Whitney OlsenHistory 457-01Comparative EssayDecember 2, 2011

The Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Genocide of 1915

In 1915, the Ottoman Empire began a deliberate attack and elimination of the

Armenian population within its borders. This high organization and methodical

slaughter of the Armenians has become known as the Armenian Genocide or the

Armenian Holocaust, one of the very first genocides to occur in modern times. The

astonishing thing is that, despite overwhelming evidence that would satisfy even the

most stubborn critic, the modern Republic of Turkey (formerly the Ottoman Empire)

continues to deny that a genocide against the Armenians ever took place. For this

reason, I have become fascinated with this historical event and would consider myself

to be on a personal quest to discover why the Republic of Turkey continues to deny

their involvement in an event that is obviously true and why they refuse to accept the

blame of something that happened almost 100 years ago. In my research, I have

noticed that many sources have vastly different approaches and perspectives on the

Armenian Genocide of 1915. Some sources do not even acknowledge that it happened

and others go into great detail concerning the matter. For this essay, I have

concentrated my research on comparing the accuracy and particular biases of three

different authors that write about the genocide. I will compare the three sources’

approach to how the Armenians were treated during the attacks, what the Turks’

reasoning was for desiring to wipe out the Armenian race, and why the Republic of

Turkey firmly denies their involvement in the genocide to this day.

1

In the research process, it is crucial to understand whom the authors of your

sources are and what particular biases they have regarding the topic. Without

understanding this, you may not have a very accurate perspective of the historical

situation. For the purposes of understanding the Armenian genocide, I consulted the

book “Turkey: The Quest for Identity” by Feroz Ahmad. Orginally, Ahmad studied

history at St. Stephen’s College, Delhi University. Then he studied history at the

University of London where he obtained his PhD. Ahmad became an emeritus

professor of history at the University of Massachusetts in 1978. He is considered to be

an expert on modern Turkey and Middle East history. Ahmad worked in the Center for

Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University in 1980-81. Some of his other works

include “The Making of Modern Turkey” (1993), “From Empire to Republic: Essays on

the Late Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey” (2008), and “Democracy in the Process

of Turkey” (1994). Ahmad also was a visiting scholar at the Fares Center for Eastern

Mediterranean Studies at Tufts University in the United States. Ahmad served as the

Chair of the Department of International Relations and Political Science at the Yeditepe

University in Istanbul. As of 2005, Ahmad retired from being a professor and settled in

Turkey. Because of all Ahmad’s accomplishments and depth of studies, it would seem

that he would be a highly credible source. However, in his book “Turkey: The Quest for

Identity,” he does not mention the Armenian Genocide even though he claims to give a

complete chronological list of the events in modern Turkey. It appears that his bias is

to present Turkey in the same light that the current leaders of Turkey desire to have

their country presented to the world. This bias would include denying the existence of

the Armenian Genocide. Knowing this about Ahmad, it makes me leery to fully trust his

2

works. His purpose in writing “Turkey: Quest for Identity” was to educate those who

do not know much about Turkey’s history and give an account of the current

challenges the country faces.

In contrast, Richard Stoneman, the author of “A Traveller’s History of Turkey,”

was born near Devon, England. He spent thirty years as a classics editor for Routledge

and recently retired from that in 2006. He is now an honorary visiting professor at The

University of Exeter. His primary research interest has been in Greek tradition,

primarily focusing on Alexander the Great. He is a Director of Westminster Classic

Tours, which takes tour groups to classical sites in Turkey and Greece. He is the author

of many books including “A Literary Companion to Travel in Greece” (1984), “Legends

of Alexander the Great” (1994), and “Across the Hellespont: Travellers in Turkey from

Herodotus to Freya Stark” (1987). Stoneman appears to be a credible source, especially

regarding Greek history. However, since his research has primarily been focused on

Greek world history and Alexander the Great, we know that the history of Turkey is not

his area of expertise. Because his interests have not been directly related to the history

in modern Turkey, it would seem that he would not have any huge bias regarding the

Armenian Genocide. I find these discoveries about Stoneman’s background to be

interesting because it certainly diminishes my trust in his credibility on this particular

subject. His purpose in writing “A Traveller’s History of Turkey” was to educate

students and tourists about important background information of Turkey that they

could not normally find in a guide. The emphasis of the book is given to sites and

monuments that are still in existence today; however, Stoneman claims that this book

gives an accurate description of the events of Turkey from ancient to present times.

3

While his account of the Armenian Genocide is somewhat brief, his particular bias

seems to be to make a “good story.” With this in mind, his account of the genocide may

or may not be exaggerated to make a good story.

Finally, I have looked into the background of G. S. Graber, author of “Caravans to

Oblivion: The Armenian Genocide, 1915.” Graber was born in England in 1928 and died

in Los Angeles, California in 2000. He graduated from the London School of Economics.

Some of his other works include “History of the SS” (1978) and “Stauffenberg” (1973).

As far as a particular bias on the subject goes, perhaps Graber describes it best himself:

“Is it possible to tell the story without landing too heavily in one camp? I have

attempted to do so, but I do have a viewpoint based on such study of the material as I

have undertaken, and perhaps I should announce it now. I do believe there was a

genocide…masterminded via the teleprinter by Talaat at the Ministry of the Interior at

Constantinople” (Graber, 6). Graber admits openly that he does not side with the

denials of the leaders of Turkey today. Graber is very much a credible expert on the

topic of the Armenian Genocide, considering that he wrote an entire book dedicated to

it.

When conducting research, it is also crucial to look into where the author of a

source obtained his or her information. With Ahmad’s book “Turkey: The Quest for

Identity,” there is no official citation page; however, he does include a list of sources for

suggested further reading. Most of the sources he suggests are by Idem. Ahmad also

suggests reading other books that he himself has written. The fact that he seems to rely

heavily on sources from only a select few people makes me question his biases towards

historical events. On the acknowledgements page, Ahmad claims that he “…stands on

4

the shoulders of the scholars who inspired [him] over the years…” He also states:

“However, I alone remain responsible for any errors of fact or omissions.” Those are

both bold statements, demonstrating that he is confident in the accuracy of his work. In

contrast to Ahmad’s one-track research, Stoneman, author of “A Traveller’s History of

Turkey,” has a much more broad and diverse list of sources in his suggested reading

list. I think it is interesting to note that one of Stoneman’s suggested authors is Ahmad.

Finally, Graber, author of “Caravans to Oblivion,” includes a very extensive list of

research sources that he used to writing his book. None of the sources are in common

with the sources that Ahmad and Stoneman use, however. From comparing all three

authors (Ahmad, Stoneman, and Graber), Graber’s extensive research on the topic of

the Armenian Genocide seems to be the most promising and convincing because of his

extensive and diverse research, as well as his expertise on the subject.

In comparing these three sources, I have discovered some key similarities and

differences in Ahmad, Stoneman, and Graber’s approaches to the Armenian Genocide.

For example, in comparing how the Armenians were treated during the attacks, Ahmad

claims that the Kurdish tribes not the Ottoman Empire attacked the Armenians

(Ahmad, 62). In fact, he goes so far as to claim that the Porte sent troops and gave arms

to the Armenian community so that they could defend themselves from the attacks

(Ahmad, 62). He continues by saying that eleven Kurds were found guilty of leading the

attacks against the Armenians and were publically hanged as punishment in order to

prevent further violence (Ahmad, 62). Ahmad clearly denies that a genocide ever even

existed. He also deliberately denies that the Ottoman Empire was involved in leading

the attacks. He goes as far as to pass all of the blame onto the Kurdish tribes and

5

Russia. In stark contrast, Stoneman and Graber claim that there is overwhelming

evidence supporting the fact that the Ottoman Empire deliberately and systematically

destroyed the Armenians in concentration camps and death marches. Basically, Ahmad

and Stoneman/Graber claim the exact opposite things regarding the Ottoman’s

involvement – Ahmad says that the Ottomans helped the Armenians, but Stoneman and

Graber claim that the Ottomans purposefully slaughtered the Armenians. According to

Stoneman, “Those who reached the concentration camps of Mesopotamia were… no

more than living skeletons. At Deir-ez-Zor many were crowded into underground caves

where they were crushed or, in some cases, doused with petrol and burnt to death”

(Stoneman, 172). And according to Graber, a survivor of the genocide wrote: “The

escorts were trying to kill us by hunger and exhaustion. All this rough country was full

of corpses; the stench was terrible. Of the group with which I left Malatia, certainly

more than a half perished before reaching the Euphrates… nearing the bank they threw

us into the water and many were drowned” (Graber, 104). These two accounts from

Graber and Stoneman show that the Turkish treatment of the Armenians during the

genocide was horrible and completely inhumane.

Another difference among the viewpoints of these three authors is their thoughts

on what the Turk’s reasoning was for desiring to wipe out the Armenian race.

Stoneman argues that the only reason for the Turkish genocide against the Armenians

was the issue of picking sides during the World War I. According to Stoneman, when

Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians openly declared their

support for Russia (Stoneman, 171). Because of this, the Ottomans needed to quickly

remove the Armenians from within their borders. Stoneman states: “Officially the

6

Armenians were to be deported en masse to places where they could not interfere with

the progress of the war. In practice, they were rounded up…forced to walk to camps

that awaited them in Deir-ez-Zor…” (Stoneman, 171). From Stoneman’s perspective, it

sounds like the genocide just happened and that it wasn’t planned at first. In contrast,

we have Graber who paints more of the picture that the Armenians were in the way of

a greater plan that the Young Turks had to advance their territory (Graber, 96). The

Young Turks also hated the Armenians because they were constantly in touch with

Russia, a giant enemy of the Turks. Furthermore, the Armenians were better educated

and more prosperous then the Turks, which increased their hatred toward each other

(Graber, 96). Certainly Stoneman and Graber both have slightly different opinions on

why the Young Turks decided to attempt to wipe out the Armenians. Ahmad, on the

other hand, does not even admit that there was such a genocide, and, naturally, does

not hold the same opinion about the Young Turks’ intentions towards the Armenian

race. Ahmad instead claims that the Young Turks desired to settle the problems with

the Armenians by reform under British control, but that this plan was prevented from

being carried out (Ahmad, 61). Ahmad really tries hard in his writing to make the

Turkish government appear to be considerate towards the Armenians – the exact

opposite of what Stoneman and Graber claim to have actually happened.

Finally, the last difference I would like to point out among the viewpoints of these

three authors is their opinions on why the Republic of Turkey firmly denies their

involvement in the genocide to this day. Obviously, Ahmad himself denies the existence

of the Armenian Genocide; so of course, he does not explain why the Turkish

government might be defending themselves from this accusation. However, Stoneman

7

declares that the Turkish government only denies that there was an official policy of

systematic massacre (Stoneman, 171). This suggests that perhaps the Turkish

government admits that a horrible massacre did happen but denies personal

involvement in the issue. Graber has a much different opinion, however. Graber

declares that the Turkish government tried to explain away the Armenian deaths by

lumping their losses in with the causalities of the World War I. Graber would say that

this excuse did not work for long though because of the 600,000 – 1,500,000 murdered

Armenians, the vast majority of them were women and children (Graber, 151). Graber

shows that the Turkish government very purposefully attempted to destroy all

evidence of their involvement, making it more difficult to find solid facts on which to

accuse them for an official and united slaughter of the Armenians (Garber, 165). Graber

argues that one of the reasons the Turkish government denies involvement even nearly

100 years later is because they believe that there will never be enough evidence to

prove them wrong, although the majority of the world would disagree and have

interpreted the withstanding evidence of the Armenian Genocide differently.

My personal opinion about these three authors – Stoneman, Graber, and Ahmad –

has definitely developed throughout the course of my research. Near the beginning of

this study, I had a very open and trusting view of these authors’ expertise on the issues

of the Armenian Genocide. However, as I continued to uncover information about their

backgrounds, biases, and education, I discovered that I could not as readily trust that

all of their information was completely accurate. Especially with Ahmad, I now believe

that it would be difficult to accept anything he claims to be true considering his

position of denial on the Armenian Genocide. On the other hand, Graber’s presentation

8

and argument regarding the Armenian Genocide has greatly impressed me and has a

much more convincing appeal to readers. Graber has consulted a great variety of other

sources to establish his viewpoint on the matter. Graber, also, was on a search for the

truth in regards to the Armenian Genocide instead of having a preconceived agenda on

what happened. Because of these reasons, I am much more drawn to believing the

“facts” that Graber provides rather than the skeptical opinions of Ahmad. Stoneman, as

an English man and therefore, an outside observer, is also believable in his

presentation because he does not seek to really take “sides” with any particular party

in the Middle East, but rather just desires to present the findings of his research as he

has discovered them. Stoneman is far more concerned with the history and stories of

the archeological sites rather than the political beliefs of the people; this gives him

more credibility as an unbiased outsider, but also causes me to question his depth of

study on the events if that is not his area of expertise.

In conclusion, I have really enjoyed studying the works of Graber, Stoneman, and

Ahmad. I believe that this research project has really opened my eyes to the

importance of digging up information on author’s backgrounds and biases. I have a

new perspective on accepting the reliability of historical information, knowing that I

need to look at the facts presented through the lens of many different biases. Ahmad’s

work has really shaken me up as I now realize how easy it is for experts to present

history in a false light. I also am encouraged by the works of Stoneman and Graber, but

still cannot help but hold onto at least some skepticism about their work now that I

know how easy it is to present historical facts through a biased lens.

9

Works Cited:

Ahmad, Feroz. Turkey: The Quest for Identity. Oxford, England: Oneworld

Publications, 2003. Print.

Graber, G.S. Caravans to Oblivion: The Armenian Genocide, 1915. Toronto, Canada:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996. Print.

Stoneman, Richard. A Traveller’s History of Turkey. Brooklyn, New York: Interlink

Books, 1998. Print.

10