Rating: 
Summary: a book from hell
Review: Although the author has a legal background it is immediately obvious that she does not have a sufficient grounding in history to tackle a subject as sensitive and controversial as the Ottoman-Armenian conflict, the Armenian revolutionary movements and subsequent relocation of 1915 and its historical interpretation. This point is highlighted by the fact that she begins her book in a totally out of context manner by lauding and praising an Armenian, Soghomon Tehlerian, who assassinated Talaat Pasha, one of the leaders of the Ottoman Empire during First World War. The author's claim that the relocation of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire was genocide is presented as fact and with very little research or clear evidence to prove this claim. Her bias continues as the chapter refers to no Turkish documents, nor to any objective scholars' and experts' books on this issue. For example, little to no reference can be found to the extensive work carried our by Professors Bernard Levis, Stanford Shaw and Justin McCarthy. In addition, even though the foundations to her claims lies in a book by the former US Ambassador to Istanbul, Henry Morgenthau: "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story", she does not mention the critique of that book, "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" written by Heath W. Lowry. In his book Lowry shows that there are many discrepancies between Morgenthau's book and his diary, letters and reports that were sent to the State Department.A number of crucial errors that need to be addressed can be found in the book. Power states that Talaat Pasha ordered the roundup and execution of some 250 leading Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul. However, what she does not include is the fact that many of them were members of terrorist organizations and that their arrests came as a direct result of their attempts to provoke the Armenian populace to revolt and commit treason against the Ottoman Empire.
If one is going to level the crime of "Genocide" against a nation, this ought to done not by reaching out to by hand-picking "evidence" and "scholars" to prove a pre-accepted verdict, but by looking at all available evidence and scholarship with an open mind and deciding whether it supports such an accusation. The duty of a scholar is to find and preserve the truth. It should not be to help perpetuate hate by disseminating bias as fact and outright lies as truth.
Rating:
Summary: A Book with Full Mistakes
Review: The most significant omission made by Ms. Power is the well-documented massacre of defenseless Muslims (Turks, Kurds and other ethnic groups) by Armenians during the WW1. Mass graves of Muslims in Eastern Anatolia near towns such as Kars, Erzurum and Van, cities occupied by Armenian assisted Russian forces, are testimony of the carnage inflicted upon civilian populations by the alliance of Armenians and Russians.As it is well known, in 1919, the British High Commission in Istanbul, utilizing Armenian informants, arrested 144 high Ottoman officials and deported them to the island of Malta to be out on trial on charges of a premeditated attempt to harm Armenians. While the deportees were interned in Malta, the British appointed an Armenian scholar Mr. Haig Khazarian, to conduct a thorough examination of the Ottoman, British and the US archives to substantiate the charges. Though he was granted complete access to all records, Khazarian's corps of investigators discovered no evidence to demonstrate that Ottoman officials had either sanctioned or encouraged the killing of Armenians. After two years and four months of detention without trial, the British Procurator General exonerated and released all 144 detainees.
The author indicates in her book that in 1919 the Ottoman Government set up a tribunal in Istanbul that convicted two senior district officials for crimes committed against the Armenians and she hence concludes that by this action Ottomans had accepted the veracity of the Armenian Genocide claim. However, as she mentions in her book, there were 320.000 British soldiers in Istanbul who were exerting pressure on the Ottoman Sultan and Government to come up with results. The impartiality of such a court must be called into question. Yet, even if the proceedings of this Court were to be accepted it must noted for the record that those persons who did not take sufficient measures to save and assist Armenians during the relocation were convicted, but that the Court did not accept the allegation of a plan to murder Armenians.
In conclusion, although the author has a background in law, she blatantly plays prosecutor, judge and jury without giving the defendant a right of defense. She sentences the Turkish side to the high crime of genocide by omitting any Turkish point of view or that of other scholars, who do not subscribe to the Armenian orthodoxy, as regurgitated by Power, on this controversial issue. If one is going to level the crime of "Genocide" against a nation, this ought to done not by reaching out to by hand-picking "evidence" and "scholars" to prove a pre-accepted verdict, but by looking at all available evidence and scholarship with an open mind and deciding whether it supports such an accusation. The duty of a scholar is to find and preserve the truth. It should not be to help perpetuate hate by disseminating bias as fact and outright lies as truth.
