What Actually Happened In 1915?

Part I - From Küçük Kaynarca to Bulgarian Uprising

This is a brief, concise explanation of the Armenian Revolt and the subsequent suppression. Most material you read on this topic will present a one-sided argument that fails in providing a critical analysis of events. Generally, material is designed by authors to "lead" the reader to come to a pre-designated conclusion of an "Absolute Genocide" or an "Absolute Denial".

The series below intends to overcome such hurdles by giving a historical account of all related events predating the Ottoman-Armenian Tragedy, with the belief that understanding history is crucial in our grasp of bigger events that follow in the aftermath.

To be able to understand 1915, we need to start out in 1774, when Ottoman Empire yielded rights over Orthodox population to Russia.

Part I – Death of a Societal System

The Ottoman Empire, during its classical age, roughly between 1453 (the conquest of Constantinopolis) to 1774 (the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca) had operated on a “Nation System”. The word “nation” here does not refer to a post-French Revolution understanding of the word, but quite a Medieval usage: It refers to four different groups of organized religion: The Islam, The Orthodox, The Jews and The Armenians. The intention of this division to is make sure that each important religion is satisfied and free to practice its religion with its chosen leadership. Each of the four nations had a leader that answered directly to the monarch, who by definition had political power over all religious institutions. Members of all Nations answered to their own religious leadership in law, but the Nation of Islam formally enjoyed a privileged condition as religion of the State. This system further made it possible for different ethnic groups to settle in various locations in the Empire, provided that they stayed in their own community, effectively mixing the ethnic groups. This mode of governing may be useful in explaining the Balkan politics today.

The system was established by Mehmet II. Although there were regional revolts, a general uprising by any one of the Nations did not take place, and the Empire managed to grow without any significant land loss. This was the case until the Karlowitz Treaty in 1699, when it lost significant land to the Hapsburg Empire, Venetia and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This treaty proved to be a milestone for the Empire and it began to retreat and lose soil to European powers. 75 years later in 1774, after another humiliating defeat to the Tsarist Russia, the Ottoman Empire signed a peace treaty. This treaty, called the Küçük Kaynarca Treaty after the name of the town it was signed in, included one statement that was ultimately to prove fatal to the Empire: It granted the rights of protection for its Orthodox subjects to Russia. Therefore, Russia had an international right to intervene with the Ottoman Empire's internal affairs if she perceived an unfair treatment of the Orthodox Christian subjects of the Empire.[1]

Fifteen years after Küçük Kaynarca, Ottoman chroniclers noted the insurgence of a ladîni, “non-religious” state in Europe. They did not perceive this as a significant development. However, as a century passed and the Western European concept of Nationalism surged through the Empire, the Nations were no longer satisfied with a common religious leadership. The system that had survived the Renaissance was longer applicable to the approaching world of nation-states, and the ethnic groups started to find various ways of taking their destiny in their own hands. The first of these nations was the Greek Nation, retaining its Orthodox character in religion but politically separated from the ancient Orthodox patriarchate in Konstantiniyye and the Ottoman Empire. Balkan uprisings followed suit, but ethnic groups of Anatolia, Armenians one of them, were not yet under the influence of these developments.

In response to this development, and also influenced by the alien European conceptions, Ottoman Empire recognized a need to change its social structure. The first reaction was in 1839 when an edict was announced by Abdülmecit, promising perfect security to Ottoman citizens. A second edict was announced in 1856, promising equal education and opportunities, regardless of creed.

An important cornerstone for the Armenian Nation was 1860. In this year, Armenian intelligentsia drafted a Code of Regulations. This Code was accepted in 1863,2 shifting the balance of power away from the Armenian patriarchate to a newly formed Armenian National Assembly. During the same years, Alexander II of Russia was supressing Poles in Poland3, and was deporting the Muslim population of North Caucasus to Ottoman Empire.[4,5]

As these developments were taking place, the Muslim of the Ottoman Empire were also facing change. For almost the first time in the history of Islam, lands with Muslim population were being lost to Christian powers.The Küçük Kaynarca Treaty in 1774 had annexed Muslim population of Crimea to Russian Empire, which was the second significant land loss to Christianity, the first being Spain. 18th century saw the rise of the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect in Arabia,[6] the sect of the Saudi royal family, including Osama bin-Ladin. Wahhab, founder of the sect was disillusioned with the Ottoman sovereignty, which he believed – correctly – was unable to restore Islam to its former glory. When Abdülmecit had established a new court after the European models in 1837, it was perceived – again, correctly – as a threat to the Sha'ria. Ottoman Empire was losing its popularity among the Muslim populations, as well as the Christian populations. The Nation System was bankrupt, and the Ottoman leadership was desperately looking for a new way to resolve it.

It was in this state of dissolution that the Bulgarians, the nation whose heartland was only a hundred kilometers from the Ottoman Capital, revolted for independence in 1876.[7] This successful revolution was to become an example for Ottoman Armenia. However, before we come to that, it will be useful to understand the roles and perceptions of the Russian and Ottoman rulers of the time.

References
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_K%C3%BC%C3%A7%C3%BCk_Kaynarca
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_Armenian_Nation
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia#Suppression_of_natio...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_the_Caucasus
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassians
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Uprising

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Part II - Russia And Ottoman Empire in the Balkans

This is a brief, concise explanation of the Armenian Revolt and the subsequent suppression. Most material you read on this topic will present a one-sided argument that fails in providing a critical analysis of events. Generally, material is designed by authors to "lead" the reader to come to a pre-designated conclusion of an "Absolute Genocide" or an "Absolute Denial".

The series below intends to overcome such hurdles by giving a historical account of all related events predating the Ottoman-Armenian Tragedy, with the belief that understanding history is crucial in our grasp of bigger events that follow in the aftermath.

To be able to understand 1915, we need to start out in 1774, when Ottoman Empire yielded rights over Orthodox population to Russia. That was covered in Part I. Part II gives insight to the political struggle between Russian and Ottoman Empires in the late 19th century. This struggle proved to be instrumental in the Bulgarian Revolution, which later inspired the Armenian political leadership.

Part II – Alexander and Abdülaziz: Contenders to the Balkans

Alexander II was a learned Czar. He had studied European languages, and he enacted a series of reforms with a certain vision; and he lay ground for a parliament. He had reformed his navy and army in 1874, eleven years after Abdülaziz had done so. However, he also found it necessary to suppress national movements within Russian borders, notably the Polish and the Circassians, Chechens and other Muslim peoples of North Caucus.[1] On the other hand, he was far less reactionary than his father Nicholas I,[2] who had run a secret police called H.I.M. Own Chancellery[3] and suppressed religious movements in Ukraine and Belarus.[4] Nicholas I's regime had also seen the rise of the Panslavism, that held the position that Slavs of Balkans should be freed from the Ottoman yoke, and rules under the Czar. The first Pan-Slavic conferance was held in 1848, five years before the start of the Crimean War.[5] Indeed, Alexander II's reign had opened during the Crimean War, where he had to fight against both Ottoman Empire and the British Empire, and where some hostilies took place in the Balkans. At the end of the Crimean War, Russia's right over the protection of Christian minorities of Ottoman Empire were given to the Western Powers with the treaty of Paris signed in 1856, and Russia influence in the Balkan region greatly diminished.[6] At this point, Russia was forced to use a more subtle tactic when trying re-instate the influence it had lost in the Balkan region.[7]

Abdülaziz[8] was a man of firsts, and he was very similar in style to his older nemesis, Alexander II. He was the first and only Ottoman Sultan to travel to Europe except as a military campaign. He was the first and only Ottoman Sultan to be knighted by a British Ruler. He was also continuing with the reforms that were issued by his brother Abdülmecit. (See Part I) He had also welcomed the Armenian National Assembly and the Code of Regulations and approved it in 1863. (See Part I) He had managed to modernize and expand the Navy to the third largest navy in the world at the time – an act of modernization which was to prove a terrible mistake, since the Russian attack was to come not over the Black Sea, but over the land over Romania and then Bulgaria.

When the Bulgarian April Uprising of 1876 came about, Abdülaziz was 46 years old, remembering the Crimean War of 1853 when he was 23 years old and his brother Abdülmecit was ruling. Like Crimea, Bulgaria also had (and continues to do so) a Muslim population. Unlike Crimea, it was much close to Ottoman capital, only a hundred miles.

For Abdülaziz, this was a line of events that were eventually to lead to losing Balkan territory, and eventually, Mediterranean control to the Tsarist Russia. He had learned an Ottoman history of struggle with Russia going on for three centuries at the time.[9] He had also known Crimea first freed from the Ottoman rule by Küçük Kaynarca Treaty in 1774, and then captured by Russia 9 years later.[10] He was correct in judging Russia's intentions, but he the outcome was something that neither he or Alexander II was expecting.

Abdülaziz reacted to the April Uprising by military suppression, the same way his nemesis Alexander II had reacted to a French-backed Polish uprising thirteen years ago in 1863,[11] or the same way Abraham Lincoln had reacted to the Confederate uprising two years before that in 1861.[12] However, what Abdülaziz had never seen in his life was wartime propaganda. As soon as he started his military campaign, Russia used a new tactic that did not employ firearms or ammunition, but newspapers.

References

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_I_of_Russia
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Imperial_Majesty%27s_Own_Chancellery
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_I_of_Russia#Emperor_and_principles
5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism
6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281856%29
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_history%2C_1855%E2%80%931892#Foreig...
8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd%C3%BClaziz
9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War
10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_K%C3%BC%C3%A7%C3%BCk_Kaynarca
11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_history%2C_1855%E2%80%931892#Foreig...
12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War


""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Part III - Bulgarian Independence

Posted December 7th, 2007 by Krikor Zohrab
in Analyses


This is a brief, concise explanation of the Armenian Revolt and the subsequent suppression. Most material you read on this topic will present a one-sided argument that fails in providing a critical analysis of events. Generally, material is designed by authors to "lead" the reader to come to a pre-designated conclusion of an "Absolute Genocide" or an "Absolute Denial".

The series below intends to overcome such hurdles by giving a historical account of all related events predating the Ottoman-Armenian Tragedy, with the belief that understanding history is crucial in our grasp of bigger events that follow in the aftermath.

To be able to understand 1915, we need to start out in 1774, when Ottoman Empire yielded rights over Orthodox population to Russia. That was covered in Part I, and Part II dealt with the Russian-Ottoman struggle in the late 19th century. This part details the events that led to the Bulgarian Independence, which later inspired the Armenian political leadership for their own uprising.

Part III – Bulgarian Independence

As the two imperial powers of Russia and Ottoman Empire were scheming on its lands, Bulgaria was developing more humble ambitions. Bulgaria, like the rest of the Balkan countries, was no longer happy with the social system that the Ottoman Empire had organized in the past. In the classical Ottoman Administration, the Bulgarian church or the Bulgarian ethnic group did not exist, but was a part of the Orthodox millet and government by the patriarchate in Constantinopolis. In response to the efforts of the Bulgarian Nation, Abdülaziz established with a decree the Bulgarian Exarchate as a separate religious organization in 1870, and the Orthodox Patriarchate in Constantinopolis reacted by excommunicating the Bulgarian Exarchate.[1] This was the first cornerstone for the Bulgarian National Revival. It was actually a series of events that had led to this point, and the Revival was fueled by artists and clergy of Bulgarian descent and language, possibly going as early as the late 18th century.[2] Between 1853 and 1856, Bulgarian volunteers from Ottoman Empire had allied with Russia against the Allied Powers, including the Ottoman Empire itself.[3]

Six years later, the April Uprising in Bulgaria[4] started, but like the Bosnian uprising of 1875, it was suppressed by the Ottoman Empire. This suppression soon turned into a matter of political dispute for the British Empire, between Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone,[5] and became a matter of public interest.[6] Gladstone was advocating Bulgarian independence with an emphasis on religious morality – he was saying that Bulgarian Christians were being massacred by Muslims. However, Disraeli was skeptical about Russia's intentions: That Russia was using the alleged massacres as a groundwork to separate Bulgaria from the Ottoman Empire and then annex it. If that was the intention of the Russian Empire, it would not have been a first: The same fate had already happened with the dominantly Muslim Crimea in the 18th century; it was separated from the Ottoman Empire in 1774 by the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, and annexed by Catherine I in 1783.[7] The Muslims were subsequently deported to Ottoman Empire. To this day, Crimea, whose name is Turkic origin, (Kırım) remains part of Ukraine. A de facto alliance had existed between Bulgarian Nationalists and Russia, dating back to the Crimean War. Such an annexation would have its ideological basis in the Slavophile movement, later turning into the pan-Slavic movement.[8,9] It would have its geopolitical consequences as well: Occupying Crimea had meant that Russia gained access to the Black Sea. Taking Bulgaria would bring Russia close to Mediterranean coast and the Straits, effectively handing him over a port to control trade and to plan naval campaigns into the Mediterranean. Knowing the history of Russia and Ottoman Empires, Disraeli had every reason to be skeptical: It was only thirty years ago that the British had fought alongside the Ottoman Empire in the Crimean War to keep Russia from reaching the Mediterranean.

However, Russia had been experimenting with a new, innovative method of warfare for a while: Secret Police. “Third Section of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery”[10] was a secret police organization was created in 1826 to oppose anti-Tsarist activities. Eventually, in 1880, the Third Section would be combined to the infamous Okhranka, the probable originator of the Elders of Zion Hoax.[11] However, during the time of the Russian-Ottoman war in 1877-1878, it was still called the “Third Section,” and it was being run by Nikolai Mezentsov,[12] veteran of the Crimean War who had fought against an alliance of British an Ottoman forces. Whether or not he had a hand in the Bulgarian War, he was definitely pleased with the outcome, as it matched the Pan-Slavic ideals of Russia and reclaimed some of the honor lost in the Crimean War to Anglo-Turkish forces.

The eventual outcome was that Russia intervened in 1877, and the British Empire chose to remain neutral in this conflict. The Alliance that had existed in the Crimean War and had given birth British Hospital of Florence Nightingale in the Ottoman capital was broken and Disraeli lost to Gladstone. This was mainly due to the reports in the newspapers about atrocities by the Ottoman Empire. These atrocities were actually reported by a group of correspondents: Eugene Schuyler, Januarius MacGahan, and Prince Aleksei Tseretlev. Schuyler was the American Consul in Istanbul, but he was acting on his own accord, almost resulting in his withdrawal.[13] Overall, he was favorable of the Russian Empire, and he claimed that Russian presense in Central Asia was beneficial to US interests as a counterpoint to the British Empire.[14] MacGahan was Schuyler's friend from Russia from back in 1873. MacGahan had been in Russia for two years at the time; he spoke Russian and had been “mingling with the Russian military and nobility.”[15] Both MacGahan and Schuyler had been critical of Russian policies at times, but overall, they were disposed favorably towards Russian rule, seeing it as a good alternative for USA as opposed to British rule. Prince Aleksei Tseretlev that joined them was a Russian diplomat.[16] Therefore, the reporters had incentive to bias their reports towards Russian political agenda.

Without a doubt, the Bulgarian uprising was suppressed brutally by the Ottoman Empire. However, it is doubtful that their actions are any more cruel or harsh than the suppression of January Uprising in Poland between 1863 and 1865, just twelve years prior,[17] or the suppression of the Taiping Rebellion between 1850 and 1864 by the Qing Dynasty,[18] or the suppression of the Indian rebellion in 1857 by the British Empire.[19] The civilian casualties in the uprising were not more numerous in scale than the American Civil War.[20] Even in 1878, the muslims were being slaughtered by the same Qing Dynasty.[21] However, the public reaction against the Ottoman Empire was much larger in scale than these events, and this was mainly due to the reports by the three correspondents, one of them a Russian diplomat, and the two others pro-Russian by self-declaration.

Eventually, the Russian Army defeated the Ottoman Army and Bulgaria was declared an independent country in 1878 in the Berlin Conference. Although the initial uprising had failed, like the Polish Uprising against Russian Empire or the Indian Uprising against British Empire, the intervention of Russia and the neutrality of Britain had caused Ottoman Empire to lose its soil to the newly founded Bulgarian State. The importance of MacGahan's reports in the Bulgarian independence is venerated until today by giving his name to streets and squares.[22] An unexpected guest of the Berlin Conference was Mgrdich Khrimian, Armenian religious leader. He announced after the conference that armed struggle was necessary for Armenian independence.[23]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Exarchate
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_National_Revival
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_war
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_April_uprising
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gladstone
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_of_1877-78
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Khanate
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavophile
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Section
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhranka
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Vladimirovich_Mezentsev
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Schuyler
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Schuyler#Traveler_in_Central_Asia
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Januarius_MacGahan
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_uprising
[17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_uprising
[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857
[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war
[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Rebellion
[22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Januarius_MacGahan
[23] http://armenianhouse.org/khrimyan-hayrik/loving-father.html