Rating: 
Summary: yes this is a sad book...
Review: but only because it's about politics--ethnic politics--and not history. As many reviewers already pointed out, Balakian does not have the credibility as a poet to write a serious book about a very complex topic about which he obviously knows so little. I agree that it is a recycle of much of what's been written before about the topic, with the only new thing being a chapter at the end that proves only that Armenians are sharpening their political strategy in an attempt to pre-empt increasingly credible claims that more credibly refute the stories they perpetuated for years. However, this was before there was a significant enough Turkish presence to challenge them.I also happen to know that Balakian's book was brought to prominence courtesy of an Armenian-American publicist (Doris Varabedian Cross) who just "happened" to work for his publisher. If you will notice, the majority of sales are (not surprisingly) in Glendale and Fresno, CA (both Armenian enclaves). Other things to consider: he does not cite any Muslim sources in the book at all--every single "eyewitness account" is from a "western" source, so it's not suprising that he got the (selected) results he did. As a discerning reader and researcher myself, I seriously question the credibility of the source material (obviously very carefully chosen to promote a political purpose)--and the consequently convoluted analyses he makes. I also know that the Armenian lobby has been buying up the vast majority of the copies--to boost the ratings, and also to hand out to those they want to "educate" (read: providing copies to Members of Congress and the Administration and threatening their re-election). I really wish there was something I could recommend about this book, but I have yet to find what it might be.
Rating: 
Summary: Pop-history
Review: Balakian created a new kind of history In this age of strong lobbies and highly vocal special interest groups in the U.S. politics, it seems history is continuing getting its fair share of distortion. As these groups shamelessly challenge true facts of science (remember: Phillip Morris' claims about the health effects of cigarette smoking), "amateur" Armenian historians have been testing their skills on the distortion of history for pushing their anti-Turkish agenda further. Balakian is a poet. And he has abused his poetic license in this book. But his efforts are not in vein, the end result is a new type of fiction: pop-history where historical facts are decided upon by popular vote with absent of the opposition. The main problem of Balakian is that he is emotional about his topic. As we all know well, the mixing emotions with history writing is like drunk-driving; it may be fun for a while but, at the end of the day, you could hurt innocent people. Balakian believes that the unfortunate events in Asia Minor in the pre-World War I era are the "first genocide" and it had formed a model for Germans to exterminate Jews citizens of Germany. The claim of "the first genocide" is comical - no serious historian or student of history would take it seriously for a second. The suggestion that it was used as a model by Germans is an interesting one. Its clear target is to appeal to the American Jews. Such an attempt is nothing short of an insult to Jews. Jews in the pre-WW II Germany did not side with a foreign power to carve themselves a state. And in doing that Jews didn't rape and killed their defenseless German neighbors when the German men were fighting a hopeless faraway war. It is a historical fact that Armenians in order to drive Turks and Kurds from certain parts of Asia Minor formed bandits to rape and kill Turks and Kurds. It has also been documented by Russian sources that Armenians of Asia Minor had received weapons and other support. Under the Russian invasion of Eastern Asia Minor, Ottoman citizen Armenians raped and killed Turks and Kurds, and drove them from their homes, burnt their houses, farms, and mosques. This is well documented in the reports by Russian officers who did not approve of Armenian treatment of Turks and Kurds under Russian invasion. If Balakian is neglecting these facts, it is no accident, but a very clear indication of his not-so hidden agenda. History is also very clear about the Ottoman tolerance of its subject peoples. Ottomans were tolerant. No one can deny that. For example, Jews expelled from Spain in the 15th century found a safe haven in Istanbul. This relationship has continued until today, and Turkey was one of the first nations to recognize Israel as a state. But in Balakian's pop-history fantasia where history is merely a matter of perception, such facts can be easily overlooked since it does not serve any particular Armenian interest. If you write history in this manner, the outcome is pure propaganda material. Balakian cannot write a impartial history and shouldn't. It must also be noted that Turkish-American communities have been feeling very uncomfortable about the racist stand and aggressive tone of Armenian-Americans. Passive-aggressive history distortionists like Balakian appear to enjoy creating such discomfort. Needless to say, the use of history as means for social oppression of a minority group in the U.S. is an intellectual sin. I invite Balakian and his friends to stop being part of this shameless smear campaign against Turkish-Americans. It is un-American. At first glance, this concern could look a bit paranoiac and its relation to a mere book might look far-fetched. But, considering scores of Turkish diplomats killed by Armenian terrorists in 70s and 80s all over the world including Boston, L.A. and Ottawa (Canada), the possible tragic consequences of provoking one group against another could be better understood. While we all love books, this unfortunate use of books is not unusual. In conclusion, Balakian's book is not history book. It is one-sided well-polished gibberish that has been recycled by many before him. The timing of the book right before the U.S. presidential election is also curious. I wouldn't be surprised if other clone books are on their way to pop-history consumers of America.
Rating: 
Summary: If we forget the past we are bound to repeat it
Review: To understand the turmoil and instability in this part of the world one must look at the past.
Why do we have terrorists today? How did the world response today differ from the past?
Why did the Kurds get massacred in Iraq? To understand the inner working of these cultures and modern turmoil we do not need to far in time. Just as the Germans, Yugoslavs to mention a few went on ethnic cleansing path they had a framework to follow. A must read if you want to get clarification on today's events.
Rating:
Summary: Very true and needed
Review: I find this book very well written telling the truth about what happened in Turkey in last century. Sad to see that Turkey still denies it and spends millions on yearly basis in order to prevent the fact of recognition of Armenian genocide by other countries. As result you can find here some messages posted by Turkish people protesting against everything telling the story of genocide. Actually I myself have nothing against Turkish people, in the mean time I have just been told the story of Armenian genocide long time ago by my grandfather, who was there in Turkey at the time when this horrible murder happened. So, in my strong opinion the recognition of Armenian genocide by Turkey will be a real true advantage for Turkey.
Rating:
Summary: Where's The Paper Trail?
Review: This book was very informative and worth reading. I found it to be a straightforward, carefully written history book with a concise, meticulous bibliography. According to a 'lover of history" January 1 below (whose review, use of capitals, and writing style sounds very much like it was written by the same writer of Holdwater Nov 12) this book is "factually flawed." After reading Peter Balakian's book, and as a lover of history myself who reads as much about World War I and World War II as possible, I wish to dispute a particular claim. I would like to address the claim that 3.5 million Turks were massacred by the Armenians, and the laughable statement that this is well known, and accurate by most estimates. Having read over two hundred well known and well respected books on World War I - British, American and French accounts - I have never read one single memoir, account, telegraph, or letter from any country - be it infantry-soldier, commanding officer, missionary, tourist, businessman, politician, ambassador, diplomat, or historian - that corroborates such an incredible bloodletting and slaughter. On the contrary, letters by individual soldiers, sailors, missionaries and businessmen all give eye-wittness testimony to the murder of innocent Greek and Armenian civilians. In addition, one would think that the slaying of 3.5 million people could not simply happen in a random haphazard fashion.
Certainly such a massive killing would require planning and organization, it would require horses and feed for the horses, and guns and ammunition, and food for the army that one would certainly need in order to carry out such an amazing expedition. One Question: where's the paper trail?? Such a massive number of murders would have certainly left a contemporary paper trail of some sort somewhere in England or France or America. How is it possible that the Armenians - whose total population numbered around two and a half million and was spread out over a huge vast rugged mountain territory - could have planned, mounted, and executed such an incredible expedition that arguably must have required careful logistical planning? If the lack of physical evidence and the improbability-factor are not enough, where are the newspaper accounts, the magazine articles, the diplomatic correspondences? It is impossible to believe that the murder of 3.5 million people would not have gotten some coverage in the New York Times. There is no contemporary trustworthy evidence to support this claim (at least none that I am aware of.) Even Hemingway never once wrote of such a bloodletting. On the other hand and in great contrast the paper trail left by the Committee of Union and Progress and all the physical evidence - be it thousands of contemporary news paper and magazine articles, diplomatic correspondences and memoirs by Ambassador Bryce, Ambassador Morgenthau, Arnold Toynbee and the legions of diplomats strewn all over Anatolia from Cilicia to Smyrna to Van to Moush to Marash to Trebizond, along with the dozens of heart wrenching memoirs by American and European missionaries and businessmen living in the Ottoman Empire - all seem inexplicably to point in one direction and are all evidence in favor of one thing being more likely than another. The question is simple: based on the totality of the contemporary evidence of the time, which is more likely - that an unorganized minority Armenian population of about 2.5 million killed 3.5 million people, or an organized Ottoman Army under the careful planning and direction of Talat and Enver killed 1.5 million people? Also what happened to the hundreds of thousands of Armenians living in Smyrna and Cilicia and the hundreds of small villages that dotted the western countryside of Anatolia? For those of you who are not aware, Smyrna and Cilicia are a thousand miles from Russia -- the Armenians in Smyrna and Cilicia had nothing to do with Russia....Question: where are they? Human beings don't just disappear, they were killed, almost all of them, and it had nothing to do with the Russians. They were driven away from their homes and they were killed and there is no way to soften the truth of this. Instead of hiring people like Bernard Lewis and Stanford Shaw and others in an attempt to rewrite history, Turkey needs to boldly and courageously face its past. Peter Balakian's excellent book provides the paper trail, and this is what makes readers like Holdwater so irate.
Rating:
Summary: Denial of Genocide is the last
Review: The Burning Tigris has received high acclaim from Genocide scholars throughout the world for its comprehensive and detailed analysis of America's response to the Armenian Genocide. What makes the Armenian case one of the most important Genocide's to study is the fact that all 5 components of the definition of Genocide exist. Rafael Lemkin a survivor of the Jewish Holocaust who coined the word genocide used the Armenian and Jewish cases as an example of what a Genocide is. The last component in the definition of Genocide is the denial of the crime. Peter Balakian in his epilogue uncovers how extensive the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide is. I would like to thank the reviewer "A reader from lover of history", as his/her review is a good example for those who are unfamiliar with the sophisticated methods the Turkish lobby uses, to trivialize and rationalize the crime of Genocide. His/Her review is an obvious attempt to deceive those innocent third parties who may not be well aware of the tragedy and the huge cover-up that has been going on for decades. Those who study and write about the Armenian Genocide cannot be so unequivocal, because the denial has been institutionalised by a government, its supportive agencies, its influential political and academic collaborators, and by extension, its powerful military allies and trading partners. Deniers are attacking the true and honest representation of history. 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." As Thomas Bürgenthal, an Auschwitz survivor, lawyer and member of the UN Human Rights Committee, says, "I don't know why the Turks can't admit it, express sorrow and go on. That is the worst. You do all these things to the victim and then you say it never happened. That is killing them twice."
Rating:
Summary: hastily assembled and selective account of history
Review: This book is factually flawed: it gives only one side of a much more complicated series of events that took place during the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the 20th. Most of the sources Balakian cites are initially accounts from Christian missionaries, and the later accounts from Armenian "historians" (quotations emphasized)--I mean, duh, do you REALLY think these sources were going to be objective in this situation? Think about it. Even this small call for objectivity appears to causes the ANCA (the hired Armenian lobbyists) to go into overdrive with action alerts. Objectivity is a threat to the paychecks of the hired lobbyists and would destroy the stories on which they have been building their Armenian victimhood for the past century--and more important, destroy the basis on which they are trying to emulate the success of other ethnic groups in order to extort more for Armenia. Already this tiny state is the 3rd largest recipient of US aid PER CAPITA, thanks to U.S. taxpayer dollars. It's no accident they call it the "Israel of the Caucasus. (Thank you, Armenian diaspora lobby).
The truth is that during the early years of the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire was in a phase of decline, largely due to the imperialist ambitions of England, France and Russia. Russia used the Armenians to fight the Ottomans to get territory, providing them with arms and uniforms to stage revolts and offensives, promising them territory. Support from Russia, in particular, including training 4000-6000 Armenians in Russia, enabled the Armenians to slaughter entire villages of innocent Muslims-women, children and elderly people in Anatolia before the alleged "1915 massacre" in Van. All in all, between Russia and the Armenians, they massacred as many Muslims (over 3.5 MILLION by most estimates) in Anatolia at that time-or more-than Armenian claims. Not surprisingly, none of this given the slightest mention here. And of course, at the time, it served American interests to paint the Armenians as unarmed innocents who had been slaughtered by the "unspeakable Turk". Nothing could be further from the truth. For those of you that are truly interested in the history of this period, I can recommend books by several well-known and credible historians that would give a much more balanced perspective: (and they are all available on Amazon!) 1) Stanford Shaw--History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 2, Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975
2) Bernard Lewis-The Middle East (and numerous other works over the course of the last 6 decades)
3) Daniel Pipes (many publications)
4) Justin McCarthy--Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922
5) Daniel Goffman The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe If you are one of those who read the book and gave it a favorable review to do a favor for an Armenian friend, I urge you to broaden your perspective with a more intellectually rigorous analysis of the facts by reading the authors I have mentioned above. As a last note: I want to mention that the young lady ("a great book") that ranted on about the appropriateness of using the board for one's personal views appears to have done so quite well herself. The majority of her comments are aimed at the veracity of other reviewers, even though her favored reviewer ("sad book") does not mention anything about the book at all-just his experiences (which, by the way ARE all FALSE). In short, I don't think she ever even cracked the binding of the book at all. I wonder if she is one of the "Armeni-lemmings" mentioned by an earlier reviewer ("is Peter Balakian guilty of ethocide?"), which is a review I would highly recommend you read. This is one of the most hastily assembled pseudo-histories I have had the misfortune to read in a long time. It definitely does not pass muster among discerning and sophisticated people who require a more credible-and complete-account of the FACTS.
Rating: 
Summary: A compelling but occassionally flawed book
Review: Before reading this book, I knew almost nothing about its subject. I found the book very persuasive in establishing that the Turkish government committed deliberate deportations and mass murders of Armenian (and other) civilians beginning in the 1890s and continuing off and on until the end of WWI. It is a real eye opener to see the familiar pattern of genocide we typically associate with Nazi Germany being used years earlier by the Turks so they could solve their "Amernian Question." There is a great deal of detail here, including photographs, and mulitple, independent eye-witness accounts of what happened. I can see no way these attrocities can be denied. However, I did find the book to drag at times. I wished for better editing because I found the author often repeating himself and I felt he began to drone on too much. Also, it is clear that this is not a stictly objective study of these events. The author is clearly Armenian and has much (justified, I think) anger. But, as can be seen by reading through some of the reviews here on this board, it is clear that Armenians and Turks hate each other and, from reading this book, I can see why Armenians feel that way. But, what is lacking is exactly why the Turks feel that way. The book did not make it clear enough to me why the Turkish government would want to take such extreme measures against these people. I don't doubt that they did; I just wanted more background on that and don't think it was there. I suspect that there is a much longer history that needs to be told. Regardless, I recommend the book. ...
Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully Written
Review: The Burning Tigris is a great insight on the American interest in that region and sheds a new light on the forgotten Genocide of the 1,500,000 Armenians. It explains how the American government and people cared about the Armenian nation and their struggle. Equally, I am frustrated by the constant denial and minipulation of history the Turkish government has funded, which still continues today. The contemporary government was not the root of the problem or crime. Turkey should instead embrace the Armenian struggle and let go of its barbaric past, which we in the west know as the Ottomman Empire. One must understand that historically the Ottomman Empire has not just slaughtered Armenians, but other ethnic groups in that region, which includes Assyrians and Greeks. For the Turkish government to deny their history and not reconcile their difference will always leave a black stain in their history and cast doubt on their credibility.
Rating:
Summary: The Burning Tigris and Switzerland
Review: "SWITZERLAND RECOGNIZES THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE A1 Plus
20:40:13 Tuesday, 16 December 2003 National Council of Helvetic Confederation officially recognized the Armenian Genocide committed by Turkey in 1915. With this recognition Switzerland acts within the framework of the 1948 International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (UN Genocide Convention) and makes an important contribution towards the prevention of further crimes against humanity. Switzerland also contributes towards the reconciliation of the Turks and Armenians. A reconciliation that can only be based on historic truths and a reconciliation that presupposes willingness for a serious dialogue; a dialogue which requires the recognition of the Genocide by Turkey. Switzerland has proved that it can resist the manifold pressure
attempts by the Turkish Republic. Turkey has attempted to influence the Federal Council and National Counselors by economic and political blackmailing. Switzerland is the 14th country on the list of states, which at a
national level have recognized the crimes of 1915-1918 as Genocide within the framework of the UN Genocide Convention."
| 
