Rating: 
Summary: lacks depth and real scholarship
Review: This is a well-timed regurgitation job by Balakian in response to the sense of desperation felt by the Armenian disapora that nothing had coume out in recent years to perpetuate their stories and keep them fresh in the minds of policy wonks. The book certainly does nothing more than perpetuate Balakian's own raison d'etre.In response to the review which claims that it was "moral will" that determined the refusal of UCLA to accept funding from the Turkish government for objective scholarship, please permit me to laugh at a feeble attempt on this reviewer's part to play on the widespread ignorance of the (mostly North American) audience he is trying to impress. The reason the money from the Turkish government was rejected had to do only and I mean ONLY with the fact that UCLA is a bastion of Armenian so-called "scholars". Demographics accurately indicate that the Los Angeles Metropolitan area has more Armenians than Yerevan, so it's not surprising that under heavy Armenian pressure (very possibly including death threats by the very same Armenian thugs and terrorists who had threatened a previous UCLA Professor and prominent scholar, Stanford Shaw, and mercilessly killed other Turkish diplomats all over the world), UCLA decided against it. The Armenians clearly saw the Turkish funding as a threat to the distortion of history already well underway by the Armenian "historians". This is what's truly sad. Because what has happened is that as a result, UCLA has ended up with third-rate "historians" like Hovanissian and his equally ethically-devoid cronies. If they were so sure of themselves (and real scholars, as they claim to be), they should not have been threatened by research and facts challenging their slanted, tired anecdotal accounts. As an example, one "credible eye-witness account" often touted as a "credible source", then-U.S. ambassador Henry Morgenthau, never left Istanbul. He was highly influenced by his hired assistants, ALL Armenians (whom he preferred because they spoke English), and Christian missionaries whose view of the Turks was prejudiced long before they ever ser foot in Turkey. Their "mission" after all, was to convert the "heathens." It's obvious these were not the most enlightened nor most sophisticated people on earth, and of course they had their own sympathies and agendas. Armenian pseudo-historians should call off the dogs and realize that after, all in America, one is free to voice one's views and present an alternative account. Perhaps they thought they were still in Yerevan where such freedoms unfortunately still do not exist to this day.
Rating: 
Summary: Moral Will
Review: A few years ago Turkey attempted to donate over one million dollars to the UCLA history department in the hope of creating a sub-department whose purpose would essentially have been the re-writing of the history of World War I. Unlike several history departments around the country, the UCLA history department had the courage and moral will to reject what would have amounted to millions of Turkish dollars over the course of decades. The grant was quickly rejected because the professors correctly surmised that the money hinged upon a commitment to false scholarship. The UCLA history department is in the business of seeking truth not the creation of fiction. Headed for almost four decades by the renowned historian Professor Richard Hovannisian, UCLA is a thriving center and world leader of Armenian/Ottoman scholarship. Peter Balakian has written a meticulous, well documented, and accessible history book on the Armenian Genocide and America's response. His documentation is precise, his writing style is clear, and the history is quite haunting. Overall, this was an excellent book especially as an introduction to the Armenian Genocide. Many of the negative reviews of this book complain that the events of 1915 are so murky and so mixed together with World War One that no one - especially a poet - really knows exactly what happened. These common Turkish refrains are ridiculous and are a not-so-subtle form of genocide denial. There is nothing murky or controversial about the Armenian Genocide, historians know exactly what happened in 1915, the documentation and the evidence are incontrovertible. For over eighty years brilliant historians (who are neither Turkish nor Armenian) have analyzed virtually every known document from around the world regarding the events of 1915 - be it the thousands of diplomatic correspondences from the army of American and European diplomats stationed all over eastern Anatolia, the eye wittness testimony and memoirs of American and European missionaries, the eye wittness testimony and memoirs of the survivors, the eye witness testimony and memoirs of American and British soldiers and sailors stationed in and around Anatolia, the writings and philanthropic efforts of women like Clara Barton and Julia Ward Howe, the archives of the American Red Cross, the memoirs of American Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, the memoirs of President Woodrow Wilson, the memoirs of President Teddy Roosevelt, the memoirs of British scholar Arnold Toynbee, the memoirs of British Ambassador Viscount Bryce, the memoirs of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the thousands of letters, telegrams, and correspondences sent by American and European businessmen who happen to be in Anatolia in 1915, and the hundreds of articles published in newspapers and magazines documenting the destruction of whole villages, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children. In 1915 alone the New York Times published around 150 detailed articles with dates and names of villages destroyed and numbers of fatalities, using words like "slaughter" and "race murder" to describe what was happening. In addition the writings and memoirs of Raphael Lemkin - who carefully researched the Anatolian events of 1915 - 1922 just a few years after the fact - coined the word "genocide" based on the Armenian Holocaust. This is a tremendous well rounded reliable list of direct sources from 1915. All of it, not some it, but all of it, every word of it bears wittness to one of the worst crimes ever comitted by man against man in the history of the world. Many historians of the day such as Arnold Toynbee, considered the Armenian Genocide to be the greatest crime in history. Notice how none of the Turkish reviewers below can site a trustworthy 1915 contemporary source (let alone a battery of sources) to support the idea that the Armenian Genocide is murky, controversial, or irrecoverably confused with World War One. There are no such sources, and if there were you can bet it would be the first thing quoted by all of the negative reviewers. The historical documentation is simply not there. Instead, many of the reviewers recommend the controversial writings of Bernard Lewis, but he is not a source. Though Lewis's ties with Turkey certainly brings into question his credibility this also is not the issue. A source is defined to be a document, wittness, or testimony directly traceable to the actual event. Literally all of the hundreds of thousands of known verifiable objective sources from 1915 leave absolutely no doubt that the Young Turks headed by Talat Pasha and Enver Pasha, planned and implemented a Genocide against the Armenians, based on the definition of genocide created by Raphael Lemkin and consequently adopted by the United Nations. There are no contemporary historical sources to support the idea that the genocide was merely a "relocation." The murdering, the pillaging, the raping, the burning of homes and schools, the careful destruction of thousands of ancient Armenian churches, monuments, monasteries and graveyards, were all extremely carefully planned, and were all designed not only to destroy the Armenian people but to erase their entire history from the planet; every known source from 1915 points to this being the case. In the Burning Tigris, Peter Balakian references direct objective sources from 1915. There would be no reason to use Bernard Lewis, or any of the other names mentioned as primary sources, since these people were not in Anatolia in 1915. Again by definition, a direct source is documentation from the period being studied. Turkish apologists (many of whom are the grandchildren of those who perpetrated the genocide) would have us believe that there are two sides to be considered, but the historical evidence simply does not support this. The incredible bulk of documentation and evidence put together by Balakian and the thousands of respected historians before him is irrefutable. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and smells like a duck there is an extremely high probability that it is a duck. Knowing the persistence of Turkey to deny, ask yourself this simple question, if there were even half a percent as much evidence against the genocide as there is in favor would we even be having this discussion? There should be an award for universities like UCLA and writers like Peter Balakian who stand firm on the truth in the face of relentless hatred and revisionism.
Rating:
Summary: slick piece of "history" but only for the unsophisticated
Review: I found the book an easy read, as Balakian's writing style is easy to follow. It's just too bad the substance is missing. It's a clear attempt to "educate" the unsophisticated reader who has no clue about world politics, Ottoman history or the Middle East to see only one side of the issue--hoping that he will come away with the impression that the Turks were the bad guys and the Armenians the good guys, with no gray areas or questions to be asked. This political agenda is apparent right from the beginning when he makes the ridiculous assertion that "there are no two sides to the story". By providing only one side of the story, therefore, Balakian does not allow the analysis of factual data which is critical in any credible historical account. And he clearly fails the test here. But then again, he is not a historian. His epilogue which greatly inflates the few and very recent attempts on the part of those supporting Turkey to counter (with facts) the well established and gargantuan effort and enormous sums of money that are spent on a regular basis by the Armenian lobby is equally ridiculous. He maintains for example that the many resolutions to commemorate the "Armenian genocide" have failed because of pressure from a foreign government. He conveniently omits the fact that at the Congressional hearings, there were scores of distinguished scholars from all round the world that effectively and credibly testified to refute the one-sided allegations that the Armenian lobby had perpetuated for years. Suffice it to say that this is definitely not the book I would recommend to any reader who is interested in seriously learning more about the history of the end of the Ottoman Empire from a credible and impartial source. As many other readers have accurately pointed out, Balakian's attempt at appearing to be a serious historian is amateurish at best and meant to appeal to a particular audience. To call it history would be foolish.
Rating:
Summary: Sad but true
Review: The sad thing about fanatical denialists is that they are first and foremost callous, and the root of their callousness and inhumane attitudes is their utter ignorance in history. It is clearly evident who the Turks or Turkophile propagandists posing as "reviewers" are on the roster below. The sickening part about the denialism is the hidden approval of the murder that took place on behalf of those who know the truth but are too sick and disgusting to openly admit it. They instead, gloating in their self-congratulatory post-murderous arrogance, pretend that the world at large is also as beastly, ignorant and callous as they. My ancestors came from Ayntab and Kharpert, Cilicia and Armenia respectively, and they certainly were mostly slaughered, and the rest were most certainly exiled into the desert. Sorry, but I have no feelings of sympathy to sick denialists, but most of all I have no feelings of compassion for a second more disgusting group, the sponsors and apologists for murder. Balakian's credibility is stronger than ever, since he is now more than ever informed on a topic that is certainly hard to digest. I salute his bravery in tackling an "unpopular" topic in a contemporary political context dominated by the greedy and sick elite of today who would sacrifice human values and decency for the sake of expediting their petty political and commercial ambitions. Sick men such as Cheney are merely the sick and disgusting Admiral Bristol of the past, a fascist war-monger whsoe comprehension of civilized human values is that of a rat in a sewer. Yes, the fact of the matter is that there are no more Armenians in Armenia, the part that was within the Ottoman Empire. The facts are there, and they have been proven time and again. Mr. Balakian in fact feels the need to rehash what scholarship already exists on this topic, scholarship that Mr. Balakian already feels has proven, even to the perennial denialist beasts, the tragic veracity of the genocide and exodus of Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks, Yezidi, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Mr. Balakian is not obligated to be a scholar. Mr. Balakian is a conveyer of information in his own familiar medium, and it is such a crack of a joke to have him be criticized for "not having a scholarly approach." You want a scholar on the subject? Read Dadrian and weep. Mr. Balakian has learned from his Jewish colleagues that scholarship alone does not amount to much in a climate of cheap populists and political charlatans. Mr. Balakian knows all too well that he needs to popularize the topic and gain awareness in that manner, and Mr. Balakian is in fact doing a fantastic job. I hope that other such genocides are also properly exposed and treated with respect, not denied, not buried. The hope of every Armenian is to contribute in the prevention of such dirty and beastly tactics of "nation building" in the future. Turkey is in fact committing suicide by denying the lion's share of its own biological, cultural, and historical legacy. A beast with a short memory and a lack of respect for its own roots cannot live without inducing cancer onto itself, roots which is in large part Armenian, whether post-Kemalist fascist Turks of today like it or not.
Rating:
Summary: Every Armenian-American should read this
Review: The research is very detailed, and all statements are supported with an abundance of credible references. Balakian is an excellent writer, and makes the history very immediate and lively, so that this work is of interest to the general reader. I am an Armenian-American and I learned a LOT from this book, not just about Turkey/Armenia, but about international relations and how governments behave in the face of hugely important moral and ethical issues.
Rating:
Summary: If no Genocide, why no Armenians in Eastern Turkey TODAY?
Review: If there was no Genocide as Turks claim, then I hope the disbelievers ask this question: "where are all the Armenians in Eastern Turkey TODAY" Why is it that there are NO Armenians in Eastern Turkey today? Did all 3 million Armenians leave the country just like that in 1915? Why would we ALL leave if we were peacefully living there? Go to Turkey and see the centuries old Armenian churches abandoned, see yourself what these churches are used for by the Turks and ask yourself what happened from 1890 to 1920. Yes, something did happen. They masacred the Armenians and those who were lucky enough survived and lived to tell the horrible truth. If you deny the Armenian Genocide, you might as well deny the Jewish Holocaust!
Rating:
Summary: Truth versus Denial
Review: Thank you to all those people who have discredited this book and have written reviews denying that an Armenian Genocide had occurred. That is why I bought the book, and having read it twice I can honestly say it has been amongst the most fascinating and well researched books I have ever read on the topic. Once one has read the book all doubts of a Genocide are eliminated, that is why the Turks are attempting to hinder people from reading such a well researched and detailed analysis of America's response to the Armenian Genocide. Growing up in Australia in the early 1950's, I remember my mother telling me that if I didn't finish eating the food on my plate I should remember the "starving Armenian". What is so fascinating about that statement is the fact that Australia had suffered an economic depression in the 1930's, we had experienced the hardships of the Second World War including news of the Holocaust but in the 1950's the term "starving Armenians" was still used as an example of a catastrophic event in human history. Having studied the First World War in depth I had never been in doubt that a Genocide of Armenians had occurred. The Australian POW's in Turkey together with other allied prisoners during World War One were held in prison camps in the interior of Turkey, many of them in their private records and diaries made notes of their eyewitness accounts of the atrocities committed by the Turks against the Armenian women and children. For those who are interested books include: "Guests of the Unspeakable, An Odyssey of an Australian Airman-being a record of captivity and escape in Turkey" by T.W White, "Lost Anzac's" by Greg Kerr and The Story of Harold Earl by Liet. L.H Luscombe are just a few containing eyewitness accounts. However, I am not surprised that the Turkish government and its followers are denying the crime of Genocide, because no criminal admits they have committed a crime unless they were forced to, the crime of genocide is the ultimate crime that a nation can commit. As Deborah lipstadt a world renowned Holocaust scholar specializing in the denial aspect states " Denial of Genocide whether that of the Turks against the Armenians, or the Nazis against the Jews is not an act of historical reinterpretation. Rather, the deniers sow confusion by appearing to be engaged in a genuine scholarly effort.... The deniers aim at convincing innocent third parties that there is 'another side of the story'.... Denial of Genocide strives to reshape history in order to demonize the victims and rehabilitate the perpetrators." How stupid and ignorant do these Turkish Apologists think we third parties are? Armenians who were a minority subject people of the powerful Ottoman Empire somehow killed 3 million Turks. The Armenians have now simply evaporated from their ancient homeland and there are now 80 million Turks in Turkey and no Armenians are left in the land they had lived for at least 3,000 years(whom the Turks conquered only 900 years ago coming from Central Asia). Denial is the last phase of a Genocide, and unfortunately the Turks are continuing the crime of Genocide against the Armenians and this is the reason why books such as "The burning Tigris" are critical in exposing the catastrophe which has been neglected and gave impetus for Hitler's famous words "Who remembers the Extermination of the Armenians" before the commencement of the Holocaust. I will end my review with a quote form a Turkish lady in response to the Armenian Massacres of 1896 as illustrated by a contemporary newspaper at the time "My poor Armenian brethren, you are the greatest victims of the Hamidian nightmare. The fiery joy of my soul for our re-established liberty turns to ice in the face of your darkened, desolate lands, the sad fate of your homeless, motherless little ones! Our national joy falls in the dust with sham before this awful tragedy... Oh, believe me, my brethren, in me is the repentance and shame of the whole present and future Turkish race; I but re-echo the mourning of our beloved country for you all" page 80, Grand Turk by Wilfred Castle, New York 1942.
Rating:
Summary: excellent account
Review: I highly recommend this book to those individuals who want to find the truth to our world history. After reading the reviews of others, it is clear to me that some individuals find this book disturbing because this is probably the first time in which they have been told that the young turks killed more than 1 million armenians. Some individuals attempt to discredit this book saying that Balakian is a poet not a historian. However, all of Balakians sources have been taken from historians, american politicians, survivors and from the young turks. The Turkish Government must come forward and recognize the terror they spread through the Ottoman Empire in the early part of the 20th century.
Rating:
Summary: Armenian Claims and the Truth
Review: The baseless Armenian claims that have marked our near history and that have been carried to the present day with the Armenian terrorist acts increasingly continues to deepen the line that separates two peoples although their histories are overlapping. History takes objective data as a basis and provides, by means of "archives", to make a clear and comprehensible analysis of the past events. However, requests shaped by "political" purposes, furnishes history with lies "that are unacceptable and difficult to understand". Without doubt, it is questionable from a historical point of view how valid these books can be since they do not include any historical arguments; however these books, having nothing to do with the truth, are conveyed to the readers as a result of which a nation is "blamed" and this is unacceptable. Unfortunately, the book that you have edited, typed and introduced includes a high percentage of contradictions when compared with other written sources on this subject. Almost all of the propaganda books that were used during World War I, have "tragically" been given as a reference in the book entitled "The Burning Tigris". In this book, no use has been made of a single actual archival document. This book on the "Armenian Question", as it is always the case, is one sided and full of accusations and historical mistakes, but it is skillfully hiding the real facts. Briefly, it is not objective and including claims that are deprived from humanism. However this book does not state that; - nearly 3 million Turks lost their lives during World War 1 or due to the massacre of the Armenian gangs, - during the one-sided war of propaganda that lasted for years; the Armenian claims, which could not be supported with a single archive, were just "political" claims, - they expressed their political views to the whole world through terrorist organizations like ASALA that killed Turkish diplomats, - the Armenians went so far to borrow from the libraries all over the world books that included Turkish theses and never returned these to the libraries so as to destroy these books. These realities have been disguised with false claims and have thus been hidden from the readers. This book also gives misleading numbers about the "Deportation" by which it deviates the true nature of this event. The government that decided for the deportation had heavily sentenced, half of them being executed, approximately 1.397 people who had not protected the Armenians, had attacked the Armenians or had seized their properties during the deportation. The statements in the book make references between the lines to the Nazi massacre. Is it possible to think about a Holocaust where German SS officers are executed because they did not protect the Jews? Even this example could establish a sufficient starting point to clarify some facts. Nevertheless, the deportation described by the Armenians has nothing to do with the truth since the aim of the deportation was not at all to destroy a group of people. The aim of the deportation was to move from the East front to the south area of the country, somewhere far away from the war region, all the Armenians who collaborated with the Russian occupation forces, who spied for and guided the Russians, who started revolts, who attacked with their forces the Ottoman army, who cut off the logistic and communication lines, and who conducted massacres and ethnic cleansing by attacking Turkish-Muslim settlement areas with terrorist guerillas. The military necessity of this deportation even abides to recent law. The deportation was apparently and certainly been conducted for military reasons and aimed to protect our citizens. Historians today accept that Armenian fanatics themselves cannot prove the Armenian claims. As it is always the case, it can be apparently seen in this book as well that there was no other solution than using false stories. The best example for this situation is the fact that events are being told on the basis of falsified documents. To give an example; - There is a telegraph sent by Talat Pasha ordering to "protect" the Armenians and not to massacre them. - During World War II, Armenian volunteers came to Germany in masses and Jozef Paul Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, accepted them in 1943 in Berlin. The afore-mentioned Nazi general charged these Armenians with extending the central German propaganda activities to the Middle East. In the archives there are many "documents relating to the oath of loyalty to Hitler taken by the Armenians and photographs of groups of Armenians in the ceremonies of taking oath". This explicitly means: The Armenians have personally joint the "Jewish Genocide" which is the greatest crime of humanity of the 20th century! Moreover; - Izmir has not been put to fire by the Turks, but by Greek soldiers when they withdrew from Anatolian territory, - The book includes extreme examples of racist hatred and criticizes a whole nation and the religious beliefs of this nation, - "The conditions of war" in World War I have been ignored and the innocence of Armenian and Turkish Ottoman citizens, massacred by Armenian gangs, has been disregarded... The book needs many of such corrections and when analyzing the book sentence by sentence one can understand that it has been written without having conducted any research and that it has been based on groundless stories that have just been made up. It is obvious that this book is a product of the unconsciously maintained political propaganda conducted by the fanatic and racist Armenians. Besides, the fact that there has been a need to resort to falsified documents reveals the inability of the Armenian racist experts. It seems that the real nature of the events was of no importance for the Armenians. Unfortunately, the hope for peace among nations is refuted with such worthless propaganda material that is not based on the truth. Respectfully Yours, Ülkü Eryaman
Editor
Organization for the Commemoration of Genocide Victims Web: www.geocities.com/soykirkur
e-mail: soykirkur@yahoo.com
Rating:
Summary: Balakian not playing with a full deck
Review: As opponents in card games do not show all their cards in order to gain the advantage, Balakian has followed this principle to present his overview of history which represents the narrow views of the descendants of Armenians in the U.S. If you're looking for a recycled account of earlier books on the topic that have long since been forgotten, you'll enjoy this book. However, if you're looking for an book about the complicated events of WWI in Anatolia, this is not the book I would recommend. Instead, try more objective accounts of history that include the fact that the Armenians were the lackeys of the Russians in east Anatolia and the French in Cilicia (both intent on carving out a nice-post WW1 piece of real estate for themselves out of the old Ottoman Empire), until the Ottomans decided to protect the Muslim population of Anatolia by putting an end to the kiling and plundering of these mercenaries, irregulars and just regular thugs.A more objective account can be found in Bernard Lewis' accounts of this historical period. Unlike Balakian, Lewis is a true historian, an a professor emeritus at a respected institution like Princeton. And unlike Balkian, Lewis, a respected and world-reknown historian for over 60 years, who is not Turkish--is not trying to be the darling of his ethnic constituency.
| 
