Was There Really Such as Thing as the 1915 Armenian “Genocide?”

This column created a firestorm when I first wrote and published it.  I lost friends and even received threats.  Nonetheless, I stand by the conclusions herein.  Until it can be shown an orchestrated and deliberate “genocide” occurred, I remain convinced the horrific episode known as the attempt to exterminate Armenians was one of many terrible outcomes of World War I and unbridled nationalism.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the so-called “Armenian Genocide,” a bitter ethnic conflict that spiraled into a tragic course of events circa 1915, now widely recognized as “the first mass genocide in history.” [1]

Today, many activists, historians, and scholars go so far as to compare what happened to the Armenians who were living in Eastern Turkey (sometimes referred to as Eastern Anatolia — then part of the Ottoman Empire which was dissolved after World War 1 and re-flagged as modern Turkey) as the first holocaust of the 20th Century.  Purportedly, these crimes later became a model for the systematic slaughter committed some 25 years by Nazi Germany in what was plainly a state-sponsored endorsement and coordination of mass genocide.

There’s no debate that an astronomical number of Armenians died during this period of intense global conflict, perhaps as many as a million innocents, maybe even more.  If many Armenian-based sources are to be believed, the actual number could be as high as 1.5 million.  Moreover, there’s no dispute — even among contemporary Turkish authorities who state there was no such genocide and those of us sometimes labeled as “deniers” — that many terrible things happened during that time of war — including mass murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other unfathomable forms of human cruelty.  Turkey does indeed bear the responsibility for those deaths and has largely acknowledged its disreputable role and collective national guilt in what happened.

Alas, the inherent horrors of war and all ethnic conflict is not in dispute, and cannot be.  What is worth disputing, however, is the classification of what happened to Armenians during this period as a “genocide.”  So, did the Turks commit mass genocide against the Armenians in 1915?

My assertion is — no.

Genocide is properly defined as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.”  Another definition reads as follows….“the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”

The keywords here are — deliberate and systematic.  Remember these definitions as we look closer at the events which unfolded in 1915.

Contrary to widespread claims, Armenians were neither deliberately nor systematically murdered.  That huge numbers died of rampant disease, starvation, and sporadic acts of violence perpetrated by Ottoman military forces, Young Turks, and Kurd militias during a massive forced relocation do not constitute an official edict of intentional mass extermination.  It wreaks of neglect, even on a criminal scale — but wasn’t “genocidal.”

The collective mass suffering, as terrible as it was, simply does not meet the prescribed criteria which have been similarly matched by the actual genocides we all remember from this past century — most notably Nazi Germany and its occupation of much of Europe (1939-1945), East Timor (1975-199), Pol Pot’s Cambodia (1976-1979), Rwanda (1994), or Darfur/Sudan (2003-2004).  Each of these other horrors was carried out under the official banner of those governments with its agents carrying out orders to kill.  Policies were both deliberate and systematic.  In other words, the official policy of those governments towards minorities and conquered peoples was unmistakable.  In each case, the evidence proving intentional mass extermination is overwhelming.  Put another way, there are plenty of smoking guns around (documents, visual evidence, eyewitness testimony, etc.) proving these crimes were part of a national policy.  They were deliberate.  They were systematic.

Not so with what happened to the Armenians.  The threshold of proof falls far short and therefore is not met.  Here, I’ll explain why.

———-

To date, no official Ottoman-era government documents have ever been discovered which establish a link or support any policy of mass extermination —  this despite an extensive archive open to all researchers and the Ottoman Empire’s widely-acknowledged reputation for official protocols and meticulous record-keeping.  There were no fiery speeches from Ottoman sultans or their lieutenants to the Muslim masses, advocating ridding the Turkic nation of the “Armenian problem.”  There was never any such thing as a notorious Wannsee Conference in Turkey, which was the coordinated discussion leading to what became known as “The Final Solution.”  Official records establishing the Ottoman state’s clear intent of mass extermination do not exist (or at least have not been found yet).  The evidence for genocide simply isn’t there.

But what about all the dead bodies?  What about the terrible toll of human misery — all documented?  How about the undeniable crimes committed during wartime?  Indeed, all those things happened, not only within the Ottoman Empire but throughout much of Europe and other regions of the world, which lost a staggering 30 million lives during this period of World War 1.  Want to talk about genocide?  That’s the real genocide of the past century, committed by the munitions makers, industrialists, and indignant nationalists of all countries.  All those deaths were….for what?  Those were the most egregious crimes of all, which went largely unpunished.

Allow me to engage in an explanation as to why this precise distinction which actually defines a genocide is critically important to our understanding of what really happened.  This debate is particularly relevant this month since the anniversary is currently in the news and will be discussed extensively during the next few weeks (April 24th is widely being called “Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day”).  Even Pope Francis addressed this sensitive topic recently, noting the occasion of an “Armenian Genocide.” [2]

———-

Armenians have lived and prospered throughout Eastern Anatolia for thousands of years.  Their ethnic and cultural base centered in what’s now modern-day Armenia and extends as far west as the city of Van, located close to Mt. Ararat in what’s modern Turkey.  In 1915, Armenians constituted a substantial percentage of the population within the far eastern provinces of the old (and crumbling) Ottoman Empire.  Armenians were estimated to have made up about ten percent of the country’s entire population.

Unfortunately, along with the Armenians’ rising national aspirations to create a state of their own, a widespread unification movement which actually began towards the end of the 19th Century, many became caught up in an internal domestic conflict with the Turks which finally reached a boiling point by 1915.  Armenia would ultimately gain its independence as a nation-state in 1918, which was to be short-lived.  The first Republic of Armenia lasted only four years, dissolved into the greater Soviet Union when they were invaded and conquered in 1922.

In 1915, the Ottoman Empire was at war fighting alongside Germany and Austria-Hungary, and in the midst of decline and ultimate disintegration.  Prior to that, the Ottomans had a rich and proud history.  Since the 1500s, it had ruled various conquered territories through what was known as a “millet” system.  A millet was “an autonomous self-governing religious community, each organized under its own laws.”  In short, Muslims and Christians were largely ruled by their own people within the greater expansive Empire, absent a strong central authority based in the capital city Istanbul.  Even Jews were granted equal status within the Turkish millet system, making the Ottoman Empire a relatively safe haven when contrasted with institutionalized manifestations of antisemitism throughout most of Europe.  Generally speaking, despite being a melting pot of different ethnic groups and religions, most citizens got along peacefully for centuries. [3]

When the Armenian nationalistic movement began gaining momentum during the 1890s, problems were foreseeable.  Yet despite this, when World War 1 broke out in 1914, many Armenians enlisted and others were conscripted into the Ottoman Army and fought bravely.  They served alongside Turks in battle.  Question:  If the Ottomans’ true intention was to exterminate Armenians, would they have been permitted to serve in the military and been armed?  One expects the answer would be a resounding — no.

Armenians did indeed fight as Ottomans, until a tragic military conflict broke out in the Eastern Anatolian city of Van, in 1915.  This is generally regarded as the turning point of Turkish-Armenian relations when the conflict spun out of control.  Armenian soldiers, sympathetic to the nationalistic movement of their own peoples to the northeast, deserted the Ottoman ranks in huge numbers and began joining with the Russians, which were the enemy of the Ottomans.  Mass desertion and civil unrest grew into a huge insurrection, and the Turks did what any military force would do when massive numbers of a population commit acts of treason and join forces with the enemy.  They tried to put down the opposition.  Brutally so.

Even while the events of 1915 were unfolding, Turkish leadership allowed Armenians to serve in the military, although they were reassigned to non-combat positions as suspicions began mounting that it might not be a good idea to arm thousands of Armenians who might flee over and fight with the Russians.  Since their loyalty was now a legitimate question, Armenians who remained in the Ottoman Army were transferred into support roles.  Their continued evasion from the military, at least in small part, contributed to Ottoman defeat.

As the war dragged on and Ottoman Empire continued to lose control of much of its population (especially in Eastern Anatolia, which was remote and hard to govern), and the nation’s internal resources were sapped and spent on a costly war, famine and disease broke out everywhere.  Millions of Turks endured the same hunger and diseases which ultimately killed many Armenians.  The numbers on this point are both revealing and shocking.

Turkey proper’s population was about 21 million when the war began.  All scholars agree that about 500,000 perished in battle, directly related to acts of war.  Another 4,500,000 died from other causes (starvation, disease, etc.) — amounting to as high as 29 percent of the country’s total population.  Of this number, perhaps 1 million were Armenians (the actual death figures are still the subject of intense debate).  However, no one disputes the Ottoman Empire’s massive decline in population from about 21 million prewar to approximately 15 million by November 1918.  The overwhelming majority of those who suffered — if not in scope then certainly by number — were Turks.

———-

It’s impossible not to know the story of the mass expulsion of Armenians from Eastern Anatolia (Turkey) — what amounts to a forced death march for many — and not be sympathetic to their suffering.  No doubt, an obscene number of innocent people died as the result of the Ottoman Empire’s fragmentation and the absence of resources to facilitate the movement of a massive number of people.

“A state is responsible for the protection of all its citizens, even if they are insurgents.  The death of innocent people cannot be justified by any argument.  The Ottoman state certainly deserves the blame for letting this happen.  However, the evidence tells that it is the inability of the state to control its provinces, rather than its intended plan, that leads to the atrocities.  The government authority in most of that area in question was limited to a network of alliances with Turkish and Kurdish warlords, over which it had limited control.  These and other similar facts cannot make the huge human toll disappear, or in any way justify it, but they are important nonetheless if we are to understand what really happened. [4]

So, just to be clear, the picture in Turkey around 1915 is as follows:

• a crumbling Empire lacking any central authority,
• a growing insurgency in the east by Armenians to create their own nation-state (taking along with it Turkish territory),
• Armenians openly deserting the Ottoman Army and joining with the enemy Russians,
• collapsing infrastructure,
• food and resources being diverted to the war resulting in civilian mass starvation,
• and rampant disease (the Influenza Epidemic three years later would kill 50 million worldwide)

The forced expulsion of Armenians out of Turkish territory under the circumstances would indeed prove disastrous.  However, gross neglect, indifference, and cruelty do not constitute genocide.

———-

The Armenian Genocide fallacy is fueled by ethnic blindness, political opportunism, and academic laziness.

It’s easy to understand how and why many Armenians would be caught up in the terrible events of the past, and want retribution against those who were guilty, or at least some official acknowledgment by the modern Turkish Government of what happened.  Armenians who are compelled to remember the past in most cases honor the memories of their ancestors who perished.  That movement, while passionate and even well-intended, currently stands at an impasse.  The United States has not joined other nations which have condemned the events of 1915, steadfastly refusing to call the tragedy a “genocide.”  This reluctance has no relevance to a concern for accuracy and is entirely motivated by diplomatic and military concerns that the government in Ankara might take offense and react unfavorably, perhaps even going so far as to close down American military bases in Turkey.

That hasn’t stopped many American leaders (including congressmen and senators), particularly those who live in close proximity to Armenian-American communities, from making the most of the controversy to win votes and collect campaign contributions.  Politicians, with utterly no knowledge of the events of 1915, instinctively go along with what they are told.  In these times, it’s convenient, if not disingenuous, to side with the (Christian) Armenian perspective rather than the (Muslim) Turkish view of history.

As for academic laziness, both sides have funded their own research.  The actual truth of what really happened in terms of numbers of deaths probably falls somewhere in the middle of estimates, although the genocide threshold remains unmet.  Unfortunately, the failure to properly define and categorize what constitutes a real genocide by many academics has resulted in an abdication of responsibility to the truth, betraying the actual historical record.

This brings up my final argument repudiating the notion that the Armenians were subject to genocide in 1915.

———-

In 1989, the Turkish Government opened up a treasure trove for all historians.

The entire collection of Ottoman Empire archives was opened to the public, including researchers, for the first time.  This massive treasury includes about 150 million documents, from every period of Ottoman rule, up to 1922.  This includes all records relating to activities in Eastern Anatolia, Istanbul’s policy towards those activities, military records, and census data.  It’s a gold mine which within rests the truth.

“The Ottoman Ministry of the Interior (Dahiliye Nezareti)….documents covers the period from 1866 to 1922 and consists of 4,598 registers or notebooks.  It is classified according to twenty-one sub-collections, according to the office of origin.  Among the available documents in the Ottoman archives are several dozen registers containing the records of the deliberations and actions of the Council of Ministers, which set policies, received reports, and discussed problems that arose regarding the relocations and other wartime events.  The minutes of its meetings, deliberations, resolutions, and decisions are bound in 224 volumes covering the years 1885 through 1922.  These registers include each and every decree pertaining to the decision to relocate the Ottoman Armenians away from the war zones during World War I.  (It) also contains substantial documentation, including the correspondence between the grand vizier and the ministries, as well as the central government and the provinces that can illuminate the events of 1915.” [5]

Rather than taking my word for it, or believing the official explanation of the Turkish Government, researchers should instead plow through the archives for themselves.  Yet sadly, few researchers who have studied and written about the so-called “Armenian Genocide” have actually sifted through any of the Ottoman records.  Despite being open to all scholars, and particularly Armenian academics, the (unproven) allegation of genocide continues to linger around the world and is now even gaining greater sympathy.  This is intellectually dishonest.

Not only were old Ottoman records released by the Turks, so to were all Turkish Military Archives.  All activities relating to the events of 1915 are now available.  One would think this might create some incentive to fill in the gaps and learn more.  But that’s not been the case.

“On April 10, 2005, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan extended an invitation to Armenian President Robert Kocharian to establish a joint commission consisting of historians and other experts to study the developments and events of 1915, not only in the archives of Turkey and Armenia but also in those of relevant third countries such as Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the United States, and to share their findings with the public.

Ninety-seven members of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly at Strasbourg signed a declaration calling on Armenia to accept the Turkish proposal.

In his annual commemoration message to the Armenian-American community in 2005, President George W. Bush expressed support for Turkey’s proposal, declaring, “We look to a future of freedom, peace, and prosperity in Armenia and Turkey and hope that Prime Minister Erdoğan’s recent proposal for a joint Turkish-Armenian commission can help advance these processes.”  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated the point two years later, telling Congress, ‘I think that these historical circumstances require a very detailed and sober look from historians. And what we’ve encouraged the Turks and the Armenians to do is to have joint historical commissions that can look at this, to have efforts to examine their past, and in examining their past to get over their past.’

It is unfortunate that the Armenian government has failed to accept the joint commission.” [6]

———-

Until evidence is uncovered which clearly shows the Ottoman Empire’s deliberate and systematic intent to exterminate the Armenian population, the existence of a “genocide” does not exist as related to the tragic events of 1915.

Did perhaps as many as half of the Armenian population within Turkish borders die during this period?  Yes.

Were those deaths cruel and unnecessary?  Yes.

Were those deaths largely due to disease and starvation rather than mass executions?  Yes.

Was the tragedy of what happened to the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia one of the worst events of the 20th Century?  Yes.

Was it a “genocide?”  No.

Writer’s Note 1:  Full disclosure.  Between 1993-2000 I was employed by the Turkish Embassy in Washington, DC.  Obviously, my opinion is largely shaped by that experience.  However, in the interest of demonstrating my willingness to oppose Turkish policy when evidence mandates, I have always favored the creation of an independent Kurdish state (something the Turkish Government strongly opposes).  I also endorse some of the activities of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is outlawed in Turkey and is widely considered to be a terrorist organization.  So, I’m hardly a flunky for the Turkish point of view.

Writer’s Note 2:  I expect many readers, and particularly those of Armenian ancestry will disagree with this point of view.  Accordingly, I shall allow comments to be posted unedited for those wishing to voice their disagreements.

Footnote 1 — SOURCE

Footnote 2 — SOURCE

Footnote 3 — SOURCE

Footnote 4 — SOURCE

Footnote 5 — SOURCE

Footnote 6 — SOURCE

READ: My reaction of “Midnight Express” and Billy Hayes