The blackest page in modern history: Events in Armenia in 1915: the facts and the responsibilitiesGibbons, Herbert Adams
History
The blackest page in modern history: Events in Armenia in 1915: the facts and the responsibilities
Gibbons, Herbert Adams
Armenian Genocide, 1915-1923; Armenian question
One hesitates, on general principles, to attempt to advise, or to
admonish, as to its best interests, a nation at war. In a life and
death struggle such as this war has become, it would be naturally
supposed that a nation and its rulers are the best judges of what it
is to their interest to do. Advice from outside sources is open to the
suspicion of being not disinterested. And does not admonition, if not
sheer impertinence, betray impotence on the part of the admonisher?
But in the Ottoman Empire, the situation is different from that of
any other country in Europe. There is not a sufficient number of
educated men among the non-Christian elements of the Ottoman Empire to
form, let alone to guide, public opinion. Consequently, there is no
public opinion. The governing power has always been in the hands of a
small and corrupt circle, and the Ottoman nation has not developed in
self-government, in popular institutions, as have the other nations of
Europe.
The new régime was hailed with joy by the outside world, and by the
non-Moslem elements inside the empire as well, because the Constitution
of 1908 was regarded as the starting point in a struggle of the people
of the empire, irrespective of religion and race, against an absolutism
that had in practice proved equally injurious, if not equally
oppressive, to all the races subjected to the tyranny of Yildiz Kiosk.
It was very soon seen, however, that Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity
had no part whatever in the Young Turk conception of a constitutional
state. It was simply the replacing of one clique by another. The
honest, sincere Young Turks, with motives above suspicion, who
actually meant what they said, were so few in number that they could
not prevail against the type in the Committee of Union and Progress,
personified by such men as Talaat, Enver, Djavid, Djemal, Hairi, Ahmed
Riza, Dr. Nazim, Hadji Adil, Bedri, and Hussein Djahid. The Moslem
population of the empire, being intensely ignorant, could not be looked
to by the few enthusiasts to support constitutional principles. The
Christian population, much better educated and having much more reason
to appreciate the newly-proclaimed liberty, were the only elements upon
which a politically regenerated Turkey could stand. _For this reason
alone did the Armenian element become immediately a source of danger
to the new clique that had replaced Abdul Hamid._ These so-called
Young Turks turned upon the Armenians just as Abdul Hamid had turned
upon them--to prevent their becoming the leaven in the regeneration
of Turkey. The Constitution, hailed by the Armenians as the beginning
of their political emancipation, became almost immediately--and
_inevitably_--their death-warrant.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account