Historian Christopher Jon Bjerkness to deliver lecture on Armenian Genocide

[Steph]

This? Don't know if it is on this site. Here it is, copypasted from another place.

Christopher J. Bjerknes on the Armenian Genocide, Part I
By Jack Manuelian

T[/url]

That's the one, Bell. Can't remember where I read this but seems drivel to this uneducated oik.

Thanks.

[Gavur]

Another black sheep of academia?
Or is it just a coincedence that the CUP and subsequent key positions of the Nationalist goverment was dominated by the Donme/Mason's since it was so secretive (and the way CUP used this secretive way of organizing the Genocide's through secret select communications,which is a trademark of this group,)this question will always come up and does need to be answered!

[Joseph]

Another black sheep of academia?
Or is it just a coincedence that the CUP and subsequent key positions of the Nationalist goverment was dominated by the Donme/Mason's since it was so secretive (and the way CUP used this secretive way of organizing the Genocide's through secret select communications,which is a trademark of this group,)this question will always come up and does need to be answered!

Another black sheep of academia most definitely; like those pyschos David Irving or Justin McCarthy.

[1.5 million]

Another black sheep of academia?
Or is it just a coincedence that the CUP and subsequent key positions of the Nationalist goverment was dominated by the Donme/Mason's since it was so secretive (and the way CUP used this secretive way of organizing the Genocide's through secret select communications,which is a trademark of this group,)this question will always come up and does need to be answered!

Anyone familiar with this history understands how the CUP was formed and by who. It began its existance as a secret organization dedicated to the overthrow of the Sultan. (so yes secrecy was paramount from the start) Its key members were largely educated elite from military and medical professions - many of them - like many professionals in most western nations (such as the US for instance) - belonged to groups such as the freemasons and other such societies and used these connections and loyalties to ensure trust. It is also understood that Salonkia was a center of the movement as it was away from Constantinople but close to Europe and was both a common post for Ottoman military officers as well as a center of (liberal/progressive) education. Certainly their were Domne among them and the CUP also welcomed a variety of ethnic Turkics from outlying regions who were both educated and had been radicallized in a racist manner due to their direct experiences with facing non-Turkic ethnic nationals from these areas who were kicking Turks out. All of these factors are known and understood. Likewise when the CUP seized power - and even prior - it established secret commitees in urban areas accross Anatolia and throughout the Empire. They used these semi-official "commitees" to carry out their dirty work prior to and after taking power. The Nazis imitated this model with their party and both parties used these connections to exert control over the local government apparatus in addition to the central. Were there Jews in the party - certainly and in fact both Jews and Armenians financed much of the early CUP activities. But Armenians tended to have their own parties - their numbers and issues supported such - where jews had no party of their own - so yes they (those who were politically active) were memebers of the CUP. However there is no evidence that they pursued any pro-Jewish or Zionistic agenda (as a group) - quite the opposite in fact - the CUP was highly opposed to Zionists who were seen as ethnic seperatists - the type the CUP was most opposed to. We also have reports of CUP Central Commitee meetings (1910/11 and others) where Jews were discussed quite negatively - were grouped with Armenians and Greeks as elements that needed to be supressed and eliminated. And in fact massacres and deportations (to death camps) of Jews in Palestine did occur but were stopped because of German pressure on the CUP who were concerned that such things - on the visble fringes of the Empire - would prompt negative accusations and would spur Western and Jewish interests to galvanize against the Ottoman Empire (and Germany feared post war condemnation for complicity). But nowhere do we see any grand Jewsih or Zionist conspiracy in the actions of the CUP.

