Category Archives: APPENDIX

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.

On the occasion of the first publication of his memoirs

Yervand G. Pampukian (Beirut)

The letters of the Armenian avenger Soghomon Tehliryan, published in this article, were written on the occasion of the first publication of his memoirs. Soghomon Tehlirian’s autobiography is also kept in the same folder, unfortunately in an unfinished state.

The letters were written between 1951 and 1953, when S. Tehlirian moved from Serbia to the Moroccan city of Casablanca, where he worked at a European commercial establishment. His letters are addressed to Cairo, as in those years the editorial board of “Husaber” daily undertook the publication of S. Tehlirian’s memoirs. The memoirs of S. Tehlirian – the author of intimidation of the main organizer of the Armenocide and the Ottoman Turkish Prime Minister Talaat Pasha, were written by Vahan Minakhorian in 1942-1943, when both Tehlirian and Minakhorian were in Serbia. V. Minakhorian was already dead (1944), but Tehlirian had, in addition to the original, copies made by him, one of which was sent to S. Vratsyan for editing and preparation for publication.

There was a need to re-edit the memoirs for more than one reason, and S. Vratsyan had done so in good faith, diligently maintaining the originality of the original version.

First of all, it was the case of Shahan Natalie – one of the main organizers of the intimidation against Talaat, who was expelled from the ranks of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun and took a hostile stance towards the party. Then the Special Case – other figures involved in “Nemesis” operation who were still alive and some of whom were in important public positions could be endangered or prosecuted. S. Vratsyan had found the solution to these complicated issues: the historical reality
should be respected. Shahan Natalie’s name and role in the Special Case would be kept unchanged. And the other important actors were “baptized” under pseudonyms. Thus, Hrach Papazian became Hrap, Vahan Zakarian became Vaza, Hagop Zorian became Yazor, Hayk Ter Ohanian became Hayko.

There were other survivors among the participants of the operation of intimidation against Talaat, or their family members still living in Turkey, who could also be in danger. It was decided to erase such names completely or to mark them only with initials.

There were other survivors among the participants of the operation of intimidation against Talaat, or their family members still living in Turkey, who could also be in danger. It was decided to erase such names completely or to mark them only with initials.

Tehlirian returned the editions by making corrections or additions. He also often suggested corrections in his reply letters or attachments. To what extent these corrections have been applied or not to the printed copy, we have included this case and, by means of footnotes, have indicated each of them. The unfulfilled corrections are generally the result of the fact that sometimes the editions sent to Casablanca were already printed. Nevertheless, on some printed samples, there are observed erasures with thick black ink. Therefore, in connection with the future republishing of S. Tehlirian’s memoirs, it is necessary to take into account the remarks made by us.

The purpose of publishing the present letters is to pay tribute to the immortal memory of Soghomon Tehlirian, the just and vengeful Armenian who shot down Talaat Pasha on March 15, 1921 in Berlin.

Retrospective economic and political comparisons in տhe context of the Second Artsakh War

Atom Sh. Margaryan
2020 was, by far, one of the most turning and fatal years of the millennium of the permanent flow of Armenian history. The plague that started at the beginning of the year and turned into a global evil from March (COVID-19), which was a destructive and deadly threat to human lives and the normal life of the country, hit Armenia with all its might. At first, the underestimation of that great threat by the Armenian “velvet” authorities and the unimpeded spread of the fire because of it, and then the application of panic and monstrous restrictions by the sameauthorities was just ridiculous. At the same time, 2020 had much more terrible and destructive consequences. The large-scale Azeri-Turkish attack on the entire front of Artsakh on September 27 and the 44-day heavy war that followed, which led to heavy losses – human, territorial, military-technical, communication, etc. The article is dedicated to the analysis of the effects of these two crucial factors.

The article develops the provision according to which the 30-year history of the newly independent Republic of Armenia is, in fact, a story of imitation of the reforms aimed at modernizing the institutional and economic systems of the country and, ultimately, their failure. In fact, the country’s elite-guided and antinational electoral elites have not been able to create emerging security, diplomatic, legal-political and economic emerging systems capable of withstanding external and internal challenges and crises. This is confirmed by its continuous social and economic failures, and, finally, by the heavy defeat suffered by the country after the Second Artsakh War, with huge territorial and human losses.

According to the study reflected in the article, the main determinants of the behavior of the ruling elites of the Third Republic of Armenia were based not on the realization of national interests, visions of strategic development and realistic and viable programs anchored on them, but on corrupt groups in practice. In fact, one and a half dozen successive governments in the country have served the interests of these groups and their paramilitaries, regardless of the areas in which decisions are made, their implementation, the rule of law, defense, security systems and the military, economic resources, income distribution, goods or social policy. The main precondition for success in politics, advancement in the public service, and significant income in business and economic transactions over the past decades has been for people to be loyal to the top leaders of the highest bureaucracy, to serve this or that leader, to be part of the government, and so on.

The above-mentioned realities and factors have overwhelmed the reforms in Armenia for decades, and instead of modernization and development, the society has witnessed stagnation and failures. As a result, the country has not been able to accumulate sufficient resources over time, both in terms of neutralizing external military threats and effectively enduring other emergencies, on the contrary, it has largely squandered the existing and previously accumulated development potential. As a result, corruption, illegality, mass violations of human and civil rights flourished, the income and property burden of the society, poverty and emigration expanded and deepened.

In the articles of the Treaty of Sèvres

Summary

Armen Ts. Marukyan
The Treaty of Sèvres was considered by Armenian socio-political thought exclusively in the context of Articles 88-93, which are directly related to Armenia. This was quite natural, as these articles restored the right of the Armenian people to their homeland, a part of Western Armenia. Mentioned articles of the Treaty of Sèvres de jure recognized not only the Republic of Armenia including the Armenian provinces of Transcaucasia, but also the United Armenia uniting Eastern and Western Armenia. The signatory states, including the Turkish state that was defeated in the First World War, recognized the independence of the United Armenia and agreed to expand the borders of Armenia by annexing most of the territories of the provinces of Erzurum, Van and Bitlis, as well as part of the province of Trabzon, thus ensuring the exit of Armenia to the Black Sea.

In addition to these articles, the Treaty of Sèvres contains a number of important articles on the restoration of the violated rights of the non-Turkish population of the Ottoman Empire. Although the words “Armenia” or “Armenian” are missing in Articles 125, 142, 144, 285 and 288 of the Treaty of Sèvres, it is obvious, that they also directly refer to the restoration of the violated rights of the Ottoman Armenians, their descendants, as well as the Armenian communities. According to Articles 226, 228 and 230 of the Treaty, criminal liability was provided against high-ranking Turkish officials not only for war crimes, but also for crimes against humanity, which primarily meant genocide against Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. A comprehensive analysis of these articles will make it possible to clarify the international obligations undertaken by the criminal Turkish state under the Treaty of Sèvres, as well as to discuss the prospects for implementing the mechanisms proposed in the document to restore the violated rights and property damage of the Armenian population who became victims of the crime of genocide.

Although the Treaty of Sèvres was not ratified, some of its provisions were partially implemented by the signatory states, and that the Treaty of Sèvres was not replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, since both the parties to these two documents, also their subject matter, are not identical.

Part IV: National-public activity in 1914-1917

Summary

Sargis R. Melkonyan-Candidate of Historical Sciences
In the previous parts of our study dedicated to Garegin I Hovsepyan, which were published in the issues of 2018 (N 1 (61), 2 (62), 3 (63)) of journal “Vem”, we thoroughly presented his student years and the programs of the great scholar and church leader for the reformation of the Armenian Church. The current publication, continuing a series of our articles on Hovsepyan, we present to the reader the national-public activities of Garegin Hovsepyan in 1914-1917 as the Head of the General Committee of Fraternal Assistance of St. Etchmiadzin and as the rector of the Gevorgian Theological Seminary.

ector of the Gevorgian Theological Seminary. During the years of the First World War, due to genocide and deprivation of the homeland of Armenians organized by the Turkish government, many refugees from the western provinces of Armenia found their salvation in St. Etchmiadzin. For organizing the salvation and care of these refugees and orphans in December 1914, by order of Catholicos Gevorg V Surenyants, the General Committee of Fraternal Assistance was established in Etchmiadzin, which from September 1915 to August 1916 was led by Archimandrite Garegin Hovsepyan. Under his leadership, the committee implemented the following activites.

1. From the staff of the Teaching Department of Gevorgian Seminary a separate department of specialists was organized, which was supposed to deal with the salvation and research of the cultural values of the Armenians preserved during the genocide.
2. For providing refugees with clothing the Work House was opened, thanks to which many refugee women were provided with jobs.
3. A school for refugee children was opened adjacent to the parish schools of Vagharshapat.

In the article, we presented especially in detail the travel and collection of donations of Garegin Hovsepyan in St. Petersburg and Moscow in the spring of 1917 for preserving Gevorgian Seminary and taking care for orphans. In this regard, we have published an unpublished document, in which Hovsepyan presents the results of his trip to Catholicos Gevorg V Surenyants.

During this journey for the first time to St. Petersburg and for the second time to Moscow, Garegin Hovsepyan was able to collect the necessary amount, with the help of which it was possible to ensure the work of the Gevorgian Theological Seminary before its closure due to the war, and then due to the revolution.