In the spirit of evidence based history, we should all thank Dulles, who left copious handwritten notes titled “Confessions” made public by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke (1). The Dulles strategy was plain to dictate foreign policy independent of the White House. A U.S. president could distinguish himself only by letting the American public think he was in support of Dulles. Before Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower did yield to Dulles, although he bitterly protested with his farewell speech, “The dangers to American democracy by the military industrial complex.(2) A few year later, and soon after Kennedy’s death, Harry Truman would voice similar concerns about secret allegiances threatening our democracy (3).

One gift of immense importance is rumored to be Dulles’ ability to dictate strategic decisions unacceptable to the executive powers he was attempting to influence through indirect means; thereby, his target, boss, foe, enemy or friend would end up doing precisely what Dulles had wished him to do through complicit, often well-coordinated, chess-like moves forcing his adversary to eventually practice the Dulles foreign policy. Or Dulles’ adversary would be neutralized or destroyed.

A good example of Dulles’ destructive power was evident in the Bay of Pigs disaster.

James W. Douglass, the author of “JFK and the Unspeakable,” writes: “Four decades after the Bay of Pigs, we have learned that the CIA scenario to trap Kennedy was more concrete than Dulles admitted in his handwritten notes. A conference on the Bay of Pigs was held March 23-25, 2001, which included ex-CIA operatives, retired military commanders, scholars and journalists. News analyst Daniel Schorr reported on National Public Radio that, “from the many hours of talk and heaps of declassified secret documents” he had gained one new perception of the Bay of Pigs:

“It was that the CIA overlords of the invasion, Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Richard Bissell, had their own plan on how to bring the United States into the conflict. It appears that they never really expected an uprising against Castro when the liberators landed as described in their memos to the White House. What they did expect was that the invaders would establish and secure a beachhead, announce the creation of a counter-revolutionary government and appeal for aid from the United States and the Organization of American States. The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots. American forces, probably Marines, would come in to expand the beachhead. In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed.”

Even if President Kennedy had said “no” at the eleventh hour, the whole Bay of Pigs idea, the CIA, as it turned out, had a plan to supersede his decision.

Another well-documented aspect of the Bay of Pigs was, of course, General Maxwell Taylor’s conclusion of the military operation. General Taylor, who chaired the Cuban Study Group to investigate the invasion, concluded: McGeorge Bundy’s order to reverse President Kennedy’s air strike was the single most important cause of the operation’s failure. We know, by now, that Bundy then offered his resignation and the President declined, instead firing Allen Dulles as the director of the CIA.

Dulles’ influence in international politics did not end after the Bay of Pigs. In retrospect, it is understandable that Dulles’ membership on the Warren Commission was not by chance. It is equally unlikely that two Dulles pupils (the Bundy brothers) took the top jobs as National Security Advisor to the President and Undersecretary of Defense at the Kennedy White House. Both had established public service for the CIA. The incestuous connection among secret powers at times seems transparent. A good example is the McCarthy-Dulles communication regarding the Senator’s demands for Dulles to fire William Bundy. The Senator claimed Bundy was a communist sympathizer. Dulles did not yield and Bundy kept his job.

The bloody events of the summer and fall of 1963 dating back to the infamous August 24 cable, to the Diem assassination and the coup d’état in South Vietnam witnessed the complicit sabotage of Kennedy’s Southeast Asia policy by McGeorge Bundy and his two top aides, Michael Forrestal and Roger Hilsman. In the absence of Bundy, Forrestal and Hilsman had sent an unauthorized cable to instruct Ambassador Lodge to go ahead with a coup d’état in Vietnam. Other mishaps and conduct consistent with treason, such as a handwritten note by Hilsman suggesting open defiance of presidential orders, are all part of the bigger picture of a Bundy-led slow dismantling of the Kennedy White House. Some of these details have already been published in other articles and are beyond the scope of this article. However, in retrospect, all the secret and complicit battles lead to a major question. Did President Kennedy know of the Bundy brothers’ allegiance to Dulles? Did he know of their loyalty to Dulles as he was trying dismantle the CIA after the Bay of Pigs? The brothers, of course, were to become the architects of the Vietnam War with a stronger and more formidable CIA.

Regardless of the answers, a common sense approach for democracy seems logical. Anyone working for the President and the White House or the U.S. government must disclose all his secret or not-to-secret affiliations, allegiances and obligations. Full disclosure of all past and present ties, including memberships of secret societies. History says the Bundy brothers and Dulles were all members of Yale’s Skull and Bones.

A new paradigm for individual and institutional integrity must include total and unconditional disclosure of all allegiances and affiliations. No excuses, no exceptions.

Practical measures – washing hands, boiling water – may prevent catastrophic infections and save lives. Similar methods may enable us to enjoy democratic leadership in the White House without ordinary minds practicing simple crimes to silence democracy. The Bundy brothers help us understand how easy it is to harm and mislead billions for decades with infinite malignancy and yet appear so civil and sterile at the same time. For this, we must also thank them for their contributions to progress on Earth.

References

1. Douglass, J., JFK and the Unspeakable. Orbis, 2008.

2. Eisenhower, D., Farewell Address. January 17, 1961.

3. Filler, L., Editor, The President Speaks: From William McKinley to Lyndon B. Johnson. New York, Capricorn Press, 1965. Pp. 363-368.

4. Truman, H., A Threat to Democracy. Washington Post, December 22, 1963.

Audio of Dr. Salerian interviewed on Voice of America

Dr. Salerian’s presentation included a review and analysis of documents from President Kennedy’s medical records from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, ballistic evidence, witness reports, photographic and film images from the scene of the assassination and Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

The evidence Dr. Salerian presented included the following:

1. President Kennedy suffered three wounds, none of which was inflicted by Oswald.
2. President Kennedy’s throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison, probably with a main chemical or chemicals that are d-tubocurarine, or a d-tubocurarine-like substance with rapid paralyzing action.  In 1975, CIA Director William Colby’s testimony at a U.S. Senate hearing before the Senate’s Special Intelligence Committee described such a neurotoxin.
3. Because of the paralysis caused by the poison, President Kennedy was immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull.
4. A second bullet struck President Kennedy with posterior entry 6.5 inches below his neckline and was lodged in his chest.

Contact:  Alan Hermesch, 202-210-6262, 301-365-4762, ahermesch@aol.com

Created in less than a year “These 80 works took over my life because as I read more about that period in our history, my hand was driven to explain the inexplicable loss all people felt when that great statesman and his hopes were extinguished.” Public exhibitions are being planned, but for a glimpse of the collection browse our gallery below:

[View with PicLens]

1234...151617►

The Forensic Examiner. 2007. 16: 3.

According to United Nations Resolution 96, genocide is a crime with intent to destroy either in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group (Charny, 1999). In the twentieth century, genocide has been a common phenomenon, and scholarly descriptions of many crucial aspects of this uniquely human invention of menace have been described (Charny, 1999).

It has been suggested that genocide is a premeditated set of actions to eradicate partially or totally a particular group and to silence opponents (Lieberman, 2006). A common trait of genocide is the precise targeting of people with a particular shared group identity (i.e., professional or social status) or appearance, distinct from their religious, ethnic, racial, or political identity, for persecution and/or execution (Lieberman, 2006). Examples of such selective targeting include the following:

In 1933, special legislation enacted by the Nazi regime barred all German-Jewish physicians from government jobs and excluded German-Jewish students from medical school (Morse, 1967). The evidence of Nazi persecution of German Jewish professionals affecting 42% of lawyers, 50% of doctors, and 83% of government employees shows this persecution preceded the main extermination of Jews (Morse, 1967) (Table 1).

In 1942, the Ustasha pursued national purity by identifying Serbian, Gypsy, and Jewish individuals as national enemies of Croatia and then killing them systematically. The persecution of Serbs and Jews began before their mass homicides when they were excluded from work in the press, radio, theater, and other professions of cultural life (Lieberman, 2006).

In 1953, Soviet Jewish doctors and other professionals were targeted for persecution and death (Lieberman, 2006).

In 1962, during the genocide of Nuba, the Sudanese government took special measures to persecute and exterminate the educated Nuba (Charny, 1999).

In 1975, to cleanse Cambodia of the “impure,” the Khmer Rouge first persecuted, then liquidated, Cambodians with higher education and Western ties, those who were bilingual in English and French, and those who wore eyeglasses (Charny, 1999).

In 1915, during the first genocide of the 20th century, Armenian intellectuals became the early victims (Charny, 1999) (Table 2). Despite documentation that verifies the targeting of intellectuals or community leaders of a victimized minority, the genocide literature—with the exception of The Holocaust—lacks adequate statistical data of the selective mass persecutions and homicides of intelligentsia. The purpose of this article is to determine whether the mass homicides of the 140 Turkish intellectuals of Armenian heritage arrested in 1915 were a marker consistent with targeting intelligentsia before genocide or in the early phases of genocide and the implications such a discovery should have on today’s health-care professionals. This article defines the mass and premeditated extermination of intelligentsia as cerebrogenocide.

History

For almost 700 years, Armenians, as Christian subjects, lived under the Ottoman rule as a conquered people. As a minority, they were one of the millets (minority nationalities) and were given limited authority for self-government. But like other minorities, Turkish-Armenians had almost no legal rights in the Ottoman Empire. A Turkish-Armenian had no recourse in the Islamic court system, for in the religious court, non-Muslim testimony was either disallowed or accorded significantly less value. At least 1 million, and possibly more than half of the Turkish-Armenian population, was killed or death-marched by the orders of the ruling triumvirate of the Ottoman government between 1915 and 1918 (Balakian, 2003).

The ruling powers, Talat Pacha, Enver Pacha, and Djemal Pacha, viewed the Turkish-Armenian minority of approximately 2 million people as a potential threat to the survival of the empire and forced the “cleansing” of the republic of the Turkish-Armenian population.

Several strategies were used to cleanse the empire of the Turkish-Armenians:

* Massive deportations of civilian population via death marches without any regard for the safety or the survival of the deported
* Disarmament and execution of all Armenian males serving in the Turkish army
* Early arrests and executions of intelligentsia (cerebrogenocide)
* Voluntary or involuntary assimilation of a large number of Armenian survivors into the Turkish society with a new cultural religious identity (Muslim Turk) and the absolute severance of any cultural or ethnic bonds to their Armenian heritage (see the story of Sabiha Gokcen in Discussion section) (Akyol, 2004; Alpay, 2004)

Method

The authors of this article studied data from numerous sources including the official records of the U.S., British, German, and Ottoman-Turkish national archives. In addition, the Google Internet search engine (www.google.com) provided links to websites with articles and statistics about genocide such as www.genocidewatch.com and www.isg-iags.org (Institute for the Study of Genocide & International Association of Genocide Scholars).

There were four publications of paramount significance in gathering statistical data: The History of Western Armenians, The Encyclopedia of Genocide, While Six Million Died, and Ottoman Population 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics.

Review of the Killings

On April 24, 1915, in Istanbul, 140 men were taken into custody. Subsequently, without a trial or any other formal charges brought against them, they were killed. Their mass homicides occurred between April 24, 1915, and September 30, 1915, in the early phase of the genocide that lasted until the end of 1918 (Charny, 1999). None of the victims had a criminal history. All the victims were better educated than the average Turkish-Armenian of his community, with activities consistent with higher-than-average participation in civic and community affairs. Further, their psychosocial status crowned them as leaders of their subgroup.

Methods of homicides included death by hanging, gunshot, stabbing, and blunt trauma (Tuglaci, 2004). Of those 140, 62 were physicians, 10 poets, 16 congressmen, 7 pharmacists, 4 clergymen, 1 comedian, and 36 newspaper reporters.

Results

The review suggests that the homicides of the 140 men were premeditated. There seems to be a correlation between the death rate for a Turkish-Armenian in Istanbul and his or her occupation, gender, and age, with women and individuals younger than 17 having full immunity against death by homicide. Among the health-care professionals who were victimized, there was a striking difference of risk of homicide among physicians (45%), pharmacists (6%), and hospital executives (0%). It appeared that the risk of being a victim of homicide for any Turkish-Armenian in Istanbul in 1915 was 1.3%, whereas it was greater for Turkish-Armenian men (2.6%). The death rate from homicide increased to 100% for congressmen, newspaper reporters, poets, and comedians. Collectively, the data suggest that the victims’ potential leadership profile was of significance and indeed made them the preeminent targets for genocide.

The ethnic cleansing of Turkish-Armenians was nearly perfect. In 1915, the Turkish-Armenian population in Ottoman Turkey was estimated to be between 1,161,169 and 2,133,190, with a total population of 25 million people (Karpat, 1985; Balakian, 2003). In 2004, Turkey had a population of more than 70 million with a Turkish-Armenian population of 65,000 (Tuglaci, 2004). Before 1915, there were 2339 Armenian churches in Turkey. After the genocide, most had been destroyed or deserted. The most recent statistics suggest the presence of only 40 churches serving the Turkish-Armenian minority in Turkey (Tuglaci, 2005). In 1915, Turkish-Armenians represented 16% of the Ottoman population. After 1916, the percentage of Turkish-Armenians in Turkey dropped to 0.4%. The latest official census indicates the Turkish-Armenian population in Turkey is 65,000, or less than 0.01% of the overall population (Tuglaci, 2004).

Discussion

The Turkish-Armenian genocide, as the first genocide of the 20th century, is the template for most of the genocides that followed. Prevention of genocide poses a challenge, yet it is preventable. Passionate and unconditional commitment to defend and reinforce U.N. Resolution 96 and educational efforts to teach the history and effects of genocide are essential.

Physicians and other health-care professionals may play a key role in preventing or combating genocide with the knowledge gained from the past genocides.

Four general observations can be made about genocides of the twentieth century:

* Genocide requires secret, premeditated, methodical mass homicides of a victimized group, often followed by the premeditated destruction or alteration of evidence to cover-up the genocide.
* Genocidal killings are contrary to the Hippocratic Oath and the common ethical principles of the American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychological Association (APA), and American Psychiatric Association (APA).
* Cerebrogenocide is a common marker, not a defining one, identifiable by alert and well-informed health-care professionals.
* Many physicians, health-care professionals, and other scientists played crucial roles in the design and execution of genocides during the twentieth century.

Physicians and Genocide in the Twentieth Century

In the first genocide of the twentieth century, many physicians played key roles in exterminating Armenians. Dr. Mehmed Reshid, the governor of the Ottoman province of Diyarbekir, once raised a rhetorical question about Armenians: “Isn’t it the duty of a doctor to destroy microbes?” After the genocide, Dr. Reshid proclaimed, “My Turkishness prevailed over my medical calling.” Drs. Behaeddin Shakir and Mehmed Nazim, both Committee of Unity and Progress (CUP) party leaders, condemned Armenians as infidels (gavurs), like tubercular microbes infecting the state. During the official trials of the Armenian genocide from February 5 until April 7, 1919, a Turkish physician, Dr. Ziya Fuad, testified in writing that Dr. Ali Saib had caused the deaths of untold numbers of Armenian children with injections of morphine (Balakian, 2003).

The summer of 1915 witnessed the homicides of two Turkish-Armenian physicians by two of their Turkish colleagues. The homicide of Dr. Nerses Shabagliyan by Dr. Asaf and the homocide of Dr. Ormayan by Dr. Sani Yaver were the first documented homicides of physicians by physicians in the 20th century (Tuglaci, 2004).

In 1946 and 1947, 23 Nazi doctors stood trial in Nuremberg for crimes against humanity and were found guilty. Among them were the dean of faculty at Berlin University, Dr. Franz Six, responsible for the murder of more than 50,000 Jews; Dr. Josef Mengele, the director of the Institute of Hereditary Biology and Racial Hygiene; and Dr. August Hirt, director of the Strasburg Anatomical Institute in France, who in 1941 gassed 86 Auschwitz concentration camp victims to study their bones to prove Aryan superiority. The euthanasia program (code name T4 Unit) was the brainchild of Dr. Karl Brandt in his relentless drive to design the perfect machine for the mass extermination of the mentally ill and physically handicapped (Hogan, 2003).

From 1932 until 1945, in a quest to develop germ warfare capability, some 20,000 scientists, including doctors and nurses, participated in one of history’s most gruesome medical experiments on prisoners. Some 580,000 Chinese civilians and American, British, and Australian prisoners of war were killed under the medical leadership of Dr. Shiro Ishii, Japanese microbiologist and Lieutenant General of Unit 731, a biological warefare unit of the Imperial Japanese Amry during the Sino-Japanese War (Miller, Engelberg, & Broad, 2002).

Barriers to Education of the Public and Prevention of Genocide

For many complex psychological, social, economic, and political reasons, scholarly research and teaching of genocide have been difficult. Understandably, collective guilt or national shame may inhibit open discussion of tragic events even in the most advanced societies. After all, what American or British citizen would consider the hypothetical possibility that the terror bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the Second World War was a form of genocidal killing, particularly if financial compensation and demands may emerge as a result of such a discussion?

Perhaps similar dynamics also inhibit a country like China from studying the genocidal deaths of millions who perished under the rule of Mao in the 1950s. Politics may also influence educational efforts. If it is not for strict national interests, it is hard to explain why Israel today does not allow the education of young Israelis to include the history of Armenian genocide. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom officially acknowledges the Armenian genocide. The Japanese government denies the atrocities of Unit 731.

The recent political storm prompted by media reports about Sabiha Gokcen, the adopted daughter of modern Turkey’s founder and first president, Kemal Ataturk, may illustrate the political obstacles that hinder educational and preventive efforts in combating genocide (Millyet, 2004; Alpay, 2004). Hatun Sebilciyan spent several years at an orphanage before her adoption at the age of 12 by Kemal Ataturk. The reality remains that her adoption helped her become an accomplished leader of the young Turkish republic, as she became the first female pilot of the country. Yet, the death of her parents and her adoption were genocidal acts according to United Nations Resolution of 96. However, public expression of this point is a crime punishable by imprisonment of up to 10 years according to current Turkish law, Article 301.

In essence, the challenges associated with any inquiry of Sabiha Gokcen’s life may represent the core challenges faced by all genocide scholars around the world. It is simply a sad reality that today the politics of power and national interests make scholarly discussions or dissemination of historically accurate information very difficult, if not impossible.

In summary, it appears that today the biggest obstacle both to educating the world about genocide and to preventing genocide is the political climate, which makes it very difficult for evidence-based teaching to investigate past genocidal acts.

Conclusion

Although genocide seems to be only a nightmare of the past, the unthinkable act has occurred in several countries throughout the twentieth century, and, considering the situation in Darfur, has extended into the present. In order to prevent future acts of genocide, it is imperative to let go of the belief that genocide is not a threat to or a concern for this era or “our” country. During the period in which genocides are born and grow, they never seem as heinous and barbaric to the people committing them as they do to other countries when remembered years later as distant historical events—if remembered by other countries at all. Genocide, with its history being such a stranger to today’s younger Western generations, could pose quite a future threat, as an unsuspected enemy is doubly dangerous.

Along with specific measures to prevent genocide described by Charny (1999), including the creation of an International Peace Army (IPA), teaching evidence-based history and promoting accurate dissemination of historical facts of all genocides may be the best weapon against genocide. Educating all future generations about the past genocides would be one logical first step. Another initial measure to be taken is to incorporate the genocide literature into the standard curriculum for all health-care professionals. As this article has demonstrated, in the event of a future genocide, health-care professionals would likely be targeted as either victims or perpetrators because of the valuable knowledge they possess. Given their influence, scientists and all health-care professionals may also play a key role in educating political forces. Health-care professionals can lead educational efforts to influence legislative initiatives to create and defend genocide research and scholars.

By informing the public and the media and by actively resisting the presumed governmental authority to override the ethical obligations of health-care professionals defined by the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and American Psychiatric Association, health-care professionals can play an active role in combating genocide.

References

Akyol, T. (2004, March 2). Sabiha Gokcen tartismasi [Debate about Sabika Gokcen]. Milliyet, 15.

Alpay, S. (2004, February 28). Sabiha Gokcen 80 yillik sirri [The 80-year-old secret of Sabiha Gokcen]. Zaman, 121.

Balakian, K. (1977). Hai golgotha [Armenian golgotha]. Beirut, Lebanon: Plenetta Printing.

Balakian, P. (2003). The burning tigris: The Armenian genocide and America’s response. New York: Harper Collins.

Boghosian, K. (n.d.). My arrest and exile on April 24, 1915: An eyewitness account of the start of the Armenian genocide. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from http://www.armenianreporteronline.com/old/21042001/c-hachig.htm.

Charny, I. (Ed.). (1999). Encyclopedia of genocide (vol. 1). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Hogan, D. (2003). The holocaust chronicle: A history in words and pictures. Lincolnwood, IL: Publications International Ltd.

Kansu, A. (2000). Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, 1908–1913. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.

Karpat, K. (2002). Ottoman population 1830-1914: Demographic and social characteristics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Lieberman, B. (2006). Terrible Fate: Ethnic cleansing in the making of modern Europe. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, Publisher.

Miller, J., Engelberg, S., & Broad, W. (2002). Germs: Biological weapons and America’s secret war. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Tuglaci, P. (2004). Bati ermenileri [Western Armenians]. Istanbul, Turkey: Pars Yayin Tc Ltd Sti.

Yarman, A. (2001). Osmanli saglik hizmetterinde ermeniler-ana-basime [Ottoman Health Professionals of Armenian Heritage]. Istanbul, Turkey: Sanayever.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Mr. Ara Guler for his magical photos of old Istanbul.

About the Authors

Alen J. Salerian, MD, is a psychiatrist and the medical director of Washington Center for Psychiatry in Washington, DC. He is also a former chief consultant for the FBI and a frequent contributor to national newspapers such as, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today. Dr. Salerian has co-authored several psychiatric articles in peer-reviewed journals. He has made more than 100 appearances on various news shows including CBS’s 60 Minutes and 48 Hours and the BBC’s Panorama. He is a regular analyst and commentator on the Washington, DC CBS television affiliate WUSA-TV. Dr. Salerian is a Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Medicine and has been a member of the American College of Forensic Examiners since 1997.

Pars Tuglaci is an accomplished historian, linguist, and author of more than 20 scholarly books, who lives in Istanbul, Turkey. A graduate of Malconian Educational Institute in Cypress (1951) and Michigan University (1955), Professor Tuglaci published the first modern Turkish medical dictionary.

Professor Tuglaci’s most recent work, The History of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, has been the product of his lifetime research at numerous museums, libraries, and state archives in more than 30 countries dating back to the early 70’s.

Gregory H. Salerian, MCSW, LGSW, holds a master’s degree in clinical social work from the Catholic University of America and a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Delaware. He is in full-time private practice at Washington Center for Psychiatry in Washington, DC. He is a member of the National Association of Social Workers as well as the Greater Washington Society of Clinical Social Workers.

Janice Berry Edwards, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Social Work at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Northern Virginia campus in Alexandria. She maintains a private practice with the Washington Center or Psychiatry, in Washington, DC. She holds a doctorate in social work from Catholic University School of Social Work. Her teaching areas include micro practice (advanced clinical social work practice), social justice, and psychopharmacology. Her research and scholarship interests include African American women, multiple intelligences and social work education, relational/cultural theory applied to teaching social work education and field instruction, psychopharmacology and the elderly, as well as domestic violence in law enforcement.

Antonia L. Baum, MD, is on the clinical faculty at the George Washington University School of Medicine’s Department of Psychiatry. She is in private practice in Chevy Chase, Maryland, and specializes in the treatment of athletes and eating disorders. She is a graduate of the Brown University program in medicine (BA and MD).

Barry Mendelsohn, MD, a Board Certified Psychiatrist, currently serves as the medical director of an Assertive Community Treatment Team in Prince Georges County, MD. The program has as its charge the care and treatment of a segment of the population often overlooked or underserved. Dr. Mendelsohn maintains a private practice as well, focusing on the mental health needs of deaf children and their families. He is known in the musical community through his years of involvement in opera and musical theatre.

Dr. Mendelsohn completed his medical school training at Stanford University. His internship was at UCLA in pediatrics, and his psychiatric residency was completed at the University of San Francisco.

Alen J. Salerian, MD quoted

By Andrew Buncombe

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, considered one of America’s greatest presidents, may have been mentally impaired at his meeting with Stalin at Yalta – a condition that led him to make many costly errors about the post-war settlement. Although his doctors knew of it, the public remained unaware of his condition, a report claims.

Sixty years after the Yalta summit, a leading US psychiatrist said FDR’s condition led him to make repeated diplomatic and political mistakes, such as failing to prevent Stalin seizing Manchuria and ensure that Poland was free of Soviet control. The previously assiduous president did not read important documents and generally failed to stand up to the Soviet leader.

“We are saying that the president was mentally impaired and was not able to process information thoroughly and accurately,” said Alen Salerian, a former senior consultant psychiatrist to the FBI. “We are offering the medical evidence for it.”

FDR’s poor physical health during his fourth and final term in office has been well documented. Indeed, in April 1945, just two months after the Yalta meeting, FDR died of a brain haemorrhage. But Mr Salerian said his study was the first analysis of FDR’s mental condition and the impact it had on his judgement.

In a peer-reviewed article published tomorrow in The Forensic Examiner, Mr Salerian says an examination of previous documents and reports about FDR’s medical condition has allowed him to perform a diagnosis. Despite the obvious drawback of not being able to examine or speak with his “patient”, Mr Salerian has no doubts about his conclusions.

During his last term, FDR was known to be suffering from hypertension and congestive heart failure. Mr Salerian believes that this led to hypoxia – a shortage of oxygen to the brain – and subsequent cognitive impairment. “Mr Roosevelt was not receiving enough oxygen to his brain tissue,” he told The Independent. “It’s not easy to function. As result, his intellectual and cognitive abilities were compromised.”

The meeting between FDR, Stalin and the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, took place at the Crimean resort from 4-11 February 1945. With the course of the war clear and Germany’s defeat only a matter of time, the meeting was held to agree a post-war settlement – not just in regard to Germany and Japan, but in relation to the creation of an international body.

Jeremy Isaacs and Taylor Downing, in their book Cold War, said the conference represented the high-water mark of Allied wartime collaboration. But they added: “Yalta revealed cracks in the Grand Alliance.”

FDR’s priorities were to get agreement on the formation of the United Nations, and to get Russia to join the war against Japan. He was less concerned about Europe. Stalin was focused on establishing a series of buffer states with the West to ensure that the Soviet Union would not be threatened.