Gwynne Dyer

[Z'areh]

A self described disciple of Bernard Lewis, Gwynne Dyer does not hide his opposition of the factuality of the Armenian Genocide. He has, in the past, out rightly denied that genocide took place, and continues to do so today, but in a kinder and gentler manner.

 

In his latest book, "With Every Mistake", (2005,Random House, Canada) he devotes pages 16-19, to explain what happened to Armenians. And the best he comes up with is...."the Young Turk leadership, who were in their mid-twenties, panicked" yes, panicked, says this illustrious author. Why? because he says, the Armenians were rebelling in Anatolia and were conspiring with the British in the south (as in Egypt) to inflict damage to the Ottoman armies. Although adding that the Anatolian rebellions were essentially very ineffective (his words!) the leadership was forced to think that the deportations were the best actions under these circumstances, although (he adds) that they must have known the catastrophic outcome of such a decision. The author seems unwilling to explain that if in fact the rebellions were ineffective why then the Turkish leadership (you know those young and inexperienced Ittihadists) had reasons to panic.

 

Gwynne Dyer feels it necessary however to mention that those rebellions by the Armenians in Anatolia and conspiratorial agreements by the Armenian militants with the British are well documented in respective archives of Russia and Britain, without giving any reference what-so-ever, I guess we have to take his word for it.

 

And now, he admits, that the Armenian campaign for the recognition of the genocide is unstoppable, Turks would do better if they came to the realization that this issue cannot be wished away, but for the sake of historic truth they should admit that what they did to the Armenians was wrong. ( Hmmmm, a reformed thinker what would say?)

 

He finishes by saying that to classify these massacres as genocide is not right, and adds that when Shimon Peres rightly described the Armenian massacres as a tragedy but not genocide he simply was underlying that a systematically planned and executed genocide is not what we should call in describing these killings.

 

So there you have it, what happened to the Armenians was a result of “panic”. That much the Turks should admit, we are being told.

 

 

"With every mistake" that a Turkish apologist makes, one would think a lesson would be learned. But no, a new spin is found to defend the indefensible.

[gamavor]

A self described disciple of Bernard Lewis, Gwynne Dyer does not hide his opposition of the factuality of the Armenian Genocide. He has, in the past, out rightly denied that genocide took place, and continues to do so today, but in a kinder and gentler manner.

 

In his latest book, "With Every Mistake", (2005,Random House, Canada) he devotes pages 16-19, to explain what happened to Armenians. And the best he comes up with is...."the Young Turk leadership, who were in their mid-twenties, panicked" yes, panicked, says this illustrious author. Why? because he says, the Armenians were rebelling in Anatolia and were conspiring with the British in the south (as in Egypt) to inflict damage to the Ottoman armies. Although adding that the Anatolian rebellions were essentially very ineffective (his words!) the leadership was forced to think that the deportations were the best actions under these circumstances, although (he adds) that they must have known the catastrophic outcome of such a decision. The author seems unwilling to explain that if in fact the rebellions were ineffective why then the Turkish leadership (you know those young and inexperienced Ittihadists) had reasons to panic.

 

Gwynne Dyer feels it necessary however to mention that those rebellions by the Armenians in Anatolia and conspiratorial agreements by the Armenian militants with the British are well documented in respective archives of Russia and Britain, without giving any reference what-so-ever, I guess we have to take his word for it.

 

And now, he admits, that the Armenian campaign for the recognition of the genocide is unstoppable, Turks would do better if they came to the realization that this issue cannot be wished away, but for the sake of historic truth they should admit that what they did to the Armenians was wrong. ( Hmmmm, a reformed thinker what would say?)

 

He finishes by saying that to classify these massacres as genocide is not right, and adds that when Shimon Peres rightly described the Armenian massacres as a tragedy but not genocide he simply was underlying that a systematically planned and executed genocide is not what we should call in describing these killings.

 

So there you have it, what happened to the Armenians was a result of “panic”. That much the Turks should admit, we are being told.

"With every mistake" that a Turkish apologist makes, one would think a lesson would be learned. But no, a new spin is found to defend the indefensible.

 

Yeah, for that reason every time an islamists 'panic' and kill Anglo-American-Jews-Europeans I think I have enough reasons to open a new bottle of champagne!

 

Cheers!

 

PS: Anyone from London or New York wants to join in the feast!

[DominO123]

I have copies of his early works, like the one covering Turkish revolution in 1973. I'd qualify Dyer as an expensive version of Michael M. Gunter, the same logic, and a tendency to give 50-50 credence to any subjects which seems to be controversial, and a clear unability of complex reasoning on such matters. It is a matter of fact, that both Gunter and him accuses both Turks and Armenians of falsifications, and throwing accusations without even sourcing such accusations. I also believe that Lewis is overevaluated, and was short of ever really bringing groundbraking researches that could be attributed to him, of course many will disagree with me there. I'd qualify them to be in a category that will generally wrongly be considered as exceptional researchers, when their methodology is only slightly more academic than journalistic at best. I have yet to write a critic of Gunters book Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, which, had it been writen about a more "popular" subject will have costed him embarassement.

 

Thanks for bringing up the book, it was on my must read list of the books of this year.

 

A self described disciple of Bernard Lewis, Gwynne Dyer does not hide his opposition of the factuality of the Armenian Genocide. He has, in the past, out rightly denied that genocide took place, and continues to do so today, but in a kinder and gentler manner.

 

In his latest book, "With Every Mistake", (2005,Random House, Canada) he devotes pages 16-19, to explain what happened to Armenians. And the best he comes up with is...."the Young Turk leadership, who were in their mid-twenties, panicked" yes, panicked, says this illustrious author. Why? because he says, the Armenians were rebelling in Anatolia and were conspiring with the British in the south (as in Egypt) to inflict damage to the Ottoman armies. Although adding that the Anatolian rebellions were essentially very ineffective (his words!) the leadership was forced to think that the deportations were the best actions under these circumstances, although (he adds) that they must have known the catastrophic outcome of such a decision. The author seems unwilling to explain that if in fact the rebellions were ineffective why then the Turkish leadership (you know those young and inexperienced Ittihadists) had reasons to panic.

 

Gwynne Dyer feels it necessary however to mention that those rebellions by the Armenians in Anatolia and conspiratorial agreements by the Armenian militants with the British are well documented in respective archives of Russia and Britain, without giving any reference what-so-ever, I guess we have to take his word for it.

 

And now, he admits, that the Armenian campaign for the recognition of the genocide is unstoppable, Turks would do better if they came to the realization that this issue cannot be wished away, but for the sake of historic truth they should admit that what they did to the Armenians was wrong. ( Hmmmm, a reformed thinker what would say?)

 

He finishes by saying that to classify these massacres as genocide is not right, and adds that when Shimon Peres rightly described the Armenian massacres as a tragedy but not genocide he simply was underlying that a systematically planned and executed genocide is not what we should call in describing these killings.

 

So there you have it, what happened to the Armenians was a result of “panic”. That much the Turks should admit, we are being told.

"With every mistake" that a Turkish apologist makes, one would think a lesson would be learned. But no, a new spin is found to defend the indefensible.

Edited November 16, 2005 by QueBeceR

[DominO123]

A QUESTION OF GENOCIDE IN TURKEY

By Gwynne Dyer

 

Embassy Magazine, Canada

Dec 21 2005

 

"Thirty thousand Kurds and one million Armenians were killed in these

lands, and nobody but me dares to talk about it," said Turkey's most

celebrated novelist, Orhan Pamuk, during an interview with a Swiss

newspaper last February. He was charged with "public denigration of

Turkish identity" by an Istanbul public prosecutor, and his trial

opened on Dec. 16. He could face up to three years in jail.

 

The prosecutor's game is fairly obvious. The Turkish judiciary is

not short of conservative nationalists who detest the wave of liberal

reforms carried out by Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan's government

in order to qualify for membership in the European Union.

 

It was they who smuggled in the new law under which Pamuk has been

charged at the very time when the Turkish legal code was being purged

of many other elements (like the death penalty) that were incompatible

with EU legal norms.

 

Their purpose in going after Orhan Pamuk was not simply to stifle

the debate over the Armenian massacres of 1915-16 that is finally

opening up in Turkey. They chose such a high-profile target because

they wanted to stimulate an anti-Turkish backlash in the EU, reasoning

that if enough foreigners criticize Turkey, a nationalist backlash

will shut down the whole debate about the Armenians in Turkey, and

maybe even derail the entire project for EU membership.

 

The European Parliament has already obliged by passing a resolution

demanding that Turkey acknowledge the Armenian "genocide" before it

can join the EU. The parliament does not actually have a veto on new

EU members, but its reaction helps to whip up anti-EU resentment in

Turkey. And a public trial of Orhan Pamuk, even if it fails to convict,

should create lots of further opportunities for Western-Turkish

misunderstanding.

 

The debate about the Armenian massacres will not be shut down, however,

not even in Turkey. The new generation of Turks have a long distance

to travel and the journey will be an emotionally wrenching one, but

before the end the Armenians are going to have to cover some distance,

too. Because what happened to the Armenians probably does not qualify,

in the strict definition of the word, as a genocide.

 

As the respected American historian Guenter Lewy writes in this month's

Commentary, "The historical question at issue is premeditation -- that

is, whether the Turkish regime intentionally organized the annihilation

of its Armenian minority. According to the Genocide Convention of

1948, such an intent to destroy a group is a necessary condition of

genocide.... Hence the crucial problem to be addressed is not the huge

loss of life in and of itself but rather whether the Turkish government

deliberately sought the deaths that we know to have occurred."

 

At least 600,000 people, and perhaps as many as a million, died in the

mass deportation of Armenians from their eastern Anatolian homeland

south to the Ottoman province of Syria in 1915-16. Many were robbed and

murdered by the Kurdish irregular soldiers who escorted the columns

of deportees in their terrible journey; many more died of hunger or

exposure. And they never went home again: Anatolia today has almost

no Armenian population.

 

Armenians have never forgiven what happened, while the Turkish

republic that emerged from the Ottoman empire in the 1920s has never

acknowledged it. Now the Turks are beginning to struggle with this

terrible heritage, and not only to advance their EU candidacy. As

Orhan Pamuk said in October: "We are confronted with an immense human

tragedy and immense human suffering we did not learn about at school.

 

So it is a sensitive subject...[but] it is obvious, even in Turkey,

that there was an immense hidden pain which we now have to face."

 

However, Pamuk never uses the word "genocide" -- nor, significantly,

does the state of Israel, the informal custodian of the word, when

called upon to comment on the Armenian issue.

 

What happened to the Armenians was dreadful, but as Guenther Lewy

documents in his new book The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey:

A Disputed Genocide, which will become the standard work on the

subject, both premeditation and an intention to annihilate, two

preconditions for genocide, were either absent or at least open to

considerable dispute.

 

The mass deportations were ordered during a big Russian army

attack into eastern Anatolia in 1915 that was supported by Armenian

uprisings behind the Turkish lines. Huge numbers of Armenians died

in these forced marches, which crossed high mountains in winter,

and the government in Istanbul did little to curb the murder of many

deportees by their guards and hostile villagers in the areas they

passed through. But Armenians living in areas served by the railway

could buy tickets and travel safely, there were no further attacks

on Armenians who reached Syria -- and Armenians living in Istanbul

and other Turkish cities far from the war zone were left undisturbed.

 

Does one word matter all that much? Armenians think so, feeling

that their tragedy is being played down unfairly if they are denied

the word "genocide." Turks think so too, believing that there is no

legitimate comparison between the crimes committed by their ancestors

during the First World War and the cold-blooded atrocity of Hitler's

Holocaust. But after three generations of what one observer called

"fossilized venom" on both sides, the argument is at last coming out

into the open.

[phantom22]

A QUESTION OF GENOCIDE IN TURKEY

By Gwynne Dyer

 

Embassy Magazine, Canada

Dec 21 2005

 

"Thirty thousand Kurds and one million Armenians were killed in these

lands, and nobody but me dares to talk about it," said Turkey's most

celebrated novelist, Orhan Pamuk, during an interview with a Swiss

newspaper last February. He was charged with "public denigration of

Turkish identity" by an Istanbul public prosecutor, and his trial

opened on Dec. 16. He could face up to three years in jail.

 

The prosecutor's game is fairly obvious. The Turkish judiciary is

not short of conservative nationalists who detest the wave of liberal

reforms carried out by Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan's government

in order to qualify for membership in the European Union.

 

It was they who smuggled in the new law under which Pamuk has been

charged at the very time when the Turkish legal code was being purged

of many other elements (like the death penalty) that were incompatible

with EU legal norms.

 

Their purpose in going after Orhan Pamuk was not simply to stifle

the debate over the Armenian massacres of 1915-16 that is finally

opening up in Turkey. They chose such a high-profile target because

they wanted to stimulate an anti-Turkish backlash in the EU, reasoning

that if enough foreigners criticize Turkey, a nationalist backlash

will shut down the whole debate about the Armenians in Turkey, and

maybe even derail the entire project for EU membership.

 

The European Parliament has already obliged by passing a resolution

demanding that Turkey acknowledge the Armenian "genocide" before it

can join the EU. The parliament does not actually have a veto on new

EU members, but its reaction helps to whip up anti-EU resentment in

Turkey. And a public trial of Orhan Pamuk, even if it fails to convict,

should create lots of further opportunities for Western-Turkish

misunderstanding.

 

The debate about the Armenian massacres will not be shut down, however,

not even in Turkey. The new generation of Turks have a long distance

to travel and the journey will be an emotionally wrenching one, but

before the end the Armenians are going to have to cover some distance,

too. Because what happened to the Armenians probably does not qualify,

in the strict definition of the word, as a genocide.

 

As the respected American historian Guenter Lewy writes in this month's

Commentary, "The historical question at issue is premeditation -- that

is, whether the Turkish regime intentionally organized the annihilation

of its Armenian minority. According to the Genocide Convention of

1948, such an intent to destroy a group is a necessary condition of

genocide.... Hence the crucial problem to be addressed is not the huge

loss of life in and of itself but rather whether the Turkish government

deliberately sought the deaths that we know to have occurred."

 

At least 600,000 people, and perhaps as many as a million, died in the

mass deportation of Armenians from their eastern Anatolian homeland

south to the Ottoman province of Syria in 1915-16. Many were robbed and

murdered by the Kurdish irregular soldiers who escorted the columns

of deportees in their terrible journey; many more died of hunger or

exposure. And they never went home again: Anatolia today has almost

no Armenian population.

 

Armenians have never forgiven what happened, while the Turkish

republic that emerged from the Ottoman empire in the 1920s has never

acknowledged it. Now the Turks are beginning to struggle with this

terrible heritage, and not only to advance their EU candidacy. As

Orhan Pamuk said in October: "We are confronted with an immense human

tragedy and immense human suffering we did not learn about at school.

 

So it is a sensitive subject...[but] it is obvious, even in Turkey,

that there was an immense hidden pain which we now have to face."

 

However, Pamuk never uses the word "genocide" -- nor, significantly,

does the state of Israel, the informal custodian of the word, when

called upon to comment on the Armenian issue.

 

What happened to the Armenians was dreadful, but as Guenther Lewy

documents in his new book The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey:

A Disputed Genocide, which will become the standard work on the

subject, both premeditation and an intention to annihilate, two

preconditions for genocide, were either absent or at least open to

considerable dispute.

 

The mass deportations were ordered during a big Russian army

attack into eastern Anatolia in 1915 that was supported by Armenian

uprisings behind the Turkish lines. Huge numbers of Armenians died

in these forced marches, which crossed high mountains in winter,

and the government in Istanbul did little to curb the murder of many

deportees by their guards and hostile villagers in the areas they

passed through. But Armenians living in areas served by the railway

could buy tickets and travel safely, there were no further attacks

on Armenians who reached Syria -- and Armenians living in Istanbul

and other Turkish cities far from the war zone were left undisturbed.

 

Does one word matter all that much? Armenians think so, feeling

that their tragedy is being played down unfairly if they are denied

the word "genocide." Turks think so too, believing that there is no

legitimate comparison between the crimes committed by their ancestors

during the First World War and the cold-blooded atrocity of Hitler's

Holocaust. But after three generations of what one observer called

"fossilized venom" on both sides, the argument is at last coming out

into the open.

 

What is REALLY going on is that the Turkish diplomats realize that the issue is not going to go away, so they want to try to find a way to neutralize it. As displayed in my posts in another thread, they want to cut any potential loss of prestge or economic impact. They hope that restoring a few churches, building some kind of Armenian heritage museum in Turkey and acknowledging that a large number of Armenians died due to Ottoman policies will satisfy Europe's concerns. We have given Western apologists such as Dyer a tool to use against us by focusing solely upon the 1915 circumstances, withut emphasizing the atrocities that occurred well-before and well-after these events. The 1955 riots in Istambul and present day policies in Turkey are all part of the big picture of abuse of Armenians and other groups the Turkish state.

[yalpa]

What is REALLY going on is that the Turkish diplomats realize that the issue is not going to go away, so they want to try to find a way to neutralize it. As displayed in my posts in another thread, they want to cut any potential loss of prestge or economic impact. They hope that restoring a few churches, building some kind of Armenian heritage museum in Turkey and acknowledging that a large number of Armenians died due to Ottoman policies will satisfy Europe's concerns. We have given Western apologists such as Dyer a tool to use against us by focusing solely upon the 1915 circumstances, withut emphasizing the atrocities that occurred well-before and well-after these events. The 1955 riots in Istambul and present day policies in Turkey are all part of the big picture of abuse of Armenians and other groups the Turkish state.

 

Shouldn't the 1955 riots be described as the riots aimed at the Greek minority and other groups rather than the way you presented it, since attacking the Greek minority was the main idea? I do agree that Armenians were also harmed in these riots and judging from the existing mentality at the time that it could have easily been Armenians who were targeted, still, shouldn't you state that the riots were anti-Greek at least for the sake of stating the historical facts as objectively as possible?

[phantom22]

Shouldn't the 1955 riots be described as the riots aimed at the Greek minority and other groups rather than the way you presented it, since attacking the Greek minority was the main idea? I do agree that Armenians were also harmed in these riots and judging from the existing mentality at the time that it could have easily been Armenians who were targeted, still, shouldn't you state that the riots were anti-Greek at least for the sake of stating the historical facts as objectively as possible?

 

From my understanding the Armenians were targeted as well. They were caught up in the melee that began against the Greeks.

[gamavor]

Lie N1

 

 

The mass deportations were ordered during a big Russian army

attack into eastern Anatolia in 1915 that was supported by Armenian

uprisings behind the Turkish lines.

 

 

No Ottoman Armenians took direct or indirect participation in the military actions of the Russian army against the Turks. The Armenians in the ranks of the Russian Army were Armenians from Caucasus and Erivan gubernia. The fact that Turks used this as a pretext is different story.

 

Lie N2

 

 

Huge numbers of Armenians died

in these forced marches, which crossed high mountains in winter,

and the government in Istanbul did little to curb the murder of many

deportees by their guards and hostile villagers in the areas they

passed through.

 

 

 

The bulk of Armenian deportees died in these death marches in the Syrian desert. What winter???

However, a large number of Armenian refugees were masacared not by fanatic turkish villagers (that too), but by special militarized groups (known in the past as bashibozuk) formed specially during war times, and speciall units of bands of Cherkez and Kurds under Turkish government control. The sole purpose of these groups attrocities was extermination of the remaining Armenians and plunder of their property.

 

Lie N3

 

Armenians living in Istanbul

and other Turkish cities far from the war zone were left undisturbed.

 

 

The attrocities commited against the Armenians which we call a GENOCIDE started with execution of hundreds of Armenian intelectuals and political party leaders in Constantinople (Istanbul).

 

 

 

Lie N4

 

But Armenians living in areas served by the railway

could buy tickets and travel safely, there were no further attacks

on Armenians who reached Syria -- and Armenians living in Istanbul

and other Turkish cities far from the war zone were left undisturbed.

 

 

Some of my ancestors made it to one of the turkish Black sea ports through bribing the turkish valia (mer) of Konia who issued them fake teskere(s) (passports) so that they can hide their identity. Those employed in the building of railways were not really employed but disfranchised Turkish soldiers of Armenian ethnicity who were separated and send to work at the railways sponsored by the Germans. It was prototype of a labor camp. Upon finishing their work, they were executed in mass.

 

 

PS:As to "fossilized venom" I agree and hope that one day the fossilized venom will by transformed into nice Armenian nuclear bouquet!

Edited December 23, 2005 by gamavor

[Takoush]

Gam jan: You made excellent points. Abris.

 

The marches started sometime in June around Kharpert and vacinity. You're right there. They were practically burned by the hot sun walking by foot without hats, no water or food and not used to the climate. As they have walked probably started in June, July, August, September. Plus when they arrived south. The bashebozukles did something else to the survivors who had the audesity to survive according to those murderers. They have thrown the surviving Armenians in The cave of Shadaddie, Syrian desert then threw huge stones and boulders on them in the cave and then set them on fire. These are also the facts. You see, Shadaddie was the last resort of their killings to us.

 

 

quote

As to "fossilized venom" I agree and hope that one day the fossilized venom will be transformed into nice Armenian nuclear bouquet!

unquote

 

Agreed!!!

Edited December 23, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[Takoush]

Yeah, for that reason every time an islamists 'panic' and kill Anglo-American-Jews-Europeans I think I have enough reasons to open a new bottle of champagne!

 

Cheers!

 

PS: Anyone from London or New York wants to join in the feast!

 

 

I'll drink to that also.

Edited December 23, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[Takoush]

Lie N3

The attrocities commited against the Armenians which we call a GENOCIDE started with execution of hundreds of Armenian intelectuals and political party leaders in Constantinople (Istanbul).

And this I suppose doesn't qualify as a systematic and an intentional race cleansing deed Mr. Gwynne Dyer?

 

Here's more Mr. Gwynne Dyer:

 

"On 24 April 1915 the Turkish authorities arrested Constantinople's six hundred leading Armenians. They rounded up another five thousand from the city's Armenian quarters. Few of these people were ever seen again." See Philip Marsden's "The Crossing Place" published by Harper Collins, 1993.

 

It is cited in Soghomon Tehlirian's trial's testimonial that a Syrian Khalif or head of state has received a telegraph from Talaat ***** himself asking and questioning the exact numbers of Armenians that were killed to that date, and Talaat urging the Khalif to keep on informing him the numbers that are continuing to be killed. There were two khalifs prior to him that has resigned because they did not wish to carry out Talaat's orders of killing Armenians.

 

As American Ambassador, Henry Morgenthau states in his letter of July 16, 1915 to Secretary of State, Washington, and incerpt reads, "Protests as well as threats are unavailaing and probably incite the Ottoman government to more drastic measures as they are determined to disclaim responsibility for their absolute disregard of capitulations and I believe nothing short of actual force which obviously the United States are not in a position to exert would adequately meet the situation. Suggest you inform belligerent nations and mission boards of this. Heading under Report that Ottoman Turkey is seeking to exterminate the Armenian nation, July 16, 1915.

 

In a Telegram sent to the Dept. of State, Washington May 29, 1915 from the American Embassy, of Constantinope, telegram sent by Mr. William Jennings reads; French Foreign Office requests following notice be given turkish Government. Quote. May 24th. For about a month the Kurd and Turkish population of Armenia has been massacring Armenians with the connivance and often assistance of Ottoman authorities. Such massacres took place in middle April at Erzerum, Dertchun, Eguine,Akn, Bitlis, Moush, Sassoun, Zeitoun, and through Cilicia. Inhabitants of about one hundred villages near Van were all murdered. In that city Armenian quarter is besieged by Kurds. At the same time in Constantinople government ill treats inoffensive Armenian population. In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization the Allied governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible these crimes all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres.Unquote

 

 

If all these said facts and telegraphs and some of them actually written and even handwritten and signed by Talaat himself are not valid facts, the intent, the systematic and the premeditated acts of the Ittahidist government to commit "Genocide" against the Armenians from 1915 through 1923 than what is?

 

Mr. Gwynne Dyer, if you would like more affirmations about the legitimacy of the Armenian Genocide, don't worry, I have a great deal of those evidences and more of it right in my possessions. All you have to do is ask for them. /Anahid

Edited December 23, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[DominO123]

No one pointed out the most interesting statment(in my opinion), which was that Lewys book allegedly will be the standard in the subject.

 

Which book of Lewy has even claimed that there was any other genocide than the Holocaust?

 

The guy in the 80s, in his works denied the crimes perpetrated by American soldiers against Vietnamese..., he then wrote his most known book about the Gypses, in which he claims that in his opinion, what the Gypises faced during World War II, can not be qualified as genocide. He also published articles, including in some Jewish magazine I forgot, in which he questions the qualification of the term genocide to refer to the destruction of the American Indians. And now, he publish a book questioning the qualification of genocide, to refer to the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians.

 

Probable future book.

 

Rwanda: Not yet a genocide.

Cambodia: Vickerys cases against propagandists.

 

Vickery BTW, is an author who minimise the Cambodian genocide by using bogus statistics.

[phantom22]

Get a copy of Dyer's Curriculum Vitae. It will show under whose tutelage his perceptions were cultivated.

 

 

And this I suppose doesn't qualify as a systematic and an intentional race cleansing deed Mr. Gwynne Dyer?

 

Here's more Mr. Gwynne Dyer:

 

"On 24 April 1915 the Turkish authorities arrested Constantinople's six hundred leading Armenians. They rounded up another five thousand from the city's Armenian quarters. Few of these people were ever seen again." See Philip Marsden's "The Crossing Place" published by Harper Collins, 1993.

 

It is cited in Soghomon Tehlirian's trial's testimonial that a Syrian Khalif or head of state has received a telegraph from Talaat ***** himself asking and questioning the exact numbers of Armenians that were killed to that date, and Talaat urging the Khalif to keep on informing him the numbers that are continuing to be killed. There were two khalifs prior to him that has resigned because they did not wish to carry out Talaat's orders of killing Armenians.

 

As American Ambassador, Henry Morgenthau states in his letter of July 16, 1915 to Secretary of State, Washington, and incerpt reads, "Protests as well as threats are unavailaing and probably incite the Ottoman government to more drastic measures as they are determined to disclaim responsibility for their absolute disregard of capitulations and I believe nothing short of actual force which obviously the United States are not in a position to exert would adequately meet the situation. Suggest you inform belligerent nations and mission boards of this. Heading under Report that Ottoman Turkey is seeking to exterminate the Armenian nation, July 16, 1915.

 

In a Telegram sent to the Dept. of State, Washington May 29, 1915 from the American Embassy, of Constantinope, telegram sent by Mr. William Jennings reads; French Foreign Office requests following notice be given turkish Government. Quote. May 24th. For about a month the Kurd and Turkish population of Armenia has been massacring Armenians with the connivance and often assistance of Ottoman authorities. Such massacres took place in middle April at Erzerum, Dertchun, Eguine,Akn, Bitlis, Moush, Sassoun, Zeitoun, and through Cilicia. Inhabitants of about one hundred villages near Van were all murdered. In that city Armenian quarter is besieged by Kurds. At the same time in Constantinople government ill treats inoffensive Armenian population. In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization the Allied governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible these crimes all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres.Unquote

If all these said facts and telegraphs and some of them actually written and even handwritten and signed by Talaat himself are not valid facts, the intent, the systematic and the premeditated acts of the Ittahidist government to commit "Genocide" against the Armenians from 1915 through 1923 than what is?

 

Mr. Gwynne Dyer, if you would like more affirmations about the legitimacy of the Armenian Genocide, don't worry, I have a great deal of those evidences and more of it right in my possessions. All you have to do is ask for them. /Anahid

[Takoush]

Is this guy Lewis of Jewish faith or origin by the way?

 

Yes, it is mentioned here that Lewis' book will be the standard in the subject. And I cannot believe or understand his view that what happened to the American Indians was not considered a Genocide. Many, including my English professor talked at length about it that it was.

Edited December 23, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[DominO123]

Is this guy Lewis of Jewish faith or origin by the way?

 

Yes, it is mentioned here that Lewis' book will be the standard in the subject. And I cannot believe or understand his view that what happened to the American Indians was not considered a Genocide. Many, including my English professor talked at length about it that it was.

 

Lewis and Lewy are not the same person, and whatever or not he is Jewish makes no difference at all, the guy(Lewy) is not credible in my book.

 

I think what American indians faced, according to Lewy bogus definition of what a genocide is, more of a genocide than the Holocaust, while the man claims it does not qualify as such. Jews have Israel, Armenians have Armenia, what do American Indians have? The entire continent was purged and many new nations have emerged on this destruction. Lewy is just a genocide apologist still believing the myth of Mystical nature of the Holocaust and the worst thing ever having happened in the history of humanity, and also the only genocide, when "civilization" ironically has been build on genocides.

 

Guenter, Dyer, are all journalists believing that being balanced means and being controversial, claiming to not take the side of anyone, being impartial. But being impartial doesn't mean being accurate.

[mamigon]

Do you have Dyer's book? Does he actually say that the Young Turk leadership, who were in their mid-twenties, panicked"? Talaat was born in 1874; Djemal in 1872; Enver in 1881. We know history isn't Dyer's strength. Apparently math isn't either.

 

Please confirm the exact quote if you can.

 

Thanks.

 

A self described disciple of Bernard Lewis, Gwynne Dyer does not hide his opposition of the factuality of the Armenian Genocide. He has, in the past, out rightly denied that genocide took place, and continues to do so today, but in a kinder and gentler manner.

 

In his latest book, "With Every Mistake", (2005,Random House, Canada) he devotes pages 16-19, to explain what happened to Armenians. And the best he comes up with is...."the Young Turk leadership, who were in their mid-twenties, panicked" yes, panicked, says this illustrious author. Why? because he says, the Armenians were rebelling in Anatolia and were conspiring with the British in the south (as in Egypt) to inflict damage to the Ottoman armies. Although adding that the Anatolian rebellions were essentially very ineffective (his words!) the leadership was forced to think that the deportations were the best actions under these circumstances, although (he adds) that they must have known the catastrophic outcome of such a decision. The author seems unwilling to explain that if in fact the rebellions were ineffective why then the Turkish leadership (you know those young and inexperienced Ittihadists) had reasons to panic.

 

Gwynne Dyer feels it necessary however to mention that those rebellions by the Armenians in Anatolia and conspiratorial agreements by the Armenian militants with the British are well documented in respective archives of Russia and Britain, without giving any reference what-so-ever, I guess we have to take his word for it.

 

And now, he admits, that the Armenian campaign for the recognition of the genocide is unstoppable, Turks would do better if they came to the realization that this issue cannot be wished away, but for the sake of historic truth they should admit that what they did to the Armenians was wrong. ( Hmmmm, a reformed thinker what would say?)

 

He finishes by saying that to classify these massacres as genocide is not right, and adds that when Shimon Peres rightly described the Armenian massacres as a tragedy but not genocide he simply was underlying that a systematically planned and executed genocide is not what we should call in describing these killings.

 

So there you have it, what happened to the Armenians was a result of “panic”. That much the Turks should admit, we are being told.

"With every mistake" that a Turkish apologist makes, one would think a lesson would be learned. But no, a new spin is found to defend the indefensible.

[DominO123]

Do you have Dyer's book? Does he actually say that the Young Turk leadership, who were in their mid-twenties, panicked"? Talaat was born in 1874; Djemal in 1872; Enver in 1881. We know history isn't Dyer's strength. Apparently math isn't either.

 

Please confirm the exact quote if you can.

 

Thanks.

 

It's just that he didn't checked his notes, he mixed 1915, with the 1908 revolution. The guy had published papers about the Young-Turk revolution published in the 70s.