Customer Reviews

A Crime of Vengeance: An Armenian Struggle for Justice

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The government of Turkey goes to great lengths to deny the twentieth century's First Genocide. Ed Alexender relied on the historical archives of at least several countries , mainly Germany and USA's National Archives.Being a retired foreign service officer, he knows the value of facts and he documents his facts quite well!
When it comes to presenting facts, I believe the reviewer from Turkey is presenting his goverments misguided policy and nothing else. His reviews are always negative when it deals with the Armenian Genocide.
I recommend this book highly!!

Edward Alexander does a great job to present a historical account of the events of the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Young Turks in 1915. The book is a great read because detailed historical research is presented in a form of a thriller of one of the most famous assassinations and subsequent trials of modern history.

Let me also point out that Alexander's account represents a very objective view of history, praising numerous Turkish officials (like the governor of Der Zor, and 50 Turkish parliamentarians) and individuals who tried to protect the Armenians and refused to carry out orders of Talaat and Enver.

As for the reader below, don't mind him. The entire Turkish nation still thinks that the best way of facing a black page of their history is trying to sweep it under the rug. My advice to him is to bow his head to the memory of the victims, ask for forgiveness and reconciliation so that Armenians and Turks can once again be friends.

This book is a worthy read for students, scholars, and laymen interested in the complex and ofthen paradoxical arena of international justice. Written in the form of a thriller that could rival LeCarre ,Angler, and Ludlum. This book delves deep into the psyche of the victims of genocide in a masterful tribute to the human spirit to endure adversity and mete out justice.

Now what about the nationalist/fascitst movement of ASALA Armeninan terrorist movement that left thousands of innocent people dead and wounded across America and Europe in the 1970's!

It just astonished me as how certain discursive formations can actually lead people to believe as the 'real' reality. It does not matter whether for an event to 'really happen' or not. What matters is that you hear it on a radio or read it on a newspaper or website or even talk about it at the water-cooler. Those who have had the chance to watch 'Wag the Dog' might get the idea of how such 'reality' is constructed.

On a more advanced level 'discursivity', a la Foucault, is a building block of a discourse in which certain linkages, here and their, add to what ordinary people believe on the street.

Now obviously Hitler was one of the worst things that happened during the 20th century. This is commonsense. But to add certain 'material' so as to advance another claim by building upon Hitler, is something that should be carefully approached, at least for people who at least visit and read stuff through Amazon.
If a chain in a series of discursive formations can be shown to be weak or invalid than it would be proven that that chain of a discourse is on shaky grounds, and that most of what is known about it is likely to be false.
Unfortunately we see certain 'material' is attached to certain claims so as to resemble the Holocaust. Let us revisit a single claim on part of those would like to exploit the events during the early 20th century. A reviewer, for instance, obviously bought one claim and thus knows it to be the 'truth'

Adolf Hitler: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Now has anybody bothered to investigate it. No, of course. "It sounds like as if it is true, so why not believe it". Well fortunately there are still people who like investigating such stuff.
Read for example :
Heath W. Lowry
Washington, D.C.
Political Communication and Persuasion, Volume 3, Number 2 (1985)
Abstract This article traces the history of a purported Adolf Hitler quote which cites the perecent of the world's lack of reaction to the fate of Armenians during the First World War as a justification for his planned extermination of European Jewry in the course of the Second World War. By a detailed examination of the genesis of this quotation the author demonstrates that there is no historical basis for attributing such a statement to Hitler...
[...]
If one is serious about really getting into history, rather than believing simply what is out their in the popular press,
I would additionally suggest to take a tour of the documents of Ambassador Morgenthau. First let us not take any word for having a Godly truth 'Its ambassador so its gotta be true' mentality is ok if you're ok with it (respect of thought). But there are historical evidence that suggests that Morgenthau did not even know Ottoman scripture, and that this is proved throughout his letters when he attempts to translate 'words' and 'dates' of events. Do not hesitate to read...
[...]


For those who have CAREFULLY read what I have written so far, notice I am not either on one side of the argument between Armenian historians or historians of the Ottoman empire, but that I have just thrown out some thought provoking information so that one will at least ask some questions before believing what they read. Doubtless there will be those occasional pointless replies to this review, but again all I am saying is, think before you react. Now one could argue that I am saying is a postmodernist crituque and historical relativism. That would be false. I believe in historical analysis, as a scientific enterprise (and only the scientific version of it). But then again let us not forget that some American historians who were studying the case at hand were bombed by Armenians. Now if history is written by historians and that some historians (i.e. UCLA professor Stanford Shaw)are bullied so as not to investigate certain historical matters than, at least if you have a capacity to think critically than be suspicious about it. [...]
By the way absolutely nothing is mentioned about the equal ammount of civilian Turks that were slaugthered by Russian backed Armenian militia. Nor anything about the terrorism campaign of Armenians during the 1970's that left thousands of people dead and wounded. To say "denying genocide is a wrong thing" is one thing. But in doing so if one is denying the death of tens of thousands of innocent Turks, is called hypocrism and puts one in ethically shaky grounds.

The latest British governemeents acceptance that the "blue book", which Armenian claims are based upon, have been declared by the government itself to be a WW1 time propaganda material. Yes you heard it right!

Here's another eye opener: Often the claim is made there 1 million Armenians were murdered. What they do not say that the same material they indicate that a "genocide" happened says that
the ENTIRE Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire was 800 thousand (200 thousand difference!) MOREOVER Keep in mind that the Armenian diaspora, that builds its own desire to have a national identity, has a population of more than 9 million people across the world. HOW CAN this be??? Well thats how nationalism is formed: impossibile numbers, man on white horse, the evil "other" etc.... So this "genocide" attitude is more of identity building rather than real history.

Well I hope I contributed on an intellectual level and I hope 'thought thugs' would not misunderstand what I have suggested.