|
The W2N.net - Wikipedia |
Link Ads Questz World |
The Hamidian massacres, also referred to as the Armenian Massacres of 1894–1896, refers to the massacring of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, with estimates of the dead ranging from 80,000 to 300,0001, and at least 50,000 orphans as a result.2 The massacres are named for Abdul Hamid II, whose efforts to reinforce the territorial integrity of the embattled Ottoman Empire reasserted Pan-Islamism as a state ideology.3
Abdul Hamid believed that the woes of the Ottoman Empire stemmed from "the endless persecutions and hostilities of the Christian world."4 He perceived the Ottoman Armenians to be an extension of foreign hostility, a means by which Europe could "get at our most vital places and tear out our very guts."5
One of the most serious incidents occurred in Armenian-populated parts of Anatolia. Although the Ottomans had prevented other revolts in the past, the harshest measures were directed against the Armenian community. They observed no distinction between the nationalist dissidents and the Armenian population at large, and massacred them with brutal force.6 However, this occurred in the 1890s, at a time when the telegraph could spread news around the world and when the European powers were vastly more powerful than the weakening Ottoman state.
Contents |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In the period of 1894-96, when the Ottoman Empire was ruled by Sultan Abdul Hamid II, tens of thousands of Armenians were massacred.7 Some accounts suggest that the dead numbered as high as 300,000.
The origins of hostility toward Armenians lay in their status as a wealthy religious minority, in the days of the waning power of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman loss of dominion over various Christian regions was ushered in by an era of European nationalism, and the insistence of self-determination by many territories which had long been held under Ottoman authority. When nationalism spread into Anatolia, with Armenians' demanding equal rights and pushing for autonomy, the Ottoman leadership believed the Empire's Islamic character and very existence were threatened.
The success of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Turkish War, 1877-78, and the ensuing Treaty of San Stefano forced the Ottoman government to give away a large part of their territory (including the cities of Kars and Batumi) to the Russians. After these losses, the Empire was more threatened by the Russian government's claiming to support beleaguered Christian communities within the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Berlin—which reduced the magnitude of Russia's gains on the other side of the Black Sea—stated that the Ottoman government had to give legal protection to the Christian Armenians. The treaty's protections were not implemented.
The combination of Russian military success, clear weakening of Ottoman power, and hope that one day all of the Armenian territory might be ruled by Russia led to a new restiveness by Armenians living inside the Ottoman Empire. Starting around 1890, the Armenians began protesting to gain the protections promised them at Berlin. Unrest occurred in 1892 at Marsovan and in 1893 at Tokat. Armenians wanted reforms in the Ottoman Empire and an end to discrimination; they demanded the right to vote and establis a constitutional government.8
| “ | “In the following months, systematic pogroms swept over every district of Turkish Armenia. The slaughter of between 100,000 and 200,000 Armenians, forced conversion of scores of villages, the looting and burning of hundreds of settlements, and the coerced flight into exile of thousands of Armenians became Abdul-Hamid's actual response to European meddling.â€9 | †|
Another reason for the massacres were the channeling of Kurdish bandits upon Armenians instead of just anybody in the area. Historically Eastern parts of the Ottoman Empire was the most insecure place, where especially the Kurdish rebels ransacked neighbouring towns and villages. When the Empire was too weak and disorganized to halt them, Sultan Abdulhamid gave a semi-official status to the Kurdish bandits. They were known as Hamidiye Alaylari ({Abdul}Hamids's Regiments). The Sultan ignored the massacres as long as they were not directed towards the Muslim population. As the most populous and richest Christians, the Armenians faced great losses.Template:All needs citation
In 1894, Sultan Abdul Hamid II began to target the Armenian people in a precursor of the Hamidian massacres. This persecution strengthened nationalistic sentiment among Armenians. The first notable battle in the Armenian resistance took place in Sassoun. Hunchak activists, such as Mihran Damadian, Hampartsoum Boyadjian, and Hrayr, encouraged resistance against double taxation and Ottoman persecution. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation armed people of the region. The Armenians confronted the Ottoman army and Kurdish irregulars at Sassoun, finally succumbing to superior numbers and Turkish assurances of amnesty (which was never granted).10
In response to the Sasun Resistance (1894), the governor of MuÅŸ responded by inciting the local Muslims against the Armenians.11 The historian Lord Kinross claims that this was often achieved by gathering Muslims in a local mosque and claiming that the Armenians had the aim of "striking at Islam."12 Sultan Abdul Hamid II sent the Ottoman army into the area and also armed groups of Kurdish irregulars. The violence spread and affected most of the Armenian towns in the Ottoman empire. The worst atrocity occurred when they burned the cathedral of Urfa, in which 3,000 Armenians had taken refuge.13 Turkish historian Osman Nuri observed, "The mere mention of the word 'reform' irritated him [Abdul Hamit], inciting his criminal instincts."14
.jpg)
Tens of thousands of Armenians were massacred, both in Istanbul and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. Abdul Hamid's Private First Secretary wrote in his memoirs about Abdul Hamid that he "decided to pursue a policy of severity and terror against the Armenians, and in order to succeed in this respect he elected the method of dealing them an economic blow... he ordered they absolutely avoid negotiating or discussing anything with the Armenians and to inflict upon them a decisive strike to settle scores."citation needed
The French ambassador described Turkey as "literally in flames," with "massacres everywhere" and all Christians being murdered "without distinction."1516 A French vice-consul declared that the Ottoman Empire was "gradually annihilating the Christian element" by "giving the Kurdish chieftains carte blanche to do whatever they please, to enrich themselves at the Christians' expense and to satisfy their men’s whims."17 The French diplomatic correspondence shows that the Hamidiye conducted massacres not only of Armenians but also of Assyrians.1819
The killings occurred from 1895 until 1897. In that last year, Sultan Hamid declared that the Armenian question was closed. All the Armenian revolutionaries had either been killed, or had escaped to Russia. The Ottoman government closed Armenian societies and restricted Armenian political movements.
The formation of Armenian revolutionary groups began roughly around the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878 and intensified with the first introduction of Article 166 of the Ottoman Penal code 166, and the raid of Erzerum Cathedral. Article 166 was meant to control the possession of arms, but it was used to target Armenians by restricting their possession of arms. Local Kurdish tribes were armed to attack the defenseless Armenian population. Some diplomats believed that the aim of these groups was to commit massacres so as to incite counter-measures, and to invite "foreign powers to intervene," as Istanbul's British Ambassador Sir Philip Currie observed in March 1894.citation needed
Scholars such as Yehuda Bauer consider the mass killings of 1894-1896 to be a first phase of the Armenian Genocide. Most scholars define this strictly in the years 1915-1917.
After George Hepworth, a preeminent journalist of the late 19th century, traveled through Ottoman Armenia in 1897, he wrote Through Armenia on Horseback, which discusses the causes and effects of the recent massacres. In one chapter Hepworth describes the disparity between the reality of the Massacre in Bitlis and the official reports that were sent to the Porte. After retelling the Turkish version of events, which places the blame solely on the Armenians of Bitlis, Hepworth writes:
"....That is the account of the affair which was sent to Yildiz, and that story contains all that the Sultan has any means of knowing about it. It is a most remarkable story, and the discrepancies are as thick as leaves in Valambrosa. On the face of it, it cannot be true, and before a jury it would hardly have any weight as evidence. It is extremely important, however, because it is probably a fair representation of the occurrences of the last few years. That it is a misrepresentation, so much so that it can fairly be called fabrication, becomes clear when you look at it a second time... and yet it is from an official document which the future historian will read when he wishes to compile the facts concerning those massacres."20
The above article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the copyrighted Wikipedia "Hamidian massacres" article.
