened between the years of 1915 and 16, at other times between 1914 and
    1922. The most popular of them lately, has been the one of 1915 to 1923.
    However, this tedious, monotonous and definitely confusing work, is a labor
    of love for these unwavering, obdurate Armenians. Their work is believed to
    be generating from ghetto-like enclaves of Southern California. In ‘Silicon
    Valley’ alone 200,000 of them live, and many of them infiltrate the local
    computer-age cyber companies where they unload their one-sided views on the
    mythology of “genocide”. Unknown to these captive audiences is the fact that
    the “disinformatsia” the Armenians are passing on to their listeners, is
    worse than its original form employed by the Soviet Union’s KGB apparatchiks.
    The product these people are disseminating comes from their “mental
    rumination.” because they feed each other constantly stories of the distant
    past, most of them are, the purposefully-embellished semi-fictional stories
    depicting vague events allegedly taken place in geographically untraceable
    locales, with funny sounding Armenian names having replaced the original
    ethnic Turkish ones. Armenians make out of all this, a lucrative propaganda
    Industry. By collecting, packaging and peddling around these mythical fables
    passed on from generation to generation, rehashed by semi-senile
    grandmothers with their characteristically confused memories, they score
    success after success and thus recruit new turcophobes.
    The well- known French writer, and member of the “Academie Francaise”, Pierre
    Loti, despised the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire when he lived there and
    had dealings with them intimately on a personal basis. He is rumored to have
    said once : ” ..their vociferous blabber is the only claim to fame.”
    Actually, there could be no objection to what they’re saying and writing
    among themselves. But, this is not the case at all. With great deliberation
    and determination they use every cunning methodology and ‘modus operandi’
    to disseminate these venomous views of theirs, and shove them down the
    throats of uninterested American public and Media. This is the saddest part
    of the whole story, because, in most cases the same Media, accepts their
    drivel without further research or verification of authenticity. And the
    newspapers represented by the members of the Press, publish them verbatim,
    swallowing hook, line and sinker, every falsehood provided to them by the
    Armenian organizations. However, there seems to be an awakening observed of
    late. Some of the members of state legislatures are speaking up, saying :
    “resolutions dealing with 85 year old political events which may or may
    have not occurred, at another part of the world should have no relevance to
    the affairs of the state we represent in this country today.”
    Meanwhile, back in the Cottage Industry, oblivious to all this, writers of
    all caliber of talent and background grind out stories by the dozens. Every
    Spring when the month of April approaches a ‘frenzy and delirium’ take over
    these Armenian institutions. Everyone competes with everyone else, to outdo
    each other in sending letters, faxes, and e-mails, even telegrams to any and
    all publications possible. After all, Spring is the season of
    resurrection, and their stale concoctions left over from the previous years
    have to be revived once again and expedited to their new destinations as if
    they were some freshly cultivated crop. So, now is the perfect time to go
    out and plant in various journals and magazines these fictional accounts.
    Get them published in a myriad of bogus articles, then take those printed
    materials to show to the state legislators , to US Congressmen and
    Senators and demand that they pay attention to them and consider them in
    their future proposals, etc… And , low and behold ! their insidious system
    works. The routine goes on, people are fooled, the deception continues with
    no end in sight. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) is
    happy, and the lackeys of the Armenian constituents, the unabashed
    bootlickers, the Boniors, the Porters, the Gilmans, the Pallones, the
    Radanoviches are the ones who keep on getting elected and sustain the
    “GENOCIDE.COM” operations. Their ultimate goal is to reach and inundate
    and infest the inhabitants of every conceivable location in this universe
    and beyond.
    The “drone-like” members of this cottage industry keep busy reproducing
    the tools needed to use against the Turkish nation and its government to
    force them to admit the “butchery” of millions of ‘innocent’ ancestors of
    theirs, and force the Turks to repent on the altar of history their
    systematic liquidation of the ‘millions’ of the Armenians in Anatolia.
    However, the figures used in this so-called “genocide” is an ever-changing
    thing. Every time they have reference to it the number of the victims
    fluctuates, varying between 300,000 to three million. This discrepancy does
    not bother the Armenians. They are used to this kind of thing. They are
    known to have lied and having deliberately misrepresented figures, and forge
    documents before. Interested parties should refer to the scandalous forged
    documents known as ANDONIAN papers. On various occasions when they organize
    “genocide” shows around the country, usually a disgusting “photograph” is
    exhibited. It shows hundreds of skulls piled up in a most gruesome
    fashion. The caption says: IN MEMORY OF THE 1,500,000 MARTYRED ARMENIANS
    WHO WERE MASSACRED BY THE TURKS IN 1915. The truth about this perfidious
    claim is that it is a lie. The photo is a counterfeit. It is far from being
    a photograph taken in 1915, it is in fact the photocopy of a Russian
    masterpiece painted in oil by Vassili Vereschagin who died in 1905. His
    original painting is still hanging at the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow
    today. The Armenians know this forgery quite well, but continue using it
    throughout the world on pamphlets and postcards. They did this as recently
    as last month in France.
    Soon after the First World War, the high ranking Ottoman officials were
    arrested and imprisoned by a victorious England, on the island of Malta. the
    men who numbered 140 were detained, while an Armenian scholar named HAIG
    KHAZARIAN was appointed by the British to locate evidence of war crimes and
    persecution of Armenians. After researching the archives of a captive
    Ottoman government, the British archives, and finally the U.S. Department
    archives, all the detainees were released after three years . Although
    Britain suffered a great deal of humiliation, at least, they thoroughly
    researched the matter and were decent enough to admit their mistake before
    releasing these unjustly accused people. ( Erol Bulur, Media Watch report,
    Oct.3,1990)
    WHAT ADOLPH HITLER DID NOT SAY!
    The oft referred to infamous “quotation” of Adolph Hitler: “Who still
    speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians” etc… is as phony as a
    three dollar bill. Hitler had never uttered those words. However, he is
    reputed to have used frequently the following quotation , which sounds like
    it was borrowed from his Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels : “The
    more you repeat a lie, the more it becomes the truth. To be able to give a
    more authoritative answer to the above Hitler quotation, let us read a short
    passage from Prof. Dr. Turkkaya Ataov, Chairman, International Relations
    Division, Ankara, Turkey. Professor Ataov categorically refutes the quotation
    and says in part: “As a matter of fact, Hitler had probably made only one
    reference to the Armenians in a talk delivered on December 12, 1942, in which
    he described them as unreliable (unzuverlassig) and dangerous (gefahrlich.).
    Adolph Hitler was not the only one who had negative feelings about the
    Armenians. It was Pierre Loti, the French novelist and world traveler, whose
    name was mentioned above proudly defended the Turkish position, when others
    sided with the Armenians because they were closer to their religious feelings
    and beliefs. Loti knew the Turks intimately for having lived in Turkey and
    written books about his friends, the Turks, about whom he once said the
    following : “Their loyalty… unblemished honesty,…endless
    hospitality…religious tolerance …moral elegance and natural tact, do give
    affectionately deposition for the Turks in front of great Tribunal of
    Humanity. Letters continue to arrive to me everyday, from officers, soldiers,
    even Catholic priests, who were able to know them closely at the Dardanelles
    and who remain amazed to have found the Turks to be as I had described them.
    One of the most touching came from a soldier who had been their prisoner for
    a long time, to express his tender gratification of the Turks who took care
    of him with brotherly love. Thank God, the truth about them is beginning to
    make headway at home.” (France)….He continues, “To speak …about the
    Armenian race is for me more painful than one would believe, because the
    amount of their unfortunate ‘incidents’ rendered me almost scared; also… If
    I were able to claim and support that all the French who have lived in
    Turkey, even our monks and nuns, give the Turks their esteem and their
    affection, on the contrary, I believe that we would find barely one out of a
    hundred of us who has good memories of these ‘unfortunate’ Armenians. All
    who have had any relationship whatsoever with them, mundane or business,–
    business affairs above all, were turned away with antipathy.

    There are other testimonials . The well-known student of Turkish affairs,
    Dr.Stephan Ronart wrote the following in his, “La Turquie d’Aujourd’hui”
    The Turkey of Today, Paris 1937
    “….Three times in the same millennium, Turks have built three
    inter-continental empires- the mightiest that history has ever recorded. This
    expansive spirit has always been the normal pattern in Turkish social life.
    None of these early Turkish empires allowed the slightest religious
    intolerance to take hold among themselves, nor did they advance the
    superiority of one faith or of one sect over another.

    Alphonse de Lamartime,in his 9 volume essay on Turks wrote long before anyone
    else that Turks were generous and sensitive, that their country was that of
    gentle, heroic people. He proclaimed that to be
    the foe of such a people would be like being the foe of humanity. He
    finished his words by saying :
    “God preserve me from such a sin.”
    Having remembered the injustices perpetrated on the Turkish people by the
    Armenians and Greeks in these
    United States, and having just finished reading the above unsolicited
    testimonials, I cannot refrain myself from asking the following question:
    “Could our ancestors ever commit the crimes they are accused of? Were the
    Turks of the old Ottoman Empire capable of harboring within their hearts a
    burning desire compelling them to annihilate a human race, the Ottoman
    Armenians? Invariably the answer comes up a resounding “NO”, no, no, never!

    There are times when I find it impossible to comprehend the enormity of the
    accusation we Turks have been confronted with. To be able to endure for
    a long time, such a horrendous indictment, a “Genocide” we had to be totally
    innocent of the charges and we are. There was no such thing as a “Genocide”
    For those who ask themselves, “If Turks were such a fair, magnanimous, and
    gentle people why then the Armenians in Diaspora accuse them for such a
    horrendous crime of Genocide?” Here’s the answer which they will never
    accept because it runs against their profitable enterprise of GENOCIDE.COM
    . They will always refute the truth. The wholesale Armenian insurgence in
    the Ottoman Empire for a pipe dream called Independence, and the extortion
    of a piece of valuable Turkish real estate did not pan out ever since the
    Armenians have been playing the role of “bad losers” and selling a
    deportation/resettlement issue as
    plain old “Genocide”

    But why take the prejudicial words of a person like me? Why not listen to the
    an American, General James G, Harbord, the head of the U,S. Government’s
    investigative Commission, sent to Anatolia in the Fall of 1919 by none other
    than President Woodrow Wilson? In his report to President Woodrow Wilson,
    and to the U.S Congress,General James G. Harbord said the following: “The
    Turks and the Armenians lived in peace, side by side for centuries ; that
    the Turks suffered as much as the Armenians at the time of the deportations,
    that at the start of World War I and before, Armenians never had anything
    approaching a majority of the population in the territories they called
    “Armenia”; they would not have majority even if all the deported Armenians
    were returned; and the claims that returning Armenians would be in danger
    were not justified.”

    Finally as a definitive answer to the accusations of the profitable Armenian
    Enterprise “GENOCIDE.COM
    and to its tireless contributors, we have here, one more time, for every
    Armenian to see and to learn by heart, the official words used on the
    declaration of the British Government from the island of Malta, where 140
    high ranking Ottoman government officials suspected of having engineered the
    “Genocide” were kept incarcerated, and then let go free at the end of their
    third year of imprisonment in 1921. From 13 July 1922 British Foreign Office
    Archives, 371/6504/8519, Mr. R.C.Craigie of American Archives in Washington
    ,DC written to Lord Curzon, of England saying that :

    “I REGRET TO INFORM YOUR LORDSHIP THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THEREIN WHICH
    COULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE TURKS WHO ARE PRESENTLY BEING
    DETAINED AT MALTA…NO CONCRETE FACTS BEING GIVEN WHICH COULD CONSTITUTE
    SATISFACTORY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE…THE REPORTS IN QUESTION DO NOT
    APPEAR, IN ANY CASE, TO CONTAIN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE TURKS.”

    I’d like to bring this essay to a close with the words one more time of the
    great friend of the Turks Pierre Loti who in his book : “Fantome d’Orient”
    1928 wrote: “One should be blind to history not to understand the Turks.
    The dignified silence of the Turks against the mounting unjustified attacks
    and mean slanders can only be explained by their pity for the blind. …How
    beautifully this attitude of theirs answers the undignified calumnies.”

    Mahmut Esat Ozan
    Prof. Emeritus, Dept.
    International Studies
    MDCC, Miami, Fl.

  • DAYDREAMS ARE UNPRODUCTIVE ONLY THE FACTS COUNT

    DAYDREAMS ARE UNPRODUCTIVE ONLY THE FACTS COUNT

    DAYDREAMS ARE UNPRODUCTIVE
    ONLY THE FACTS COUNT
    Mahmut Esat Ozan

    In this day and age of the INTERNET revolution, the web sites have
    been swarming the computer screens. They are everywhere. It’s almost
    impossible to ignore them. Most of these web-sites are designed to
    fulfill a necessary and beneficial function. Others are truly the
    epitome of the expression ‘junk mail,’ or the paradigm of the word
    ‘trash.’ Yet they proliferate uncontrollably. Some of them are very
    conspicuous, to say the least. At times their graphics are bleeding
    with discordant colors, almost always with gaudy hues. They seem to
    scream at the browsers, daring them to disregard the challenging
    messages cleverly hidden within the bowels of their enticing, but
    deceptive verbiage.

    GREEK SOUL, GREEK ACTION
    One such web-site caught my attention recently. The following
    message was displayed in large letters on the screen:

    “HELLENES
    The struggle for the liberation of the last enslaved Greek lands:
    North Epirus-(Albania), North Macedonia, East Thrace-(Turkish Trakya),
    Asia Minor-(Anatolia), North Cyprus-(TRNC) has started.
    The brilliant progress of our Greek ancestors has to continue in
    the same manner. A historical responsibility has passed on upon us.”
    OUR GOAL IS GREAT HELLAS. OUR CENTER IS CONSTANTINOPLE.”

    Following these outrageous statements, a Greek Military Evzone-like
    cartoon character appears and walks towards the Turkish flag, which is
    spread out on the ground, and begins to urinate on it. This disgusting
    event repeats itself continuously, on a loop, every three or four
    seconds, until one decides to change the web site, or turn off the
    computer.
    There have been other similar cases: In their typical fashion, even
    the official members of the Greek government cannot help but use the
    most pejorative words to describe their fellow diplomats, the Turks. It
    is quite ironic that right after Turkey was admitted to the European
    customs union, the Greek government’s official spokesman Telemahos
    Hytiris used the most friendly words he could muster and said the
    following: “The Hellenic government ‘dropped’ the veto without securing
    any compromise by the Turkish government. At the same time, Hellas was
    opening the door of civilized Europe for the BARBARIC MONGOLOIDS, the
    Turks.”
    Here’s another gem of a statement I was able to glean recently. It
    said, “…many web sites were created by Turkish “students” throughout
    the world. And in their amateurish ways, they try to present liberated
    Thrace in Hellas as a place where Turks are oppressed. But what can we
    expect from a MURDEROUS BUNCH, who have even ‘converted’ the genocide of
    2.5 million poor Armenians, into a massacre of Muslims and Jews.”

    WHERE DOES THIS HATRED COME FROM?
    It is not a well-kept secret that Greeks and Turks did not get
    along too well in the past. Of all the nationalities integrated under
    the aegis of the Ottoman rule, the Greeks and to a certain degree the
    Serbs were most resentful of not being independent. It is only natural
    that the governed should resent their rulers and the Turks were their
    rulers for 400 years, until the middle of the 19th century.
    Turks were also victorious in a fairly recent war in 1919-1922, a
    Greek invasion instigated by the then British Prime Minister Lloyd
    George, and the First Lord of the British Admiralty Winston Churchill.
    This senseless intrusion onto Turkish soil in Anatolia, and their
    humiliating defeat at the hands of their former rulers, the Turks, could
    be counted as the prime source of their frustration. This, of course,
    led to the Greeks’ unbearable inferiority complex.
    There was a period of relaxation of tensions on both sides. A
    rapprochement of sorts was initiated by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk during the
    early Thirties. This lull lasted until the end of the Second World
    War. I remember during those feverish days of the war Turkish
    government-owned cargo ships smuggled tons of wheat cut from their
    meager supplies of food stuffs, maneuvering through the hazardous,
    mine-infested waters of the Aegean Sea to reach Greece, so that their
    neighbors would not starve. In the process Turks lost scores of their
    own citizens and vessels.
    This feeling of closeness and empathy toward one another slowly
    dissipated. Through the demise of Ataturk, then of the elderly leader
    of Greece, Eleftherios Venizelos, the short-lived détente between the
    two nations was no more. Taking its place was now the Greek experiment
    with international Communism, which ended in 1946 with the inauguration
    of the Marshall Plan, and by the full Nato membership of Greece and
    Turkey in 1952.
    The Tri-partite treaty of 1959-60 among Great Britain, Greece, and
    Turkey, granting the Turkish and Greek Cypriots an independent status,
    followed by massacres, the Greek Army Colonels’ coup, then the Turkish
    military intervention to save the Turkish nationals, the 24 year-old
    stalemate continuing on the island of Cyprus have all contributed to the
    present day state of affairs between the two neighbors.

    A LASTING PEACE IS NOT YET AROUND THE CORNER
    As long as the Greek-American lobby, the Greek Orthodox Church, and
    the ethno-centric Greek organizations operating as propaganda machines
    are around us, there will be no chance for the cessation of hostilities
    emanating from their side, targeting continuously the interest of
    Turkish people everywhere.
    The website mentioned earlier, is but one of duzens of similar
    sites spewing venom, Greek style, against anything Turkish, 24 hours a
    day. Never mind the fact that Turkey is four times the size of Greece
    and six times more populated than their country, the arrogance displayed
    by the likes of Theodoros Pangalos in Greece and Glafkos Klerides in
    southern Cyprus is incomprehensible at best.
    A further striking example of unbelievable audacity is witnessed in
    the case of Greeks’ insistence in calling the city of Istanbul by its
    previous name of CONSTANTINOPLE, though its name was changed 537 years
    ago when the city was conquered by the Turks. Today no one in his right
    mind dares to call New York by its old Dutch name of New Amsterdam;
    Leningrad in Russia is now called St. Petersburg; the name of Stalingrad
    is replaced by Volgagrad; In China the old Peking became Beijing; the
    Dominican Republic’s Ciudad Trujillo adopted the name of Santo Domingo:
    Zimbabwe’s old name was Rhodesia, and its capital, the former Salisbury,
    proudly calls itself Harare. These changes have all been accepted
    officially by everyone in the world. However, Greeks are determined to
    give Istanbul the name of Constantinople.
    Just to add a little color to this writing, let me give you a few
    incomplete lines of a popular American song which dominated the HIT
    PARADE TV programs for several weeks during the Fifties:

    “…Take me back
    to Constantinople,”
    “No, you can’t go
    back to Constantinople,
    Now it’s
    Istanbul, not Constantinople.”
    “Why did
    Constantinople get the works?”
    “That’s nobody’s
    business but the Turks’!”

    .ATTACKS ON WHAT IS
    CACROSANCT FOR THE TURKS
    As if the above intransigence wasn’t enough, the Greeks now seem to
    have started a different agenda comprised of bold-face lies, and savage
    attacks against a legendary leader whom every Turk considers being
    inviolable.
    Not so long ago, very laudatory words were spoken on the pages of
    Miami’s prominent Spanish daily, EL NUEVO HERALD. The article was
    entitled: ATATURK, TURKEY’S GREAT HERO, written by a Cuban born writer
    and dramatist, Rolando Francisco Bravo. Mr. Bravo was criticizing the
    Greeks and Armenians who had intimidated a film actor who had promised
    to portray Ataturk in a movie. Mostly-Greek-Americans, who constantly
    claim to be the originators of democracy, human rights, and of fair
    play, alongside with their ideological partners, the Armenian-Americans,
    unfairly flooded the actor’s office and his home with thousands of
    letters, telegrams, e-mail messages and threatening phone calls. What
    made the author mad was their use of very pejorative ugly language
    describing Ataturk. They were calling him a mass murderer and the
    sodomizer of children. Mr. Bravo urged the British movie producer
    Tarquin Olivier, the son of the famous actor Sir Lawrence Olivier to
    find an actor worthy of his project and not to buckle under the pressure
    of those ‘radical immigrants.’
    A few days later, a nasty reply entitled THE CRIMES OF ATATURK
    appeared on the pages of the same newspaper where the Bravo article was
    published earlier. The letter penned by the Director of the AMERICAN
    HELLENIC MEDIA PROJECT (AHMP), a lawyer of Greek origin “residing” in
    south Florida. Our inquiries found him with no local address or phone,
    and no local registration with Florida’s Bar.
    His letter was replete with every kind of stereotypical falsehoods,
    slanders and out and out ridiculous statistics imaginable. Among the
    most unbelievable claims he had was the statement that the Turkish
    troops upon “invading” Izmir (their own city), and burning it to a
    crisp, had managed to “butcher 200,000 Armenians and Greeks.”
    Given the fact that this alleged monstrous massacre took place in
    only a single day boggles the mind. The Turkish troops recaptured the
    city on September 9, 1922. Since we are told that all remaining
    foreigners left the port of Izmir during the next 24 hours, his
    outrageous figure of 200,000 could have made the Turks the world’s
    greatest military logistic performers. What the Turks had accomplished
    would have been a super human miracle of sorts.
    I happen to have an American-educated nephew who works at the NATO
    headquarters in Izmir. I asked him to do some research for me on the
    population of Izmir at the time of the great fire, and the massacres
    blamed on Turks. Cuneyt expeditiously sent me the following e-mail
    pertaining to the break-down of different ethnic groups living in Izmir
    (census circa 1915. The 1922 records were not available, they had
    perished during the fire.)

    Greeks……………….55,000

    Jews…………………..21,000

    Armenians……………10,000

    Osmanli(Turks) 114,000

    British,French,

    German,Italian………..50,000

    As one can see, the sum total is only 250,000 people. Since the
    number of Greeks and Armenians did not go beyond 65,000 souls, in order
    for the Turkish military to be able to massacre 200,000 people of their
    ethnicity, they had to transport into the city of Izmir an additional
    135,000 from other parts of Turkey so that they could comply with the
    quota shown in the letter and ‘butcher’ them there. It is a mystery how
    they accomplished this Houdiniesque legerdemain and how theTurkish Army
    accomplished this feat in such a short time and then magically disposed
    of the bodies of those unfortunate victims of theirs. Oh! I almost
    forgot, the Turkish armed force units are also accused, in that letter,
    of snatching the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Izmir, the Metropolitan
    Christosomos oout of his Cathedral while he was saying Mass and killed
    him and dismembered his body in the street. The perplexing question is:
    Why was he singled out? Wasn’t he and the others in the church part of
    the 200,000 to be ‘butchered?
    Though all of this doesn’t make sense to us, it is logical to the
    Greeks and Armenians who have lied so many times that they believe their
    own fabrications. It’s that simple.

    Daydreams, or call them hallucinations, are unproductive. They
    tend to make their perpetrators the laughing stock of true historians.
    As fiendish, diabolical and contemptible as they may be, they are
    nevertheless as transparently deceitful. And as long as we allow them to
    pull the wool over the eyes of those who do not bother to search for the
    truth, the unsuspecting bystanders will be watching and approving,
    inadvertently, their dishonest political charades.

  • A QUANDARY OF THE INEXPLICABLE KIND THE STRANGE BEHAVIOR OF TURKEY’S DETRACTORS

    A QUANDARY OF THE INEXPLICABLE KIND THE STRANGE BEHAVIOR OF TURKEY’S DETRACTORS

    A QUANDARY OF THE INEXPLICABLE KIND
    THE STRANGE BEHAVIOR OF TURKEY’S DETRACTORS
    Mahmut Esat Ozan

    The Turkish Times

    It’s been ages now that I’ve been trying to find a way, in my mind, for
    the solution of a long-standing personal dilemma. I’ve been wrecking my brain
    attempting to formulate a logical explanation to satisfy myself. This
    exhaustive
    cranial exploration of mine concerns the existence of a phenomenon involving
    Turkey and her many detractors. I’ve been searching and researching clues to
    unearth any acceptable reason for the justification and rationalization of the
    hostile actions of many, such as the members of the European Union community
    and of the neighbors of Turkey. They all seem to have a synchromeshed sense
    of belligerence towards Turks.
    I’ve been asking myself the following question over and over again,
    “‘wHAT IS THEIR PROBLEM?” Additional questions pop up in my mind, such as,
    “WHY DO THEY BEHAVE THE WAY THEY DO?” The recent events involving ABDULLAH
    OCALAN come to mind and revive old recollections. There he stands as a
    notorious terrorist, whose bloody organization, responsible for thousands of
    murders, is outlawed not only by the Turkish government, but also by Germany,
    France, and the United States of America. And he is set free! This is a very
    disturbing situation. Upon his illegal entry into Italy, we had hoped and
    expected some repercussions, some popular movement leading to an indictment
    for his dastardly actions of the past 15 years. This wishful thinking of many
    has not materialized. Furthermore, when the world-famous, and universally-
    respected international police agency, INTERPOL, was rendered impotent even
    though it had a long-standing warrant for Ocalan’s arrest, but was not allowed
    to incarcerate him in a jail and keep him under 24-hour surveillance,
    everyone, with the exception of the Italian Communists, was saddened. To top
    it off, he was rewarded by a life of leisure in a luxurious Renaissance villa.
    This is part of my quandary.
    Since, as a writer, I’m not in a position to figure out the answers to
    those inquiries, the more I ask questions, the more I become frustrated. It
    is the erratic and unexplainable behavior of many countries such as Italy and
    the ones surrounding the Turkish Republic that discourages many Turks.
    Everyone seems to be out to get Turkey. This priceless piece of Anatolian
    real estate must be an irresistible magical attraction for them. And in real
    estate terms the most desirable notion for success is location, location, and
    location.
    The country has just finished celebrating the 75th anniversary of the
    foundation of that republic, and its occupants, the Turks, do not have an inch
    of their soil to give away to anyone. The land area comprising Turkey may not
    be huge, but if we are allowed to brag a bit, we could say easily that Turkey
    is larger than TEXAS, with a population three times as much. The city of
    Istanbul alone has more people living within its boundaries than the entire
    population of Greece.
    A variety of countries share this geographical area with Turkey. They
    are Greece, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Armenia, as Turkey’s ages-old neighbors.
    Most of them have been coveting a portion of this valuable Anatolian
    topography, and hoping to get a part of it some day. Ordinarily, Bulgaria and
    Russia would be included in this rapacious, hostile group. However, after the
    dissolution of the old Soviet Empire, Turkey’s prominent construction
    conglomerates played their cards right and underbid all European construction
    firms, and found themselves in a position to assist the tottering Russian
    economy, by default. They have been, ever since, constructing impressive
    shopping centers, hotels and governmental buildings and public housing in many
    parts of Russia. These firms have now an established reputation for good and
    honest work, and tens of millions of dollars in the banks. Some Turkish
    contractors have recently signed contracts to build a four-lane highway from
    Edirne to Sophia and around Bulgaria. This is the only reason why neither one
    of these two traditional enemies of Turkey wish to find their names on the
    roster of trouble-causing adversaries of the Turks.
    Unfortunately, on some other fronts things do not look as well. Time and
    again Iran claims that it has no desire to foment trouble for its neighbor,
    Turkey, by helping the infamous PKK terrorists. Nevertheless, every
    investigative probe shows they are not telling the truth, and that they are
    clandestinely subsidising the PKK and arming the Kurdish guerillas to the
    teeth.
    When it comes to Armenia, we see that the bankrupt republic of Yerevan is
    still suffering from the Turkish embargo, still adamantly anti-Turkish and
    anti-Azeri in its over-all foreign policy and is still being advised by the
    Dashnak factions of the Kotcharian government. It looks like they are going
    to miss the “Caucassus Oil Express” by a mile.
    Yes, instead of patching up its long-existing differences with its
    neighbor, Turkey, the Armenian government supports blatantly Ocalan and his
    PKK terrorists. By the same token, it is not about to iron out its grievances
    with the Azeri people, 20% of whose land they still occupy in the NAGORNO-
    KARABAKH, causing the continuation of unheard of misery for over a million
    refugees.
    In the meantime, the Armenian and Greek propaganda machines in the United
    States are cranking out unfavorable misinformation without batting an eye. A
    Harut Sassounian writes in the CALIFORNIA COURIER that there was no doubt in
    his mind that the Turkish government had forced four different religious
    leaders to make statements against their will. Previously, the newly elected
    Armenian Patriarch of Turkey, Archbishop Mesrob Mutafyan, the Greek Ecumenical
    Patriarch Bartolomeos, Israel’s Chief Rabbi Arus Ratson, and Turkey’s
    religious chief, Mehmet Muri Yilmaz had all criticized the actions of the
    Italian Communist government of Prime Minister, Massimo D’Alema, for refusing
    to extradite Ocalan to Turkey, his birth place. One even pleaded with Pope
    John Paul II, asking him to intervene on behalf of the Turkish people, and
    said the terrorist Ocalan did not even know Kurdish, emphasizing his
    disconnect with the people of his own kind.
    In another ridiculous letter written to the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR,
    the Executive Director of the American Hellenic Media Project, Mr. P.D.
    Spyropoulos, referred to Turkey as a “militant Mideast backwater,” called the
    reactions of the mothers of the Turkish martyrs “hysteria” and unabashedly
    described the Turkish people as “a mob.” By the way, both “ethnic chetnicks”
    disowned their religious leaders, who sided with Turkey, as being ‘”traitors.”
    P.D. Spyropoulos is the same individual who had replied in one of his so-
    called rebuttals concerning the article, “Who Burned Izmir?” Following a slue
    of insults against Turks, he claimed that the liberating Turkish forces not
    only burned their own city, but that they had also butchered 200.000 Greeks
    and Armenians in the process, not knowing that the total Greek and Armenian
    population of Izmir at that time did not even reach one half of that
    ridiculous figure, proving him the champion PREVARICATOR of the century.
    Now back to the main problem Turkey has been afflicted with for almost
    two long decades.

    THE OCALAN SYNDROME.

    With the inauguration of the Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization in
    Moscow in the late Seventies a new element was added to the list of sinister,
    vulture-like characters waiting in ambush, in the wings. They are now
    everywhere. They are present at all points of the compass: NORTH, EAST, WEST,
    and SOUTH. The first letter of the names of their geographical locations
    creates the word N.E.W.S., and the news they create remains associated with
    the belligerent behavior displayed vis-a-vis the Turks. The favorable
    attitude of the detractors of Turkey towards this terrorist organization has
    never been explained in a convincing fashion, even by the most astute
    political science experts alive today. As for myself, not being a schooled
    psychoanalyst, nor a trained behavioral psychologist, find myself completely
    helpless in passing judgement on this bizarre demeanor. Curiously, most
    observers I reviewed so far on this subject, be they Turkish or otherwise,
    seem to be as baffled about this phenomenon as I am. I have to admit I’m lost
    for words confronting this abnormality of conduct. I call it,
    “A QUANDARY OF THE INEXPLICABLE KIND.”

  • GREEKS  AND  ARMENIANS IN  THEIR  OWN  WORDS

    GREEKS AND ARMENIANS IN THEIR OWN WORDS

    Mahmut Esat Ozan

    In the past, when we, as Turkish people, tried to answer the
    relentless unfounded salvos of Greeks and Armenians attacking us, we
    were invariably confronted with a willful, systematic, but at the same
    time a cowardly propaganda. In each and every one of those encounters
    we were made uncomfortable by their vociferous claims that our words
    were nothing more than meaningless utterances of revisionists, and
    falsifiers of historical records, and that they, themselves were the
    true adherents to history and to true facts.
    In order to remedy, once and for all, this manipulation of the
    truth, something had to be done. Someone had to tell them and all the
    other detractors of the Turks, in plain language, that their struggle
    had always been centered around a bogus indoctrination of people with
    little or no knowledge on the subject at hand: The so-called “genocide”
    for the Armenians and the oft-repeated “invasion” of the island of
    Cyuprus. Their efforts in maligning Turkey and Turks had to be refuted
    in such a way that neither the Greeks nor the Armenians could extricate
    themselves from the argument, without losing face. With this point in
    mind I decided to employ a new method, using only their own words to
    refute their unsubstantiated claims. Thus, I would use the statements
    expressed by their own kind, with a pertinent commentary or two made by
    historians, anthropologists and statesmen exclusively from the Western
    camp

    A NEW APPROACH
    AND A NEW CASE

    A chance for a trial run on this issue presented itself recently as
    an answer I had posted on-line, on the Internet, replying to the
    uncalled-for attacks of Greeks and Armenians about a British movie
    producer who had plans for a full length film on the life of Mustafa
    Kemal Ataturk. Those plans had to be postponed because thousands of
    e-mail letters, faxes, and telegrams accompanied by threatening phone
    calls had finally intimidated the movie star who had accepted to portray
    Ataturk on the silver screen.
    Having read my above-mentioned on-line reply, a Greek-American
    confronted me with an ugly personal message. The following is a small
    sample of his diatribe:
    “You Turks are pathetic. You can’t even accept the fact that our
    Western civilization is founded on the pillars of Greek thought and
    mind. ONE PLATO IS WORTH A THOUSAND ATATURKS. Where are your
    Aristotles, Socrates’, Euripideses, Aristophaneses, Archimideses and the
    Euclids? Both science and civil administration of the Western world is
    of Greek origin.”
    Given the promise I had made to myself earlier, I brought in the
    expertise of a foreigner by relying on the “mongrelization of the
    present-day Greeks” theory, espoused by several chroniclers of history
    in the past, but best interpreted by a German anthropologist and
    historian, Jakob Phillip Fallmerayer, who lived between 1790-1862.
    Fallmerayer, in his book FRAGMENTE AUS DEM ORIENT BYZANS UND DES
    ABENDLANDES, published in 1861, re-printed in 1900 wrote the following:

    “Contrary to the views of the revisionists of ancient Greek history,
    today’s Greeks do not have any continuity with their namesakes, the
    Greeks of antiquity.”
    According to the records of ancient history of the Balkans, several
    respected historians believe similarly, that the inhabitants of Greece
    of our day have no more connection with the ancient Greeks of the
    mythological times than the ordinary FELLAHINE who live in Egypt today,
    could be related to the descendants of the Pharaohs themselves.
    It was King Philip II of Macedonia who had united the Thracian
    Greeks and the rest of the natives of the areas he had conquered to
    prepare them for an expedition against the Persians. His son,
    Alexander, founded, later on, his vast dynasty on the ruins of the old
    empire built by his father. Historians are unanimous on this one point
    that the ancient Macedonians as well as today’s citizens of the
    independent country of MACEDONIA are not Greeks at all. In reality, the
    ancient Greeks had a name for them, “Barbarians’” a word which simply
    means an alien, a foreigner.
    The great Athenian statesman and orator Demosthenes spoke of King
    Philip II of Macedonia in very pejorative terms when he said in part:
    “…he,(Philip) not only is no Greek, nor related in any shape or
    form to Greeks, but he is not even a true ‘barbarian’ from any place
    that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia,
    whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave.”
    This very same “Macedonian barbarian” referred to by Demostenes in
    his speech, defeated his enemies, the Greeks, at the battle of Chaerones
    in August 338 BC and appointed himself “Commander of the Greeks.”
    Nonetheless, today’s inhabitants of those lands unabashedly call his
    son, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, a noble Greek.

    ARMENIANS ON ARMENIANS
    AND SOME OTHER VIEWS

    One more irate Armenians Turcophobe, who may have seen again
    something I wrote on-line, was lecturing me in length about his
    displeasure of my “hatred of everything non-Turkish.” Why was I the
    target of such a harsh indictment?
    “You deserve all that,” as he put it, “because you are a descendant
    of that ‘wily and crafty redheaded Turk, born in Salonica of Greek and
    Jewish parents and died of dreadful syphilis.” He went on saying,
    “ataturk,”(notice how he spelled his name with a lower case letter ‘a’)
    “He may be a hero to you, but actually he was a Genghiz Khan, who in
    1920-22 ordered the complete destruction of the port of Smyrna, that
    annihilated hundreds of thousands of innocent Greeks and Armenians”
    His hysterical venom not yet depleted, he continued, “If you could
    only get off the hashish for just long enough and stop deluding
    yourself, you will realize that you are shooting yourself in the foot.”
    The rest of his diatribe was as garnished with falsehoods and
    fabrications as were the previous portions of it.
    “Ever since” he said “the Turkish hordes with their scimitar – the
    curved swords, marched from Central Asia into Asia Minor and Europe,
    they have robbed, pillaged and destroyed every pillar of civilized
    life. They have stolen Greek and Armenian lands, butchered their people
    and raped their women. It was sad times for the Armenian people. That
    was 900 years ago. But again in 1914-22 Talaat, Enver, and Hamid Pashas
    followed suite with the genocide. Your people today are still at it
    with the Kurds of Anatolia. Renounce the hashish-inflicted propaganda
    of Turkey. Permit your adversaries to exercise their civic rights by
    speaking their minds on a stupid movie about a sexual deviant and a
    military misfit called ataturk. I don’t indulge in hate, but I hate
    thieves, liars, and butchers of innocent children.
    P.S. If you want a movie, go make one. And stop complaining.”
    Again, in order not to deviate from my earlier plan, I told him, “I
    do not wish to waste my time trying to refute each and every one of your
    accusations. They were all either totally false or slanderous.
    However, I will let you listen to the venerable Armenian historian
    ASOGHIK, who recorded his impressions on the arrival of Seljuk Turks to
    Anatolia. After that, when you lie again, you may feel a bit of remorse
    of conscience.”
    ASOGHIK wrote, “The Armenians of Byzantium have welcomed the Seljuk
    conquest with lengthy celebrations in the streets and thanksgiving to
    God for having rescued them from long years of Byzantine oppression.
    Seljuk Turks gave protection to the Armenian Church, which the
    Byzantines had been trying to destroy. They abolished the oppressive
    taxes which the Byzantines had imposed on the Armenian Churches,
    monasteries and priests, and in fact exempted such religious
    institutions from all taxes. The Armenian community was left free to
    conduct its internal affairs in its own way, including religious
    activities and education, and there never was any time at which
    Armenians or other non-Muslims were compelled
    to convert to Islam. The Armenian spiritual leaders in fact went to
    Seljuk Sultan Melikshah to thank him for his protection.”
    Another respected Armenian historian MATHIAS of Edessa related,
    “Melikshah’s heart is full of affection and good will for
    Christians; he has treated the sons of Jesus Christ very well, and he
    has given the Armenian people affluence, peace, and happiness.”
    After the death of another Seljuk Sultan Kilic Arslan, the same
    Armenian historian MATHIAS wrote,
    “Kilic Arslan’s death has driven Christians into mourning since he
    was a charitable person of high character.”
    MATHIAS also related, “How well the Seljuk Turks treated the
    Armenians is shown by the fact that some Armenian noble families like
    the TASHRIK family accepted Islam on their own free will and joined the
    Turks in fighting Byzantium.”
    It was, however, the world-renowned historian Arnold Toynbee who
    centuries later reinforced the words of ASOGHIK and of MATHIAS by saying
    the following:
    “The Ottoman institution came perhaps as near as anything in real
    life could to realizing the ideal of Plato’s Republic.”
    “Edson L. Clark, the British philosopher and historian, had this to
    assert, “The Turks were far better men and far abler rulers than the
    wretched tyrants they superseded…” “The Turkish dominions were better
    governed and were more prosperous than most parts of Christian Europe.”
    And the well-known American historian and novelist, Harold Lamb,
    wrote this, “Few Europeans realized that the Turkish Ottoman Sultan
    Suleiman was the head of the most democratic government of their time.”
    An article which appeared on My 15, 1991 in this very newspaper had
    another revelation. This time the person who was doing the revealing
    was HOVHANNES KATCHAZNOUNI, the Prime Minister of the Soviet Armenian
    Republic during World War I:
    “At the beginning of the fall of 1914, when Turkey had not yet
    entered the war, but had already been making preparations, Armenian
    revolutionary bands began to be formed in Transcaucasia with great
    enthusiasm, and especially, with great uproar…they fought against the
    Turks because they could not refrain themselves from fighting. This was
    an inevitable result of psychology on which the Armenian people
    nourished itself during an entire generation that mentally should have
    found its expression, and it did so…
    “We overestimated the ability of Armenian people, its political and
    military power, and importance of the services our people rendered to
    the Russians. And by overestimating our very modest worth and merit, we
    were naturally exaggerating our hopes and expectations…”
    The Armenian historian VARTANIAN relates that “Ottoman Armenians
    were completely free in their traditions, religion, culture and language
    in comparison to Russian Armenians under the Czars. “The Ottoman Empire
    was the Armenians’ only shelter against Russian oppression.”
    Finally, here are the prophetic words of another Armenian writer
    BORIAN, who says, “Czarist Russia, at no time, wanted to assure Armenian
    autonomy: For this reason one must consider the Armenians who were
    working for Armenian autonomy as no more than agents and spies of the
    Czar, to attach Eastern provinces to Russia.”
    The Russians thus have deceived the Armenians for years; and as a
    result the Armenians have been left with nothing more than an empty
    dream.

    * * *

    US ARMENIAN HATE GROUPS AND THEIR UNENDING MALEVOLENCE

    The Livingston amendment, seeking to end a US aid ban on
    Azerbaijan, Section 907, was defeated yesterday in the US House of
    Representatives. V.Sonentz-Papazian, the executive director of the
    Armenian National Committee of America, Western Region, began to
    celebrate the fruit of their sinister machinations in the House, and
    gloat over this malevolent deed of theirs, calling it a victory for the
    Armenian-Americans.
    Before going any further on this subject and offering comments on
    this dastardly act, I, as an American tax-paying citizen, would like to
    take this opportunity to thank first and foremost Cogressman Bob
    Livingston (R-LA), for his amendment, and Congressmen Dana
    Rohrabacker(R-Calif), Gerald Solomon(R-NY), and Sunny Calahan(R-Ala) for
    their splendid efforts in trying to end the ban against Azerbaijan,
    Section 907, which prohibited unfairly any aid to that country until it
    lifts the economic blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
    I also feel I should send a heart-felt expression of thanks to the
    members sof the US Congress who voted for the ill-fated attempt to lift
    the restrictions dictated by Section 907. Their numbers, 20
    Republicans, and 10 Democrats, and their names will be etched indelibly
    in my mind and heart. I thank dearly each and every one of them for
    their heroic effort.
    On the other hand, I’d like to convey my feelings to all who want to
    listen,that the likes of Frank Pallone(D-NJ), George
    Radanovich(R-Calif), John Porter(R-IL), Peter Visclosky(D-In), and
    others such as Fazio, De Lauro, Palosi, Lowey, Skaggs, Walsh, Wolf,
    Yates from different sections of the country have only one thing
    mutually common in their make-up. Their knowledge of recent history of
    the world is imperfect, to say the least. Their avarice for the
    financial support they need to be elected and re-elected to their
    high-salaried, lucrative posts is legendary. Unfortunately the
    financial backers of theirs which keep them electable, time and again,
    have been adamantly hostile to Turkish or Azeri causes.