There is only one area where i might agree with this author - but it has no connection to the CUP. Jewish pressure from the Rothschilds and elsewhere did cause Britain to pass the Balfor Declaration. And it is my opinion based on what I've read that the Brits felt that they would be pushed too thin supporting both Jewsih autonomy and Armenians autonomy. Additionally the Brits were in much better postion and could see strategic advantage in establishing a mandate over palestine where there was little of value to entice them to do such in Armenia - which beside being landlocked and with few resources was a devestated land and much more disputed (so it would seem at the time) land and Armenians were also percieved to be under Russian influence (and rightly so with the Orthodox connection and more)...wheras the Brits envisioned themselves as being more appreciated by the Jews of Palestine and likely envisioned them as a counterbalance (in theri corner) to both the Arabs and possibly even the French.

[Joseph]

Anyone familiar with this history understands how the CUP was formed and by who. It began its existance as a secret organization dedicated to the overthrow of the Sultan. (so yes secrecy was paramount from the start) Its key members were largely educated elite from military and medical professions - many of them - like many professionals in most western nations (such as the US for instance) - belonged to groups such as the freemasons and other such societies and used these connections and loyalties to ensure trust. It is also understood that Salonkia was a center of the movement as it was away from Constantinople but close to Europe and was both a common post for Ottoman military officers as well as a center of (liberal/progressive) education. Certainly their were Domne among them and the CUP also welcomed a variety of ethnic Turkics from outlying regions who were both educated and had been radicallized in a racist manner due to their direct experiences with facing non-Turkic ethnic nationals from these areas who were kicking Turks out. All of these factors are known and understood. Likewise when the CUP seized power - and even prior - it established secret commitees in urban areas accross Anatolia and throughout the Empire. They used these semi-official "commitees" to carry out their dirty work prior to and after taking power. The Nazis imitated this model with their party and both parties used these connections to exert control over the local government apparatus in addition to the central. Were there Jews in the party - certainly and in fact both Jews and Armenians financed much of the early CUP activities. But Armenians tended to have their own parties - their numbers and issues supported such - where jews had no party of their own - so yes they (those who were politically active) were memebers of the CUP. However there is no evidence that they pursued any pro-Jewish or Zionistic agenda (as a group) - quite the opposite in fact - the CUP was highly opposed to Zionists who were seen as ethnic seperatists - the type the CUP was most opposed to. We also have reports of CUP Central Commitee meetings (1910/11 and others) where Jews were discussed quite negatively - were grouped with Armenians and Greeks as elements that needed to be supressed and eliminated. And in fact massacres and deportations (to death camps) of Jews in Palestine did occur but were stopped because of German pressure on the CUP who were concerned that such things - on the visble fringes of the Empire - would prompt negative accusations and would spur Western and Jewish interests to galvanize against the Ottoman Empire (and Germany feared post war condemnation for complicity). But nowhere do we see any grand Jewsih or Zionist conspiracy in the actions of the CUP.

There is only one area where i might agree with this author - but it has no connection to the CUP. Jewish pressure from the Rothschilds and elsewhere did cause Britain to pass the Balfor Declaration. And it is my opinion based on what I've read that the Brits felt that they would be pushed too thin supporting both Jewsih autonomy and Armenians autonomy. Additionally the Brits were in much better postion and could see strategic advantage in establishing a mandate over palestine where there was little of value to entice them to do such in Armenia - which beside being landlocked and with few resources was a devestated land and much more disputed (so it would seem at the time) land and Armenians were also percieved to be under Russian influence (and rightly so with the Orthodox connection and more)...wheras the Brits envisioned themselves as being more appreciated by the Jews of Palestine and likely envisioned them as a counterbalance (in theri corner) to both the Arabs and possibly even the French.

Eloquently stated, 1.5. The CUP was very suspicious of the Zionists and it has been found that in addition to the Maronites, the Jews were next on the CUP's list had the Central Powers alliance achieved victory.

[Joseph]

Another black sheep of academia most definitely; like those pyschos David Irving or Justin McCarthy.

