Statesmen in western countries are often besieged by representatives of Armenian groups representing huge voting blocs demanding resolutions or "Denier" legislation -with penalties- in connection with events that occurred in Eastern Anatolia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As they would with any other constituents, legislators typically feel obliged to hear these people out and somewhat obligated to represent their interests.
The historical events in question are extremely complex. Not only did they occur in a Moslem culture which is seldom studied to the requisite level of detail by typical students in Western Colleges - or even by future History Teachers - but the particular events in question occurred at the center of an extremely complex web of relationships between nations of extremely diverse cultural backgrounds.
Legislators approached with these demands:
• Are not elected to legislate on the true nature of extremely complex events that occurred over a century ago.
• Are not at all equipped to evaluate their veracity and have increasingly been turning to a group of "genocide scholars" which suddenly appeared in roughly the same time frame at which the Armenians started voicing their demands loudly (in the 60's).
American citizens of Turkish Ancestry report many incidents of ethnic prejudice in their daily lives as a result of these campaigns but they are -almost everywhere- vastly outnumbered as constituents by the Armenians. The same situation is true for persons of Turkish ancestry residing in other western countries.
The Armenian Groups have been widely successful in representing their ideological opponents as "Genocide Deniers" comparing them to David Irving and others who go so far as to claim that there are "unanswered questions about the Nazi Gas Chambers". This slander has been so successful that representatives from the Turkish side are typically either not allowed to speak their case before critical decisions are made, or when given the opportunity to speak, it is only in a poisoned, prejudicial atmosphere.
Due process, freedom of speech, presuming one innocent until proven guilty, assessing the credibility of evidence and the right to a defense are the foremost values of democracy and all civilized jurisprudence. Armenian genocide proponents, time and again are given free rein to convince an unknowing public that Turkey and Turks are not entitled to these most basic underlying rights and values of all civilized societies.
The continuing efforts by the Armenian Propagandists create many problems in international relations and in the lives of new generation of Turks in different countries who face accusations about their ancestors who report many incidents of ethnic prejudice in their daily lives. The continuous accusations of an unacknowledged genocide, and of a deliberate cover-up results in a pervasive atmosphere of distrust and prejudice against Turks and the unfounded allegations do tremendous damage to Turkey's image in the West.
The purpose of this White Paper is to present the facts: incidents leading to, the cause for and the aftermath of the decision to relocate Armenians living in eastern Anatolia during WWI, and to explain why that decision did not amount to "genocide".
Complicity of the movement with Organized Crime
1.1 The movement for recognition of a genocide label has not been a peaceful movement. Although many of the participants in the movement are law-abiding citizens, the movement in general gave its silent assent and financial support to a series of terrorist acts perpetrated against Turkish Civil Servants in the period spanning to 1973-1991. A total of 110 acts of terror were carried out by Armenian terrorists in 38 cities of 21 countries. 39 of these were armed attacks, 70 of them bomb attacks and one was an occupation. 42 Turkish diplomats and 4 foreign nationals were assassinated in these attacks, while 15 Turks and 66 foreign nationals were wounded. These acts were not openly condemned by the movement; it raised funds for legal defense of some of the perpetrators and openly treated others as heroes. An atmosphere of confusion resulting from the profuse Anti-Turkish Government propaganda they generated at the time afforded them some level of face-saving and bought them much needed time and cover and enabled them to spread intimidation and terror against anyone who might dare oppose them -all in an era when the West's approach to terrorism was characterized by that naïveté of the pre-2001 World.
1.2 In 1977, the home of UCLA History Professor Stanford Shaw -who had taken the position after studying the Turkish Archives that there was no directly intended genocidal attempt on the Armenians- was bombed by Armenian Extremists.
The Genocide 'Scholar' factor:
2.1 The rise of the Genocide "Scholar" movement coincided roughly with virulent rise of Armenian Diaspora demands in the West. The movement came into being largely through the efforts of individuals rather than through a combined effort by established academic institutions. Moreover, unlike conventional transactions in established academic institutions, the transactions of the genocide "scholars" are conducted behind closed doors; individuals who disagree with their thesis report that they are made to know that they are not welcome. Their process is not transparent and they do not uniformly enforce recognized standards of academic rigor
2.2 The movement's habit of attacking the integrity and character of their ideological opponents - on the Armenian issue- as "Genocide Deniers" is highly irregular in the academic community which normally appeals to documentation and (objective) evidence rather than personal attacks on the integrity of their opponents. Even in the case of the true deniers of the Nazi Holocaust, such individuals are easily dispatched by appealing to logical proofs and documentary evidence rather than by propagandistic accusations against their character. Furthermore their castigation of their ideological opponents as "Genocide Deniers" amounts to a condemnation of practically an entire ethnic group since the overwhelming majority of Turks feel very strongly that the events in question cannot rightly be labeled "genocide". To date the "Genocide Scholar" movement has attempted to avoid being stigmatized as racist by pursuing a two-pronged strategy:
• All rhetoric is directed at the Turkish Government arguing that it is not the Turkish People but the Turkish Government that is guilty of "Genocide Denial". Care is taken to represent the Turkish People as a race brainwashed by their government and thus somewhat innocent of the crime of "Genocide Denial". By this tactic, the Armenian lobby and their 'scholar'- allies attempt to avoid the appearance of stigmatizing an entire race as "Genocide Deniers" while, in reality, they are doing exactly that.
• Psychologist and leading spokesman for the movement, Israel Charny, has formulated an elaborate theory of "Genocide Denial" which allows for the existence of what he terms "innocent deniers." According to this theory, huge groups of people can fall under the heading of "innocent deniers" who, he assures us, "may not really be aware of the genocide they are helping to deny," and while somewhat innocent are yet "Genocide Deniers" nevertheless. Clearly, by virtue of this theory Charny would have us exempt him from the stigma associated with pejorative condemnation of an entire ethnic group (i.e. almost all people of Turkish Ancestry both in Turkey and abroad ) and escape the epithet of "Racist". The last time we saw people talk about an entire race like this was during World War II, when the Nazis argued that although some Jews appeared to be good, and tried to be good, they could not help themselves from being evil nonetheless. After all, the Nazis argued, it was in their blood to do evil.
2.3 The movement's response to the Statement of the 69 Academicians published in several leading newspapers is most telling of their modus operandi. In 1985 a large paid advertisement appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post and Washington Times, signed by 69 Americans specializing in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern Studies objecting to the use of the "genocide" label in House Joint Resolution then before the U.S. Congress. Instead of openly debating the issue, the genocide 'scholar' movement immediately embarked on an effort to discredit these academics on various grounds, insinuating that some of them may have been corrupted by having received research grants from the Turkish Government, etc. The response is conspicuous for the absence of any serious scholarly debate about the issues and concerns raised by these Academicians in the paid Advertisement; instead it consists primarily of insinuated personal attacks on the professional and academic integrity of the signatories who, like all ideological opponents of the movement - are collectively slandered as "Genocide Deniers". All of this constitutes a serious departure from recognized standards of academic integrity; to immediately attack and denigrate ideological opponents before speaking to the substance of the issue - especially in consideration of the credentials of the individuals in question - should place a very serious onus on the accusers. This constant pattern of relentless personal attacks on the integrity and professional qualifications of their ideological opponents followed by declaration of ideological/rhetorical victory when the slander campaign succeeds cannot be tolerated any longer.
Who are the Armenians?
3.1 The Armenians are a Christian People whose history goes back as far as the earliest centuries of Christianity. Of all the ancient patriarchates of Christianity, the Armenians have the distinction of being the only Patriarchate to have developed and evolved outside of the ancient Roman Empire. All the other ancient patriarchates, the Alexandrian, the Roman, the Greek, the Jerusalem and the Syrian, evolved and flourished -until the rise of the Arab Empire- within the boundaries of the Roman Empire. It is worth noting that the adoption of Christianity as the state religion under Constantine in 325 CE was preceded by a similar event -devoid of any political or social connections- in Armenia, where the monarch, Triadates, had converted just two decades previously effectively bringing with him practically the entire population of the country. Though the Armenians from time to time were tributary to the Roman Empire, there was no prolonged period in the pre-Arab era during which they were full subjects of the Roman Empire. Thus, the political forces and social climate which sometimes influenced the development of church doctrine were different in the Armenian church. Armenian bishops were present, however at most major Church councils as far back as the Nicene, and participated with their peers in the deliberations. The Great Church Controversies of the 5th century resulted in the Armenians permanently rejecting Ecclesiastical control from either Rome or Constantinople. Though Christians, the Armenians remained in many ways separated from the West for over a thousand years, well beyond the middle ages. They were a protected minority when the Ottoman Empire was at its height and Europe was trembling at the advance of the Ottoman Armies. As the Ottoman Empire began to decline in the 18th-19th centuries however, and the "Great Powers" of Europe and "Holy Russia" foresaw the impending collapse of the "Sick man", the Armenians were re-discovered by the Christian West not only as long-lost fellow Christians but as potential contacts in a territory which the principle of the "balance of power" dictated should be divided equitably among the existing powers in case of collapse and dismemberment. This re-discovery with its attendant mixed motives was to have unfortunate consequences for the Armenians when the hour of final collapse came in the War we now call the "Great War".
These newly re-discovered Christians were viewed not only as potential future allies in connection with territorial ambitions but also as potential proselytes. Protestant missionaries were sent in to win over, wherever possible, new converts from the long-separated Armenian fold to the doctrines of the Protestant Reformers that had so changed the texture of Western Christianity in the interval of separation. These were soon followed by Roman Catholic Missionaries - all of whose efforts were to be backed by a conspicuously high level of support from their respective governments. But though the Armenians were very accepting of new western ideologies -particularly nationalism - the assiduous efforts of the missionaries did not result in nearly as many conversions as they had hoped for; most Armenians remained attached to the "Orthodox Armenian" Church. In the 19th century there were nearly 2,000 foreign religious missions in Anatolia hailing from the United states, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, etc.
Although they established educational institutions, they involved themselves in the lives of the Armenians and had the effect of separating them from the Turks. Documentary evidence shows that the Missionary Schools ultimately had a role in the Armenian revolutionary activity.
III. The Problems and Issues
The Provocation: The Armenian insistence on the Genocide label generally ignores or diminishes the very serious provocation in the hour of Peril. Unlike the American Experience in WWII, in which there were no civilian casualties, Armenian Revolutionary Activity in the years leading up to 1915 involved many instances of brutal killings of Non-Armenian Moslem Turkish civilians. Furthermore the Armenian Military leaders, emboldened by the support they were receiving from the Western Powers and Russia, were even reckless enough to inform the Turks that they would not side with them in the impending war but would instead side with the enemy (Imperial Russia). The Armenian insistence on the "Genocide" label ignores the seriousness of this activity, the great loss of (Moslem Turkish) life and the ramifications of colluding with an extremely powerful enemy in the hour of great danger.
The word "genocide": In the words of one recent author, this word "evokes implicit comparisons with the Nazi past" and this imagery which the word carries in popular usage is inescapable when decisions are being made by civic institutions on the matter. In fact Armenians lived peacefully for centuries with Turks in an atmosphere directly opposite to that in which European Jews lived for centuries. This is precisely what makes the accusation of 'genocide' - when originating from the West toward Turks - so insulting and intolerable. The problem started when revolutionary elements among the Armenians - encouraged by Christian powers with territorial ambitions in the collapsing Ottoman Empire - embarked on a path that threw the entire region into turmoil sparking a conflict that quickly grew out of control, gravely endangering the vast majority of the Armenian Population, precipitating the Great Armenian Tragedy of 1915. These Armenian revolutionaries killed tens of thousands of innocent Turkish Muslims in their attempt to create a nation-state of their own. Their collusion with the invading Russian Armies resulted Turkish deaths numbering in the hundreds of thousands. These massacres of Muslim Turks, many of which took place well before the Ottoman government decided to relocate a large part of its Armenian citizens, amounted to ethnic cleansing. Since Jews did no such thing before the holocaust started, it is utterly dishonest to directly or indirectly compare the Holocaust to the Armenian Tragedy of 1915.
Intolerance and hatred: The allegations of the Armenians, and their reckless campaign against Turkey, have fostered in the West an atmosphere of hatred toward present-day Turks. Turks often feel discriminated against and they often feel unwanted. They are vastly outnumbered, made the objects of slander and calumny, and are loath to defend themselves against charges which are so manifestly unjust and falsified. It is for this reason that they have been reluctant and slow to respond and have only recently started to speak out. All of us, whether Americans or Europeans, must refuse to allow this manifest injustice to persist on our soil. We in the West have determined to take a stand against bigotry and hatred in all its forms. It is on our soil and in
our legislatures that this hate campaign has been allowed to flourish. If we fail to act we cannot escape the onus of complicity in these unquenched hatreds - imported, like an invasive non- ative species, from foreign lands.
History becomes political: Because Turks are never heard, the debate about what happened before, during and after World War I is not much of a debate in the West anymore. Most people simply assume that Armenians were victims of genocide. To Armenians this is probably not a problem, but the reality of the matter is that the historians -with the exception of a few specialists - are less sure about what happened than politicians. Politicians, under pressure from powerful constituencies, propose bills that 'recognize' the Armenian 'genocide' while individuals who have studied this subject carefully and objectively are not able to share a collective conclusion. Some history professors say that the Tragedy constitutes genocide, but many others do not1. Normally history would be left to historians, but nowadays history is turned into a political tool and the fear of a slander campaign has the effect of bullying historians into silence. As a result, the truth -and history itself - suffers.
IV. Conclusion: call for action
Clearly, the decision to relocate the Armenians was undertaken in the hour of extreme danger, desperation and chaos bordering on anarchy. No court has endorsed a 'genocide' label for the 1915 events and when the historical evidence is examined, it is clear that Armenian Revolutionary activity originated decades before the 1915 relocation and stemmed from a desire to 'take back' lands which Armenians considered to be 'their own' and that Armenians were but a small minority on those lands.
When all the evidence is examined, an impartial observer must admit that the present-day movement for recognition of a "genocide" label for the Armenian Tragedy is not at all the humanitarian movement that its promoters would have us believe it to be. Instead, it is not only a deliberate distortion of historical facts but has as its malignant fruits ethnic hatred, terrorism and murder, defamation and intimidation of historians, suppression of true scholarship, the politicization of history and disruption of legitimate political processes in Western Countries. We call upon all recipients of this document to take all steps in their power to ensure that no further support be given to such a clearly harmful and deceitful movement.
Continued use of Wartime Propaganda as Historical sources
Armenian Propagandists often cite two sources in particular: "Ambassador Morganthau's Story" and the British "Blue Book" prepared by the young graduate student Arnold Toynbee. To the uninformed layman these documents have the appearance of reliable historical sources. But from the point of view of competent historians there are several problems with these sources.
• The most glaring problem with the continued use of these two sources is that it violates a fundamental principle of historical research: single sources cannot be viewed out of the context of all primary documentation available on the subject. In other words, if overwhelming evidence from other known facts and documents throws one or two sources in doubt, the discrepancy must be reconciled. Both of these documents are known -on the testimony of the authors themselves- to have been intended as wartime propaganda to secure the entry of the U.S. into the war. This fact -by itself- does not necessarily impeach them, but when viewed in conjunction with all the remaining evidence it becomes clear that they have little value as historical records and are instead to be regarded as primarily wartime propaganda.
• Those who have seen war first hand describe its cruelty, inhumanity and injustice. Almost any war, when viewed through the eyes of one side only, can look like a genocide. Both Morganthau's story and the British Blue Book are clear examples of one-sided documents. Reputable historians view them as having, at best, very limited value for understanding the events of 1915, but when presented to the uninitiated public they
produce an extremely distorted and misleading picture of those events.
U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau - though he lived long before President Nixon - had a similar habit of keeping a scrupulous record of his daily activities; not on tape but in writing. We have his diaries and extensive documentation of so many events of his daily life. His book -which appeared in what was then one of America's best-known magazines, "The World's Work" (circ. 120,000) read like an adventure novel and was such a sensation that not only did it play a major role in securing America's entry into the war, but it even received a movie offer from Hollywood which Morgenthau rejected only at the urging of President Wilson himself. But when the "stories" in his book are checked against the records in his diary and other personal records, the value of the work as an historical source is destroyed completely. Furthermore, the book itself
is characterized by a significant number of anti-Turkish clauses which are nothing less than racist; an element that was necessary for propaganda value. Turks are portrayed as an inferior race. One of the main themes of the book is a series of stories portraying the Central Government as having had a conspiracy to exterminate the Armenians. But even if we were to disregard the other obvious problems with Morgenthau's book, there are irreconcilable problems with these stories. For example:
• Why is it that there are so many communications -still extant in the original- coming from this same government warning that anyone who molested the deported Armenians or who failed to protect them adequately would be punished severely?
• If the government had a conspiracy to exterminate the Armenians, why is there so much documentation showing that this same government punished and even executed in many cases persons whom it considered guilty of massacring innocent Armenians?
• If the government wanted to exterminate the Armenians, why did it offer them Autonomy in August 1914, in Erzurum- an offer which they promptly rejected?
In summary, Morgenthau's diary is generally regarded as a reliable primary historical source by both sides but this diary clearly exposes his book, Morgenthau's Story as a propaganda piece.
The British Blue Book
A second source that is continually used by Armenian Propagandists is the British Blue Book, published in 1916 mostly through the efforts of Arnold Toynbee who was at the time a graduate Student. Abundant evidence exists to show that the intention of the British Government in producing the Blue Book was to bring about the entry of the U.S. into the war; not to deliver a comprehensive portrayal of what was happening in Eastern Anatolia at the time. Again, by itself this fact does not necessarily impeach the work. However there are several problems with the use of this document as an historical source authenticating a label of "genocide":
• Contrary to the assertions of Armenian Propagandists, the Blue Book contains no evidence proving that the Turkish government was responsible for the massacres described therein and the atmosphere of near-anarchy and local animosity stemming from the depravity of the Armenian Revolutionaries, would tend to militate against such a conclusion in any case.
• Contrary to the assurances of co-Author Lord Bryce, that most of the stories in the Blue book came from "eye-witnesses", most of the evidence presented in the work is hearsay evidence, not first hand.
• Five years after compiling it, Toynbee would visit Turkey, report his deep shock at the instances of cruelty and barbarity he saw perpetrated by Greeks against Moslem Turks in Western Anatolia, and then later reveal that he had -all along- been ignorant of Armenian provocation in Eastern Anatolia.
Intentional omission of key parts of the story
The Relocation of the Armenians -the event which witnessed such great suffering and loss of life- occurred in 1915. The year 1908 was the year of the "Young Turk" revolution. As a result of this revolution, there was a breakdown of law and order in many parts of Anatolia. Later, in 1914 when World War 1 broke out, conditions became so desperate that not only able-bodied men but even policemen were called to the front to defend the country as Turks were dying by the thousands in a conflict of apocalyptic proportions at Gallipoli. This added to the breakdown of law and order and brought Eastern Anatolia to a near-anarchic condition. By this time Armenian Revolutionary activity - complete with internal attacks on non-combatant civilians - had been going on not for years but for decades. And it was at this time that Armenian Revolutionary leaders felt so confident in Allied help that they decided to risk everything and refuse to enter the war on the side of their country - even the best Armenian primary sources admit this. They openly recruited Armenian men from within the borders of the country to side with "Holy Russia", the hereditary enemy of the Ottomans. It was in this desperate atmosphere that the Central Government decided on the Relocation Order, which had such dire consequences. Extensive documentary evidence is still extant showing that the Central Turkish Government not only sent out messages warning that the relocated Armenians were to be protected, but later carried through on threats to punish -even with execution- responsible parties who were negligent in their duty to protect the Armenians on their journey. Contrary to claims of Armenian Propagandists who omit all this important information from the story, this relocation order did not amount to a death sentence for the Armenians. It was a desperate last-ditch effort to solve a seemingly impossible problem precipitated by the Armenian Revolutionaries themselves and the meddling of the "Great Powers" in the internal affairs of the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Although there were many deaths in this relocation:
• Many survived in their new location or emigrated to various locations.
• Many returned after a law was passed ending the relocation.
• Food was scarce and Non-Armenians (Turks especially) were dying of starvation everywhere.
• Many of the deaths resulted from an atmosphere of anarchy; outlaws roamed the countryside with impunity.
Finally, the intent here is not to absolve the 1915 Central Turkish Leadership from all blame but to show that use of the "genocide" label in this case is not only wholly unjustified, but in most cases deliberately deceitful.
Continued use of Ancestral War Stories
Armenian Propagandists make continued use of stories of the deaths of their ancestors many of whom died in truly deplorable circumstances. The stories are repeatedly told in conjunction with Armenian attempts to have the events of 1915 labeled a "genocide". What can one say when confronted with these stories many of which are undoubtedly true? On the one hand, one does not wish to show disrespect for these individuals or negate the seriousness of the situations, however there are several serious problems with this continued use of these Ancestral war-stories:
• Many Moslem Turkish Civilians died at the hands of Armenian Revolutionaries under circumstances that were as bad -and often worse- than the circumstances under which the Armenian deaths occurred. The Turks are only too well aware of these stories because their families were affected for generations but the consequences. However the Armenians make it quite clear that it is the life of a Christian Armenian that should count and stories of the tragic deaths of so many Moslem Turks are rigidly suppressed by the Armenians.
• The implication of innocence is clear in the telling of these stories by the Armenians. It is true that many of the dead were non-combatant civilians but it is also true that the whole episode was precipitated by the actions of Armenian Revolutionaries who brutally massacred Moslem Turks in a widespread campaign to establish a "Western Armenia" and "take back" lands that they regarded as hereditarily theirs - lands in which they constituted at that time only a very small minority.
Using False Documents
One of the most common "proofs" used by Armenian activists in support of their claim of "genocide" is a book known as The Memoirs of Naim Bey. This book is represented as proof that the Ottoman Government deliberately exterminated the Armenian population of Anatolia. The source of the book was a certain Armenian man named Aram Andonian who translated it into Armenian. He claimed that he came into the possession of official Ottoman documents, telegrams and decrees, many of which were supposedly signed by Ottoman Interior Minister Talat Pasha. Briefly, the list of authentication problems with this Book and with Andonian's story of how he came into possession of the "documents" contained therein is very long. And so is the list of reputable historians -specialists in this field- who reject them outright as forgeries. Even the British Authorities charged with prosecuting Ottoman rulers after the First World War refused to use them at that time. But the Armenian Propagandists continue to pass them off on an unsuspecting public as authentic proof of a program to exterminate the Armenians. See these websites for critical discussion of this forged work:
The Hitler Quote
Armenian activists often claim that Hitler said that he could get away with exterminating European Jewry because no one "remembers today the extermination of the Armenians". This "statement" appears (in more or less these words) in the leaflets handed out by groups of demonstrating young Armenians, on the cover of books and in articles written by Armenian authors. Furthermore, the "statement" is written at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., where millions of visitors every year read it, many believing that Hitler felt confident he could exterminate the Jews because the Ottomans had been successful in Armenians.
There is just one problem with the quote: Hitler never said it (Lowry, Heath, "The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians." Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc. Washington, D.C. Political Communication and Persuasion, Volume 3, Number 2 (1985)). Armenian activists have him saying it in a meeting with his General staff. This was, they claim, brought to light in the Nuremberg trials. The problem is that actual transcripts of this meeting, (Hitler's speeches and recollections of leading Nazis accepted as authentic by the Nuremberg court) do not contain any such reference to Armenians; they only have him calling them "unreliable" and "dangerous". Instead, the quote was taken from a book, written in 1942, by someone who was never able to authenticate his claim. It was later reproduced in an article by an unnamed writer for Times of London on Saturday, November 24, 1945, but it was most definitely not used by the Nuremberg prosecutors. In short; Hitler never said it, yet Armenians continue to use it to back up their case against the Turks.
Representing the 'genocide' label as "Settled History"
Armenian Propagandists often argue that the "genocide" label for the 1915 events is "settled" history and that "no one really disputes it anymore. There are two fundamental problems with this argument:
• It is patently false. There is a long list (see below) of highly reputable and qualified historians who reject the 'genocide' label for the 1915 events.
• The Armenian propagandists and the genocide "scholar" movement have a long, well-established history of launching viscous personal attacks on any historian who disagrees with their interpretation of the 1915 events.
Partial list of non-Turkish Historians who reject the “genocide” label: 1. William Batkay, 2. Roderic Davidson, 3. Edward J. Erickson, 4. David Fromkin, 5. Edwin A. Grosvenor, 6. Michael Gunter, 7. J.C. Hurwitz, 8. Eberhard Jäckel , 9. Steven Katz, 10. Avigdor Levy, 11. Bernard Lewis, 12. Guenther Lewy, 13. Heath Lowry, 14. Andrew Mango, 15. Justin McCarthy, 16. Pierre Oberling, 17. Dankwart Rostow, 18. Stanford Shaw, 19. Norman Stone, 20. Gilles Veinstein, 21. Paul Dumont, Professor at Strasbourg-II University, director of the Institut français d’études anatoliennes (French Institute of Anatolian Studies, Istanbul);, 22. Gwynne Dyer, Ph.D. in Ottoman military history;, 23. Robert Mantran (RIP), former Professor of Turkish and Ottoman history at Aix-Marseille University;, 24. Jeremy Salt, Professor of political science at Melbourne University.
Taken from www.ataa.org