    FROM A MORAL LEGAL JUNGLE
    TO AN IMMORAL DESERT

    These political animals, these detractors of Azeris and of Turks,
    who associate themselves with the members of the Armenian lobby, is
    comprised of a bunch of morally-challenged, pathological
    Turcophobes,who have little or no idea of what they are up to, and they
    don’t seem to care, either. They’ve been offering their souls to the
    highest bidders, and in this particular case the highest bidders are the
    lowest adherents to truth and morality.
    Their hate for anything Turkish can only be described as
    unfortunate. They, like their brothers-in-hatred, the Greeks, have been
    spending a major portion of their lives in the pursuit of hatred for
    Turks. What a waste of precious time and human emotions. There is a
    popular American saying: “You have to be taught to hate.” It was in
    this country that I first noticed, with horror, the hate in the eyes and
    the voices of some Armenians and Greeks. It was a sad lesson for me to
    learn. However, the saddest thing for me to observe even today is the
    fact that I feel I am devoid of any weapon to defend myself facing
    these professional haters of Turks.
    Many a time in the past,after I arrived to the United States of
    America from Turkey, I agonized over a curious situation. From birth
    to adulthood, I felt no one had prepared me there to fight these
    adversaries who show no mercy or compassion towards me. I was a mere
    descendant of Turks, whose ancestors were forced to share a common
    destiny and sorrow with them in a time of war,an almost civil war-like
    hostility period which took place almost a century ago. I often ask
    myself “Why can’t I hate these people the way they hate me, openly,
    incessantly, mercilessly, with the zeal of the most devout religious
    missionary around.”
    There were even times when I manifested a disgust against my
    parents, against my relatives, against my teachers, against my
    preachers, in other words, against all Turks who, from infancy took me
    in their arms, fed me at their bosoms, taught me in their schools,
    educated me in their society. I cursed them all!…aplease don’t
    misunderstand me, not for them doing all those things to me. No!…I
    cursed them for not teaching me how to hate my fellow men,(my enemies),
    robbing me of my basic weapon to fight back, consequently, leaving me
    naked, powerless against the unrelenting salvos of these programmed
    assassins of the tolerance and culture of the nation of Turks.
    These people, who foam at the mouth every time they hear the word
    ‘Turk” are none other than some sub-human characters which never existed
    in any of the ficticious works of, say, Victor Hugo, Edgar Allen Poe,
    Dante Aleghieri, or Dostoyevski, or for that matter, in Mary Shelly’s
    Dr. Frankenstein. Neither one of those highly gifted writers could have
    possibly created more evil, and hateful monsters than the enemies of
    Turks. By the description of a well-known Greek scholar, Alexander
    Pallis, we learn about this centuries-long bias against Turks, which
    seems to have no end:
    He says: :”From the fourteenth to the end of the seventeenth century
    the Ottoman Empire was almost continuously at war with the Christian
    Powers of Western Europe. The terror inspired by the Turkish name
    among all the European peoples was largely responsible for the widely
    spread popular belief that the Turks were a race of uncivilized
    barbarians who, wherever they went, left nothing but smoking ruins
    behind them and stamped out every vestige of civilization. Religious
    fanaticism, coupled with the fear born of unbroken Turkish military
    successes, resulted in creating among some detractors of the Turks a
    state of mind which rendered them for the most part incapable of viewing
    Turkey and the Turks with an objective and unbiased eye.”

    Mahmut Esat Ozan
    Past President, FTAA,
    Florida Turkish-American
    Association for Cultural Exchange
    Miami, Florida

  • SPREADING “FALSEHOOD AND EVIL AGAINST TURKS IS THEIR UNENDING OCCUPATION

    SPREADING “FALSEHOOD AND EVIL AGAINST TURKS IS THEIR UNENDING OCCUPATION


    (An Editorial)
    Mahmut Esat Ozan
    Chairman Editorial Board
    The Turkish Forum- USA
    Reposting an articleFrom © Holdwater
    MEOZAN
    https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/2009/09/10/prof-mahmut-esat-ozan-bedenen-aramizdan-ayrildi/
    FACING HISTORY
    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:
    © Holdwater
    http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/
    Facing History” has no qualms about sinking to the level of proven forgeries to teach their (Armenian) history.
    “Facing  History and Ourselves” likes to think of itself as an educational organization, spreading “good” in its genocide awareness program. But like other pseudo-educational organizations, such as “Teach Genocide,” “The Genocide Education Project,” and “Prevent Genocide,” many of which are fronts for Armenian and other propaganda, what they spread is “FALSEHOOD  AND EVILl.”

    Their teaching materials, as far as regarding the Armenians, generally have nothing to do with “history,” and everything to do with VICIOUS PROPAGANDA.

    “Facing History” is an 800 pound gorilla that deserves huge in-depth reportage, but this page will only be providing a beginning. It will mainly feature a letter written to one of the organization’s vice-chairs, Jeffrey Bussgang, in March 13, 2006 (it is now June, 2007). The reason why Mr. Bussgang was contacted is because he had a personal e-mail address, where I could be sure a higher-up of the organization would receive the message. He’s a busy investment manager who doesn’t seem to be very involved in the affairs of the organization. My hope was to appeal to his conscience.

    Jeffrey Bussgang

    He did not have the courtesy to respond, nor — from a cursory search at the Facing History site today, where the Armenian genocide matter continues full blast — did he make any effort to sound off to the powers in charge. If he read the letter, he did not even bother to see if the claims of the letter were true.

    Bussgang is still active with the Facing History organization; a news item declares, “Facing History and Ourselves and Benefit Chairs Lynda and Jeffrey Bussgang and Tracy and Leon Palandjian invite you to the 2007 New England Benefit Dinner.” Plenty of Armenian friends here, more than a few wealthy and influential, given that the organization is based in Massachusetts.

    The Armenians activists have certainly infiltrated this group. Richard Hovannisian and Peter Balakian comprise part of their band of respected “scholars.”

    The Mission

    The mission of “Facing History”:
    Facing History and Ourselves is an international educational and professional development organization whose mission is to engage students of diverse backgrounds in an examination of racism, prejudice, and antisemitism in order to promote the development of a more humane and informed citizenry. By studying the historical development and lessons of the Holocaust and other examples of genocide, students make the essential connection between history and the moral choices they confront in their own lives.

    How utterly ironic. When “Facing History” teaches false genocides, as with the Armenian mythology, Facing History perpetuates hatred, prejudice and racism. That’s one sure way to “engage” impressionable students in the “examination” of these poisons. That becomes quite a “moral choice,” all right.

    The organization’s Executive Director, President and Co- Founder, Margot Stern Strom, is described in the following manner:

    Margot Stern Strom is an international leader in education for justice and the preservation of democracy. Through her commitment to honoring the voices of teachers and students and her deep belief that history matters, she has enabled millions of students to study the Holocaust, to investigate root causes of racism, antisemitism and violence, and to realize their obligations and capabilities as citizens in a democracy.

    What she has done is engage in the most severe injustice. History matters certainly, but given the direction she has allowed for the presentation of the Armenians’ revisionist invention, she knows nothing about history. The organization now has the audacity to present a “Teaching Award” in her name, this most mediocre teacher.

    She grew up in “racially segregated Tennessee,” and in 1976 attended a Holocaust conference that “changed her life.” In her defense, of course she was motivated from the perspective of “Good.” What she may not have realized at the time was that “genocide” is a highly charged hot potato, and the politicized fakeries such as the Armenian matter didn’t even occur to her. But what choice did she have, if she wanted to pursue this direction? The Armenians, with their wealth and influence and bullying tactics, made their presence felt; if one chooses to sign a pact with the genocide devil, it is a given that the Armenians must come along for the ride. (Of course she had a choice. One always has a choice, and she chose the path of spreading vicious misinformation in the pursuit of her agenda.)

    Margot Strom

    “She became committed to the field of education, convinced that it was critical that educators not betray children by protecting them from difficult issues and painful history.” By stressing the study of these “genocides,” real or not, is where the betrayal of children comes in. The Republic of Turkey purposely kept the heinous crimes of the Armenians and Greeks out of Turkish classrooms, so as not to induce hatred. As a result, Turkish people are today largely free of hatred. There is a time to introduce genocide pornography, but not when children are of an impressionable age.

    Even with real genocides, as the Holocaust: what comes along with empathy for genocide victims is the hatred for the oppressors. This is not the correct course of action to take, at least not to the extent where genocide education serves as the thrust of the matter. And imagine the damage produced when children are taught hatred in the cases where genocides have been fabricated. Words fail to describe how unconscionable this sort of thing is.
    “Facing History” Tidbits

    Seth Klarman

    Seth A. Klarman, the insanely wealthy investment manager who heads a firm managing over five billion dollars (and author of the popular Margin of Safety: Risk-Averse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor), serves as chairman of “Facing History,” and his motivation might have had something to do with “serving a noble cause” (spreading word of the Holocaust is something too many Jewish folks believe is a worthy mission), along with giving his wife something to do; Beth S. Klarman is another vice-chair of the Board of Directors, along with the aforementioned Jeffrey D. Bussgang, Ronald G. Casty and Dana W. Smith. Dorothy P. Tananbaum is co-Chair.

    Until the middle of Fiscal Year 2006, the organization received over eleven million dollars in contributions. In 2005, the organization had assets of nearly eighteen million dollars, versus liabilities of $144,000.

    This is high finance propaganda.

    Their “partners” include:
    Harvard Law School
    Lesley University
    New Visions for Public Schools
    New York University Steinhardt School of Education
    Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
    Reebok Human Rights Foundation
    University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education
    USHMM Committee On Conscience

    Once again, PBS helps to ruin its credibility by aligning what should be its “neutral” self with such a propagandistic organization. (One of the resources Facing History offers is the PBS film, Andrew Goldberg’s “The Armenians, A Story of Survival.” It is only one of Facing History’s many Armenian genocide propaganda productions.)

    The “Partners,” with which Facing History collaborates “closely,” “share our desire for a more informed, involved, and morally-aware citizenry.”

    It is simply horrifying how they shamelessly couch their mischief with such doing-good terminology.

    Major supporters — the ones who part with their cash to finance such perpetuation of hatred — include:

    The Allstate Foundation
    The Claims Conference
    The Crown Family
    The Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation
    The Goldman Sachs Foundation
    The Plough Foundation
    The Charles H. Revson Foundation
    The Richard and Susan Smith Family Foundation
    The United States Institute of Peace

    These companies need to be informed as to the fake history “Facing History” endorses. They all bear a responsibility to the racism “Facing History” teaches the children.

    Most depressingly, “Facing History” claims that in 2006:

    Reached over 1,500,000 students through a network of 22,000+ educators.

    Some may agree that is, figuratively, an example of a real “genocide,” with 1.5 million victims: a systematic extermination campaign of the truth.

    Now I wish we could get into their ridiculous “Armenian” history in greater detail (and if they have no credibility with the Armenian subject matter, obviously nothing else from Facing History can be accepted at face value). But dissecting such familiar propaganda can get awfully redundant, after a while.

    The fact is, “Facing History” presents not just Armenian propaganda… but the kind most Armenian propagandists would not go near. They serve as the propagandists’ propagandists.

    For example, as the letter below to Bussgang will relate, they go for a total Armenian survivor figure of 600,000, while even Dadrian and Balakian concede one million. Even more incredibly, their “Armenian Genocide Chapter 4” begins with:

    “The Armenians living in Turkey will be destroyed to the last. The government has been given ample authority. As to the organization of the mass murder the government will provide the necessary explanations.”
    —Behaeddin Shakir, a member of the Central Committee
    for the Committee of Union and Progress

    If you run a “Google” search for any key phrase from the above, you will get back (at the time of this writing) only four results. (Once this page goes up, this number will be sure to increase.) One is the Dadrian study where this was taken from (which The Tall Armenian Tale; TAT readers have come to recognize as Vahakn Dadrian’s Greatest Embarassment, the Hyelog entry where it was reproduced, another stupid genocide article by UCLA’s Stephan Astourian (“The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation,” reproduced in a 1990 issue of “The History Teacher.” Groan!), and Facing History.

    The reason why propagandists leave this one aside is because it comes from a forgery of Aram Andonian.

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen. “Facing History” has no qualms about sinking to the level of proven forgeries to teach their (Armenian) history.

    And Jeffrey Bussgang was made very aware of this very fact over a year ago. Assuming he read the letter, he lacked the honor and the conscience to do anything about it.

