History Extended Essay
Armenian Genocide
Research Question: To What Extent is the Label of Genocide Regarding the Armenian Genocide Throughout the Great War in Eastern Anatolia the Appropriate Term to Describe the Killings of Armenians from 1915-17?
Introduction
Essay Rationale
The common perception of the event is that it is a genocide and it is difficult to argue against this when examining how Armenians were targeted and killed. Several countries recognise the events from 1915-17 as genocide, such as Germany, Russia, France, and the United States, among others. However, only 32 countries have officially recognised the events as genocide, with countries like Israel and notably Turkey acknowledging the events but refusing to label them as genocide. This has influenced many political leaders to avoid using the term genocide, notably Barack Obama, who in 2010 refrained from referring to the killings as genocide. The way history is perceived can often be shaped by current political climates, which can overshadow the true events of the past. Therefore, it is crucial to shed light on the actual occurrences. Rising tensions between Turkey and Armenia regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and Turkey’s possible involvement, once again highlight the issue of Turkey not recognising the Armenian Genocide. It is important to examine the evidence and primary accounts of the time and compare them to the Turkish revisionist view to assess any validity in pro-Turkish claims that it should not be classified as genocide. This essay will establish a generalised definition of genocide, review the events, and determine whether they fall into the category of genocide, considering different perspectives to evaluate whether the deaths of Armenians were premeditated and whether the Ottoman government was aware of the killings committed by officers in charge of the relocations. This leads to the research question: To What Extent is the Label of Genocide Regarding the Armenian Genocide Throughout the Great War in Eastern Anatolia the Appropriate Term to Describe the Killings of Armenians from 1915-17?
Methodology
To develop the argument, historians Norman Stone and Bernard Lewis will be used, as both have controversial opinions on the Armenian Genocide, often arguing that the term genocide is inappropriate or inapplicable to the events of 1915. Other sources include primary sources, such as telegrams sent by Henry Morgenthau, the American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. He was a strong advocate for recognising the brutal killings of Armenians and frequently wrote to the Secretary of State requesting American intervention, which was never granted. Additionally, a broad definition of genocide will be used to identify key events and political behaviours that help classify the Armenian Massacre (1915-1917) as genocide. These sources provide two different perspectives, and their mix of primary and secondary sources offers a balanced approach, with the advantage of capturing immediate reactions and revisionist reviews with hindsight.
The Definition of Genocide
To address whether the killing of Armenians was a genocide, the definition of genocide must first be examined. The term genocide was coined by Polish legal scholar Raphael Lemkin in 1943, though he had been studying such crimes for over a decade. According to Lemkin, genocide is a crime against humanity, distinct from a war crime, posing an existential threat to a minority group. The United Nations based much of its laws on Lemkin’s definition, identifying acts such as killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and imposing measures to prevent births within a group as genocide. The first notable recognition of such acts was during the Nuremberg trials in 1946, though prosecuting earlier crimes without a defined term or legal framework proved challenging. The Armenian Genocide was undoubtedly seen as heinous, but the term genocide only emerged later. It is clear that genocide involves acts aimed at exterminating a specific group, typically driven by ideological motivations, such as the Holocaust in the Second World War. Intentionality is a key characteristic of genocide, so this essay will assess whether the killings were planned and deliberate.
The Armenian Massacre as a Genocide
Rising Ottoman-Armenian Tensions
To understand the killings of 1915-17, the pre-existing tensions between the Ottoman State and Ottoman Armenians must be examined. Turks and Armenians had coexisted for 800 years, with a relationship that was never ideal but avoided severe violent conflicts. In the 1890s, significant unrest arose between Ottoman Armenians and the Ottoman government. The primary conflict was the Armenian quest for an independent state, which the Ottoman Empire denied, leading to the formation of rebel groups like the Dashnaks and Hunchaks in the northeast (modern-day Anatolia and Armenia). A notable incident was the 1896 Ottoman Bank Takeover on 26 August, when 28 Armenian men and women from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation attempted to gain international attention for their mistreatment and cause for independence, led by Papken Siuni and Armen Karo. In 1895-96, an estimated 60,000-300,000 Armenians were executed under the orders of Sultan Abdul Hamid II in the Hamidian Massacres, a response to suspected cooperation with the Russian Empire, a rival of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian pursuit of independence and Russian support created a significant rift. The Ottoman Empire, deteriorating and labelled the sick man of Europe, had lost territories like Greece, angering Abdul Hamid II. Bernard Lewis argues that the idea of Armenian independence infuriated the Sultan, who believed Turks and Armenians had a close relationship despite past conflicts. Armenian revolutionary behaviour fostered hatred towards Armenians at the turn of the century. In 1914, relations collapsed completely as the Great War began, with Norman Stone noting that the Dashnaks provided 16,000-20,000 soldiers to the Russian Empire along the Caucasus, aiming for Russian aid to create an independent Armenian state. Hovhannes Kajaznuni, Armenia’s first Prime Minister, stated, We had embraced Russia wholeheartedly without any compunction. Without any positive basis of fact, we believed that the Tsarist government would grant us a more-or-less broad self-government. This was seen as treason by the Ottoman Empire, which was struggling in the war, notably at Gallipoli, and sought to unify ethnic groups. Consequently, the Ottoman government decided to relocate Armenian inhabitants to northern Syria, an event that became the most devastating in Armenian history, with estimates of 600,000 to 1,500,000 deaths during executions, revolts, and death marches. The following sections will investigate whether these actions constitute genocide, using accounts, records, and popular opinions.
Eyewitness Accounts and Official Reports by Neutral Members
One day I was discussing these proceedings with a responsible Turkish official, who was describing the tortures inflicted. He made no secret of the fact that the Government had instigated them, and, like all Turks of the official classes, he enthusiastically approved this treatment of the detested race, wrote Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, stationed in Constantinople from 1913-1916. He claimed deportations were a guise for mass killings in Anatolia. The policy, Sevk ve İskân Kanunu (Relocation and Resettlement Law), implemented from 1 June 1915 to 8 February 1916, aimed to eradicate Armenian influence along the Russian-Ottoman border following skirmishes in Van, where Armenians resisted Ottoman military abuse. Morgenthau alleged it was a permanent solution to the Armenian problem. Enver Pasha, Minister of War, and Djevdet Bey, an Albanian Ottoman governor in Van Vilayet, were heavily involved. Djevdet Bey, nicknamed the horseshoer of Bashkale, was known for brutal murders targeting Armenians, including torturing prisoners suspected of Dashnak ties by melting or stapling their feet to metal horse hooves, actions aligning with the UN’s genocide definition of causing serious bodily or mental harm. On 19 April 1915, Djevdet Bey ordered the killing of any Armenian seen by his brigade. Morgenthau’s reports to the Secretary of State highlighted increasing deportation and excesses against peaceful Armenians, suggesting a campaign of race extermination under the pretext of reprisal against rebellion. American sources reported extreme targeting during relocations to northern Syria. German missionary Johannes Lepsius, in his books Bericht über die Lage des armenischen Volkes in der Türkei and Der Todesgang des armenischen Volkes, documented ruthless massacres of women and children from Erzerum by Ottoman officers in Kemakh. Jesse B. Jackson, an American Consul worker, reported by 15 August 1915 that up to 500,000 Armenians had been subjected to brutal killings and targeted race eradication. Between 1 and 19 August 1915, he witnessed nine trains passing through Aleppo carrying thousands of Armenians from Aintab, whose city was looted, with survivors returning to destroyed homes. Jackson believed the Ottoman Empire was executing a gigantic plundering scheme and a final blow to extinguish the race, with government involvement indisputable, citing orders from Talaat Pasha and Enver Pasha, who fled Constantinople in 1921. Talaat was assassinated in Berlin by Soghomon Tehlirian of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, and Enver was found guilty by the new Turkish republic for forced deportations. Historian Arnold Toynbee echoed that the Central Government enforced and controlled the scheme, holding Young Turkish Ministers responsible for the crime that devastated the Near East in 1915. The term genocide, coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944, aligns with references to Armenian annihilation, with Hitler comparing his planned Holocaust to the Armenian annihilation, reinforcing the appropriateness of the term genocide. The actions match UN General Assembly Resolution 260 (III) clauses, including killing members of a group, causing serious harm, and deliberately inflicting destructive conditions with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Public Policies and the Legitimacy of the Government’s Relocation Plans
An opposing view, held by historians like Justin McCarthy and Bernard Lewis, argues the Armenian massacres were not deliberately preconceived by the Ottoman hierarchy. They claim the resettlement programme aimed to prevent Armenian interference in the war, such as cutting supply or railroad lines, and that violence between Anatolian Armenians and Muslims caused mutual suffering, with 350,000-500,000 Ottoman Muslims allegedly killed by Armenian terror groups. The relocation law was intended to protect Muslim populations in Anatolia, particularly Arabs and Turks, in cities like Van, where 35,000-45,000 Muslims were reportedly killed by Armenian rebels. The government sought to stabilise Anatolia, a vital region for supply and communication lines, amid distrust due to Armenian sabotage. It is argued that the number of Armenian deaths is exaggerated, closer to 700,000 than 1.5 million, often due to attacks by wild tribes with supervisors’ connivance, not government intent to eradicate the race. Bernard Lewis notes that large Armenian populations in Constantinople, Izmir, and Ankara, around 80,000, remained unscarred, suggesting no genocidal intent.
Concluding Thoughts
The term Armenian Genocide accurately describes the events of 1915-17. Although Armenian provocation occurred, it was often a response to Ottoman actions. The government was fully aware of the genocide, as evidenced by Enver Pasha’s death sentence for his role in forced deportations. The current Turkish government’s agenda appears to conceal that the Ottoman Turks committed the first genocide of the 20th century. The killings were well-known, with aid efforts like those of Johannes Lepsius, and involved death marches, village executions, and torture of non-rebellious inhabitants, aligning with UN General Assembly Resolution 260 (III). Evidence for the genocide-denying view is sparse, relying on personal statements, while eyewitness accounts and Morgenthau’s pleas confirm state involvement. The subsequent Turkish government convicted Ottoman leaders for Armenian eradication. Thus, genocide is the most accurate term for the events affecting Armenians in 1915-17, as opposing evidence lacks substance.
Bibliography
Auron, Y. (2002). The banality of indifference: Zionism and the Armenian genocide. New Brunswick, N.J.; London: Transaction.
Balakian, Peter. Black Dog of Fate. Basic Books, 1997.
Bardakjian, Kevork B., and Vahakn N. Dadrian. Hitler and the Armenian Genocide. Zoryan Institute for Contemporary, 1985.
Bloxham, D. (2005). The great game of genocide: imperialism, nationalism, and the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryce, James Bryce., et al. The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire: 1915-1916: Documents Presented to Viscount Grey of Fallodon by Viscount Bryce. Gomidas Inst., 2005.
Cordell, Karl and Wolff, Stefan, (eds.) Routledge handbook of ethnic conflict. Routledge, Abingdon, 2010, p. 3.
Gürün, Kâmuran. The Armenian File: the Myth of Innocence Exposed. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2007.
General Assembly of United Nations. 1948. 12 January 1951. Resolution: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [Online]. [Accessed 1 October 2020] Available: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf
Johanson, Paula. The Armenian Genocide. Greenhaven Publishing, 2018.
Karpel, Dalia. There Was No Genocide: Interview with Professor Bernard Lewis. Assembly of Turkish American Associations, 1998, www.ataa.org/armenian-issue-revisited/there-was-no-genocide-interview-with-professor-bernard-lewis.
Kurkcuoglu, Erol. Armenian Gangs Killed More than 500,000 Turks: Academic. Anadolu Ajansı, 16 Apr. 2015, www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/armenian-gangs-killed-more-than-500-000-turks-academic/56681.
Lemkin, Raphael. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals of Redress, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944.
Lepsius, Johannes. Bericht Über Die Lage Des Armenischen Volkes in Der Türkei. Hess, 2011.
Lepsius, Johannes. Der Todesgang Des Armenischen Volkes. Missionsbuchh., 1930.
Morgenthau, Henry. Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story. Doubleday, 1919.
Morgenthau, Henry. Report from a German Missionary on the Massacre of Armenians from Erzurum. Received by Secretary of State, Washington, Turkey, 31 July 1915, Constantinople, Ottoman Empire.
Morgenthau, Henry. Report That Ottoman Turkey Is Seeking to Exterminate the Armenian Nation. Received by Secretary of State, Washington, Turkey, 16 July 1915, Constantinople, Ottoman Empire.
Morgenthau, Henry. U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. Received by Secretary of State, Washington, Turkey, 31 July 1915, Constantinople, Ottoman Empire.
Payaslian, Simon. United States Policy toward the Armenian Question and the Armenian Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Sarafian, Ara. The Lower Euphrates. Armenian Review, 1993.
Schrodt, N. (2014). Modern Turkey and the Armenian genocide: an argument about the meaning of the past (Contributions to political science). Cham: Springer.
Stone, Norman. What Has This Genocide to Do with Congress? The Spectator, 20 Oct. 2007, www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-has-this-genocide-to-do-with-congress-.
Winter, J. M. America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