Rating:
Summary: a book from hell
Review: the author has a legal background it is immediately obvious that she does not have a sufficient grounding in history to tackle a subject as sensitive and controversial as the Ottoman-Armenian conflict, the Armenian revolutionary movements and subsequent relocation of 1915 and its historical interpretation. This point is highlighted by the fact that she begins her book in a totally out of context manner by lauding and praising an Armenian, Soghomon Tehlerian, who assassinated Talaat Pasha, one of the leaders of the Ottoman Empire during First World War. The author's claim that the relocation of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire was genocide is presented as fact and with very little research or clear evidence to prove this claim. Her bias continues as the chapter refers to no Turkish documents, nor to any objective scholars' and experts' books on this issue. For example, little to no reference can be found to the extensive work carried our by Professors Bernard Levis, Stanford Shaw and Justin McCarthy. In addition, even though the foundations to her claims lies in a book by the former US Ambassador to Istanbul, Henry Morgenthau: "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story", she does not mention the critique of that book, "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" written by Heath W. Lowry. In his book Lowry shows that there are many discrepancies between Morgenthau's book and his diary, letters and reports that were sent to the State Department.
Rating: 
Summary: Anti-Americanism and Inaction
Review: Overall, this was a very good book, thoroughly researched and making an excellent case for why the United States must do more to halt genocide. The author makes the moral argument with both passion and intellectual clarity. She also makes a compelling argument from self-interest; even without September 11, it should be clear from her arguments that events in lands far away do affect us.That said, I see one large weakness in her book. She does not say enough about the effects of anti-Americanism on our willlingness to intervene. When the United States does intervene to save lives, too often the results are criticism that the U.S. is imperialist, trying to "impose its values," etc. For example, Power writes that our intervention in Bosnia saved thousands of lives. Yet the writer Harold Pinter, exemplifying attitudes on the fashionable European left, has recently described the United States as an "axis of evil," citing precisely that intervention. More savagely, when the United States intervened to save people who were starving, we ended up seeing our Marines dragged naked through the streets of Mogadishu while mobs cheered. This kind of thing corrodes America's willingness to intervene. It is a pivotal factor, and I think needs more open discussion if we are really to change policy. I hope that in future editions, Power can bring out this factor; as long as we only receive opprobrium abroad for humanitarian interventions, we will be slow to make them.
Rating: 
Summary: Superb analysis
Review: A stunning work. Power is one of those rare political writers who engages both the head and the heart of her readers. In terms of information alone, this book is a veritable goldmine - the chapter on Iraq is particularly useful, given the current policy debates over Saddam's regime. Above all, 'A Problem from Hell' is proof of the moral failings which have marked successive US Administrations.
Rating:
Summary: Profound and moving
Review: This book is simply breathtaking. For too long, discussions of genocide have suffered from lack of conceptual clarity. Power's book provides us with both a cogent definition of the term and an impressive discussion of the act as it has manifested around the world. Above all, she has issued a profound challenge to American hypocrisy. This is a book you must read!
Rating:
Summary: Why Genocide Is Repetitive
Review: It should be the easiest subject to have universal agreement on; Genocide is reprehensible and cannot be defended. The reality is of course much different for our species is the only one that kills, tortures, and maims its members without cause. Differences in religion, the desire to control land, natural resources, or hunger for power are not reasons to kill entire groups. The title of the book is, "A Problem From Hell", and it is an outstanding work by Samantha Power. She is not only a competent historian she spent years in the midst of one of the more recent examples of what could also be called, a problem of human nature. This Nation's Congress took 40 years to ratify the treaty on Genocide. It seems some Southern Congressmen were worried about culpability from Jim Crow that was still alive and well, others for the millions of Native Americans slaughtered because they were in our way. She specifically covers the massacre of Armenians by Turkey, Hitler's murder of the Jews, Pol Pot's slaughter of Cambodians, Saddam Hussein gassing minorities in Iraq, the 1994 murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda, and most recently the Serb Nationalist's bid to join the roster of those who kill almost for sport. The mass killing is not sport however the individual conduct of the sadists who enjoy inventive killing is hard to read. In 1915 The United States was not in a position to impose on Turkey. It is now 2002 and The United States deems Turkey an ally, a country that has refused to admit any Genocide took place. The United States has a congress that killed a vote condemning the Turkish Government because hours before the vote President Clinton, a lame duck President asked them too. It is a sad commentary that our congress lacks the moral fiber of men like Henry Morgenthau our Ambassador to Turkey while