Customer Reviews

The Armenian Rebellion at Van (Utah Series in Turkish and Islamic Stud)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This book puts a magnifying glass to a short period of history in the frontier lands of an immense, but collapsing empire. Yet these events help illustrate the much larger narrative of what happened to the Armenians of the eastern Anatolian portion of the Ottoman Empire, which resonates to this day. As the authors conclude on page 218, "The Armenian revolt in Van province was a pivotal component of the disaster of war in the Ottoman East." How such feeds the complex debate about whether the Armenians suffered genocide is ultimately left for the reader to determine.

Historians appear to be in fair unanimity about the general events that occurred in and around the poor, yet strategic city of Van, in eastern Anatolia, during late 19th and early 20th centuries. Hotly disputed, however, is how to characterize the Armenian forces that ultimately captured and held the city before handing it over to Russian forces in 1915. Were they representatives of an oppressed minority valiantly gritting out a last-ditch battle, knowing that if they lost, they and their kinsmen would surely find calamity? Or, were they classic guerilla rebels, in a coordinated fight against their mother country to form a new state with the outside support of an enemy state? In other words, was this all a valiant act of self-defense, or a devious act of treason?

The opening chapters of the book lay out not just the physical geography of the area, but the political landscape as well. The authors provide, among other things, a plausible explanation of the dynamics among the tribal population versus the settled and why religion was not a factor in this rivalry. These chapters also discuss, relying primarily on Armenian sources, the founding of Armenian revolutionary movements, their penetration into the Van polity, and their aims against the Ottoman state.

In assessing the First Van Rebellion (1896), the authors provide crucial context to the run-up to the definitive encounters that would take place during World War I, including the miscalculations of the Ottoman central government in creating the Cossack-styled Hamidiye corps, the methods of Armenian rebel supply via Iran, and the machinations of the European powers who were forming contingency plans for the expected dissolution of the Ottoman state. The authors also describe the Armenian rebel strategy, which can be summarized as: massacre-reprisal-European intervention. The first rebellion lasted little more than a week yielding, according to the British, approximately 500 casualties, sixty percent of which was Muslim.

During most of the next 10 years the Armenian rebel organizations consolidated power, often by extortion and physical force, smuggled supplies, and fortified positions. They made periodic attacks, mostly in the Mus-Sasun region, which according to British and Armenian sources, were aimed at sparking a disproportionate response that would then motivate European intervention. This failed. The authors describe one episode in 1903 in which, after a small Armenian rebel force had been repulsed, it claimed that the Ottoman troops massacred an Armenian village. Yet the local British consul, reported back that the massacre was a fiction and that he had slept in that very village several nights after it was allegedly destroyed.

The authors conclude that, based on the level of organization of the rebel groups and the amount of weapons they had cached, it was no longer plausible by 1908 ( the year the C.U.P. became the de facto temporal power in Istanbul) to ascribe motives of self-defense to the rebels. Treason was the goal ascendant and Russia was the wagon to which Armenian separatist aspirations would be hitched. "The Armenians have thrown off any pretense of loyalty ... and openly welcome a prospect of a Russian occupation..." wrote a the British Consul in Van quoted by the authors. The authors provide a highly nuanced discussion of how this change of emphasis also impacted the Kurdish tribes, who, though minimally loyal to the Ottoman government saw a worse fate under prospective Russian rule which, they believed, would result in the loss of their lands to Armenians.

As the Ottoman government under the C.U.P. instituted reforms partly aimed at improving the lives of Armenians, the revolutionaries, ratcheted up their activities against all who disagreed with their ambitions, whether Muslim or Christian. In 1912 Armenian rebels assassinated the Mayor of Van in 1912, Bedros Kapamaciyan, an Armenian, because they felt he was too loyal to the Ottoman central government. That the rebels would not relent was quite logical, the authors point out, because the Russians were likely to win the looming war.

The stage set, the last third of the book describes the main Van Rebellion, which took place after the outbreak of World War I. By February of 1915 Muslims in mixed villages were fleeing to be among other Muslims. Armenians did the same. The confrontation, the authors deduce, was no longer one of Ottoman forces against Russian forces and their Armenian partisans; "[i]t had become a general war between the Muslims and the Armenians." It raged first outside of the city an then, by late April 1915, in the city itself.

The Armenians, well armed, though without artillery, determinedly held their ground within the city center throughout the fiercest fighting, earning the upper hand by May 17, at which point they burned the Muslim quarter of the city and massacred those Muslims who had not fled. On May 20, they handed the city over to the Russian Army. The Russians rewarded the rebels by installing the rebel leader, Aram Manukian, as governor of the Russian Province of Van, which was short-lived, as Ottoman forces retook the city ten weeks later, leading to reprisals by Muslims against Armenians, who now were in flight toward the retreating Russian lines. Van was to change hands yet several more times during the ensuing weeks before Russian forces established firm control over the area in late September. This time, however, the Russians remained in charge, appointed a military governor, and disarmed local Armenian "volunteers." Van's fate changed yet again when the Russian Army decamped to join in the Russian Revolution. Armenians were left in control of the region and formed a government, which even issued its own currency. Despite an influx of returning Armenian refugees, the military strength of the Armenians had waned and Ottoman forces finally reclaimed the city of Van in April of 1918. When an American survey mission led by Captain Emery Niles toured the area in 1919, they beheld a depopulated, utterly devastated region.

Ultimately, the Armenian revolution was a lost revolution, despite what the authors consider its tactical brilliance.

The seizure of Van by the Armenian rebels has become a piece of Armenian folklore. Of critical importance, the authors attempt to square the Ottoman military accounts of the force strength of the Armenians in the city with later Armenian summaries. In the text and in explanatory notes, the authors show that a recent and widely lauded account by an Armenian researcher (Ter Minassian) is likely skewed based on a faulty reading of earlier studies. The authors' apparent goal is to demonstrate that the Armenian effort in the city was a significant military endeavor, and not a hastily patched together defensive scrum. This portion of the book, on pages 206-210, will likely cause the most controversy among those with hardened opinions on the ultimate question of whether the Van Rebellion could be considered an act of self-defense.

In sum, "The Armenian Rebellion at Van," is a fine, academic work, devoid of rhetorical embellishment. Indeed, it must be considered the most valuable work to date in the English language on the subject. Yet one does leave it with a few questions. For example, while much is made about the efforts of the Ottoman government to address the conditions of the Armenians in the Van region, little time is spent discussing the overall status of the Armenians in Ottoman society and what may have made them so desirous of European support to upend what the authors call the "centuries-old political and social system in Eastern Anatolia." Certainly many who will be attracted to this book will have read other works that address this. Also, while the movements of the Russian army in the South Caucasus and the aims of the Czar's government are amply described, most of the sources for such appear to be secondary. The authors note that Russian sources were unavailable, but do not describe why they were unavailable or what efforts they made to obtain them.

Additional criticism of this book will surely take the form of ad hominem attacks on the authors, particularly Prof. McCarthy, who has been embraced by Turkey. Yet this should render the work no less worthy. Indeed, most who level this charge ignore the wide esteem in which authors such as Vakhan Dadrian, Richard Hovanissian and Ronald Suny, are held in Armenia. This book provides ample notes and other references that will allow it to be critiqued on its scholarly merits. The conclusions drawn by the authors, especially about the complex tribal rivalries seem rational and supported by the evidence.

Finally, those with more than a passing interest in the history of the late Ottoman Empire and the fate of the Ottoman Armenians know that the Van rebellion was a primary impetus for the Ottoman government's issuance of the infamous relocation orders, which historians agree were poorly carried out with disastrous results for the Armenians. Yet the authors scarcely pay heed to this fact. One can surmise that the reason for this tact is not the authors' fear that they may be subject to arrest in France or Switzerland and tried for genocide denial, but rather that the rebellion itself is worthy of close examination in its own right.

Today a new city of Van sits 4 km east of the rubble that remains of the old city. But not everything in the area has been allowed to remain in decrepitude. The Armenian Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Akhtamar island had been restored using Turkish government funds, Kurdish labor, and Armenian guidance. [..]

Justin McCarthy has done a fine job of explaining the context and background of the many different events near the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Much of the information is very intriguing and sheds light on a very obscure history in Eastern Anatolia.

If you've ever wondered what really happened to the Armenians, then you should read this book. The book doesn't give you conclusions, it gives you facts. It's a history book, it's not meant for a political audience and it has no political role.

This is an articulate book of a controversial issue by a great historian from the United States. It is no surprise that nationalists are here trying to stop you from buying this book, because they know that the truth will damage their system of belief. The rebellion in Van is sometimes excused by Armenian nationalists as some sort of "defense of Van"; however, since when did people find the time to dig trenches around a city if it was simply self-defense? It was a rebellion!

It was definitely a rebellion, and it downplays the whole genocide argument, and that is why the book is so controversial and that is why some people are ferociously attacking it!

It is a little boring in the first chapter but then it gets extremely interesting and exciting in the later chapters. If anyone is even remotely interested in this subject this is a good read.

The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide (Utah Series in Turkish and Islamic Stud)

Before this scholarly account, there was only one book that examined the terrible rebellion at Van -- that of Prof. Stanford Shaw (History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey). With this new research, our knowledge is greatly expanding. The importance of the Van rebellion, which started in 1914 and culminiated in April 1915, is rooted in the fact that it mobilized the Armenians of the region against the Ottoman Empire, led to attrocious actions against the Muslim population of the Empire and greater region (Turks, as well as Kurds and Azerbaijanis), and resulted in fury of the Muslim population, perpetuation of the vicious cycle of violence.

In other words, the question of the alleged Armenian genocide begins not on April 24, 1915, but earlier, with the massacre of Muslims in Van by Armenians.

Despite the Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire acting as a fifth column against their fellow Muslim citizens, and losing the fight (in major part due to being used and abandoned by the Great Powers), an independent Dashnak-governed Armenia was founded in May 1918. Almost immediately, the tiny republic waged war against 3 out of 4 of its neighbours -- Ottoman Empire, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Despite Armenians' losing this fight too by November 1920, the Turks agreed and signed a peace agreement -- but soon Armenia got Sovietized and folded into USSR.

While ample research has been done by Armenian scholars, as well as Western scholars using grants and sponsorship of such Armenian foundations as Zoryan Institute, on this part of history, the research by Turkish, Azerbaijani, Kurdish scholars has not beed adequately translated or made available in the West. Likewise, research by unbiased Western scholars has been slow to come. This book will probably fill that void somewhat.

The book (As the title suggests) outlines the events that lead up to the Armenian rebellion in the east Anatolian city of Van and its consequences to not only both communities (Armenian and Muslim (I deliberately use 'Muslim' rather than Turk and will explain why later)) But also to the great powers of the time.

McCarthy begins his book by relating to us the journal of two Western travellers who journeyed to Van in 1919 and found a city in ruins populated by an Armenian majority and a tiny Muslim minority. Devastated Mosques, destroyed buildings and ruined villages.

He then goes on to provide the reader with some background into the city of Van and its surrounding area during the late Ottoman times. He points out that the city was one that unlike Erzurum was off the beaten track for trade, too distant from Istanbul the capital and with the Ottoman empire lacking in finances unable to develop the city. McCarthy describes how the city did have a moderately wealthy population who lived off trade primarily with Iran and Russia.

In Mccarthy's view, the Van Provence suffered from several key problems. one being the tribal structure of the Kurds who were only nominally under Ottoman rule whose tribal system often involved attacks on weaker groups both Muslim and Christian (Primarily villages) leading to a situation where almost every village was armed. 2 a weak and underpaid army mainly from Central Anatolia that had neither the arms or manpower to successfully deal with rebellious tribes or inter clan fighting. 3 Armenian political groups that intended to exploit the situation of disorder by provoking attacks from Kurdish clans and advertising it as "Muslims attacking Christians" and 4 The great powers especially Russia preventing the Ottomans from dealing effectively with the insurgents by seeking any opportunity to interview under the pretext of "Protecting a minority"

McCarthy states that Armenian insurgent groups while smuggling arms into the area knew very well that their rebellion would be unsuccessful but believed that should they provoke an outrage in response they would gain the sympathy of the great powers to their cause in much the same way as had happened in the Balkans and that was the main goal of their rebellion.

Leading up to the revolt, the Ottomans had placed a larger garrison of troops in Van and had an able officer capable of dealing with any violent unrest however while dealing with the problem in Van were incapable of dealing with the reprisals that took place in the rural areas. According to McCarthy the deaths of Muslims in the Van rebellion outnumbered those of Armenians however in the rural areas where the Kurdish tribes were far stronger and Armenians weaker the numbers of Armenian deaths were far greater.

McCarthy then goes on to narrate the situation leading up to Word War 1. How while Armenians had been granted higher positions in the Ottoman government and how Armenian parties had supported the Young Turks they deserted some before war broke out others en mass while armed during the war and often used their weapons on the civilian population. McCarthy points out that Kurds in the east who had for so long been only nominally under Ottoman rule soon began to be used by the great powers (Primarily Russia) in an attempt both to destabilise the Ottoman empire and also to gain ground from them.

In conclusion, McCarthy aptly shows that the situation in Eastern Turkey leading up to the Van revolt was far from clear cut. It was certainly not "Muslim Vs Christian" and according to McCarthy there could not possibly have been a government policy to massacre the Armenians as not only were they citizens within the state whom the government had sent troops to protect and even armed for service in the army but also it would make no economic or strategic sense to do so.

I would recommend reading this book as it does cover an aspect of World War 1 that we in the west know very little of and would also be of great interest to anyone with an interest in the Middle East and the Caucuses. McCarthy points out the connection with Armenian rebellions in Iran, how the Iranian government at the time had also exploited the Armenians against their regional rivals the Ottomans, Kurdish politics and Russia's eastern front.

A fascinating book that does require some time to read and it would help if the reader had some background knowledge on the subject before reading as although McCarthy does not labour on the subject there can at times be far too much information to digest.

I found this a much better read than his book "The ethnic cleansing of the Ottoman Muslims" because it was far more regional specific and less general. I used "Muslim" rather than "Turk" simply because It was Turks and Kurds involved in the conflict, though as McCarthy is at pains to point out the tragedy of east Anatolia was far from one of Muslim Vs Christian.

This is a very narrow topic but immensely relevant to a raging controversy about the Armenian claims concerning the conduct of the Ottoman government while handling the armed Armenian revolts behind their lines during WWI.

Justin McCarthy should be commended for his very scholarly and through research on this one single event which puts in proper context the systematic preparations by Armenian revolutionaries and their overt supporter, Czarist Russia, to wrest a large chunk of Eastern Anatolia from the Turkish control, cleanse it from its majority Muslim population in order to establish a Greater Armenia.

Decades of Armenian propaganda and distortion on this subject is finally being countered by through examination of facts and events. Ironically, after many years of demands for the Ottoman archives to be made public, the truth that emerges from the archives that are now being subjected to widespread scholarly investigation is in stark contrast to the traditional Armenian propaganda.

McCarthy naturally draws the ire of the Armenian genocide industry that has blossomed in the last century in the absence of counter arguments and rebuttal. Many neutral scholars were intimidated by the Armenian extremists from speaking truth or deviating from the established genocide myths. Given the efforts of the Turkish governments within last twenty years or so to make more related documents and archives available and counter the propaganda with facts, the World finally gets a chance to see the truth behind the smoke screen.

Rebellion at Van was a turning point for the Ottoman Armenians especially in the eastern provinces, near the Russian front. Rebellion was launched right around the time the Allies were launching the massive attack at Gallipoli. Though there was a large concentration of Armenians in and around Van region, they were still a minority contrary to the claims often made. This was not a "self-defensive" action either as McCarthy clearly shows in this book. It was an attempt to carve a Greater Armenia out of Ottoman lands while they were engaged in a life and death struggle in multiple fronts. This particular rebellion, which was not the first nor last, more than any other event was responsible for the extreme measures the Ottoman government finally took against the Armenian population near the Russian front. The keys to the city was handed over to the invading Russian army's general and major Ottoman cities in the region fell one after another as a result of massive Armenian insurgency and collaboration with Ottoman enemies at the time.

Christian missionaries who were in the region mostly for the benefit of the Armenians had a large role in pumping anti-Turkish propaganda aimed at mostly to USA to draw it into the conflict directly. These systematic distortions of facts and war time propaganda has settled into public concsiousness over time and continues to poison the relations between the two nations to this day. The attacks on McCarthy here and elsewhere speak for itself.

The research is impeccable, well documented and referenced and coverage of historical events and analysis is excellent.

The Armenian Rebellion at Van

A new book based on years of study and documents from the archives of many nations by Justin McCarthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Taskiran and Omer Turan, published in 2006. Utah Series in Turkish and Islamic Studies, The Universty of Utah Press, Salt Lake City

Very few books mention the true version of the Van incidents, among them Prof. Dr. Stanford Shaw's `'History of Ottoman Empire and Turkey.'' For years, the world learned about the Van incident through the one sided books, such as `'An American Physician in Turkey'' by Clarence Ussher, which was also made into a movie with the title, `'Ararat'' (1). `'The Armenian Rebellion at Van'' negates the false tales told in these books and movies, which is summarized in the back cover by Prof. Dr. Justin McCharty with the following statement:

`'The Armenian Rebellion at Van'' presents a long-overdue examination of Van from 1870s to 1919. As the authors state, `'The Armenian revolt was an integral part of the great disaster that overcame the people of the Ottoman East. The slaughter of Muslims that accompanied the Armenian revolt in the Van province inexorably led first to Kurdish reprisals on the Armenians, then to a general and mutual massacre of the people of the East.'' The actions at Van offer a window into the far reaching events that soon followed in other parts of Anatolia.

The book has ten chapters, many maps of the region and appendices, including the Armenians in the Van Government, Armenian Refugees, and An Example of Attacks on Villagers. The first chapter opens with a presentation on the ruins of Van and makes reference to the visit of two Americans, Captain Emory H. Niles and Arthur E. Sutherland, Jr on July 24, 1919. Notes are provided at the end of each chapter, referencing the original documents and providing additional information on the incidents. The first note at the end of first chapter states that `'the report of Niles and Sutherland was deliberately suppressed by those who did not wish their account to be seen.'' The note further states that a draft copy of this report, `'American Commissions to Anatolia and the Report of Niles and Sutherland is found among the detritus of the American Harbord Mission'' (2).

The book tells the story of Amenian uprisings and revolt against their own government. The following is from the first chapter: `'The Armenians of Van had revolted against the Ottoman government, putting their trust in the Russians, who betrayed them. They and the Russians had driven the Muslims from the province. The Armenians were in turn had been driven out. Theirs was the final exodus. Surviving Muslims returned. Neither side, however, can truly be said to have won the war. More than half of Van's Armenians had died, as had almost two-thirds of its Muslims.'' Table 2.2 on Page 10 gives a figure of 509,7007 as the total population of Van province in 1912, with 313,322 as Muslims and 130,500 as Armenians.

Chapter four gives the details of the `'Rebellion in 1896'', followed by the `'Development of Revolution, 1897 - 1908'', all before 1915, the year that the Armenians and their supporters would like to begin, completely ignoring the events that brought about the re-location of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia. Chapter seven explains the events on `'Kurdish Revolt and the Inspectorates, 1912 - 1914'' while the Ottoman government was in an impossible situation in Eastern Anatolia during the brief alliance between the Committee of Union and Progress and the Dashnaks and the military events, especially in the Balkans (3).



Chapter eight, `'World War I and the Armenian Revolt in Van'' clearly shows that the incidents portrayed as Armenian self-defense was actually Armenian rebellions with the support of the Russians who had already invaded Iran in 1908, occupying northwestern Iran by 1914. Men and arms were routinely smuggled into Eastern Anatolia and Van from the Russian occupied regions for the Armenian revolutionaries.

Chapter nine describes the `'Destruction and Murder in Van'', with many references to the torture, rape and muder of Muslims by the Armenian revolutionaries, without giving any details purposely, except the testimony of Ibrahim sargin (Note 1, p. 251). Note 20 (p.252) states that `'American missionaries Mrs. G.C. Reynolds and Clarence Ussher made some small admission of murders of Muslims'', followed by a brief testimony of Ussher, even stating that `'The flaws in Ussher's work are also an indictement of missionary reports in general.'' On Ussher's motives, the authors state that `'Ussher plays upon all prejudices of the time. According to him the Germans were responsible for the Armenian troubles; Muslims hated Christians and routinely beat and persecuted Armenians; once defeated, the Muslims would convert to Christianity.'' This book tells otherwise.

Van rebellions, which is one of many rebellions in Eastern Anatolia, such as the Sasun-Zeytun incidents and also mentioned in the book, forced the Ottoman government to re-locate the Armenians to Syria. There is a comprehensive Bibliography (close to 150 books and articles) that includes those by Armenians as well. The book mentions that, among the organizations which made the study possible are the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce, the Istanbul Chamber of Industry, the Istanbul and Marmara, Aegean, and Mediterrenean and Black Sea Chamber of Shipping. Fugen Camlidere, Melih Berk, Caitlin McCharty and Carolyn McCharty are among the individuals who aided the authors. Our thanks to everyone for making this book a reality, which should be read by everyone interested in the resolution of the Armenian issue and copies sent to every US congressmen and others.

Notes:

(1) For a review of the movie `'Ararat'', please see `'Ararat - A Propoganda Film of Imagination and Distorted History.''

(2). For a brief desription of the Harbord Mission, please see the artcile, `'Harbord Mission Documentary on TV8, 28 March 2004.'' Although US Chairman of Joint Chiefs was sent to eastern Anatolia by president Wilson who also met with Mustafa Kemal and Kazim Karabekir, and issued a Report but not presented to the US Congress.

(3) There has been a surge of articles on the activities of the Kurdish tribes during those years, latest in 15 - 21 February issue of Nokta magazine, `'Nokta Tartismaya Aciyor - 1915 Felaketinde Kurtlerin Rolu 'Nokta Opens for Debate - The Role of Kurds During the Catastrophe of 1915.''

Yuksel Oktay, PE
19 February 2007
Istanbul

Armenian Diaspora propagandists probably hate this book, since it shows with careful research that the fight at Van was anything but a "defensive" action taken by Armenians to "protect" themselves against the Turks.

I've seen an Armenian-financed "documentary" that claimed the Turks attacked the city and destroyed the Armenian quarter of the city. I've been to Van: the only structures left standing in the destroyed part of the city are two MOSQUES. Now, why would the "Armenian quarter" have mosques? Talk about quick conversion!

The Armenian Diaspora uses the strategy of "selective truth" (just like the advertising industry) to assert its claim that genocide was committed against their ancestors. The Armenian Revolt -- especially the actions in and around Van after the start of the Great War -- tends to undermine their genocide argument, and they certainly understand it. That's why anyone who chooses to actually do some research on the historical events is branded a "genocide denier." How sad that the Armenians routinely resort to Nazi tactics in defending their own claims.

Congratulations to Justin McCarty, et al, and to the University of Utah Press, for adding to the historical record. Anyone who takes the time to study the history of the late Ottoman period will quickly surmise the gaping holes in the Diaspora's genocide claims.

This book needs to be shelved in the fiction section.
Two people quickly come to mind when I think of Armenian Genocide denials:
Guenter Lewy (who believes in the uniqueness of the holocaust and basically discredits all genocides) and Justin McCarthy (board of the Institute of Turkish Studies). Of course there are others, but all have ties to Turkey.

Both of these authors can only publish with the Utah Press.. since no other reputable press will publish their works of trash.

Look them up online. Their works are controversial and disputed by the majority of historians.

This a book written by a paid writer who tries to sell himself as a historian. He is just a knot in the self defeating campaign by the Turkish government to deny the Armenian Genocide. No amount of money can silence the truth.