Ämnet för min C-uppsats handlar om diskussionen om vad som kan ...

He also mentions meeting an Armenian in a concentration camp (“koncentrationsläger”), in itselfan interesting choice of word in the context of this study. 122 Pravitz concluded his article byacknowledging the difficult situation of the Armenians and expressing some understanding forMarika Stjernstedt’s initiative (presented further below) for a collection to aid the Armenians inneed, but pointed out that that she (Stjernstedt) had uncritically “accepted the hair-raising storiesfrom more or less biased sources.” 123In order to be able to put Pravitz’ observations and interpretation of the Armenian situationin perspective, it is necessary to also reflect upon his personal view in regard to the Armenianpeople as such. In his book, Pravitz renders his views regarding Persia, Persians and theminorities living in the country. A large portion of the first part of chapter ten, entitled My SecondJourney to Persia, where he describes the “Armenian question,” has, more or less, the same contentas his article in NDA. Moreover, his description of the Armenian element is not flattering. Jewsand Armenians are described as “lying merchants.” 124 The Armenians are, despite their Christianfaith, no “God’s children,” a wording which he also used in his article in NDA “The deporteesdid not care to burry their dead, lying on the roadside.” 125 In regard to the Turkish treatmentduring the war, Pravitz argued that “the Armenians had themselves to thank for the punishmentwhich was now being implemented. Thus, their fate has been a necessity, a logicalconsequence.” 126 Furthermore, he writes that: “the Armenians are highly untrustworthy.” 127 Ingeneral, the “bloody” measures of the Turkish Government towards the “disloyal” Armenianswere quite justified, even though innocent people had suffered too. 128 The parallels to theargumentation regarding the Holocaust are too striking to be ignored. Pravitz’ article and hisviews are more or less the only internationally well-known eyewitness account which has beenascribed to Swedish military intelligence and testimony in regard to the Armenian genocide.Needless to say, the majority of studies using Pravtiz as evidence are those on the Turkish side,e.g. the Turkish Foreign Ministry.Notwithstanding, the study of the Swedish War Archive reveals another, quite opposite,perspective, expressed by someone much closer to the events, namely those of Captain Einar afWirsén (later Major), the official Swedish Military Attaché in Constantinople, 1915-1920. 129 His122 Pravitz, 1918, p. 221.123 NDA, April 23, 1917.124 Pravitz, 1918, p. 22.125 Pravitz, 1918, p. 222-223.126 Pravitz, 1918, p. 225.127 Pravitz, 1918, p. 226-227.128 Pravitz, 1918, p. 219, 221-223.129 By a coincidence, Wirsén is the same Swedish military who was appointed as chairman for thecommission which the League of Nations put in charge of arbitration in the Mosul Crisis, discussed in JohnRogers’ article. It was Wirsén’s detailed knowledge of the region, his experiences from the war, and hisfamiliarity with the existing situation which made him an important asset in the Commission appointed by theLeague to solve the crisis.29