Author Archives: Admin

THE ARMENIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHURCH OF HOLY SEPULCHRE IN JERUSALEM – 2020-2

Part 1. The Chapel of John the Evangelist and Its Inscriptions

Summary

Michael E. Stone (Jerusalem)-Member of Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Khachik A. Harutyunyan-Candidate of Sciences in Philology
Over the centuries the Holy Sepulchre has been and continues to be one of the main sanctuaries of the Christian world up to our days. Armenians and other Christian peoples have visited this Basilica, renewed their vow with God, obtained new holy places, extended or lost them, celebrated holy masses there, and copied manuscripts. Indeed, in the colophons of some Armenian manuscripts it is possible to see the Holy Sepulchre as a place of copying. With the hope of leaving their names in the book of life and being mentioned in future (this phenomenon is wellknown and widespread in the colophons of the Armenian manuscripts) the Armenian pilgrims have engraved numerous graffiti in the different sites in the complex forming the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

In this series of articles, we present the Armenian inscriptions of the Holy Sepulchre. In the first part we present one of the Armenian sites of the Holy Sepulchre – the Chapel of John the Evangelist and its inscriptions. The chapel is located in the eastern part of the courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Rev. John Hannah (Hovhannes Hanna), a well-known scholar of Jerusalem’s history, writes that the chapel was built in the same place where, according to legend, John the Evangelist and the Mother of God stood during the crucifixion of Christ (John 26:26-27). There is no information about the date of construction of the chapel, but it was probably built  before the 6th CE century, as it is mentioned in the famous “List” of Anastas Vardapet, who presumably visited the Holy places in the middle of the 6th century.

In total, we have managed to find 8 inscriptions there, 5 of which are in the Chapel, and the other 3 are graffiti incised at the entrance of the Chapel.

THE HISTORICAL-DEMOGRAPHIC IMAGE OF WESTERN ARMENIA ON THE EVE OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE – 2020-2

Part Tenth: Diyarbekir city and Derik, Savur, Palu and Maden cantons

Summary

Gegham M. Badalyan-Candidate of Sciences in History
The article is dedicated to the study of the pre-genocide demographic situation in the namesake provincial capital of Diyarbekir vilayet, as well as in the cantons of Derik (Diyarbekir sanjak), Savur (Mardin sanjak), Palu and Maden (Arghana-Maden sanjak).

Diyarbekir city – the center of the vilayet, was one of the oldest settlements in Armenia, which is still evidenced in the cuneiform inscriptions of the 2nd millennium B.C. as Amedu or Amedi (in Armenian medieval sources: Amid, Amit or Amdatsuots kaghak (city of the residents of Amid)). The city was located in the center of the Diyarbekir plain at the northern foot of the Karajadagh (historical Ashimun) volcanic massif, on the western bank of the Western Tigris, bordered by a meander or “bow” (Arabic: kâfs). Diyarbekir was one of the most populous and Armenian-populated cities in Western Armenia, where the continuous dominance of the Armenian population is noticeable beginning from the 70s and 80s of the 19th century. On the eve of World War I, the number of Armenians in the city’s 55.000strong multinational population was 26.000-27.500, or 47-50% (according to the comparison of the statistical data by French preacher J. Retoré, Deputy Consul of the Great Britain T. Mkrtichian and Major E. Noel). In this respect, Diyarbekir was second only to the city of Van (about 30.000 people or 66% of the population).

The Armenian population was mainly concentrated in the districts covering the northeastern and southern parts of Diyarbekir, which were formed in the vicinities of the churches of St. Kirakos and St. Sargis. Meanwhile, other Christians in the city (Jacobi and Catholic Assyrians, Kildanis, Greeks – Orthodox and Catholic-Uniates or Melchites) together with Armenians made up 55-60% of the population prior to the genocide. There was also a small Jewish community in the city – about 100 families. The Muslim population making the minority in Diyarbekir was predominantly Turkish, with a large share of Christians converted to Islam in its time (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks), and significantly Turkified Dimili (Zazans) and Kurds. Moreover, many mosques in Diyarbekir were once Armenian sanctuaries, which were occupied at the very beginning of the establishment of Ottoman rule: St. Astvatsatsin of 60 altars (it was the main mosque of Diyarbekir in the early 20th century called Ulujami), the former Armenian Cathedral of St. Theodoros or St. Toros (the Turks renamed it Jurshunlu Jami), the Holy Trinity, St. Hovhannes (John). Of the ancient structures, the 72-tower wall surrounding Amid-Diyarbekir, which still stands today, was famous. From the Middle Ages, the four main gates (“doors”) symbolizing the Evangelists have been preserved: Armenian or Erzrum (northern, Turkish: Dağkapısı), Mardin (southern), Horomots or Horom door (western, Turkish: Rumkapısı) and New (eastern, Turkish: Yenikapısı or Şatkapısı, meaning “Door of Tigris”). Among the prominent medieval structures were the ancient citadel named Aver Berd (Fortress) (Turkish: Virankalesi), the Roman-era aqueduct-bridge that brought water from Hamrvat (Hamrvar) pouring spring flowing from the northern slopes of Karajadagh to the town, sanctified Chift-Ilija pool full of fish.

To the south of the Western Tigris were the cantons of Derik and Savur, where Armenians (mostly Catholics), as a rule, lived in administrative centers and in a few villages on the eve of the genocide. This was the result of the Ottoman yoke, as in the mentioned cantons during the 18th-19th centuries forced religious conversion had taken place. The latter had particularly catastrophic consequences in Savur, where over time the local semi-independent Armenian principality had disappeared.

The canton of Palu, among semi-independent principalities of the 40s of the 16th-19th (Turkish: hükümet), was one of the most Armenian-populated administrative units in Diyarbekir vilayet. One of the essential features of Palu principality was the existence of Armenian melikdoms. Although they were subject to the amira-rulers of Armenian descent from Palu, they enjoyed considerable independence in internal affairs. The melikdoms of Havav, Sarutchan or Okhu, Ashmushat (the region of Arshamashat – the ancient capital of Tsopk), Khamishli (Ghamishluk, Yeghegnut), Paghin were known. In particular, the canton of Ashmushat, on the left bank of the Aratsani, stood out, which was, in fact, a unique federation of separate melik families settled in several settlements. There is also information about the meliks of Khamishli (Ghamishluk) settlement of Javgan canton. Some facts enable us to speak about military cooperations between separate melikdoms and the Dmlik tribes of Dersim. However, the constant fighting against the Muslim (Kurdish and Dmlik or Zaza) feudals, as well as the penetration of new foreign tribes and the intensifying pressure, destroyed once the former power of the meliks of Palu. As a result, mass emigration began from Palu city and villages, which forced large numbers of Armenian families to flee to various places, including Cilicia and even Constantinople.

Moreover, emigration continued throughout the 19th century, with a strong negative impact on the canton’s ethnic-tribal image. Instead of the departed Armenians, a large number of Muslims (mostly Dmliks, also Kurds and Turks) migrated from Kharberd, Tchapaghjur and other cantons to the territory of Palu. The widespread Muslimization of Armenians who had converted to Greek confession (Chalcedonianism) still in the Middle Ages reached catastrophic sizes. The apostates in Palu were also known as “keskes” (meaning “half-half” in Armenian). As a result of all this, if at the beginning of the 19th century in Palu canton (including the city- fortress) approximately 60.000-70.000 Armenians and 30.000 “Kurds” lived, then almost a century later the ratio had already changed to the detriment of Armenians, respectively 22.000-24.000 and 60.000-65.000. At the same time, pursuing a traditional policy of separating the Armenian-populated cantons, the Ottoman authorities transferred Balu canton of Arghana-Maden sanjak from Kharberd vilayet or Mamuret-ul-Aziz to Diyarbekir vilayet, which remained there until the end of World War I.

It is noteworthy, however, that the inner canton-nahiyes formed in the Middle Ages were preserved in the territory of the canton: Ashmushat (<Arshamashat), Bulanukh (Upper and Lower), Gyokdere, Karabekyan (Kharabegyan), Karachor yllaretil ,ﻣﺰﺭﻋﺎﺓ – taâ’rzâM :.barA< ,turzaM( tavrzaM ro lartneC ,)rohcarahK( “mezrehes”) with Javgan, Houn (Sarachor), Voshin (Oshin or Veshin), Sivan (<Sevan), Okhu or Yegh (Hizol). Nevertheless, on the eve of the Armenian Genocide, Palu canton was one of the most Armenian-populated administrative units in Diyarbekir vilayet, where according to the British data, before the genocide, the number of the Armenian population, including the city, was about 26.000. Until the 70s of the 19th century, the number of churches in Palu city had four Armenian districts: Yerevan (St. Gregory the Illuminator Church, Katoghike or Mother Church), Toner (St. Astvatsatsin Church), St. Sahak (St. Sahak Partev Church) and St. Kirakos (with the namesake church). Despite the unfavorable demographic conditions, as a result of which St. Sahak and St. Kirakos districts almost completely deserted and uninhabited already in the 80s of the 19th century, over 6.000 Armenians (about half of the population) lived in Palu city on the eve of the Armenian Genocide. The villages and settlements of Havav, Dzet, Najaran, Nekhri (Nerkhi), Paghin, Til, Okhu (Yegh), Tepe (Blur) and Khoshmat were also notable for their populousness.

As for Maden canton, though the Armenian population was presented in separate islands (enclave), such as Maden or (Arghno Maden) and Arghni boroughs, Akl (Angh) settlement and a number of village, Armenian traces were preserved in many settlements of the administrative unit (churches, Armenian cemeteries, places of pilgrimage). The monastery of the Most High St. Astvatsatsin (Arghno Monastery) was renowned.

SEMANTIC AND OCCASIONAL NEOLOGISMS IN THE 2018-2019 ELECTRONIC MEDIA OF ARMENIA – 2020-2

Summary

Anush A. Khachatryan
Along with the blazing development of the information culture, neologisms have become an integral part of the press language.

The electronic media, where social-political struggle has penetrated, is a powerful propaganda weapon. It is regularly updated with semantic neologisms. In connection with the events in Armenia in 2018-2019, a number of words began to be used with meanings they did not have in the past. These linguistic units, which have ironically pronounced shades, are commonly found in opposition media.

In the system of authorial neologisms, epistemic words are distinctly distinguished by their stylistic value and frequency. Unable to find a word that accurately expresses his mind in the lexicon of the language, the journalist, according to his linguistic taste, compiles new words that combine emotion, appreciation, stylistic coloring and innovative breath, reflecting both the objective image of the present moment and the subjective self-image of the author. These words make the news texts more alive and, of course, there are also a number of unsuccessful and not recommended structures.

Widespread and effective ways of creating neologisms in the electronic media are word complexion and derivation. Comparative (synthetic) compositions are created containing foreign morphemes, which are formed in accordance with the word-formation rules of the Armenian language.

RAFFI – NATIONAL AND UNIVERSAL – 2020-2

On the occasion of the 185th birth anniversary

Summary

Petros A. Demirchyan-Doctor of Sciences in Philology
Raffi (Hakob Melik-Hakobyan) is one of the prominent Armenian writers whose fate was closely connected with the fate of the Motherland, and for the sake of the Motherland and the people, his literary and civil heroism paved the shortest path to immortality.

Indeed, the large-scale activities of Raffi and his erudition are surprising. He was a great novelist, warlike publicist, progressive thinker, patriotic figure.

Sincere interest in the historical fate of the people, high patriotic feelings forced the writer to look for new ways to deal with forces that impede the development of people and society. To this end, he got acquainted with the sociopolitical, philosophical and aesthetic views of European and Russian progressive thinkers Voltaire, Feuerbach, Rousseau, Belinsky, Dobrolubov and Chernyshevsky, inherited the creative principles of folk literature of H. Abovyan.

The ideological and creative flight that Raffi made, from the ideology of enlightenment to romanticism, to the greatest ideals of the true freedom of peoples, deserves deep respect and appreciation. This is the reason for the great aesthetic, national, social and historical value of the heritage of the great writer. His talented books “Samvel”, “David Bek”, “Sparks”, “Golden Rooster” and others are an encyclopedia of the historical life of the Armenian people, a school for the education of freedom and patriotism.

Raffi considered the problems of the Homeland and the people in his works based on the principles of historicism and national, including linguistic, unity.

Raffi’s highly artistic works were considered by many in the wider context of world literature of his time. Back in 1913, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the death of Raffi, Daniel Varuzhan wrote: “Raffi became the father of Armenian novelism. Our Scott, if you like, who was able to vividly invoke the past and prophesy about the future”.

A. Chopanyan also believed that some of Raffi’s works, such as “Samvel”, “The Fool” and others, could be presented to a foreign reader “and receive a warm welcome.” Moreover, with some reservations, he put the name of Raffi next to the names of Dickens, Balzac, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy.

Concerning some characters and episodes of Raffi’s novels, parallels also arise with the works of Shakespeare and Dostoevsky (“Richard III”, “The Brothers Karamazov”).

Of course, all this was not accidental. The basis for the abovementioned statements is provided by the work of Raffi himself, when considering it not only from the point of view of national, but also universal ideas, as well as from the point of view of the level of creative thinking of the writer.

THOMAS CARLYLE AND HIS ESSAY “ON HISTORY” – 2020-2

Summary

Gevorg A. Tshagharian
The article examines the historical perceptions of Scottish thinker and writer Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) in the light of the emergent historiographical concepts of the era. Herein, it reappraises, in typological manner, the author’s peculiar contribution to the European historiography and humanities of the 19th century, entirely free from the radical-ideological colourings. An attempt is made to observe Carlyle’s comprehension of the past on the background of the further metamorphoses of historical thought. With this end in view, the translation and scrupulous annotations of Carlyle’s essay “On History” (1830) are tended to provide insights into the apprehension of the author’s historical conception.

Thomas Carlyle’s first essay on history presents some of his innovative approaches on the activity which was to engage him from the 1830s onward. It maintains that the recording of history is one of the activities which defines us as human beings; that history must involve society and other provinces of thought as a whole, and not be restricted to chronicles of historiographers or annalists; that history in all its inscrutable mystery can never be thoroughly apprehended. The essay also presents Carlyle’s pioneering distinctions between, on the one hand, narrative and action and between the artisan and the artist, on the other. Carlyle challenges the notion that history is “Philosophy teaching by Experience” and argues that because “History is the essence of innumerable Biographies”, neither the recording of historical experience, nor the drawing of philosophical truths from that experience is an easy task. Carlyle suggests that the historian should approach history not with the theoretical aspirations of philosophy but with the eye of faith, which recognizes the infinite mystery in History.

There is, Carlyle argues, “a fatal discrepancy between our manner of observing” events “and their manner of occurring”. While man inevitably conceive of history as a “Narrative” (a “successive” series of events), it is in reality an “Action” (a “simultaneous” group of events, related to each other not just by linearity but by “breadth” and “depth”, “Passion and Mystery”). The historian best able to embody the “Action” of history is not the “Artisan”, who works mechanically with discrete phenomena, but the “Artist”, who works with a sense of the organic whole.

THE AGE OF ASHOT III THE MERCIFUL – 2020-2

Part II: Struggle for preserving of the unity of Armenian kingdom

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan-Doctor of Sciences in History
The late 960s and the first half of the 970s became the most difficult and decisive stage of the reign of Ashot III the Merciful. The Armenian kingdom at the peak of its power was in great danger, since the Byzantine Empire at this stage showed ambitious plans for conquest in the East. The main goal of Byzantium was to conquer countries and territories, stretching from Cilicia to Palestine, and in its activities, on the one hand, it enjoyed the support of the armed forces of Bagratid Armenia, and on the other hand tried to conquer more new territories of Armenia and contribute to a split within the country.

Byzantine politics aimed at the conquest of Taron-Turuberan in the west of Great Armenia, the western areas of the Ayrarat province, and in the future, the Vaspurakan kingdom. Pursuing its policy of expansionism, Byzantium sought to maximize the problems between the Armenian local feudal lords and the central authority of the Bagratids, as well as the ambitions of some Armenian nobles. Unfortunately, the emperors were able to achieve their goals, which, on the one hand, reduced the territory of the kingdom of Armenian Bagratids, and on the other hand, the fragmentation of the united kingdom weakened its ability to resist, making it more vulnerable to neighbors.

The loss of Taron was the result of Byzantine pressure on the rulers of this region and occurred in the context of the aggravated Arab-Byzantine conflict. Under such conditions, the rulers of Taron were forced to cede their domains to Byzantium, in exchange receiving new possessions and honorary titles from the empire.

Through the efforts of the Byzantine court, the king of Vaspurakan also decided to confront Ashot III in church and confessional matters and sought to the dominate position in Armenia. But after the annexation of Taron, he abandoned his claims.

Ashot III did not conform with the current situation, as a result of which relations between the Armenian kingdom and Byzantium became tense. In the age of John Tzimiskes reign Armenian-Byzantine relations were settled, moreover, as a result of considerable military assistance from the Armenian king to the emperor of Byzantium, they even trmporarily acquired features of a military alliance.

Despite Byzantium succeeded in annexing Taron, but Ashot III managed to prevent its further advancement. But the empire was waiting for a convenient opportunity to achieve its goals.

As a result of Byzantine intervention in the affairs of the Armenian kingdom in 875, Mushegh, the ruler of the Kars fortress and the Vanand region, proclaimed himself king. Ashot III was forced to acknowledge the fact, recognizing the reign of his brother Mushegh in exchange for his submission to the Ani throne.

The spiritual life of the kingdom in the studied period was not calm either: the kingdom again faced the danger of the spread of Chalcedonism, but this challenge was neutralized.

CONCEPTUALIZING THE ARMENIAN QUESTION IN THE 21TH CENTURY – 2020-2

Part one. The formation of the Armenian Question

Summary

Ruben A. Safrastyan-Academician of NAS RA
Nowadays, various characterizations are given to the Armenian Question. Thus, for instance, it is mentioned that the Armenian Question has undergone changes at the current stage and is a matter of recognizing and condemning the Armenian Genocide. There is another approach, according to which the Armenian Question has two stages;

the first is the stage of recognizing and condemning the Armenian Genocide, and the second is overcoming the consequences of the Genocide, that is, the stage of territorial claims. Proponents of the last viewpoint insist that the Armenians must invest all their efforts to successfully overcome the first stage, that is, to fight only for the recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, and after having successfully completed it to launch the struggle for the elimination of the consequences of the Genocide.

In our opinion, these viewpoints cannot be guidelines for our further struggle. We believe that, as in the past, today the essence of the Armenian Question has not changed. It is an awareness of the necessity to restore the United Armenian statehood in the Armenian Highland, to recreate Armenia, and to realize appropriate actions towards this direction. It is important to emphasize that the borders of the Armenian Highland and Armenia are not the same, as the borders of the former, as a naturalgeographical environment, are unchanged, yet the borders of Armenia are subject to compression and expansion, as it is a historical-ethnic phenomenon.

In our opinion, though the recognition of the Armenian Genocide is part of the Armenian Question, however, neither does replace it, nor should it be viewed as the first stage of the final solution of the Armenian Question. We think that a simultaneous struggle should be led towards the recognition, condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, and for a just solution to the Armenian Question.

Assessing the results of the first three and a half decades of the internationalization stage of the Armenian Question, it should be emphasized that in 1914 it was possible to achieve a certain result only when it was succeeded in establishing a geopolitical equilibrium between the Great Powers. The equilibrium was established after long negotiations. It was based on the fact that, as Roderick Davison, a well-known American orientalist, once pointed out, none of the negotiating parties – the European powers and Russia, appeared to be the losers, and everyone got what they strived for. However, even that modest step remained on paper, as the Ottoman Empire taking advantage of World War I canceled the treaty.

THE POLICY OF AUTHORITIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA TOWARDS OVERCOMING FRAGMENTARITY (1918-1919) – 2019-4

Summary 

Karen P. Hayrapetyan
From the first days of their formation, the authorities of the Republic of Armenia (1918-1920) faced the problem of Western Armenian refugees. In the matter of its resolution, both the purely socio-economic aspects of the problem and its political, fragmentary features should be taken into account. With the goal of overcoming fragmentation with its negative manifestations, the republican authorities, together with the solution of directly refugee issues, needed to take appropriate steps to overcome in the minds of Western Armenian refugees the distrust and alienation that existed in their attitude towards the authorities and the population of the newly formed Republic of Armenia. For this purpose, it was necessary to take certain steps to integrate the Western Armenian refugees into the socio-economic and socio-political life of the Republic of Armenia, to create conditions for involving Western Armenians in the creation of the independent Armenian state. Ultimately, republican authorities intended to overcome the negative manifestations of fragmentarity.

The authorities of the first Republic of Armenia considered fragmentarity an obstacle to the creation of a state. The overcoming of fragmentarity as the main goal of the republic’s authorities was first voiced from the rostrum of the Second Congress of Western Armenians.

The policy of the republic’s authorities to overcome the fragmentarity was carried out before the Second Congress of Western Armenians. The policy of accommodating Western Armenian refugees, the liquidation of medical and educational institutions created for them, also had the goal of overcoming fragmentarity. In itself, the Second Congress of Western Armenians for the authorities of the republic was the implementation of the policy of overcoming fragmentarity. At the congress, the political goals and ideals of the Western Armenian refugees who found refuge in the Republic of Armenia were formulated. The congress was a milestone in a positive change in the negative attitude of the Western Armenian refugees towards the Republic of Armenia. The Second Congress created political grounds for starting cooperation with the authorities of the republic. For this reason, the Second Congress of Western Armenians actually had a breakthrough value in overcoming fragmentarity.

THE UNPUBLISHED MEMORIES OF TOVMAS NAZARBEKYAN – 2019-4

Military operations on the Caucasus Front from July 1914 to April 26, 1916 Copy-book 4: from July 10, 1915 to August 14, 1915

Summary

Ruben O. Sahakyan
In his 4th notebook of memoirs, General T. Nazarbekyan describes his military operations that took place from July 10 to August 14, 1915. The commander continues to describe the July retreat of 1915 from Kopa in the west and Van in the south. In his opinion, during the advancement of units of the 4th Army Corps the rear service could not ensure uninterrupted supply of the advancing units. In addition, there was no stable communication between the advancing units and therefore commanders of the unit were unable to coordinate their actions. At the same time mutually exclusive orders were given by the corps commander, General P. Oganovsky due to which operations to seize the cities of Mush and Bitlis (Bagesh) were failed.

In his memoirs T. Nazarbekyan calls the treacherous July departure from the city of Van of the Transbaikal (Trans-Baikal) Cossack Division under the command of General A. Nikolaev. According to T. Nazarbekyan, nothing threatened the city of Van. He also refutes the widespread belief that 11 unfriendly divisions attacked the part of the 4th Caucasian Army Corps. According to the general, about 4 Turkish divisions advanced in the direction of Manazkert. Due to a thoughtless and justified retreat, more than 10 thousand Armenian refugees – children, women and the elderly died. Victims could be more if they were not protected by the Armenian volunteers and Russian military personnel.

Ruben Safrastyan, Mustafa Kemal; The Fight Against the Republic of Armenia in 1919-1921 – 2019-4

Summary

Gevorg S. Khoudinyan
Although, over the past 100 years, the Soviet, post-Soviet, and Diaspora Armenian historiography has repeatedly touched upon separate episodes of the life and activities of Mustafa Kemal – the founder of the republican Turkey, including the history of the irreconcilable struggle against Armenia in 1919-1921, for a number of objective and subjective reasons no scientific view on that prominent political and military figure has been formed within us. The reason is that in the Soviet era we faced political barriers fed by the traditions of the Lenin-Ataturk friendship, and in the post-Soviet years the reality of insufficient study of sources and the lack of a certain concept of perception of historical-political processes in us. Almost the same superficiality and one-sidedness has been observed among Diaspora Armenian scholars, who have relied mainly on limited information about Mustafa Kemal in western sources.

Since the restoration of independence of Armenia, our historiography in assessing the life and activities of Mustafa Kemal should not continue to be guided by reconciliatory characterizations of the Soviet era, or merely a damnatory’s propagandistic mental pattern based on moral principles. In the process of building our own independent statehood, the scientific study of Turkey’s rich state-political traditions becomes paramount, leaving aside the starting points of worldviews on reconciliation and moral condemnation stemming from their concealed belief of the impossibility of achieving and surpassing them. Today we need to know, recognize, and understand the great and small secrets of our adversary’s successes over the last two centuries, so that tomorrow we can find the tools to counter them. On the basement of all this first of all lies the scientific task of comprehensive study of the life and activities of politician and statesman Kemal Ataturk.

In this regard prof. Ruben Safrastyan’s brochure entitled “Mustafa Kemal. The Fight Against the Republic of Armenia in 1919-1921” though not of a large volume, however is quite full of extensive questions and statements of issues and is in fact the first bold attempt. The author has succeeded in finding a clear inheritance link between the Young Turks responsible for the Armenian Genocide and the new Turkish leader who appeared in the political stage concealing their crime after the Armistice of Mudros. This has revealed one of the most essential principles of Turkey’s state policy to distinguish itself from the crimes committed by previous administrations and those already uncovered, but at the same time continuing to act with new methods under new conditions.

Therefore we think that in just a few months Mustafa Kemal’s conversion from the word “fazahat” condemning the Armenian Genocide to the genocidal vocabulary of the Young Turks on the eve of the 1920 autumn attack on the Republic of Armenia was not an expression of ordinary hypocrisy, as the author claims, but a shift in the toolkit of permanent expansionism characteristic of Turkish state policy. In the political statements of the past and present state officials of Turkey it is pointless to seek political principles with their western understanding; the latter have served and serve as instruments appropriate to this particular milestone of expansionism. In this context, criticism does not stand up to the assessment of the Turkish National Covenant carried out by Soviet scholars at the time as an attempt to cross the broad borders of the Ottoman Empire to the narrow boundaries of national statehood. The nation-state model adopted by Mustafa Kemal was, in fact, an attempt to modernize traditional forms and methods of Turkish expansionism, at the first destination of which its kernel was formed, with the unification of Anatolia and Western Armenia, but at the same time they mined the next zones of expansion outlined around it towards Syria, Cyprus, Thrace, Iranian Atrpatakan (Iranian Azerbaijan), Eastern Armenia and Western and Southern Georgia.

In this context, the author was able to reveal the secret instruction of Foreign Minister Mukhtar Bey on November 8, 1920 to the Commander of the Turkish Army Kâzım Karabekir on the “elimination” of the Republic of Armenia, which was one of the tangible manifestations of this process. The gradual demolition of Armenia inwardly and putting into game the existing Turkic ethnic enclaves for the purpose of its occupation had already been successfully completed in Kars and Nakhijevan, but had failed in Zangibassar and Vedi. In the Soviet period too, Turkey adopted a similar policy towards Armenia, which continued until the Karabakh movement. It is no coincidence, therefore, that they were not as angry in Baku about the departure of Azerbaijanis from Armenia as they were in Ankara. This policy continues today, with Turkey’s prompting to Azerbaijan concerning the latter’s manifested pretensions towards Zangezur, “Gökçe” and even “Irevan”.