Any historical case has several explanations or points of view, since at least two sides are involved in them. The events of the First World War could have dozens of versions if one asks their witnesses as this war has drawn into the battles many countries and continents. Scientists summarize the results of the first global war by collecting and analyzing the facts, and they call it a turning point, which launched events that changed the world.
However, most of these cases are explained by different parties in different ways, even if they led to the same global consequence. An example of such events is the genocide and deportation of Armenians from the Ottoman Empire, since it ended in the numerous deaths; however, it was a victory for some people and a disaster for others.
Quite often, people use differences in nationality, religion, or appearance to hate others. This feeling is illogical, imposed by manipulation and lies, and eventually, it leads to deaths and losses. Such hatred based on ethnic differences is called genocide and is one of the known facts about the First and Second World War. However, even in such events, there are two sides, such as the victims of genocide and their persecutors. The history of genocide and deportation of Armenians by the Turks also has several explanations of its course and causes. This feature can be noted in two primary sources written by a witness to the events of 1915 and a government representative.
Both documents have many differences regarding the display of events and their justification, although they also have several shared points. The first feature expressed is the words of Talaat Pasha, head of the Ottoman Empire, that all the data and rumors about the genocide are extremely exaggerated (Overfield, 2013). At the same time, a letter from Mary Graffam, who was an eyewitness to the early deportation of 1915, describes completely different circumstances.
Graffam mentions the mass arrests of men and some women, the robbery, beating, and killing of Armenians, as well as the hopelessness of the situation in which they found themselves (Overfield, 2013). Graffam writes, “I counted forty-nine deaths, but there must have been many more. One naked body of a woman was covered with bruises” (Overfield, 2013, p. 85). Today, the historical evidence demonstrates that Talaat was wrong; however, from the context of his notes, the reader cannot say whether he actually believed that the data was exaggerated or only lied to protect himself.
The second feature is the causes of the genocide described by different authors. Talaat notes that the blame for this event falls on Armenians themselves, since they were robbers who killed the innocent Muslim population, so arrests and deportations were preventive measures (Overfield, 2013). At the same time, Graffam describes many examples showing that it was the Turks and Kurds who robbed Armenians during their movements, beat them, and murdered (Overfield, 2013).
Current data demonstrate that the main reason for the genocide and deportations was not the Armenian threat to the safety of Turks and Kurds. Nevertheless, it is most likely that some local incidents did occur, and the Ottoman government used them for propaganda.
The shared part for these two sources is the admitting of some officials’ crimes. Talaat notes that some government officials may have abused their position, resulting in arrests and deaths. However, he says that the central government was not involved in these crimes (Overfield, 2013).
Graffam’s letter does not confirm or refute with this statement, since the woman could not know what and who was behind all this violence by being a witness to those events. However, in the letter, one can find a lot of evidence that officers at various levels used power to arrest people, take their property, and humiliate (Overfield, 2013). Consequently, the sources confirm cases of abuse of power, but cannot name the roots of these crimes.
Both documents have the same audience, but the different origin and context in which they were created. Graffam’s letter is a way to share the memories of the horrors of those events that she had to witness. She published her notes because she wanted people to see the injustice of deportation and genocide and drew attention to the cruelty and truthfulness of hatred. Her story was formed in the specific political and cultural context, since at that time she was part of the Armenian people, although she did not belong to them ethnically.
At the same time, the notes of Talaat were also published for the general public, but their purpose was to justify the actions of the government and its head. His worldview was formed under the pressure of his position. He was supposed to ensure the prosperity of his empire, so he had to blame someone else for its decline, precisely the Armenians who were at the stage of their rise. Consequently, the documents have a significant difference because their authors were on different sides of the same events.
These documents are contradictory; therefore, they are useful to represent the opinion about the situation. However, if they existed out of context and without other facts, they would only interfere with the display of events. In this case, people could accept one story as false and the other as true.
However, both letters carry valuable information about the perception of genocide by both Armenians and Turks. Scientists can study the causes and circumstances of this tragic event, and although these documents are only part of the puzzle, without them, it would be difficult to understand the story correctly. The stories of the authors are biased, but with their help, historians can create a more objective general picture. Besides, these documents record the first large-scale case of genocide, which was condemned by the public and became a precedent in history.
In conclusion, the primary sources that talk about the Armenian genocide show how the same consequence of World War I can be read in different ways by its participants. The global result of the genocide is the death of thousands of people just because they belonged to a different nationality than their persecutors. However, some Turks or Kurds might consider those events to be positive and fair for their country as the composition of the population has changed significantly.
Political manipulations forced them to believe that these changes were for the better. At the same time, the Armenians went through the tragic events for their families and nation. Thus, historical documents prove that World War I had severe consequences for all countries of the world; however, each state and person can judge their justice and benefits in its own way.
Reference
Overfield, J. H. (2013). Sources of global history since 1900 (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.