Origins of the Armenian Genocide

Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons

The First World War was an unprecedented catastrophe that killed millions and set the continent of Europe on the path to further calamity two decades later. But it didn’t come out of nowhere. With the centennial of the outbreak of hostilities coming up in August, Erik Sass will be looking back at the lead-up to the war, when seemingly minor moments of friction accumulated until the situation was ready to explode. He'll be covering those events 100 years after they occurred. This is the 102nd installment in the series. 

February 8, 1914: Origins of the Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Genocide of 1915 to 1917, in which the government of the Ottoman Empire killed approximately 1.5 million Armenians through mass shootings, forced marches (shown above), exposure, and starvation, couldn’t have taken place without the First World War, which radicalized Turkish public opinion and freed the “Young Turks” from the constraints of international law. But the stage for genocide was set on February 8, 1914, when Europe’s Great Powers forced the Turks to accept reforms they viewed as an existential threat.

An ancient ethnic group attested as far back as the sixth century BCE, the Armenians weathered the rise and fall of empires for millennia before the Ottoman Turks finally conquered the multiethnic Caucasus region in the 16th century CE. During the heyday of the Ottoman Empire, the Christian Armenians enjoyed considerable religious freedom and legal autonomy under the Ottoman “millet” system, which allowed religious minority groups to live by their own traditional laws.

But in the 19th century the millet system was undermined by the rise of nationalism, as various Ottoman subject peoples (including Armenians as well as Greeks, Slavs, and Arabs) embraced national identities and began demanding more autonomy, or even independence. The issue was further complicated by the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the encroachment of Europe’s Great Powers—especially Russia, which grabbed large chunks of Turkish territory in the Caucasus over the course of the 19th century, including some of the Armenian lands.

Now divided between the Russian and Ottoman Empires, the Armenians became a pawn in St. Petersburg’s devious gambit to grab even more Turkish territory in eastern Anatolia. Essentially the Russians used the Muslim Turks’ mistreatment of Christian Armenians as an excuse to intervene and assert Russian control over the region—and to move things along they were quite willing to stir up trouble between the Armenians and their Muslim neighbors, including the Kurds, who the Turks often employed as local enforcers (when they weren’t busy rebelling themselves).

This cynical ploy succeeded in turning international opinion against the Turks, who were their own worst enemies anyway. In 1895, clashes between Kurds and Armenians led to massacres that left at least 100,000 Armenians dead; these and subsequent atrocities generated public support for reforms in Europe and America. However the Turks had one (sort of) ally in Germany, which didn’t stand to benefit from the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire—at least in the near term—and now threw its diplomatic weight behind the Turks, delaying and watering down the proposed reforms.

After years of debate, in early 1914 the Turks (and their German backers) finally agreed to a compromise reform package that included some concessions by Russia: Among other things, the proposed administrative units included more Muslims to dilute Armenian political power, and the Armenians gave up any right to restitution of land previously seized by Kurds. But at the end of the day the Turks were still being forced to grant foreigners sweeping powers over an area they considered part of the Turkish homeland.

Under the terms of the Yeniköy Agreement signed on February 8, 1914 (so-called because it was signed in the Yeniköy district of Constantinople), seven Turkish provinces in eastern Anatolia would be grouped into two new inspectorates, both presided over by a European inspector general with the authority to appoint and dismiss local officials, arrest officials they suspected of criminal misconduct, suspend judges, and render decisions on new land disputes. They were also given command of the police and the military. Meanwhile the Kurdish irregular cavalry units were to be disarmed, even as the Russians continued covertly funneling arms to the Armenians (as part of their double game the Russians had also secretly armed the Kurds before, but never mind).

Unsurprisingly, the Turks viewed the Yeniköy Agreement as the opening move in Russia’s final push to dismantle the Ottoman Empire. And there was plenty of evidence fueling Turkish suspicions: Around this time, Zaven, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, called for “the unification of all Armenia under Russian sovereignty,” adding, “the sooner the Russians arrive here, the better for us.”

Similarly, Konstantin Gulkevich, the Russian charge d’affaires in Constantinople who signed the Yeniköy Agreement for Russia, reported to Russian foreign minister Sergei Sazonov that the Yeniköy Agreement “signifies without doubt the opening of a new and happier era in the history of the Armenian people … The Armenians must feel that the first step has been taken towards releasing them from the Turkish yoke.” Furthermore, “the outstanding role of Russia in the Armenian question is thus officially emphasized… This circumstance will certainly not fail to exert a most favorable influence on the international status of Russia, and to place a halo on the head of her sovereign in the eyes of the Christians of the Near East.”

The Young Turk junta in Constantinople desperately looked for ways to stem the rising Russian tide; one member of the ruling triumvirate, Djemal Pasha, recalled simply, “We wanted to tear up that Agreement.” But there was nothing they could do in the face of the united front presented by Europe’s Great Powers—unless, that is, the situation were suddenly changed by some unexpected event, some great upheaval that would allow them to cancel the reforms and redraw the map on their own terms, with their own methods.

See the previous installment or all entries

The Office Star Angela Kinsey Would Love to Do a Reunion Special

Emma McIntyre / Getty Images
Emma McIntyre / Getty Images

Whenever a classic TV show is brought back for a revival, it usually splits the fanbase in half. While some people are happy to see their favorite characters return, others are worried about the series coming back in lackluster fashion. And when it comes to the idea of a potential reboot of The Office, the series' cast is just as split.

Steve Carell has been very public about not wanting NBC to bring the show back, but Angela Kinsey is siding with co-stars John Krasinski, Jenna Fischer, and Ellie Kemper about welcoming a potential return to Scranton. The 48-year-old actress, who portrayed Angela Martin on the series, recently spoke with PopCulture.com, confirming she’d love to revisit the show.

"I would definitely be up for a reunion," Kinsey said. "I know a few cast members have talked about a special reunion episode to see where everyone is at. I would love that!"

Although many are torn on the idea of bringing The Office back, most fans would certainly be curious enoug to tune in and see what's going on with the Dunder Mifflin crew. Kinsey is no exception, saying, “I would love to know where these people are! I loved the show, I still love the show. I think it really holds up. I'm so thrilled that new audiences are finding it, so I would love that!"

Will it ever happen? It's hard to say. But while we wait to see if any official announcement is made, you can at least still binge The Office on Netflix and try to imagine what creepy thing Cousin Mose is doing these days.

[h/t PopCulture.com]

Harry Potter Fans Don’t Want to See the Movies Rebooted, Surprising No One

© 2011 Warner Bros. Harry Potter Publishing Rights (c) J.K. Rowling
© 2011 Warner Bros. Harry Potter Publishing Rights (c) J.K. Rowling

Although the Harry Potter franchise has one of the most dedicated fan bases in the world, that doesn’t mean fans are ready to see the series rebooted just yet. Yes, that would mean more movies to feed one’s obsession, but the general consensus is that it would be entirely too soon. Don’t believe us? A new poll might just prove it.

ComingSoon.net asked more than 2000 Potterheads if Warner Bros. should reboot the Harry Potter movie series, and a whopping 72 percent said they’re against it. The website also asked fans if reboots were made, how they should be done. Of those polled, 41 percent voted for it to be a direct sequel about Harry’s son, 35 percent voted for a spinoff TV series, 13 percent wanted another Fantastic Beasts spinoff, and a measly 11 percent showed support for a remake of all eight original films.

While it doesn’t look like a reboot will be in the works anytime soon (J.K. Rowling’s representatives just debunked a report about a TV series), that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for the future. Even star Daniel Radcliffe has entertained the idea, saying he believes he won’t be the last Potter portrayal he’ll see in his lifetime. But as long as Rowling and fans are against it, we probably won’t have to worry about it for a while.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER