Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Fri

19

Mar

2010

Truth, History And Integrity By Gilad Atzmon
Friday, 19 March 2010 06:40
by Gilad Atzmon
Gilad Atzmon (Hebrew: גלעד עצמון‎, born June 9, 1963) is a jazz musician, author and anti-Zionist activist who was born in Israel and currently lives in London.
"Anti-Semite is an empty signifier, no one actually can be an Anti-Semite and this includes me of course. In short, you are either a racist - which I am not - or have an ideological disagreement with Zionism... which I have."
He was born a secular Israeli Jew in Tel Aviv, and trained at the Rubin Academy of Music in Jerusalem. His service in the Israeli military convinced him Israel had become a militarized state controlled by religious extremists. In 1994, Atzmon emigrated from Israel to London, where he studied philosophy. Atzmon is an anti-Zionist who critiques Jewish identity issues and supports the Palestinian Right of Return as well as the establishment of a single state in Israel/Palestine. He is a signatory to the "Palestinians are the Priority Petition" which states “full and unconditional support of the Palestinian people is a condition sine qua non for activists to adopt.
Back in 2007 the notorious American Jewish right-wing organization, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) announced that it recognised the events in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were massacred as "genocide." The ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, insisted that he made the decision after discussing the matter with ‘historians’. For some reason he failed to mention who the historians were, nor did he refer to their credibility or field of scholarship. However, Foxman also consulted with one holocaust survivor who supported the decision.  It was Elie Wiesel, not known for being a leading world expert on the Armenian ordeal. 

The idea of a Zionist organization being genuinely concerned, or even slightly moved, by other people’s suffering could truly be a monumental transforming moment in Jewish history. However, this week we learned that the ADL is once again engaged in the dilemma of Armenian suffering. It is not convinced anymore that the Armenians suffered that much. It is now lobbying the American congress not to recognize the killings of Armenians as ‘genocide. This week saw the ADL “speaking out against Congressional acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, and is, instead, advocating Turkey’s call for a historical commission to study the events.”

How is it that an event that took place a century ago is causing such a furor? One day it is generally classified as ‘genocide’, the next, it is demoted to an ordinary instance of one man killing another. Was it an ‘historical document’ that, out of nowhere, popped out on Abe Foxman’s desk? Are there some new factual revelations that led to such a dramatic historical shift? l don’t think so.

The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past.  For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account. It is foreign to any scientific or academic method.  Jewish history transcends itself beyond factuality,  truthfulness or  correspondence rules with any given vision of reality It also repels integrity or ethics. It by far prefers total submission, instead of creative and critical thinking. Jewish history is a phantasmic tale that is there to make the Jews happy and the Goyim behave themselves. It is there to serve the interests of one tribe and that tribe only. In practice, from a Jewish perspective,  the decision whether there was an Armenian genocide or not is subject to Jewish interests: is it good for the Jews or is it good for Israel.

Interestingly enough, history is not a particularly ‘Jewish thing’. It is an established fact that not a single Jewish historical text has been written between the 1st century (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th century (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2 thousand years Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it. As a matter of convenience, an adequate scrutiny of the past was never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably that there was no need for such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer the most relevant questions to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand puts it, “a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah.”

However, in the mid 19th century, in the light of secularisation, urbanisation, emancipation and due to the decreasing authority of the Rabbinical leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose amongst the awakening European Jews. All of a sudden, the emancipated Jew had to decide who he was and where he came from. He also started to speculate what his role might be within the rapidly opening Western society.

This is where Jewish history in its modern form was invented. This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a ‘land registry’ with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. As we know, Shlomo Sand’s account of the ‘Jewish Nation’ as a fictional invention is yet to be challenged academically. However, the dismissal of factuality or commitment to truthfulness is actually symptomatic of any form of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politics. The ADL’s treatment of the Armenian topic is just one example. The Zionist’s dismissal of a Palestinian past and heritage is just another example. But in fact any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judeo-centric and  oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.

When I was Young

When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light over our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future.  I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent amongst Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, “when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)”.

When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favorite holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in adequate research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian.

When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million.

As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews” writes ZionistSever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all.

It Doesn’t make sense

It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on:

If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book

"One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all  I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate " (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz - Birkenau, Merhavia 1957). 

I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place

65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people  stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity.

As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust  became the new Western religion.  Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.

*During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations.


More from this author:
Gilad Atzmon - Tractatus Logico Palestinicus (7187 Hits)
by Gilad Atzmon Atzmon tries to lift the Palestinian Discourse where Wittgenstein left it… 1 “What can be said at all can be said...
Congratulations Barak, congratulations Americans (6209 Hits)
by Gilad Atzmon Once again America has proven that it can bring a change about. In fact, I would not count on Obama himself to bring a real...
Sabra, Shatila and Collective Amnesia (5756 Hits)
by Gilad Atzmon Waltz With Bashir is a breath-taking new Israeli film, an animated documentary directed by Ari Folman. In ...
The Lady Between the Queen and the Tribe (6085 Hits)
by Gilad Atzmon In spite of the fact that I monitor Israeli press and Jewish activism on a daily basis, I must admit that almost once a day I...
Fighting Within - Gilad Atzmon Interviews Sid Shniad (IJV Canada) (5904 Hits)
by Gilad Atzmon Recently I have been corresponding with Sid Shniad (1), a founding member of Canadian Independent Jewish Voice (Canadian IJV) (2)....
Related Articles:
Chavez Landslide Tops All In US History (7014 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman Well almost, as explained below. Hugo Chavez Frias' reelection on December 3 stands out when compared to the greatest...
Hoover Institution Hack from Ann Coulter's School of History Slimes "Left" for 9/11 (6215 Hits)
by Walter C. Uhler Incredibly, on January 18, 2007, the Lost Angeles Times (no typo) published Dinesh D'Souza's thoroughly biased Op-Ed,...
A short history of Saddam Hussein (and his allies in the West) (5923 Hits)
By Daan de Wit Looking at Saddam Hussein's lifeitbecomes clearthat it wasnot just taken by the West, but also given. The...
Doug Feith, Reinventing History (5211 Hits)
by Larry C Johnson Dougie Feith appeared on Faux News Sunday with Chris Wallace today and emphatically denied that he or anyone in his office...
Choicepoint's Message to Truth, to Power - and our Response (5924 Hits)
by Carolyn Baker On March 19, 2007, this website featured an article written by me entitled “Godfather Government: A Way Of Life Is Not A...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (11)add comment

Music said:

0
Disgusting bigot
This moron has no place on a progressive blog.
 
March 19, 2010
Votes: -2

mustafaka said:

0
Armenian genocide thesis depends on forgeries and lies!
I
Armenian genocide thesis depends on forgeries, historical distortions and lies. Here are a few of them:
1)The number of Armenians who were relocated: The number of the Armenians who were relocated was reported as 600-700 thousand by Bogos Nubar Pasha who attended to the talks of Sevres Treaty as a chief of Armenians; however this number is given as 1.5 million, 2 and even 2.5 million by different by some Armenian sources. However, 1.5 million was the total number of Ottoman Armenians including those who live in the West Anatolia (therefore who were not relocated) according to Encyclopedia Britannica’s 1910 edition which was edited by an English editor. It is another striking point that the total number of Ottoman Armenians was increased to 2.5 million in 1953 edition of the same encyclopedia which was edited by an Armenian editor.

2) Aram Andonian’s book (The telegrams which were claimed to have been sent by Talat Pasha to order the massacre of the Armenians which were pressed in the book of Aram Andonian in 1920, in three languages): It was proven by both the Turkish and foreign historians that these telegrams were fake too.
After these telegrams were published in Daily Telegraph in England, in 1922, the English Foreign Ministry made a scrutiny and denounced that they were prepared by an Armenian association
3)Diary of American Ambassador Morgenthau published in 1918. Professor Heath Lowry, an American historian from Princeton University displayed that the events depicted in the book depended on lies or half true events, by comparing the information Ambassador Morgenthau sent to American Foreign Ministry, with those written in the diary, in his book entitled ‘The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, in 1990.
 
