What Motivated the Ottoman Rulers to Commit the Armenian Genocide?

The following article is the fifth part of Kaveh Hosseini's collection of writings on the Armenian Genocide during World War I. These writings are based on the special program "Death Parade" broadcasted by Radio Farda to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide victims. In previous parts (Part One – Part Two – Part Three – Part Four), we examined the history of the Armenian presence in Asia Minor, the violence against this ethnic minority in the 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as the forced migration and "genocide of the Armenians" during World War I. In this section, we will discuss the motivations of Turkish politicians for the "genocide" following the massacre. Before the Armenian genocide had concluded, the main perpetrators of the forced migration and those who signed the orders for the expulsion of Armenians were forced to flee the Ottoman Empire. The "Three Pashas," who had held power in the Ottoman Empire since the 1913 coup of the "Committee of Union and Progress" – namely Talat Pasha, Enver Pasha, and Jemal Pasha – became viewed by public opinion as incompetent and treasonous politicians due to the Ottoman defeat in the war. Their decisions were described as the main cause of the country's defeat, and many believed that their mistakes had brought the 500-year-old empire to the brink of collapse and eternal extinction. Thus, in the new Ottoman structure, these three were tried and sentenced to death in absentia; a verdict that few believed would be executed. However, there were those motivated enough to carry out these sentences; a group of Armenians who were well aware of the extent of the massacre of their fellow believers and were determined to take revenge on the perpetrators. They gathered and designed the "Nemesis Operation." Barlow Magardchian, a professor at Fresno State University in California and president of the Armenian Studies Society in America, describes the "Nemesis Operation" as follows: "When World War I ended, most leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress fled to Germany. Some sought refuge in other countries. These leaders were sentenced to death in a military court, but since they lived abroad, there was no possibility of executing these sentences. Therefore, a group of Armenians gathered and designed the Nemesis Operation to assassinate those responsible for the Armenian genocide. The most important person assassinated was Talat Pasha, who was shot on March 15, 1921, in Berlin by Soghomon Tehlirian. Subsequently, some other high-ranking officials were also assassinated in Rome and other cities around the world." Soghomon Tehlirian did not flee after shooting Talat Pasha, who had reached the position of Prime Minister by the end of his rule, and was arrested by the police. He explained in court that he killed Talat Pasha due to the killing of one and a half million Armenians. The jury found him not guilty, and he was released. During this operation, Jemal Pasha, another member of the Committee of Union and Progress, was also assassinated in Tbilisi in 1922. Enver Pasha, who had deep Pan-Turkic ideas, tried to collaborate with tribes in Central Asia to fight against the Bolshevik revolutionaries to establish an independent "Turkistan" but was killed in 1922 in a clash with Red Army soldiers. The motivations for the violence in the storm-tossed Middle East experienced numerous serial violences and upheavals throughout the 20th century, yet nowhere in this region did an event similar to the genocide of millions of Armenians during World War I occur. The scale of what happened to the Armenians of Anatolia was so extensive that many Turkish rulers of Anatolia have criticized what happened from the day after the Ottoman defeat in the war until today. Armenians also never managed to rebuild their community in Anatolia. In my opinion, this event occurred based on extreme nationalism; a specific ideology for ethnic cleansing and the establishment of a new country. This extremism was a reaction to the repeated loss of vast territories of the Ottoman Empire. They had Germany as a model for establishing a modern country and followed Bismarck's iron fist idea, which he used to unite the Germanic peoples. Richard Hovannisian, one of the key questions about this event is the main motivation of the perpetrators of the genocide. In the "Committee of Union and Progress," why did the political leaders, who were practically progressive constitutionalists, decide to eliminate such a large group of their own civilian citizens in this manner? Was the mere accusation of Armenian collaboration with the Tsarist Russian army sufficient for such a genocide? What connection exists between the killing of Armenian community leaders in Istanbul and the killing of millions of unarmed women and children in rural areas with the accusation of collaboration by a group of Armenians with the Russians? Richard Hovannisian, a UCLA professor and author of the book "Armenians from Antiquity to Modern Times," believes that "ideology" plays a primary role in the Armenian genocide. He states: "In my opinion, this event occurred based on extreme nationalism; a specific ideology for ethnic cleansing and the establishment of a new country. This extremism was a reaction to the repeated loss of vast territories of the Ottoman Empire. They had Germany as a model for establishing a modern country and followed Bismarck's iron fist idea, which he used to unite the Germanic peoples. They concluded that the multi-ethnic and multi-religious status that existed had no place in the future of their country, and for this reason, they decided to implement all these new ideas." "Turkification" Meanwhile, a controversial term raises new questions about what happened: "Turkification" or "turkification"; a process that some researchers argue has occurred in various forms during the rule of Turks since the Seljuk era and has a history in the Ottoman Empire as well. However, the peak of "Turkification" was the efforts of Turkish nationalists to establish a modern Turkish state. Did this strategy also influence the occurrence of the genocide? Jay Winter, an author of numerous books on World War I and a history professor at Yale University, believes that the policy of Turkification at the end of the Ottoman era meant that Christian Armenians would have no place in the modern country. He states: "Turkification meant changing the existing ethnic balance in Anatolia. This led to a similar fate for Ottoman Greeks. During this strategy, the population of Anatolian Greeks decreased by about one million so that Atatürk could establish the Turkified country. This action and the genocide of Armenians are parts of a single strategy. Of course, Greeks were also killed en masse in western Anatolia, and the city of Smyrna, now known as Izmir, was burned, with horrific reports of events there and elsewhere. However, in the case of Greeks, what happened on a million-fold scale is considered demographic displacement in international law. This means one population leaves, and another replaces it. But in the case of Armenians, this did not happen. In the case of Armenians, genocide occurred. Many suffered during this period. Muslims under Greek rule also suffered greatly. However, Armenians were the only group that was completely annihilated in the land of their ancestors for thousands of years." The Role of Religion In the view of many historians, religious tolerance in the Ottoman Empire over centuries was much higher than the situation in Europe at the time, to the extent that at times, European Jews fled to Ottoman territory to escape Christian pressures. Christian Armenians who resided in Ottoman territory, although faced with specific limitations due to not being Muslims, enjoyed a degree of religious freedoms within a unique administrative-judicial system. However, during the Armenian genocide, they were practically accused of having allegiance to the Christian enemy, Russia, instead of cooperating with their Muslim compatriots in the Ottoman Empire. Did religion play any role in this genocide? According to Richard Hovannisian, religion was not the main motivation for this genocide but was indeed an important factor in stirring public sentiment. He states: "Religion was not the main motivation. In my opinion, the main motivation was radical nationalism. The Young Turk leaders were not religious; on the contrary, they were secular. However, they exploited religious sentiments. The term used repeatedly for Armenians was "gâvur" (infidel), which was used to denote non-believers. The propaganda suggested that these infidels had come and created a much better life for themselves and taken control of our economy, and we must correct this situation. Moreover, in a few cases, an imam in a region beheaded an Armenian. However, this was not common, and even some Muslim clergy declared from the outset that the genocide of Armenians was entirely against the teachings of Islam." In Armenian history, the Armenian Church plays a central role. The fact that on the 100th anniversary of the commemoration of the genocide victims, the Armenian Archbishop in the Armenian Patriarchate in Yerevan declares one million victims of this event as saints shows the importance of religion for Armenians and the role of the church. Jay Winter, an American historian at Yale University, also believes that religion is of secondary importance in the events of 1915, but states that the church plays a serious role in the lives of Armenians and their historical identity. Winter states: "In Armenian history, the Armenian Church plays a central role. The fact that on the 100th anniversary of the commemoration of the genocide victims, the Armenian Archbishop in the Armenian Patriarchate in Yerevan declares one million victims of this event as saints shows the importance of religion for Armenians and the role of the church. On the other hand, among Turks, soldiers killed during the war were also given the title of martyr. The martyr's revenge must be taken. A martyr is someone who is killed by the enemies of God in a religious battle." Racism? Another aspect of the Armenian genocide that raises significant sensitivity is the potential existence of racist motivations behind this genocide. In fact, at the time of the Armenian genocide, racist thoughts – especially against black people and centered on the superiority of white Europeans – were seen among some Europeans, and during the colonialism of European powers in Africa, these racist thoughts played a significant role. Moreover, European nationalism, which was exported worldwide in the 19th century, was linked to the superiority of the "nation." There is no consensus among researchers on whether racism played a role in the Armenian genocide. Among them, Jay Winter, author of the book "The Experience of World War I," believes that among Ottoman Turks, especially the radical leaders of the "Committee of Union and Progress," no racist motivations are evident. He believes: "In my opinion, the use of the term racism is incorrect. Neighbors killed each other in this affair, including Kurdish militias who played a significant role in this genocide. Moreover, it is very important to understand that this was a genocide without deep ideological groundwork. This was a wartime action that occurred during the war, and the occurrence of war made this possible. This is about a new nation. The Ottoman Turks also destroyed the Islamic caliphate. For example, they chose Western clothing and Western alphabet. They severed their connection with the past. The issue of race was not raised; rather, in the path of severing ties with the past, they cut off their connection with ancient ethnicities like Armenians, Greeks, and Arabs during the Turkification process. This, in my opinion, is a much more important point than the issue of race." However, Richard Hovannisian believes that a form of racism can be traced in the course of this genocide. This university professor states: "Racism existed, but not the kind of racism that existed in Nazism. In Germany, there was a racial hierarchy based on which those who considered themselves superior did not want to mix with those they deemed inferior, such as Jews or other Semitic races. In the case of the Young Turks, the situation was entirely different because Turks had mixed with local populations like Greeks or Armenians for centuries. Even now, among Turkish people, there is very little DNA from their ancestors in Asia and Mongolia because they have mixed with other ethnic groups for centuries. In 1915, they were also ready to mix with Armenians, and thousands of Armenian women and children were accepted as soon as they changed their Armenian identity. They had to convert to Islam, change their names, and effectively become Turks. Even now, there is a large group of Turks in Turkey whose grandmothers or grandfathers were Armenian. They have left them. From this perspective, they are racist, but not from the perspective of pure blood." In the next part of this series of reports, we will examine the disagreements over the term "genocide." In this context, Armenian nationalism against Ottoman Turkification, the Sultan, the massacre of Armenians, and the constitutional revolutionaries' orders for the expulsion of Armenians from their homeland will be discussed.