they were killing, a man who was denouncing what he called, "Race Murder", while trying to gain the attention of his government. The Holocaust is well documented and some of the participants were punished, but it and Armenia are events that are 50 and 100 years old, and blurred by time. They are still better remembered than millions of Native Americans slaughtered, and millions, who were bought, sold, enslaved, and murdered because they were black. In the 1970's 2,000,000 were killed in Cambodia, the 1980's brought Saddam Hussein and his slaughter of The Kurds, and then in 1994, the world watched Rwanda, 800,00 dead, and then the former Yugoslavia, they are still counting the missing. In 2001 on September 11th on a comparably small scale we experienced the murder of our citizens only because they were Americans. Largely because of what was Yugoslavia a new international treaty was created to establish a body to constantly deal with the crimes discussed. The treaty requires 60 nations ratify the document for it to become reality. When this book was written 43 had signed, about 10 days ago 66 was reached. The United States is not a party to this effort. When I started this book it was easy to deal with U.S. conduct simplistically. At the end of the book the same issues became very gray. As the world stands today any intervention will require The United States. This has nothing to do with misplaced national pride it's reality. We had Special Forces in Afghanistan 48 hours after The World Trade Center was hit. We can monitor any piece of ground on the planet with either satellites, manned or unmanned aircraft capable of real time intelligence gathering within hours of deciding to deploy them. Our military is without peer in both individual capability and technological superiority. So what should we do? The Rwandan Genocide took place in approximately 100 days, 8,000 murdered per day. The only effective response would have been a unilateral move by The United States into Rwanda. The United Nations would take 100 days to agree on the shape of the table to meet at. What would be our reason for violating another sovereign nation? Genocide seems to be a very good reason. But now back to reality. How many confirmed deaths justify military intervention, what threshold needs to be met for our country to commit forces and lose lives of our soldiers? And it may be unpopular to state but there needs to be more than philosophical outrage to act. What is Rwanda to The U.S.? The reality is virtually nothing. Iraq threatened our economy intervention was an easy call. A U.N. sanctioned operation; it took 5 months to start, had severe limitations, and left Iraq a viable threat. The conclusion I came to after reading and thinking about the book is that the closest one can get to a stated policy would be something like what follows. The United States decides that we are going to be the world's police force. No other country can do it, so we will. Economic sanctions will be forced upon the offending country to pay the bill, because the citizenry of this nation will not. This will necessitate our not being involved in any treaty that exposes us to any liability or sanction other than those we place on ourselves. The other extreme is we act only when it is in the interest of our country to do so The Rwandas of the world are ignored, and we protect our interests or punish those responsible for September 11th like attacks. I enjoyed this book, and I share the author's anger and frustration. There is no record on effective international cooperation, and there is no way The United States will become a police force. It is true a Serb official killed himself 2 weeks ago to avoid being deported and tried, and the Dutch Government resigned last week over their inaction during Srebrenica. Neither action saved a single life. Genocide will stop when humans evolve further, not before.
Rating:
Summary: Hyper-Hypocrisy
Review: This book would warrant a much higher rating, despite the fact that I disagree with much of it, except for some glaring, unconscionable omissions. Little quarter is granted to the Soviet Empire and Communist China, both of which managed to butcher more of their citizens than even the Nazis. Are Russian and Chinese lives really worth so little, as compared to Rwandan and Jewish lives, as to not even merit acknowledgement in this book? Or could it be that Ms Power has a a pro-communist agenda cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of human rights? Don't waste your time on this book if you are truly concerned with the rights of ALL people, and not just those groups that are deemed worthy of the PC imprimatur. Had Ms Power taken off her ideological blinders, she would have made a very important contribution to the human rights dialog. As is, this book is morally equivalent to Holocaust denial. Have you no shame, Ms Power?
Rating: 
Summary: world view translated
Review: speaking as a non-US citizen who studied and spent quite a bit of time there as well as other places all over the world i see this as a watered down translation for an American crowd. while not fully aware of all the events she discusses the ones i were lacked the in depth study but based itself more on easy to understand blocks for consumption and thereby skipping on certain details which were historically critical for the complete story.
Rating:
Summary: The politics of ignoring murder
Review: A damning and extremely well written indictment of American leaders who turned a blind eye to genocide from Armenia to Rwanda. The section on the US coddling of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s while he was gassing the Kurds provides a chilling perspective on today's issues. The most compelling nonfiction I have read in some time (and I read a lot).
|
