Upcoming Events

National | History and Heritage

no events match your query!

New Events


no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Irish media mote in the eye

offsite link King Hammurabi: Builders law Anthony

offsite link Michael Clifford: low standards in journalism Anthony

offsite link Are the wheels of justice creaking into action? Anthony

offsite link Middle class revolution Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link UN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights

offsite link 5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights

offsite link Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights

offsite link Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights

offsite link Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link Coronavirus is Nowhere Near Endemic, Says WHO Tue Jan 11, 2022 15:46 | Will Jones
The coronavirus is "nowhere near" endemic, the World Health Organisation has said, while Pfizer's CEO says an Omicron vaccine is on its way and admits two doses no longer work. Some people don't want this to end.
The post Coronavirus is Nowhere Near Endemic, Says WHO appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link One in 12 Teachers Absent in First Week of Term as Class Sizes Reach 120 Tue Jan 11, 2022 13:24 | Will Jones
One in 12 teachers was absent from schools in England during the first week of term, according to the latest data, as some class sizes hit 120. Time to end mass testing?
The post One in 12 Teachers Absent in First Week of Term as Class Sizes Reach 120 appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Supreme Leader Nic Sturge-on Tells Scots They May Have to Wear Masks For Years Tue Jan 11, 2022 11:05 | Toby Young
People in Scotland may have to wear masks in public places for years to come, Nicola Sturgeon has warned. This is in spite of masked-up Scotland having a higher number of Covid cases per 100,000 than England.
The post Supreme Leader Nic Sturge-on Tells Scots They May Have to Wear Masks For Years appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Some Healthcare Workers Have Pre-existing Immunity to Covid, Study Finds Tue Jan 11, 2022 08:58 | Noah Carl
Researchers identified a group of healthcare workers who did not become infected during the first wave. They found evidence of pre-existing T-cell immunity, suggesting that not everyone is equally susceptible to Covid.
The post Some Healthcare Workers Have Pre-existing Immunity to Covid, Study Finds appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link How?s He Going to Get Out of This One? Fresh Allegations Emerge That Boris Attended Drinks in the No... Tue Jan 11, 2022 07:00 | Will Jones
Fresh allegations have emerged that Boris Johnson attended a social gathering during the first lockdown, described in an email from his PPS as "socially distanced drinks in the No 10 garden... bring your own booze!?
The post How’s He Going to Get Out of This One? Fresh Allegations Emerge That Boris Attended Drinks in the No. 10 Garden During Lockdown appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link US bombings in Syria and Iraq violate US Constitution Thu Jan 20, 2022 08:28 | en

offsite link Hillary's comeback? Thu Jan 20, 2022 07:56 | en

offsite link NATO expands its membership unwittingly (Ben Wallace) Thu Jan 20, 2022 06:52 | en

offsite link In the 1980s, the Pentagon was preparing a nuclear war in Iran Wed Jan 19, 2022 17:06 | en

offsite link Iran reopens office at OIC Headquarters afer 6 years Wed Jan 19, 2022 08:51 | en

Voltaire Network >>

National - Event Notice
Thursday January 01 1970

Ireland's Great War On Turkey

category national | history and heritage | event notice author Tuesday October 06, 2009 15:30author by PAT WALSH - ATHOL BOOKS Report this post to the editors

This is the first history of Ireland’s War on Turkey and explains why Britain really made war on the Ottoman Empire. It explains the reasons for the establishment of Palestine and Iraq and why the US was repelled from the League of Nations by the behaviour of the British Empire. It describes the rise of Ataturk and the successful Turkish War of Independence.


author by Red Crayolapublication date Wed Oct 14, 2009 00:28author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Is this the same Pat Walsh who wrote the excellent book "The Curious Case of the Mayo Librarian"?

author by Cecil Rpublication date Wed Oct 14, 2009 13:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Since Ireland was part of the UK back then it is hard to see how one can write of "Ireland's war on Turkey". Turkey voluntarily joined the Central Powers at the outset of the war thus bringing them into conflict with the allies. They backed the wrong horse. It was inevitable there would be an end to Turkish mastery of Arabia - the defeat in the war just hastened it. And there was no one else to create the postwar settlement in the Arab areas but the western allies. The borders were artificial but so would any other ones have been. The monarchs installed were generally better rulers than those who came after them in Iraq. The most brutal regimes were those which became republics. Incidentally the US left the League of Nations due to sentiment in the US at the time. It was nothing to do with the British.

author by Jan Hammerpublication date Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Red Crayola-I'm fairly sure the Pat Walsh who writes for Athol Books is not the same man who wrote the "Mayo Librarian"

The Dr. Pat Walsh who writes for Athol Books wrote two books for them about twenty years ago, "From Civil Rights to National war"
and "Irish Republicanism and Socialism"-two critical accounts of Irish nationalism from the view of a "electoral integration" Unionist.
Walsh has recently written another book for Athol with the unwieldy title, "The rise and fall of Imperial Ireland : Redmondism in the context of Britain's conquest of South Africa and its Great War on Germany, 1899-1916", which I haven't seen.

author by Pete.publication date Fri Oct 16, 2009 13:31author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"The borders were artificial but so would any other ones have been."

ALL borders are "artificial" ......honed by the hand of human tribalism.

There is no Law of Physics which sets out the dividing line between England and Scotland.

Birds seem to ignore borders........in their disgraceful avian ignorance.

author by lawrence of arabia - (peter o toole was irish and loved arabs / loathed ottomanspublication date Fri Oct 16, 2009 13:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Ulster in the Somme & no doubt the title of the book is a clever marketing ploy to get us to read about the Irish contigents who followed Galipoli and campaigned in the middle east.

author by Deciespublication date Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Waterford City Library has this book in stock. It's a great story - ESSENTIAL reading!

