Author Archives: SimonVratsian


A comparative analysis of the situation in 1918-1925

Gurgen V. Vardanyan
At the end of May 1918 the Declaration of the Republic of Armenia (RA) opened a new page in the history of the Armenian school. During two years of existence of RA the democratic changes in the sphere of education were aimed at the creation of the new national-state educational system. After the establishment of the Soviet power in Armenia C(B)PA did not continue educational reforms. Moreover, it followed a new policy of consistent adoption and realization of the legal acts and resolutions. Mostly they were directed towards the denationalized school system’s creation which would correspond to the new regime. In the 1920s the Soviet administrative system exerted efforts to impart the Communist ideology to Armenian pedagogy in order to turn it into a humble instrument. But the most part of Armenian teachers continued to educate pupils in the national spirit.


History of origin and development


Suren A.Manukyan
Today, thirty years after the origin of the genocide studies we can assess the exceptional role it has performed in transforming from a small group of individuals into a field that involves hundreds of scholars and thousands of students, and also is one of the most dynamic and actively growing areas of social sciences.

After the creation of the term “Genocide” by Polish lawyer Rafael Lemkin, this definition was neglected by the scholars, and only a handful of experts continued to use the term in their research. For some time the field of genocide studies was shadowed by the study of the Holocaust, which began to flourish since the mid1960s. In the late 1970s, a group of scholars (L. Kuper, H. Fein, I. Charny, I. Horowitz) began actively to promote the study of genocides and the conference of 1982 in Tel Aviv became visible evidence of the emergence of the discipline.

The end of the Cold War and new genocides that took place in Rwanda and the Balkans drove growing interest to the subject and the development of the field. The search for mechanisms to prevent genocides has become one of the main issues of research, and prevention of genocide became a form of action and public pursuit.

Now genocide is endowed with all the basic attributes of a distinct academic field. Books about genocide are published in the best publishing houses, journals, textbooks, encyclopedias, readers, textbooks bibliographies are appearing permanently, seminars, round tables, conferences, web sites, research centers and international organizations embrace the field. Numerous universities offer courses on this topic. Several theoretical problems are considered, and new approaches are adopted.



Taron V. Hakobyan (Stepanakert)
The political situation formed in the USSR after 1985 ensured the opportunity for raising the idea of united and independent Armenia.

Ignoring the right of the Armenians of Artsakh on self-determination, as well as, the legal and political grounding of their demand, Azerbaijan, with the support of Moscow, again preferred uncivilized methods of solving the problem by organizing ethnic cleansings. This situation kept on till 1991 when the perspective of the collapse of the USSR appeared.

The NKR was formed during the collapse of the USSR on the basis of the national and state formation in the structure of the USSR–NKAO and Shahumyan region, inhabited by the Armenians. Taking into consideration the impossibility of satisfying by the USSR and some international organizations the demand of the reunion with Armenia, as well as, the fact that the problem was considered in the context of territorial claim from Armenia to Azerbaijan, the authorities of the NKR chose the only compromise way out by adopting on September 2 the resolution on declaring the NKR. Thus, on the one hand, NK declared itself independent from Azerbaijan, on the other hand, gave up the idea of reunion with Armenia.

Thus, the NKR was declared in the hardest period of time for the Armenians of Artsakh – in complicated military and political conditions. Still, the declaration of the independent statehood became a new stimulus for resisting the aggression of Azerbaijan, ensuring the security of the population and its peaceful life.



Lilit Hr. Hovhannisyan
The documents of the USA State Department are of paramount importance from the point of view of the study of the official discussions in 1917-1920 on the issue of creating united and independent Armenia and also for the essence and content of their American perception. According to these documents in the final stage of World War I the United States began to participate actively in the repartition of the Middle East and Transcaucasia. This aspiration of the US foreign policy corresponded to the geopolitical goals of the Entente countries. It is no accident that the US became soon after an influential geopolitical actor in regional affairs.

The documents of the State Department of 1917-1918, in particular the recommendations on American conditions have to be submitted to the Paris International Peace Conference, the correspondence of the Secretary of State R. Lansing with the Ambassadors of the US to Great Britain and Great Britain to the US and with the representatives of the US Government in Europe and Supreme Military Council of the Allied States, as well as, with the other officials. Then the “14 points” of President W. Wilson presented to the US Congress on January 8, 1918 testify that the United States regarded the Caucuses as a part of the problem concerning Ottoman Empire and was interested in providing the autonomy for Western Armenia under the protection of the great powers as minimum and the independence as maximum, thereby recognizing the right of the Armenian people for free self-determination. However, the US Government was not in a hurry to provide financial, material and military assistance to Eastern Armenians and Eastern Armenia standing on the road to independence or to protect Western Armenia from the inevitable invasion by the Turkish army.

A considerable part of the US State Department’s diplomatic documents refers to the discussions of the question of mandates at the Council of Ten, then at the Council of Four of the Paris Conference in January-March and May, 1919. These documents cast light upon the offers of the Prime Minister of Great Britain D. Lloyd George on recognizing the independence of Western Armenia and endorsing the US mandate not only for Western Armenia but also for Transcaucasia. They represent Wilson’s position on the establishment of a separate American mandate for the western and eastern parts of Armenia and a united American mandate for Constantinople, Anatolia, Armenia and Transcaucasia, as well as, the viewpoints of the Heads of Allied powers, US high-ranking officials. Moreover, the King Craneʼs and J. Harbordʼs state missions explored the region in June-August, 1919, on the justifications for the idea of a united American mandate and the prospects of its implementation. Due to some of the documents referring to the reasons and conditions for the de facto recognition of the Republic of Armenia by the Allied powers on January 19, 1920, and by the United States on April 23, 1920, the essence of decisions on establishment of United and independent Armenia made by the great powers at the Conferences of London in February-March, 1920 and San Remo in April, 1920, as well as, the reasons for the US Senate rejection of Armenia’s mandate on June 1, 1920 and also the essence and legal-political importance of the undertaking of arbitral mission by W. Wilson for determination of the Armenian-Turkish border can be explained.

The State Department documents on listed problems are preserved in the National Archives of Washington and Yerevan. They are also included in the volumes officially published by the US Government in 1931-1947.



Armen Ts. Marukyan
Being guided by provisions of “The Act of Independence of United Armenia” the head of the delegation of the First Republic of Armenia A. Aharonyan together with other winning powers on August 10, 1920 signed the Treaty of Sèvres with the Ottoman Empire that was beaten in World War I. According to the 88th article Turkey alongside with other states that had signed this treaty recognized Armenia as an independent state. By the 89th article of the Treaty, Turkey, Armenia and also other countries that had signed this Treaty agreed to leave the demarcation of the ArmenianTurkish border in the provinces of Erzurum, Trabzon, Van and Bitlis and also the solution of a question of an exit of Armenia to the Black Sea on the decision of the USA. Because of the change of the geopolitical situation and internal political processes in Turkey the Treaty of Sèvres was not ratified and did not come into force.

However, several months before signing the Treaty of Sèvres four conferences in San Remo devoted to the process of specification of border between Armenia and Turkey that ended on November 22, 1920 with adoption of Arbitral Award of the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson on the Armenian-Turkish border began. According to Arbitral Award, the most part of provinces of Western Armenia namely of Van, Bitlis and Erzurum and also one third of the Trabzon province were transferred to Armenia, providing it an exit to the Black Sea. The territory transferred to Armenia composed of 103.599 km², i.e. about 40% of the territory of Western Armenia. Arbitral Award of Wilson was made according to the norms of the international law operating then and was the manifestation of political responsibility concerning the Ottoman Empire that committed genocide of the Armenian population. Deprivation of the Turkish authorities of dominance over the listed former territories of the Ottoman Empire this international legal act registered the fact that only the inclusion of these territories in the structure of the Armenian state can be a sufficient guarantee that the indigenous Armenian people who fell a victim of genocide can return homeland and restore the violated rights.



From Past to Future


Gevorg S. Khoudinyan
Each epoch in Armenian history had, relatively speaking, its own perception of “United” beginning from the nevertheless imperfect wish of uniting Armenia Major and Armenia Minor up to the unification of Eastern and Western Armenia, as well as, today’s political task of enclosing the Republic of Armenia and Artsakh in one state-political vessel. Alongside with this our persistent struggle for “Unity” in the diachronic scope of Armenian history has up to now shown only one result, i.e. the successive fall of Armenian kingdoms, the expulsion of Armenians from Western Armenia, the fall of the First Republic of Armenia. Here a question rises whether the reason of such downfalls was our wish of restoring unity or there have been other, rather objective reasons.

The loss of “Unity” as an expression of ontological crisis that has crept up the Armenians has been the result and consequence of permanent change in the civilized environment surrounding Armenia. By acknowledging our own powerlessness against such objective challenge we started to look for new paradigms of our unity instead of physical-geographical standards, that is, trying to compensate the loss of political basis of self-organization by means of spiritual, cultural, economic and other arguments.

Our great thinkers of the medieval period considered the primary basis for defining “nation” not as much the area, language and kinship but rather the faith and church tradition, that is doctrine, rituals and ceremonies. In new times the scientific basis for restoring the political Armenia as an entity was founded by the Mkhitarist fathers in Venice while the value-civilization pillars for that new unity of Armenia and Armenians were created on the basis of ideas of the European Enlightenment. By encountering the resistance, which was contrasting in form but united in its essence, of powers that have conquered Armenia this new perception of unity finally came up to the strategy of exercising asylum land collection through the restoration of independent statehood on the certain part of national land.

Thus it went on up to nowadays when the hopeful realities of the restoration of the West-Russia common civilization area began to emerge. Therefore the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the state act of United and Independent Armenia must bring our political consciousness which is deep in sand of routine closer to the height of new interstate and international priorities that correspond to the circumstantial changes of civilized environment that surrounds us.

Armenia is unable to be compared with its main rivals in terms of its economic, demographic and quantity standards of military capability deriving from them and because of scarcity of natural resources and low rates of demographic growth will continue to lag behind them. Hence a nationwide consensus must be formed in its political leadership and among main political forces for the creation of technological society with its needful political, economic and cultural priorities.

Only due to the usage of quality resources accumulated by the Armenian people through centuries and the formation of technological society in Armenia it is possible to secure the proper scientific-technological dominance in the region which will allow us also to compete in the battlefield with our neighbours that outnumber us and bring to life the idea of United and Independent Armenia.


The military actions in the Caucasus front since July, 1914 up to 1916 April 26
Copy- book 3: since June 10, 1915 up to July 10


Ruben O. Sahakyan
In the 3rd copy- book of his memoirs general Nazarbekyan describes the military actions that took place since June 10, 1915 up to July 10. In May 1915 the Russian command decided to attack and occupy the main centres of supply of the Ottoman army – Erzurum and Trabzon. For that purpose, it started to transfer military units from Persia to Western Armenia: those units included the 2nd Caucasus Rifle Division of T. Nazarbekyan. On his way the General witnesses the crimes committed by Djevdet bey and his scoundrels – villages full of numerous corpses of killed Armenians. T. Nazarbekyan together with his brigade settles in the outskirts of Van. The commander makes short visit to Van. He states with regret that he had no success in meeting the governor of Van Aram Manukyan but mentions his meeting with a number of Armenia figures of Van’s Armenian Governance among whom were Paruyr Levonyan and Vicar of the Diocese Archimandrite Yeznik Nerkararyan.

In late June and early July, 1915 T. Nazarbekyan carries out the operation of Kop and entirely crushes the enemy. The commander was complaining of the supply service who being unable to organize the regular supply of the army was in some cases hampering the rapid transmission as the army had to wait for the suppliers to bring food.

The victory gave an opportunity to head for Mush, but on July 8 T. Nazarbekyan got the order to retreat. Alongside with the military units the population also left their homes. The general describes with pain the migration of women and children who were deprived of any means of transport. Many of the soldiers were carrying the children on their shoulders. T. Nazarbekyan once more states that the story of retreat of December, 1914 was repeated, and he again witnessed the torturous and suffering escape of the peaceful population. As it later turned out the cause for the retreat of T. Nazarbekyan’s the 2nd Caucasus Rifle Brigade’s military units was the false report of the commander of Labinsky Kazak regiment.

The retreat of the Russian troops had disastrous effect for the Armenians of VanVaspurakan who had to migrate to Eastern Armenia. And on the same days from the high mountains bordering the field of Mush the fires of burning villages were seen. The intentional retreat of Russian army in July 1915 resulted in the expulsion of Armenians of Van-Vaspurakan and the genocide of Armenians of Taron. Before the eyes of general T. Nazarbekyan the spine of Wes Armenia was broken.

NOTABLE WORK, On the Losses of Armenian People as the Result of the Genocide and the Methodological Grounds of Compensation Structure – 2019-3


Lilit Hr. Hovhannisyan

Recently an extensive work entitled ʻThe Losses of Armenian People in the Result of the Genocide and the Methodological Grounds of Compensation Structureʼ intended for the wide framework of people interested in the problems of the history of Armenian Genocide and Armenian claims, students and readers has been published. In its seven sections the political, economic and demographic consequences of Armenian Genocide are elucidated, the sizes of losses of the Armenian people in various fields of human activities are clarified, the ways of overcoming the consequences of the Genocide are outlined.

In particular, NAS RA Academician Ashot Melkonyan has thoroughly studied the process of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the issue of compensation in both historical, international-legal, as well as, political science dimensions.

The other authors of the collective work – NAS RA Academician Gevorg Poghosyan and Candidate of Sciences in History Gegham Badalyan, have carried out the study of the human losses of Armenian people in the result of the Genocide and its demographic consequences.

NAS RA Corresponding member Ararat Aghasyan has presented the irrecoverable losses of Armenian medieval architectural monuments, handwritten illustrated manuscripts kept in Armenian monasteries and churches, frescos, icons, bas-relief, khachkars and gravestones, values of applied art and secular fine arts in Western Armenia and the other territories of the Ottoman Empire in the result of Hamidian massacres and Mets Yeghern, as well as, the continuing policy of the destruction of Armenian cultural heritage in the Republic of Turkey.

Doctor of Sciences in Architecture Davit Qertmenjyan has studied the policy of the destruction of Armenian historical-architectural monuments during the Armenian Genocide and its consequences from the perspective of compensation issues for cultural genocide.

In the framework of the collective work Doctor of Sciences in History Armen Maruqyan has presented property and financial losses of Armenian people because of the Genocide and its consequences. He has also classified and systematized the section referring to practical suggestions of mechanisms and tools for overcoming the consequences of the Armenian Genocide.

Geologist Hayk Melik-Adamyan has studied the questions of depriving the indigenous Armenian people of exploitation of the mineral resources through the implementation of the Armenian Genocide in Western Armenia and its consequences, evaluated the degree of economic effectiveness of extraction of those resources.

Orientalist Anush Hovhannisyan has studied the process of deprivation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and its continuation by the Republic of Turkey revealing its negative effect on the Armenians who remained in the territory of Turkey.

Lawyer Vladimir Vardanyan has presented the international-legal possibilities of bringing the Turkish state to political responsibility for the Armenian Genocide and overcoming the consequences of the crime.

Thus, the collective work ʻThe Losses of Armenian People in the Result of the Genocide and the Methodological Grounds of Compensation Structureʼ not only reflects the accumulated knowledge on the Armenian Genocide in the field of Armenology, but also can greatly contribute to designing pan-Armenian agenda for overcoming its consequences.


To the bright memory of Vahagn Dadryan


Suren A. Manukyan
Vahagn Norayr Dadryan is one of those scholars who have become classic already during their lifetime. Being impressed by his works many of us got involved in the field of genocide study: he was cited, and his attitudes created a whole branch of science. And even those who were not sharing Vahagn Dadryan’s theoretical principals admitted his greatness. And for Turkish denial Vahagn Dadryan had become number one rival and target.

Carrying out an extensive collectable work in various archives of the world Vahagn Dadryan transferred on systemized basis the function of collecting and putting into scientific circulation the materials referring to the Armenian Genocide: it was based on four demands, that is, the sources must be: a) reliable, b)explicit, c) incontestable, d) verifiable. For that reason he focused his main work on the documents of Turkish courts, Ottoman parliament chamber of deputies and diplomatic and military papers of Austria-Hungary.

Since the mid-1980’s when Vahagn Dadryan became the author of two famous articles in “Holocaust and Genocide Studies” and “International Journal of Middle East Studies” magazines he began to be perceived as the most important international expert on the Armenian Genocide. Articles by Vahagn Dadryan started to appear in most prestigious academic periodicals and collections and together with another Armenian scholar Richard Hovhannisyan he actually became the pioneer of new study of Armenian Genocide in newly emerging field of scientific branch, i.e. Genocide Study.

In 1995 Vahagn Dadryan’s monumental work “The History of Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from Balkans to Anatolia and Caucasus” was published. Alongside with it Vahagn Dadryan became one of the representatives of the first generation of founders of Genocide studies as a separate branch of science as he did not remain in the framework of studying the Great Genocide but also tried to think over the theoretic provisions of genocide as phenomenon. Besides he became the author of many articles where he compared Armenian Genocide and Jewish Holocaust trying thus clearly “legitimize” the Armenian Genocide in academic frameworks.

Vahagn Dadryan has devoted all his life to the struggle against Turkish denial. His all works were the ones crushing Turkish viewpoints so his every article published in prestigious scholarly magazine became a battlefield against the denialist historians. In 1996 he initiated the publication of an open letter written by 150 specialists of genocide and Holocaust which condemned the Turkish denial and affirmed the fact of the Armenian Genocide, and in 1999 Vahagn Dadryan comprised and published a brochure entitled “The Main Components of Turkish Denial: Distortion and Falsification”.



Arthur A. Hovhannisyan
This article is dedicated to the study of the bronze sculptures of well-known Armenian sculptor-artist Khoren Der-Harutyan. Der-Harutyan’s works were formed in the early 30’s of the 20th century, outside of the historical homeland, particularly on the Latin American island of Jamaica. Here he created numerous colorful paintings and graphic works, as well as, great amount of sculptures from different types of local solid wood. In the following years Der-Harutyan’s art was developed in the USA, England, Italy, as well as, in Armenia.

Khoren Der-Harutyan’s works generally present not only tragic events referring his childhood, but also the basic socio and political problems of the 20th century, which have left a deep mark on the fate of humankind. The works of the artist reflected the disasters of the Armenian Genocide, the Second World War, Hiroshima atomic explosion, the Vietnam War, etc. But the images with tragic content are often followed by the works with the spirit of heroism, optimism, love and unity.

The bronze sculptures, which have been around since the 1960’s are important in Khoren Der-Harutyan’s art. In 1962-1963 Der- Harutyan lived in the city of Florence, Italy, where he improved the techniques of working with bronze. The artist was particularly influenced by the monuments of the Italian Renaissance. There is a variety of themes and styles touching eternal universal themes not only in his works of wood and stone, but also in his bronze sculptures. Here the themes of heroic struggle, survival, unyielding human spirit are also considered. The style of the artist is dramatically changed in this period. The slick, round forms of his wooden and stone sculptures are replaced by sharp, rough surfaces. Besides, working with bronze DerHarutyan deals more freely with sculptural forms and as a result, the bronze works of different periods get lively, vibrant forms.