There has long been strong interest in bringing to the attention of the wider public the coverage which the Western and other printed press accorded to the Armenian Genocide. The pioneering work was done by Richard Kloian, whose original work on articles from the New York Times, was last updated in 2005. Although this last edition includes some items from the pre-Genocide period, by and large the focus has been the 1915-1922 period.

The present volume of Armenians At The Twilight of The Ottoman Era differs from other such volumes in a number of ways. First, the volume covers the pre-Genocide period, 1894-1914. Second, rather being reproduced, the articles have been re-entered, making them easier to read, given the age of the originals and the loss of quality during reproduction. While it is possible that a few typographical errors may have survived in a volume of this size, the compilers and editors have taken great pains to ensure that the transcription is true to the original texts. Third, the compilers and editors have added a most valuable index of names in a way that resolves the problem of different spellings at different times. Finally, the compilers and editors view this volume, devoted to items from the New York Times, as only the first of a series that will cover other newspapers.

The volume includes not only articles but also editorials, commentaries and letters to the editor. In addition to New York Times reporters, the sources for the coverage by that newspaper are varied: United Associated Press, Kreuz-Zeitung, Illustrated Magazine, Standard of London, Le Temps, London Spectator, Chronicle, Daily News, Frankfurter Zeitung, Harper’s magazine, Marconi Wireless Telegraph, Transatlantic, Independent (London), Berliner Tageblatt, and the US Department of State and foreign ministries of other countries.

In terms of distribution over time, some 60% of the items cover the 1894- 1896 period, after which the number of items per year decreases; one can note increased interest for the years 1908-1910 and a scant number of items for the years 1911-1914.

In addition to the extensive coverage of the 1894-1896 massacres, the volume is a significant source of information on Armenian revolutionary activities; the 1904 events in Sassun; the 1909 Adana massacres; the activities of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul; Kurdish Armenian relations; examples of Turks and Muslims who have helped Armenians during massacres; missionary activities, activities of Armenophile organizations and individuals and relief efforts; the internecine struggles within the Hunchakian party, including political assassinations; reform projects for the Armenian provinces and diplomatic activities related to them; the Young Turk Revolution and its aftermath; resistance to the Russian government’s project to confiscate Armenian Church properties in Eastern Armenia (1903-1905) and the Armeno-Tatar civil war (1905-1907).

Obviously news reports do not constitute history. The historian must approach these accounts with the same critical eye as one would any other source. The specific data must also be compared with other sources, such as reports by diplomats to their governments, archives of Armenian organizations, the Armenian press of the period, memoirs of participants and eye witness accounts, etc. In addition, one must be aware of the prejudices of the time reflected in the terminology used which tend to ascribe the disasters that befell Armenians in the Ottoman Empire to “Mohammedans.”

Nonetheless, foreign correspondents will often see and report on details which diplomats and those involved may not. They also record eyewitness accounts which will not be found in other sources.

The volume certainly provides a good picture as to how the Armenian Question was presented to the American public, often reflecting official government quandaries. Most importantly, however, this volume raises interesting issues relevant to contemporary debates.

One can easily note the pattern of Ottoman government denialism applied to the pre-Genocide massacres and a diplomatic drive and public relations effort to cover up the scope of the massacres coupled with efforts to justify that government’s policies. While generally sympathetic to the plight of Armenians, the New York Times did not shy away from reflecting a negative view of Armenian revolutionary activities arguing that Armenian actions set “Muslim fanaticism aflame” and at least in one instance suggesting that the 1909 Adana massacres were caused by “Armenian wealth.” The official Turkish position developed later regarding the Genocide does not, in essence, differ from that established during this time.

A second pattern that is established during this period is in the significant role international rivalries played in the reaction to the massacres and ensuing reform projects. In its articles and editorials the newspaper often ponders on the possibility of what today might be called “humanitarian intervention” in a case where the term “extermination” of Armenians was used more than once. However, the editors were reluctant to recommend it, since such intervention was most likely to come from Russia and would lead to the increased influence of that country over the region and the Ottoman Empire, a development that would run counter to British and, by extension, Western interests. Even reform projects were looked upon with suspicion for the same reason. Fear of Russian advances often led the West, particularly the British, to minimize the scope of massacres and even exonerate the Sultan from any responsibility in the massacres.

The third pattern established during this period and evident in this volume is a corollary of the above: Western powers, particularly the British, were more willing to pursue reform projects when the Ottoman government opted to develop closer relations with Germany, beginning in the early 1900s and ending with the alignment of the Committee of Union and Progress (Ittihad ve Terakki) with Germany before the First World War.

Regardless of the seriousness of Armenian grievances and the definition Armenian protagonists gave to the Armenian Question then or to the Armenian Cause now, it is the international environment and international rivalries that will define the problem and determine the outcome when Armenians rely primarily on international players to resolve their problem.

These are patterns worth studying. The compilers and editors of this volume are to be commended for the painstaking effort thy have exerted in producing it.

Prof. Gerard Libaridian