When I come across the latest genocide insanity
and when I am not too busy, I sometimes write the offender a "What do you
think you're doing?" letter. Of course, there are too many of these
non-thinkers now who instantly buy into pro-Armenian propaganda, and too many
of them are too far gone in their deeply rooted beliefs and prejudices. Too
many of them, in other words, have become "Armenian"; you can try to
appeal to their honor and sense of fair play till you turn blue (more
correctly, bluer; one is already blue from their massive hypocritical hatred),
and barrage them with objective fact after fact after fact... it will be to no
avail. When I began the site, for example, I corresponded with Prof. Henry
Huttenbach, and nothing I said sank in. (To compound matters, Huttenbach has a
background in history, where he is duty-bound to be objective.) He would
complain that I protested too much (!) and in one of the few instances where
he tried to back up his position rationally, pointed to Arnold Toynbee (the Wellington House
propagandist) as a valid historian. The unprofessional and partisan ways in
which these people approach the matter can be maddening. Huttenbach, in a
burst of honesty, even stated that it was his job to affirm the "Armenian
Genocide." (I was on him with that one: No, Prof. Huttenbach, I replied;
your job is to find the truth and to tell the truth, no matter how much it
goes against your personal grain.)
At any rate, these letters are rarely put up at the TAT site, so they are
written and forgotten — especially by the prejudiced ones the letters are
directed too. (Once in a while, though, there are exceptions; letter-writing
is not a waste of time.) As a result, I would often ask myself, instead of the
"almost always" wasted effort, why didn't I prepare a page on the
bum, instead? This way, at least the world can potentially discover the
scholar or journalist's lack of fair play and lack of commitment to
professional duty. Since a professional's reputation is invaluable (and a
target for the genociders' ad hominem attacks, as with, for example, Israel Charny), perhaps the more
honorable among these genocide nuts will be forced to look at what they are
doing, and the great harm they are causing (not only to their reputations —
one day, there is going to be an explosion on what a hoax the Armenian
"genocide" is, and the reputation of some of these folks is going to
be seriously damaged — but to the hatred they perpetuate by, in this case,
equating Turkish people with Nazis). An awakening on the part of these
genocide devotees hasn't happened too many times yet; the genocide juggernaut
is too powerful. But there have been times when a few of those who
haven't plunged too deeply into the depths have second-guessed themselves.
missionary Maria Jacobsen noted in her diary on February 7, 1915: “The officers are
filling their pockets, while the soldiers die of starvation, lack of hygiene, and
Prof. Guenter Lewy, The First
Genocide of the Twentieth Century
Even the Ottoman soldiers, the lifeline for the nation, were
starving, and dying in large numbers from the same causes the Armenians were dying
from, prompting the question: did the Ottoman government commit a "genocide"
against their own soldiers? The witness: Danish missionary Maria Jacobsen.
I came across a page
in The Danish Peace Academy, entitled
"Maria Jacobsen and the genocide in Armenia," written by Karekin Dickran;
another vicious page of Armenian propaganda (Of course, there was no "Armenia"
in 1915; the name of the nation was "the Ottoman Empire." An excerpt: "When
the Turks and Kurds carried into effect the horrible massacres and the genocide against
the Armenians in 1915, it was more than the little Danish woman could bear"),
under the guise of relating the life of the missionary, who turned a blind eye to Christ's
teaching that all should be loved equally. (A few Danish clergymen from a later era sort
of made up for her bigotry, by getting Christ's message down perfectly.)
Naturally, when you see a title such as "Peace Academy" combined with the
"Armenian genocide," ones who are aware that the "Armenian genocide"
is a con job instantly get their "human rights" radars activated. While I don't
like labels — I believe each issue should be evaluated on their own merit, instead of
looking to what your camp is telling you — my sensibilities are mainly aligned with the
"liberal" camp. Yet, it is incredible what "liberals" (liberals are
mainly behind the "human rights" and "genocide" causes) do, by
mindlessly accepting what the liberal leadership tells them. To me, being a liberal
constitutes a sense of fair play and compassion. (As opposed to what we know of, say, the
neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, ruled by dogma and no care about how much
they hurt other parties, as long as their agendas are fulfilled. Of course, there is no
difference between extremists on either end of the spectrum.) This is why conservatives
berate liberals, with the term, "knee-jerk liberal," meaning a liberal's heart
quickly bleeds when injustice is encountered. Where the "genocide" is concerned,
the liberals who blindly accept Armenian propaganda are "knee-jerk liberals" in
the opposite, let's say, "Bizarro" sense. One might call them the Bizarro
When Arthur Tremaine Chester wrote "Condemnation
without hearing both sides is unjust and un-American," he was appealing to decent
people whatever their political stripe. But because I am partial to liberalism, those
words should resonate especially more for those of a liberal bent.
