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 education."

Holger "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.

The Historical Proof of Terp's Missionary, Karen Jeppe

Danish 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 "genocide."

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.

AFTER THE WAR...

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 religion.

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 finding.)

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 Question

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 short-lived.

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 Union.

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."