Studying the Ottomans:
Section 2: Ottomans in the Modern World (19th -early 20th C.)
Revolution in the Caliphate: conflict, refugees and challenges to survival “The Armenian Crisis” Nov. 19-23 Ethnic ‘Regions’ c. 1911: Armenians Ottoman ‘Armenia’: Six wilayets The Armenian Crisis:
It is largely agreed that between 1 and 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians died during (and briefly after) WWI, with majority of deaths occurring in 1915-16
It is also agreed that those deaths were gruesome: - from malnutrition, starvation, thirst - from violent robberies, rapes - from ‘execution’ – organized shootings, hangings - by civilians, soldiers, army officers
This is about ALL that is ‘agreed upon’ The Armenian Crisis:
‘Genocide?’ - it is the term itself that remains (even today) in debate
- Barak Obama appeared poised to recognize the term as appropriate on the eve of his first election but has so far stopped short of using the term
- Turkey has, to date, denied that it occurred – although just recently there are signs that it can be ‘discussed’
[see ‘Obama in Turkey’, ‘Armenian Genocide no longer Taboo’ in ‘Resources’] The Armenian Crisis:
What is the ‘issue’?
- understanding of term ‘genocide’
- defined in Articles II and III [latter deals with punishment] of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide
[see Legal Definition..., ‘Resources’] The Armenian Crisis:
• Article II:
1) the mental element -- the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
•2) thephysical element -- includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e (below).
Crime must include both elements to be "genocide." The Armenian Crisis:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed as per Article II (1) above: • Killing members of the group; • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group The Armenian Crisis:
Argument FOR Genocide: - evidence supports existence of BOTH
Article II (1) – the Intent to Destroy (‘mental element’)
Article II (2) – (a), (b), (c) most frequently cited; also (e) to lesser extent (‘physical element’)
THEREFORE, there is no question but that the loss of 1 – 1.5 million Armenians was Genocide The Armenian Crisis:
Argument AGAINST Genocide: - Article II (1): the phrase ‘intent to destroy…’
Those who would adopt the term ‘massacre’ (including Turkish officials) challenge the aspect of ‘intent’ on the part of Government:
- events took place in context of war - fear of Armenians working with Russians, would undermine war effort - local level: spontaneous violence rooted in long- held grievances The Armenian Crisis:
Arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’ also rest on reading of Evidence:
- evidence used to support ‘Genocide’ questioned by other ‘side’ [see ‘Armenian Genocide Revisited’, Additional Readings]
- photographic, eye-witness, ‘documentary’ evidence prove atrocities took place but questionable whether they can prove ‘intent’ (‘government orchestrated’) even when soldiers involved (‘tragedy of war’) Turkish cartoon on the subject of documentary evidence “The Lion – ‘Here, this is a document of the Bear’s dastardly behaviour…’. “The Rabbit – ‘This is a document showing how theDeer collaborated with the Hunters…’. “The Bear – ‘I have a document demonstrating the Lion’s trade in White Bears in the forest…’. “The Cameraman – ‘Some documentary this is turning out to be...’. The Armenian Crisis:
- can government be held accountable for inability of women, children to withstand difficulties of march to Syrian desert (‘for their safety and security of war effort’)?
- can it be held responsible for actions of bandits, ‘rogue’ soldiers, local citizens?
- can it be expected to have dealt with these issues while fighting on two fronts (one being strategically ‘key’ battle of Gallipoli)? The Armenian Crisis:
IF one answers ‘yes’, then charge of genocide remains valid
IF one answers ‘no’, then charge of genocide is invalid
IF one accepts that evidence in play proves extensive government involvement, the charge of genocide remains valid
IF one does not accept this interpretation of key evidence, the charge of genocide is invalid The Armenian Crisis:
So… why Armenian ‘Crisis’? - not our intent to resolve controversy of this magnitude (although fascinating study in relevance of ‘history’ in contemporary politics)
- for ‘history of Ottoman Empire’ and ‘legacy of Ottoman Empire’, what happened to Armenians and why -- was and remains, a political and social ‘crisis’
- critical to ‘defeat’ of Ottoman government, 1919 trials notwithstanding, opening door to Mustapha Kemal’s victory over Sultanate [video/discussion Dec. 3-5] The Armenian Crisis:
Problem with focus on ‘debate’: ignores evolution of crisis from 19th C. [see lectures Week of October 22-6]
- ‘history’ situates roots in Russian victory 1828 (Region of Erivan), also 1878 (Treaty of Berlin): - both sent Muslim Turks as ‘refugees’ into eastern Anatolia - region of Armenian wilayets - expulsions continued1878-1904: 850,000 Muslim refugees re-settled Anatolia, many in regions with large Armenian populations Muslim Turks ‘Expelled’ into Armenian Areas The Armenian Crisis:
- granted ‘special privileges’ Armenian merchants, financiers 1863: resented
- 1894-6: 100-300,000 Armenians killed in combination of attacks by: - Abdul Hamid II’s newly-formed Kurdish ‘para- military’ group ‘Hamidiye’ (eastern region): exploiting local ‘inter-ethnic’ tensions - Istanbul police (on occasion Armenian demonstration for implementation reforms against Hamidiye)
Attracted attention and approbation of West: but no action c.1911: Kurds and Armenians [note overlapping populations] Kharpert - centres where ‘Hamidiye’ massacres took place The Armenian Crisis:
Armenians Welcomed Revolution 1908:
- Constitution promised equality, equal access to professional posts and government positions, freedom religion
[Articles 9, 10 in particular, see Additional Readings, Armenians Celebrating 1908 Nov. 14] The Armenian Crisis:
Counter Revolution and ‘Adana Massacre’ 1909:
- as part of ‘counter-revolution’ fought against CUP, local violence took form of attacks on any ‘seen’ as supporting revolution
- Armenians (in general) part of that group
- in Adana, troops brought in to quell violence: ‘reported’ that they not only did not stop killings but actually participated --15-30,000 Armenians died *
Region of ‘Adana Massacres’ 1909; Remains of Village Attacked (right) The Armenian Crisis:
World War I: Ottomans enter war on side of Germany
- Russians allied with Western Powers
- summer 1914, formed ‘Armenian Volunteer Units’: non-Russian (Ottoman) Armenians ‘defected’ from Empire
- February 1915, Armenians withdrawn from all active positions in Army for fear that if opportunity provided, they might prove disloyal: attached to labour units, passive ‘unarmed’ logistical support The Armenian Crisis:
Dec.1914 or Jan. 1915: memorandum of CUP: ‘Ten Commandments’ [see Additional Readings]
- would seem damning indictment but…
- questioned on several bases: - no original - doubts as to ‘handwriting’ on said original - doubts as to date
Among ‘documents’ referred to in ‘Revisiting Armenian Genocide’ as being of unproven authenticity The Armenian Crisis:
April 24, 1915: Circular from Ministry of Interior to Ottoman Army Commander-in-Chief
- no doubts concerning this document: clearly spells out orders to arrest all Armenians in order to prevent further attempts to undermine Ottoman war efforts and incite local uprisings (against the government)
- some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders rounded up, imprisoned immediately
- some later executed, most deported (May, 1915) Armenian intellectuals Talaat Pasha arrested 24 April, 1915 Minister who who were later executed irdered arrests 1915 (May) Civilian Armenians, Self-Defence Unit holding against Ottoman Forces, Siege of Van, May (eastern region)
1915 (April) Armenians from Khapert being led to prison (central region) **
Khapert (left) Van (right) Ottoman Soldiers in front of Hanged Armenians, Aleppo (Syria), 1915 The Tehcir: ‘Temporary Law of Deportation’ - approval to deport Armenians
(29 May, 1915) The Armenian Crisis:
The Tehcir:
- in principle ‘temporary’ authorization to deport any Armenians who might be considered a threat to security
- began in eastern region (related to situation in Van – refusal to supply full number conscripts to Ottoman army led to accusations of ‘aiding the enemy’ and ‘rebelliousness’) The Armenian Crisis:
- extended ‘fear of inciting riots, massacres’ from Van to Armenian population in general
- yet many of those ‘deported’ towards Syria (desert) were women and children
- controversial reports of ‘camps’ near borders Syria and Iraq: transit? Or…extermination? * .
Desert Deportations: note ‘geography’ of Eastern Anatolia "THOSE WHO FELL BY THE WAYSIDE. Scenes like this were common all over the Armenian provinces, in the spring and summer months of 1915. Death in its several forms--- massacre, starvation, exhaustion---destroyed the larger part of the refugees. The Turkish policy was that of extermination under the guise of deportation" [from American Ambassador Morganthau’s publication 1918]** The Armenian Crisis:
**Note: - Morganthau worked for the “American Committee for Relief in the Near East” between 1915-1930
- Book published in 1918 intended to aid work of committee
- while not denying reality of ‘need’ for aid, must raise question of interpretation placed on observations
No observation is ever ‘totally objective’, especially where passion and compassion involved! The Armenian Crisis:
The Trials:
- 1919 Trials held in Istanbul in connection to internationally condemned ‘massacres’
- ‘the Three Pashas’, including Talaat Pasha, fled to Germany at end of war:
- found ‘guilty’, condemned to death in absentia [later two of three assassinated there]
- CUP ‘officially disbanded’, assets confiscated The Armenian Crisis:
Numerous reasons to question (legality of) trial findings but still seen as major ‘proof’ of genocide [‘Armenian Genocide Revisited’, Additional Readings]
- in terms of contemporary impact: hugely influential
- intent to ‘show’ the West (victors in the war) of genuine attempt to redress atrocities
- failed: ironically -- accorded little credibility at the time, though now cited as ‘proof’… The Armenian Crisis:
Most important impact ‘internal’:
- portrayed by ‘challengers’ to new regime of Sultan Mehmed VI as further ‘capitulation’ to West (along with ‘surrender’)
- ultimately, Mustapha Kemal (‘Ataturk’) succeeded in deposing Sultan, destroying Sultanate – and ending process of ‘Trials’ in ‘Armenian Affair’
- Ironic: ‘crisis’ used by different groups to achieve different aims, at times diametrically opposed! The Armenian Crisis:
Final Comment: - extremely difficult to find any ‘objective’ historical analysis of understandably horrific experience for all concerned
-but must be seen (and understood) in larger picture of Ottoman history
- this includes evolution over time of relations with different ethnic groups (and millets), and policies concerning them as attempts to define and protect integrity of ‘Ottoman-ness’ however defined The Armenian Crisis:
Final Comment: - just as Abou-El-Hajj pointed out that historians’ acceptance of the 19th century as ‘focal point’ has distorted our understanding of both what preceded it (especially 17th-18th c.) and followed …
- one can argue taking Armenian Crisis 1915-16 as ‘starting point’ to work backwards (into 19th c. and further) and forwards (into 20th c.) distorts Ottoman History, especially longer-term ‘inter-communal’, ‘inter-ethnic’, and ‘inter-religious’ relationships [refer to Quataert’s Chapter]