The generally conservative The Wall Street Journal [Europe],
in a most enlightening article,
explained why liberals hate Turkey. ("Because Turkey flouts the rules. Not
international law, to be sure... Turkey flouts the kind of politically correct principles
the left would like to establish as the norms of international behavior.") Naturally,
deep-seated prejudices against the "Terrible Turk" also continues to be a
factor, as horrified as most liberals would be in thinking of themselves as racists. (Yet
Armenian genocide-proponent liberals are the worst racists, by siding with every
"race" except the Turks — whom these Bizarro liberals feel no compunction
about presenting as the embodiment of evil; their cruel genocide agenda necessitates that
they break down complex issues to sides strictly wearing black hats and white hats.)
If these Bizarro liberals opened their minds and hearts, as liberals are supposed to do,
and they took the trouble of examining the Turkish character through the ages (in addition
to analyzing the historical evidence objectively, distinguishing facts from hurtful
propaganda), they would see the Turks can teach these so-called liberals a lesson on
liberalism. Honest, fair and tolerant, exhibiting a love for animals, "vastly more moral respecting women than Europeans," and
regarding Armenians, note Sir Charles Eliot's
usage of the "L" word (in 1900's "Turkey in Europe"):
"The Russians restricted the Armenian Church, schools and language; the Turks on
the contrary were perfectly tolerant and liberal as to all such matters."
The man behind our study is "Danish librarian and peace activist Holger Terp,"
as described in a "Friends of Gandhi" interview.
Mr. Holper is apparently the main force behind the Danish Peace Academy, the aim of
which is "to communicate important information on peace, peace culture and
war to its many users from all over the world and to create a Danish peace
"Flower Power" Terp
What a contradiction. Creating peace through
the perpetuation of hatred. In my way of thinking, one attains peace through love
and understanding. Of course, sometimes war is necessary to attain peace, as well.
Mr. Terp's Denmark would not have been freed from Nazi enslavement, for example, if
the United States and other WWII allies had showered Hitler with understanding and
conciliation... as Churchill's predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, had disastrously
attempted. (To digress: some say the British elite was in on it with Hitler,
encouraging the Germans to fight the Russians, changing their minds only when Hitler
looked West. So Chamberlain might have been "in on it" with Hitler,
instead of being a weakling.) Unfortunately, peaceniks like Mr. Terp unwittingly
subscribe to the method of attaining what they think is peace, through the use of
war — in his case, the war of words (with the distinction of utilizing hatred).
But if he were made to observe how much he subscribes to the "peace through
war" option, the conscientious objector in him would naturally be horrified.
Before rushing to judgment, I first wanted to see whether Mr. Terp's choice of
putting up Karekin Dickran's hateful genocide article was
just another example of a mindless liberal towing the party line, or whether he was
emotionally committed to the Armenian cause. Based on a cursory search, it appears
he has put his heart and soul into the Armenian perspective in other ways, which we
will be getting to.
Now, of course, my "liberal" side is simpatico with Holger Terp.
Like the rest of many of the non-Armenian Bizarro-liberals in the genocide industry,
he truly believes he is doing good. (And, of course, he is doing good, in other
ways.) I understand very much where he is coming from, and I do not believe he has
any real maliciousness as does, say, a Vahakn Dadrian or a Peter Balakian. So it's
going to be difficult to bitch-slap him around, and expose the hateful hypocrisy he
needs to answer for. When I read that he was almost completely blind (particularly
given that his profession is that of librarian, where reading is especially
fundamental; somewhat akin to Beethoven's loss of hearing, not that Terp
should ordinarily be mentioned in the same breath as Beethoven). At any rate,
something told me a letter sent to him was not going to serve much purpose, and I
decided to cook up this page, instead.
What determined Terp's commitment to the Armenian genocide madness, from a cursory
Internet search (this page will not be the typically in-depth one), was this description
on another site:
We posted a very long piece by a Turkish WAISer about the “so-called Armenian
genocide?”, which stated ‘The Ottoman governments intent was merely to relocate, not
destroy, the deportee population’. Holger Terp of the Danish Peace Academy says: This is
contradicted by the Danish eyewitness missionary teacher Karen Jeppe. Holger quotes the
long report pn “Karen Jeppe : Denmark’s First Peace Philosopher” by Eva Lous. Here
is the section dealing with Armenians in Turkey and the Armenian gwnocide...
We can see what is happening. Everyone is into the veracity of the Armenian Genocide,
because the genocide forces have succeeded in silencing the voices of real scholars, there is now one prevailing
voice since it is only Turkey that "denies" the genocide, everyone knows
genocide is "bad," there is prejudice against the Terrible Turk, and into this
fray has entered the lone Turkish reader attempting to inject some sanity. Whatever facts
that were presented in this "long piece" called the "so-called Armenian
genocide?" were completely ignored, as usual. In this case, the WAIS moderator (mind
you, in this case not exactly the WISE moderator) turned to an "authority," none
other than "Holger Terp of the Danish Peace Academy";
why if the man is for peace, he can't be wrong, could he?
So whatever arguments the Turkish contributor presented (it was hard to dig up, but here
they are, followed again by Terp's response) were just completely dismissed because
Holger Terp tells us the missionary has contradicted everything. Of course, the missionary
testimony did not even begin to rebut the historical sequence of events presented by the
"Turkish WAISer" (WAIS standing for the World Association of International
Studies in Stanford University, California), such as "Nothing happened to the
Armenians for 800 years till late 1800’s." Isn't it incredible that these
supposed intellectuals choose to mindlessly chant, "rah rah, genocide,"
without stopping to examine the facts? (Here's the thread for this discussion; they are all of one mind.) The sad thing
is, this sort of compliance and uncritical acceptance lies across the board. Why is it
that these otherwise fair people don't listen to what the Armenophile Richard Davey
cautioned against, all the way back in 1895: "But surely it is not for us to
endorse falsehoods and exaggerations without taking the trouble to verify them."
(The answer mainly rests upon one word, three syllables, beginning with "P," and
badly rhyming with "precipice.")
I mean, look at the source... it's a missionary, for — (should I say it?) — for God's
sake. It was the duty of the missionaries,
evidenced in their prayers, to vilify the heathen Turks. They felt they had a license from
God, in the performance of their Christian duty, to break the Ninth Commandment (the one
regarding the bearing of false witness), and break it they constantly did. No one
questioned their repetition of disgusting horror
tales, all derived from hearsay, because everyone knew — as genocide scholars and
peace advocates who followed them in later years — that clergymen would not lie.
Why is it that none of these WAIS "intellectuals" stopped to say, hey. Wait a
minute. This is the word of a ... missionary. You know, the missionaries? That is, religious
fanatics? Why should we accept at face value what an agenda-ridden, bigoted missionary
would tell us?
The Historical Proof
of Terp's Missionary, Karen Jeppe
Missionary Karen Jeppe
Let's focus on a few lowlights of this piece.
Frankly, there is nothing here that even comes close to proving a
government-conducted systematic extermination was in place. Karen Jeppe,
"Denmark’s First Peace Philosopher," tells us that Armenians were
suffering. Well, we know the Armenians were suffering. Everyone in the bankrupt
Ottoman Empire was suffering, and
dying in large numbers of famine and disease. But suffering is not genocide.
"Genocide" is geno + cide, or race killing. There must exist
the factual evidence of the intent to kill off a "race" or group,
and we don't define evidence as hearsay, particularly a missionary's hearsay.
If the majority of Armenians were left in
what was left of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the war, with half a million other
Armenians managing to move away to other
lands not under Ottoman control (The United
Armenian Delegation claimed 700,000 in 1922; see last link), and if Talat Pasha ordered the resettlement to come to a stop in August 1915, it is as plain as
the beard on Holger Terp's face that what occurred could not possibly be called a
Here we go, with some excerpts from Terp's "evidence":
Karen Jepep [sic], who had come back in 1908, untiringly continued her work to
provide the daily bread for the Armenians.
Why just the Armenians? Aren't we all God's children?
During many years, the Armenians had put their trust in the promises given by the
Young Turks, that Christians and Moslems were to live peacefully side by side, when
they came into power.
It is an undeniable fact that "Christians and Moslems" already lived peacefully side by side,
before the Armenians began forming their terrorist
groups in the mid-to late 19th century. If Armenians were regarded as dog meat,
how could 1.5 million Armenians have survived until the opening of WWI? The
Turks/Muslims were regarded as dog meat in Armenia, and as soon as Armenia was
formed in 1918, the Muslims were systematically polished off during 1919-1920, in
what the Jewish Times referred to
as "An appropriate analogy with the Jewish Holocaust."
As far as the Young Turks were concerned, they had made a "devil's pact"
with the Dashnaks, in order to bring down Sultan Abdul Hamit. They had every
intention to grant further rights to every Ottoman, as demonstrated by reviving the
old Constitution in 1909. But the conniving and treacherous Armenians were still
seduced by the promises of the enemies of their nation; in 1910 the revolutionary
committees began to distribute the “Instructions for Personal Defense” throughout
eastern Anatolia, the blueprint for their impending rebellion. With sections such as
“To Attack Villages,” it was far from a manual on self-defense. (The
Armenian Rebellion at Van, p. 183.)
Then the ailing empire was not given a chance for respite, what with the
Tripolitanian and Balkan Wars (1911-12, 1912-14, respectively), where concentrating
on creating a utopia for Armenians necessarily had to take a back seat. Too bad many
Armenians listened to their fanatical leaders and chose this critical time to
further their preparation to stab their nation in the back. In short, the situation
was not at all that the poor, innocent Armenians had put their trust in the Young
Turks' promises, only to see the promises broken; the Young Turks had already
demonstrated they had every intention of keeping their promises, and to make the
Ottoman Empire a land where every Ottoman had equal rights. It was the Dashnak Armenians
who failed to live up to their promises of loyalty, as an Armenian historian tells us.
In view of the resolute determination of the British to smear the Turkish Nation with
a horrendous crime, the acting Ottoman Government decided to carry the matter beyond
the sphere of authority of the Allies, especially the British. On February 18, 1919,
Reshid Bey, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, appealed to five neutral European
countries (Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands and Spain) and invited
them to appoint two legal assessors or magistrates to the "Turkish
Commission" already constituted for investigating the "alleged" abuses
in connection with the relocation of the Ottoman subjects of different race and
Mr. Wandel, the Danish envoy in Istanbul,
forwarded this official request of the Ottoman government by telegram to Copenhagen on
February 28, 1919.
The above is from TAT's page on the Malta Tribunal. None of the neutral governments complied, partly
intimidated by the British (who discouraged at least the Spanish from participating),
and probably because they did not care. Danes who believe in "genocide" and
in "peace" ought to question why Denmark did not respond to this cry for
help, from a nation left totally at the mercy of great powers intent on murdering the
nation; this was a real opportunity to see if there was a genocide or not.
(Fortunately, the British answered that question. There was no evidence for the
[T]he Turks had tried to relieve the inner tensions by exterminating the strangers,
those who were different, of another faith than the Moslem one. To begin with, about
30.000 Greeks had to pay, then about 10.000 Syrians; in 1876 the turn came for about
20.000 Bulgarians, and in 1894 it fell to the Armenians.
Absolutely vicious. Yes, this is the kind of "history" our peacenik is offering,
and the WAIS moderator is accepting without question. In conflicts involving Greeks, it
was the Muslims who wound up getting slaughtered wholesale (in 1821's revolution, in 1877 and in Crete), and it was always Greece "firing the first
shot." When a segment of the population rebels, it is the duty of the government
being attacked to quell that rebellion. (Where are those figures from, "30,000
Greeks," and "10,000 Syrians" — presumably the Assyrian community,
another rebellious lot; has anyone bothered to ask?) When combatants get killed, that
cannot be defined as "massacres" or "atrocities." Similarly, 1876's
Bulgarians were also compelled to rebel, and suffered a loss of some 10,000. (Note
the presented figure is doubled.) The Turks/Muslims would go on to lose (1877-78) some
260,000 killed, and over a half-million
expelled, in the hands of the Bulgarians and their Russian benefactors. And it should be
obvious by now that the Armenians caught the rebellion fever ("...In each and
every case the disturbances were commenced by the Armenians"; British Captain Norman), and the 20,000-odd deaths from 1894-96 (not
200,000-300,000 as Armenian propaganda frequently tells us) was a natural consequence. As
usual, no one cares about the 5,000 or so innocent Muslims who died under the hands of the
Just dwell on the utter stupidity of the statement above. The claim is that the Turks
engaged in "exterminating" the "strangers" (strangers? These were
fellow Ottomans), as if the numbers would have stopped in the low thousands, had the aim
truly been extermination. The dishonesty is simply overwhelming.
New massacres took place in Cilicia, where 20.000-30.000 Armenians were murdered. The
Young Turks blamed the government and deposed it.
The losses numbered some 20,000,
according to Armenians of the time, including a low number of Turkish victims, and was the
result, once again, of Armenian aggression. Note the accuracy of the history Mr. Terp has
relied upon: The Adana ("Cilicia") events took place in 1909, under the
administration of the Young Turks. The Abdul Hamit administration had already been
Armenian historians have
apparently been going round archives in two dozen countries to find out what they
contain – the Danish archives for instance. What they contain is what we knew
already – that an awful lot of Armenians were killed or died in the course of a
wartime deportation from many parts of Anatolia. Did the Ottoman government intend to
exterminate the race, or was it just a deportation that went horribly wrong?
Prof. Norman Stone, Armenian
The Turks were efficient. Before the war there were about 1.8 million Armenians in
Turkey, after the war there were about 450.000. A few hundred thousands managed to
flee either to the Caucasus or to Syria.
The pre-war population was some 1.5 million; at least this disgusting propaganda did
not wildly overboard, here. The Armenian Patriarch (who similarly gave the figure of
1.85 million pre-war Armenians, aside
from the time he really exaggerated with his better-known 2.1 million figure)
vouched for 644,900 Armenians remaining in what was left of the empire after the
war, as we already covered. Regardless, some of the worst propagandists today tell us one million survived. 1.5
million minus 1 million produces the result of some 500,000 Armenian dead, mainly
from non-murderous reasons. In other words, some two-thirds survived. The above
calculation is telling us less than half survived.
At the end of the war the Turks had lost, but they refused to honor the peace
agreement laid upon them.
In other words, Ataturk had the audacity to not honor the Sèvres Treaty the puppet
Ottoman administration signed (leading directly to the overthrow of Ottoman rule),
the "peace agreement" that declared a death sentence upon the Turkish nation. Is that Mr. Terp's
definition of a "peace agreement," to ensure the nation would no longer
survive? In point of fact, the real peace agreement took place at the end of Oct.
1918, aboard the HMS Agamemnon (between Minister of Marine Hussein Rauf and British
Admiral Calthorp), which guaranteed the frontiers of the defeated Ottoman state;
assurances were given in writing that the integrity of Turkish borders would not
change. It was the British and the French who refused to honor this armistice,
when they imposed Sèvres in August 1921.
The Armenian state which the Western Powers had promised to set up, was very
The Western Powers did not promise anything, but dangled a carrot on a stick for
their Armenian pawns. The Republic of Armenia came into being in mid-1918 as a
result of the Russian revolution. The credit for its formation: "...[T]he
Armenian nation would never forget that it was the Ottoman Government which first
conceived the idea of founding an independent Armenia, and recognized it."
Telegram, Sept. 9, 1918, Avetis Aharonian to Prime Minister Kachaznouni; Feigl, "The
Myth of Terror," 1986, p. 97.
The Russians conquered the original Armenia and incorporated it into the Soviet
Not according to Armenia's first
prime minister: "The Bolsheviks entered
Armenia without meeting any resistance. This was the decision of our Party. There
were two reasons for acting this way; first, we could not resist it even if we
wanted to — we were defeated; second, we hoped that the Soviet authorities, backed
by Russia, would he able to introduce some order in the state — a thing which we,
all alone, had failed to do, and it was very plain already that we would not be able
to do. It was our desire to let the Bolsheviks rule the country ..."
By 1922 the situation worsened seriously. Refugees came
pouring in, especially from Cilicia, where the French troops were in withdrawal.
Many Armenians had gone back to their homes, believing that they would be protected
by the French.
