A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide [Paperback]

In order to explain the term of "genocide", its historical background and meaning, Power chose a number of case studies beginning with the Armenian Relocation, then the Holocaust, Bosnia, Cambodia, Iraq and Rwanda. We will focus our comments and critique on the first chapter of the book called "Race Murder" that deals with the Ottoman - Armenian conflict during the First World War.

Although the author has a legal background it is immediately obvious that she does not have a sufficient grounding in history to tackle a subject as sensitive and controversial as the Ottoman - Armenian conflict, the Armenian revolutionary movements and subsequent relocation of 1915 and its historical interpretation. This point is highlighted by the fact that she begins her book in a totally out of context manner by lauding and praising an Armenian, Soghomon Tehlerian, who assassinated Talat Pasha, one of the leaders of the Ottoman Empire during First World War. The author's claim that the relocation of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire was "genocide" is presented as a fact and with very little research or clear evidence to prove this claim. Her bias continues as the chapter refers to no Turkish documents, nor to any objective scholars' and experts' books on this issue. For example, little to no reference can be found to the extensive work carried our by Professors Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw and Justin McCarthy. In addition, even though the foundations to her claims lies in a book by the former US Ambassador to Istanbul, Henry Morgenthau: "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story", she does not mention the critique of that book, "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" written by Heath W. Lowry. In his book, Lowry shows that there are many discrepancies between Morgenthau's book and his diary, letters and reports that were sent to the State Department.

A number of crucial errors that need to be addressed can be found in the book. First of all, Power states that Talat Pasha ordered the roundup and execution of some 250 leading Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul. However, what she does not include is the fact that many of them were members of terrorist organizations and that their arrests came as a direct result of their attempts to provoke the Armenian populace to revolt and commit treason against the Ottoman Empire.

Another claim of the author is that Sultan Abdulhamid II killed 200,000 Armenians in 1895 - 96. Once again these numbers are more akin to fiction than fact because Armenian organizations themselves, such as the British-based Anglo-Armenian Committee and Evangelical Alliance, put that figure at 20.000. Furthermore, these events occurred during mass rebellions by Armenians in Eastern Anatolia where many Muslims were also killed. The author also mentions that 1,5 million Armenians were killed during these events and the relocation process. However, demographic studies prove that prior to World War I, fewer than 1,5 million Armenians lived in the entire Ottoman Empire. Thus, allegations that more than 1.5 million Armenians from Eastern Anatolia died are false. Justin McCarthy's book "The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire" covers the whole era and proves beyond doubt that the Armenian population of the Empire as a whole did not exceed 1.3 million. Of this number, hundreds and thousands indeed left for other regions before and during World War I, especially to what was to become Armenia proper, according to estimates given even by Armenian sources, and those who reached their final destination of Ottoman Syria.

The third claim in Power's book is an anecdote in Morgenthau's Story where Talat Pasha allegedly asks Ambassador Morgenthau whether the United States could get the New York Life Insurance Company and Equitable Life of New York, which for years had done business with the Armenians, to send a complete list of the Armenian policyholders to the Turkish authorities. "They are practically all dead now and have left no heirs," Talat Pasha said. "The Government is the beneficiary now." However, Lowry has shown that no such conservation took place and that the only time Morgenthau discussed with Talat Pasha these insurance firms was on April 3, 1915. Lowry qualifies this by pointing out that these kinds of conservations and crucial meetings between Morgenthau and Talat Pasha were always reported to the State Department, but that in this case it was not. Lowry goes on to say that there are no documents in the US archives about such a conservation having ever taken place. Lowry, also adds that while Morgenthau was writing his book he was assisted by two Armenian colleagues, his secretary, Hagop S. Andonian and the legal adviser of the US Embassy, Arshag K. Schmavonian. As the Ambassador spoke no Turkish, French or Armenian, and did not travel outside of Istanbul, it can be suspected that their contributions have exceeded mere assistance.

The most significant omission made by Ms. Power is the well-documented massacre of defenceless Muslims (Turks, Kurds and other ethnic groups) by Armenians during the First World War. Mass graves of Muslims in Eastern Anatolia near towns such as Kars, Erzurum and Van, cities occupied by Armenian assisted Russian forces, are testimony of the carnage inflicted upon civilian populations by the alliance of Armenians and Russians.

As it is well known, in 1919, the British High Commission in Istanbul, utilizing Armenian informants, arrested 144 high Ottoman officials and deported them to the island of Malta to be out on trial on charges of a premeditated attempt to harm Armenians. While the deportees were interned in Malta, the British appointed an Armenian scholar Mr. Haig Khazarian, to conduct a thorough examination of the Ottoman, British and the US archives to substantiate the charges. Though he was granted complete access to all records, Khazarian's corps of investigators discovered no evidence to demonstrate that Ottoman officials had either sanctioned or encouraged the killing of Armenians. After two years and four months of detention without trial, the British Procurator General exonerated and released all 144 detainees.

The author indicates in her book that in 1919 the Ottoman Government set up a tribunal in Istanbul that convicted two senior district officials for crimes committed against the Armenians and she hence concludes that by this action Ottomans had accepted the veracity of the Armenian Genocide claim. However, as she mentions in her book, there were 320,000 British soldiers in Istanbul who were exerting pressure on the Ottoman Sultan and the Government to come up with results. The impartiality of such a court must be called into question. Yet, even if the proceedings of this Court were to be accepted it must noted for the record that those persons who did not take sufficient measures to save and assist Armenians during the relocation were convicted, but that the Court did not accept the allegation of a plan to murder Armenians.

In conclusion, although the author has a legal background, she blatantly plays prosecutor, judge and jury without giving the defendant a right of defence. She sentences the Turkish side to the high crime of genocide by omitting any Turkish point of view or that of other scholars, who do not subscribe to the Armenian orthodoxy, as regurgitated by Power, on this controversial issue. If one is going to level the crime of "genocide" against a nation, this ought to done not by reaching out to by hand-picking "evidence" and "scholars" to prove a pre-accepted verdict, but by looking at all available evidence and scholarship with an open mind and deciding whether it supports such an accusation. The duty of a scholar is to find and preserve the truth. It should not be to help perpetuate hate by disseminating bias as fact and outright lies as truth

THe book is fallacious and based on false conclusions. The author should have looked at culprits like the French(whohanded over Jews to the Nazis and whose forces did nothing to prevent the slaughter in Rwanda).

The book should accuse the world community in its weakness in preventing genocide even though in each of the cases the world knew exactly what was happening. It wasnt a mystery what was happening in Turkey in 1915 or Germany in 1942 or Rwanda in 93 or Cambodia.

America was not to blame.

While this book may have been admirable as a history of genocide, it does not serve as any sort of political literature for me. We may be powerful, but this does not make us the world's policeman. (If we did act as the world's policeman, we'd be accused of being a "bully" as well, by the way.)

Taking part in each regional conflict would unnecessarily get us involved in other's affairs, costing countless American lives--and not making us any more popular in the eyes of the world, either. In addition, we may be powerful, but we don't have enough resources to fight off multiple dictatorships, terrorists, etc. etc. We have enough of a problem now fighting al-Qaida.

America getting involved in outside disputes may also put us in peril for a World War III, because our presence is so powerful, other large nations are sure to join in.

As I said, this book is great on documentation but weak politically. America HAS done a lot to stave off genocide. First, by just being an example of democracy for other nations to follow. We've also donated a whole lot of aid, both monetarily and in food, to starving peoples. Our involvement in some wars have also alleviated the suffering of countless millions. Think back to the concentration camps liberated by American troops. Think back to the mass graves Americans found in Iraq after freeing Iraqis from oppression under Saddam. Sorry America bashers.

As a minority, maybe I have a different perspective. But from my family's experiences in the Old World to my own experiences in the New, I wouldn't trade this life for anything. America is a beacon of hope to those suffering, and has greatly improved the lives of those living in poverty or under harsh governments for a long time.