The British Parliamentary report on the Armenian Genocide was a report commissioned by the British government during World War I to investigate and document the mass killings and deportations of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. The report was based on testimonies, documents, and other evidence gathered from various sources, including missionaries, consuls, and other eyewitnesses.
The first significant gathering of evidence on the Armenian Genocide was produced by Lord Bryce and Arnold Toynbee in a report to the British Parliament. The report was the outcome of an exceptional international collaborative network consisting of British, American, Swiss, German, and Armenian contributors.
The report, which was published in 1916, is considered one of the earliest official records of the Armenian Genocide, and it provided a detailed account of the atrocities committed against the Armenian population. The report was significant in raising international awareness about the Armenian Genocide and in shaping public opinion in favor of the Armenian cause.
The report was also notable for its collaborative and international nature. It was produced through the efforts of a network of individuals and organizations, including British parliamentarians, Armenian activists, and humanitarian organizations. This network worked together to gather and compile evidence of the genocide, and to lobby the British government to take action to stop the atrocities.
Overall, the British Parliamentary report on the Armenian Genocide is an important historical document that sheds light on a dark period of history and highlights the power of collaborative efforts to combat genocide and human rights abuses.
Reporting the Genocide
The British parliamentary blue book of December 1916, compiled by Arnold J. Toynbee, was the first major collection of evidence of the Armenian Genocide. The Genocide began in April 1915 against the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian and Syrian Christians in response to the imminent landing of Entente troops at Gallipoli. The Young Turk regime arrested and executed leading Armenians, branding them as treacherous, pro-Russian revolutionaries. The Eastern provinces were emptied of their Armenian inhabitants through forced deportation resulting in murders, kidnappings, rapes, thefts, starvation, and prolonged exposure. The Genocide resulted in the death of around one and half million people while others fled. Britain, France, and Russia denounced the Ottoman Empire’s ‘crime against humanity and civilization’ in May 1915, but deportations and massacres continued into 1916.
The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916 is a significant text in genocide scholarship, despite attempts to discredit it as false atrocity propaganda. Denialists claim that the book was a fabrication of the War Propaganda Bureau, replicating the “Bryce Report” on German atrocities in Belgium. Such interpretations are intellectually dishonest and continue methods initiated before the book was published. While some propaganda motivations for the book and hostility towards Ottoman rule over Armenians are supported by evidence, the convoluted and nefarious interpretations and embellishments through which denialists claim grand conspiracies against the Ottoman Empire’s reputation are not valid. Confirming small parts of denialists’ arguments does not support or validate their claims or motives.
In October 1915, two acquaintances, Barton and Bryce, took action after sufficient evidence had emerged about the Armenian genocide. Barton had previously worked as a missionary in Harpout and was the Corresponding Secretary of the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions), while Bryce was a strong advocate of Armenian autonomy and a leading British figure due to his previous Ambassadorship and leadership of a Home Office Committee. Bryce’s past leadership produced the famous ‘Bryce Report’ of 1915 on German atrocities in Belgium, which was initially dismissed as unsubstantiated atrocity propaganda but was later found to have understated the total crimes committed. The report’s significance was the precedent it set for the parliamentary report format by which the Armenian evidence was presented. Both Barton and Bryce had long-standing connections to and sympathies with Armenians and were ideally placed to lead the international response to the genocide.
The genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was not immediately known to the world due to several factors that hindered rapid reporting. Fewer international observers were present due to the war, and most foreigners lived in Constantinople on the Empire’s western edge. Information from numerous foreigners, including US and European missionaries, doctors, and teachers living and working in Anatolia, was slow to reach Constantinople and progress abroad. Active efforts were also made to prevent the spread of information by Ottoman censorship. Foreign news spread eastward via the advancing Russian army and outlets in Russian Armenia and the large Armenian community in Tiflis (Tbilisi). However, the full scale of the genocide was not immediately known, and the news was inhibited due to active efforts to prevent information from spreading.
In October 1915, two acquaintances, James Barton and Viscount Bryce, who had longstanding connections and sympathies with the Armenians, were prompted to take action after sufficient evidence had emerged about the genocide. They were ideally placed to lead the international response to the genocide since they were veteran publicists with wide connections and influence with government. Bryce’s past leadership of a Home Office Committee investigating German atrocities in Belgium produced the famous ‘Bryce Report’ of 1915, which understated the total crimes committed but focused unduly on crimes against women and children. Despite being criticized as unsubstantiated ‘atrocity propaganda’, its true significance was the precedent it provided for the parliamentary report format by which the Armenian evidence was presented.
The collaboration between Bryce and Toynbee started after Bryce’s speech at Lords, following which Bryce sent Toynbee all the evidence he had received from the Armenian poet, Arshag Tchobanian, who had appealed to Bryce to mobilize British pro-Armenians to address both President Wilson and neutral European public opinion. Tchobanian and Bryce had corresponded since the 1890s, and they were linked to a circle of pro-Armenians, including politicians, journalists, and activists. Bryce corresponded with various individuals during the summer and autumn of 1915, including Nubar and his assistant H.N. Mosditchian in Paris, and British-based Armenian nationalists A. Hacopian and A.S. Safrastian, as well as other British figures.
The collaboration of a network of individuals from four continents facilitated Toynbee’s efforts in compiling the book “The Treatment of Armenians”. The network included politicians, journalists, activists, academics, and others who had connections with each other. They provided information and press materials, helped with translation, and cross-checked and complemented the materials. The network also provided mutual motivation and reassurance for their activism. The collaboration between these individuals, who were well-informed and interconnected, facilitated larger-scale activities, provided bigger audiences for humanitarians, and justified further efforts for publicity. This transatlantic action also galvanized nationalistic efforts, while larger-scale activities provided humanitarians with bigger audiences. For Bryce and Toynbee, capturing US interest was paramount as leadership of international opinion was passing from Britain to the US.
The connection between propaganda and the book on Armenian genocide is acknowledged, with Toynbee confirming that the Foreign Office endorsed its creation for political convenience during the First World War. The war made Ottoman mistreatment of its subjects a generally useful propaganda issue, and the book’s evidence is considered trustworthy and not classified as propaganda, according to several scholars. British propagandists preferred factual material, upon which they placed interpretations, and the more accurate and defensible the book’s evidence, the better it was as propaganda. Moreover, propaganda organization in 1915-1916 was less heavily regimented than scholars assume. Toynbee’s involvement unquestionably reflects official British propagandist motives, but it does not impugn the work’s integrity.
The Murder of a Nation, was comprehensive and substantiated. Toynbee corresponded extensively with his network of informants, badgering them for the fullest possible information and consolidating the overall picture in particular areas. He also repeatedly checked and re-checked sources to ensure accuracy, especially in light of denials and qualifications already being offered by the Ottoman government and others. Toynbee’s insistence on the fullest possible information and his efforts to ensure the accuracy of the evidence are seen as evidence of the book’s integrity.