    You can get an idea of Facing History’s ways in an “Armenian Genocide” section of their site. Note the propaganda material consulted, passing for “history,” including their “resource book” (which featured the Behaeddin Shakir forgery. To be more specific, Andonian did not have Shakir in mind when he concocted this particular forgery; it is Dadrian who told us it must have been Shakir, since the letters BEHA were supposedly on it — as though Shakir would have signed his document with the first four letters of his name. What Dadrian does not explain is that if Shakir were to engage in this unusual practice, the Turkish spelling of his name would have been BAHAttin), along with the Goldberg PBS film.

    Other teaching materials of this “history” include a painting by an Armenian, Gorky, described as “a survivor of the Armenian genocide.” In the next few lessons, prepared by crackerjack educators Adam Strom and Mary Johnson (with the quality of their work, they would well deserve the 2007 Margot Stern Strom Teaching Award), we are told Armenians “struggled to obtain equal rights” in the 19th century, as persecuted as they were, and that “many European and Russian diplomats became increasingly concerned about the treatment of minority groups within the Ottoman Empire. Their arguments and efforts to protect those minorities would set important precedents for the international movement for human rights.” That’s right, folks. We all know the British and the Russians were acting selflessly, and the thought of using the Armenians as pawns to further their imperialistic interests never occurred to them.

    “Lesson Three: Analyzing Historical Evidence,” is the one that invites the greatest scrutiny, and what they have to offer is: “On May 24, 1915, the Allied nations of Great Britain, France, and Russia warned the Young Turk leaders that their ‘crimes against humanity and civilization’ would not go unpunished.” Indeed, the warning of three powers set to divide the ailing Ottoman Empire between themselves through secret treaties must be considered as objective sources. They also point to Armin Wegner’s undocumented photographs at “armenian-genocide.org” (the site’s “photo_wegner.html” page.) All that can be determined are that people were miserable and suffering. Suffering is not genocide. A few shots feature corpses, with helpful captions such as “Corpse of murdered young man,” as if the dishonest writer could determine what the cause of death would have been. Are these supposed to “prove” genocide?

    (Instruction to teachers: “Allow students a choice to put their heads down or leave the room if the content becomes overwhelming. Show Wegner’s photographs without commentary.”) What incredible orchestration and manipulation.

    There are a good number of genuine and documented photos of massacred Turks at the hands of the Armenians. Note that the racist “Facing History” organization would never make room for these.

    The hatred is then permitted to spread to modern Turks, in their final lesson, “Denial, Free Speech, and Hate Speech.”

    “After the Armenian Genocide, the international community lacked the political will to fulfill its promises to hold perpetrators of the genocide accountable.” What an incredible falsehood. The British worked feverishly to uncover the genuine evidence to convict their accused in the precursor to “Nuremberg,” the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921). No evidence could be found.

    We are then told that “Several former Ottoman officials complicit during the genocide assumed important positions in the new government.” If the British could not determine the guilt of these individuals, on whose say-so should we go by? Fatma Muge Gocek’s, for example? (She says, for example, that Ismet Inonu was a “genocide culprit.”) One cannot honorably accuse another of having committed a crime without the valid evidence. But “honor” is obviously not in the vocabulary of the propagandistic “Facing History.”

    “Since that time the Turkish government has denied that the Armenian Genocide occurred. ”

    There we go. That conforms to the entire agenda of the unscrupulous pro-Armenians. Make the Turks out to be “evil.” Yes, this is the kind of poison being taught to 9th graders, thanks to the underhanded efforts of “Facing History.”

    “The denial has taken many forms and used many strategies… To deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.”

    These people do not know the first meaning of what “scholarship” entails, they engage in the most vicious propaganda, and then dare to tell us those who attempt to right their wrongs are committing the very crimes they are committing. Of course; that is part and parcel of their agenda.

    A suggested activity for teachers:

    On the board write, “Denial is hate speech and as such it should be forbidden.”
    Explain to students that denial continues and many people are struggling to find a way to deal with it. Henry Theriault, a professor of philosophy at Worcester State College, Worcester, Mass. suggests that denial is hate speech, and therefore should be restricted.

    It is all perfectly coordinated. Refer to a non-historian like Theriault (who also points to the Andonian forgeries in order to “prove” the “Armenian genocide”), and they do their best to stifle debate — so that their invented and immoral “genocide” may not be questioned.

    They are actually advocating thought censorship, teaching the children that freedom of speech is to be frowned upon. We all know what “hate speech” is, and it has nothing to do with telling historical truth; real “hate speech” perpetuates prejudice by bringing an ethnic group to sub-human status.

    By encouraging students to think that Turkish people are like Nazis, the ones who are practicing “hate speech” are organizations such as “Facing History”— under the guise of following a noble cause.

    It is all nothing short of evil.

    Letter to Vice-chairman Jeffrey Bussgang

    Once again, the unanswered letter below was sent on March 13, 2006 to Mr. Bussgang.

    Jeffrey Bussgang
    Vice-Chair
    Facing History

    Dear Mr. Bussgang,

    You come across as endearing and down to earth from some of the things I’ve read about you. I’d like to speak to you about a very serious subject, and I hope you will have the open mind to listen to a viewpoint likely to be different than what you’ve been led to believe.

    I’m writing you because the “Facing History” site has no email addresses I could find. Just a contact page, and what I have to say is far too important for a lower ranked individual to consider. I believe “Facing History” is just one of the things you’re involved with… it is not your “main thing.” But as a top gun of this organization, you bear a big responsibility.

    Perhaps “Facing History” has good works to offer; I hope so. I’m writing on the basis of only one example that I’ve come across, one which has nothing to do with history. Paradoxically, it has everything to do with prejudice and even racism. This is a paradox, because the mission page is very concerned about “morality.”

    And this content is highly serious, because your organization is involved in molding many of the young minds of our country.

    Your organization, according to its mission page, is resolved “to combat prejudice with compassion, indifference with ethical participation, myth and misinformation with knowledge.”

    The Armenian Genocide page, however, offers nothing but myth and misinformation, and fosters prejudice, by perpetuating the stereotype of the Terrible Turk, based on the hearsay of bigots and tainted evidence, and looking at this controversial topic entirely in a one sided manner.

    When Facing History states “the study of history is a moral enterprise,” we must bear in mind history needs to remain dispassionate, and all sides must be considered. Below is one of my favorite descriptions:

    ==================================
    Historians should love the truth. A historian has a duty to try to write only the truth. Before historians write they must look at all relevant sources. They must examine their own prejudices, then do all they can to insure that those prejudices do not overwhelm the truth. Only then should they write history. The historians creed must be, “Consider all the sides of an issue; reject your own prejudices. Only then can you hope to find the truth.”
    Do historians always follow this creed? They do not, but good historians try.

    There are ways to tell if a historian has been true to his craft. All important sources of information must be studied: A book on American history that does not draw upon American sources and only uses sources written in French cannot be accurate history. All important facts must be considered: a book on the history of the Germans and the Jews that does not mention the death of the Jews in the Holocaust cannot be true.

    Uncomfortable facts, facts that disagree with one’s preconceptions and prejudices must be considered, not avoided or ignored: Any book on the history of the Turks and the Armenians that does not include the history of the Turks who were killed by Armenians cannot be the truth. This is obvious. It should be so obvious that it need not be said. But we know it must be said, because so many have forgotten the rules of honest history.
    Prof. Justin McCarthy, The First Shot
    ==================================

    I realize this may be a hard sell. You are living, and perhaps have grown up, in “Armenian country,” Massachusetts . Peter Balakian is listed on Facing History’s Board of Scholars. (He is anything but a scholar, based on the rules of history.) He and other agenda-pushing pharisees who are listed indicate this organization is a very closed club, for only like-minded individuals. (There are no real Ottoman historians, in this list of “scholars,” from names I was able to determine. How could genuine history be written in the absence of such specialists?)

    (NOTE: It appears “Facing History” has removed their “Board of Scholars” page. One other addition to this board turns out to be Samantha Power, however. Just learned Barack Obama hired her as an advisor. No wonder he has become an “Armenian genocide” advocate, undermining his credibility.)

    At any rate, Balakian spelled out in his “Burning Tigris” the roots of Armenian infiltration in Massachusetts . (http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/burningtigris.htm#alice) Ohannes Chatschumian stole the heart of an “intellectual,” and like a stack of Dominos, everyone bought the Armenian version. It was easy, since no one was around then to defend the Turks. With these people’s ingrained prejudices, the media presented the view that the Armenians were poor, innocent Christians ready to be martyred by the Terrible Turks’ bloody swords. Things are not that different today. As a Massachusetts resident, you are especially susceptible to this unilaterally presented propaganda… made possible by big money and influence.

    I’m going to ask you to dig deep and consult the “fair” part of you. Put your “historian” cap on, and let’s take a look at whether my words have basis.

    We are referring to this horrible, horrible propagandistic page that is on your organization’s site.

    (NOTE: The link for their “Chapter 4” .PDF file was provided.)

    The page begins with a quote from Behaeddin Shakir, “The Armenians, living in Turkey , will be destroyed to the last…” There it is, in black and white; genocidal proof.

    How peculiar that one of the worst partisans for this alleged genocide, Professor Richard Hovannisian (who is another nationalist ideologue on the organization’s Board of Scholars) is reported to have said in the “Congress on the Problems of World Armenians” held in 1982: “The Armenian problem could not be proved. The genocide is not valid legally and it is exposed to prescription.”

    If Bahaeddin Shakir actually said those words, why would Hovannisian have made such a statement? After all, what Shakir said sounds like actual proof, doesn’t it?

    Which leads us to ponder: what is the source of this dubious quote?

    Footnote 66 informs us that it’s Vahakn Dadrian (the “foremost scholar on the Armenian genocide,” as Peter Balakian says), regarding his work on the Naim-Andonian documents.

    The fact that these are notorious forgeries is commonly accepted. The British themselves rejected them, during their 1919-1921 “Nuremberg ,” The Malta Tribunal. This is the one where every Turkish official was freed at the end, for lack of evidence.

    Consider the enormity of that. The British had signed the death sentence for the Turkish nation with the Sèvres Treaty (the intention of the British, along with the rest of the Entente Powers, was to divide the “Sick Man” between themselves, as proven by secret treaties. It was convenient for them to come up with a Turkish monster, which people in the West were ingrained to accept since the times of the Crusades, in order to justify the allies’ land-grabbing scheme), and even the British (to their credit) rejected the Andonian documents. There is not one serious historian that holds them to be valid. That is, not one who holds the concept of “morality” dear to heart.

    (If you’d like to discover what an embarrassing low your organization’s version of “history” has sunk to, try this simple test, with the knowledge that there are tons of “Armenian Genocide” sites on the Internet. Type a key phrase from the Shakir quote into Google. I got four results, three pointing to the Facing History propagandistic page. The fourth regarded the work of an Armenian history teacher. If this Shakir quote is so legitimate, how do you explain that everyone has avoided it?

    Only Vahakn Dadrian, among a handful of others, would stoop so low. Dadrian is a propagandist and has the agenda to affirm his genocide. He will stop at nothing to alter statements, translations and in offering false documents as his evidence. No serious historian would regard Dadrian as a true scientist.

