Tweet
Originally posted by molly bloom
The Ottomans wanted an Armenian-free Ottoman province of Armenia, and as much as possible, an Armenian-free set of eastern provinces.
In Martin Gilbert's 'First World War' he notes:
On the former Caucasus front, Germany's ally Turkey was driving the Armenians out of what was left of their homeland, occupying ther former Russian city of Kars (which had been Turkish until 1878) and pressing eastward into the Armenian heartland, occupying Alexandropol on May 15 and defeating more than 6 000 Armenians three days later. For another ten days, the Armenians fought tenaciously, at one point pushing the Turkish back thirty miles, but on May 26, at the Battle of Karakilise, the Turks were victorious, and 5 000 Armenians made their escape over the mountain passes. On May 28, Armenia declared her independence. It was a short-lived culmination of long-held aspirations: within two weeks, hundreds of Armenians were being massacred by Tatars south of the Georgian capital of Tiflis. The Turks, advancing three months later into the former Russian Caucasus, and in due course reaching the Caspian Sea, murdered more than 400 000 Armenian civilians, townsmen, villagers and children.'
PP 422-423
It should be remembered that the Russian Czar had visited the Caucasus Front early in the war, and had said to the head of the Armenian Church that 'a most brilliant future awaits the Armenians.' Not a move designed to enamour the Ottoman Empire to its large population of Armenians, who had fellow Christians and relatives across the border in Russia.
The Ottomans wanted an Armenian-free Ottoman province of Armenia, and as much as possible, an Armenian-free set of eastern provinces.
In Martin Gilbert's 'First World War' he notes:
On the former Caucasus front, Germany's ally Turkey was driving the Armenians out of what was left of their homeland, occupying ther former Russian city of Kars (which had been Turkish until 1878) and pressing eastward into the Armenian heartland, occupying Alexandropol on May 15 and defeating more than 6 000 Armenians three days later. For another ten days, the Armenians fought tenaciously, at one point pushing the Turkish back thirty miles, but on May 26, at the Battle of Karakilise, the Turks were victorious, and 5 000 Armenians made their escape over the mountain passes. On May 28, Armenia declared her independence. It was a short-lived culmination of long-held aspirations: within two weeks, hundreds of Armenians were being massacred by Tatars south of the Georgian capital of Tiflis. The Turks, advancing three months later into the former Russian Caucasus, and in due course reaching the Caspian Sea, murdered more than 400 000 Armenian civilians, townsmen, villagers and children.'
PP 422-423
It should be remembered that the Russian Czar had visited the Caucasus Front early in the war, and had said to the head of the Armenian Church that 'a most brilliant future awaits the Armenians.' Not a move designed to enamour the Ottoman Empire to its large population of Armenians, who had fellow Christians and relatives across the border in Russia.
I believe the year Gilbert’s talking about is 1918. Turkish forces entered Baku on 15 September of that year, and just 15 days later Ottoman Empire surrendered unconditionally by the Treaty of Mudros, which stipulated that the Turkish army units in the region be replaced with British ones. Turkish troops left the region under the supervision of the latter by November 1918. Therefore, they should have been quite industrious to have “massacred 400.000 Armenians” in such a short time. Even if they tried the challenge in the months before and during their arrival in Baku, the British military personnel who were in the region for years to observe this front of the Great War would certainly take note. That note is conspicuously absent in British sources. They note otherwise; and just to give you an idea, I quote from declassified British Foreign Office files, as quoted in a book by Turkish historian Salahi Sonyel (“Great War and the Tragedy of Anatolia”, Turkish Historical Society Printing House; 2000, p.165):
[This is by the British officer in the field to the Director of Military Intelligence, forwarded to the Foreign Office in the file no FO/371/3404/158226, dated 16 Sept 1918]
“The Armenians joined the Bolsheviks and restarted [sic] their blood feud with tha Tartars instead of continuing to fight the Turks. Over 8.000 Tartars were killed in Baku, over 18.000 unarmed Tartars were ruthlessly murdered in the Elizavetpol district, mainly by Armenian rebels and Bolsheviks. Evidence as to the needless aggressiveness of the Armenians is also contained in [British Charge d’affaires in Istanbul] Sir C. Marling’s [communication] no 76 of 30 April 1918 and [British Consul in Georgia] Wardrop’s no 452 of 29 April 1918”
Other observers note that there were 60.000 refugees from 420 Muslim villages destroyed by the Armenians (p.495).
I’m not trying to engage with you here in a quoting match, of course
I just mean to make the point that Armenians themselves were engaged in what you might call ethnic cleansing for some time, both in the Caucasus as our discussion brought us, but also in Eastern Turkey, where they lost their overall majority in the region centuries ago and hence more incentive to do so (and here I’m not trying to create an image of bad faith just for the sake of the arguement. Armenian nationalist literature was well established concerning Eastern Turkey decades before the WWI).Another point concerning the 400.000 Armenians quoted in Gilbert: I probably can claim to have a fairly good idea about the Armenian perspective on the “genocide” issue but frankly I never heard about this before, or saw this in Armenian sources. If you consider the overall number they claim to have been killed in Turkey to be 1.5 million, an omission of 400.000 in Caucasus in their primary arguement is rather curious to me. Is there a footnote in Gilbert’s book where he gives a source for this extraordinary claim?
Originally posted by molly bloom
In Poland and Eastern Europe, the Russians used the Jews as scapegoats for the defeat by the German army: it was said that 'were it not for the Y ids -traitors- the Prussian army would have been utterly routed.'
In October 1914, the Jews of Vilna, Grodno and Bialystok paid the price at the hands of their gentile fellow townsfolk.
In Palestine, Jemal Pasha ordered 500 Russian Jews deported, too. He also hanged members of the Arab national movement in Beirut, just to be even-handed though. He strangely disbanded an anti-Entente Jewish Zionist militia in Jerusalem, and expelled David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, which had the effect of making them set sail for the United States, and raise a Jewish Legion to fight within the Entente's military forces.
In Poland and Eastern Europe, the Russians used the Jews as scapegoats for the defeat by the German army: it was said that 'were it not for the Y ids -traitors- the Prussian army would have been utterly routed.'
In October 1914, the Jews of Vilna, Grodno and Bialystok paid the price at the hands of their gentile fellow townsfolk.
In Palestine, Jemal Pasha ordered 500 Russian Jews deported, too. He also hanged members of the Arab national movement in Beirut, just to be even-handed though. He strangely disbanded an anti-Entente Jewish Zionist militia in Jerusalem, and expelled David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, which had the effect of making them set sail for the United States, and raise a Jewish Legion to fight within the Entente's military forces.
Originally posted by molly bloom
Ancyrean- while I agree that it is dangerous to apply a modern label to events that happened in the past, it seems only fitting to describe what happened in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire as a 'genocide' or at the very least, 'ethnic cleansing'. It should be noted that Assyrian Jacobite and Nestorian Christians were also affected.
I admit that forced marches through deserts are not the most efficient way to kill off populations, and Russian encouragement of Armenian national aspirations didn't amount to direct aid for Armenians, but undoubtedly did account for mounting suspicion and eventually action, against what we might see as the equivalent of Japanese Americans in WWII, except mass slaughter and hunger marches took the place of relocation camps and detention centres.
Destruction of cultural centres has little to do with detaining suspected fifth columnists, or military strategy, but in helping making an area 'Armenian-free' or reducing the incentive for Armenians to stay there, are a good tactic.
Ancyrean- while I agree that it is dangerous to apply a modern label to events that happened in the past, it seems only fitting to describe what happened in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire as a 'genocide' or at the very least, 'ethnic cleansing'. It should be noted that Assyrian Jacobite and Nestorian Christians were also affected.
I admit that forced marches through deserts are not the most efficient way to kill off populations, and Russian encouragement of Armenian national aspirations didn't amount to direct aid for Armenians, but undoubtedly did account for mounting suspicion and eventually action, against what we might see as the equivalent of Japanese Americans in WWII, except mass slaughter and hunger marches took the place of relocation camps and detention centres.
Destruction of cultural centres has little to do with detaining suspected fifth columnists, or military strategy, but in helping making an area 'Armenian-free' or reducing the incentive for Armenians to stay there, are a good tactic.
I see your point. The addition I have to your point is that ethnic cleansing, if we might call it that for a moment, was at least mutual. Armenians started the whole thing in the fisrt place in the urgency of creating a majority in where they were not. None other than Bernard Lewis agrees with this point (I have with me his “The Middle East: 2000 years of history”, for example at pp. 339-340). Besides, they were indeed directly assisted by the Russians, who had been providing them with arms and money for quite a while and even further employed them as regiments in their own Tsarist army.
As for the destruction of cultural centres, this happened to both communities: Armenians did this to Turks, Turks to Armenians. Because of this and the bloodshed, by the time government intervention there was a very thick and deep hatred between the two communities in the region.
It is of course true that the area became “Armenian-free” by the end of the war, but it was as a result of this kind of a chain of events, not out of the blue and not because of a long-brooded over plan put into action.
Comment