Why didn't Russia militarily intervene in Ottoman Armenia during the Hamidian massacres in the mid-1890s?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,672
SoCal
#31
If Russia had stayed on with WW1, meaning there was no communist revolution, there would be a real Armenia today. Russia was making good progress in eastern Turkey when it withdrew from WW1.
It's probably more likely that Russia would have kept Armenia in such a scenario. I haven't heard of anything which suggests that the Russian Provisional Government wanted to give Armenia independence.
 
Jan 2016
1,082
Collapsed wave
#32
It's interesting that there's no land connection between them and the rest of the Ottoman Empire, though. Rather, there's a Bulgarian corridor.

Also, what were Russia's initial war aims (as in, before Bismarck stepped in as an "honest broker") in eastern Anatolia in 1877-1878?
That's correct. There was no land connection. The initial treaty was drawn around ethnic concentrations. The western balkans already had a Bosnian uprising and a serbo-turkish war leading up to the war in 1878-78. It was just a matter of time before they would become independent.

As for eastern Anatolia, it was a very secondary conflict. The russians had some success and actually gained some territory and a couple of cities like Batumi. It was different, they had an actual border there with the Ottoman Empire.
In the middle of 1800ies a pan-slavic movement had gained a lot of popularity with the idea to free and unite all slavic populations and it played well into the Russian ambition to defeat the Ottomans. The war 1877-78 was the tenth war between the two empires.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2014
363
Istanbul Turkey
#33
It's interesting that there's no land connection between them and the rest of the Ottoman Empire, though. Rather, there's a Bulgarian corridor.

Also, what were Russia's initial war aims (as in, before Bismarck stepped in as an "honest broker") in eastern Anatolia in 1877-1878?
-Making everyone (Europe and Otoman Empire) accept that Russia's right to have a Black Sea Fleet (after Crimean War in 1853 Russian Black Sea Fleet was disarmed and its coastal forts and shipyards in Crimea and Sea of Azov were dismantled) and have a long term interest / aim in Straits.

-Gaining influence Balkans at the expense of both crumbling Ottoman Empire AND Austria Hungary by supporting and sponsoring/protecting new indidual Balkan and Northern Danube states who were declaring their independence one by one in 19th Century (Bulgaria , Romenia , Greece , Serbia ) Most of them were Slav and Orthodox and receptive to Russian protection

-Gaining influence , territory in Caucaus according to Great Game with Britain to have access to Central Asia though compared to those two aims above , this was a secondary motivation. Tsar Alexander III and his ministers first and foremost goal was rearmament of Black Sea and getting hold of Straits if possible and meanwhile reacting to creation of Second German Empire (Second Reich) in 1871 which was becoming somekind of economic and military superpower compared to Russia and a threat to Russian frontiers in Eastern Europe and Russia was also reacting temporary weakening of Austria-Hungary by grabbing as much land and influence as possible in Balkans and Southern Europe.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist
Mar 2016
747
Antalya
#34
Anyway, why didn't Russia militarily intervene back then?

Also, what would have happened had Russia indeed decided to militarily intervene during this time?

Do you man like the UN nations rushed to the aid of the Tutsi being massacred in Ruwanda, or the recent genocide in Sudan?

Nothing has changed; countries make policy and decide action based on their perceived best interest.Countries never intervene against injustice on the basis of morality. Moral good comes from wars /intervention by happy accident.
Unlike people are indoctrinated to believe, states do not function out of goodwill/humanitarian concerns. If Russia didn't intervene, that's because they didn't see something to be gained with the involved cost. This is the one and only explanation to inaction of Russia.
 
Aug 2014
206
New York, USA
#35
In the 1890s Russia was too busy going through rapid industrialization, with the GDP growing at about 8% per year. Ironically, this lead to massive population destabilization with peasants flooding the cities and rioting and looting, eventually resulting in mass unrests/revolution of 1905.
 
Likes: Futurist