Tells of the British-Irish invasion of neutral Greece, the overthrow by them (=us) of the Greek government in order to compel even more cannon-fodder into the killing fields, producing:

- a massive expansion of the British Empire into the Arab Middle East, poison-gassing by the RAF of villagers etc etc
- Zionist colonisation of Palestine,
- the destruction of Greece-in-Asia Minor, when Britain's Greek puppet government initiated a savage war of conquest (defeated by Turkey) AFTER the European War ended,
- Turkey's expulsion of Britain from Constantinople and Thrace, which delighted the Arabs that Britain had betrayed.

A horrific record, which the Remembrance zealots prefer to Forget.

Re Cecil R:
"Since Ireland was part of the UK back then it is hard to see how one can write of "Ireland's war on Turkey". "
RTÉ, Professor Horne, & all the usual Imperial-minded crew, insist that the Great War is Our War.
Well, they can't have it both ways!

One of the fascinating facts that Walsh has exhumed is that the Free State, as a component part of the British Empire, was obliged to declare Peace with Turkey in 1924.

It was Our War, Our Shame ok.

author by Deciespublication date Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

That should read:
"the overthrow by them (=us) of the NEUTRAL Greek government".

So much for the lying propaganda about poor little Belgium. What about poor little Greece?

Walsh also proves, beyond shadow of doubt, that the Ottoman government did its damndest to stay neutral and keep out of the war, knowing full well what was at stake, and, just like neutral Greece, was shoehorned by Britain into a war it did not want - and which, in the end, it did not lose, after giving Britain and Ireland a bloody nose - Ireland once (Gallipoli) and Britain twice (Gallipoli and Chanak)!

author by Ataturkpublication date Wed Oct 21, 2009 13:18author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Launch at The Teachers’ Club, Parnell Square, Dublin 1, 3pm, Saturday, 15th October 2009

Forgotten Aspects Of Ireland’s Great War On Turkey
by Dr. Pat Walsh (Athol Books) 2009
540 pp., with photos and maps
ISBN 978 085034 121 8

Ireland’s Great War on Turkey is largely a forgotten event in Irish history. That is despite the fact that it was probably the most significant thing Ireland ever did in the world. The Great War on Turkey made the Middle East (including Palestine and Iraq) what it is today, and had catastrophic effects on the Moslem world that persist to the present - and which we were reminded of again on 9/11 and subsequently on our TV screens.

That War lasted from 1914 until 1924! - when the Irish Free State ratified the Treaty of Lausanne and finally made peace with the Turks, along with the rest of the British Empire. The Irish Government of the Free State were shocked to find that as part of their obligations in signing the Anglo-Irish Treaty they were still at War with the Turks and committed to future conflict with them if the British Empire so desired again!

Why Ireland made war on Turkey
Ireland’s part in the Great War against the Ottoman Empire was an embarrassment to Republican Ireland and its historians and the details of the War on Turkey became forgotten. The more recent historians of a revisionist disposition and those who wish to promote Remembrance commemorations have also refrained from remembering it. Despite all the recent interest in Ireland’s military history the most important conflict that Ireland ever engaged in, in terms of historical consequence, is an absent blank.

This book, the first history of Ireland’s War on Turkey, explains why the British Empire really made war on the Ottoman Empire and why Irishmen found themselves part of the invasion force it sent to Gallipoli. It describes how, as part of England’s strategic decision to destroy Germany, the Turks became targets of British Imperialist expansionism. It explains why the great Berlin to Baghdad Railway, which England saw as a threat to its maritime domination of the world market, was a major factor in the declaration of War on Turkey in November 1914. And it notes how a British invasion force sprang into Iraq immediately.

The book cuts through the accepted axiom that the War on Turkey came about because the Ottomans were allies of Germany. Instead, it proves that the Ottomans did everything to avoid War with Britain but fell victim to England’s determination to engage the Turks in War so that vast areas of Moslem land could be added to the British Empire. The historical relationship between England and Turkey is nvestigated to reveal that Britain had traditionally been an ally of the Turks, had regarded the Ottoman Empire as a functional entity (rather than a ‘sick man’) and a bulwark against Russia and her designs on Constantinople. But all that changed with the alliance between Britain and Russia (and France) aimed at encircling and ultimately destroying the new commercial competitor in Germany.

Britain precipitates Greek catastrophe
Pat Walsh describes how secret British Departments of State constructed black propaganda against the Turks, under the guise of independent academic publications, and enlisted its great literary and historical minds to flood the world and, in particular, the United States with falsities about the Turks - a people who had been greatly admired as courageous fighters and ‘gentlemen’ up until 1914. This was to overcome the American reluctance to engage in a War in which its prospective allies were aiming to expand their Empires through secret treaties and broken promises. It goes on to explain why the United States (which did not go to war against Turkey) was repelled from the League of Nations by the behaviour of the British Empire in the conquered Ottoman territories after the War.

The book also describes an event that is completely forgotten in Ireland - the political and military assault launched by Britain on neutral Greece and the devastating effect this ultimately had on the Greek people across the Balkans and Asia Minor. The Greek King and his government were deposed by the actions of Irish soldiers in the British Army from Salonika, a starvation blockade and seizure of the harvest, that resulted in widespread famine in the neutral nation. And all this under the guise of ‘the war for small nations!’ The Greek tragedy in Anatolia is also described later as the puppet government installed in Athens through British bayonets were enlisted as a catspaw to bring the Turks to heel after the Armistice at Mudros. The Greek Army perished on the burning sands of Anatolia and the two thousand year Greek population of Asia Minor fled on boats from Smyrna, when Britain withdrew its support because the Greek democracy reasserted its will to have back its King.

Zionism, the Arab Revolt and the needs of Empire
It explains the reasons for the establishment of Palestine and the British attitude to the Jews that went in to it. Looking at British correspondence at the level of state and the writings of English propagandists and literati the book unearths a very disturbing finding. That is the anti-Semitism of the British ruling class, which saw the Jews as dangerous financiers and revolutionaries, in the pay of Germany, who had taken control of the Ottoman Empire. Britain’s final solution to this Jewish problem was to adopt the Zionist programme of the small group of anti-assimilationist Jews and confine them to a homeland in Palestine. The Zionists also proved an important ally for England in its manoeuvrings against the French who had been promised the territory of Palestine, as part of Syria in the secret Sykes/Picot Treaty.

In making War on the Ottoman Empire, and in pursuing the Zionist objective, the British Empire not only destroyed the prosperous and content Jewish communities across the Middle East but also sowed the seeds for generations of conflict with the local inhabitants of Palestine who would find themselves the chief victims of this act of ethnic cleansing.

Dr. Walsh also outlines how the Arabs were the victims of a great British triple-cross. They were encouraged to rise against the Turks with the promise of a great independent Arab state after the War, located, like any other national homeland, within the boundary of the area inhabited by the Arabs. And then they found this area had been secretly divided between the British and French, and Palestine declared to be a Jewish homeland without recourse to the wishes of the actual inhabitants.

The book explains the reasons for the British conquering of Mesopotamia and establishment of Iraq and how Britain cobbled together an unstable mix of peoples from Basra to Mosul in the strategic interests of the Empire and rigged an election by kidnapping the opposition candidate in order to maintain control. In doing this a template of violence and electoral manipulation for Iraqi politics was established by Britain that has persisted to the present.

Ataturk’s glory and Irish awe
Dr. Walsh concludes on a positive note, describing the great achievement of Ataturk in leading the Turkish nation to independence from the Imperialist Powers. This was an event that Republican Ireland could only marvel at, from the confines of the Treaty and the British Empire - an Empire whose demise Ataturk set in motion through the successful Turkish war of independence.

author by Ataturkpublication date Wed Oct 21, 2009 14:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Launch at The Teachers’ Club, Parnell Square, Dublin 1, 3pm, Saturday, 24th October 2009

author by Jan Hammerpublication date Wed Oct 21, 2009 19:33author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Does Dr. Walsh's book mention the Ottoman Empire's massacres of Armenians in the 1894-96 and 1915-17 periods?

author by Deciespublication date Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Yes, pages 197-200.
Also Britain's slaughter of a million or so German women, children, elderly, invalids, etc. by starvation in the Royal Navy blockade. And since this was after the Armistice, there isn't even the Ottoman excuse of a crime committed under pressure of a war they'd striven to avoid.
Also in the book - the British blockade and starvation of neutral Greece etc etc

author by Sevinch Karacapublication date Sat Feb 06, 2010 18:58author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Oh Dear, ı should get on to Indy more often. Six months away from Ireland and I miss ample amount of revelations and discovery of previously unknown historical facts about Turkey. Goodness, where does Pat Walsh get his facts from? Turkish Military Library? Turkish Independence War? "Saving What is Left of the Colonial Empire from Other Colonial Empires" is my suggested heading for this section. Britain had been allies with Turks? When? While crossing the Berring straight back in 60.000 B.C? Great Fighters? What is it, some kind of a joke? Is that supposed to be a praise to Turks? Man writes Manly Men's History uses men's manly words.

author by Lawrence - of Arabiapublication date Sun Feb 07, 2010 16:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Britain had been allies with Turks???!!!"

I don't doubt for a moment your knowledge of the history of your own country, S.K.

But what about the Crimea, Florence Nightingale, and all that fuss about saving Constantinople from the Russian Bear?

And this was no temporary aberration in Turkish-British relations:

" We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do,
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too,
We've fought the Bear before, and while we're Britons true,
The Russians shall not have Constantinople. "

(- from late 19th century popular song.)

Surely it wouldn't be excessively man-like to actually read the book before rushing to judgement on it?

author by Sevincpublication date Mon Mar 01, 2010 16:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Saving Constantiopole
From the Russian Boar
To have it all"
was the next verse of this poem I would say, If only Brits could just have it. Get real man.

author by factsveritaspublication date Fri Apr 02, 2010 21:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

What is most interesting about Dr. Pat Walsh's book is the author's expose of the Wellington House propaganda machine in terms of the massive anti_Turkish WWI propaganda it has generated. Author Cate Haste had already shredded parallel anti-German WWI propaganda by the same "institution" in her book _Keep the Home Fires Burning_ (1977). It was about time someone did the same about all the fabrications generated to vilify and demonize the Ottoman Turks. Look back in your library for all those war-time books, perhaps you will find common threads running through them, even common styles, though the fictitious authors' names will be different, and lots and lots of inconsistencies. Read again _The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire_ (Misc. No.31), marked "For Official Use", but printed by the boatload in multiple countries, full of informers' names such as X, and town names such as Y. Then read what Pat Walsh has to say about the book. As pure detective work it is great fun, but for those of us who are still haunted by this real WWI atrocity it is a duty to bring the truth into the open, and the author's treatment of the subject is a breath of fresh air.

author by Shakespeare.publication date Fri Apr 02, 2010 23:04author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Real nice guys the Ottoman Turks.

They commited the first great genocide of the 20th century.
In 1915 they butchered the Armenians.
See this link:


A few lines from it:

"Within nine months, more than 600,000 Armenians were massacred. Of the deported during that same period, more than 400,000 perished of the brutalities and privations of the southward march into Mesopotamia. By September more than a million Armenians were the victims of what later became known as the Armenian Genocide. A further 200,000 were forcibly converted to Islam to give Armenia a new Turkish sense of identity and strip the Armenian people of their past as the first Christian state in the world."

That doesn't matter to some people of course.
The Ottomans were fighting those evil British Imperialists at the same time.
Therefore the Ottoman Turks must be The Good Guys.

The Turks,of course, still think that they were The Good Guys in 1915.

Just 3 weeks ago Turkey withdrew its ambassador to Sweden because the Swedish parliament voted to have the Turkish treatment of Armenians in 1915 described as "Genocide".



author by factsveritaspublication date Sat Apr 03, 2010 07:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It is amazing how Armenians always point to 1915 as the start of history. Could it because they want to draw attention away from something that happened in1914? While no one claims nothing happened to Armenians, I have already written above about the atrocious WWI anti--Turkish propaganda for the period starting from 1915, and I do not get my information from the Internet either. While I would have been happy just to stick to the merits of Dr. Walsh's book, I will make an exception this once, as obviously "Shakespeare" was waiting in ambush already. How about a few books to perk everyone up so they can see what happened in December of 1914, and one to summarize it all:

1.Stephen Pope & Elizabeth Ann-Wheal, _The Dictionary of the First World War_, St. Martin's Press, New York (1995), pg. 34:
"Denied the right to a national congress in October 1914, moderate Armenian politicians fled to Bulgaria, but extreme nationalists crossed the border to form a rebel division with Russian equipment. It invaded in December and slaughtered an estimated 120,000 non-Armenians while the Turkish Army was preoccupied with mobilization and the Caucasian Front offensive towards Sarikamis."

2. Rafael de Nogales, _Four Years Beneath the Crescent_, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York (1926), pg. 35:
"After hostilities had actually commenced, the Deputy to the Assembly for Erzerum, Garo Pasdermichan, passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and officers of the Third Army to the Russians; to return with them soon after, burning hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Mussulman villagers that fell into their hands."

3. Ahmed Emin, Ph.D., _Turkey in the World War_ , Yale University Press, New Haven (For the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) (1930) pages 218, 219:
"When Turkey actually entered the War, the plain of Passinlar, north of Erzeroum, was the concentration point for the Eastern Army. The plain of Elashkird-Bayizid, separated from it by the Sovanly mountains, was temporarily cut off from all communication with the rest of Turkey. It included the districts of Bayizid, Diadin, Toprak Kala, Kara Klissia, and Totak, as also the subdistrict of Abaga (attached to the district of Barkiri in Van) and about sixteen villages attached to the district of Malaskird in Mush. The registered population amounted to 100,000; and six nomad Kurdish tribes numbering about 40,000 were also living in this territory. A short time after the proclamation of war by Russia (in the first days of December, 1914), the whole plain was invaded by the Armenian volunteer division, wearing Russian uniforms. One of the regiments was commanded by M. Pastirmadjian, the deputy from Erzeroum in the Turkish parliament. The local Armenian population amounted to l0 or 12 per cent of the total. The Turco-Kurdish population was entirely defenseless, because government forces did not exist, and the tribal warriors, who formed a light cavalry division, had been sent to the front. Within eighteen days the whole local Mohammedan population had been massacred by Armenian soldiers helped by local Armenians. Only one-tenth managed to escape, and only a small part of them managed to reach the other side of the mountains."

And, finally for this post, to address the gross exaggerations of Genocide and the myth of Armenian innocence (once again), from the pen of a Christian missionary:

4. George M. Lamsa, _The Secret of the Near East_, The Ideal Press, Philadelphia (1923), pg. 133 (from the chapter entitled "The Armenian Revolution"):
"In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed and the bishop killed. It is a well-known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies."

The day Armenians will own up to what they did, stop their racist accusations and fabrications, allow historians to dig up the facts unhindered by harassment and intimidation, and stop politicizing what they cannot prove historically will be the first real day towards any reconciliation. It would also be a nice touch if they were to open up the archives of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Yerevan and Boston.

author by Shakespeare.publication date Sat Apr 03, 2010 09:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I am not excusing any British actions Factsveritas.

Nor am I swallowing any false Armenian propaganda.

There is DOCUMENTARY evidence of the massacres.

These photographs were taken by the German Armin T. Wegner and have been stored ever since in the archives of Deutsche Bank.


Robert Fisk is not known for his love of British Imperialism.
This is what he writes:


Quote from his article:

"On 15 September 1915, for example (and a carbon of this document exists) Talaat Pasha, the Turkish Interior minister, cabled an instruction to his prefect in Aleppo about what he should do with the tens of thousands of Armenians in his city. "You have already been informed that the government... has decided to destroy completely all the indicated persons living in Turkey... Their existence must be terminated, however tragic the measures taken may be, and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to any scruples of conscience." These words are almost identical to those used by Himmler to his SS killers in 1941."

Fisk did not invent this well known quote from Hitler:

"One authority on extermination who did recognise the Armenian genocide was Adolf Hitler. In a 1939 speech, in which he ordered the killing, "mercilessly and without compassion", of Polish men, women and children, he concluded: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

author by Sean Ogpublication date Sat Apr 03, 2010 23:26author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Was it not the Germans who aided the Turks or at least showed them how to carry out the killings / genocide of the Armenians ?
I reacll hearing a lecture about this topic a few years ago and that was patently obvious and true .
And is Hitler [may his memory be for a curse ] not reported as having said when the Germans were planning the persecution and annihilation of European Jews ,in effect ," so what who remembers the Genocide of the Armenians these days ." ?
Is it correct and agreed by all sides in this tortuous argument that there WAS a big exchange of Turkish Muslim and Armenian Christian populations or is that something that contributors will argue about too ?

author by factsveritaspublication date Mon Apr 05, 2010 07:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Sean, the population exchange after the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1923) was between Greece and Turkey. This had already been agreed upon in 1913, but the outbreak of WWI prevented it from taking place. Most of the Greek and Turkish populations in the two countries were thus exchanged, though of course both sides suffered material losses as a result.

There was no population exchange between Armenia and Turkey. The government of the Grand National Assembly did invite Armenians back to Turkey, as the original intention of the Armenian relocation was to prevent more Armenians getting involved in rebellions and to move them away from locations where they may be effective in that regard. Note that the inital relocations were towards central Anatolia, to the vicinity of Konya (a book available to you would be _From Berlin to Bagdad_ by American journalist George Abel Screiner, who describes meeting Armenians being taken to Konya after the Sassoun, now Suleymaniye, rebellion), and that what is now Syria and Lebanon were, at that time, not threatened by war.

I do not know exactly how many Armenians responded, but post-war frictions proved too much for them and many eventually decided to leave again. I have asked around to find more information on this (unlike Shakespeare, I do not know everything). My personal recollection is having read once that about 200,000 responded, though I may be wrong. As for the Turks living in Armenia, well there really are not any right now. Ask Shakespeare what happened to them.

I will later post in reply to the photographs Shakespeare has pointed to and the alleged Hitler quote you both mentioned. Let me say briefly that very few of the photographs on that page belong to Armin Wegner, and some of them are falsifications (e.g. wrong period uniforms on the soldiers, the children in the central picture are from a propaganda film shot in Armenia, not Diyar-El-Zor or any other location where the Armenians were relocated). The alleged Hitler quote is another fabrication which was not allowed in the Nurnberg records. More on these later, since, as the Turkish saying goes "a fool drops a stone in a well, and it takes forty wise men to bring it up". So the explanation has to be again torturous, I am afraid.

In regard to German complicity in the relocation of the Armenians, suffice it to say that it was the German battleships commanded by German officers in Ottoman uniforms bombing the Russian ports without knowledge of the Ottoman government, thus ensuring that Russia would declare war on the Ottoman Empire (though the Russians already had plans of taking the Straits and Istanbul at the very least) and that Germans were in control of even the Ottoman mines. The German plan was, of course, to colonize the Ottoman lands.

author by Shakespearepublication date Mon Apr 05, 2010 08:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

So the photos are “false”.
Oh dear.

The Hitler quote was disallowed because of disagreements about its exact provenance.
That does NOT mean that it is false.
Detailed discussion on the matter here:


(Even if he never said it, Hitler’s actions during WW2 proves that the sentiments expressed in the quote was very much the way he saw the world.)

Re: “The Relocation” of the Armenians….how neat and tidy.

Not murdered........"Relocated".

“It Never Happened”.

“All Lies.”

The tired clarion call of the Extreme Right.

author by Seán Aostapublication date Mon Apr 05, 2010 09:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Winston Churchill has a particular responsibility for Gallipoli and all the Middle Eastern human disasters that flow from it. He had a quite "resilient" attitude towards genocide as a policy employed by modern states (and by Britain in particular). His testimony to Lord Peel's 1937 Parliamentary Commission on Palestine illustrates the development of his attitudes:

"I do not admit that the dog in the manger [Palestinian Arabs in Palestine] has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. . .
I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race. . . has come in and taken their place."

Writing in 1920 Churchill said:

"... if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire."

Churchill was not unique. This was the accepted view of genocide. George Bernard Shaw contended that ”universal suffrage had put power into the hands of riff-raff, threatening national suicide – so that real progress depended on the selective breeding of a race of Supermen” , and that ”social improvement would have to wait upon the lengthy process of racial improvement” . Beatrice and Sidney Webb, along with HG Wells, declared themselves in favour of the National Efficiency Programme of the imperialist theorist Alfred Milner (High Commisioner in South Africa): “An advanced, efficient nation or race was entitled to crush an inferior race.”

Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke was a prominent Liberal, expected to become party leader and Prime Minister until scuppered by a divorce case. Here is what he said about Empire in his popular book Greater Britain: "The Anglo-Saxon is the only extirpating nation on earth. Up to the commencement of the now inevitable destruction of the Red Indians..., of the Maoris and of the [aboriginal] Australians, no numerous race has ever been blotted out by an invader. ... The English traveller [in India] ... finds ... naked barbarians, plunged in the densest ignorance and superstition, and safe only from extermination because the European cannot dwell permanently in the climate of their land."

What this means was demonstrated across the British Empire which projected itself by brute force and conquest around the world. Here is what happened in Tasmania:

"In 1830 Tasmania was put under martial law, a line of armed beaters was formed across the island, and an attempt was made to drive the aborigines into a cul-de-sac." (Moorehead, The Fatal Impact.) "The final extermination [of the Tasmanians] was a large-scale event, undertaken with the co-operation of the military and judiciary. … Soldiers of the Fortieth Regiment drove the natives between two great rock formations, shot all the men and dragged the women and children out of fissures in the rocks to knock their brains out." (Ziehr, Hell in Paradise.)

Extermination was the norm in the British Empire, providing Hitler with the model for his East-land colony or Lebensraum: "We will select the best settlement areas as land for German settlement ... We will deal with the population. ... We don't need to give ourselves any pangs of conscience about this ... After all we don't think of [Red] Indians when eating Canadian wheat. ... England ... was free to ... eat its frozen mutton [from Australia] without looking too closely into how they were produced. ... One task lies ahead: Teutonisation by bringing in Germans and regarding the original inhabitants as [Red] Indians. ... We will have to have a razzia [extermination war], square kilometre by square kilometre and constantly stringing [people up. This is to be a real Indian War." (Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44, Hugh Trevor-Roper).

author by Janissarypublication date Mon Apr 05, 2010 14:03author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The book "Ireland's Great War on Turkey" is discussed here, on this Turkish blog:


author by A Freemanpublication date Mon Apr 05, 2010 16:06author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It seems we have another type of Holocaust-denier in the form of 'factsveritas' (sic) on this site, most historians agree that 1.5 million Armenians were murdered by the Turks not to mention the massacre of large numbers of Assyrians in northern Iraq and Greeks in Asia minor. The Turks might have got some ideas from the German massacre of the Herero tribe in SW Africa in 1907 but had their own long tradition of ethnic massacre going back to the Hamidian massacres of Armenians in the 1880s and 1890s.

author by Seán Aostapublication date Mon Apr 05, 2010 18:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

So the Irish were right all along then, in joining Churchill's Crusade to Gallipoli, in the interests of genocidal Belgium and Russia?

author by factsveritaspublication date Tue Apr 06, 2010 08:26author address author phone Report this post to the editors

call people names and hope they stick. How clever of "A. Freeman" to call me a "Holocaust-denier"! And how clever of Shakespeare to call me "extreme right"!

I know that The Holocaust (as there is only one) is the Jewish Genocide, which I can never deny. I also know that the Armenian propagandists like to call what they allege to be an "Armenian genocide" as Holocaust as well, so that they can create parallels where none exist. By the way, have you ever googled "Nazi Armenians"?

On the other hand, I have seen only one halfway straight reply to the points I raised, from Shakespeare, where s/he admitted that "The Hitler quote was disallowed because of disagreements about its exact provenance." But then if you already know that this is so, why do you even mention it. Even that is an understatement, because the alleged Hitler quote is a fabrication, and I will write in more detail about this later, if no one objects, I do not wish to abuse the privilege afforded by the hosts of this page. By the way, sorry I do not use Wikipedia as a reference when it comes to matters of this nature, but only, say, when I wish to investigate how many wings a bird has.

Shakespeare did not believe me when I mentioned falsifications in regard to the photographs he pointed to, the comment being "Oh dear". Again, a detailed discourse will have to follow later, but here is one simple way to find out for the interested reader. Check out the uniforms on the soldiers standing with the severed heads, then go on, say Google, and find articles on "Ottoman uniforms". You will find that the Ottoman soldier of WWI did not wear a fez, and had a light brown uniform with a single row of buttons down the middle. The uniforms in the photos are, on the average, at least ten years before WWI, maybe more. The answer to the question of who are wearing them is "I do not know". But then again, I know for certain that the photographer was not Armin Wegner, and that there is very little likelihood that any of the heads belong to an Armenian. So why show them as Armenians murdered by "Turkish" soldiers? Again, the question of provenance I suppose, combined with that of convenience. "Who would really know or bother to research?"

Finally we come to the point of it all. The point is not that nothing happened to Armenians. Obviously many wrongs were done to them, and many died. Many wrongs were done as well to the Ottoman Turks and Kurds (and other Ottoman Moslems) by the Armenians, and in fact before a single Armenian was moved anywhere (see for example my earlier post with the four references) and also afterwards, and many of them died. The Armenian propagandists have continued the WWI tradition of vilifying and demonizing the Turks for purposes best known to them, grossly exaggerating what happened as well as the number of dead, and not only minimizing, but indeed attempting to totally mask the violent Armenian aggression inherent in the historical context.

It is not true that historians agree as to an "Armenian genocide" (kindly name me some not sponsored by Armenian money). Unfortunately, the aggressive element among the Armenian propagandists have used methods of initimidation and threat to subdue many. Still Stanford Shaw of UCLA (deceased), Heath Lowry of Princeton, Guenter Lewy of University of Massachusetts, Justin McCarthy of Louisville University, among many others, have stood up against these unfair allegations.

The population numbers before and after are very important to understanding what happened, and perhaps a brief third discourse on that as well, later on. Thanks for bearing with me so far.

author by factsveritaspublication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 07:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The first appearance of the alleged Hitler quote is in a war-time book entitled _What About Germany?_(1942), with the indicated author being Louis Lochner. Part of the text of the book is available on the Internet, including also the pages that contain the purported text of a speech Hitler made at a secret meeting on August 22, 1939, and Lochner’s explanations regarding the speech, which are all in the first chapter of the book:


Lochner, known as the A.P. Bureau Chief in Berlin from 1928, claims that:

'My informant seldom visited me, but when he came it was always on legitimate business which he was careful to announce in advance over our tapped telephone. Even to-day nobody in Germany suspects him. It was he who not only gave me the zero hour for the outbreak of World War II, but who later informed me of the exact day and minute for the attack on Crete. It was he, too, who, thirty days before Hitler started his offensive against Russia, revealed the day and hour -- 3 A.M. on June 22, 1941 -- when the Nazi wave would start to inundate the U.S.S.R.

A week before Hitler's assault on Poland, this man delivered to me a three-page typed manuscript. The document, written in German, is entitled, "Contents of Speech to the Supreme Commanders and Commanding Generals, Obersalzberg, August 22, 1939." It is one of the most sensational and, at the same time, most revealing papers I own. '

As one may guess, it does not appear that Lochner has taken any action on these very important news of the “zero hour for the outbreak of World War II” or the “exact day and minute for the attack on Crete”, as well as the “day and hour … when the Nazi wave would start the inundate the U.S.S.R.”, as otherwise he would already be known to everyone as the oracle of WWII. Clearly, these are entries to validate, in the reader's mind, the existence of a very knowledgable and secretive informant, who was able to pass on such information to the A.P. Bureau chief whose office was probably under surveillance day and night by the Gestapo, who would have known the identity of every single visitor, down to the sweeping maid, who, by the way could very well have been a German agent herself. Here is the relevant part from Lochner's book, which by the way mentions Poles, not Jews, the Armenian quote present or absent:

“Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formation * in readiness -- for the present only in the East -- with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

Without even discussing the Nurnberg records, it is possible for the reader to discern that Louis Lochner’s book was published in the middle of WW II, was most likely reviewed and embellished by the U.S. State Department to help in the war effort, and certainly contained additions or modifications in accordance with such embellishments. What is more is that the book was printed almost simultaneously at several locations across the world (for example, in South Africa), further confirming the hand of authorities in its publication. In this context, it is also interesting to note that the British version of the book was published by Hodder & Stoughton, as you will see on the web page I give above, which operated in close association with the government, and was responsible for most of the war propaganda books published, for example, in WWI.

