Islamic Imperialism, by Efraim Karsh. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to finish it before I have to take it back to the library; there's a list of people waiting for it so I can't recheck it. Interesting book on a number of points of the history of Islam. Personal disarmament shows up in the recounting of the Armenian Genocide.
Short version, the Ottoman Empire decided they wanted to get rid of the Armenians and proceeded to do so. From the accounts I've read before they may not have been quite as efficient about it as the Nazis going after Jews, but close. And one of the first things the Ottomans did(had read a bit on this before at JPFO) was disarm the Armenians:
First the Armenians had to be rendered defenseless; then they were to be uprooted from their homes and relocated to concentration camps in the most inhospitable corners of Ottoman Asia.
...
At the same time, the authorities initiated a ruthless campaign to disarm the entire Armenian population of all personal weapons. This sent a tremor throughout Armenia: the 1895-96 massacres had been preceded by similar measures, and most Armenians had no illusions regarding the consequences of surrendering their arms while their Muslim neighbors were permitted to retain theirs. Nevertheless, the community's religious and political leaders persuaded their reluctant flock to do precisely that in order to avoid harsh retaliation by the government. But even this was not a simple task. The Ottoman authorities demanded that the Armenians produce a certain number of weapons, regardless of the actual number of arms-bearers, thus putting man Armenians in an impossible position: those who could not produce arms were brutally tortured; those who produced them for surrender, by purchase from their Muslim neighbors or by other means, were imprisoned for treachery and similarly tortured; those found to have hidden their arms were given even harsher treatment.
With the Armenian nation rendered defenseless, the genocidal spree entered its main stage: mass deportations and massacres.
Same kind of program the Nazis used later: Jews banned from ownership of arms, and the serious attacks came after.
And it had happened before. Please note this part again:the 1895-96 massacres had been preceded by similar measures, and most Armenians had no illusions regarding the consequences of surrendering their arms while their Muslim neighbors were permitted to retain theirs. Nevertheless, the community's religious and political leaders persuaded their reluctant flock to do precisely that in order to avoid harsh retaliation by the government. It had been done to them before, but their leaders, hoping to 'avoid harsh retaliation', told them to go along with it.
I can understand the attitude that caused them to do so; "We're outnumbered, and maybe this time they won't do it to us if we don't make a fuss". I also know that down in their bones they knew better. The question then becomes, why not band together and head for the border, armed with everything you can lay hands on? If they've already massacred you, and you know they're going to do it again, why go along with it? Same question that could be asked of Jews at some points prior to WWII.
To me, it also points out something a lot of people have pointed out before: the only reason for a government to disarm citazens(or 'subjects of the Crown' in Britain) is because they A: don't trust the peasants and B: people in government are planning to do things the people won't like and don't want the people able to resist at the last-ditch level.
Short version, the Ottoman Empire decided they wanted to get rid of the Armenians and proceeded to do so. From the accounts I've read before they may not have been quite as efficient about it as the Nazis going after Jews, but close. And one of the first things the Ottomans did(had read a bit on this before at JPFO) was disarm the Armenians:
First the Armenians had to be rendered defenseless; then they were to be uprooted from their homes and relocated to concentration camps in the most inhospitable corners of Ottoman Asia.
...
At the same time, the authorities initiated a ruthless campaign to disarm the entire Armenian population of all personal weapons. This sent a tremor throughout Armenia: the 1895-96 massacres had been preceded by similar measures, and most Armenians had no illusions regarding the consequences of surrendering their arms while their Muslim neighbors were permitted to retain theirs. Nevertheless, the community's religious and political leaders persuaded their reluctant flock to do precisely that in order to avoid harsh retaliation by the government. But even this was not a simple task. The Ottoman authorities demanded that the Armenians produce a certain number of weapons, regardless of the actual number of arms-bearers, thus putting man Armenians in an impossible position: those who could not produce arms were brutally tortured; those who produced them for surrender, by purchase from their Muslim neighbors or by other means, were imprisoned for treachery and similarly tortured; those found to have hidden their arms were given even harsher treatment.
With the Armenian nation rendered defenseless, the genocidal spree entered its main stage: mass deportations and massacres.
Same kind of program the Nazis used later: Jews banned from ownership of arms, and the serious attacks came after.
And it had happened before. Please note this part again:the 1895-96 massacres had been preceded by similar measures, and most Armenians had no illusions regarding the consequences of surrendering their arms while their Muslim neighbors were permitted to retain theirs. Nevertheless, the community's religious and political leaders persuaded their reluctant flock to do precisely that in order to avoid harsh retaliation by the government. It had been done to them before, but their leaders, hoping to 'avoid harsh retaliation', told them to go along with it.
I can understand the attitude that caused them to do so; "We're outnumbered, and maybe this time they won't do it to us if we don't make a fuss". I also know that down in their bones they knew better. The question then becomes, why not band together and head for the border, armed with everything you can lay hands on? If they've already massacred you, and you know they're going to do it again, why go along with it? Same question that could be asked of Jews at some points prior to WWII.
To me, it also points out something a lot of people have pointed out before: the only reason for a government to disarm citazens(or 'subjects of the Crown' in Britain) is because they A: don't trust the peasants and B: people in government are planning to do things the people won't like and don't want the people able to resist at the last-ditch level.
No comments:
Post a Comment