Armenian Books

You might think some people predicted the present-day campaign of denial 85 years ago. In any case, James Barton, head of the American missionary outfit, got all his missionaries who were in Turkey during the Armenian massacres and deportations to file signed and sworn statements. The statements are valuable, because they come from parts of Turkey where there were few other foreign eye-witnesses. One of the statements was book-length, and that was published seperately as "Days of Tragedy in Armenia," by Henry Riggs.

Some of the statements were boring to me, because I didn't recognize the place names. But the book is like a collection of short stories, so I just skipped to the next author. It might make a neat classroom project to have each student read one of the 21 reports and make a presentation, marking up a map. Just a thought....

I just finished "Unsilencing the Past" and I have to say the book was both interesting and a quick read. The book delivered insight and never before released information regarding the secretive dialogue held between Armenians and Turks during 2001-2004, otherwise known as the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC). Author David Phillips was the moderator of the Commission.

The book explains how TARC was created and the difficult task of bringing Armenians and Turks together. Armenians have been skeptical of dealing with Turks since the Genocide of 1915-1923, when 1.5 million Armenians were murdered during the end of the Ottoman Empire. There was a systematical attempt by the Ottoman Turkish government to wipe out the Armenian race. Armenians faced deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation in what was the first Genocide of the 20th century. As Phillips explains, "Rafael Lempkin, an author of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, described genocide as `what happened to the Armenians.' " According to Phillips, "Turks refuse to acknowledge the Genocide because acknowledgement contradicts their noble self-image. It is humiliating to be judged in the court of international public opinion for events that occurred before the Republic of Turkey was even born." Turkey has no diplomatic relations with Armenia and has imposed a blockade on their western neighbor.

Many in the Armenian Diaspora criticized TARC as an attempt to derail Genocide legislative progress. In October 2000, the House International Relations Committee overwhelmingly passed the Armenian Genocide resolution. After receiving pressure from Turkey, President Clinton phoned House Speaker Dennis Hastert to table the bill, citing national security concerns. TARC, the Armenian Diaspora argued, was created in 2001 to hinder legislative progress in the U.S. Congress and world bodies.

Turkish Commissioner Ozdem Sanberk proved the Armenian Diaspora correct by explaining, "The basic goal of our commission is to impede the initiatives put forth in the U.S. Congress and parliaments of Western countries on the genocide issue, which aim to weaken Turkey."

One of the memorable exchanges Phillips documents was when Turkish Commissioner Gunduz Aktan told Armenian Commissioner and former Foreign Minister Alex Arzoumanian, "Do you know how we feel when you try to embarrass us by introducing resolutions in parliaments around the world? Our feelings are hurt." "Your feelings are hurt. How do you think we feel?" responded Arzoumanian. "We were the ones who were genocided." This is the same Aktan whose comments before the House International Relations Committee were so menacing that Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) publicly criticized him for making "threats" against the United States and Congress.

Phillips concludes that TARC was a success, but I disagree. TARC failed because Turkey did not recognize the Armenian Genocide; TARC folded in 2004 with no palpable results. TARC asked the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) to conduct a study on the Armenian Genocide and their report concluded that Genocide took place. The ICTJ adds its name to a list that includes the Republics of Greece, France, Argentina, Canada, Italy, Switzerland, Uruguay, Lebanon, and Russia, along with the Vatican, European Parliament, and Council of Europe, as properly commemorating the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, hundreds of city councils, states, governors, mayors, community leaders, world bodies, and academics have recognized the Armenian Genocide. The evidence is clear. Ninety years after the fact, I hope Turkey understands that true reconciliation can only take place when Turkey comes to grip with its history and justice is seen for the 1.5 million victims.

I may be biased since the title character is my grandfather's sister but I found the story fascinating, well-written and thoroughly researched. It answered some questions about the stories handed down through the generations.

Peter-Arnold Mumm,Universitaet Muenchen, in the Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 9, 1999:169 says "The edition is carefully carried out and instructively designed."

As mentioned in a phrase in the book, "being a Malatiasti was a very special thing". The term defines the group of Armenians immigrating from a city located in east Anatolia, called as Malatya (in Turkish today). Between 1895 and 1915, many conflicts had been arosen between the Turks and the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, resulting in deportation of the Armenians and many deaths from both sides. We the Turks call these events simply as "deportation". But on the contrary, the Armenian side names these happenings as "Genocide", as in this book. The book is written by an Armenian who had born as the first generation of immigrants coming from that Anatolian city, and located in Cleveland, Ohio forming a new settlement in a small town called Newburgh, soon renamed as "Little Malatia". The book tells the stories of five boys born in '26, and their families and relatives lived in that region. The memories of the daily life of these people of Anatolian origin are recalled, their struggle for surviving in a strange new land, becoming loyal Americans, witnessing the crises and wars, indeed establishing a new life in America. While living on the other side of the world after about ninety years, they neither forgot the customs and traditions of this small city of Malatya in the old country, nor abandoned some characteristics and traits. These were having a lust for life, a great sense of humor, powerful social relationships, and having a great passion for devotion, loyalty and trust for family and friends, which are also valid today generally for the Turks living and originating from the city of Malatya.
I bought this book because it must have told about some general values which are shared between different ethnic types of people living and originating from Malatya. The writer, though never seen the old country, had begun to perceive some customs and values, a certain way of life once he had witnessed from his family and relatives. While reading the book I smelt nearly the same odor within their houses coming from the same meals that I once tasted in the house of my grandparents in Malatya, during my childhood. Some names of the meals, musical instruments, etc were almost the same. I am a Turk born in Malatya in 1964, and afterwards grown up and lived in another city located in the western side of Turkey, called Izmir. Like the other Malatians living in the other big cities of Turkey, we are also proud of originating from this rich city, which has a different milieu for establishing strong traditions and common values, carried by the cheerful and creative natives of the city. The city had raised two Turkish presidents and countless ministers, very influential politicians, artists, writers, businessmen, sciencemen, rectors of the important universities, and many successful people, which resulted in giving a different nickname for the city, "famous Malatya" speaken in Turkey nowadays. Maybe the secret comes from the old mosaistic structure of Anatolia, absorbing and using different cultures throughout the history.
Although the value of the efforts of the Armenian community opposing onto the Turks is exaggerated in the book in my opinion (this is an harmful way of thinking to all sides and proven to have no benefit to anyone), thanks to calling to mind again our shared values, strong customs of Anatolia, and this spiritual city.

Taner Akcam offers a valid and lucid perspective as well as a historically accurate explanation regarding the circumstances surrounding the Ottoman Empire's systematic massacre and elimination of the Armenians. His book is a true testimonial of Turkish crimes against humanity. This book clearly defines the complicity of the (Ottoman) Turkish state. The author evaluates and explains how during the war, 1915 thru 1921, the Turks methodically, planned and executed this genocide - and that their malicious actions were not just random happenstance resulting from said war. The act of genocide is distinguished from "normal" warfare in Mr. Akcam's book, leading the reader and the world to ponder if and when there will be retribution and justice for the Armenians...

The Turkish responsibility is a question everyone wants to ask on the fate of Armenians in World War One.

Taner Akcam definitely wondered but concluded since many Armenians died, then there must have been some plan to exterminate them based on the opinions of some Westerners who were trying to force the United States into World War One by distributing stories (grossly exaggerated) of atrocities of Germans, Austro-Hungarians, and the Ottoman Empire, since they were the Central Powers.

However, many US and German consuls who were able to stay in the Ottoman Empire to witness the relocation of Armenians reported to their ambassadors that the Ottoman authorities tried to help many of the Armenians but that there was such a food shortage, that even the Turkish soldiers went to war hungry. Sanitary conditions in Eastern Turkey were terrible, and the Ottoman Empire was bankrupt. The Ottoman Empire had a war on all 3 fronts. Taner Akcam, by ignoring these makes conclusions on 1915 based on the opinions of some anti-Turkish reporters and diplomats.

Considering, Taner Akcam did indeed escape from a Turkish prison, regardless of why he was imprisoned, it shows he truly has a strong grudge against the Turkish government. By writing books about the sensitive genocide debate, he tries to pollute opinions to support the thesis that there was an Armenian Genocide, even though so many Turks were killed before the relocations of Armenians and after the rebellions by Armenians for the purpose of creating a Free Armenia.

This obviously is a political book on a controversial past event. Since I know little on this subject so I bought this book to learn more on this subject but unfortunately it means that I cannot assess the facts of the book properly.

The argument of the writer is that a dangerous shift took place in the Ottoman Empire and its policy changed to a Turkish nationalism. To these Turkish nationalist the existence of the Armenians in Turkish areas was a threat to this state so from about 1915 to the early 1920's they created a planned genocide of the Armenians.

After reading the book which I found tedious in parts, I am not convinced that he has proved his argument that a genocide took place.

Genocide surprisingly is a difficult case to prove. Partly because fortunately we have few examples as they are not that common. However also because the evidence is suppressed and denied for example during WW2, the Nazi destroyed the evidence while they did it and after almost all senior Nazis denied knowledge or responsibility for it.

What the book does show is that last scale deportations of the Armenians took place and that these did result in large-scale crimes against them which include robbery, kidnapping and a million murders. Having said this, I am not so sure it matters whether a genocide took place, clearly many people were murdered because they were Armenians.

After 1920s when they should have some justice, it was denied. It is a shame that so few people that did these robbery, kidnapping and murders were punished.

One of the many achievements of Taner Akcam's excellent, provoking and unsentimental 'A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the question of Turkish Responsibility' is in shifting a generally acknowledged human disgrace from the particular to the whole.

This impeccably researched and written historical tragedy, is specifically aimed at the people of Turkey to consider the suffering inflicted in their name on minorities, especially the Armenians,living within the borders of the Ottoman Empire prior to, during and immediately following the First World War.

But equally, he is alert to the self-interest and lack of responsibility shown by the major Western powers, all sheltering uneasily together under the umbrella of an evolving World War that inevitably occurred. This included Russia in a state of revolution itself.

As Akcam unerringly concludes, the Great Powers used the terms human rights and democracy to "legitimize the most obvious colonial moves" towards Ottoman territory and the Turkish people began to view these notions as "Western hypocrisy."

Following the international failure post-war and subsequently to bring perpetrators of the Armenian genocide to justice, Akcam suggests mankind may not yet be able "to draw a clear line of division between humanitarian goals, on the one hand, and a state's economic and political interests, on the other."

In this situation, which would seem to apply to the great majority of major and minor players of our globe's so-called United Nations, how can we (as Akcam says) "come to a consensus about ethical norms."

As long as man and womankind harbour and prefer for whatever reason to express actively or passively negative qualities like self-interest,greed, pride and dominance, violence and war and "crimes against humanity" will continue.

Nevertheless,it is a book such as this, so ably scribed and argued, that offers new hope and, perhaps ultimately, relief from our darkest propensities.

'A Shameful Act' written by Taner Akcam is a very well written book about the events leading up to the genocide of the Armenians and afterwards when the first world war ended. Topics from the book include what led to the decision for genocide and why the postwar trials failed. When reading this book you will find a walk-through guide regarding this history written from a neutral point of view which leads me to highly recommend this book.

The author Vahakn Dadrian (who is clearly biased because he is an Armenian nationalist and receives grants from the Armenian government) has used the forgeries called the Aram Andonian (an Armenian's forgeries) documents. These forgeries were used throughout the book to prove a thesis that the Ottoman Turks who allowed religious freedoms and minority rights to the Armenians were somehow evil masterminds comparable to the Nazis--this is absurd. His work is not scholarly; it is filled with propaganda, deceit, unverifiable information, and references to KNOWN forgeries. Anyone who buys the book is wasting their money and time by a grumpy nationalist.

It is amazing that Armenians can rewrite history based on forged documents and lies. Armenians were some of the richest Ottoman citizens that held high positions in the government. They believed the lies of colonial European powers, such as Russia, Britain, France, with the promise of an independent state, and attacked the Ottoman Army from the rear. Armed with the weapons given to them by the Allies, they massacered hundreds of thousands of unarmed innocent Turkish civilians. While the Turkish men were at war fighting at many theathers of war, the Armenian men stayed home, because they were exempt from military service. "They raped any Turkish women they found. They extracted the babies from expecting Turkish mothers with their bayonets. They stuffed the innocent Turkish elderly men, women, and children,into their mosques and burnt them alive. Even Russian generals at the scene, who witnessed these heinous acts, called them the most barbarous race they had ever seen". The Ottoman government re-located them out of the war zone, in self defence. Any other country would have punished them much more severely for these treasonous and barberous acts. Calling this relocation a genocide is disingenous, at the very least. The rewiver is saddened by loss of life suffered by the Armenians during the re-location process. Most of the deaths were caused by attacking Kurdish and Circussian bandits for revenge and booty. The number of Armenian deaths have been greatly exaggerated. The Ottoman Government was unable to protect them any better, because the country was in turmoil, at the time, due to the great war.

I found it very baised toward to his own background nation. he implements that Armenians are Crafty and peace loving people. He never mentions in 1840 city of Maras, Ottoman military outpost, 400 Officer and solders taken prisoners by 5000 armenian mob and their ears and noses cut off and tortured to deadth (Before 1878-1894-1896-and so on.) City of Van murderings before July 10 1915- And after Russion armies invation of Eastern provinces. Never mensions killing their own patriach in Istanbul , cause he did not agree with dashnac organization. Could be a very good book if he was objective. Unfortunatly failed.

This study took an interesting approach, despite its title it has little about the actual implementation and excecution of the Armenian genocide instead covering topics such as: the Abdul Hamit Massacres, the Adana massacres, the bank Ottoman raid, Islam's bent for domination which implies inferiority for non-muslims dhimmis such as Armenians, German complicity, the failure of European humanitarian intervention due to their vested and colonial interests, the Young Turks, how the precarious situation of Armenians constantly massacred and vulnerable with little weaponry or outside diplomatic assistance made them contrary to Balkan Christians take the route of asking for reforms and protection within the Ottoman Empire instead of seeking their independence as they were in an existential crisis where they decided upon the failed project of seeking protection from a Turkish system that thrived on repression and oppression, the Kemalist invasion of Russian Armenia, a comparison of the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, the Turkish post-war tribunals that failed to punish the key players of the Armenian genocide(but these trials did provide proof of the intent to destroy the Armenians), the role of impunity during and after the genocide and earlier massacres in the failure to punish muslims for their crimes and how the implacable Kemalists along with European vested interests made sure there was little in the way of punishment, among other topics. Chapter 14 entitled: "The Implementation of the Genocide" only spans from page 219-235 in the edition I read(second revised edition 1997). Such an approach to this study makes ensures that it is well covered why the Armenian genocide occurred, which is more important than drudging page after page about the actual genocide and its implementation, which would have gotten tedious as this book is over 400 pages.

The scholarship of Dadrian shines throughout the work, he cites countless works in Turkish, Armenian, German, French and English and the work is very well referenced with a plethora of footnotes. This man has been studying the Armenian genocide for decades and it shows, I doubt much is written in the languages he can read about the subject that he has not already read, and most of it seems cited in this work. How Turkish historians and other historians can deny the Armenian genocide shows to anyone who has read this work their complete lack of honor and decency, to comment on history with no other desire than to extricate Turkish society and state from their mis-actions. Dadrian uses Austrian and German diplomatic archives at a time when they were Ottoman Turkey's wartime allies, he references the memoirs of architects and implementators of the genocide where they incriminate themselves, he cites the Turkish trials after the war to punish the Young Turks published in the official Turkish government gazette at the time(Takvimi Vekayi), Ataturk's speeches, eyewitnesses, Allied diplomatic archives, Turkish historians such as Refik and Akcam, and Turkish sociologist Ismail Besikci, who attest to the reality of the Armenian genocide. With such evidence how can one deny the Armenian genocide, and claim to be honest or better yet, a member of humanity?

I had heard a lot about this book and I just finished reading it, I am quite familiar with the subject matter but in my oppinion this is the best. I think this book is a great contribution to the historical understanding of the Armenian Genocide and of Genocide in general. It's an extremely well researched book. The authors wide reading in the relevant sources in Turkish, Armenian, German, French and English, has no parrallel. I highly reccommend this book to anyone interested in this subject.

Justin McCarthy has done a fine job of explaining the context and background of the many different events near the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Much of the information is very intriguing and sheds light on a very obscure history in Eastern Anatolia.

If you've ever wondered what really happened to the Armenians, then you should read this book. The book doesn't give you conclusions, it gives you facts. It's a history book, it's not meant for a political audience and it has no political role.

This a book written by a paid writer who tries to sell himself as a historian. He is just a knot in the self defeating campaign by the Turkish government to deny the Armenian Genocide. No amount of money can silence the truth.

This is an articulate book of a controversial issue by a great historian from the United States. It is no surprise that nationalists are here trying to stop you from buying this book, because they know that the truth will damage their system of belief. The rebellion in Van is sometimes excused by Armenian nationalists as some sort of "defense of Van"; however, since when did people find the time to dig trenches around a city if it was simply self-defense? It was a rebellion!

It was definitely a rebellion, and it downplays the whole genocide argument, and that is why the book is so controversial and that is why some people are ferociously attacking it!

It is a little boring in the first chapter but then it gets extremely interesting and exciting in the later chapters. If anyone is even remotely interested in this subject this is a good read.

The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide (Utah Series in Turkish and Islamic Stud)

The book (As the title suggests) outlines the events that lead up to the Armenian rebellion in the east Anatolian city of Van and its consequences to not only both communities (Armenian and Muslim (I deliberately use 'Muslim' rather than Turk and will explain why later)) But also to the great powers of the time.

McCarthy begins his book by relating to us the journal of two Western travellers who journeyed to Van in 1919 and found a city in ruins populated by an Armenian majority and a tiny Muslim minority. Devastated Mosques, destroyed buildings and ruined villages.

He then goes on to provide the reader with some background into the city of Van and its surrounding area during the late Ottoman times. He points out that the city was one that unlike Erzurum was off the beaten track for trade, too distant from Istanbul the capital and with the Ottoman empire lacking in finances unable to develop the city. McCarthy describes how the city did have a moderately wealthy population who lived off trade primarily with Iran and Russia.

In Mccarthy's view, the Van Provence suffered from several key problems. one being the tribal structure of the Kurds who were only nominally under Ottoman rule whose tribal system often involved attacks on weaker groups both Muslim and Christian (Primarily villages) leading to a situation where almost every village was armed. 2 a weak and underpaid army mainly from Central Anatolia that had neither the arms or manpower to successfully deal with rebellious tribes or inter clan fighting. 3 Armenian political groups that intended to exploit the situation of disorder by provoking attacks from Kurdish clans and advertising it as "Muslims attacking Christians" and 4 The great powers especially Russia preventing the Ottomans from dealing effectively with the insurgents by seeking any opportunity to interview under the pretext of "Protecting a minority"

McCarthy states that Armenian insurgent groups while smuggling arms into the area knew very well that their rebellion would be unsuccessful but believed that should they provoke an outrage in response they would gain the sympathy of the great powers to their cause in much the same way as had happened in the Balkans and that was the main goal of their rebellion.

Leading up to the revolt, the Ottomans had placed a larger garrison of troops in Van and had an able officer capable of dealing with any violent unrest however while dealing with the problem in Van were incapable of dealing with the reprisals that took place in the rural areas. According to McCarthy the deaths of Muslims in the Van rebellion outnumbered those of Armenians however in the rural areas where the Kurdish tribes were far stronger and Armenians weaker the numbers of Armenian deaths were far greater.

McCarthy then goes on to narrate the situation leading up to Word War 1. How while Armenians had been granted higher positions in the Ottoman government and how Armenian parties had supported the Young Turks they deserted some before war broke out others en mass while armed during the war and often used their weapons on the civilian population. McCarthy points out that Kurds in the east who had for so long been only nominally under Ottoman rule soon began to be used by the great powers (Primarily Russia) in an attempt both to destabilise the Ottoman empire and also to gain ground from them.

In conclusion, McCarthy aptly shows that the situation in Eastern Turkey leading up to the Van revolt was far from clear cut. It was certainly not "Muslim Vs Christian" and according to McCarthy there could not possibly have been a government policy to massacre the Armenians as not only were they citizens within the state whom the government had sent troops to protect and even armed for service in the army but also it would make no economic or strategic sense to do so.

I would recommend reading this book as it does cover an aspect of World War 1 that we in the west know very little of and would also be of great interest to anyone with an interest in the Middle East and the Caucuses. McCarthy points out the connection with Armenian rebellions in Iran, how the Iranian government at the time had also exploited the Armenians against their regional rivals the Ottomans, Kurdish politics and Russia's eastern front.

A fascinating book that does require some time to read and it would help if the reader had some background knowledge on the subject before reading as although McCarthy does not labour on the subject there can at times be far too much information to digest.

I found this a much better read than his book "The ethnic cleansing of the Ottoman Muslims" because it was far more regional specific and less general. I used "Muslim" rather than "Turk" simply because It was Turks and Kurds involved in the conflict, though as McCarthy is at pains to point out the tragedy of east Anatolia was far from one of Muslim Vs Christian.

Query how an author and purported historian who is on the Turkish Government's payroll write an honest and unbiased representation of history? We should ask the author how much he has been paid by the successors of a regime of genocidal murderers. He may try to justify the facts, he may try to rewrite history, but the truth will always prevail.

Hippocrene Concise Dictionary.

Very good as far as I can tell. It's the Eastern Armenian dialect. I've just started Armenian to prepare for a vacation there.

i want to know do this book have the translation about (Armenian ----English)? becuase i want to learn Armenian. Do you have any recommondation on buying the related book? thank you very much.

This is NOT by any means a comprehensive dictionary. For the most part, however, it is sufficient for the beginner and/or the casual user and/or the child in the family. It is not a serious dictionary, mainly due to its conciseness, lack of depth and range.

It's a concise dictionary, which means that there are short translations (1 or 2 word, maybe a sentence) and without much, if any, explanations and/or any examples.

This is the best Eastern Armenian dictionary available outside of Armenia. It's pretty complete, although not exactly as up-to-date as one may like. It comes in 2 different sized pocket versions, which are nice to have when travelling. For a serious translator or scholar, this dictionary leaves something to be desired.

I have had the chance to use the book while living in Armenia and unfortunately the book uses words that are not modern and really dates itself. There were a few words and phrases that will help with basic communication but all in all this book was not helpful to me. I found that purchasing books in country much more helpful as they were modernized to meet the everday needs of life in Armenia

I have no words in my vocabulary for Mr. Akcam's book, except four letter words. They are inappropriate to use in a book review. Akcam is/was a mediocre academician in Turkey. I am sure there are others in Turkey who think that the Ottomans committed atrocities against Armenians. Some of these folks are the descendants of Armenian orphans that were adopted by Turkish families @ the end of World War I, where as, others are moslem Turks. Turkey is a free democracy where people have very diverse opinions and beliefs. Mr. Akcam may be part Armenian, maybe not. I really don't care. However, since he was a mediocre academician in Turkey, diaspora Armenians have made him the cause' celebre'for the supposed Armenian genocide by declaring him as a great Turkish historian. What a farce. This book has rendered him a visiting asst. professorship @ University of Michigan due to insistance of the rich Armenian Americans who donated a lot of money to the university. He has also hung on to his job in Turkey. The armenian hardlines claim that everything he wrote is/was the truth and he is a very brave soul for bucking the city hall. WOW! The book contains only information from sources that were anti-Turkish. Materiale' from Turkish archieves have been slanted and/or distorted. The book is a fairy tale about a very serious matter. It is noth worth reading.

I am astonished by the other reviews of this book: by the name-calling, by the character-assassination, by the slander, by the claims that a scholar at a top American school is only "mediocre" in Turkey (!).

The other reviewers prove the point of this book, and other books on the subject, are trying to make: that many people, especially Turks, are not psychologically prepared to have a calm, intelligent discussion about this topic, are not able to admit even the slightest possibility that the Turkish government may be, even to the smallest extent, in the wrong. It's a valid point.

The world-famous turkish historian Taner Akcam was the first leading scholar in Turkey to officially struggle for the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the turkish government.

Due to the fact that any mention of the Armenian Genocide has always been considered a crime in Turkey, Professor Akcam eventually had to flee into exile and leave his homeland behind.

Today the number of turkish historians struggling for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide is ever-growing. They are demanding from the turkish government an end to its denial-campaign and its recognition of this vast crime against humanity.

"From Empire to Republic" can be considered one of the most important books concerning the Armenian Genocide. After all, it was the first ever written book on the Armenian Genocide by a turkish historian.

I just want to make sure that people who are contemplating buying and reading this book are aware of some of the facts about this books author. Akcam is a convicted *terrorist*.

Here's a bit of history about Akcam, copy&pasted from another web site:

Taner Akcam became involved in radical leftist activities while he was still a lycee student. His radicalism intensified while he was a university student in the early 1970s. Akcam moved from student activism into political terrorism by joining the THKP-C (Turkiye Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi-Turkish People's Liberation Party-Front) in 1972 -- a terrorist organization that was implicated in the assassinations and killings of numerous far-right militants, Turkish security officials, and American and NATO military personnel. In the mid-1970s, Akcam became a leading member of DEV-YOL (Devrimci Yol-Revolutionary Path) and the editor of its periodical Devrimci Genclik Dergisi (Revolutionary Youth Magazine). It might be recalled that DEV-YOL was one of the two principal leftist terrorist organizations (the other being DEV-SOL) that played a major role in the bloody escalation of political violence in Turkey during the 1970s. In the bizarre ideological divisions among the leftist groups that proliferated on the Turkish political scene at the time, DEV-YOL was known as following a "pro-Soviet" line in terms of its international loyalties. DEV-YOL's bloody terrorist activities, which claimed hundreds of fatalities and a large number of serious injuries, included assassinations, armed attacks, bombings, and bank robberies. The group also achieved notoriety when it set up a so-called "liberated zone" in the town of Fatsa on the Black Sea coast where DEV-YOL militants established their control for several months before being routed by the security forces.

During this period of heightened terrorism, Akcam was an active participant in the planning of assassinations and armed attacks against the targets chosen by DEV-YOL. He was in the inner leadership circle of the terrorist organization and worked as the right-hand man of its leader Oguzhan Muftuoglu. In addition, as the editor of DEV-YOL's magazine, he wrote numerous articles exhorting DEV-YOL militants to engage in violence to bring down "the oligarchy", to punish "the fascists", and to get rid of "American imperialism." By the mid-1970s, as political violence between the far-left and ultra-nationalist groups escalated, Akcam had become one of the leading "theoreticians" of leftist terrorism and violence in Turkey.

Taner Akcam was arrested in 1976. After a trial that lasted several months he was sentenced to eight years and nine months for his role in fomenting terrorism and political violence. However, Akcam did not stay in jail for long: in a spectacular incident that made the headlines in the Turkish press, he escaped from a prison in Ankara along with four other convicted terrorists in March 1977. After hiding in Turkey for several months, he managed to find his way to Germany where he asked -- and received -- political asylum.

Keep this in mind if you ever buy and read this 'book'.

Thanks

Professor Akcam does not take into account the effects of the Armenian Revolt, which lasted from the 1890s to 1920. Armenian revolutionary groups, the Hinchaks and Dashnaks, launched a campaign of terror against Ottoman officials and citizens. They began killing Muslims 20 years before the Armenian deportations took place in 1915. Also, from 1915 to 1920, Armenian soldiers, rebels and gangs massacred a half-million Turks, Kurds and Azeris. If we are willing to call what happened to the Armenians a genocide, then what do we call what the Armenians did to the Muslims?
In April 2006, Professor Akcam made the unbelievable statement on PBS that the massacre of Muslims by Armenians was "legend." He is either sadly misinformed about the history of his own country, or he indeed has become a mouthpiece for a political agenda that chooses to ignore historical reality.
Anyone who seeks to learn about the Armenian/Ottoman tragedy should start with a book published in 1964 by the Armenian scholar, Louise Nalbandian: "Armenian Revolutionary Movements." She wrote her book shortly before the Armenian Diaspora began to politicize their claims to genocide. It doesn't matter to me whether a person believes the Armenians were victims of genocide in 1915. What matters to me is that "academics" such as Professor Akcam insist on discussing only one side of this tragic story, and continue to pretend that Armenians did no wrong.
Horrible atrocities were committed on all sides; it is the responsibility of Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan to deal with this legacy. In the U.S. and Europe, this issue has become too politicized. Anyone who disagrees with the Armenian viewpoint is automatically labeled a "genocide denier." Unfortunately, most of the media and politicians have naively chosen to support the Armenian genocide claims without conducting their own research. And they choose to believe that "scholars" such as Professor Akcam are basing their writings on thorough research that takes the Armenian revolutionary movement into account; such is not the case.