Speaking of black sheep, here is a piece on Norman Stone. He's an a-hole just for the sake of being an a-hole and to get a rise ou of people. What a guy

http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/features/article2829372.ece

Interview: Norman Stone has both entered history and written it
Legendary teacher, Thatcher adviser, hero of fiction, exiled maverick, Norman Stone is a great maker of enemies. Robert Hanks meets him

Published: 03 August 2007
When Norman Stone was professor of modern history at Oxford, Sir Edward Heath is reported to have said of him, "Many parents of Oxford students must be both horrified and disgusted that the higher education of our children should rest in the hands of such a man." The Oxford University Students Union passed a motion condemning him, after he wrote a newspaper column opposing the idea of homosexual marriage, as a "racist, sexist, homophobe". The horror ran both ways: asked, on his departure from Oxford, why he was taking a post at a Turkish university, Professor Stone told the press that the students there were "less smelly and more attentive".

From which you will gather that he is a great maker of enemies, and of memorable lines. Both gifts are evident in his latest book, World War One: a short history (Allen Lane, £16.99), and in some reactions it has already inspired. In 157 pages (plus maps, discursive bibliography and index) he sets out a brief, easily digested narrative of the First World War that is studded with epigrams, many apparently designed with the sole intention of starting arguments.

"With the Ukraine, Russia is a USA; without, she is a Canada – mostly snow." "It is a strange fact of modern European history that Italy, weakest of the Powers, brings the problems to a head: no Cavour, no Bismarck; no Mussolini, no Hitler." Discuss. There have been plenty of histories of the First World War before, but as Stone himself says, quoting the historian JH Plumb, "There's always room for a new book on a good subject." Over the years, he has kept his eye on the burgeoning literature. This new book incorporates recent insights into the way warfare changed over the four years of fighting. New knowledge about the origins of the war – as Stone puts it, "It's pretty clear now that it was a German plot" – rubs shoulders with an account of the importance of railway timetables that clearly owes a lot to AJP Taylor.

He mentions Taylor as one of three writers he used to be able to quote whole paragraphs of by heart: the others being Orwell and, less predictably, Malcolm Muggeridge. The new revisionism – in which Haig is rehabilitated as a tactically astute and caring war leader – is tempered by old-fashioned contempt for his donkey-like leadership in the early years. The book is disfigured by some very silly errors ("Alfred Einstein" is mentioned). But Stone offers what few British historians can: the view from elsewhere, a sense of what the war looked like outside the Western Front.

A few years ago, in an admiring review of a book by Noel Malcolm, Stone wrote: "Usually, when people can read 20 languages, they lose the ability to write their own." I wonder if this was a subtle piece of self-deprecating humour, because his own facility with languages is famous. He says not; he would never compare himself with Malcolm, who "can even do Norwegian!". Nevertheless, he admits to being able to read "about 11 or 12 [languages], and speaking a bit less." He started off learning French and German at Glasgow Academy, a "remorseless" machine. Then he went to Cambridge on a modern languages scholarship, switching to history shortly after he arrived because "I couldn't handle the literature at all."

After graduation, he spent a couple of years in Vienna grubbing in the archives of the Austro-Hungarian empire. While there he met his first wife, the daughter of a minister in "Papa Doc" Duvalier's government of Haiti. He proudly notes the fact that their son, Nick Stone, is now a successful thriller writer. Back in Cambridge on a research fellowship, having failed to complete a doctorate, he was a beneficiary of an initiative to get more people in higher education speaking Russian: "It was in response to what was alleged to be Soviet progress – in 1959, Macmillan wrote in his diary 'There's no doubt the Russian standard of living will be far higher than ours in 10 years time.'" Stone pauses to guffaw at length. He learnt Russian, and started teaching Russian history.

The international perspective that his facility with languages gave him was reflected in his first book in 1975, which made his name: The Eastern Front, 1914-17. It remains the standard English-language work, "To which," he remarks, "I can only say 'Alas'." A few years ago, Penguin reissued it and asked him to look through it. "I can remember on a hot afternoon in Ankara going through it, and when I read chapter one, about the Russian army, really almost suicide country – because I thought, 'I'll never write anything as good as this again.' And then I reached chapter three, about the October 1914 campaign, and I cheered up: it's more or less unreadable."

One thing that book didn't offer, and the new book does, is an emphasis on the Turkish dimension to the war. "It's something people tend to forget about... it looked as if it was a sort of side-show, and in some ways it was what the war was about." Turkey, Stone argues, was the big prize for the European powers: a large but unstable empire, which controlled access to the world's greatest oilfields, and between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.

He has taught in Turkey for 12 years now, having originally gone to attend a conference on Bosnia. "I remember arriving in Istanbul thinking, I sort of smelt in the air, 'Hmm, good country'. I liked the place, I liked the people." At this point, he was on the verge of taking early retirement after an unhappy decade at Oxford – the unhappiness being, it must be said, mutual.

Academics tended to dismiss him as a lightweight: since The Eastern Front he had produced a well-regarded textbook and a shrewd, lively biography of Hitler, but nothing substantially original. He had also flaunted his Tory politics in a column, and even acted for a while as foreign-policy adviser to Mrs Thatcher. He recalls as one of his achievements that "I got her to be pro-German for a week". This did not go down well at the university that voted to withhold an honorary doctorate from her. Among students, his stock was higher: he has always been a vastly entertaining talker, and takes a great interest and pride in the achievements of his pupils.

When offered the chance to run the new Russian-Turkish centre at Bilkent University in Ankara, he jumped at it. The decision was, he says, "more than eccentric", but right: "There's a lot to be said for just picking up your traps and finding a new horizon." He speaks admiringly of his students, and thinks that living in Turkey has given him a new perspective on Europe, particularly Russia, as "when you realise that Tatar-Turkey dimension, you understand the thing an awful lot better."

But even in Turkey his talent for making enemies has not deserted him. These days, his main antagonist is what he jovially calls "the dear old Armenian diaspora". In 2004, Stone reviewed unfavourably a book on the subject of the Armenian massacres – "a terrible rubbishy book," he recalls, "the sort of book to be read out in a funny voice" – in The Spectator, and derided it further in The Times Literary Supplement. Since then, he has been a magnet for Armenian anger over what they see as, in effect, Holocaust denial. In fact, Stone has never denied that vast numbers of Armenians were slaughtered during forced deportations from Turkey in 1915; he does not even dispute the possibility that there was genocidal intent. What he does dispute is that there is unequivocal evidence of such intent, and in the absence of a smoking gun, prefers to stick to "massacres".

He has been smeared a number of times as a paid apologist for Turkey. When I mention these attacks, he makes a disgusted moue: "It's just dotty, it's dotty and it's demeaning." An even more convincing defence came from a correspondent in The Spectator: "Norman may have his faults, but he has always been entirely prepared to bite the hand that feeds him. Often quite hard, if he thinks it necessary." In the new book, he has been quite careful how he describes the Armenian massacres. The tactic hasn't been entirely successful, to judge by a negative review already on Amazon.co.uk, accusing Stone of "indifference" to genocide. Indifference to genocide, I doubt; indifference to what people think he ought to say – there, I think, he would plead guilty. And enjoy doing it.

Biography: Norman Stone

Norman Stone was born in Glasgow in 1941, and educated at Glasgow Academy and Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. After research in Vienna and Budapest, he returned to Cambridge as lecturer in German and Russian history, and was professor of modern history at Oxford, 1984-1995. Since 1995 he has been director of the Russian-Turkish Centre at Bilkent University, Ankara. The Eastern Front, 1914-17 (1975) won the Wolfson Prize; other books include Hitler (1980), Europe Transformed (1984) and the new World War One (Allen Lane); he is completing a history of the making of new world orders since 1945. In 1999, he made his fictional debut as model for "Fluke" Kelso, the academic hero of Robert Harris's Archangel. Married twice (divorced once), with three children, he divides his time between Oxford and Turkey.