This investigation explores the question: To what extent was the defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Sarikamish (1914-1915) the main factor contributing to the Armenian Genocide (1915-1923)?
The first source which will be evaluated in depth is Karekin Pastermadjian’s book Karekin Pastermadjian’s book Why Armenia Should Be Free written in 1918 and is relevant because it highlights the conflicts which occurred between the Armenians and Turks which encompasses the Battle of Sarikamish.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
One limitation to the origin is that Pastermadjian was an Armenian nationalist activist so he may have been sympathetic toward his people’s plight. The origin of this source is valuable because Pastermadjian was likely to have access to classified information since he was the ambassador of Armenia to the United States at the time. Furthermore, the date of publication of this source,1918, strengthens its value because the genocide was ongoing and allowed the author to acquire contemporary information regarding the incident.
The purpose of this source was to persuade the international community to side with Armenia in her efforts to achieve independence. A value of the purpose is that Karekin reasons that the Battle of Sarikamish was a. However, the purpose is limited because Pastermadjian tends to overstate the Armenians’ contribution during the First World War.
The content is limited because the language exaggerates the war efforts of Armenians as seen from sentences such as “This was the invaluable service rendered to the Russian army…….” and “This great service of Armenians to the Russian army…....”. The content is valuable because it allows readers to evaluate whether the events at Sarikamish had ultimately caused the genocide.
The second source evaluated in depth is a book titled Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire by Benjamin Braude in 2014. This source is relevant as gives insight into how Armenians were treated in the Ottoman Empire prior to the genocide.
One limitation of the origin of the source is an American historian may include their own political views in their work. The origin of this source is valuable because Braude is a professor of history at Boston College, specializing in Ottoman history, indicating that he has profound knowledge on this topic. The date of publication, 2014, further strengthens its value because, Braude, benefitting from hindsight, was able to consult a wider range of historical sources.
The purpose of the book is to show the attitude of Turkish people toward the Armenians. The purpose is valuable because it allows one to evaluate whether it had a significant impact on causing the Armenian genocide. The purpose is less valuable because the source spans many centuries of Middle Eastern history so there could have been a change in attitudes within the Muslim community.
A value in the content is that Braude has analyzed many different perspectives as a diverse range of resources (Ottoman, Arabic, Greek) were used. The content is limited because some vital information could have been lost in translation.
Section 2: Investigation
The Battle of Sarikamish (1914-1915) marked one of the most devastating defeats for the Ottoman Empire during the First World War (1914-1918). Many historians such as Ronald Grigor Suny and Benjamin Braude would agree that the defeat at Sarikamish was a main factor that caused the Armenian genocide, as it was ensued almost immediately by the Armenian genocide. However, historians such as Vahakan Dadrian refute this viewpoint and argues that it does not look at long-term and short-term factors such as religious tensions and discriminant policies of the Ottoman Empire which may have been greater contributors towards the eventual outbreak of the genocide.
The defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Sarikamish had played a significant role in the genocide as it made the Turkish Government uncertain of the loyalty of their Armenian subjects. This is because Armenian volunteer troops had aided the Russians during the clash and according to Pastermadjian, the roles played by these Armenian soldiers were paramount to the success of the Russians at Sarikamish; this particular feat was announced even by Enver Pasha (high ranking Ottoman military officer) himself during his return from the war. The Turks feared that the Armenians would use guerrilla tactics and hold uprisings throughout Anatolia that would lead to further complications amidst their already formidable war efforts against Russia. Hence, the Ottomans saw the genocide as a means of solving this problem. This school of thought holds great similarity with another which credits the Armenian genocide in having a significant role in causing the genocide as the defeat because it had successfully instilled the fear of having to suffer more territorial losses within the hearts of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire. This view is supported by historian, Taner Akcam, who believes that the genocide was ideal in an attempt of preventing more territorial losses. This was because the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) had left the Ottoman Empire devasted, it witnessed the great loss of her territories in the Balkan Peninsula during that time. Historian Benjamin Braude believes that the triumvirate [referring to Mehmed Talaat Pasha, Ismail Enver Pasha, and Ahmed Djemal Pasha who were high-ranking officials that ruled the Empire] feared that Russia would compel the Armenians to start a massive revolt within Anatolia that would lead to the disintegration of the great Ottoman realm and therefore resorted to the murder of the Armenians to eliminate the possibility of such a threat.
However, this perspective pays too much close attention to the events that occurred at Sarikamish and has been challenged by historians because the Turkish government would have carried out the purging of the Armenian populace regardless of the outcome of the Battle of Sarikamish. It was only by pure coincidence that the Armenians would be the main targets of such exterminations because the government had previously made attempts to reduce the population of non-Muslim minority, notably through the Hamidian massacres (1894 – 1896), the Assyrian Genocide (1914-1924) and the Greek genocide (1913-1922). This view is supported by historian, Ugur Umit Ungor, who believes that the main goal of persecution of the Armenian people was to create a minority population that could be easily governed. Moreover, the Ottoman armies were only marching towards impendent doom when they embarked for Sarikamish in 1914. According to Pastermadjian, the Ottomans approached Sarikamish half-heartedly as they did not take into consideration the extreme weather conditions surrounding Sarikamish and brought insufficient food supplies as a result, the Turks had suffered more casualties from the cold rather than from fighting the Russians. Upon a closer scrutiny, it can be seen that the circumstances were favorable for the Ottomans as the Armenians were at the immediate vicinity of the events at Sarikamish and it would only be reasonable for the Turkish government to lay the blame of their defeat on the Armenians as it gave them a good opportunity to carry out the exterminations knowing that they would not face global backlash.
However, there are also short-term reasons that are more credible for the outbreak of the Armenian genocide such as the desire of the Turkish Government to build a Pan-Turkic state. Historian Raymond Kevorkian subscribes to this perspective, saying that the Turkish government executed the Armenian genocide in hopes of accomplishing its goal of creating a complete Turkish state. Since the Committee of Union and Progress came into power in 1908, the new government often promoted and advocated for ideologies such as Pan-Turkism or Pan-Turanism which called for the unification of the Turkic peoples. Through means of spreading propaganda, the government hoped to develop widespread hatred of Armenians within the Muslim population of the Ottoman Empire. Enver Pasha himself expressed desire to carry out ethnic cleansings and mass murders to remove non-Muslims from the Ottoman Empire and build a pan-Turkic state. Thus, the defeat at Sarikamish merely exacerbated anti-Armenian sentiments but did not contribute greatly to the outbreak of the Armenian genocide.
However, it is important to note that discrimination did not necessarily warrant for genocide, more attention should be given to long-term causes such as the build-up of religious tension prior to the events of the First World War. Historian, Moshe Ma’oz supports this view, saying that Christians and Jews were seen as alien to the Muslim community in the Ottoman Empire. Traditionally, the Ottoman Empire viewed itself as the sworn protector of the religion of Islam, seeing it as a duty to preserve the Islamic faith throughout all of her territories. While on the other hand, Armenia was the first nation to have Christianity as its official religion at 4 A. D, which may have been the earliest beginnings of the animosity between these states. Furthermore, the Armenians were a Christian minority living in an Islamic nation, they shared religious freedoms like no other and were given the status of ‘dhimmi’, meaning protected by the state. Turkish citizens were infuriated by this because they thought that a minority (Armenians) were undeserving of their privileges and that they should be revoked of them. This animosity worsened when the Young Turks came into power, they aimed to strengthen the prevalence of Islam more so than the leaders before them. These new leaders would often blame the suffering of the Turkish Muslims on the Armenians and have anti-Armenian propaganda promulgated in the sermons of Muslim mullahs and by town cries, which spread the word of the treachery and infidelity of Armenians. The Balkan Wars had also contributed to this hatred towards Christians since the Balkan states were largely Christian and the huge territorial losses for the Ottoman Empire dealt a great blow to the pride of the Turks. As historian Vahakan Dadrian argues, the Armenian genocide mainly occurred due to the negative perception of the general Turkish population towards the Armenian peoples that were present long ago, the genocide was a result of prolonged resentment towards Armenians and was not solely caused by the defeat at Sarikamish.
It, therefore, seems that the Battle of Sarikamish was not the main factor but merely just a trigger for the outbreak of the Armenian genocide, it had only served to add on to the pre-existing fear of the Ottomans towards the disloyalty of their Christian subjects. It can be said that the genocide occurred more so due to the long-term causes and the foundations it lay for the emergence of the short-term causes. The long-term causes coupled with the short-term causes was able to fester resentment within the Turkish people for many years and these feelings of hatred reached their climax during the years of the First World War, allowing one defeat out of many that were suffered by the Ottoman empire, to dictate the fate of the Armenian people.
Section 3: Reflection
By conducting this investigation into the importance of the Battle of Sarikamish in determining the Armenian genocide, I have become more familiar with the methods used by historians and also learn about some of the obstacles that are likely to be faced by historians in carrying out their investigations. I have learned that being able to reach a plausible conclusion from a different set of perspectives is an essential skill that is required of all historians. In order to proceed with the investigation, I had to read books written by historians that specialize on the subject, read official reports, as well as public addresses regarding the topic which I realized, are also common methods used which are used by historians.
One obstacle that I found when gathering primary resources was that sources that span over many years only show the stance of a nation at that particular time only. An example is a book that was written by Benjamin Braude which highlights the treatment of the Ottoman Empire towards the Armenians. The book mentions how cruelly the Armenians were treated by the Turks. However, new sources have surfaced, revealing that there were Muslim leaders who were against the carrying out of the Armenian genocide, showing that the book may have some inaccuracies due to an evolution in the attitudes of people.
Furthermore, the Armenian genocide is a sensitive topic up to this date and the Turkish government is still denying that such an incident has ever taken place to this date. It was challenging to find resources that showed the Turkish perspective of the causes of the genocide as most of the sources were written by Armenian authors which may be potentially biased. Therefore, I realized that historians often have a lack of perspectives to consult when investigating a sensitive matter. In order to overcome this problem, historians often have to ‘fill in the gaps and be critical in uncovering the information which may have been omitted or exaggerated. This particularly applied to when I was reviewing Karekin Pastermadjian’s book which was filled with language that tried to bring the Armenians to a heroic light. Therefore, I deemed this primary source as less valuable as it is aimed to persuade people.
As a whole, this investigation has enabled me to take on the challenges faced by historians and utilize effectively the methods used by historians to carry out historical investigations.
Stuck on your essay?