Lochner left Germany in May 1942. However, note that the date of the speech “containing” the alleged quote regarding Armenians is August 1939. Why is it that this speech and the quote remained under wraps for so long? Lochner’s explanation is that when he offered to give the speech to the United States embassy in Berlin, he was refused:

'Fearing that the document might be discovered in my home, I took it to the American Embassy and asked for permission to deposit it there. I also suggested that its contents be communicated to the American Government.

"Why, my dear fellow, that's dynamite," the American official exclaimed, startled, when I began to read it. "I don't dare keep it in this Embassy for even an hour. Please take it with you at once."

There was nothing left for me to do except to take it to my home until such time as I could arrange to get it out of the country. '

It is very difficult to find the above believable, especially when the speech in question, as reported by Lochner in his book, maligned the leaders of every single ally of Germany - as well as those of Turkey, which remained neutral, but was constantly pressured by both sides to join the war - and gave the U.S. the perfect opportunity to separate Germany from its allies, and destroy any German hopes of a possible future alliance withTurkey, with its exposure even before the U.S. entered the war. The U.S. could certainly also have given France or England the opportunity.

Two explanations present themselves: The first one is that the U.S. embassy already knew the contents of what Lochner offered them, as they were probably involved in its arrival in Lochner’s hands. However, this is less likely than the next possibility. The second possibility is that the original speech became known to the U.S. later on and, when they took advantage of Lochner’s release from Germany to have him write the book, the phrase in question, as well as most likely other material, was inserted to play on the sensitivities of the American public, and the Allies in general. It is highly unlikely that an official of the U.S. embassy would pass up such an opportunity to acquire a copy of the speech, or at least not ask higher ups or Washington whether the speech should be acquired. Certainly the embassy could have easily transmitted the document in cypher in 1939.

As for the Nurnberg records, I will reference a Turkish professor who has examined such falsifications for over 30 years:

Turkkaya Ataov, _Armenian Falsifications_(2008) ,Okey Enterprises, New York , pages 95-96:

“The truth is that the Nuremberg trials have never accepted that version of the Hitler speech with a reference to the Armenians as evidence The documents approved by the Nuremberg prosecuters as the official minutes of the Hitler talk on 22 August 1939, were given the numbers of USA-29 (or later PS-798) and USA30 (or later PS-1014). These documents also appear in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Vol III, pp 81-596, pp 665-666 and in Documents on German Foreign Policy: 1918-1945, Series D, Vol. VII, pp.200-206 The prosecution did not introduce a third document, initially numbered as USA-28, as evidence. But none ofthese versions contains the sentence in question Hence, the assertion that the Nuremberg transcripts confirm the Hitler "quotation" is false They do, however, establish that Hitler has not made that "statement ".

Thus you have the origins of the alleged quote as well as what happened to it later on in the hands of knowledgable people, together with a number of references. As for this fabricated quote making the rounds today, chalk it up to the victory of money and propaganda over truth.

Not a brief explanation, but I hope it was interesting so everyone gained something. In a few days, about the photographs.

author by Shakespeare.publication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 16:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Hitler's actions in Poland were completely consistent with the speech.
So it doesn't matter a damn whether he made the speech or not.

He murdered people wholesale in Eastern Europe.

As for Armenia:

One and a half million Armenians disappeared on the edge of Europe in 1915.

They were "relocated".

Pol Pot "relocated" people......... ........................... never to be seen again.

Milosovich relocated people (Shrebreniza)......... never to be seen again.

Stalin "relocated" people......never to be seen again.

Just this very day the President of Poland died in a plane crash on the way to comemorate 22,000 "relocated" Polish Officers who were never seen again.

"They were just Relocated".

author by JoeStalinpublication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 18:04author address author phone Report this post to the editors

you made a totally false statement and were proved wrong- to now just blithely claim 'it doesn't matter', when in all probability your previous pronouncements on the matter are false, and then try to change the subject in an effort to disguise your inaccuracy, marks you as a person not at all interested in any form of 'truth'.

You appear to by far more concerned with scoring propaganda points than you are in not making false statements. The very least a person of integrity would do would be to acknowledge that they are wrong when it is shown that they are wrong.

Your absolute certainty in the 'absolute rightness' of your point of view, in the face of evidence to the contrary, is just the sort of thing people like Hitler used to indulge in.

No doubt the complete irony of this is totally lost on you, as it would have been on Hitler

author by Shakespeare.publication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 18:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I merely pointed out that the actions taken in Poland EXACTLY matched the words in the speech.

The neutral journalist probably reported it dead right.

The speech was mild by the standards of the murderous words in Mein Kampf.

Read it.

author by JoeStalinpublication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 20:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

A simpe review of your words will settle it i guess - you were disputing FV's point that the killings of Armenians was part of a long series of tit-for-tat massacres on both sides (something he provided evidence for)

You however insisted that the killing of Armenians should be isolated from the other events preceding it, such as massacres carried out by the Armenians on Turks,

in order to bolster your point you quoted Fisk (a journalist, not a historian, and not reporting on contemporary events which he might have some first-hand knowledge) you then said:

Fisk did not invent this well known quote from Hitler:

"One authority on extermination who did recognise the Armenian genocide was Adolf Hitler. In a 1939 speech, in which he ordered the killing, "mercilessly and without compassion", of Polish men, women and children, he concluded: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

FV showed that the quote (which you insisted was not an invention) was indeed most likely to be an invention, and he quoted what to me seemed to be compelling evidence to back up his claim


maybe you should now admit that a major point you used to bolster your argument has turned out to be in all likelihood just a piece of propaganda?

author by factsveritaspublication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 20:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Shakespeare's logic appears to be "Hitler genocides indicate an Armenian genocide, so it really does not matter what Hitler may have or have not said about Armenians", and he goes on to claim that "One and a half million Armenians disappeared on the edge of Europe in 1915.".

Firstly the question is indeed whether Hitler may have uttered the statement or not, as Armenian propagandists always make sure they insert this into their discussion for obvious reasons. Thus, universal acknowledgement that the statement is a fabrication will expose the Armenian propagandists as falsifiers, and people will start looking for their other falsifications, which are many, including the number of one-and-a-half-million dead.

When I have the opportunity to post on the population numbers, I will show that the above number corresponds to the actual number of Ottoman-Armenians, and that the number of Armenian dead due to all causes (massacres, old age, illnesses, rebellions, war famine, fighting on the Russian side) could not have exceeded three-hundred-thousand, whereas the number of Turks and Kurds directly killed by the Armenians exceeds this, excluding the damage done by Armenian aid to the Russian army. You can see my post of April 3 (click on post number 17) for some pre-1915 material on this subject.

Shakespeare, "an estimated" 120,000 non-Armenian Ottomans got willfully murdered in December of 1914, not counting those that died in various uprisings in Ottoman towns. I have not seen you comment on this yet.

author by Polymathpublication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 20:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The massacre itself had nothing to do with Hitler.
Hitler was a 25 year old corporal when it happened.

He was referring to the obvious fact that well known massacres are forgotten soon.

Young Americans today know nothing about the Vietnam War and even less about the Korean War.

We might have forgotten what happened in a Katyn forest unless a Polish President had not died today:



author by JoeStalinpublication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 21:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The massacre itself had nothing to do with Hitler.

I agree - so to mention Hitler in the first place was pretty silly. S only brought it up in order to demonise the Turks by association with Hitler. (Fisk too in my opinion)

S was quite adamant about comparing the two - which is why it is important to point out that the quote is most likely mere propaganda - since S appears to be more interested in propagandising than actual genuine historical debate

He was referring to the obvious fact that well known massacres are forgotten soon.

you might make the case that Fisk was, whereas S was definitely just trying to equate Turks with Hitler

We might have forgotten what happened in a Katyn forest unless a Polish President had not died today:

YOU might have,

me: not so much ;)

author by Shakespearepublication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 22:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors

We have all forgotten many other massacres JoeStalin.

That's for sure.

We can only speak about the horrors we have heard about.

author by JoeStalinpublication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 23:26author address author phone Report this post to the editors

So maybe now you 'get' the point that FV making bout their being a series of massacres on both sides leading up to the 1915 event, and that Armenians cannot claim to be wholly innocent victims given their own massacres of Turks?

Maybe now you might admit that FV's point is possibly a valid one?

Maybe now you might admit that the situation is not as black&white as you had previously supposed it to be?

Maybe now you might begin to wonder WHY you had not heard much about the other massacres carried out by Armenians?

The winners get to write the 'history' - and the Turks did not win WW1 so they did not get to write the history

author by Shakespearepublication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 23:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

All history books are biased JoeStalin.

The trick is knowing the difference between a "Party Political Broadcast" and actual history..
Propaganda versus the truth?

Tough call deciding between them sometimes.

author by JoeStalinpublication date Sat Apr 10, 2010 23:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

my new litmus test for discerning an historical event's level of likelihood or it's 'historical truthfulness is: 'Did I learn it in High School history class?'

If the answer is 'Yes', I generally then conclude it's probably a lie :)

author by factsveritaspublication date Tue Apr 13, 2010 08:04author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I have found that they are available as searchable pdf images of the actual Nurnberg documents on the Internet:


_NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION_, VOLUME III, Office of United States, Chief of Counsel For Prosecution of Axis Criminality, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946.

(In case you are interested, all the volumes are under: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/NT_Nazi-conspira....html)

No mention of Armenians whatsoever in either of the two speeches. His two speeches on that date (22 August 1939), numbered 798-PS and 1014-PS start on pages 581 and 665, respectively. Alternatively search for "22 August 1939" and "22 Aug 1939", respectively, or just "22 Aug".

I rest my case as to the fabricated alleged Hitler quote.

author by Shakespeare.publication date Tue Apr 13, 2010 08:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The Hitler speech is a sideline factsveritas.

(He probably made because it accords exactly with his subsequent behaviour and the honest jurnalist who reported it was not given to telling lies.Not every single rant of Hitler was written down on the day.)

Are you denying that his sidekick Gobbels said this?:

"The Slavs are not people, they are a conglomeration of animals".

Hitler would have been proud of the quote about Armenians.

Even if he never uttered it.

author by factsveritaspublication date Tue Apr 13, 2010 16:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Shakespeare, the version of the HItler speech in Lochner's book is a heavily doctored version of the two in the Nurnberg records, not a separate version. The speeches are not very long, I am sure you can find time to read and see.

Also it is impossible for Lochner to have brought any Hitler speech with him when he left Germany, as "Lochner was interned for almost five months at Bad Nauheim near Frankfurt am Main, then released in exchange for German diplomats and correspondents in May 1942." (http://www.traces.org/louislochner.html). it is pretty certain that the Gestapo would have gone through everything he had during those five months.

author by Shakespeare.publication date Wed Apr 14, 2010 20:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Also it is impossible for Lochner to have brought any Hitler speech with him when he left Germany."

You seem to deny Locher the ability to remember things factsveritas.

"It never happened".

author by factsveritaspublication date Thu Apr 15, 2010 19:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

And what else did Lochner commit to memory verbatim before he was confined by the Germans for five months, presuming he actually received a copy of the speech in the first place?

No Shakespeare, I stand by what I have written so far, especially since the actual speeches are in the Nurnberg records I have given the Internet addresses, and even the page numbers, for above, and I will let the readers of this page judge for themselves.

I will be happy knowing that you will always feel a pang of conscience if you were to repeat the fabricated alleged Hitler quote in the future, but I hope that you will get over your prejudices and see the truth.

Number of comments per page
locked We are currently not accepting any more comments on this article.
© 2001-2022 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy