"They Can Live in the Desert But Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide

by Ronald Grigor Suny

A definitive history of the 20th century's first major genocide on its 100th anniversary

Starting in early 1915, the Ottoman Turks began deporting and killing hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the first major genocide of the twentieth century. By the end of the First World War, the number of Armenians in what would become Turkey had been reduced by 90 percent--more than a million people. A century later, the Armenian Genocide remains controversial but relatively unknown, overshadowed by later slaughters and the chasm separating Turkish and Armenian interpretations of events. In this definitive narrative history, Ronald Suny cuts through nationalist myths, propaganda, and denial to provide an unmatched account of when, how, and why the atrocities of 1915-16 were committed. Drawing on archival documents and eyewitness accounts, this is an unforgettable chronicle of a cataclysm that set a tragic pattern for a century of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Middle East, Politics, War, Audiobook, European History

490 pages, Hardcover

First published March 22, 2015

About the author

Ronald Grigor Suny is the William H. Sewell Jr. Distinguished University Professor of History at the University of Michigan and professor emeritus of political science and history at the University of Chicago.

Reviews

[BJ Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was definitely not an easy read but it is certainly a book that needed to be written. From cover to cover, the reader is bombarded by detail, statistics, and documented fact after fact after fact. This is definitely the most meticulously researched book I have read on the subject of the Armenian genocide. Sometimes the sheer level of research presented gets in the way of an easy flowing narrative to bog the reader down. This isn't a good book for the casual reader on the subject. For that, I would recommend The Burning Tigris.

Like I said, however, this book is one that needed to be written. It came out on the centennial of the forgotten Armenian genocide and since I live here in Turkey, I understand how pervasive the denial of what happened here still is at every level in society. This mountain of irrefutable facts flies in the face of the lies the Turkish government to this day continues to shovel out to a public that doesn't care to know the truth of what their grandparents and great-grandparents did.

Ronald Grigor Suny wraps up his book with a few conclusions that left me scratching my head. He claims that this genocide was carried out by only a few masterminds and villains and that the public at large was not complicit. He also says that these killings were politically and not religiously motivated.

While there are certainly a few villains that deserve a higher level of ignominy, it is clear that hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Turks participated in the atrocities that happened around the turning of the twentieth century. They were the ones who occupied the homes, looted the shops, raped and married young women and adopted the children ripped from their parents' arms. While I understand that certain cultural-political situations like in 1930's Germany and in the American Jim Crow South can lead otherwise good decent people to do heinous acts, that does not let them off for the acts they have committed (or even their knowing silence in the face of evil).

There was also a very strong religious motivation for the crimes that were committed. While it was not the only motivation, nearly every single eyewitness account he quotes time and time again point to the Muslim hatred of Christians so present on the Anatolian peninsula at this time period. Just because there were other factors at work here does not in any way make the religious motivation less of a factor. A fatwa was declared, jihad was called, and in cities throughout the Anatolian peninsula men answered the call by killing their neighbors. There is no getting around this tragic truth.

[Cold War Conversations Podcast · Rating 4 out of 5]

A generally forgotten genocide hauntingly similar to the Jewish Holocaust.

Ronald Grigor Suny initially describes how for hundreds of years the Armenians were integrated into the Ottoman empire. With the rise of nationalism in the 19th century Ottoman leaders highlighted certain ethnic groups such as non-Muslim Armenians, Greeks and Jews as inferior, devious and subversive.

Suny, whose great-grandparents were victims of the massacre, details with some harrowing content how 90% of an Armenian population of 2 million were murdered and hundreds of thousands forced to convert to Islam.

More surprisingly there is still extensive Turkish denial of the genocide treating it as a rational response to a rebellious, seditious population that threatened the survival of the state.

At the time the outside world called it a holocaust…

You would think we don’t need further messages about nationalism and minorities, but as we can see we never learn.

Suny has produced a compelling account that shows that history continues to repeat itself.

[Adrian David · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thoroughly-researched historical account of one of the darkest chapters in all of human history — the Armenian Genocide. Historian Ronald Grigor Suny lucidly details how the prevailing anti-­Armenian sentiment in the erstwhile Ottoman Empire led to the Hamidian massacres, which eventually culminated in the 1915 Genocide.

The chapters trace the root cause of the tragedy to the emergence of the Young Turks, who were hell-bent on radical ethnic homogenization of the empire and sought to find the “final solution” to the Armenian Question. The Armenians were systematically exterminated under the rule of the infamous Pasha Triumvirate, the principal architect being Talaat Pasha. Beyond physical annihilation, Armenians also experienced cultural annihilation.

The plight of the Armenians is a bitter pill to swallow — massacres, rapes, starvation, forced conversions, and beyond. What is disconcerting is that even little children and unborn babies were not spared from the wrath. Cities which once thrived with Armenians — such as Van, Bitlis, Erzerum, Sivas, Adana, Diyarbakir — witnessed the community’s steep decline. Humanity came to a standstill when over 90 percent of the Armenians in the empire were wiped out by the end of the First World War.

The evocative, first-hand accounts of the American Ambassador Henry Morgenthau bear witness to the horrors. Dr. Suny further highlights the resistance movements, including the major Armenian revolutionary groups, the Hnchaks and the Dashnaks.

The global community’s indifference and the lack of condemnation of this historical injustice set a dangerous precedent. In the decades to follow, Hitler was “inspired” by the annihilation of the Armenians and went on to exterminate the European Jews.

It is important to note that this was one of the earliest tragedies where the Biblical term Holocaust was used. As the author poignantly points out, “The Armenian Genocide was the holocaust before the Holocaust.” That said, it is deplorable that Turkey still has not recognized the genocide and continues explicitly denying it to this very day.

This book is a not only a sorrowful reminder of the 1.5 million Armenians who lost their lives in the past, but also a wake-up call for the world to prevent such horrendous genocides from being repeated in the future. Never again! այլեւս երբեք

[Bas · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5/5 stars

Suny has in my opinion written the perfect introduction to the history of the Armenian Genocide. No doubt there will exist books about it that will tug the heartstrings harder but in a combination of scholarly analysis and readability it absolutely hits the mark for me. I find it impressive how much analysis and context he is able to put in not many pages. I really enjoyed that there was a lot of context in explaining the history of the Ottoman Empire and the history of the Armenian people and here he sets the stage for describing the struggles, prejudices and violence that would ultimately led to Genocide.
He is also very objective, as much as anyone can be. He has a clear position and no patience for those who would deny the Genocide or blame the Armenians. But even though he is from Armenian descent and has lost ancestors in this terrible event he refuses to go for easy essentialist explanations such as the 'Evil Turk' or 'Evil Islam' who only know killing. His conclusions are nuanced and subtle, underlining that Genocide was a choice of the Ottoman leadership and not pre-determined, but also never forgetting the victims of this horrible crime and their suffering. I can't wait to read more by him.

[Vicky Hunt · Rating 4 out of 5]

We Marched the Armenians to their Death in the Desert

Considered the first genocide of the twentieth century, the Armenian Holocaust could be seen as a WWI killing field that the Nazis would learn from for their own attempts at ethnic cleansing. Genocide is not the murder of people, but the murder of a people. It is ethnically inspired violence, like in ethnic cleansing. But ethnic cleansing involves displacement and deportation, the physical moving of a distinct population. The author of this book describes the multiple incidents that occurred over time in Turkey involving the Armenians, and how the government and the Young Turks were culpable in the death of millions, as well as deportations.

The death toll was most accurately listed at 1.5 million souls. The reasons given were, for the most part, the elimination of a supposed threat to the state, or to secure the Empire. It was stated that, had there been no war, there would have been no genocide. Internal racial conflict was exacerbated by international conflict with Russia. Other countries were getting involved in the treatment of the Armenians by the Turks. The Turkish government, which was already on the eve of radical disintegration, felt that the Armenians were in collusion with the enemy. They began a systematic solution to the problem, with the participation of doctors and the general public, which resulted in poisonings, mass murders, deportations, and ultimately marching a large portion of the population into the Syrian desert where they were abandoned. Bones in the desert.

Dispersion, massacre, and assimilation by conversion to Islam were the basic tactics the Turkish Empire used to deal with the Armenians. I have almost no previous background knowledge of the subject, so I do not fully understand the events that led up to this situation. The Ottoman Turks were originally a Nomadic people who became an Empire. But, Anatolia was the homeland of the Armenian ethnic people. It is in this sense that comparisons have been made to the US situation with the Native Americans. Basically, the Turks were seen as only de facto possessors of the land, and Armenians were the de jure inhabitants. Or, at least that's the way I took the book's explanations. I am open to being corrected on that if I am wrong. So, in that sense it would seem that there are comparisons to the US/ Native American displacements and massacres.

As in other 'problem' areas, where native indigenous peoples had their land taken from them by imperial ambitions, the genocides resulted in new states being formed and populated with survivors... just like in Israel and other places. The Armenians never returned to their homeland in Anatolia. Genocide is defined by the UN today, but in that day, people had only the Biblical term Holocaust with which to describe the unbelievable atrocities they witnessed.

The current immigration situation here in America appears to be sitting on such a powder keg as the one that metaphorically was lit by WWI in the Ottoman Empire. We can only control internal factors, and those not so well. External factors and international wars are known to exacerbate internal conditions. If I could be permitted the comparisons, I could very well imagine immigrants (regardless of legal status) here in America becoming subjects of a genocide if war were to break out in the near future. At the moment, the internal battle is only with words. Humans are wont to follow words with action. Very few of us are content to talk or rant on social media forever. If the current rhetoric continues we will see action and an unimaginable death toll. I do not think that the United States will find other countries agreeable to our actions if they match our words.

Yes, I am amazed at the propensity of humans for both good and evil. It seems that we, as human beings, are very capable of marching fellow human beings to their death: Armenian Christians, Jews, Cherokees, and many more. We are also capable of acts of beautiful, selfless love and heroism. But, the greatest heroism is in solving problems before they escalate. We humans did the other, and we can learn to follow the Biblical advice to the Hebrews:

Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Exodus 22:21

Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Exodus 23:9

Ironically, the Armenians were not strangers, but were born in the land. They had different religious beliefs, and differing language and customs. Assimilation is not a possible target for many people. It can not be a goal, in any realistic sense for the masses of either native populations or immigrants. At some point, people must be allowed to be people and even 'different people' within our borders. They must be allowed to speak their own languages and live their own customs.

This was my stop in Turkey on my Journey Around the World in 80 Books for 2018. I read this book in the Audible format narrated by Eric Martin. I didn't care for the reading style, but it was without flaws and the sound quality was excellent. My next stop will be Syria, where this book ended.

[Arno Mosikyan · Rating 5 out of 5]

My beloved historian, a man whose eloquent and heart penetrating writing style I have always adored, my dear Will Durant once said: “Childhood of a nation is not an excuse for its innocence”. Those genocide deniers and apologist who have tried to resort to the counterargument are miserable collection of living tissue and nothing else! The first time in my life I had to take frequents pauses while going through the book, because I could not “digest” that much animal cruelty. How come?! How come this happened, weren’t perpetrators made of a human DNA?!?!

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Living in what is often said to be the largest Armenian community outside of Armenia (Glendale, CA), i wanted to better understand my neighbors’ tragic history, still not officially recognized by its perpetrators (the Turkish government), and events largely unremarked upon by historians and educators for such a heinous action. I found this quote a sobering reminder of the insidious nature of fear, xenophobia, and political extremism, and could not stop thinking about the Trump presidency the entire time i was listening:
“The story here is that the genocide was neither religiously motivated, nor a struggle between two contending nationalisms (one of which destroyed the other), but rather the pathological response of desperate leaders who sought security against a people they had both constructed as enemies and driven into radical opposition to the regime under which they had lived for centuries.”

The book is fairly academic, but also helps provide tremendous historical context for the Armenian Genocide. It’s well-worth a read or listen, as a reminder of what can happen when hate becomes policy.

[Andrew Canfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the twentieth century. The attempted destruction of the Armenian people, who arguably beat out the Roman Empire as the first culture to officially adopt the Christian religion, is given an in-depth explanation in this admirably written work of nonfiction. Their presence in the eastern Anatolia region and the alleged security issues this caused at the outbreak of a world war are succinctly explained in They Can Live in the Desert and Nowhere else, a title which stems from a quote by anti-Armenian Turkish leader Mehmet Talat.

Author Ronald Grigor Suny is an Armenian professor and does not attempt to use qualifiers about the genocide, a tactic which readers who are so inclined might see frequently employed by Turkish authors and politicians. While he does hold up some of the counterarguments from those who argue the condemnation of what happened from 1915-1922 is overblown--the Armenians were an untrustworthy group within the Ottoman Empire with Russian sympathies who had to be dealt with once the war was joined on the side of the Central Powers; that terrible atrocities committed by Armenians in turn made it necessary to use harsh tactics as punishment; that the fog of war led to a limited campaign of deportation devolving into something worse on the part of Young Turk leaders-they are done so only in order that Suny may refute them.

The book’s hypothesis is that the Ottoman Empire intentionally tried to wipe out the Armenian culture while their supposed protectors in Western Europe were distracted by the First World War. The rivalry between Kurds and Armenians (the former a group often favored by the Ottomans, the latter by the British) and the clashes this resulted in are looked at in horrifying detail. These are matched by confrontations between Ottoman Muslims and Armenian Christianis such as the 1909 Adana massacre, where thousands of Armenians were killed during riot-like conditions in the Adana town square. Pogroms in Mush and Bitlis took place early on during the first summer of the genocide. The throwing of children into the Euphrates River was just one of the many horrific cruelties inflicted during these years of largely unrestrained bloodletting.

The division of Ottoman lands into separate religious/cultural enclaves known as millets, a source of the peace that was maintained for generations across what was once a heterogeneous empire, resulted in irreparable divisions at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. The reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II during this period is painted as a major cause of this collapse in the empire’s internal cohesiveness. The Hamidian Massacres, which resulted in tens of thousands of Armenian casualties, took place during the 1890s and telegraphed the genocide which was still two decades to come.

The view that the Armenians were hiding behind their western patrons fed into the anti-Armenian mindset among the Turks and Kurds which grew to a fever pitch in the years prior to 1915. (It was not only the Armenians which found themselves in the Ottoman Empire’s sites during this timeframe. The deportation of hundreds of thousands of Greeks, though not a genocide, was also undertaken against the backdrop of First World War security measures and particulalry difficult for the Greeks given that it followed on the heels of the Second Balkan War).

Initially, the coming to power of Mehmet Talat, leader of the Young Turks and member of a reformist party known as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), was seen as a possible post-Hamidian reprieve for the Armenian minority group. But in the nationalist fervor of the early 1900s a push for Turkishness developed at the expense of a multicultural Ottoman Empire international-ness.

Suny frequently uses several sources who had contemporary knowledge of the unfolding pogrom. U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau was shown to have sympathies for the Armenians, and Venezuelan Christian soldier of fortune Rafael de Nogales was present to document much of the bloodshed. While recriminations carried out by Armenians are not ignored, the pro-Armenian leanings of the author are present throughout They Can Live in the Desert But Nowhere Else.

The series of fifteen trials during the 1919 tribunals were the equivalent of the Nuremberg ones held after the Second World War. While some were held to justice, other members of the Young Turk leadership were assassinated in the years after the genocide came to an end.

Ronald Grigor Suny should be credited with creating this examination of a topic which is often overlooked in the west. That he starts years before 1915 and lays out the Ottoman internal history which led up to the pogrom adds to the book's credibility as a resource on this gut-wrenching period. He could have used more personal anecdotes from everyday people on the ground, but this weakness does not take away from the work's overall impact and ability to leave readers much more informed than they might have been at its outset.

-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado

[Jeswin Arangassery · Rating 4 out of 5]

# The Book in 3 Sentences

1. History of Armenian and the Armenian Genocide, what caused it and who were involved in it
2. An account of everything that happened during the First World War in the Ottoman Empire
3. An account of how Turkey eliminated its Christian minority by the way of massacre, exile and conversion over the years and specifically during the First World War

# Impressions

Effect of the book on me was grim and dark. The naked cruelty which the Armenians and other minorities of the Ottoman Empire experienced made me squirm with discomfort and empathize with them for the grave injustice visited upon them by fate and design. It showed me how dangerous success is when all around you is unsuccessful. But I still don’t understand how this catastrophe could have been avoided. Maybe if the Ottoman government toned down the rhetoric of Kafir and threat against Armenians and instead relied upon their loyal millet statements more and tried to genuinely understand their problems and address them so that they would never need to go after other nations for aid, or to form an independent nations. This would have been possible if the empire was democratic. But it was not. Neither was its people. They were every bit intolerant and entitled as the government. Muslims of the empire knew that they were better stock than the Armenians, they knew that Armenians were a subordinate caste of people. They had more in common with worms and dogs than Turks. Now when I say this this would seem hard to believe for the ordinary ears. Because how can a whole people believe such vile bigotry. But that is only because the average person lives in a peaceful and prospering new world developing or developed nation, where we have found ways to connect and interact with each other in a way that we may see more things and dreams in common between various groups, rather than the profound sense of othering the Turks had towards the Armenians and other Christian minorities. As the Social media age accelerates and glorifies the differences and othering of communities again, we might yet again learn to understand the mindset and attitude of Turks who lived in Ottoman Empire during the genocide; why did they let it happen? How could they participate in such vile acts? And how they learned to forget and justify it so much so that even after so many years Armenians are yet to receive an acknowledgment let alone an apology.

## How I Discovered It

I discovered the book while I was searching for books on Armenian Genocide on Audible. I wanted to read about the genocide after hearing about it on Hardcore history Podcast by Dan Carlin

## Who Should Read It?

Must read for everyone who does not know about the Armenian Genocide and extermination of other minorities in the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. Because this is a balanced account providing insight from all angles, explaining the viewpoint of both perpetrators and the victims with as little bias as possible, which is really difficult to achieve considering the fact that this is one of the most contentious an hotly debated topics since early twentieth century. The contention cuts deeper than just claims about the specifics of the atrocities and genocide, but it even debates the very existence of such atrocities and genocide as the Turkish government has never officially accepted the Genocide.

Also everyone who is interested in the journey of humans as species should also read such books. Because it shows the extent of human cruelty and paints a picture of how division othering and polarization leads to committing of vile acts by relatively normal people

# How the Book Changed Me

It gave me deeper insight into

- What really led to the Armenian Genocide
- The manner in which genocide was conducted and who was responsible for it
- What were its repercussions
- How it affected Armenians as race
- How it affected the further course of history

# ✍️ My Top 3 Quotes

- “The story here is that the genocide was neither religiously motivated, nor a struggle between two contending nationalisms (one of which destroyed the other), but rather the pathological response of desperate leaders who sought security against a people they had both constructed as enemies and driven into radical opposition to the regime under which they had lived for centuries.”
- "As the assassin [Tehlirian, assassin of Talat, former Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire] picked up his revolver and descended to the street, he descends as the representative of justice versus brute force. He descends as the representative of humanity versus inhumanity”
- Talat reportedly told friends with pride, “I have accomplished more toward solving the Armenian problem in 3 months than Abdul Hamid accomplished in 30 years.”

[Wanda]

29 MAY 2015 - interesting review here:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n11/edward-l...

[Bettie]

Recommended by Wandaful

[emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

“[holocaust scholar lucy dawidowicz] added that while Turks had a ‘rational reason’ for killing Armenians, the Germans had no rational reason for killing the Jews… As one state after another officially recognized 1915 as a genocide, the United States and Israel soon became the two most notable exceptions, along with Turkey” (Suny, 370).

of course isnotreal would support a state that’s leaders proudly state that “‘if we only killed men and not the women and children, then 50 years from now we would have a couple of million Armenians’” (Suny, 345). this book followed the predictable israeli pattern: subjugate a race of people to centuries of violent oppression, provoke them into a tiny act of resistance (armenians at Van), and then use that as the pretext for an all-out genocide. further, the denial by turkey to this day that a genocide happened because the armenians ‘deserved’ it directly parallels that of isnotreal toward palestinians and japan toward the rape of nanjing.

the uniqueness of this particular genocide, i believe, was in the relative amenability of the armenians toward ottomanization and fitting into the cultures and norms of a muslim society. suny repeatedly mentions the willingness of the armenians to accept a third class status in their own nation and still trying to make peace in the midst of a genocide. this perhaps played a tiny role (the major role being concern for relations with the ottoman empire) for germany and the US to fail to take action, regardless of their consuls coming back with damning evidence of genocide. certainly, though, it disproves the idea that oppressed people can transcend their oppression by playing within the system that guarantees their spot at the bottom.

rating three stars because the readability was abysmal in this book: i’m holding it to the standard of the hundred years’ war on palestine and a history of america and iran: 1720 to present, both of which told longer histories in detailed yet easy to follow story and timelines.

[Zach · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked how much background information that Suny provided about the Ottoman Empire as well as basic Armenian history. I knew relatively little about the Armenian Genocide before reading this book, and I was aware that Dr. Suny is Armenian and his family lived through the Genocide. Because of that, I was looking for any obvious bias, but he seems to be relatively fair (for example, he does note when Ottoman officials were in a difficult situation, when Armenian agents provoked the situation when engaging in terrorism, claiming that the Genocide most likely wouldn't have occurred without the exigencies that WWI provided, etc).

Suny does a good job of explaining the (changing) social structure of Ottoman society during the late 19th and early 20th century. I was fascinated with the parallels (that I saw, rather than being discussed in the book) with European Jews in Central Europe with the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Some of the basic parallels I saw were both the Jews in Europe and Armenians in the Ottoman empire were a relatively prosperous, mercantile religious minority. Both seemed to transition from being seen as a (solely) religious minority to being seen as a distinct racial group (and eventually being classified as a subversive racial group that was an enemy of the state). Obviously the two genocides were different on many levels, but I found the comparison to be a nice bridge from my familiarity with European history.

My one complaint was that it took around 2/3 of the book before Suny got to the 'beginning' of the genocide. Since there was so much background information, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but I felt that the actual implementation of the genocide got slightly less emphasis. Perhaps I could get more of that in another book.

Overall, I would recommend it to anyone interested in the history of genocide, ethnic cleansing and/or military history.

[Niels · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was not an easy read. It took me over 1,5 years to finish it. From cover to cover, the reader is bombarded by detail, statistics and documented fact after fact after fact. When the Armenian genocide was finished 90 percent of Ottoman Armenians were gone, killed, or deported to the deserts of Syria, or fled to the Caucasus or Middle East. The number of dead is staggering, somewhere between 600,000 and 1 million killed in the more conservatives estimates.

"As the assassin [Tehlirian, assassin of Talat, former Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire] picked up his revolver and descended to the street, he descends as the representative of justice versus brute force. He descends as the representative of humanity versus inhumanity"

[Robin Kirk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, sobering, detailed, and illuminating.

[Phoenix · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Smoking Guns...

Professor Suny provides an outstanding presentation of the history and motivations behind the Armenian Genocide. Both Ottoman and Western archives confirm that the CUP deliberately implemented a deliberate policy of “ethonoreligious homogenization” (ppxxvii) throughout Turkey, resulting in a 90% reduction of the Armenian population in Turkey by the end of WW I, and the first smoking gun is the quotation by Talat Pasha that appears on the cover: “They can live in the desert but nowhere else.”

Armenians were widely distributed throughout Turkey, though regional borders were designed to ensure that other than in small towns and villages that were largely homogenous, they were no-where a majority. Yet within the Empire they were a separate people subject to their own religious hierarchy. Though thought of as a Muslim power, because the supreme leader, the Sultan, a Muslim, was considered to be God's Shadow on earth, up until the 1870s there were more Ottoman Christians and Jews than Muslims, primarily because of the Empire's holdings in the Balkans. Traditionally non-Muslims had unequal rights yet were “protected”.

Suny describes how this balance changed. One factor was the destruction of the Kurdish Emirate in Iraq, which added Kurdish tribes into the Empire. Another was the Crimean war which brought Circassian refugees from Russian into Turkey. Both groups, primarily nomadic, came into conflict with the more settled Armenians, and Istanbul encouraged their raids in order to purchase loyalty to the Porte, resulting in many Armenians fleeing to Russia. Next was the flood of Muslim refugees from the Balkans when that part of the Empire seceded. A fourth factor were the Tanzimat reforms of the 1850s and onwards, in part an attempt at modernization. Promising equality regardless of religion, these reforms were resented by many conservative Muslims who viewed this as a loss of status and privilege. Political representation improves but implementation of the reforms drags.

The first 3 chapters trace the historic evolution of Armenian identity. Like Jews, Georgians, Egyptians, Indians and Chinese the Armenians have a long history recorded in a collection of stories and texts that go back thousands of years. The first recorded mention of Armenia was a 5th century BCE carved record of Darius the Great found at Behistun. In the 5th century CE Armenians developed a unique written alphabet, and proudly proclaim to be the first national group to convert to Christianity, yet only briefly did they enjoy autonomy. Centered around the Church, in the mid 19th century Armenian identity shifts from religious to cultural and nationalist. Caught between the imperial power of the Ottoman, Russian and Persian empires, many Armenians saw themselves, as analogs to the Children of Israel living in captivity, forced to pay excessive and arbitrary tribute and subject to unjust attacks if they were unable to comply. The globalization of European interests such as missionary education, and the effect of the capitulations created a class of non-Muslims who were semi-protected from Ottoman law and the growth of commercial activity also strained the relationship between the religious-ethnic constituencies (millets) and the state.

The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 exacerbated these pressures on the Ottomans, as did the subsequent influx of 800,000 Muslim refugees from the Balkans, the loss of Tunisia to France and British domination over Egypt. Feeling insecure the regime opted for coercive violence to maintain control over what remained culminating in the Hamidan massacres of 1894-96, carried out by Kurds and local Turks, largely encouraged by the Sultan and his government which portrayed the Armenian millet at ungrateful, seditious and disloyal, transforming them into outsiders. Tens of thousands were killed, but the aim was subjugation, not complete extermination.

The next 2 decades saw the rise of militant Armenian nationalism (Dashnaks and Hnchaks) who called for limited autonomy for Armenian regions, not unlike similar calls by other minorities in Europe and Russia. There wasa brief period of reform in the early era of the CUP between 1908 and 1912. In Suny's view the twin causes of Turkish paranoia were the loss of it's largely Christian territories in in the Balkans in 1912-13 and the Ottoman loss at the Battle of Sarikamis on March 15, 1915 blaming the latter on the Armenians. Armenian soldiers were disarmed, segregated, transferred into forced labour battalions and murdered.

Chapters 7-9 describe in great detail the progress of the genocide under cover of the first world war. It begins with attacks against Greek Orthodox civilians in the towns of Foca and Sarakoy follwed by the forced deportation of more than 100,000 Greeks from the Aegean islands and from Anatolia in mid 1914. In September Istanbul cancelled the capitulations, which gave special privileges to a subset of Christians and Jews within the empire. The protective backing of French, Russian and English consulates that had developed over the last two centuries disappeared overnight. Meanwhile the CUP promoted the idea that the Armenians were a threat and in May and August the authorities turned a blind eye pogroms against Christian shops in the city of Dyarbakir, southern Turkey. Though a few Armenians defected to the Russians, in spite of the rising violence against them most Armenians proclaimed loyalty to the state. Especially vulnerable to the escalating violence were Armenians situated along the Persian and Russian Caucus borders. Where the Ottomans retook an area they attacked local Armenian Christians whom they regarded as collaborators.

Suny regards the Ottoman defeat at Sarikamis ending in mid January 1915 as the turning point after which the paraonoia of the Young Turks led them to conclude that the Armenians as a whole constituted a fifth column in their midst. Poisoned by government suspicions and Violence and massacres continued to spread, often on local initiative and with notable lack of government restraint. On March 15, 1915, the Armenian friendly governor of Van (the Armenian heartland), Tahsin Bey, was replaced by Cevder Pasha, who began ordering the slaughter of Armenians. The American missionary and physician records him saying “Go to Shadakh and wipe out its people. I won't leave one, no one so high” holding his hand below his knee. (pp257). Mercenary Rafael de Nogales, hired by the Ottomans approached one town official near Van and “He astounded me by replying he was doing nothing more than carrrying out an unequivocal order emanating from the Governor General of the province... to exterminate all Armenian males of twelve years of age and over.” (pp258). When the Russians arrived in the province they estimated they found some 55,000 corpses, which they burned. Nogales escaped from the service of Cevder Pasha and is a major witness to the destruction.

At the time America was a neutral in the war, and US Ambassador Henry Morganthau was quite friendly with at least 2 of the triumverate of Turkish leaders including Talat Pasha. In his diary he records that Talat reportedly told friends: desires to crush the poor Armenians”. Talat reportedly told friends with pride, “I have accomplished more toward solving the Armenian problem in 3 months than Abdul Hamid accomplished in 30 years.” Morganthau also tells us that Talat had installed a private telegraph machine in his home, from which he could communicate orders throughout the country.

A well written and timely treatment. My only criticism is that there are only 2 maps in the book – more would have further clarified the sense of locale and distance over which this engineered tragedy took place.

[Alonsodevil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Coincidently, I completed this review on the exact 106th anniversary of that Red Sunday.

Aiming to establish meticulous and prudent views on historic matters, one may find it confusing when dissecting interwinding issues of WHAT HOW WHY. If we talk about humanitarian crimes, sometimes the facts, documents and archives just generate a sense of moral pressing, demanding us to answer comprehensively WHY, yet in many times we just fall short of knowledge as well as sympathy to comfort such pressing.

Suny’s transcendent work manages to address WHAT and WHY, whereas the latter appeals to me most. Attributing to various causations, Suny obviously made sound arrangement, focusing especially on emotions, say, on Page 362, “(Genocide killers’) resentment toward those who received more than they deserved from those who received less; fear of the other and the future, anger at what had been done to oneself and one’s compatriots.” Suny, though not without any controversy as I check here in Goodreads, points to the inner consideration of those Young Turks elites, the so-called “affective disposition”, which as Suny articulates, should hold the responsibility of the Genocide. It was a sense of insecurity stemming from being surrounded by enemies, surpassed by European powers in recent centuries, imposed by Europeans an unpopular, at least among Muslim, reform to improve or protect Armenian minority, got horrible defeat in Sarikamis and that a handful of Armenian soldiers defecting to Russian army. All in all, combining above and other negative events together, Young Turks elites thought it a must to make resolution stance toward Armenians. Hostility between Muslim and Armenians had always been there for years, but now here comes the Hatred, which as on Page 362, ”required that the other be eliminated”.

But don’t jump into the pitfall of so-called inevitability. Suny reiterates that hostility did not necessarily lead to hatred, especially the hatred encouraged by Istanbul. Yes, the tinderbox was there, but Genocide was still avoidable. Nevertheless, WWI occurred. On Page 360, “had there been no World War there would have been no genocide, not only because there would have been no “fog of war” to cover up the events but because the radical sense of endangerment among Turks would not have been as acute.”

I think this is one of the most daring argument Suny put forward in this work. He has to strife a balance on two, in my view, somewhat contradictory points. While blaming on the affective disposition of Young Turks elites, he also underlines the tipping point brought by the crucible of WWI. To what extent WWI and henceforth military pressure could exculpate Young Turks elites as well as more widely, Muslims? Speaking of the latter, Suny downplays religious element in Genocide, yet readers can hardly omit that it was Muslim who actively participated in the plunder, loop and murder against Armenians. Moreover, if we take a look at WWI, we can easily find that Young Turks never got hesitant to call for jihad against British and Russians in Middle East, which means that weapon of religious conflict was in Young Turks’ arsenal. Given that Armenians had always petitioned to show off their loyalty to Istanbul, though in vain, as well as for years Armenians had been regarded as more obsequious than Kurds, it is pretty dubious that Istanbul kept suspecting them. I’m not sure whether I was too careless that I had ignored other convincing explanation. Does Suny overestimate Triumvirate’s impact on their colleagues and compatriots? Was the hostility so pervasive and uncompromising, that a killing order from Istanbul could easily spark a large scale of massacre?

Decree from Istanbul had been implemented efficiently outside the capital by CUP elites, while it met resistance in vilayets whose governors were not from CUP. 3 places (Adana, Ankara and Diyarbakir) were named on Page 309, though the recalcitrant local officials were replaced later by CUP loyalists. But at least for a while, local administrators’ defiance was there and withstood first wave of cruel order from Istanbul. Here we can grasp a glimpse on the obvious, if not material, difference between Young Turks’ Ottoman and Nazi Germany. Multiethnic as it had always been, Ottoman differs from Nazi Germany in that its vilayets were not always in complicity with Istanbul. Historically local officials were granted high degree of discretion on various issues. Doubtlessly, due to military factors Young Turks’ ruling was brutal and capricious, but hardly can be referred to as totalitarian, as it could never effectively mobilize Arabs, Kurds, let alone Armenians who Istanbul itself regarded as disloyal, to combat in east frontline against British and Russians. Hence, tense conflicts between vilayets and Istanbul had always taken root throughout Ottoman Empire, even after Young Turks took power and vowed to centralize power in the name of “progress”. I find it perhaps more tempting to reach that it was Young Turks’ connivance with local Muslims’ xenophobia that directly exacerbated Genocide. BTW, Triumvirate’s views on Armenians were not in uniformity. Talat surely was most determined, yet Enver seemed more reluctant. Speaking of that, I have to be hesitant toward Suny’s “affective disposition” assumption. To what extent that Talat the hawk had to be affective and stubborn, so that he could facilitate the deportation and Genocide? My historic view always asks me to head up on the explanation attributing to leaders’ characters. That elites’ mood helps shape history is one thing, while such mood could suffice the whole story is another.

On Page 206, Suny wrote that Young Turks preferred Pan-Turkism path after 1908. I find similar narratives in different books and articles, and I think it’s convincing. Young Turks must find it annoying in 1910s, especially after losing Balkan War. Perhaps not surprisingly they just shrugged shoulders when hearing about Armenians being massacred, OK SO LET IT BE, let’s build a Pan-Turk society without Armenians, without Greeks, without Christians. In my humble view this was the catalyst of the Genocide, I’m not sure if my view is correct but that’s my first impression after finishing Chapter Six.

This work is not too academic, nor too easy for casual reader. I’ve said that it nicely covers WHAT WHY, but it also illustrates HOW in detail, though I find it too horrible to read. As for WHY, like I stated above, I have some after-class thinking. Maybe I should revisit this great work. Right now, I’d recommend it to my friends as persuasive, though not perfectly conclusive in my view, and truly propitious if we want to grasp an objective understanding on Armenian Genocide. Reading is disturbing, yet worthwhile and even obliged in that of commemorating the victims on this solemn day. Violence can be under the camouflage of “progress”.

In all, I’m pretty glad that I’ve enjoyed this work, fascinating, consistent and inspiring.

[Sarah Bowers · Rating 3 out of 5]

"...90 percent of Ottoman Armenians were gone, killed, or deported to the deserts of Syria, or refugees in the Caucasus or Middle East. The number of dead is staggering --somewhere between 600,000 and 1 million killed in the more conservatives estimates....The Armenian Genocide... made possible the formation of an ethnonational Turkish republic."

[Eli Maczuzak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very comprehensive, but at times feels a little emotionally distant. Pairs extremely well with My Grandmother by Fethiye Çetin to give a more intimate, internal perspective of the genocide.

[Baris Balcioglu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Where did I learn about this book? Devlet Aklı ve 1915? Our library has it brought from the Kadir Has university library, I was impressed. I thought the author was just an American (he turned out to have Armenian roots) and I assumed his work would be less biased than that by Kevorkian but the latter was cited a lot here, which means, I won't be able to get away without reading Kevorkian. Normally if a disaster befalls a nation, we expect to hear mostly from the victims of that nation. However, as the author tries to explain here, starting after mid-19th century, we somehow lost our confidence in Armenians. Then anything they say, or anything said by the French, the English, the Americans on their behalf whom we consider to be their allies, appear suspicious to us. This paranoid view implies that we make an assumption that all Armenians are bad or evil and are trying to use these sad events for political ends. This assumption cannot be true. The correct assumption is that all nations are similar. Most of them are good or harmless people, some can be bad and influential. The book states that the Armenians were unlucky because of the geography. Their majority lived in the eastern provinces where the power of the central government was weak, and they were at the mercy of the Kurdish feudal lords. As the Armenians got richer and more westernized their exploitation by these more brutal neighbors and the double taxation (one to the lords the other to Istanbul) they underwent started causing problems. Starting from the 1878 Berlin Conference when the western powers intervened on their behalf demanding for reforms, the Armenians became suspicious in the eyes of the government and the Muslim majority. The rest was a vicious cycle. Most probably if they could openly express themselves, they would want independence or to be part of the Russian empire but most likely only a minority was ready to pay the price. If they were asked to consider the price (some losing their lives and children like in other nations that got independence) they would just want to stay with the Ottomans only wanting more protection. The vicious cycle got worse. They wanted reforms, the government didn't have the means to do this, besides they did not want to alienate the Kurds so when some resistance also started, the worsening Armenian image got worse. Maybe what happened in 1915-1916 was not premediated before but once the deportation started things got out of control. I relayed more on the reasons but as Turks we should think why the government made all these women and children deported or why they did not allow the deported ones to come back with the Lausanne treaty.

Yet there are things that I don't like about history books. If there is hard evidence like telegrams etc. they should not be referred to in some other books. How do I know that that refernce did nit make this telegram up? Their images must be uploaded to respected websites where anyone can see them. Or Talat said this but the source is someone else. Commenting that we are not sure that he really said this is good but adding that given what happened we can expect him to have said this is not scientific. Or relaying interpretation of other historians is not impressing me. This is not a criticism for only this book but for many history books, I would say. History is a difficult field. And we Turks must show more sympathy to the Armenians and try to listen to them.

[Rita Wilbur · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's hard to give stars to a non-fiction book about an important but difficult event. I can't really speak to the writing, because I read this slowly over a very long period of time. Suny did seem to focus mainly on historical precedents, government policies, and local politics, rather than the mechanism of how so many people were killed in such a short period of time. For example, he might talk about one town, it's governor (or whatever the position was called), local Turkish, Kurdish, and Armenian leaders, and then suddenly 60,000 people were dead. Also, why were Armenians allowed to live more or less unmolested in Istanbul? I may have missed that part, presumably it was because they were of significance to the economy there.

But more than that, this book gave a number of interesting insights and things to think about. The first chapter talked about nationalism and empire. I'm used to thinking of empire as bad and nationalism as good. But he points out that empires, while hierarchical and non-egalitarian, nevertheless are multicultural. There is a place for a variety of different cultures, and they are all seen as contributing something to the greater good of the empire. While they are not treated equally, they have a place and are protected to greater and lesser degrees. But nationalism is based on a false concept: the idea that one place has people of one ethnicity. Germany for the Germans, Turkey for the Turks. So what then happens to all the people in a nation who are of a different ethnicity? This was a new perspective for me, and is well worth studying and thinking more about.

This book focuses on the Armenians, but he mentions other groups that suffered from ethnic cleansing of one kind or another, including Greeks, Abyssinians, Kurds, and even Arabs. I would like to know a bit more about these other groups and how they fared. Today we hear about the Armenian genocide, but not about these other groups. Why? Maybe it wasn't widespread enough to count as a genocide?

In his conclusion, Suny explores the concept of genocide itself a bit. There is a brief discussion of how the term came to be, as well as how it can be applied either too broadly or narrowly. There is also some interesting overlap, where for example, Israel was hesitant to acknowledge the Armenian genocide because they felt it would take away from the Nazi Holocaust. I think about this today (2024) when some call the war in Gaza a genocide. It is not in fact a genocide, and Suny makes a similar point. Mass killing is evil and a crime, but not all mass killings are genocides, and it is important to make a distinction. I had some confusion over the term myself. I had thought the term genocide applied to the mass killing OR the mass deportation of a specific ethnic group, but Suny says the latter is ethnic cleansing and not genocide. I think my confusion probably stemmed from the fact that the killing is often set up as a deportation - everyone will be rounded up and sent away somewhere, but in fact they are sent away to be killed. But Suny points out that the two are in fact distinct.

So a very difficult book about a horrific page in history. But it's not just a history of that event but also an exploration of some of the greater themes we should learn from it so that we can keep these events from happening in the future.

[Elda Mengisto · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The argument in this book begins, not with the primordial nations inevitably confronting one another and contesting sovereignty over a disputed land, but with an accelerating construction of different ethnoreligious communities within the complex context of an empire with its possibilities of multiple and hybrid identities and coexistence" (356)

The event which triggered the use of the word "genocide", "They can Live in the Desert but Nowhere else" focuses not only in the genocide, but why it occurred in such a tumultuous political context. Starting with the steadily declining Ottoman empire, Suny analyzes the relationship between the polity and the Armenians themselves, on which they tangle on each other and sometimes conflict. When the Great War broke out, Suny argues, this provided the tragic fuse to commit such a genocide, which would have consequences for everyone involved.

One thing which stood out in particular with this book is he focuses on the political aspects of the Ottoman empire. According to Suny, "empires in the modern age were caught between maintaining the privileges and distinctions that kept the traditional elites in reform along liberal lines that potentially could undermine the old ruling classes and the existing social order" (27) . In the Ottoman empire's case, it was a question of how to balance competing pieces between the different ethnic groups. While reforms began, it withered over time, thanks to preferential laws for Muslims and the elevation of the word "Turk" to a significance not seen before. It reminded me of "Adriatic", in how Kaplan mentioned how empires had a better hold on multiculturalism than in nation-states. Despite the reforms, was there another way to handle it all?

I also was curious about Armenian national identity in this context, especially with how today, there are more Armenians outside the country than inside it. The first Christian kingdom in the world, Armenia had been conquered multiple times and its people scattered. "Most Armenians were poor peasants who knew little about their past, except fragments passed down in the oral traditions and the religious messages of the clergy" (39). They had their own identity, but the development of a nationalism. One thing I learned was how despite popular history, Armenians integrated well into Ottoman society--"Many of them spoke Turkish, Kurdish, or Arabic along with or rather than Armenian: many, perhaps most, were bi- or tri-lingual" (45). Some of them managed to garner higher roles in urban centers, to the point where the Muslim majority resented them. While it didn't provide a good excuse to kill them all, I could see where the fault-lines occurred as Armenians became more divorced from Ottoman society.

One curious thing was how much the Great Powers took eye to the Armenian question, but didn't know how to approach it. They had an early history of supporting Christians in the Balkans, and wanted to support the Armenians in different ways. However, "sympathy for the plight of the Armenians was widespread in the international public sphere, but humanitarian sentiments rarely led to meaningful action" (137). When the war began and the Armenian condition got worse, there were some more attempts to get help, but were drowned out. I'm honestly surprised how much the German government was complicit in the Armenian genocide, from collaborating with the Ottomans to hiding notable Young Turks after the war. How much did that impact their approach to the Holocaust?

Suny builds this story up to the climax of the deportations and genocide, then lets it down with the conclusion. "By the end of the war 90 percent of Ottoman Armenians were gone, killed, deported to the deserts of Syria, or refugees in the Caucasus or Middle east" (347). The flow of his information points to this sad conclusion, even though there were moments which could've prevented the genocide. This approach, combined with his research, makes up for a compelling book, albeit a bit dry at times.

[Evan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very well-researched and well-written overview of one of history's darkest chapters, with good historical analysis and painstaking attention to sources and detail. The main thing that readers might leave the book scratching their heads over is their relative inability to understand—apologies in advance—the big fat stinking 'why'. Something evil happened between 1870, when the Armenians were a beloved fixture of the Ottoman empire and its millet-i sadika (loyal community) and 1890, by which point massacres were brewing and bloodletting communal 'hatreds' seemed inevitable. Obviously one answer is the Russo-Turkish War of 1878, which sent millions of Muslim refugees pouring into the dwindling Ottoman empire. And perhaps missionary activity in the east. But the book still doesn't quite explain how neighbors could turn on neighbors so violently within 1-2 generations. While granted that the orders came from on high, one also yearns for a deeper psychological analysis of how men in the CUP, such as Talat himself, could have had multiple close Armenian friends even during the genocide—not to mention still been in touch with the Dashnaks to debate strategy as late as 1914. Maybe it's an impossible task getting inside the head of a murderous statesman from 110 years ago, but while we leave the book with an understanding of the geopolitical, strategic, and historical forces at work, it's not as clear that we leave with an adequate psychological understanding of what drove people to commit evil in such large numbers. In Suny's defense, he does say 'fear' is the largest motivating force at one point and quotes another minor official saying, "If we spare the women and children today, there will be millions of them again in fifty years." It's the same language a shopkeeper in Tel Aviv tells a Guardian journalist in this very depressing but good piece of reporting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMyyV.... And he also says 'greed, lust, opportunism, careerism,' etc. But one kind of leaves the book with the notion that the non-Armenian peoples of Eastern Anatolia (a few Turks but mostly Kurds)—those who survived WWI—are violent, greedy savages. It might have been interesting to hear their perspective on what happened in those horrific days.

[Harvey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sad read, the actual killing of armenians was mostly done by the kurds who now want to claim kurdistan across the former six vilayets. It was total genocide, there is nothing left of Ottoman armenian culture. I was hoping for more details on the origins of the CUP in Thessaloniki, they organised everything secretly via masonic lodges. Some were donmeh but that is not discussed. The death marches to deir ez sor were horrendous. I do like suny as a lecturer he has eccentric aura but at the same time he does adhere to established post ww2 consensus myths. For example to not talk about the apalling mass rape of the genocide because it falls in line with some apparent european myth making about the "terrible turk". The rapes did happen and were a systematic feature and he never delves into why this was the case and how a certain cultural/religious view encouraged it. He places the blame firmly on the elites of the CUP which is true but they built their policy on the common prejudices of Ottoman Muslims who enthusiastically answered the call to genocide. The Dashnaks are also pretty tragic figures, they arguably saw the writing on the wall already by the time of abdulhammid. Turks and Kurds destroyed the indigenous Christians for internal security reasons is the argument, after sarikamis and then the van uprising the regime did a final solution. I dont think he emphasises enough however this was an explicitly anti christian genocide, the victims were Pontic Greeks, Assyrians, Armenians. Men were disarmed and then forced into labour battalions, property confiscated, villages were cleared and muslims moved into the property whilst the women were mass raped and families marched to syria without food, put in concentrations camps and then drowned in the euphrates. The Pontic Greeks of Trabazon were drowned in the sea I met the descendent of a survivor when I was in Meteora Greece and the story was sufficiently bleak. A lot of eyewitness accounts are from straight up german autistic engineers who were there to build the railways. I found the nogales venezuelan account most interesting (some venezuelan latifundista) who travelled over there and fought for turkey for literally no reason. In all its a great intro and suny weaves a clear narrative .

[Stefanie Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Armenian Genocide was the systematic of ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The genocide lasted from 1915 to 1918, and around 1 million Armenians were murdered during this time. Religious differences between the Islamic Ottoman Empire and the Christian Armenians were a catalyst for the perpetration of genocide. Forced marches through the desert, massacres, robbery, and systematic rape were all tactics used in this genocide. Many more were forced to convert to Islamic practices, mostly the women and children. Despite all of the evidence that proves the Armenian Genocide was a true event, the government of Turkey refuses to admit this. It is extremely unfortunate that this is not recognized for what it is, though several countries do agree that it meets the criteria for genocide. It is equally unfortunate that this isn't widely taught in schools, because it serves as another red flag warning sign for many of the things that people across the world, including the United States, are facing today with forced religion and other genocidal tactics.

I have had this book sitting in my Audible for an obscene amount of time. This year has been very productive for finishing all these things I have bought and not started yet, and I keep thinking I hate that it took me so long to read something...this was one of those times. This book was highly rated, and I had high hopes for it. The Armenian Genocide is a very rarely mentioned topic, and I was certainly never educated about it. I only found out about it in passing through a podcast I listen to, and was interested to learn more. This book was full of well researched, historical information that was presented in an unbiased, straightforward way. If you are wanting to learn more about this topic, I would strongly suggest adding this one to your wish list.

[Cassie Fawzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The choice of genocide was not inevitable…made by specific leaders at a particular historical conjuncture when the threat seemed to them most palpable. The Young Turks’ sense of their own vulnerability—combined with resentment at what they took to be Armenians’ privileged status, Armenian dominance over Muslims in some spheres of life, and the preference of many Armenians for Christian Russia—fed a fantasy that the Armenians presented an existential threat to Turks…Threat must be understood not only as an immediate menace but as perception of future peril.”

“The Young Turks acted on fears and resentments that had been generated over time and directed their efforts to resolve their anxieties by dealing with those they perceived to threaten their survival…the Armenians.”


“The Armenian Genocide, along with the killing of Assyrians and the expulsion of the Anatolian Greeks, laid the ground for the more homogenous nation-state that arose from the ashes of the empire. Like many other states, including Australia, Israel, and the United States, the emergence of the Republic of Turkey invoked the removal and subordination of native peoples who had lived on its territory prior to its founding. The connection between ethnic cleansing or genocide and the legitimacy of the national state underlies the desperate efforts to deny or distort the history of the nation and the state’s genesis. Coming to terms with that history, on the other hand, can have the salutary effect of questioning continued policies of ethnic homogenization and the refusal to recognize the claims and rights of those peoples, minorities, or diasporas—Aborigines, native Americans, Kurds, Palestinians, Assyrians, or Armenians— who refuse to disappear.”

[Marc Menz · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Armenian genocide is a challenging piece of history to write about. We know of deliberate cover up attempts and many disastrous deeds weren't properly documented in the first place. Yet Suny does a magnificent job piecing it together. As others have noted, given the authors Armenian heritage, he does a brilliant job at maintaining an unbiased approach.

The first half of this book is mostly historical context and the demise of the Ottomans, encompassing roughly the 100 years prior to world war 1. This really helps paint the picture of an empire in decline, a rising nationalism among ethnic Turks, and the tensions from Europe. Armenians were wedged between three empires (Ottomans, Russians and Iranians), and their ancestral homeland had eroded over the prior several centuries to influence from Islam.

Suny does a great job explaining the six primary regions in Eastern Anatolia, and how many Armenians made up each main town. He then provides a lot of pretext into the Hamidian massacres, and the differences and similarities that led to the Genocide. There's a wide variety of texts used - from American Ambassador Morgenthau to German, British and Russian consuls.

It's a tough read. It's a tough subject. It's not really a page turner and the ultimate tragedy is looming in the background through the book - you know what's coming. Regardless, for those looking to get a holistic, historical understanding to why over a million Armenians were killed and death marched this book will provide a thorough understanding.

[xtine]

I picked this up as someone who knows nothing about the Armenian genocide. I found it to be an accessible and compelling primer on what happened and why it happened.

The Armenian genocide was a campaign of deportation and mass killing perpetuated by the Young Turks against the Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire from 1914-1918, during the first World War.

For context, the Ottoman Empire was on the decline years before. They lost their domination in the Balkans, which inspired others living under Ottoman rule to insist on self-determination. The Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, who had always been considered second-class citizens under the millet system (although economically well-off ones, much like the Jewish population of Europe during WW2), asked for civil reforms, equal rights, autonomy, better treatment by the government, and the end of the usurpation of their land. The Ottoman Empire believed their existence and Islamic values were threatened, unleashing a wave of violence like the Hamidian massacres from 1894-1897 (which devolved into an anti-Christian progrom) and the Adana massacres in 1909. So the Armenians who had been in Anatolia for 2000+ years (at least 1500 years before the Turkmen of the Seljuk dynasty arrived) were tortured, deported, sent on death marches into Syria, and outright murdered. One million Armenians died. Hundreds of thousands were forced to convert to Islam, especially women and children.

A very sad and tough read.

[Zach Lassen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A detailed and disturbing examination of the Armenian genocide 1915-1917. Suny offers a historical overview of Armenia and the Ottoman empire and the contradictions that existed in the multicultural empire as the idea of nationalism started to form in the 19th century. The genocide was perpetrated by the Young Turks and carried out by zealous and sadistic Turks and Kurds. It started and was carried out bc of a fear of a supposed internal enemy and 5th column that would support the Russians and the entente powers during the war. If there was no world War, there would have been no genocide. The forced deportations and killings were started at a specific moment when Russian advances into Anatolia caused the Young Turks to fear they were being stabbed in the back by Armenians. Stories of Armenian revolution and sedition were widespread with little evidence and were spread by authorities to convince Muslims to view Armenians as enemies. Conservative estimates say 1 million Armenians were killed and many more displaced. They never returned to their homeland in Eastern Anatolia and this genocide allowed the nation of Turkey to form as a more homogeneous nation state

[Rukaya Zayani · Rating 5 out of 5]

If anyone is looking to understand the Armenian genocide in details, that’s the best book out there. Dr. Suny is an American-Armenian Historian Sociologist, he has spent many years researching the atrocities of the Armenian genocide committed by the Young Turks. He’s also very well versed in nationalism. I took a sociology MA seminar with him and the amount of historical details he knows is astonishing. The title “They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else” was a statement by Talat Pasa (the general officer behind the genocide. Ottoman minister of interior) which sums the first phase of extermination. They deported the Ottoman Armenians from Anatolia to Deir Zor, many died on the way from disease, starvation and killed by Kurdish bands.