A Road to Hell

An Insight into the Armenian Genocide

Tyler McDanel
14-Nov-11
 The Armenian Genocide began, in earnest, in 1908 with the rise of the Committee of

Union and Progress (CUP), also called the Young Turks, which sought to unite all Turkic

peoples under the collective banner of Islam and race.1 The subsequent militarization of society,

as well as the appearance of an extensive central bureaucracy guided by positivistic goals (ie.

goals based on scientific concepts), forced the crumbling Ottoman Empire into a totalitarian and

homogenous regime which expressed the aim of purifying and returning the crumbling empire to

its previous glory and status.2 Without the will of the people and the centralization of power in

the hands of a few ideologues, the first genocide of modernity might have never occurred.

Hence, behind the blind of the First World War and fueled by intense religious hatred,

economic rivalry, nationalism, and political instability, the government of the crumbling

Ottoman Empire embarked on a deliberate policy of mass executions and deportations of its

Armenian population with the aim of annihilating the Armenian population of Turkey and

creating a homogenous state.

Adam Jones argues in Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, that the causes of the

Armenian Genocide were the vulnerability of the Armenians, the decline of the Ottoman Empire,

and the stress of the First World War.3 Similarly, VartanHartunian, a survivor, describes the

Armenian genocide as the identification, dehumanization, segregation, extermination, and denial

of a people.4 While Jones’ argument is explicit, Hartunian’s is implicit. In both cases the

Armenians were seen as the “other,” and were considered second-class subjects that were

oppressed by the Ottomans under the millet system, which confined the Armenians, and other

non-Muslim minorities under Turkish rule, to designated town quarters, away from the Muslim

populations.

Tyler McDanel 1
 The American ambassador to Turkey during the First World War, Henry Morgenthau,

noted in his memoir that the Turkish population, in general, was incredibly racist towards its

non-Turkish subjects, in particular towards Christian Armenians, and viewed society in an

ethnocentric manner.5 Adding to his perspective, Morgenthau describes the Turks as a people

having “more respect for horses and cows than human beings,” and viewing the world in the

context of a hierarchical society, with the “noble Muslim” at the top and the infidel Christian at

the bottom.6 Adding to this already troubled situation, a significant issue promptly arose as the

socio-political structure which had been in place for so long under the Ottoman Empire was

unraveling and the “others” (ie. non-Turkish minorities) were either opting to break away or

loudly demand better treatment and equal rights. The Turks realized these intentions and wished

to hold on to as much of their crumbling empire as they could in order to remain intact. It was

due to this desire that conflagrations erupted in the form of village-level massacres, lootings, and

rapes. Within this model of human nature lay the seeds of a grand genocide, which would

culminate during the time that Turkey was engaged in the First World War, 1914-1918.

The Armenians were also subjected to harsh taxation and sumptuary laws by the Turkish

officials, and were stereotyped as well-to-do merchants by the commoners.7 It is a result of these

prejudices that the non-Armenian population paradoxically looked at the Armenians for their

alleged prosperity and indifference towards Turkish society. Adding to the economic element,

the Armenians were also of inferior status under the Ottoman judicial system, whereby a Muslim

could get away with a plethora of crimes including robbery, rape, and murder, simply by

swearing on the Koran, whereas a Christian had no such favor.8 Essentially what this meant was

that the Muslim, in particular the Turkish Muslim, was above the law in regards to non-Muslims,

especially Armenians. With a judicial structure like this in place, the Muslim majority shared a

Tyler McDanel 2
common narcissism and conceit, not to mention a common prejudice, against any people deemed

different.

The Armenians played a central role in the economic prosperity of the Ottoman Empire,

and were most notably mercantilists and craftsmen.9 Inasmuch as the Jews of Europe contributed

to the economic condition of Europe, the Armenians contributed to the economic condition of

their region of the Ottoman Empire. About seventy percent of the Armenian population of

Turkey were peasants, however the other thirty percent were heavily present in the economic

sphere and controlled sixty percent of imports, forty percent of exports, and eighty percent of

commerce.10 Just as most of the Jews in Europe were average people, so too were most

Armenians. Furthermore, the Jews and the Armenians shared a common fate as being viewed as

outsiders and scapegoat material.

Building on the position of the Armenian under the Ottomans, the Russo-Turkish wars,

including the Crimean War, are of notable importance in the context that Russia had previously

helped Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Bulgaria break away from the holds of the Ottoman Empire.11

This was threatening to the Ottomans because in a society that felt as if it was imploding, the

desire was to hold onto as much of the empire as possible with a death grip. It can honestly be

stated that Turkey viewed Russia as an enemy, and more than an enemy, Russia wanted to

liberate the Christian lands of the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Within this reality, Armenian

nationalism and the desire of the Armenian people to be free and sovereign was not well

tolerated. Perhaps most of all, the Armenians were a Christian people desiring independence.12

This did not bode well for the Turkish officials who feared the dissolution of the Armenian-

dense part of the Ottoman Empire due to previous areas consisting of non-Turkish minorities

opting to break away and either declare their independence or join another nation. The potential

Tyler McDanel 3
loss of the Armenian portion of the Ottoman Empire was certainly a legitimate fear for the Turks

due to precedent and intent.

With the sense of paranoia that the Turks felt regarding the Armenians, episodic violence

against Armenians was not uncommon and a culmination of past prejudices and insecurities

fostered such conflagrations. It really goes without saying that there were previous animosities

towards the Armenians, many of whom wanted to be free from the oppressive Ottoman system

and to have a national Armenian homeland like the nations of the Balkans. This dream was

dashed, however, in 1878 with the Treaty of Berlin, in which British Prime Minister Benjamin

Disraeli relinquished lands back to the Turks that had been previously acquired by the Russians

through warring with the Turks during the Russo-Turkish wars. Under the Treaty of Berlin, both

the British and the Russians were supposed to act as guardians over Armenia, but failed as the

agreement was never realized.13

The Treaty of Berlin effectively reversed the previous Treaty of San Stefano, in which

the Russians occupied the historical Armenia after the Russo-Turkish War and declared to have a

say in Turkish political affairs concerning Armenia.14 The Treaty of Stan Stefano, in Article

XVI, stated that the Russians were occupying Armenia as a peacekeeping force to protect the

Armenians from the Kurds, Circassians, and Turks, as well as to hear any complaints or

grievances the Armenians voiced.15 Hence, it is easy to see, in this case, that while the Russians

really desired peace in Armenia, the other nations of the world, with their narcissistic sense of

self-worth and love affair with power, had a conflict of interest. The Treaty of Berlin was

essentially a death blow to thoughts of Armenian independence from the Ottoman Empire and

even seemed to justify violence and looting towards the Armenians.16

Tyler McDanel 4
 It is clear due to the nature of the Treaty of San Stefano, and the impact of the Treaty of

Berlin, that the Armenians were not just in an unfavorable political situation, but also the victims

of mass slaughters prior to the genocide. The Hamidian massacres of the 1890s foreshadowed

the Armenian Genocide by about two decades and took place under the rule of Sultan Abdul

Hamid II, hence the name Hamidian massacres. While not as elaborate as the actual genocide,

these massacres of the Armenian people were numerous, and there are many more episodes of

more minor transgressions all across Turkey.

The impetus of the Hamidiam massacres was caused by the vocal nature of the reform-

minded Armenians who strove for equal treatment and protection of their basic dignity as human

beings.17 Hamid II was often referred to as the “great assassin” by British Prime Minister

William Gladstone and French President Georges Clemenceau.18 These brandings were very

much deserved due to his nefarious reputation. The character of Abdul Hamid II was commented

upon by Morgenthau by making the statement that Hamid II wished to annihilate the Armenian

people as a solution to his creation of the “Armenian problem” as he viewed the Armenians as

having similar goals of self-determination as the Rumanians and Bulgarians, who previously

parted with the Ottoman Empire.19 Morgenthau was deeply distraught by the words spoken by

Hamid II and probably took great note.

Sultan Hamid II was intensely infatuated with Turkey’s Armenian population to the point

of it actually being a fanatical obsession for him. He wished to rid Turkey of everything

Armenian and to deny the Armenians their sense of peoplehood and culture. Due to his

character, Hamid II deserves the honor of being one of the most overlooked architects of the

Armenian Genocide, as many of the precedents and the philosophy that were common themes in

the genocide began under his rule.

Tyler McDanel 5
 After the Hamidian Massacres, but before the actual genocide, were the Adana

massacres, which began a result of the celebration of the 1908 Constitutional Revolution which

seemed likely to grant Armenians more egalitarian rights and prospects of an independent

Armenia.20 Over 30,000 individuals lost their lives during the massacres and countless properties

were pillaged and then set ablaze.21 Churches, where many took refuge, were set on fire and the

people inside them either burned to death or were shot while trying to escape.22 There were also

numerous “killing games” in which Armenian women would be doused in kerosene and forced

to “fire-dance” and little boys were nailed to crosses in a grand mockery of Jesus.23 These forms

of religious violence cannot go unnoticed when one considers the mental perspectives of the

perpetrators. These very themes would also be manifest during the actual genocide itself.

After the 1908 Constitutional Revolution, and after the bloody Adana massacres that

followed, the political relationship between the Turks and the Armenians seemed to be better, as

the non-nationalist branch of the CUP did take into consideration the position of the

Armenians.24 This was not to say that the Armenians and Turks were on equal terms, as Turkish

contempt towards the Armenian population was still manifested in the day to day dealings

between often corrupt Turkish officials and the Armenian populace.25

To discuss the organization of the Armenian genocide, one must understand that the

Armenian Genocide was organized at the highest levels of government. As previously stated, the

Armenian genocide was made possible through a nationalistic central bureaucracy with an

emphasis on creating a homogenous empire. The architects of the prevailing ideology dreamt of

a homeland for the Turks in much the same way Hitler dreamt of a homeland for the Germans.

While these are two different cases, the themes are essentially the same.

Tyler McDanel 6
 Even though Sultan Abdul Hamid II violently oppressed minorities under his reign,

nationalism was not as strong as it was during the Young Turks, who being in power for a little

under two years, held a conference at Saloniki that called for the homogenization of all Turkic

subjects.26 This was a big step for setting up the organizational structure and philosophy of a

nation. The attendees present put into place the plans by which the genocide would ultimately

unfold.

The leading intellectuals of the Young Turk movement were Talaat Pasha, doctors Shakir

and Nazim, National Security Chief Canbolat, and Colonel Seyfi of the Department of

Intelligence. These leaders played no small part in planning the surgical removal of the

Armenians from the Ottoman Empire and disguising the entire plot as a national wartime

emergency.27 The conference at Saloniki was extremely important due to the game plan for

creating a genocide and an ideology to drive it.

The CUP, which again was the governance of Turkey during World War I, had two

winds, one was nationalistic and authoritarian and the other liberal. The loss of Bosnia and

Herzegovina to Austria-Hungary and the independence of Bulgaria led to the winning out of the

nationalist and authoritarian wing.28 With this in mind, it is ironic that the Armenian population

was mostly allied with the CUP during the Constitutional Revolution of 1908, an event which

seemed full of promise for the Armenians hoping for peace, honor, and equality.29

The chain of events that led to the rise of the radical wing of the CUP is quite remarkable.

In 1912, the CUP dissolved the Ottoman parliament and essentially took over the chamber, with

only six oppositional members elected in April of that year. This government was overthrown by

a group of officers calling themselves the Group of Savior Officers, who ousted the CUP from

power fearing a return to the Hamidian-era authoritarianism.30 This coup was short lived as a

Tyler McDanel 7
counter coup soon drove the Group of Savior Officers from power. This coup was led by Enver

Pasha and resulted in the establishment of the Triumvirate which led Turkey into the First World

War and led to the genocide.31 This is where a paradigm shift is observed in the orientation of the

CUP. The liberal agenda is scrapped in favor of a more radical and nationalistic one. Hence, the

liberal branch of the CUP fell in 1913 after a coup and was replaced by the triumvirate that was

led by Enver, Talaat, and Jemal Pasha. It was under the rule of these men that the CUP became a

monolithic enterprise willing to abolish everything in its way on the path towards positivistic

goals (ie. goals driven by science).

One of the chief architects of the new order was a man by the name of Ziya Göklap, a

sociologist, writer, and activist, who insisted that racial theories ought to be put in place and that

Turkey could be strong only if it ridded itself of its non-Turkic peoples, which obviously meant

the Armenians.32 It was Göklap more than any other individual whose ideology pushed Turkey

into the inferno of World War I and the genocide that co-occurred.33

As an individual, Göklap was deeply influenced by the philosophy of positivists such as

Comte and Durkheim and also by the promise and effectiveness of German nationalism. Göklap

was also quite interested in the Sufi tradition within Islam due to the metaphysical nature of

many Sufi practices. He craftily merged the Sufi philosophy of the annihilation of the free will

with Durkheim’s concept of collective duty.34 What resulted was an ordained duty to act as a unit

to make a whole. Göklap disapproved of the idea of a class struggle in favor of an idea of racial

struggle in the pursuit of a theory of “national economics,” which stressed the importance of a

nationalized economy and “common conscience” in favor of the Turk.35 This meant that Marx

was wrong about the nature of the oppressed. It was not a Manichean struggle between the

Tyler McDanel 8
proletariat and bourgeoisie, but rather a struggle between races, between people, and ultimately

between nations.

According to Göklap, nationalism was supposed to awaken the morality of a people and

bring society together via solidarity, sacrifice, and struggle.36 This seems to have similarities to

the philosophy of fascism and the concept of struggle. Göklap was adamant in his belief that the

only way Turkey could attain the goals set forth by nationalism was to rid itself of people not

considered compatible with Turkish ideals. Göklap believed that a strong nation could not be

built with people of different nationalities and religions due to issues regarding the “common

conscience” of the people.37 Furthermore, he considered a difference between a state, which

denoted a people under the governance of a particular government, and nation, which denoted a

socio-linguistic group.38 With these ideas, it is easy to see how a philosophy such as this could be

against the Armenians, and any other minority groups.

Göklap’s ultimate goal was to make Turkey a sacrosanct land for the Turks, a fatherland

for which they could fight and die for.39 According to Göklap, there were “measures to be taken

in order to remove the factors that arrest the social evolution of a people,” which meant

genocide.40 Furthermore, society was viewed in terms of objective reality rather than subjective

reality, and hence society was monolithic.41 The will of the “other” was irrelevant in Göklap’s

twisted way of thinking. The only thing that mattered was success in fulfilling the nationalistic

ideal of creating a homogenous state, or a Turkey for the Turks.

Similar to the philosophy of Göklap, the philosophy Mehmed Reshid, a prominent

physician, was not much different. Reshid referred to the Armenians as “dangerous microbes”

that needed to be exterminated from Turkish society.42 Statements such as the one just made are

Tyler McDanel 9
in perfect tune with the nationalistic ideology that was devised by the Young Turks, and reflect

well the mindset of some of Turkey’s most prominent intellectual figures.

In the winter of 1915, Dr. Behaeddin Shakir, who was in charge of the CUP’s Special

Organization, organized killing squads with the main function of rounding up and then

proceeding to kill or deport Armenians from all Turkic lands.43 This was ideology in action. In

January of 1914 when the actual “plan to homogenize” the empire was published in regional

Russian newspapers, such as Kolos Maskoy.44

The development of Turkism (ie. extreme Turkish nationalism of a monolithic nature) as

an ideology was furthered by Mustafa Celaleddin Pasha, who was deeply influenced by the race

theorist Gobineau and he eventually developed the idea of a Turkish Aryanism.45 This was

furthered by Yusuf Akshura, who developed the concept of race as a “political nationality.”46

Another theorist, a man by the name of Tekinalp, had plans for establishing a nation called

“Turan,” which would be a homeland for all Turkish people. Tekinalp was deeply influenced by

the Mongol warlord Genghis Khan’s method of conquest and sought to apply it to the process of

Turkifying an empire.47 Thus, twenty years before the rise of the Third Reich, scientific racial

theory being used as justification for the doing of a genocide.

Colonel Seyfi, the head of the Department of Intelligence, was tasked with organizing a

campaign of propaganda that would follow the deportation order and deflect blame from the

Turkish defeat by the Russians, as well as the organization of special organization that would

take part in the killings.48 Seyfi functioned much like the Joseph Goebbels of the later Nazi

Reich in turning the masses into frenzied killing machines fueled by propaganda.

Related to the above statement is the fact that shortly after entering into the First World

War, and after the humiliating defeat by the Russians at Sarikamis, the plan for the genocide was

Tyler McDanel 10
radicalized at the behest of Dr. Bahaeddin Sakir, who stated in a report that there were “domestic

enemies” that planned on attacking Ottoman forces from the rear.49 This speaks volumes about

the level of paranoia that was manifest in Turkey during the First World War. With all sincerity,

Dr. Sakir ardently believed that the Armenians were a menace that had to be dealt by utilizing

any means necessary.

The ultimate cause of the Armenian Genocide, was, as Rouben Paul Adalian explained,

solving the “Armenian question,” which can probably be best described as the question regarding

what to do with the Armenian population, the “outsiders.”50 It was for this reason why the

Interior Ministry ordered, on April 24, the arrest and murder of all prominent Armenians.51

These were the individuals who drove Armenian society and thus were in a position to form a

resistance movement. Adding to this, blacklists rich in names were prepared by the Turkish

authorities and sent to all territories of the falling empire, and were returned to the Ministry of

the Interior in Turkey with names crossed out.52 All of the bureaucrats who dared take actions

against the deportations or simply refused to follow orders were readily relieved by Talaat Pasha,

the most powerful ruler in the triumvirate.53 This was a very quick and easy way of solidifying

the will of a nation and carrying out a centrally planned, monolithic ideal in eradicating the

Armenian population. The telegraph was thus used extensively for the transferring of orders and

the coordination of the genocide, which was previously nearly impossible.54 The role of the

telegraph is a component of what made the genocide easier to commit due to the briskness of

communication.

With Turkey in a position of power, the genocide was brewing. The beginning of the

Armenian Genocide can be traced back to the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, however it was not

until World War I that the all-out slaughter of the Armenians was carried out. Prior to the First

Tyler McDanel 11
World War, Russia, England, and France had all protested the massacres of Turkey’s Armenian

subjects and even went as far as to threaten military intervention. However, being as all of these

nations were at war and hence lost their vision of what was happening with the Armenians, the

Turks had an opportunistic and effective smokescreen with which to carry out the long awaited

genocide.55 This was matched by the retreat of the Allied fleet from the Dardanelles, which gave

the Turks a sign of victory over the Europeans.56 The barricade that was preventing the Turks

from crossing the bridge and carrying out the annihilation of minorities was lifted and the so-

called “protector nation” were too busy fighting a war to really care what was happening with the

Armenians.

The beginning of the actual genocide, as contrasted to the previous massacres, is largely

thought to have begun in the heavily Armenian city of Van on April 24, 1915.57 However, the

mechanisms for launching the genocide were in place as early as the middle of March of 1915,

when several secret meetings were being undertaken and quasi-secret plans were being

discussed.58 It was also during this time that a plethora of bureaucratic dismissals of individuals

in opposition to the radical policies of the CUP and their subsequent replacement by individuals

fiercely loyal to the regime were undertaken.59 It was also prior to the chaos that would

characterize the Van resistance, that frequent searches of Armenian homes for weapons and

contraband was undertaken, as well as sporadic episodes of looting and arbitrary arrests.60

Van was a city that was strategically situated between Russia and Turkey and consisted

of a heavily politicized Armenian population, thus it was viewed with great suspicion by the

Turkish government.61 For any nation at war, such a suspicion was not unwarranted.

Furthermore, the Russians had in the past helped other minority groups of the Ottoman Empire,

Tyler McDanel 12
including the Greeks, Romanians, Serbs, and Bulgarians.62 Hence, it seems only logical that the

Turks would look to Van with suspicion and take actions deemed essential to national security.

Adding to this sense of insecurity, the position of Van was problematic for the Turks

because of the state of war between Turkey and Russia during World War I. Adding to this,

Minister of War Enver Pasha had, in 1914, taken the Turkish Third Army on an excursion into

the Russian Caucasus, but was defeated by the Russian Army and the Russian winter, a cause of

great humiliation.63 The cause of this defeat can be attributed to a harsh Russian winter, logistical

mistakes, and a brutal Russian counter offensive. This defeat resulted in the scapegoating of the

Armenian population as a treasonous and subversive population.64 It was due to this reason that

Van became a flashpoint which resulted in a violent standoff between Armenian resistance

fighters and the Turkish military.65

The prelude to the inferno at Van occurred as early as April, 1915 after the men of

several villages surrounding Van were rounded up and executed.66 It was to no surprise that

when Djevdet Bey ordered Van to sum up 4,000 Armenian soldiers for a labor battalion, the

Armenian subjects of Van refused on grounds that the Armenian soldiers would be executed.67

Logically, this makes sense since the precedent had previously been established. It was in

response to this peaceful rebuttal, that the Turks viewed the Armenians as rebellious, and

established a line of trenches along the outskirts of the city of Van. On April 20, the fuse was lit

when Turks seized a couple of Armenian women entering the city and in the process killed the

men who tried to rescue them.68 Both sides were ready for war and this event simply caused the

fragile situation to break.

The clash that happened in Van legitimized the systematic removal of Armenians from

lands under Ottoman control, which would develop into a pure genocidal slaughter.69 The Turks

Tyler McDanel 13
now had “proof” that the Armenian population was indeed hostile and dangerous towards

Turkish rule. After all, from a Turkish mindset, the entire city of Van was an insurgency aimed at

resisting Turkish rule. This disobedience more than likely ignited the paranoia that the Turks

held about Armenia moving towards independence.

The way the events of April 24 unfolded, the Turks arrested and executed many of the

Armenian intelligentsia. According to Grigoris Balakian, in his memoir Armenian Golgotha,

there were even a few Armenians who acted as informants to the Turkish authorities under the

belief that they were actually saving themselves, a belief that turned out to be a grave

misunderstanding.70 Such people only made the mass arrests easier for the Turks. Others

legitimately believed, despite significant evidence to the contrary, that the CUP had the best

interests of the Armenian people in mind, and were indeed just deporting an entire population

due to wartime feelings of susceptibility and hostility.71 Also according to Balakian, a man by

the name of Vahak, an Armenian cultural leader from Cilicia, once proclaimed that “as long as

Jemal Pasha is alive, no one can touch a hair on my head,” only to be hung a few weeks later by

the very man he claimed was keeping him alive.72 It thus seems to be relatively common

occurrence that many Armenians did not expect the genocide, and thus existed under a false

sense of security. Other Armenians knew quite well that a dark cloud was upon them, and acted

accordingly.

Alice Muggerditchian, a survivor of the Genocide, remembers that during the first days

of the genocide, the heads of Armenian society were “tortured horribly” by having their

fingernails torn out, being burnt, having salt poured on their slit feet, and having their eyes torn

out.73 Scenes like this were relatively common as the Turks sought to silence the cultural

leadership of the Armenian population, as well as all able-bodied men.74 The goal of this was to

Tyler McDanel 14
ready the Armenian population for deportation out of Turkey and into the Mesopotamian desert.

It was a typical pattern all across Turkey, male populations were arrested and tortured, then

herded into separate caravans and executed.75 Without the male population, the Armenian society

consisted of women, children, and the elderly, hardly people who could defend and resist the

brutishness of the Turk.

The night of April 24 is remembered as the beginning of the genocide as Armenian

cultural leaders were arrested in Constantinople and all throughout Turkey and centrally

imprisoned.76 Responding to the arrests of leaders in Constantinople, Morgenthau was informed

by Talaat Pasha that the leaders were in direct contact with the Russians and that an insurrection

was in process, hence the motive for sending them to the interior.77 Most of the individuals that

were imprisoned were systematically tortured and executed in the following months. Subsequent

public hangings of prominent Armenians were not uncommon.78 It seems as if the Turks wanted

to show their power by making such thing as public as possible and by humiliating the victims to

the maximum of their ability.

Despite the happenings at Van, Enver and Talaat dismissed all of the “fragmentary

reports” that Morgenthau had compiled as lurid exaggerations and claimed that the inferno at

Van was a mob uprising that would be quenched. According to Morgenthau, even in this early

phase of the genocide, there was a considerable effort to hide the happenings from the world.79 It

is also of considerable significance to note that Turkish officials sought to deprive American

consulate personnel the use of ciphers and letters.80 In fact, Leslie Davis often had trouble

contacting Morgenthau and the American embassy due to the Turkish control of

communications.81 It is clear that the Turkish government wished to suppress American

Tyler McDanel 15
diplomats and any other individuals in a position to report the atrocities unfolding to the outside

world by controlling the means of communication.

Just prior to the fiasco at Van, mass deportations of Armenians began in earnest. The

deportations began as early as April 8, 1915, in villages such as Zeitun.82 In the city of Zeitun,

25,000 were deported and the monastery burnt to the ground.83 In the city of Van, where the

genocide symbolically began, 24,000 Armenians were murdered in 80 villages in only three

days.84 Morgenthau describes the process in the following words:

When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death
warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no
particular attempt to conceal the fact.85

The deportations were actually the last stage in the genocide, and only took place after

the male population had been ruthlessly murdered, leaving only women, children, and the elderly

to possibly resist. A deportation law was requested by Talaat Pasha on May 26, 1915, and was

granted by the Sultan on May 30, 1915. Hence the Temporary Law of Deportation was enacted

and anyone expected of espionage or treason was subsequently dealt with.86 This law was

followed by the Temporary Law of Expropriation and Confiscation in June of the same year.

This law registered properties, auctioned them off, and put the money in a trust fund for the

Armenians upon their return.87 It is important to note that the deportation orders, as well as the

plethora of laws simultaneously enacted, served to legitimize the actions that were already being

undertaken.88 These laws were partly put into place to give the illusion that the deportations were

really deportations, and that they would only be temporary. This would have helped calm the

Armenians down and pacify them.

Often, the manner in which the Turks notified the Armenians that they were to leave was

quick and subtle. Richard Parseghian remembers that the Turks drove the Armenians out of their

Tyler McDanel 16
homes and into the roads with no time allotted to grab basic essentials.89 Other time, the women

were allowed to pack up their valuables and amass at a local train station under the pretense of

reuniting with their husbands, and were forced into warehouses, their goods relinquished to the

Ottoman authorities and the victims deported to Mesopotamia.90 It appears to be completely up

to the discretion of the perpetrators as to whether or not a batch of Armenians would be deported

or executed.

It was a night in 1915 when Veron Kheridan began hearing the adults of her family talk

quietly amongst each other of the problems with the Turks, the previous Hamidian and Adana

massacres, and the deportations, massacres, and murders.91 It was not long after this subtle

experience that she began seeing Armenians flocking to train depots to be boarded into cattle

cars, often under the guard of armed gendarmes.92 Often the Armenians knew of their final

destination and of the rabid Kurds and Arabs waiting for them.93 Stories of tortures and

kidnappings, forced conversions to Islam and forced servitude, and the rape and murder of

Armenian women reached the rear of the caravans quite quickly.94

It was a common sight to see Armenians being forced from their homes quite ruthlessly

and often with little or no warning by the Turkish gendarmes, who replied only “to the

interior.”95 Despite these widely held beliefs of horror and shock, it was also relatively common

for Armenians to believe that they were told by the Turkish authorities, namely that they were

being deported because they were too close to the front.96 Hence, there was a difference in

reactions to the deportations amongst the Armenian population, with both the realists and the

naïve represented.

The American diplomat in Harput, Leslie Davis, describes gendarmes surrounding

villages, and then sending squads door to door to tear homes apart in searching for weapons

Tyler McDanel 17
during the months of April and May.97 This was followed by a second session in which the

remainder of Armenian notables were rounded up once again and dealt with.98 Davis remembers

that on July 5, 800 Armenians were arrested in Harput, taken out into the countryside and

executed.99

Often the caravans of Armenian refugees would be raided by Kurds, who rode their

horses directly into the mass of Armenian refugees, and either trampled people to death or sliced

them to bits with their swords. One survivor remembers the sound of crushing bones, which

sounded like cracking walnuts, as the Kurdish hordes rode over.100 The Kurds would proceed to

loot the Armenians of their possessions and grabbed women by the hair to rape.101 Kurds and

Turks were often notified of the caravans and prisoners released so that they could have ample

time to organize themselves into raiding parties.102 In the wake of such raiding parties, it was not

uncommon to find Turks and Kurds dressed in the European-style clothes of the Armenians

mixed with the traditional form of dress and sporting gold chains and jewelry.103 According to

Davis, there were many children who wandered around after such massacres, their fate was death

or life in Muslim orphanages or harems.104

It was not uncommon for caravans to consist mostly of women, children, and old men, as

most of the men of combat age were massacred first.105 This made the caravans easy picking for

the Turkish and Kurdish raiding parties.

Officially, gendarmes were present along the caravans to “protect” the Armenian

refugees, however this was a euphemism for driving the sheep to the slaughter, as the caravans

left in their wake a slew of abandonments and dead.106 If there were any males present in the

caravans, they were often bound together in tangent with a long rope, led away from the

Tyler McDanel 18
caravans, followed by a wagon filled with an assortment of axes, cleavers, knives, and blunt

objects.107

It was due to the fact that the Armenians were to be massacred on their way to

Mesopotamia that they were deported through the countryside rather than on the main roads108 In

doing this, the chances of escape were substantially reduced, some Armenians would probably

die along the way, and the villagers would not witness what it was their country was doing.

The stories of the survivors of the genocide differ greatly. Sam Kadorian remembers the

Turks rounding up his village, putting all of the boys in a group and proceeded to slash and stab

the group with swords and bayonets until they were all dead. He was the only one to survive,

drenched in blood amongst the slain and suffering from a cut on his cheek.109 VartanHartunian

described that the Turks’ storm of chaos as falling upon a church in which people were taking

refuge, in which the Turks proceeded to douse the building in kerosene and burn the people

inside alive. Those who escaped the screaming inferno were shot.110 Joseph Kalajian, who

survived the deportation trek through the desert, remembers that there was a trail of dead bodies

along the route, and that they were rotting under the blazing desert sun, and dogs would eat from

the bodies, and carry away hacked off body parts.111 It was not uncommon for caravans to be

followed by dogs and vultures, scrounging for their next meal.112

The forced deportation of the Armenians was in every sense a death march. When the

elderly or the weak fell or took a rest, the gendarmes would promptly finish them off with a rifle

shot or more commonly a sword strike or clubbing.113 Often the people on the marches were

denied food and water by the gendarmes.114 By the time most of the refugees reached their final

destination, if they made it that far, they were sick with a plethora of diseases, weak and

debilitated, and in grave danger of dying due to starvation, dehydration, sickness, and

Tyler McDanel 19
exposure.115 Often, due to lack of foodstuffs, the Armenians were forced by hunger to eat grass,

dead animals that had died from exposure, and even grains out of animal dung as food.116

Adding to this lamentable state, many individuals were also riddled with lice and had few

possessions in which to keep warm on the cold desert nights.117 Often the survivors would arrive

at their destination completely emaciated. Starvation and dehydration were so prevalent, that new

mothers often had dried up breasts and could not provide their newly born infants with milk.118

The skin of the refugees was often peeling off due to the extreme degree of sunburn and the soles

of their feet were baked by the hot desert sands.119 Often, the situation was so desperate that the

Armenians broke for the Tigris only to be gunned down by the Turkish gendarmes.120 Armenians

lucky enough to see water often went insane, sometimes hurling themselves into wells or bodies

of water only to drowned or be attacked by the water-crazed mob that became of the

Armenians.121

According to Davis, when refugees passed through Harput, the dead and gravely ill were

left behind, there were swarms of old men muttering and women with matted hair and sunken

eyes, children with bloated bellies who suffered from convulsions.122 These are all signs of

severe malnutrition and exposure, which the Armenians developed as a consequence of the death

marches.

It is often said of the Armenians that made it to Der-el-Zor, their final destination, that

they were the strong ones, as most perished along the way. It was not uncommon for caravans of

Armenians to pass mass grave sites of executed populations on their way to the desert.123 Der-el-

Zor was destined to be the last location of the Armenians, where the remainder would be

exterminated under the governance of Salihzeki, the official of the town and a man with a brutal

reputation.124 This fact alone speaks volumes about the intent of the deportations.

Tyler McDanel 20
 In the wake of the deportations and mass executions, the Minister of Interior ordered the

settlement of previously Armenian villages by Muslims and the orphans of the villages to either

be massacred or Turkified.125 It was not uncommon during the deportations for Turks and Kurds

to take young Armenian girls as trophy wives. The young women would have to forget their faith

and adopt Islam or risk severe and harsh whippings, torture, and sometimes death.126 This was an

effective means of establishing solidarity and moving towards the Turkish ideal of a

homogenous empire.

On a similar note, rape, sex slavery, and forced marriages were prevalent mechanisms of

the genocide and served to not only humiliate the Armenian population, but also to make it

disappear.127 Often, sexual assaults were made as public as possible and were often carried out in

the presence of family members of the victim for added humiliation.128 The caravans were often

raided at night by Turkish and Kurdish men looking for victims to gang rape or sell into sexual

slavery.129

Many of the perpetrators of the genocide boasted about their exploits and their dreams for

a united “Turkey for the Turks” amongst one another. Stories of the rape of young girls and the

mutilation of young boys were especially common remembers one survivor who was a sex slave

in a Turkish home.130 It seems as if most of the perpetrators took great pride in their work.

Another motivation of the genocide was economic. The Turks wished to quite literally

kill the competition, a motive that was based on jealousy.131 The Turks wished to break into the

prosperous economic sphere the Armenians had controlled. Even though this was based on a

prejudicial misunderstanding, the desire amongst Turkish peasants to attain something greater

resulted in massacre.

Tyler McDanel 21
 Within the context of massacres, the question of resistance often arises when discussing

the Armenian Genocide. There were actually very few instances of resistance against the Turks

due to the fact that few sensed a danger brewing.132 Furthermore, the Armenians likely to start a

rebellion (ie. the male population of military age) were annihilated by the Turkish authorities for

this very reason.133 Lastly, the Armenian population, prior to the deportation order, were

absolutely barred from travel under the martial law imposed by the CUP.134 It was, in fact, only a

day after Germany’s declaration of war against Russia, martial law was declared in much of the

Armenian sectors of the Ottoman Empire, most particularly in Van, and the Muslim populations

were armed by the Turkish government.135

When American diplomat Leslie Davis surveyed the extent of the deportations and mass

executions, the Armenian quarter of many villages was abandoned and in ruin and most of the

buildings destroyed by the Turks.136 The valley of Lake Goeljuk contained thousands of dead

bodies rotting under the desert sky and thousands more deteriorating in the depths. In the valley

there were many bodies in which the Turks had burnt in search of gold.137 This point further

builds on the economic layer due to the fact that people would go to such extremes for a pittance.

This is just a glimpse in to the slaughter and motives that characterized the Armenian Genocide.

Several more events like this occurred all across Turkey.

In conclusion, it is striking to point out that by winter of 1915, more than 800,000

Armenians had been ruthlessly murdered and hundreds of thousands of survivors lived in refugee

camps in the desert, often under abhorrent conditions.138 Morgenthau describes that “all

throughout the spring of 1915, deportations took place.”139 After the brunt of the executions and

the deportations, it was not uncommon for Turks to hunt down Armenians who were in hiding.140

Often the Armenians would hide in the mountains, in the residence of friendly Turks, or in the

Tyler McDanel 22
ruins like rats.141 It is quite extraordinary to mention that when in 1916, the Governor General of

Aleppo told Talaat Pasha that in his province, ten percent of deportees survived, Talaat Pasha

replied that measures would be taken to annihilate them.142 This statement alone speaks volumes

about the intention of the Ottoman Turks in regards to annihilating the Armenians as a people.

Of the children that did survive the deportations, it was not uncommon for them to be

orphans and thus inducted into Turkish orphanages and homes, in which they would forget their

mother tongue and culture and live as a Turk.143 The final result of the genocide was that the

Turks slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians, one-third of the worldwide population, and imprisoned

those who chose to stay by imposing upon them a Turkish way of life.144

It is often asked as to why the Armenian population that was aware of their fate never

rose up against their Turkish oppressors. The answer is it was due to the fact that they were

afraid of the consequences of any form of resistance as well as the issue of where to go that led

the Armenians into the desert of death.145

Upon returning from their exile, many Armenians found the conditions not welcoming.

Their possessions and homes were gone, their life savings was gone, often most of the people

that they knew were gone, and the general feelings of animosity were still present.146

Furthermore, the presence of Armenians in all of Turkey was virtually erased as churches,

libraries and schools were burnt to the ground.147 It is for these reasons that the Armenians were

essentially kicked out of their homeland.148

The policies of the Turkish government that led to the Armenian genocide were due to

the factors presented by Adam Jones and VartanHartunian in the beginning of this essay. Jones’

view that the primary factors leading to the genocide were the vulnerability of the Armenians as

a people under hostile rule, the declining state of the Ottoman socio-political structure, and the

Tyler McDanel 23
paranoia and insanity that characterized the First World War, are all correct, and have been

demonstrated throughout this essay. Hartunian’s five-level interpretation of the genocide (ie.

identification, dehumanization, segregation, extermination, denial) has also been confirmed by

this essay.

Due to the complexity of the politics, there were also other, more minor, factors that led

to the culmination of the genocide. As Morgenthau described, the presence of a hierarchical

society and the lack of respect for the individuals deemed lower on the social latter (ie.

Armenians and other minorities), were also significant factors that led to the genocide. It must

also not be under-looked that the physical position of the Armenians (ie. in millets) made them

easily assessable for the series of arrests, searches, executions, and deportations that occurred.

The situation can be paralleled to the ghettos that would characterize the Jewish experience

during the Holocaust.

Similarly, the condition of the socio-political structure being uprooted from its traditional

norms had a huge impact on driving the genocide into action. The Ottoman Empire, often

referred to as the “sick man of Europe,” was imploding from its previous state, which was more

or less static. When things begin to fall apart and changing, as was happening during the French

Revolution, and a plethora of other revolutions as well, things do have a tendency to occur that

without the impetus they would not have had the driving force. When people are scared and

worried about the future, and when one’s political society has collapsed, they will be willing to

listen to anyone with a strong enough message. In the context of the Armenian Genocide, this

was individuals like Ziya Göklap and Dr. Sakir. The environment was certainly ripe for the seeds

of revolution to rise in full bloom. Hence, it was a blatant form of national and collective

insecurity that led to the carrying out of the genocide.

Tyler McDanel 24
 The manner in which the Armenians were repeatedly robbed and raped is quite complex.

Many of the Turks, Kurds, and Circassians who took part in the murders told the Armenians to

de-robe, so that they could have their clothes and belongings. Throughout this paper, it is

mentioned that the individuals involved in the massacres would sport the clothes and accessories

of the recently deceased. This seems to be a symptom of a larger issue. Due to the privation that

overcame many nations at war, it would not be farfetched to say that the murderers needed the

clothes and accessories of the deceased. Analyzing this further, one ought to get the impression

that, due to their status in the economic sector, Armenians were better off than the average Turk,

and this arrangement led towards animosity and jealously, excellent motivators in crimes of this

nature.

The next point argues the theoretical hierarchy that was supposed to govern the Ottoman

Empire was deathly ill. With minorities at the top, and Muslims at the lower ranks, the latter

unintentionally flipped. For a nationalist country, this meant that something had to be done to fix

the problem. The fix, rather dismally, was the annihilation of a people. Like the brand of

nationalism that compromised Nazi Germany, the brand that plagued the crumbling Ottoman

Empire was not different. This form of nationalism was radical enough, and monolithic enough,

to lead to the attempted annihilation of two different peoples.

The evidence presented in this essay points to the rise of the radical and nationalist

branch of the CUP as the de facto cause of the Armenian genocide. Of course, the presence of

unstable political conditions led to the rise of the CUP and the scapegoating of a people that was

intensified by the insanity and paranoia of the First World War.149

Lamentably, justice has not been attained for the victims of the genocide. There were a

few court martials that were undertaken by the Turkish government following the genocide, but

Tyler McDanel 25
these appear to be show trials meant to appease the world audience.150 Nothing major, like the

Nuremburg Trials, was ever put into place. The world stood by while the matters concerning the

Armenian genocide were handled internally, by the very people who planned and put it into

motion.

For many who survived the chaos of the Armenian Genocide, life has went on, but their

memories remain. Many organizations, such as the Armenian National Institute, a non-profit

based out of D.C., still fight for the world-wide recognition of the Armenian Genocide as well as

closure. Many Armenian singers, such as Serj Tankian of System of a Down, host awareness

campaigns to reveal the truth about the genocide, a truth that has been suppressed and covered

up, much like the 1.5 million victims or 33 percent of the Armenian population, who perished in

the genocide.

1
Adam Jones. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. (New York: Routledge, 2006.), 105
2
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.), 175
3
Jones,102
4
The Armenian Genocide. “Survivors.” http://www.theforgotten.org/site/intro_eng.html
5
Henry Morgenthau.. Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story. (Garden City: Doubleday Page &
Company, 1918.), 276-277
6
Morgenthau, 279
7
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.), 148
8
Ibid., 42
9
Stephen Astourian, “The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation.” History Teacher, Vol. 23,
No. 2 (Feb.,1990), pp. 111-160), 126
10
Donald E Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller. Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian
Genocide. (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999.), 48
11
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.), 38
12
Samuel Totten and William S. Parsons. Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness
Accounts. (New York: Routledge, 2004.) , 67
13
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.), 39
14
Astourian, 124
15
Сан-Стефанский прелиминарный мирный договор. “Сан-Стефано, 19 февраля/3 марта 1878 г.”
http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/FOREIGN/stefano.htm (Accessed: 23/10/11).
16
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.), 43
17
Dikran M Kaligian. “A prelude to genocide: CUP population policies and provincial insecurity,
1908-14.” (Journal of Genocide Research, 2008.), 77
18
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.), 35
19
Morgenthau, 288-289
20
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.), 148

Tyler McDanel 26
21
Ibid., 153
22
Ibid., 153
23
Ibid., 155
24
Kaligian, 81
25
Ibid., 84
26
Vahakn Dadrian. “The Nazim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of
Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide.” (International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 18, August
1986, pp311-360.), 179
27
Dadrian, 219
28
Astourian, 128-129
29
Ibid., 130
30
Ibid., 130
31
Ibid., 130
32
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.), 164
33
Astourian, 132
34
Ibid., 133
35
Ibid., 134
36
Ziya Gökalp. “Ideal of Nationalism.” Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization. (Westport:
Greenwood Press, 1981), 71
37
Ibid, 72.
38
Ibid, 77.
39
Ibid, 78.
40
Göklap, Ziya. “Evolution of Society.” Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization. Westport:
Greenwood Press, 1981, 113.
41
Ibid, 115.
42
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.), 164
43
Ibid., 179
44
Kevorkian, Raymond. The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History. (London: I.B. Tauris,
2011), 243.
45
Astourian, 131
46
Ibid., 132
47
Ibid., 132
48
Vahakn N Dadrian. The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to
Anatolia to the Caucasus. (New York: Berghahan Books, 2004), 220
49
Kevorkian, Raymond. The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History. (London: I.B. Tauris,
2011), 244
50
Totten and Parsons, 59
51
Vahakn N. Dadrian. The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to
Anatolia to the Caucasus., 221
52
Balakian, Grigoris. Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918. (New
York: Vintage Books, 2009.), 78
53
Balakian, Grigoris. Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918., 80
54
Rouben Paul Adalian. “The Armenian Genocide: Context and Legacy.” Social Education: The Official Journal of
the National Council for the United States, 1991. http://www.armenian-
genocide.org/Education.56/current_category.117/resourceguide_detail.html. (Accessed: 04/11/11).
55
Morgenthau, 289
56
Ibid., 327
57
Jones, 105
58
Raymond Kevorkian. The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History. (London: I.B. Tauris,
2011), 244
59
Ibid, 246.
60
Ibid, 250
61
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.),, 198
62
Grigoris Balakian. Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918., 42
63
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.),, 200

Tyler McDanel 27
64
Astourian, 137
65
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.),, 208
66
Morgenthau, 297
67
Ibid., 298
68
Ibid., 298
69
Jones, 105
70
Grigoris Balakian. Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918., 39
71
Ibid, 40
72
Ibid, 41
73
http://www.theforgotten.org/site/intro_eng.html
74
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.),, 211
75
Astourian, 114
76
Peter Balakian. The Burning Tigris. (New York: Perennial, 2003.),, 212
77
Morgenthau, 327
78
Margaret Ahnert. The Knock at the Door: A Journey through the Darkness of the Armenian
Genocide. (New York: Beaufort Books, 1997)., 70
79
Morgenthau, 326
80
Ibid., 327
81
Leslie Davis. A. The Slaughterhouse Province: An American Diplomat’s Report on the
Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917.( New Rochelle: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1989.), 40
82
Donald E. Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller, 41
83
http://www.theforgotten.org/site/intro_eng.html
84
Ibid.
85
Morgenthau, 309
86
Vahakn N Dadrian. The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to
Anatolia to the Caucasus., 221
87
Ibid., 222
88
Raymond Kevorkian. The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History. (London: I.B. Tauris,
2011), 245
89
http://www.theforgotten.org/site/intro_eng.html
90
“Angora: Statement by a Traveler, Not of Armenian Nationality, Who Passed Through Angora in August, 1915.”
Toynbee, Arnold., 384…
91
Kherdian, David. The Road from Home: A True Story of Courage, Survival, and Hope. New
York: Beech Tree Paperback, 1979., 29-30
92
Ibid., 34-35
93
Ibid., 42
94
Ibid., 50-52
95
Morgenthau, 310
96
Donald E. Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller, 17
97
Davis, 48
98
Ibid., 51
99
Ibid., 62
100
Ahnert, 87-88
101
Ibid., 87-88
102
Morgenthau, 315
103
Grigoris Balakian. Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918., 149
104
Davis, 62
105
Morgenthau, 312
106
Ibid., 313
107
Grigoris Balakian. Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918., 84
108
Donald E. Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller, 82
109
http://www.theforgotten.org/site/intro_eng.html
110
Ibid
111
Ibid.
112
Morgenthau, 317

Tyler McDanel 28
113
Kheridan, 56
114
Ibid., 54
115
Ibid., 75
116
Donald E. Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller, 86
117
Kheridan, 85
118
Ahnert, 96
119
Morgenthau, 316
120
Ahnert, 91
121
Morgenthau, 320-321
122
Davis, 76
123
Ahnert, 90
124
Vahakn Dadrian. “The Nazim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The
Anatomy of a Genocide.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 18, August 1986
125
http://www.theforgotten.org/site/intro_eng.html
126
Ahnert, 139
127
Derderian, Katharine. “Common Fare, Different Experience: Gender-Specific Aspects of the
Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917.”( Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 19, Spring 2005, pp 1-25.), 1
128
Derderian, 5
129
Ibid., 7
130
Ahnert, 114-115
131
Morgenthau, 337
132
Balakian, Grigoris. Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918., 49
133
Ibid., 56
134
Ibid., 77
135
Rushdouni, Y. K. “Van: Letter Dated Van, 7th June, 1915, From Mr. Y. K. Rushdouni; Published in the
‘Manchester Guardian,’ 2nd August, 1915.” Toynbee, Arnold. The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire,
1915-1916., 48.
136
Davis, 79
137
Ibid, 80
138
http://www.theforgotten.org/site/intro_eng.html
139
Morgenthau, 309
140
Davis, 92
141
Ibid., 96
142
http://www.theforgotten.org/site/intro_eng.html
143
Donald E. Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller, 10
144
Ibid., 44
145
Ibid., 88
146
Rouben Paul Adalian. “The Armenian Genocide: Context and Legacy.” Social Education: The Official Journal of
the National Council for the United States, 1991. http://www.armenian-
genocide.org/Education.56/current_category.117/resourceguide_detail.html. (Accessed: 04/11/11).
147
Ibid.
148
Ibid.
149
Donald E. Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller, 46
150
Vahakn Dadrian. “The Nazim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The
Anatomy of a Genocide.” (International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 18, August 1986), 312.

Tyler McDanel 29
 Bibliography

Primary

Balakian, Grigoris. Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918. New
York: Vintage Books, 2009.

Сан-Стефанский прелиминарный мирный договор. “Сан-Стефано, 19 февраля/3 марта

1878 г.” http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/FOREIGN/stefano.htm (Accessed: 23/10/11).

Davis, Leslie A. The Slaughterhouse Province: An American Diplomat’s Report on the

Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917. New Rochelle: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1989.

Gökalp, Ziya. Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization. Westport:

Greenwood Press, 1981.

“Massacre by Turks in Caucasus Towns” New York Times. February 23, 1915.

Morgenthau, Henry. Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story. Garden City: Doubleday Page &
Company, 1918.

“Russians Slaughter Turkish Third Army.” New York Times. March 6, 1916.

The Armenian Genocide. “Survivors.” http://www.theforgotten.org/site/intro_eng.html

(Accessed: 05/30/2011)

Toynbee, Arnold. The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916. London: His
Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1916.

Secondary

Adalian, Rouben Pail. “The Armenian Genocide: Context and Legacy.” Social Education: The
Official Journal of the National Council for the United States, 1991.
http://www.armenian-
genocide.org/Education.56/current_category.117/resourceguide_detail.html. (Accessed:
04/11/11).

Ahnert, Margaret. The Knock at the Door: A Journey through the Darkness of the Armenian
Genocide. New York: Beaufort Books, 1997.

Astourian, Stephen. “The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation.” The History Teacher, Vol. 23,
No. 2 (Feb.,1990), pp. 111-160. http://www.jstor.org/stable/494919. (Accessed:
01/16/2011).

Balakian, Peter. The Burning Tigris. New York: Perennial, 2003.

Tyler McDanel 30
Dadrian, Vahakn N. The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to
Anatolia to the Caucasus. New York: Berghahan Books, 2004.

Dadrian, Vahakn. “The Nazim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of

Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide.” International Journal of Middle East
Studies, Vol. 18, August 1986, pp 311-360.

Derderian, Katharine. “Common Fare, Different Experience: Gender-Specific Aspects of the

Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917.” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 19, Spring
2005, pp 1-25.

Jones, Adam. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Kaligian, Dikran M. “A prelude to genocide: CUP population policies and provincial insecurity,
1908-14.” Journal of Genocide Research, 2008.

Kevorkian, Raymond. The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History. London: I.B. Tauris,
2011.

Kherdian, David. The Road from Home: A True Story of Courage, Survival, and Hope. New
York: Beech Tree Paperback, 1979.

Miller, Donald E. and Miller, Lorna Touryan. Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian
Genocide. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999.

Schaller, Domonik J. and Zimmer, Jürgen. “Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the
Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies –
introduction.” Journal of Genocide Research, 2008.

Totten, Samuel and Parsons, William S. Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness
Accounts. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Tyler McDanel 31