 • Buy this item from our featured Merchant - Featured Price: $70.00
 |
Product Reviews:
History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1, Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280-1808 |
Rating: 2 (out of 5)
Summary: dry
Comments: The book moves through many people so quickly that it is difficult to follow what is being talked about. The names are unfamiliar, the places are unfamiliar; and the maps often do not name the areas being mentioned. The font is small and eye strain is also a problem. This type of material is what makes history unpalatable. I have discovered since leaving school that history is fascinating, however1needs to be able to learn about the times, the people and the places. Just dates and events, with people never being fleshed out is boring. I was disappointed in these books. |
Rating: 5 (out of 5)
Summary: Does Dr. Mario-Jean Bouchard lack basic skills in mathematics? Sure appears like it..
Comments: Dr. Mario-Jean Bouchard;
If you are looking for fundamental errors, you need not go any further than the Armenian allegations, including those LEGISLATED by the French.
At the end of WW1, the Armenians reported a loss of 300 thousand due to the deportation, with another 300 thousand in difficulty in Syria. Decades later, after the Nuremberg Trials brought the Holocaust to plain view, Armenians began repackaging their story: The casualty figure became 1 million, 2 million, reaching 2.5 million at the height of its hype (thanks to Armenian terrorism, supported by France until French began to die. Remember the Oslo bombing?). I think France finally "settled" on 1.5 million -- I guess the French did the noble and mathematically-correct thing, averaging all of the numbers Armenians have been producing from thin air.
Serious scholars have e reason to study and challenge Prof. McCarthy's methods and conclusions - he himself invites eone to do so and has laid bare his assumptions, methods, numbers, calculations and sources for the purpose in his books, in which he makes a strong case against the charge of genocide. However, those in support of the genocide charge have not produced anything of substance we can study and critique.
It is no coincidence that Armenians have been seeking purely political means to purchase verdicts (what they claim will "settle the matter"!!) by enlisting politicians as mercenaries
A political approach resonates strongly with countries with a large number of Turkish skeletons in their closets and Turkish blood on their hands. For example, we know France supplied more than just "moral assistance" to the Armenian "revolutionaries" starting years, if not decades, before the massive Armenian rebellion of 1914. It is no surprise that the French people are, shall we say, reluctant to take the path of science and due process. The Turkish body parts that are bound to be dug up from French and Armenian back yards would stir up serious controversies, and, may cause serious embarrassment if not weaken the genocide claim. Also, it avoids having to explain why the French did nothing to take the Ottoman's to court in Malta when they had E opportunity at the end of WW1 as the victors.
So, if you are French:
1. It is better to condemn McCarthy's work without providing alternatives.
2. It is also better to seek an up-or-down vote in parliament.
So, if you are a Turk:
Maybe France will accept a vote by the Turkish parliament about the Algerian Genocide?
...
The process, i.e. disciplined, transparent, competent, expert, etc. effort, that characterizes the Nuremberg Trials - DUE PROCES -- revealed the *history* of the Holocaust.
Armenians and their supporters like the French, have purposefully skirted, even resisted the obvious process1would have to follow to defend an allegation as serious as the crime of genocide. Yet, this is what the French continue to do.
In short, if you are French, Nazis get a fair trial in a court and are embraced by the French as neighbors; Turks get political lynching in a French parliament and are excommunicated, with no right of appeal.
And, yet, they still talk about "fundamental mathematical errors"!!
The French case does not add up!!
So much for YOUR integrity and mathematical correctness, monsieur.
|
Rating: 5 (out of 5)
Summary: A Short History of1of the Longest Lasting Empire.
Comments: This book shows that the Ottoman Empire lasted over 600 years because of their tolerance and idealism that promoted freedom of religion and speech that was unseen in the world during the time. It's important to note that propagandists who do not like the Ottoman Empire and the author's views on certain small subjects dealing with the Ottoman Empire will likely give negative ratings, however these are understandable, since few historians have covered the topic of the Ottoman Empire, since it is the almost all under-researched empire in history. |
Rating: 4 (out of 5)
Summary: A counter to Dr. Bouchard's poor review.
Comments: This work was not intended to bring to the forefront a great debate over the Armenian Question, Dr. Bouchard!! The purpose of this work is to cover an extensive period of Ottoman history in a small amount of pages, and I think it is presented well. Merely rejecting the words of Dr. Shaw based upon such a narrow, controversial topic as the Armenian Question is not being true to the people who want solid reviews.
True the work is detailed in its factual presentation, however it educates the reader on the many facets of Ottoman civilization. Too many authors of Ottoman history fail to get to the true meat of the matter, and Dr. Shaw does not dissapoint. I would endorse this to any student of Ottoman history as an overall guide to the events during the period it covers. |
Rating: 5 (out of 5)
Summary: Excellent history
Comments: Thorough and accurate; a solidly impressive look at a historical area much neglected in the west.
Shaw's extensive volume covers much more than the Armenian experience in Ottoman days, yet those who are single-minded about this particular topic have nothing better to do than to try and discredit. Witness Reviewer "Dr. Mario-Jean Bouchard," and his seedy attempt to knock not only Prof. Shaw, however the work of others that do not conform to his zealous pro-Armenian views. "Many unsupported references"?? If anything, "History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey" has a multitude of well-referenced facts. Bringing up the highly unprofessional methodology of similarly genocide-obsessed pseudo-academicians as Robert Melson and others supplies sad commentary on the unethical methods of fanatics. Armenian extremists actually bombed the Los Angeles home of Prof. Shaw in 1977, because they did not approve of the "Armenian" chapter of this book. Reviewers with an agenda supply a different form of terrorism when their mission is to attempt the destruction of a person's credibility... and there are times when the weapon of the pen can be mightier than the sword. |