March 24, 2010
Votes: +1

mustafaka said:

0
...
II
Moreover, after the Ottoman State was defeated in the 1st World War in 1918, the French and English invaders arrested 144 high level Ottoman veteran or civil officials including the ex-prime ministers, ex-deputies, governors and many newspapermen, and banished them to Malta Island, claiming that they were responsibles for the death of Armenians.
The English seized all the Ottoman Archives and also all other archives in other cities, like those in Urfa Governer House. No evidence could be found neither in the Ottoman and English Archives. The Americans, whom the English applied, failed to find any proof in American Archives and reports of American Orthodox church or missioners either. Nor could Damat Ferit Pasha, then the Ottoman Prime Minister who was in absolute collaboration with the English could find any evidence. And, they had to make all these 144 Ottomans free in 1921, since they could not find any proof to be able to verdict them.
Can you imagine a genocide on which no kind of proof can be found, even when the members of this criminal government have been taken prisoners and when all her archieves are under control of the invader accusers and given under directory of an Armenian?


If The Blue Book, the telegrams of Aram Andonian and the diary of Ambassador Morgenthau (which had already been published then) were reliable proofs, why did the English, French and Americans not use them ?
Additionally, during the trial in Berlin of the Armenian assassin Soghomon Tehlirian, who had murdered Talat Pasha in Berlin on March 15th, 1921, none of the Andonian documents was allowed to be entered into the court proceedings as evidence (Dashnakists’ book Justicier du Genocide, 1981, p.213).
4)The cover photograph of the book of Tessa Hoffmann: German Greek scholar Tessa Hoffmann printed the painting of Russian artist Vasili Vereshchagin entitled ‘The Apotheosis of the Franco-Prussia War of 1871, depicting a mass of skulls which was probably painted after 1878, as if it were the photograph of 1915 Armenian genocide, in the cover of his book and had to admit her forgery during the trial of Doğu Perinçek held in Switzerland in March 2007, in which she was listened as a wittness.
Interestingly, Tessa Hoffman is a scholar of genocide.
 
March 24, 2010
Votes: +1

mustafaka said:

0
...
III
5) Atatürk’s photograph: The large poster with ‘FACE OF DENIAL-DOES NOT LIE’ related to a conference given by Dr Vahram Shemmasian, Ardashes Kassakhian and Dr Levon Marashlian, at UCLA on April 14, 2005, organized by Armenian Genocide Commemoration Committee of Alpha Epsilon Omega, (http://www.genocideevents.com/...eles.html.
The photo depicts the founder of the Turkish Republic, Ataturk, sitting on a chair outside a house with the corpse of a young girl with her innards exposed to the elements. Soon, the original of this photo was found by the Turks: It was a photograph of Ataturk for his wife Latife Hanım as a souvenir, posing with some ‘cute dog puppies’ at his feet. Two photos were printed in the July 1, 2005 issue of Hurriyet (http://webarsiv.hurriyet.com.t...665930.asp), as ‘a forgery scandal’.
Then, what UCLA’s ethical committee did was to erase the handwritten note and doctor a photo of Armin Wengler in place of the puppies.
It is another outstanding point that no dissenting comments were ever heard. What UCLA’s ethical committee did was to erase the handwritten note and doctor a photo of Armin Wengler in place of the puppies.

6) Falcified allegations of speeches attributed to Atatürk: The first claim about Atatürk was that he was one of the witnesses, who supported Armenians in the “Court Martials” in İstanbul. In this claim, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was confused with the Chairman of the “Court Martials”, Mustafa Kemal, whose nickname was Nemrud. During the trials in İstanbul, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was in Ankara as a leader of the national struggle. James H. Tashjian, the Armenian editor of the Armenian periodic ‘The Armenian Review’ stated that Mustafa Kemal, then a Pasha, never appeared before such a tribunal, nor did he render such a statement (The Armenian Weekly Boston, Mass, USA, March 20, 1982 and The Armenian Review Volume thirty five, Autumn 1982); however James H. Tashjian was fired from his work later on.
 
March 24, 2010
Votes: +1

mustafaka said:

0
...
IV
The second claim was about the statement, which attributed to Atatürk, given to Los Angeles Examiner in 1926. However, it was proven that this claim, which was made by Armenians in various platforms, was false. There was no evidence that a Swiss journalist, who was called Emile Hilderband, came to Turkey. Moreover, it was not found a journalist named Hilderband in the documents of Swiss authorities.

The third claim about Atatürk was put forward in Yeni Binyıl newspaper on 8 October 2000. According to this claim in his speech in Turkish Grand National Assembly, on 24th of April 1920, Atatürk condemned the leaders of Jön Turks for their genocide policies. After the research of the speech records of Turkish Grand National Assembly in both open and secret sessions, it was proven that Mustafa Kemal did not make such speech.


One of the last claims about Atatürk was put forward by European Parliament, Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on Turkey on 22nd of November 2001. In the footnote of this report claimed that Mustafa Kemal gave a speech in Turkish Grand National Assembly on 10th of April 1921, in which he said Jön Turk regime followed genocide policy against Armenians in the First World War. After the research of the speech reports of Turkish Grand National Assembly, it was seen that Mustafa Kemal did not speak in Turkish Grand National Assembly in April 1920. He even did not attend any session of Assembly during April 1920.

 
March 24, 2010
Votes: +1

mustafaka said:

0
...
V
One of the last claims about Atatürk was put forward by European Parliament, Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on Turkey on 22nd of November 2001. In the footnote of this report claimed that Mustafa Kemal gave a speech in Turkish Grand National Assembly on 10th of April 1921, in which he said Jön Turk regime followed genocide policy against Armenians in the First World War. After the research of the speech reports of Turkish Grand National Assembly, it was seen that Mustafa Kemal did not speak in Turkish Grand National Assembly in April 1920. He even did not attend any session of Assembly during April 1920.

7) A quote attributed to Adolf Hitler in which he purportedly responded to a query about his planned annihilation of European Jewry, by quipping: ‘Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?’, on August 22, 1939, a few days prior to his invasion of Poland (Obersalzberg speeches).


Contrary to Richard Hovannisian and other Armenians, the Nuremberg transcripts through their preservation of U.S.-29 (798-PS), U.S.-30 (1014-PS), and the notes of Admiral Boehm (which are corroborated by the relevant passages from the diary of General Halder), in no way authenticate the infamous Hitler quote. On the contrary, by establishing the actual texts of Hitler’s Obersalzberg speeches they demonstrate that the statement is conspicuously absent from Hitler’s remarks. The assertion that Hitler made a reference to the Armenians in any context whatsoever is without foundation. (Heath W Lowry, The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians, Political Communication and Persuasion. Vol 3, No 2, 1985 Crane, Russak & Company Inc. http://www.tetedeturc.com/home/spip.php?article565
According to the Armenians the speech had been introduced as evidence to the Nuremberg Tribunal (L3 document, USA-28 document (www/cwporter/com/gl3.htm.) which was defined as ‘forgery’ (David Irving, ‘Nuremberg: The Last Battle’, 1996, p.100).
 
March 24, 2010
Votes: +0

mustafaka said:

0
...
VI
A certificate dated, 25 June 1948 signed by Paul A Joosten, General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal states that L3, USA-28 Photostat document submitted as evidence has been withdrawn, in accordance with Rule 10 of the Tribunal but held in the National Archives.
Mr Carlos Porter, who found these documents made the following important warning:
‘’Note: This translation attempts to retain the style and punctuation of the original, which is not correct in German: full space before colons and commas, no full space before following word. The document contains not one single sharp S (§ ) a standard letter in the German alphabet. C.Porter.

8) The most dramatic lie is about the outcome of the Armenians who were relocated. Because the majority of these Armenians returned to their homes.
Because, on December 18, 1918, a law which let the Armenians return to their homes and claim their properties was issued by the Ottoman State. Here are non-Ottoman evidences:

*In a report prepared by the Armenian Patriarchate in 1921, the Armenians who lived on the Ottoman territory in Anatolia, Middle East and those who returned to their previous locations were shown as 644 900. It was added that the Armenians who became Muslim, who were hidden and who did not encourage to return their homes were not included but they were assumed to be 20 000 (US ARCHIVES NARA, Mikrofilm No.T1192, Roll8; Department of State Papers….,860).

 
March 24, 2010
Votes: +0

mustafaka said:

0
...
VII
*In an article published in Der Neue Orient Magazine, it was reported that the number of Armenians in Ottoman Armenia was thought to be 470 000 (including those who lived in İzmir and İstanbul but excluding the Armenians who escaped to Caucasia). Additionally more than 30 000 Armenians lived in Adana and 40 000 in Aleppo (Der Neue Orient May 1919, p.178)

*The Armenian population in Cilicia (Çukurova) was reported as 218 000 in a document dated July 1920 (US ARCHIVES NARA, Mikrofilm No: T 1192R 2;860J.01/395. Appendix. From Acting High Commissioner Dulles to the Foreign Minister).

* In a memorandum presented by Bogos Nubar Pasha, chief of the Armenian delegation in Paris Conference which started in December 1918, it was announced that 150 000 Armenians were given financial support and taken to Cilicia from Syria, by the French government (US ARCHIVES NARA T1192. Roll 4.860J.01/431).
*In a report presented to American Congress by Near East Relief (NER) dated December 31, 1921, it was reported that nearly 300 000 Armenians returned to Cilicia and they were protected by France and England. …However the poor Armenians had to escape after the French abandoned the region (US ARCHIVES NARA T1192. Roll 4.860J.01/431 and US ARCHIVES NARA M353 Roll 55. Report of the NER to the Congress for the year ending).


And here are evidences about the Armenians who returned to their houses: These Armenians cooperated with the French and English armies and fought in these armies individually wearing their uniforms. Here are archive evidences:

*Boghos Nubar Pasha: ‘In 1919 and 1920, when the Kemalists attacked to the French soldiers, the Armenians made war for France in Maraş, Haçin, Pozantı and Sis. The French succeeded to take back Antep, by the help of the Armenians. Therefore, the Armenians are an ally of France’ (USARCHIVES NARA T1192. Roll 4.860J.01/431).

*A decision made by The American Committee for the Independence of Armenia which was presented to the Lausanne Conference on January 16, 1923: ‘As the minister Bellet declared, the Armenian legionelles (lejyonerler) joined to France after being promised that autonomy would be introduced to Cilicia and therefore they occupied Cilicia in 1918 (carrying the flag of France) . (US ARCHIVES NARA T1192. Roll 4. 860J.01/562).
 
March 24, 2010
Votes: +0

mustafaka said:

0
...
VIII
*A list of the Armenians who fought in the French Army and died had been displayed under the title of ‘The Armenians who died for France’. In the list, the cities where these soldiers were born were also stated and nearly all of them were Ottoman Armenians (http://www.geocities.com/Paris...0/ww2.html)

*’The Armenians informed the Allies that they would establish an army of 150 000 soldiers and attempt to establish an independent Armenia in the east (From Berlin November 6, 1917; vorzulegen z.G.K.:W.L.R.Nadolny. German Archives of the Foreign Ministry, Bd.48,R.14097, No.7169).

*’ Armenians massacred many Turks, in the district of Erzincan and surroundings where the Russian retreated’ (The telegram sent by Kühlmann, German ambassador of İstanbul to German Foreign Ministry. German Archives of the Foreign Ministry, Bd. 47, R.14096, No.7165, No.591)
1293

*The report of Pallavici, İstanbul ambassador of Austria-Hungary, sent to Ottokor Grafen Czernin on February 9, 1918: ‘’The Armenian guerrillas (bands) who fought nearby the Russian armies in Caucausia, misbehaved the Turkish people and Turks in Platana (district between Erzincan and Trabzon) were mass killed’ (German Archives of the Foreign Ministry, No: 13/P.B, Konstantinopel. Wien).

*English Marshal Allenby stated that when they beat the Turks in Şam, there were 8000 Armenian soldiers who were fighting together with them (The New Near East Vol 6, No:7: Genel No: 31, January 1920, p.28)
 
March 24, 2010
Votes: +0

mustafaka said:

0
...
IX
Now I want to ask the Armenian diaspora:
‘If all the scholars of the world, including the international scholars of genocide, support your thesis of genocide, then WHY HAVE YOU SPENT THIS EFFORT TO FALSIFY ALL THESE DOCUMENTS? WHY HAVE YOU NEEDED LIES? WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF DOCUMENTS SO MUCH? What is the reason of your strict resistance to present your thesisin historical commissions made up of historians from both sides and other countries?
What kind of a truth are you seeking? The one which exists or the one you want to imagine?

And I want to ask the world opinion:

Your sensitivity genocides, mass murders is appreciable. But while doing this, are you ready to be unbiased? Will you be able to discard all the prejudices the history has instilled you up till now? Will you be able to prefer scholar research rather than your prejudices?

Will you be able to acknowledge the great massacres inflicted on the Turks and Muslims by the Armenians before and after 1915 and condemn the Armenians who slaughtered the Turks and Muslims and buried them into large holes and even threw alive children into these holes in the Eastern Anatolia?(see diary of Russian Lieutenant Colonel Twerdo-Khlebof 'I wittnessed and I Lived Through Erzurum, 1917-1918'; www.tsk.mil.tr/ermeni_sorunu/arsiv_belgeleriyle...).
(Ahmet Refik Altınay. İki Komite ve İki Kıtal. İstanbul, 1919;p.71-72; 321-23).
So, I am afraid, it is actually you the world opinion who should face himself and review his identity and missions
 
March 24, 2010
Votes: +0

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org said:

0
THE JEWISH GENOCIDE OF ARMENIAN CHRISTIANS
An alternate look at history and interconnections to the staging of on-going and forthcoming holocausts of modernity:

www.jewishracism.com/JewishGenocide.htm

www.jewishracism.com/Jewish_Genocide_Enlarged.pdf

There are several hours of interviews with the author of the book on that website url - for those who don't like to read.

And the author examines the very question of ADL/Foxman's love/hate affair with the Armenians.

What I have found intriguing is the interconnectedness of the observation, my own by the way as well as anyone elses who isn't asleep or co-opted: the American military's decimation and genocide of the Iraqi Muslims - but who led them into it? Who are the neo-cons?

And the connection of that inquiry to the parallel question raised by the author: The Young Turks' military decimation of the Armenian Christians - but who led them into it? Who was behind the Young Turks? Who were the Young Turks?

And the connection of that inquiry to another parallel question that history has already recorded: The Bolsheviks' decimation and holocaust of the Russian Orthodox Christians at about the same time - but who led them into it? Who was behind the Bolsheviks? Who were these Bolsheviks?

What is the connection to Zionism? To its Balfour Declaration at also about the same time? Where was the Treaty of Versaille actually signed and who was present at the table across from, and on either side of Woodrow Wilson who was later awarded the Nobel Peace prize as the savior of Europe? Who, which people led America into World War I? Who, which people, clamored for America to enter World War II?

Continuing on with that inquiry, the next obvious question is who is the common enemy of Islam and Christianity, of Muslims and Christians, and who wages endless wars by way of deception openly and with full chutzpah? Who benefited the most by dimantling the Christian Austro-Hungarian, Christian-Orthodox Russian, and Muslim Ottoman Empires in the 20th century - all within the short span of two decades?

A fascinating and revealing study of patsies and useful idiots, ubermenschen and the untermensch! Christopher Jon Bjerknes, the author, has my humble thanks for getting me keenly interested as a researcher in exploring this question of the Armenian holocaust. It is not merely a question of historical import and the recognition of a peoples' plight and paying restitution for crimes past, but, most urgently, of preventing new holocausts that are waiting in the wings in the path to world government, in the path to the new world order through revolutionary times - for, "what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times" stated David Ben Gurion as he proceeded to acquire Zionistan and as his legatees have continued on in the path to create Eretz Yisrael in the same modus operandi.

Unable to prevent the on-going holocaust in Palestine due to public apathy and world's states connivances, the insightful recognition that the same powers might wield the slight of hand in all these historical cases as well, forces alternative looks at history and at the political science which creates that history, to also create a categorical imperative for both the public and their governments that they might be next. It suddenly makes it a grave mortal responsibility of us all when our own existential ass is next in line!

Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
 
March 24, 2010
Votes: -1

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top