The Naim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide

1986 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vahakn N. Dadrian

The protracted Turko-Armenian conflict, marked by intermittent massacres, was violently resolved during World War I. By governmental decree the bulk of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire was uprooted from its ancestral territories and was committed to a process of deportation that became a process of destruction. The provinces in the interior of Turkey with heavy concentrations of Armenians were thus completely denuded of their indigenous population.Volumes have been produced regarding the instruments and dimensions of this destruction. The carnage was attested to by multitudes of Armenian survivors; by German, Swiss, and American missionaries; and by European and American consuls in the provinces and their ambassadors in Istanbul, the Ottoman capital. The testimony of Austrian and German officers of all ranks who fought in and directed that war alongside the Turks as political and military allies is even more striking.

1991 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 549-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vahakn N. Dadrian

The deportation of the majority of the Armenian population from the Ottoman Empire during World War I and the massacres that accompanied it are of commanding interest. The paucity of scholarly contributions in this area, however, has impeded the development of interest in the subject, thereby contributing to the nebulous state surrounding the conditions that led to the disappearance of an entire nation from its ancestral territories. Some maintain that this nebulousness is compounded by the intrusion of political calculation.1 At issue is whether or not the disaster was intentionally organized by the Ottoman authorities, and whether or not the scope of Armenian losses bore any relationship to that intention.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-50
Author(s):  
Asmat Naz ◽  
Sohail Akhtar ◽  
Saliha Hameed Ullah

Islam is a universal religion and it influenced all over the world with its dispensation. After the migration from Makkah to Madinah, the Holy prophet PBUH constituted a new welfare state. In 8th Hijri after the conquest of Makkah Islam became the dominant religion in Arabia. It provided a great power and Muslims challenged the strong and powerful state of Iran and Rome. Especially, during the pious caliphate from 632-661 A.D Islam spread rapidly and Muslims had become a strong nation of the world. They became powerful ruler of a state which was established in three continents Asia, Europe and Africa during Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman time respectively. This strong state was thought indeclinable till 18th century. But the start of 19th century changed this approach as the great Mughal state which was lasting its breath faced debacle in 1857. While the strong Ottoman Empire scattered in to several parts and was occupied by Great Britain, France, Italy and USSR after world War-I. The condition of the Muslim became miserable and they lost all the past glory. This paper highlights the basic causes of Muslim's decline in 20th century.


2002 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vahakn N. Dadrian

The wartime fate of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian minority continues to be controversial. The debate in the main revolves around the causes and nature of that fate. Some historians have alleged that what is involved is centrally organized mass murder—or, to use contemporary terminology, genocide. This school of thought maintains that the Ottoman authorities were waiting for a suitable opportunity to undertake the wholesale liquidation of the empire's Armenian population, and the outbreak of World War I provided that opportunity. The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, or Unionists), who controlled the Ottoman government, they argue further, did in fact undertake this liquidation under cover of the war.1 Others, however, dispute these assertions, especially that of genocidal intent. This group maintains that Armenian acts of disloyalty, subversion, and insurrection in wartime forced the central government to order, for purposes of relocation, the deportation of large sections of the Armenian population. According to this argument, apart from those who were killed in “intercommunal” clashes—that is, a “civil war”—the bulk of the Armenian losses resulted from the severe hardships associated with poorly administered measures of deportations, including exhaustion, sickness, starvation, and epidemics. In other words, this school of thought holds that the Ottoman Empire, in the throes of an existential war, had no choice but to protect itself by resorting to drastic methods; therefore, the tragic fate of the Armenians must be understood in the context of the dire conditions of World War I.2 These views are encapsulated in the formula that the noted Middle East historian Bernard Lewis has used—namely, the desperate conditions of “an embattled empire.”3


2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 561-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Dumberry

This paper examines the legal consequences of the commission by the Ottoman Empire of internationally wrongful acts, including acts of genocide, against the Armenian population during World War I. Specifically, the present paper examines the following question: can the modern State of Turkey (which was only officially proclaimed in 1923) be held responsible, under international law, for internationally wrongful acts committed by the Ottoman Empire before its disintegration? This paper first briefly examines whether Turkey should be considered, under international law, as the "continuing" State of the Ottoman Empire or whether it should instead be deemed as a "new" State, We will show that Turkey is, in legal terms, "identical" to the Ottoman Empire and is therefore "continuing" the international legal personality of the Empire. This paper will then focus on the legal consequences arising from this conclusion of continuity. Our analysis of past case law and State practice shows that both in the context of secession and of cession of territory, the continuing State continues to be held responsible for its own internationally wrongful acts committed before the date of succession. Accordingly, Turkey should be held responsible for all internationally wrongful acts committed by the Ottoman Empire.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Dumberry

The present article examines whether the modern State of Turkey (which was officially proclaimed in 1923) can be held responsible under international law for internationally wrongful acts which were committed by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian population during and shortly after World War I. The first part examines whether Turkey should be considered as the ‘continuing’ State of the Ottoman Empire or whether it should instead be deemed as a ‘new’ State. Part 2 will examine the legal consequences in terms of international responsibility for considering Turkey as the ‘continuing’ State of the Ottoman Empire. This will include an examination of case law and State practice in the context of secession and cession of territory. The conclusion is that Turkey should be held responsible for all internationally wrongful acts committed by the Ottoman Empire (including acts of genocide) which were committed before its disintegration.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
İrfan Karakoç

<p>Cenap Şahabettin (1871-1934) is generally accepted as a part of the Servet-i Fünûn literary movement which was popular between 1896 and 1901 in the Ottoman Empire. He is well-known as a poet but he had written prose as well. He worked for the Ottoman government as a high ranking executive in Arabic countries and wrote several books during his mission and ensuing travels. <em>Hac Yolunda</em> (On the way to Mecca), <em>Âfâk-ı Irak</em> (Horizons of Iraq) are his travel books. He also published two travel notes under the titles of “Suriye Mektupları” (Letters from Syria) and <em>Beyrut, Filistin ve Nablus İzlenimleri 1918</em> (Impressions from Beirut, Palestine and Nablus 1918). This article focuses mainly on the abovementioned works of the writer. All the works were written between 1896 and 1918, and this period in the history was quite an important one for the Middle East and the Ottoman Empire where significant historical events occurred. The Ottoman Empire was coming to an end, the World War I was effecting every aspect of life and Middle East was taking a new shape. Subject matter of this work, as a result of the period, bound to mention modernity, identity policies, and nation building discourses and practices. These works are important since they provide enough information to find out the writer’s attitude towards the local Arabs, his approach to the common, conventional prejudices, and his own newly created biases. Edward Said’s Orientalism, Ussama Makdisi’s “Rethinking Ottoman Imperialism: Modernity, Violence and the Cultural Logic of Ottoman Reform” and “Ottoman Orientalism” and Selim Deringil’s <em>The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire 1876-1909</em> are the main works that used to examine the texts in hand in details.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Özet</strong></p><p>Edebiyat tarihçileri tarafından Servet-i Fünûn dönemi edebiyatı (1896-1901) içerisinde değerlendirilen, düzyazı eserleri olmakla birlikte daha çok şairliğiyle tanınan Cenap Şahabettin (1871-1934), Osmanlı yönetimi altındaki Arap ülkelerinde uzun yıllar yönetici olarak çalışmıştır. Bu görevlerinin ve daha sonra yaptığı seyahatlerin ürünü olarak da <em>Hac Yolunda </em>adlı kitabı<em>, Âfâk-ı Irak</em>, “Suriye Mektupları” ve son olarak ise Beyrut, <em>Filistin ve Nablus İzlenimleri 1918</em> adıyla bir araya getirilen seyahat notlarını yayımlamıştır.</p><p>Bu çalışma, Cenap Şahabettin’in adı geçen eserlerini odağa almayı amaçlamaktadır. Kuşkusuz bu eserlerin anlatı mekânı Orta Doğu’dur ve yazılar 1896-1918 gibi bölge ve dünya siyaseti için çok önemli tarihler arasında üretilmiştir. Konu Osmanlı’nın son yılları, I. Dünya Savaşı, Orta Doğu gibi hem siyasal hem de tarihsel mekânları içerdiğinden ilk akla gelen konular elbette modernleşme, kimlik politikaları ve uluslaşma süreci söylem ve pratikleri olacaktır. İşte bu bağlamdan hareketle, önemli bir Osmanlı şairinin kimlik algısını belirlemek, bölge insanına özellikle de Arap halklarına bakışını, üretilmiş imgelere yaklaşımını görmek, kendi ürettiği imgeleri yorumlamak açısından belirtilen eserler ve yazılar büyük değer taşımaktadır. Bu metinler, özellikle Edward Said’in  <em>Şarkiyatçılık: Batının Şark Anlayışları</em> adlı kitabı, Ussama Makdisi’nin “Rethinking Ottoman Imperialism: Modernity, Violence and the Cultural Logic of Ottoman Reform” ile “Ottoman Orientalism” yazıları ve Selim Deringil’in <em>İktidarın Sembolleri ve İdeoloji: II. Abdülhamid Dönemi (1876-1909)</em> adlı çalışması temel alınarak yorumlanacaktır.</p>


Muzikologija ◽  
2013 ◽  
pp. 61-89
Author(s):  
Predrag Todorovic

My article deals with an unusual story on the roots of a song that has left a significant imprint on the twentieth century popular music all over the world. It is the song Misirlou, created somewhere on the territory of the Ottoman Empire, probably in Asia Minor. The author of this song is unknown. It was created in the so-called rebetiko musical style, typical of the Greeks from Asia Minor, who developed that style after the World War I. The first recordings of this song were made in the 1930s by Greek musicians Tethos Demetriades and Mihalis Patrinos. In no time, there was a true proliferation of different versions of this song, in almost every possible musical genre: jazz, latino, taksym, klezmer, makam, Serbian folk, hip hop, trash metal, pop and rock?n?roll. A number of these versions are mentioned in the article. The fact that this song is considered by many nations ? Greeks, Turks, Arabs, Serbs, Jews, Americans ? as their own, demonstrates its aptitude for incredible metamorphoses. What attracted me to this song was the story on how it was appropriated into Serbian folk music by the remarkable composer and singer Dragoljub Dragan Tokovic. The song was called Lela Vranjanka [Lela, the girl from Vranje] and became a standard in the so-called ?Vranje folk music?, marvelously interpreted by the singer Stanisa Stosic. I also compare various textual versions of Misirlou, in different languages, in order to show its parallel development in verse.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document