I’m kinda confused, why did Europe intervene to help the Greek and Bulgarian Christians, but not the Armenian Christians? Why did the Ottomans treat the Kurds better than the Armenians when the Kurds were more violent at the beginning stages of the genocide? Why is the 1900s such a fester pool for genocides in Europe and the Middle East? These are questions that I want answered!
But in all honesty, looking at the events after the fact, you can kinda predict what was going to happen to the Armenians. Especially once they started fighting back. If you don’t learn anything else today, know that once a movement becomes violent, it loses the support of the public, even if the movement is not in the country they want support from. The average human does not like violence.
It’s interesting to notice how people “jump on the bandwagon.” Like, you didn’t support the revolution before it happened, so are you only supporting it to save yourself? (Which, honestly, I don’t blame them if that was what they did. I would totally do that too.) It really seems to be a roller coaster for the Armenians. Things are really bad for them, then things start getting better, only to get much worse, and it repeats. History is but a cycle of the good and the bad, always in motion, sometimes it’s slow, other time’s it’s fast.
Reading about this geographical area and the massacres played out by both the public and the government reminds me of Assassin’s Creed I, only in Assassin’s Creed you fail if you kill a civilian.
I think that the CUP was pretty tactical for what is was trying to accomplish, even if that goal was horrible; they let the European powers have very slight influence over the populace. This let Europe think it was doing something to help the Armenians, and let the CUP overtake the country and do what they wanted. God I hate it when those who want to hurt others are good at what they do.
Here is a picture of a sleepy kitty: