Newly discovered testimonies about Alexander Tairyan in the archive of Alexander Yeritsyan
Haykaz J. Hovhannisyan
The activities of the Armenian businessman and philanthropist Alexander Tahiryan are not properly covered in the Armenian historiography, and scattered information about him in the historical
literature does not reflect and does not characterize his undeniable influence in the Armenian social- political and economic life in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Marine D. Ghazaryan
This article is dedicated to the study of topographical images in the prose of
Diaspora Armenian writer Hakob Mndzuri. Mndzuri’s prose stands out for its complete and
comprehensive images of the place, written with the knowledge of an artist formed from
close contact with native nature. Those images help to develop an idea about the geography
of this or that part of Western Armenia and are important in order to get a broad picture of
the national identity.
Summary
The true story of Israel Ori’s life and activities
Ararat M. Hakobyan
The outstanding figure of the Armenian liberation movement and struggle of the late 17th and early 18th centuries – Israel Ori, with his selfless, but contradictory, sometimes adventurous life and activities, is considered the firstborn (herald) and initiator of the Russian political orientation of the Armenian people. On his way from the West to Russia, he sometimes resorted to falsification of documents in order to arouse the interest of Russian political leaders and encourage them towards the issue of the liberation of Armenia. Documentary records of his Western Russian political, negotiating, diplomatic activities, two “Palatinate” and “Moscow” plans for the liberation of Armenia, although unrealistic for the time, are considered an innovation in the history of the Armenian political thought. He was the first figure who brought the Armenian liberation movement and diplomatic negotiations out of the religious-confessional level (diaper) of the clergy and put them on the military[1]political foundations of a practical, secular content.
The ultimate goal of the liberating ideas of I. Ori was the complete liberation of Armenia from the Persian-Turkish tyranny and the creation of an autonomous Armenian statehood (kingdom) initially under the auspices of the Western European powers, and then of Russia, as evidenced by the two programs he drew up, as well as the map of Great Armenia presented to Tsar Peter.
A valuable documentary collection compiled by philologist, historian K. Yezyan, and other supporting materials enable us to conclude that the beginning of the Russian orientation of the Armenians is considered not the second half of the 17th century and not even the turn of the 18th century, but the 1720s, i. e.: the time when in anticipation of the so-called Caspian campaign of Peter the Great, the liberation struggle of Artsakh and Syunik flared up.
All this means that the Russian political orientation of the Armenian people has a history of three centuries. But this does not mean that the Armenians unanimously stood on the positions of this orientation. Historiographical objectivity requires noting that due to the dictates of the times and circumstances, especially at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, in particular, during the discussion of the Armenian issue, the Armenian socio-political circles mainly and involuntarily represented other – Western orientations, but in both cases did not achieve significant positive results.
At the same time, it should be noted that there is no need to put a big barrier in the issue of the Western European and consequently Russian political orientation of the Armenian people, since already Russia of Peter the Great with its system of political, state-legal and cultural values aspired to become a European country. And as for the liberation of Armenia, in practical terms it was closer to Armenia, and the latter’s liberation by Russia was more realistic. In other words, if we compare and evaluate the missions of the two political directions of Israel Ori, then from the viewpoint of civilizational orientation, in a broad sense it can be considered European-Russia.
A comparative analysis of documentary materials and historical-political events of the region indicates that during the era of Israel Ori, Armenia still had no real prospect of practical liberation with the support of foreign forces, neither by Russia nor, even more so, by Western countries. In the era of Israel Ori, the Armenian people had not yet developed an indestructible political concept that in order to have a free, independent national state and protect it, one should first of all rely on the collective consciousness of the nation, on its own strengths and capabilities. And from the perspective of learning advisable historical lessons, even now, during the Third Republic, in the conditions of modern serious challenges, it is difficult to say how irreversible the political mentality and the way of actions of the Armenian public and the state power have become among us regarding the independent statehood and defense of the Motherland
Summary
To the 200th anniversary of the birth of Fyodor Dostoevsky
Petros H. Demirchyan
The influence of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s personality and his work on the development of Russian and world literary-scientific thought is enormous. Of course, Armenian literature is not an exception with its two historically formed branches The article refers to the case of two original authors representing the above-mentioned branches of Armenian literature: Raffi (Hakob Hakobyan, s/o Melik) and Yeghia Temirchipashyan, who in that sense, we consider, need more comprehensive, complete elucidation. At the heart of the monitoring mainly is the problem of the relationship between the national and the universal of literature, which gives the opportunity to examine the work of a national writer in interaction with world great minds. There can be no doubt that Raffi’s famous works, being the most powerful expression of the life and destiny of the Armenians, provided him with the right of being called “The Armenian national novelist” (A. Chopanyan). Nevertheless, Raffi’s work was also viewed in the broader context of the world literature of his time. He created characters,
which, under the national image and essence expose the soul and psychology of the human being in general. In this sense, the character Godfather Petros of the
“The Diary of a Khachagogh (Cross-thief)” with an equally cruel philosophy that contradicts the irrational laws of a society that undermines the very essence
of the human being: “I am like an evil spirit must punish people’s injustices only with injustices…” directly relates to Dostoevsky’s question in which the
essential thing is whether there is a goal that justifies the right to punish the perpetrator by depriving him of his life. F. Dostoevsky, by Raskolnikov, the
hero of the novel “Crime and Punishment” raises the issue of Conscience. Some of Raffi’s heroes are also forced to commit evil – murder and they try to
justify it with the idea of self-defense having a natural historical basis. However, in many cases, the problem goes beyond that and enters the field of
defense of the people and the homeland. In the novel “Samvel”, Samvel kills his parents because they betrayed the most important sacred things – the nation
and the homeland.
In creative parallels of F. Dostoyevsky and Raffi the issues of crime, punishment, conscience and human relations, national history, search for ways of the future are also crucial.
As for F. Dostoevsky-Y. Temirchipashyan creative parallels, at least two key factors can be considered here: the similarities between the personal nature and biography of the writers and the dominance of the Philosophy of Suffering, which, in fact, had a profound effect on their work. But divine providence finally decided, as if in spite of all this, at least in the last years of the life of great writers, to open a window of consolation before their sufferings. And just as Anna Snitkina for Fyodor Dostoevsky, likewise Ellen Nissen for Yeghia Temirchipashyan were real “guardian angels”, they were able to keep, preserve and comfort their suffering souls and hearts.
The mentioned circumstances, as a whole, give grounds to speak about not only the national, but also the universal standards and values of the creative thinking of F. Dostoevsky, Raffi and Ye. Temirchipashyan.
A view after a century
Avag A. Harutyunyan
There was an ideological-political conflict between the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun and the Communist Party of Armenia before the Sovietization of Armenia, after which it grew into a large-scale struggle. This time, the active, offensive side, of course, was the new authorities, who set themselves the goal of “eradicating” from the Soviet-Armenian reality everything that was connected with the name of the ARF by all possible and impossible means.
Thanks to the heroic struggle of Zangezur, in 1921 in Riga, the Communist Party of Russia had to negotiate with the ARF, with which the Communist Party of Armenia was against. Negotiations ended in failure after the Zangezur uprising ended.
In 1921 a public trial against the ARF was organized. The Communist Party of Armenia started the “liquidation” of the ARF. The Armenian Cheka was on the front line of the struggle. In 1923 the congress of the “former ARF members” took place in Yerevan’s theater which decided to “liquidate” all structures of the ARF in Armenia. The 1928 November plenum of the Communist Party of Armenia was a turning point, which reassessed the ARF, previously considered petty-bourgeois, already as big-bourgeois and fascist. The ARF was criticized by all the leaders of Soviet Armenia.
As a result of the Communist Party’s policy, ARF Dashnaktsutyun was liquidated as party in Soviet Armenia. However, that did not mean that the struggle against the ARF ceased. This is evidenced by the fact that before the collapse of the Soviet Union, all documents of the Communist Party of Armenia stressed the need to continue and intensify the struggle against the ARF. In the following years, those who had an anti-Soviet position were usually accused of being “Dashnak”. Notwithstanding the attempts of struggle abroad, the organizational structures of ARF Dashnaktsutyun in the Diaspora were preserved. And already after the collapse of the Soviet Union, after the proclamation of the Republic of Armenia, when the same Communist Party was already in an inoperable state, the ARF Dashnaktsutyun party again occupied a certain role in the new social-political system.
According to modern historical science of the Republic of Armenia (1991-2021)
Summary
Lilit Hr. Hovhannisyan
The history of the treaties of Alexandropol on December 2, 1920, Moscow on March 16,
and Kars on October 13, 1921, logically related to each other, is the most disputable and the
most difficult in terms of evaluation in the series of the international diplomatic documents on
the Armenian question.
Nevertheless, the most discussed of the above three treaties in Armenian
historiography is the Treaty of Moscow, and the most underestimated – the Treaty of Kars,
although the Armenian-Turkish relations have been regulated by this treaty since October
13, 1921. The military-political conditions and goals of signing the Kars Treaty are
examined in scientific works of G. Galoyan, H. Avetisyan, A. Melkonyan, A. Hakobyan, H.
Hakobyan and in joint study of K. Khachatryan, H. Sukiasyan and G. Badalyan. They
emphasize that the Kars Treaty is not an independent document not only in its essence and
content, but also from the point of view of political and international legal norms because
of repetition and fixation of Moscow Treaty in it. Therefore, since the latter in its turn was
signed in violation [the signatories of the treaty without any authority had interfered in the
territorial integrity of the non-signatory sovereign state (states)] of the basic principles of
international law, so the Kars Treaty does not create any legal obligation for Armenia in the
issue of territorial demarcation.
Historians St. and K. Poghosyans, A. Melkonyan, A. Marukyan and A. Papyan
analysed the Kars Treaty from the historical-legal point of view. According to them, the
Armenian part of the Soviet-Turkish border passing through the Akhuryan and Araks rivers
is just a dividing line. It does not have the status of an Armenian-Turkish state border, as
there is no any international treaty on it having legal force. The historians emphasize that
the only de jure border between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey is the
Wilsonian border, and the illegal treaties of Alexandropol, Moscow and Kars cannot be the
basis of a legal border. They also note that in case of a new Russian-Turkish
rapprochement, the «confirmation» of the former USSR border’s Armenian part as an
Armenian-Turkish border will mean from a legal point of view a change of the border
because the de jure border between Armenia and Turkey drawn by W. Wilson still in 1920
differs significantly from the Soviet-Turkish border.
The above-mentioned issues have not only scientific but also political significance, as
at present Russian-Turkish relations continue in the Kemal-Bolshevik spirit, keeping
Armenia in the shackles of Alexandropol, Moscow and Kars treaties.
After the joint aggression of Turkish-Azerbaijani armies and international terrorist
groups against the Artsakh Republic in 2020, the Armenian side, appeared in the Turkish-
Azerbaijani-Georgian-Russian «tongs», is facing the imperative of adopting a new
negotiation strategy with the mentioned states having as a primary task the avoidance of
repetition of the Kars Treaty. The Armenian diplomacy must be able to refrain from
excessive haste, to act from the position of the Armenian claims under international law,
also defend the Armenian state interests in direct and mediated discussions in the legal field
on issues related to the borders, territorial integrity and status of the Republic of Armenia
and Republic of Artsakh. And this is possible only in the case of restoration of the
international personality and economic-military potential of the Republic of Armenia got
loose by the Artsakh 44-days war, also the unity and comprehensive cooperation between
the Republic of Armenia, Republic of Artsakh and Armenian Diaspora Javakhk.
Summary
Armen Ts. Marukyan
The Kars “Treaty” of 1921 was signed with a gross violation of the norms and
principles of international law. The document signed in Kars made an attempt to “legalize”
the previous Bolshevik-Kemalist deal in Moscow, which gives reason to consider the
document signed in Kars as an annex to the illegal Moscow Treaty.
The issue of the final recognition of the document signed in Kars by Armenia still
remains topical for Turkey. It is no coincidence that this issue in a veiled form was reflected
in the Armenian-Turkish protocols signed on October 10, 2009 in Zurich, which were later
rejected by Armenia. The protocol “On the establishment of diplomatic relations between
the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey” states that “the signatories reaffirm
the mutual recognition of the border existing between the two countries, established by the
relevant treaties on the basis of international law”.
The signing of the Kars document led to significant losses of the Armenian
territories, caused serious security problems, demographic problems and psychological|
complexes, the consequences of which Armenia and the Armenian people continue to feel
to this day. Before taking any steps to neutralize the grave consequences of the Kars
document, Armenia should carry out consistent political and diplomatic work, taking into
account geopolitical and regional processes.
It is no secret that influential powers use the norms and principles of international
law in their interests and goals, sometimes violating or interpreting them in their favor.
Even if influential actors of international relations try to justify their actions by the norms
and principles of international law, the Republic of Armenia, as a subject of this law, is
simply obliged to take advantage of the possibilities of international law, defending not
only its own interests, but also the legal rights of the entire Armenian people.
In Soviet secret documents of the 1920s
Summary
Avag A. Harutyunyan
For the Communist Party of Armenia ARF Dashnaktsutyun was an ideological-political opponent, and the struggle against it during the years of Soviet rule was of a multifaceted and widespread nature. The Communist Party of Armenia, with almost all its party decisions (especially: congress, plenum, bureau), regularly discussed the ARF issues of struggle.
Most of such documents covering the years of the 1920s were compiled and published in time by Professor V. Ghazakhetsyan. The current publication presents the documents that were left out of the mentioned collection.
Minutes of the Chairmanship of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia, the Presidency of the Caucasus Bureau of the Communist Party of Russia and the Transcaucasian Regional Committee are published. Special folders with the code “Top Secret” are used separately from the documents after named “Special Case”.
The documents are kept in the Fund of the Communist Party of Armenia of the National Archives of Armenia.
All documents are published from Russian translation, in chronological order, with appropriate footnotes if necessary.
A retrospective view from a distance of 100 years
Avag A. Harutyunyan
A century after the heroic battle of Mountainous Armenia, in the conditions of the current dangerous military-political developments around Syunik, the revelation of its heroic history and the assessment of Garegin Nzhdeh’s role in that context are of great actual importance.
In Syunik-Artsakh, Great Britain especially stood out with its anti-Armenian policy. The vision of British policy was first and foremost to implement farreaching anti-Russian programs. In order to solve this priority problem, it was in their interests to expand the territory of the Republic of Armenia including the Kars province, and with the donation of Syunik-Artsakh, to more strengthen Azerbaijan against Soviet Russia.
Syunik, led by Nzhdeh, struggled without even breathing։ in the conditions of the military-political blockade, many enemies came and went, the events had changeable ups and downs and with some refluxes, Mountainous Armenia withstood. Nzhdeh acted not only as a military commander in Syunik, but also as an ideological leader and organizer.
Fighting in and for Syunik, from strategic perspective Nzhdeh had always kept in his field of vision the collective interests of the statehood of entire Armenia and the Armenians . If the Armenians of Syunik had not fought heroically under Nzhdeh, the safe existence of the Republic of Armenia in the Azeri-Bolshevik hostile tongs would have been greatly questioned, and later Soviet Russia would have ceded Syunik to Baku. After that, the circumstance of Soviet Armenia to be a separate union republic would be endangered. At best, it would simply be included as an autonomous entity within the borders of the Soviet republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan, which would divide the Cis-Caucasus into two parts. Thus, the heroic Syunik ensured the possibility of preserving the Armenian state entity for both the Soviet and the present and future times.
Given the current resonance of the history of the heroic battle of Mountainous Armenia, today we must learn the relevant lessons and draw necessary conclusions.