    Even among the ranks of the “genocide scholars,” Dadrian has become one to be wary of. Hilmar Kaiser points to the “misleading quotations” and the “selective use of sources” in Dadrian’s work, and he has concluded that “serious scholars should be cautioned against accepting all of Dadrian’s statements at face value.” [“Germany and the Armenian Genocide, Part II: Reply to Vahakn N. Dadrian’s Response,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 9 (1996): 139-40.] Donald Bloxham also has issues with Dadrian’s lack of scholarly ethics.

    Yet this article refers to Dadrian repeatedly. In addition, conflicted sources such as missionaries like Johannes Lepsius, and war propaganda chiefs like Lord Bryce are presented. It’s unbelievable, for an organization that purports on molding young minds, and for holding “morality” so dear.

    I don’t want to hit you with too much, as I realize this is not a subject you are in tune with, having likely and lazily accepted the surface explanations. But practically everything this article claims is rooted in deceit. We’re still on the first page, and the opening sentence after the Shakir quote states that “scholar” Robert Melson (he is no scholar; not if we agree the definition entails observing all sides of a story) explains, “Once the Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers… against Russia, the CUP could use the excuse of military necessity to destroy the Armenians.” Aside from the basic historical fact that Russia was among other enemies (Britain, France and Italy), let’s examine the logic here, by creating a fantasy scenario with our own nation.

    Let’s say the USA is on her knees, and imagine that there are great superpowers who are attacking on all fronts. There is a critical shortage of manpower and resources, the nation’s infrastructure has crumbled, and the nation is bankrupt. The nation is being threatened with extinction. This was the situation of the “Sick Man.” (As history tells us, this matter of life or death ended in death for the Ottoman Empire.) Would this be the opportune time to initiate a resource-depleting program of enormity, the transportation and care of hundreds of thousands?

    Truly, how logical would that be? A British writer, in a 1916 book called “The Armenians” (www.tallarmeniantale.com/c-f-dixon-BOOK.htm) got to the heart of the matter:

    “The Turks had just sustained in the Caucasus a severe defeat. They needed every available man and every round of ammunition to cheek the advancing Russians. It is therefore incredible that without receiving any provocation they should have chosen that particularly inopportune moment to employ a large force of soldiers and gendarmes with artillery to stir up a hornet’s nest in their rear. Military considerations alone make the suggestion absurd.”

    If we take our scenario further, let’s imagine the enemies of our country enticed the some-one million Armenians in California to rebel, with promises of a New Armenia in that state. (Exactly what the Armenians did in the Ottoman Empire; the anti-Turkish New York Times reported, days after Russia had declared war on Nov. 7, 1914: “ARMENIANS FIGHTING TURKS — Besieging Van-Others operating in Turkish Army’s Rear.” www.tallarmeniantale.com/nyt-armens-fight-turks.htm) The Armenians begin to massacre fellow Americans in an effort to create an ethnically pure state, and hit the U.S. Army in the back. I don’t even know if our “compassionate” President would bother with a “deportation,” but let’s say the decision is made to move them out of the danger zone, far inland. Where there are no rails, the Armenians have to travel on foot a long distance. Along the way are gangs of Americans waiting to take revenge, or seeking criminal opportunity. Armenians are massacred. Would this be a genocide?

    It can only be a genocide if the government shows “intent” of systematic extermination (proven by the kinds of things Shakir is supposed to have said. Because the Armenians lacked evidence, they put those words in his, and other Ottoman officials’ mouths), along with there not being any political alliances. These are the rules of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention.

    Frankly, everywhere I am looking in this article, I am shuddering in disbelief. Bear with me for one more example from p. 85: “In all, including those who took refuge in Russia (300,000, as mentioned a few paragraphs before), the number of survivors at the end of 1916 can be estimated at 600,000 out of an estimated total population in 1914 of 1,800,000, according to A. Toynbee.”

    Fact: Arnold Toynbee, who was ashamed in later years to have served in his Majesty’s propaganda division (Wellington House), estimated there were 1.2 million Armenians in all of the Ottoman Empire, the year before he became a propagandist (“Nationality and the War,” 1915: 761,000 Armenians in all of Anatolia. Your article: 1,200,000, seven eastern vilayets of Anatolia, nearly double of Toynbee’s estimate.)

    Fact: Your “Scholar,” Richard Hovannisian, had written Armenians who escaped into Transcaucasia as having numbered 500,000, vs. your article’s 300,000. [” The Ebb and Flow of the Armenian Minority in the Arab Middle East,” Middle East Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Winter 1974), p. 20; in this article, Hovannisian further provided an additional near-300,000 who had gone on to lands the Ottomans no longer controlled, in the Middle East. There were also many thousands who had gone on to Europe and America.] Please add them up, to get a better picture of survivors, according to your own scholar.

    FACT: Your article tells us only 600,000 Armenians survived, when Hovannisian, Balakian and Dadrian all concede there were one million survivors. Isn’t that incredible? Your article actually out-propagandized the propagandists! But these propagandists also out-propagandized the Armenian Patriarch from the period (as the current professors vouch for a mortality of over a million and up), who broke down his inflated pre-war population of 2.1 million Armenians in this fashion (in 1919): 1,260,000 survivors (that is double the number of survivors of your article), and 840,000 dead. (The Patriarch reported 644,900 Ottoman-Armenians remained in 1921, in a report given the British.) The reality: out of an original population of around 1.5 million (most “neutral” sources said so, like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica), if we subtract the one million survivors, we wind up with half a million dead. Most died not from massacres, but causes claiming the lives of all Ottomans, famine and disease. 2.5 Turks/Muslims also died, mainly from these causes.

    How do you explain your “moral” organization (Mission Page: “Civic education must be rooted in a moral component.” Morality must begin first with the educator) neglecting these historical facts? You will notice nothing I’m offering is “Turkish propaganda.” If anything, they derive from sources famous for supporting Armenian propaganda. These facts are only a mouse click away. How could your “Facing History” people be so unconscientious as to not Face History?

    Is it because they have an agenda to serve? I can see the organization is rooted in the teaching of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, Holocaust-centric scholars have a tendency to accept Armenian genocide claims at face value. They probably have an irrational fear that the negation of this widely accepted Armenian genocide (thanks to money and prejudice) would serve the Holocaust to be questioned. It also does not hurt that wealthy Armenians support genocide institutes throughout the world. Whatever their motivations, they are being highly unethical, in their support of obvious lies.

    Prof. Guenter Lewy — an example of a real scholar, and one who cannot be called a “denialist,” since Lewy is a Holocaust survivor — has recently come up with a book entitled, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed Genocide. He exposes the lack of scholarly ethics of those such as Vahakn Dadrian, and explores all facets of this tale. Why would you suppose this account and the one at your organization’s site would be as different as can be?
    (An example of his work: www.tallarmeniantale.com/lewy-revisit.htm; his response to Dadrian: www.tallarmeniantale.com/lewy-dadrian-meq.htm)

    Conclusion: you are supporting an organization, very much contrary to its sanctimonious claims of morality, that is engaged in lies and racism.

    Am I being harsh by going so far as to accuse your organization of racism? Let me resort to the words of one of our nation’s deepest thinkers, Prof. John Dewey, who had wrote in a 1928 article ( www.tallarmeniantale.com/dewey-turktragedy.htm):

    Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the ‘seventies, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey, or that in the Great War, they traitorously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invader; that they boasted of having raised an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population.

    The racism is thus twofold: not only does your organization’s horrid article reduce the Turks to subhuman, comic book monsters (perpetuating an already existing “Terrible Turk” stereotype; check the second definition of “Turk” in your dictionary), but the article totally ignores the extermination crimes of the Armenians. (British Colonel Wooley estimated the Armenians had killed 300-000-400,000 Ottoman Muslims; Ottoman archives never meant to be publicized provide a figure of some 520,000. It wasn’t only Muslims who were targeted by the Armenians, but anyone who was different, in their hopes of creating an ethnically pure state, including Jews, Greeks, and even Armenians who had converted to Islam.)

    (Which brings rise to another question: If “Facing History” is genocide-centric, what determines the value of some genocides to others? More “Turks” were slaughtered by the Armenians than the other way around, since the bulk of the up to 600,000 Armenian mortality had died of reasons not entailing outright massacre. Why does Facing History not acknowledge the value of these human beings? This is what we would call “racism.”)

    Imagine if you were accused of a ruinous crime strictly on the say-so of the accuser, without presentation of any factual evidence. How would you feel? (You would be “denying” the accusations at the top of your lungs.)

    Do you know how unthinkably unconscientious it is to defame an entire nation with the worst crime against humanity, based on false or no evidence? I realize you must not have thought about this before, but you happen to be an integral part to these unethical goings-on.

    It all boils down to: Exactly how committed are you, as a key representative of your organization, to the truth? Actually, please forget about your organization, for the moment; let’s concentrate on you, as a man. With your involvement, your personal honor is at stake here. And if you don’t do something about this, please don’t think the credibility of this organization will remain as sacred as it evidently has.

    I know you are not directly responsible, as you are not overseeing the day to day functions of this organization. What calls for determination is, why does your president, Margot Stern Strom, who hopefully is expected to ensure true history, has not questioned the integrity of many of the partisan academicians in your Board of Scholars? Why has she not made sure to fill the ranks with genuine scholars, like Prof. John Dewey, who made sure to examine all sides of the issue and did not amateurishly accept surface allegations? (Dewey, by the way, warned in his article that Americans should be wary of being deceived by Armenian propaganda. That was over three-quarters of a century ago, Armenian propaganda is stronger than ever, and organizations as yours shamefully outdo some claims of hardcore Armenian propagandists.

    As an example: Richard Hovannisian was called on his shoddy scholarship in a 1985 paper (www.tallarmeniantale.com/lowry-hova-dunn.htm ), over the way he made things about an American officer, because the officer had the audacity to regard these events in an even-handed way. (A decade after its writing, the author of this article, Prof. Heath Lowry, was the victim of a smear campaign spearheaded by one of your other “scholars,” Peter Balakian. The abhorrent idea of the forces your organization champions is to stifle debate.) Hovannisian’s unethical methods are plain to see in this generation-old study.

    Is your president so unaware of such research? Or does she deliberately overlook them? Either way, her own credibility and competence becomes seriously compromised.

    She is supposed to be in charge of serious history; her choices are supposed to enlighten the minds of our nation’s children, not to poison them.

    What is called for is to [1] do away with your awful propaganda immediately, [2] Write a true account of these events, by enlisting objective and non-partisan scholars like Guenter Lewy, and devote no less time to the ethnic cleansing efforts of the Armenians. Politically, this might be difficult; but if the organization is so concerned about being “moral,” what could supersede the importance of truth?

    Please pass this letter on to President Strom and Chairman Seth Klarman. I’d appreciate a response. Your organization’s immersion in defamatory, racist and painful propaganda is a very serious matter.

    Sincerely,

    Holdwater
    www.tallarmeniantale.com

    Talk about falling on deaf ears.
    News Item: The ANC & Facing History “Ethics”

    The following is from the California Courier, April 13, 2006:

    Facing History and Ourselves Hosts Institute on the Armenian Genocide

    PASADENA — The Armenian National Committee announced last week the first California Institute for Educators on the Armenian Genocide, offered by Facing History and Ourselves will take place June 26-30 at the Krouzian Zekarian Vasbouragan Armenian School in San Francisco.

    The Institute connects a rigorous exploration of the Armenian genocide, to ethical decision-making students face today. The ANC strongly endorses this program and is calling for financial support from the community to ensure teachers from southern California will be able to attend.

    The Institute and resource book, Crimes against Humanity and Civilization, provides one of the most comprehensive guides to the Armenian Genocide created for secondary education. The Armenian Genocide is placed in thorough context and is studied through historical facts as presented in primary sources from the National Archives, Library of Congress and with the support of prominent specialists in the field.

    Dr. Richard Hovannisian, Holder of the AEF Chair in Modern Armenian History at UCLA, who is a member of Facing History’s National Board of Scholars, will be a featured speaker at the Institute.

    The weeklong institute builds on one-day trainings Facing History has already provided teachers in Southern California, including district-wide workshops in Glendale, Montebello and Pasadena.

    Teachers of Modern World History, International Relations, and Comparative Government will find this institute particularly valuable. Individuals in the San Francisco Bay Area are sponsoring teachers from their region, but additional funds are needed to ensure teachers from southern California are able to participate.

    Please consider sponsoring a teacher to attend the institute: $1000 will cover the costs for one teacher, including the $350 tuition, airfare and accommodations in San Francisco for one week, and all resources.

    The goal is to send 12-15 teachers from Los Angeles, who collectively can expect to reach 1200-1500 students each year with the lessons and resources gained at the institute.

    Following the institute, Facing History program staff will provide free follow-up support to help customize the course to meet the teachers’ needs.

    Quite a racket…. is it not?

    © Holdwater
  • Archive – In Celebration Of Our Turkishness At The Threshold Of A New Millennium

    Archive – In Celebration Of Our Turkishness At The Threshold Of A New Millennium

    by Mahmut Esat OZAN
    mozan@webtv.net

    WHO WAS A ROMAN? WHO WAS AN OTTOMAN? WHO IS A TURK?

    Before answering these questions above, let us pose another one, “What are the similarities existing among the old citizens of the Roman and Ottoman Empires and the contemporary inhabitants of modern Turkey?” Well, here’s the answer: We must acknowledge and accept the fact that all three of them have the same social make-up. In the framework pertaining to the societal composition of the Roman and Ottoman Empires, one does not notice any racial, ethnic, or even religious alienations caused by prejudices injurious to the running of a society.

    In the Roman populace, as well as in the Ottoman one, every citizen was known as either a Roman, or an Ottoman. The same has been true for those living within the confines of the new Turkish nation created by its founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. In Turkey, every citizen, regardless of his or her ethnic, religious, and political background, is known and referred to as a Turk, no hyphens are necessary.

    Not so long ago, in Miami, Florida, a political asylum case involving a young Turkish citizen, reached the Immigration and Naturalization Department’s desk. What I am relating now is the true account of events which took place.

    In the past I was offered work in which I could be of help in interpreting in various court cases involving Turkish nationals. The young man in our story was a Turkish citizen of Kurdish extraction. He reluctantly fled his homeland, his birthplace, leaving his family, his girl friend and others behind. His adventures, spanning half of the globe were in search of a safe haven. His words are revealed here with the condition that his real identity is kept secret. Hasan Volkan is not his real name, of course.

    Hasan had been fighting for his life in order to escape those who were pursuing him relentlessly to punish him because he had repeatedly refused to kill for the dreaded PKK. While being interviewed by the US agents of the I N S(Immigration and Naturalization Service), he kept on saying he left Turkey because he was not interested in jeopardizing his life for a cause that was alien to his beliefs. He thought that staying in Turkey would bring about his early demise.

    In order not to burden the reader with the whole account of Hasan’s plight, which I related in an earlier essay, I would like to reveal here that, after three years of hiding in the USA, he is now back in Turkey and has rejoined his family and his girl friend. The last I heard from him is that he was about to get married.

    While I was helping him with the INS, he had made some interesting statements. One in particular was very meaningful. Here’s what Hasan told the INS attorney in Turkish:

    “In Turkey today we have a mosaic of all kinds of ethnic people representing many different backgrounds. We have Kurds, like myself, we have Laz people, we have Pomaks, Bosnaks(Bosnians), Albanians, we have Cerkez, we have Tatars, Cecens(Chechnians), we have Ajems(Iranians), Assirians, Arabs, Armenians, and Greeks. We even have Gypsies During the years before the PKK, these people all called themselves Turks and used to live in harmony in each other’s company, complementing one another in their own way, living in peace in a country my dear mother referred to as Gulistan(land ofroses). Hasan was referring to Turkey and he was saying, “no one was considered a step child there. He further told the INS interviewer that the only thing separating one person from another was his financial status in life. He said his family was in the home furnishings business, and it was known as a “well-to-do” family.

    On The Threshold Of A New Millennium

    The 20th Century is almost over. The year 1999 will be the very last span of time before humanity will embark into a new millennium. It is anybody’s guess how posterity will record these turbulent past hundred years.

    I wonder how historians will judge this century in the next millennium. It began with the dream of universal peace, but saw two tragic world wars, the birth of the atomic bomb, a ‘Police Action’ in Korea, and a costly ‘Vietnam experience’, plus a hundred smaller wars, and now it is coming to an end despite the ravages of dreaded terrorism, with a renewed hope for international harmony.

    Over-Population? It’s Everybody’s Baby

    The above heading actually comes from a bumper sticker I remember seeing some twenty years ago. But the words it contains are much more persuasive today than they were in the Seventies. Nevertheless, all levity aside, the world’s population in 1900 was a mere l.5 billion, a figure almost matching the number of inhabitants living in Communist China today. In that year, 1900, one of the greatest military minds and one of the greatest emancipators who ever lived, Mustafa Kemal, was a 19 year old young man. The world at large was yet to discover his genius. All Turks know this as a factual certainty, that if it weren’t for Kemal, who later on became ATATURK, the father of his nation, there would be no one today who would be addressed as a Turk, and no one would be left to elucidate the pride exhibited in the significance of the world “TURK.”

    We Emerged with Our Heads High

    I remember clearly the 10th anniversary of the Republic of Turkey. The whole country was singing, including us, the students in the Ortakoy preparatory section of Galatasaray, on the shores of the Bosphorus, the memorable words of a catchy tune “CIKTIK ACIK ALINLA,” the stirring musical composition of the day. This patriotic song was saying proudly that in a short 10 years Turks had created 15 million young people of “all ages.”

    During one of those days, on a warm spring afternoon, we were able to view our dear President, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha, (three years before he was given the name of ATATURK) riding in a convertible limousine, sitting next to the Duke of Windsor, the future Edward VIII, the King of England.

    It seems that after all those years, and despite what seems to be an unsurmountable prejudice piled up against them coming from all corners of the globe and overlooking the drawbacks, real and contrived, Turks are still able to celebrate what is proudly known as ‘TURKISHNESS.’ Once again, going back to what we were discussing earlier, we see that there was no need for nobility in the Ottoman Empire. Any Muslim, even one who converted from Christianity, had the chance to rise all the way to become a VEZIR. The world would witness this type of opportunity in the USA centuries later.

    Ever since Alparslan, the Seljuk Turk military leader’s victory over the Eastern Roman Emperor Romanus VI in 107l, the way up the ladder of success began in the military. If an ordinary citizen wanted to get somewhere in the power system, he had to attend a military school.

    Many great men in Turkish history began their illustrious lives in this fashion. A May, 1996 article of mine in this newspaper, “TURKS’ LOVE AFFAIR WITH THEIR MILITARY’” is a good indication of this complex relationship between the public and their military institutions.

    Unlike other societies, in the Turkish one it was the Military that sided with the common people. It still is the Military that extricates the country straying from the course designated for Turks by their great leader, Kemal Ataturk.

    Someone in the soldierly stature of NAPOLEON BONAPARTE had once made a statement which illustrates what the concept of “military” meant to the Turks. They were invincible then, they may still be counted on the premise today. In 1799, after he returned to France from his inconclusive Egyptian campaign in the Ottoman lands, he related anecdotes about an encounter he had in the city of Acra, where after a long siege of the area, he chose to retreat before the Turkish forces. Napoleon’s words were, “Gentlemen, my conclusion is that Turks can be killed, but never vanquished.”

    Testimonials Which Keep Us Turks Going

    Recently, a letter writer said the following in an English language publication, “…I’ve been in Turkey 8 months, and I intend to spend the rest of my life somewhere in your country”…You have made me feel most welcome…I am proud to be living here, and I am so pleased that I chose Turkey rather than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or France.” I’m not able to decipher why the letter writer mentioned two of the most backward lands in the same sentence with France, but I appreciate his admiration for Turkey. There was another person with similar laudatory words for Turkey and the Turks. This one was not just a regular letter-writer, his name was Charles VII, the King of Sweden, who wrote the following letter to his sister Ulrique-Eleanore in 1772:
    “I was going to be a prisoner in Poltava(Russian territory at that time); that would have been my death. I was saved on the shores of the Bugh River. Then the danger became more imminent…again I was saved. But today I am a prisoner of the Turks. What fire, steel, and floods were not able to do, the Turks did. I don’t have chains on my feet. I am not in jail, either. I am free, free to do whatever I like. But still I am a prisoner – a prisoner of affection, of generosity, of nobility, of courtesy. The Turks have tied me with this diamond chain. Oh! If you knew how sweet it is to live as a free slave with people so affectionate, so noble, and so gentle!”

    Who Is A Turk, Anyway? Ask Any Turkish Citizen!

    If you listen to the rancorous, vindictive and vengeful words of Lloyd George, the fallen one-time Prime Minister of a dying British Empire, you will be amazd to hear how uncivilized a so-called ‘gentleman’ could be. He and his First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, by his side, suffered collectively one of the worst military defeats at the hands of Mustafa Kemal and his legendary defenders of Gallipoli in 1914. Here are the ugly words the British Prime Minister Lloyd George uttered when he was about to launch the invasion of that disastrous Dardanelles campaign:

    “The Turks are a human cancer, a creeping agony in the flesh of the lands they misgovern, rotting every fiber of life…I am glad that the Turk is to be called to a final account for his long record of infamy against humanity.”

    Well, George, listen to the words of another observer, only this time, a more objective and much more civilized one than yourself. His name is David Hotham. He is a 1975 TIMES correspondent, who writes the following about Turks in his book simply called TURKEY. He might as well be referring indirectly to our TURKISHNESS when he says:

    “The Turk is unusually full of contradictions. Not only has he East and West in him, European and Asian, but an intense pride combined with an acute inferiority complex; a deep xenophobia with an overwhelming friendliness and hospitality to strangers; a profound need for flattery with an absolute disregard for what anybody thinks of him.”

    These last few lines of an honest observer such as Mr. Hotham indicate that TURKS are, indeed, cut fom a different cloth. In the case of the British Empire, the colonial masters were all “stiff upper-lipped” British, the epitomy of class consciousness, condescendence and conceit. They were, conversely, the opposite of Turks, the descendents of tolerant, democratically imbued, down-to-earth people, who never interfered with the social, religious freedoms of the subjects they conquered. For them magnanimity was not an outlandish dictionary word. They lived it in the past and they are still living it today. They loved their conquering heroes then, they still revere them today. Turkey is a place where the word ‘military’ has been an inspiring solace for them, whereas the same word has been branding fear in the hearts of others.