In point of fact, many of the resettled Armenians had already been returning to
their homes, before officially allowed to do so at the end of 1918. "Cilicia"
served as a reverse-migration, where Armenians were encouraged to concentrate in the Adana region, with the security
of French protection, and in hopes of setting up another "Armenia." As
usual, the Armenians engaged in their massacring of local Muslims, planning to form
an Armenian majority, repeating the same tactic as when they occupied chunks of
eastern Anatolia — where some half-million Turks, Muslims, Jews and others were killed at the hands of the Armenians'
systematic campaign of "ethnic cleansing." The outraged French were
forced to disarm some of their Armenian units, and when Turkish nationalists proved
too strong, were forced to retreat. Many Armenians felt compelled to join the
departing French, fearful of repercussions from the crimes they had committed.
Thousands of Armenians died during the retreat from Marash, of starvation and
disease, deaths that have unconscionably been added to the "genocide"
toll. An Armenian who died from any reason, including old age, is claimed to be a
victim of "genocide."
Jeppe's "Genocide Evidence"
The worst of what Karen Jeppe had to say... that is, the big evidence serving to "contradict"
what the Turkish WAIS member had put up... boiled down to this:
The Turks were not so sophisticated in mass destruction, so their methods were to herd
the men together and shoot them. The young women were often sold as house slaves, older
women and children were also driven together, but these were sent out wandering, until
they died of thirst, hunger and exertion.
We don't need to get into refuting the vicious nonsense above, do we? Let's just leave it
with common sense: if the above served as the idea, not a single man, older woman and
child would have remained alive.
More importantly, the above are not Karen Jeppe's words. They are
the words of the one who wrote Jeppe's biography, Eva Lous, described as a "research
librarian and head of the Womens' Historical Collection in the State Library." In
other words, Eva Lous is not a historian, but a librarian — like Holger Terp.
(Danish-Armenian Karekin Dickran, the writer of the previous article on Maria Jacobsen, is
not a historian either; her occupation is "designer.") The bibliography at the
end of Eva Lous' article (entitled
"Literature"; Terp copy-pasted this article from a page on his own site, which
may be examined in its entirety on fredsakademiet.dk/library/ukjeppe.htm) includes
works from hopeless pro-Armenians such as Fridtjof Nansen (whose League of Nations
connection might have had a role to play in Karen Jeppe's job in the forerunner of the
United Nations, as "commissary in Armenian affairs," from May 15, 1921), and
Peter Balakian's "The Burning Tigris."
One does not attempt valid history by exclusively consulting propagandistic sources.
Ladies and gentlemen, "Karen Jeppe's Genocide Evidence," as Holger Terp would
have us believe, boiled down to the vicious and unsubstantiated paragraph above that you
have read. Take a look for yourselves on Terp's Jeppe page, under
the very short section entitled "The Turkish Genocide on the Armenians." Really.
That was it. That was the "history" Holger Terp pointed to, in order to prove
there was a genocide, refuting the presentation of the Turkish WAIS member. Let's
repeat the words again, by the partisan WAIS moderator:
Holger Terp of the Danish Peace Academy says: This is
contradicted by the Danish eyewitness missionary teacher Karen Jeppe.
If Karen Jeppe was an "eyewitness," she eyewitnessed nothing but suffering. Suffering
is not genocide. She did not eyewitness any murderous method by the Turks, such as the
way they would "herd the men together and shoot them." Jeppe might
have seen some of the Armenians who were sent off on their forced migration eventually
dying of thirst, hunger or exhaustion. Unfortunately, there was no mass transit (save for
a one-track railroad which some Armenians coming from the west were allowed to use), and
everyone — including the soldiers — had to hoof it when they traveled from Point A to
Point B. (One example; even Maria
Jacobsen paid note to the soldiers' lack of transportation, in Diaries of a Danish
Missionary, pp. 48, 52, 59, 161.) And, yes, the bankrupt Ottomans did not do a good
job of caring for these people. But that is a far cry from claiming that the
"intent" was to murder them. If such were the intent, the majority of Armenians
could not have possibly survived.
It is so totally irresponsible for a "man of peace" to serve as an accomplice to
the perpetuation of hatred and racism.
In the Gandhi paper, Terp was similarly gaga for the missionaries Gandhi associated with.
It's possible that Terp, like Fridtjof Nansen's father, is a very devout Christian. The
way he regards the lawful word of missionaries as Jacobsen and Jeppe is most revealing.
Unfortunately, the word of missionaries can never substitute for actual history.