They Can Live in the Desert, But Not Anywhere Else

Ronald Sani, a professor of political and social history at the University of Michigan, has recently published a new book titled "They Can Live in the Desert, But Not Anywhere Else; The History of the Armenian Genocide." The title of the book is inspired by a famous quote from Talaat Pasha, the Ottoman Minister of the Interior. When Henry Morgenthau, the American ambassador, tried to convince Talaat Pasha to save the lives of Armenians, Talaat Pasha told him, "They can live in the desert, but not anywhere else." Ronald Sani discusses the events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire in an interview with Radio Farda. A main argument justifying the expulsion of Armenians has always referred to the separatist movement among Armenians. How strong was the separatist movement among Armenians from 1914 to 1915, and what was the perspective of the Ottoman leaders and the Young Turks on this matter? This is a very important question. First, Armenians sought political rights within the framework of the Ottoman Empire. The majority of them, after 1908 and the rise of the Young Turks, sought to achieve better conditions and relative security for themselves, especially in Eastern Anatolia. In these areas, they were often under attack from Kurds and locals. After 1908 and the revolution that led to the rise of the Young Turks, they tried to limit their demands within the framework of the constitution of that time. Therefore, legally, they had not committed any wrongdoing. Many Armenians had separated from revolutionary organizations and entered the parliament. Their goal was a form of autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. Thus, they had dismissed the idea of separatism. Even the Hunchak Party, which was the only party advocating for Armenian separation, had discarded this idea in the early years of the 1890s. Separatism was not on their agenda. Nevertheless, your question is valid. Regardless of what Armenians said, the Ottomans always viewed them as separatists and considered their autonomy structure as a step toward the eventual independence of Armenians in the empire, which would ultimately be realized with Russian support. Therefore, Armenians found themselves in a difficult and dangerous position. Whatever they did, they were accused of treason against the Ottoman Empire and that their goal was nothing but separation from this empire with Russian support. Do you consider the massacres of Armenians at the end of the 19th century during Abdulhamid II's reign, which some call a type of Holocaust, a state repression that differs from the events of 1915 aimed at cleansing the empire of Armenians? In my book titled "The History of the Armenian Genocide," I have written that these various massacres should be examined separately. The aim of the massacres during Abdulhamid's time, in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians, including some of my relatives in Diyarbakir, lost their lives, was to suppress Armenians and keep them in their place, preventing them from influencing the political structure of the empire. In this sense, it was a warning and traditional suppression. This differs from the 1909 events in Adana, which was a kind of local protest where local people killed nearly 20,000 Armenians. The goal of this genocide was a revolutionary act to cleanse the Ottoman Empire of the presence of Armenians. Their aim was to change the demographic structure of the country in three aspects: dispersing Armenians so that they would no longer be a determining population against the Ottomans, assimilating and converting Armenians, especially women and children, and ultimately physically destroying them through mass killings. Ronald Sani states that these actions differ from the genocide of 1915. The goal of this genocide was a revolutionary act to cleanse the Ottoman Empire of the presence of Armenians. Their aim was to change the demographic structure of the country in three aspects: dispersing Armenians so that they would no longer be a determining population against the Ottomans, assimilating and converting Armenians, especially women and children, and ultimately physically destroying them through mass killings. Some argue that the Ottoman leaders did not intend genocide, and that is why Armenians in some cities like Izmir were not expelled from the country. What do you think about this? I believe there are clear signs that the Ottoman government, led by the Young Turks, including Talaat Pasha and Enver Pasha, around March 1915 decided to incapacitate and immobilize the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire so that they could never again pose a threat to Ottoman policy and the power of the country. They did this through three methods: dispersing Armenians so that they would not exceed 5% of the population in the region, assimilating and converting them, and killing and destroying them. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children were murdered. This intention of the Ottomans to annihilate a cultural, ethnic, and religious group is precisely aligned with the definition of genocide. The current Turkish government tries to convince with complex and distorted arguments that such an intention was not present and that it was a military action to preserve the country's borders, and that these massacres were accidental. However, it is easy to refer to precise documents that clarify that the goal was the physical, cultural, and political eradication of Armenians so that they would no longer be a threat to the Young Turks. Ronald Sani states that hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children were murdered. This intention of the Ottomans to annihilate a cultural, ethnic, and religious group is precisely aligned with the definition of genocide. The current Turkish government tries to convince with complex and distorted arguments that such an intention was not present and that it was a military action to preserve the country's borders, and that these massacres were accidental. However, it is easy to refer to precise documents that clarify that the goal was the physical, cultural, and political eradication of Armenians so that they would no longer be a threat to the Young Turks. Can we say that the goal of the destruction and cleansing of Armenians from Eastern Anatolia was primarily so that they could not be independent and pose a threat to the Ottomans, but that Armenians living in large cities were not a concern for them? They were not concerned about Armenians in the West. Of course, Armenians in these areas were closer to Europe, and foreign diplomats were more present in the western regions, which is why Armenians in Izmir and Istanbul were not targeted. However, we must not forget that on April 24, 1915, the Young Turks effectively executed the Armenian minority living in the Ottoman Empire. They expelled hundreds of intellectuals, writers, and politicians, some of whom were friends of Talaat Pasha, and ultimately many of them were killed. Thus, in this sense, they stained their hands with the blood of Armenians so that they could not pose a threat to the power of the Turks in the future. But we must not forget that on April 24, 1915, the Young Turks effectively executed the Armenian minority living in the Ottoman Empire. They expelled hundreds of intellectuals, writers, and politicians, some of whom were friends of Talaat Pasha, and ultimately many of them were killed. Ronald Sani states that the Ottoman Empire was allied with Nazi Germany in the war against Russia, Britain, and France. Armenians were accused of collaborating with the enemy. How was the relationship between Armenians and Russians when the Russians closed Armenian churches and controlled these people for decades in the Russian part, accusing them of collaborating with opponents? Nevertheless, today we see that Armenians have pinned hopes on the Russians. How do you evaluate this? Yes, that is a good question. Armenians have lived in the empires of Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and some of them in the Persian Empire. They have always crossed these borders. Right up until World War I, Armenian revolutionaries in the Russian Empire were subject to persecution and repression by the Tsarist government. Armenians were dissatisfied with the behavior of the Russians towards them. On the other hand, Russia, Britain, and even Germany and France had declared their support for the "Reform Agreement of 1914," under which Armenians in Eastern Anatolia would be supported under the supervision of European inspectors. Armenians agreed to this plan, and Russia was one of the serious supporters of this plan. However, at the same time, the Ottoman Empire decided to ally with Germany instead of the Allies (i.e., Britain, France, and Russia) in World War I. The Ottoman leaders believed that Germany would not be very interested in implementing this plan. They were right. While if they had cooperated with the Allies, Britain, France, and Russia would undoubtedly have forced them to comply with this plan. For this reason, immediately after the war began, the Ottomans, now allied with Germany, canceled this agreement and then proceeded to expel and massacre Armenians. Germany turned a blind eye to these events and did nothing to implement this agreement. Therefore, I believe that many Armenians preferred to defend Russian support to preserve their interests within the framework of the Ottoman Empire. It should be emphasized that although such a desire existed, there were difficult conditions regarding Russia because Russia, apart from the interests of Armenians, was pursuing its own interests.