|
|
John Roy Carlson (a.k.a.
Arthur Derounian) and his "Armenian Information Service" provided,
in 1955, a booklet that was (as he put it) a "condensation" of
Katchaznouni's "parting words to Dashnagtzoutiun, given in the form of an
address to the Party congress in 1923."
This is a powerful genocide-disproving
document that has been emptied out of the world libraries by
"professional Armenian patriots." These propagandists have also
tried their best to discredit this work, providing desperate claims ranging
from Katchaznouni's being a "Bolshevik," to even more outright
lying, that Derounian, an Armenian patriot in his own right, purposely altered
the translation (!).
The original in Russia has been found,
and translated scrupulously. The 1955 version has already been featured on
TAT, and now, for the first time, readers can ascertain every word
Katchaznouni provided.
The lines in light green
are the ones from the 1955 "condensed" version. The omitted and
"new" lines are in white.
If readers wish to consult the
appendixes and other commentaries Derounian provided in 1955, please visit the
pre-existing version on
TAT.
This presentation has been preceded by a highly informative analysis; the
author, Mehmet Perincek, studied at Moscow University, has a fluent knowledge
of Russian, and conducted invaluable research within the Russian archives.
Katchaznouni's complete manifesto will follow afterwards.
ADDENDUM, 5-07:
Subsequently having read Esat Uras' The Armenians in History and the
Armenian Question (The English version from 1988; Uras had written the
book in 1953, pre-dating Derounian's 1955 work; there is a "Footnote
2" below telling us the year was 1950, instead of 1953), I was struck by
some discrepancies. Because of my healthy suspicion of Turkish historians, at
first I was concerned of exaggerations, which was disconcerting, since Uras'
credibility has been well established. I then looked closer and realized what
was happening. Uras's translation was from the original Armenian and formed a
purer translation. Derounian's translation was from the original Armenian as
well, but since Derounian admitted his version was "condensed," I am
concluding some of the damaging statements were removed. (For example, Uras's "we
invaded Oltu" line has been excised, weakening
the picture of the Armenians' provocation of their 1920 war with the Turks.
Armenian propoaganda tells us, of course, that Turkey was the aggressor with
this war.) Now, Perincek's version is from the "original Russian,"
as I had written above, but actually the Russian version is one step removed
from the original, translated from the Armenian as it was. (So Perincek's
process was Russian-Turkish-English. Uras's version was
Armenian-Turkish-English. Derounian's was Armenian-English. This does not mean
the "three step" process of the first two would be inaccurate, as we
can see from how close all three versions are, but some nuances may have been
lost.)
(Not every Katchaznouni excerpt Uras has used will be referred to; there were
more. Uras, as Derounian, did not perform "straight through"
translations, as far as the English version provides. The "three
dot" rule indicating that there are stretches in between was not
utilized.)
In any event, the parts Derounian deleted are important to examine, as well as
the other discrepancies. Perincek magnanimously allowed the original Derounian
passages to remain untouched, even though some of the Derounian passages
evidently were not always on the ball. Once again, the Derounian passages
below are in light green. At the
time of this addendum, I will add a few "Uras" notes of interests in
yellow.
|
|
|
| THE DASHNAGTZOUTIUN
HAS NOTHING TO DO ANYMORE |
The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni
First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic
The abridged pamphlet Translated from the Original by Matthew A. Callender
Edited by John Roy Carlson (Arthur A. Derounian)
Published by the Armenian Information Service Suite 7D, 471 Park Ave. New York 22 1955
AND
the omitted sections translated from the Turkish edition, Tasnak Partisi’nin Yapacagi
Birsey Yok, Kaynak Yayinlari, Nov.2006, Istanbul
by
Lale Akalin
2006
|
|
INTRODUCTION TO THE TURKISH EDITION
By Mehmet Perinçek
We have been hearing arguments as to how the archives should be consulted, in
connection with the discussion of the Armenian question. Here is a document from the
Armenian archives. With this report by Hovannes Katchaznouni, we are lifting the
cover of the Armenian archives.
We invite the whole world to study the Russian and the Armenian archives, in order
to bring out the truth. They are very rich in documents: reports by the Armenian
authorities and government members of the time and reports by Armenian commanders
written to their seniors, documents published by reliable Armenian historians like
Borian and Lalaian are all in those archives as official documents.
As the Kaynak Publishing House, we are commencing the publication of the
series, The Lie of ‘Armenian Genocide’ in Armenian Documents, with an
official document, a report by the first prime-minister of the first Armenian
government and the leader of the Dashnagzoutiun. I would like to repeat that this
document you will be reading is not a magazine article or a speech but a report
submitted to the Dashnagzoutiun Convention in Bucharest in 1923. The person who read
this report, Hovannes Katchaznouni may be considered the most important figure in
the Dashnag movement. He was holding a responsible position during the period
1915-1923 in which the events referred to as “the Armenian Genocide” took place.
The present report is actually a summary of the events in that period.
Who is Katchaznouni?
Hovannes Katchaznouni is the first prime-minister of the Armenian state founded in
July 1918. He was in power as the head of government until August 1919, for thirteen
months. He was among the founders of the Dashnagzoutiun Party and one of its top
leaders. He was the prime authority of Armenia and the Dashnagzoutiun Party.
He was born in 1867 in the Akhaltsikhe (Ahıska) region of Georgia. Having
studied architecture, he worked as an architect in Baku. He joined the Dashnag
organization there. He became a member of the Armenian National Council in 1917 and
was the Dashnag representative in the Seym (the Caucasian Parliament) until 1918. He
was on the Armenian committee, conducting the peace talks with the Turks in Trabzon
and Batoum. After the dissolution of the Caucasian State, he became the first
prime-minister of the independent Armenian State in 1918. He held this position
until August 1919. He was arrested after Bolsheviks came to power in Armenia in
1920. He left the country after the counter-revolutionary revolt against the
Bolshevik rule was suppressed in 1921. Years later, he returned to the Soviet
Armenia to work there as an architect until his death in 1938.
Publication of the Report
Katchaznouni voices a self-criticism of the past in this conference report. This
self-criticism is actually a confession. Katchaznouni honestly and sincerely
resolves that the Dashnagzoutiun Party is responsible for the past agonies. He
concludes, at the end of the report, that the Dashnagzoutiun Party should dissolve
itself and leave the political arena. His last words are significant: “Yes, I
propose suicide, the party should commit suicide,” he says.
Katchaznouni publishes his report very urgently, that same year. The title he uses
once more emphasizes his proposal of suicide: “Dashnagzoutiun Has Nothing to do
Anymore”
Katchaznouni omitted some three or four pages concerning his proposals about the
inner organizational issues of the party when he first published this report as a
book. However, he included in the book a letter he wrote to a fellow party member
who had criticized his report in his letter.
The book published in Armenian was translated into Russian four years later and and
an edition of only 2000 copies was published in Tbilisi in 1927 as a significant
warning or lesson. The Russian edition included an introduction in Russian. [1]
The English edition of the book was was published in 1955 with the title The
Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagsoution) Has Nothing To Do Any More by
the “Armenian Information Service” in New York. However, this was an abridged
edition.
What is interesting but what seems natural when the content of the book is taken
into consideration, is the fact that this historical report by the first Armenian
prime minister was banned in Armenia. It is also a fact that all the copies were
collected from the libraries in Europe by Dashnags. All the copies in all the
languages were collected from European libraries. The book is included in the
catalogues but no copies can be found in the racks.
I discovered a copy of the Russian edition in the Lenin Library in Moscow, during my
research on the Armenian issue. The book was translated into Turkish by Arif
Acaloğlu with utmost care and precision and I would like to extend my thanks to
him here for his worthy contribution.
[1] S. Hanoian, in the Introduction, states that Katchaznouni was “open-hearted”
in his report, despite some criticism concerning his ideas on the Soviet rule.
However, in the Soviet Armenia, there were very grave citicisms on Katchaznouni’s
book. See Marents, “Litso Arsyaskogo Smenohovstva”, Bolşevik
Zakavakazya,No.3-4, 1928, s. 83 vd.
|
| Studies in Turkey |
In the Introduction to the previous editions of this book we indicated that Prof.
Türkkaya Ataöv had informed the reader about the book Katchaznouni published, in his
work in English, in 1985. However, there are earlier references to the book. 34 years
before Prof. Ataöv’s book, Esat Uras; again, a few years before Ataöv, Ambassador
Kamuran Gürün and in the same year, in 1985, Mim Kemal Öke referred to the book. This
means that the book has been known in Turkey for over half a century.
Esat Uras, in his celebrated work Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi (Armenians and
the Armenian Question in History), which was published in 1950, made references to
Katchaznouni’s book. [2] So it is clear that Katchaznouni’s book, published in
Armenian in 1923 in Vienna, had been translated into Turkish before 1950, when Uras
published his book.
Quotations from the same manuscript translation were also made by Ambassador Kamuran
Gürün in his work, Ermeni Dosyası (The Armenian File), published in 1983 by
the Turkish History Institute. [3]
The bibliography of the booklet, Dokuz Soru ve Cevapta Ermeni Sorunu (The Armenian
Question in Nine Questions and Answers), which states the “Foreign Politics
Institute” as the publisher, contains a reference to the 1923 edition published by
Katchaznouni himself in Vienna. [4] However, in the bibliography the title of the book
appears not in Armenian but in English. It seems that the publications of this institute
were parallel to those of the Turkish State. Mim Kemal Öke, in his article in a
collection published by Boğaziçi University in 1984, quoted in length from the
English abridged edition published in New York in 1955. [5]
Prof. Türkkaya Ataöv published a ten-page work on Katchaznouni’s book, in 1984, in
English. This work was translated into French, German and Spanish and was published
together in these four languages by the propaganda bureaus of the Turkish State, in 1985.
Ataöv, in this work, which has never been published in Turkish, states that he has got a
type-written copy of the Turkish translation of Katchaznouni’s book in Armenian. It
seems that the manuscript translation referred to by Esat Uras and Kamuran Gürün had
been reduplicated as a type-written copy in the meanwhile. Other researchers might also
have referred to the Turkish or English translations of Katchaznouni’s report before
1984.
The Turkish edition, translated from the Armenian original is kept in the Turkish History
Institute, though we are not certain whether the Foreign Ministry keeps a copy.
It might be considered surprising that this report by Katchaznouni has not received due
attention in Turkey, so far. However, it might also be considered natural, because Turkey
and Turkish researchers have not been able to build their theses on a strong basis; they
have not taken the strong stand of anti-imperialist struggle and the righteousness of the
Turkish War of Independence; and also because neither the academic circles nor the Turkish
Foreign Ministry has understood the importance of this report and therefore it has not
been given due consideration. The Katchaznouni report had not been published in Turkish
before the Kaynak Yayinlari edition and in fact, it has almost been hidden. It has
not even been the subject of any serious research or study so far. Doubtlessly, the
tendency on the part of the Turkish researchers and authorities to keep a certain distance
with the Russian and Armenian archives played an important part in this. They must have
regarded using Russian sources as showing an inclination towards Bolshevism. This is also
another indication showing that the main concern in Turkey was to render the Turkish
theses sympathetic to the Western imperialists. This is the essential point.
The Katchaznouni report was introduced to the Turkish reader by the weekly Aydınlık,
in its issue of October 2, 2005. Aydınlık’s treatment of the subject
mainly consisted of a broad summary and an evaluation of the report.
[2] Esat Uras, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, 1stanbul 1950, s. 716,
740 vd, 758.
[3] Kamuran Gürün, Ermeni Dosyası, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara
1983, s. 196, 234, 274, 304 vd, 308.
[4] Dış Politika Enstitüsü, Dokuz Soru ve Cevapta Ermeni Sorunu, Ankara, Nisan
1983, s. 41.
[5] Prof. Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv, An Armenian Source: Hovhannes Katchaznouni; Une Source
Armenienne Hovhannes Katchaznouni¸ Eine Armenische Quelle: Hovhannes Katchaznouni¸
Fuenta Armenia. Hovhannes Katchaznouni¸; Second Printing, Ankara March 1985.
|
Katchaznouni’s Observations
|
Katchaznouni particularly states that he has come to his conclusions after a grave
thinking process. The conclusions he has reached are not the result of
superficiality or lack of will-power. He knows he will infuriate many. He calls on
the delegates of the Dashnagzoutiun Conference to listen to him patiently, with no
prejudice. As he is determining the boundaries of his report, he explains that he
will examine the period extending from World War I to the Lausanne Conference,
dividing it into certain phases from the point of view of the Armenian question and
will focus on the role Dashnagzoutiun has played in this process.
The first Prime Minister of the Dashnagzoution Government makes the following
observations:
— It was a mistake to establish the volunteer units.
— They were unconditionally allied with Russia.
— They had not taken into consideration the balance of power which was in Turkey’s
favour.
— The decision of the deportation of Armenians was a rightful measure taken by
Turks to serve their purpose.
— Turkey had acted with an instinct of self-defence.
— The British occupation once more aroused the hopes of the Dashnags.
— What they established in Armenia was a Dashnag dictatorship.
— They had acted in pursuit of the imperialist demand,”From Sea to Sea” and
had been provoked with this.
— They massacred the Muslim population.
— The Armenian terrorist acts were directed at winning over the Western public
opinion.
— The fault was not to be found outside the Dashnagzoutiun Party.
— The Dashnagzoutiun Party had nothing else to do but commit suicide.
Yes, all these observartions were made by Katchaznouni, the first Prime Minister of
Armenia and the founder of the Dashnagzoutiun Party.
Katchaznouni considers the essence of the Turkish-Armenian relations during the
period of 1914-23 as a state of war. According to Katchaznouni’s evaluations, this
war was actually between Turkey and the great imperialist powers. Katchaznouni does
not make any evaluations that hold Turkey responsible, for he considers the Dashnags
and their Armenian followers as one side of the war and Turkey as the other side. He
concludes that in the face of Turkish victory, the Dashnagzoutiun Party has nothing
else to do but dissolve itself.
These observations may surprise some people. However, we know that many other
Armenian statesmen and historians have also made the same evaluations. The years
following 1921 were years of deep self-criticism for Armenian intellectuals. They
were finally face to face with realities. Doubtlessly, the Bolshevik rule played an
important part in this new turn to reality. The new stand taken against imperialism
necessarily reminded them of the realities and pulled them towards the
Lenin-Atatürk alliance. For this reason, especially the Armenian and Dashnag
documents belonging to the period following 1921 confirm Katchaznouni’s views. The
Dashnag documents, some of which are found in the Armenian State Archives expose the
lie of “Armenian Genocide” as dramatically as Katchaznouni’s report. The
Dashnag sources themselves disclose how they were used against Turkey by the Tsarist
Russia and Western imperialism; what massacres they were responsible for during the
occupation and how just was the fight the Turkish army waged.
|
| Report Teaches a Lesson |
Katchaznouni’s report is extremely valuable not only because it discloses an
indisputable truth but also because it teaches invaluable lessons even in the
present day world. The present USA strategy bestows special missions on small ethnic
and religious groups in dividing certain countries. The bloody outcomes of these
missions are apparent in the examples of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. What is
more, the world public opinion is aware that new examples will ensue. However, there
is always a final scene in these plots and contrivances. Katchaznouni’s report
provides an opportunity to see the tragedies that fill those last scenes, with all
their sadness. Those who allowed themselves to be pushed against the peoples they
had been living together with, for hundreds, even thousands of years, had not only
their neighbours but their own people pay the price for it, most gravely.
Katchaznouni, like all the other Armenian writers state that the Tsarist Russian
regime, the British and the French imperialism used them and when, finally, they
were left alone, they had nothing else to do but bemoan that they had been betrayed.
Those who can interpret the developments in history can certainly see that the
regrets and the cries which will follow the present historical period will not be in
a different tone.
Other Documents in the Dashnag Archives Confirm Katchaznouni
Katchaznouni’s observations stated in his report are confirmed by other documents
in the Dashnag archives. These Dashnag documents, some of which can be found in the
Armenian archives, expose the “Genocide” lie in the same dramatic way seen in
Katchaznouni’s report. The Dashnag documents themselves show how they were used by
the Tsarist Russia and the Western imperialism against Turkey and what massacres
they were responsible for, during the occupation and how rightful was the fight the
Turkish army waged against all this.
Fight against Turkey in the Tsarist Armies
The imperialist centres accuse the Ottoman state and Mustafa Kemal’s Revolutionary
government with subjecting the Armenians to massacre and genocide during 1915-23.
However, the eight years which comprise the period of the Turkish War of
Independence, are at the same time years of fight for the Dashnag forces, under the
leadership of the Tsarist regime of Russia, the British and the French armies. This
historical fact has been reflected in thousands of Armenian documents. I would like
to give a few examples. The declaration sent by the Armenian National Bureau to Tsar
Nicholas II at the very beginning of World War I shows how deeply attached the
Dashnag leaders feel towards imperialism:
“As the glorious Russian Armies are fighting against Turkey who,
with German support has dared to raise its hand against mighty Russia, on the lands
in its own hegemony, in the snowy Armenian mountains and the vast Alashkert valley,
the Armenians, taking the advice of their forefathers (…) have risen to sacrifice
their lives and their assets to Great Russia and the magnificence of its throne. “The
good news of war with Turkey has aroused enthusiasm among all the Armenian people.
The Armenians from all the countries are in haste to take their place in the
glorious Russian armies and to serve the achievement of the Russian arms with their
blood. We are praying God to be victorious over the enemy. We owe it to our nation
to turn into new Russian arms and to fulfill Russia’s historical duty in the East.
Our hearts are burning with this desire.
“The Russian flag will freely flutter in the Bosphorous and the Dardanelles.
Your will, my magnificent lord, bestow freedom to the peoples under Turkish yoke”.
[6]
[6] Mşak, No. 271, 1914: cited by
ibid p. 89
|
| |
Zaven, the Armenian Bishop in Istanbul had already declared, before the war started, to
the reporter of Mşak, the organ of the Armenian nationalist-liberals, that the
radical solution of the Armenian question would be the unification of all Armenia
(including the Eastern Anatolia of Turkey-M.P.) under Russian sovereignty with which
Armenians’ fate was historically linked. The Bishop stated that “the sooner the
Russians arrive here, the better for us.” [7]
Zavriev, the Head of the International Relations Department of the Dashnagzoutsiun Party,
in the letter he sent to the ambassadors of the Tsarist Russia in London and Paris in
1915, exposes the role played by Armenians in World War I:
“Since the first days of the present war, the Russian Armenians have
been in the expectation of joining the war. This situation gives rise to the hope that the
Armenian question will be taken up at the end of the war, and it will definitely be
solved. For this reason, Armenians cannot hold back from participating in the prospective
events and thus must take their place in the war, most passionately” [8]
Another Dashnag document which supports the content of this letter in the Tsarist Russian
archives is in the personal archives of Borian, a politician and historian. The document
which comprises the speech made by the military representative of the Dashnagzoution Party
in the All Armenia National Congress convened in Tbilisi in February 1915 is significant:
“As is known, the Russian government gave 242 900 rubles at the
beginning of the war to make preparations to arm the Turkish Armenians and to incite
revolts in the country during the war. Our volunteer units need to break the defense line
of the Turkish forces and to unite with the rebels and to create anarchy on the front and
behind the lines and by these means help the Russian armies pass through and capture
Turkish Armenia”. [9]
 |
| Mehmet Perincek . |
Dashnag publications are full of documents admitting
that they created anarchy on the front and behind the lines and fought as the striking
force of the Russian armies. Orizon, the organ of Dashnagzoutiun reads as follows in its
196th issue of 1912:
“The Turkish state authorities and those in power should know that
from now on, neither a Turk nor the Turkish state has any value for an Armenian
whatsoever. Let them think of other means to protect their existence.” [10]
Again in the 243rd issue of October 31, 1914 of Orizon, it is claimed that the
victory of the Tsarist Russia will also be the victory of Armenians while Armenians are
called to actively participate in the war. [11]
Another organ of the Dashnags, Ayrenik, on September 24, 1914, states the
following, concerning Nikolai Nikolaievich, the Caucasian Governor of Tsarist Russia, who
has just arrived in Tbilisi:
“Yesterday His Excellency the Royal Prince Nikolai Nikolaievich, the
deputy of the Tsar in Caucasia arrived in Tbilisi. We trust that the Royal Prince will put
an end to the existence of the Turkish State forever. With this conviction, we salute the
dear 6th Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army in Caucasia and welcome him”. [12]
[7] Armenian SSR State Central History
Archives (TsGİA Arm. SSR) fond vıpisok, folder 37, sheet 45-46, cited in K.N.
Karamyan, PolojenieZapadnıh Armyan, “ArmyanskiVopros” i Mejdunarodnaya
Diplomatiya V Posledney Çetverti XIX Veka İ Naçale XX Veka, Yerevanski
Gosudarstvennıy Universitet, Yerevan, 1972, p.87 vd.
[8] Mejdunarodnie Otnoşenia V Epohu İmperializma (Dokumenti İz Arhiva
Tsarskogo İ Vremennogo Pravitelstva), seriya III, t. VII, ç.II, Gosudarstvennoe
Sotsialno-Ekonomiçeskoe İzdatelsvo, Moskva-Leningrad, 1935, p. 45
[9] Prof.Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv, An Armenian Source: Hovannes Katchaznouni; Une Source
Armenienne: Hovannes Katchaznouni; Fuenta Armenia: Hovannes Katchaznouni: Second Printing.
Ankara, March 1995
[9] Mşak, No. 271, 1914: cited by ibid p. 89
[9] Armenian SSR State Central History Archives (TsGİA Arm. SSR) fond vıpisok,
folder 37, sheet 45-46, cited in K.N. Karamyan, PolojenieZapadnıh Armyan, “ArmyanskiVopros”
i Mejdunarodnaya Diplomatiya V Posledney Çetverti XIX Veka İ Naçale XX Veka,
Yerevanski Gosudarstvennıy Universitet, Yerevan, 1972, p.87 vd.
[9] Mejdunarodnie Otnoşenia V Epohu İmperializma (Dokumenti İz Arhiva
Tsarskogo İ Vremennogo Pravitelstva), seriya III, t. VII, ç.II, Gosudarstvennoe
Sotsialno-Ekonomiçeskoe İzdatelsvo, Moskva-Leningrad, 1935, p. 45 See B.A. Borian,
Armeniya, Mejdunarodnaya Diplomatiya i SSSR, v.I Gosudarstvennoe İzdatelstvo,
Moskva-Leningrad, 1929, p. 360
[10] Prof.Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv, An Armenian Source: Hovannes Katchaznouni; Une Source
Armenienne: Hovannes Katchaznouni; Fuenta Armenia: Hovannes Katchaznouni: Second Printing.
Ankara, March 1995
[10] Mşak, No. 271, 1914: cited by ibid p. 89
[10] Armenian SSR State Central History Archives (TsGİA Arm. SSR) fond vıpisok,
folder 37, sheet 45-46, cited in K.N. Karamyan, PolojenieZapadnıh Armyan, “ArmyanskiVopros”
i Mejdunarodnaya Diplomatiya V Posledney Çetverti XIX Veka İ Naçale XX Veka,
Yerevanski Gosudarstvennıy Universitet, Yerevan, 1972, p.87 vd.
[10] Mejdunarodnie Otnoşenia V Epohu İmperializma (Dokumenti İz Arhiva
Tsarskogo İ Vremennogo Pravitelstva), seriya III, t. VII, ç.II, Gosudarstvennoe
Sotsialno-Ekonomiçeskoe İzdatelsvo, Moskva-Leningrad, 1935, p. 45 See B.A. Borian,
Armeniya, Mejdunarodnaya Diplomatiya i SSSR, v.I Gosudarstvennoe İzdatelstvo,
Moskva-Leningrad, 1929, p. 360 Orizon, No. 196, 1912 cited in K.N.Karamyan op.cit. p. 81
[11] Orizon, No. 243, October 31, 1914, cited in A.M. Elchibekian, Armenya Nakanune
Velikogo Oktyabrya, İzdatelstvo AN Armyanskoy SSR, Yerevan, 1963, p. 18
[12] Ayrenik, No. 2, Sept.24 1915 cited in Lalaian, “Kontrrevolyutsionnıy ‘Dahnagsutyun’
İ İmperialistiçeskaya Voyna 1914-1918 gg”, Revolyutsionnıy Vostok,
No.2-3, 1936, p. 91
|
|
In the dinner party following the march of the volunteer unit, commanded by Vardan,
on April 15, 1915, in Echmiadzin , the first toast was proposed to glorious Russia
and its heroic army. All Armenian (katoliko/Catholicos),
after having sung ceremonial prayers, declared the gratitude of the Armenian people
to the Russian armies and their readiness to emancipate the Armenian lands from the
hegemony of foreigners, together with Russia. [13]
Similarly, Georg V, the all Armenian (katoliko/Catholicos),
after the occupation of Van, states in the congratulatory telegrams he sent to
Vorontsov, the Caucasian Governor of Russia and to P.I. Oganovsky, the Commander of
the 4th Caucasian Army that he is praying for new victories of the Russian armies
[14]
Hatisian, one of the important leaders of Dashnagsutiun, in his memoirs published in
the 5th issue of Ayrenik in 1933, states that “with the defeat of the Russian
army, all our hopes pinned on this army were exhausted” [15] and declares his
position in World War I.
Fighting Against Turkey in the service of the British and French Armies
Following the collapse of the Tsarist Russia, Dashnags went under the control of the
Western imperialists and fought against Turkey for the regional interests of
Britain, France and USA.
Katchasznouni, as the Prime-Minister of the Dashnag government, on February 1919 ,
in a meeting with General F. Wocker, the commander of the occupational British
forces, stated that he was sure the conditions of Armenians would improve with the
victories of the Allies and with their movement into Caucasia. The report on this
meeting is in the archives of the Interior Ministry of Armenia. [16]
Similarly, another document in the Armenian State Archives relates that the
Armenians in Adana were armed by the French occupational forces under the command of
General Diffe, and were organized in ”revenge units” and fought in French
uniforms. [17]
Obeying British and French imperialism resulted in a commitment in Greek invasion.
The Foreign Minister of the Dashnag Government states, in the telegram he sent to
his representative in Tbilisi:
“The situation on the front is very grave. It is essential that
you see Luck and Corbeille [18] and have them send telegrams to their governments
informing them of how the Turkish troops are advancing and demand that they take all
the necessary precautions(…) See the Greek representative too and demand that he
too send a telegram to his government to inform them of the situation and to ask
them if it is possible for the Greek forces to start an assault and break the
strength of the Turkish forces” [19]
[13] Ararat No. 5, 1915, p.288 vd cited in:
A.O.Arutiunian, Kavkazski Front 1914-1917 gg., İzdatelstvo “Ayastan”,
Yerevan, 1971, p.305
[14] Ararat No. 5, 1915, s. 415 vd cited in: ibid, p.307
[15] Ayrenik, No. 5, 1933, cited in: a.A. Lalaian, “Kontrevolyutsionnaya Rol
Partii Dashnagsoutiun”, İstoriçeskie Zapiski, No.2, 1928, p.83
[16] See Armenian SSR Interior Ministery Central October Revolution Archives (TsAOR
MVD SSRA)f.114, d. 23, y.48 cited in: D. Yenukidze, Krah İmperialistiçeskoy
İnterventsii V Zakavkazye, Gospolizdat Gruzinskoy SSR, Tbilisi, 1954, p. 188
[17] Armenian SSR State History Archives (GİA Arm. SSR) f. 200 d. 132. y. 338
cited in: N.Z.Efendiyeva, Borba Turetskogo Naroda Protiv Frantsuzkih Okkupantov Na
Yege Anatolii (1919-1921) gg.)İzdatelsvo AN Azerbaycanskoy SSR, Baku, 1966, p.
116
[18] The representatives of the Allies in Tbilisi
[19] D.S. Zavriev, K. Noveyşey, İstorii Severo-Vostoçnıh Vilayetov
Turtsii, Tbilisi, 1947, s. 85
|
| Armenian Cruelty in
Dashnag Reports |
The Armenian documents are also full of stories of massacre by the Dashnags under the
command of the Tsarist Russia and Western Imperialism.
In the letter of directive sent by Nikolaev, the commander of the Van military units, to
Aram, who became the Governor of Van following the occupation of the city, on June 22,
1915, the troops are ordered to attack the Kurdish population in the area and ransack the
villages. However, Aram, in his protesting reply states that the directives will not be
carried out but as a warning to the Muslims in the areas not yet occupied, the guilty will
be punished most gravely. [20]
On the other hand, in the urgent report dated November 7, 1918 sent by Lieutenant Colonel
Melik-Shahnazarov, the commander of the Dashnag Bash-Gyarninsk unit, he informs another
Armenian division that they have bombed all the villages in the area, captured 30 Turkish
villages and that they demand permission for an operation to bomb the remaining 29
villages. This Dashnag unit, which gets the permission from the Headquarters lays waste
tens of Azerbeijani villages in the Bash-Gyarninsk region, kills hundreds of people young
and old, consisting of men, women and children and ransacks their belongings. The report
by the Dashnag Lieutenant Colonel is kept in the Armenian State Archives. [21]
The Dashnag report published by the Armenian Soviet historian Lalaian first in the issue
2-3 of the magazine, Revolyutsionnıy Vostok and then in issue 2 of İstoricheskie
Zapisky, the organ of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of History, is
horrifying. The Dashnag officer, in the report he wrote from the Beyazıt-Vaaram
region in 1920, narrates proudly their practices in the area:
“I exterminated the Turkish population in Bashar-Gechar without making
any exceptions. One sometimes feels the bullets shouldn’t be wasted. So, the most
effective way against these dogs is to collect the people who have survived the clashes
and dump them in deep holes and crush them under heavy rocks pressed from above, not to
let them inhabit this world any longer. So I did accordingly. I collected all the women,
men and children and extinguished their lives in the deep holes I dumped them into,
crushing them with rocks.” [22]
[20] D.S. Zavriev, K.Noveisheyİstorii Severo-
Vostochnıh Vilayetov Turtsii, Tbilisi, 1947, p. 85
[21] Armenian State Archives (Gosarhiv Armenii) f. 67, d. 664, y. 1-2 cited in A.A.
Lalaian, op.cit p. 99 vd.
[22] Op.cit p. 101; A. Lalaian, “Kontrevolyuysionnıy ‘Dashnagsutiun’ İ
İmperialisticheskaia Voyna 1914-1918 gg.”, p. 92 vd
|
Dashnag Policy of Plunder
|
The Dashnag units practiced methods of torture of the Middle Ages and plundered the
villages. In this way, they tried to overcome the financial crisis that the Armenian
State was in. In the letter written by a Dashnag official to the head of the Dashnag
government, A. Oganjanian, dated June 21, 1920, the official complains that the
wealth that should be handed over to the Armenian state is being plundered by
Armenians:
“Zanki-Basar was occupied by our troops. This country is so rich
that it can pay our debts many times over. There has been an unconceivable plunder
here. They have collected all the wheat, the barley, the rice, all the samovars, the
carpets, all the money and gold. The Ministry of Finance could only send here
yesterday, two officials, not accompanied by an organized force. A wealth of
gigantic proportions is sliding away from our hands.” [23]
This report by the Dashnag official who wanted the property belonging to Turks
should be collected in the hands of the government is in the Armenian State
Archives. Another important document in this direction is the report sent by the
Armenian Governor of Kars, to the central authority. The Governor, as he is
reporting how the Turkish-Kurdish population is exterminated and their assets
plundered, complains that they are not always successful in collecting all the
wealth in their hands in the occupied villages. The Governor adds that “the region
comprising Turks and Kurds is really like a treasure. But unfortunately we cannot
fully control this place.” [24]
We come across the evidence of another instance of plunder in the 105th issue of
1920 of daily Jogovurd. The writer named G. Muradian recounts from the
Azerbaijani villages of the North bank of Lake Gorchy his impressions of the Dashnag
policy of plunder, with admiration:
“As a result of the work carried out by our government, the
population of these villages have been expelled outside the borders of Armenia. I
have seen abandoned villages with only a few cats and dogs who were meowing or
barking strangely with surprise at the death silence. The population of these
villages have left behind a considerable amount of potatoes, wheat and barley and
seeds. The government can collect from these villages, over two million puds of
wheat and half a million pud of potatoes.” [25]
[23] Gosarhiv Armenii f. 65, d. 116, y. 96 cited in:
A.A. Lalaian, “ Kontrevolyutsionnaya Rol Partii Dashnagzoutiun”, p. 100.
[24] Gosarhiv Armenii f. 67, d. 1769, y. 25, cited in: ibid
[25] Jogovur, No. 105, 1920 cited in op.cit p. 100 vd
|
| Dashnag Torture on Armenian
Peasants |
Dashnag documents also document how Armenian peasants suffered under the
unbelievable torture and cruelty of the Armenian government itself. For example, it
was reflected in the documents how the Dashnag Government Commissar, V. Agamian
punished people and had them shot without trying them or carrying out an
investigation on them, in order to prevent escapes from the army. Agamian gathered
the wives, mothers and sisters of the people charged with deserting the army and
stripped them naked and forced them to duck-walk in the village square. The Dashnag
official then beat the naked women and kept them in water for hours. Agamian, who
later ordered the women to be arrested, raped the young girls and women during the
night. Agamian stayed in office for a long time without ever been punished. The
Dashnag government called him back, only when they learned from a peasant named M.
Azaparetov that the peasants were going to attempt at assassinating Agamian. [26]
A one time member of the Dashnag government, Jagetian, in his article published in
Iran, makes the following statements concerning the Dashnag rule which he was a part
of:
“The government armies, the pseudo-volunteer units (humbas),
plundered the villages around the town of Ichevan (old Delican) and raped the women.
The volunteer execution team put the peasants in such a state that the ‘humbapeta’
(the head of the team), ‘Arch-Mard’ (the bear-man) surrounded the village with
50 volunteers and pulled it down. Almost one thousand Armenian peasants were pushed
to Azerbaijan territory.”
Jagetian says that no official was punished for special treatment of friends and
relatives and adds:
“The Armenian Interior Ministry had become the shelter for all
the criminals. The Minister Krmonian himself embezzled 50 million rubles from the
state treasury one day before he left office.” [27]
Years later, another representative of the Dashnags, the publisher Chalhushian calls
the government police “plunder troops” and tells how it became impossible to
walk unarmed in the centre of the Armenian capital after sunset. [28]
In fact, the system of Armenian volunteer units called “humbapeta” systemized
anarchy and plunder in Armenia and the neighbouring countries. The following song
sung all together is actually a musical confession so far as it reflects the
psychology of the volunteer units: “Come, pull down, pillage, kill and lay your
jacket on your shoulder, walk about freely!” [29]
These circumstances gave rise to a situation where everyone who so wished founded a
volunteer unit and turned these units into criminal organizations. The directive
given out by the “humbapeta” (head of the unit) named Deli-Qazar expresses this
situation very well:
“Announcement to the Armenians of the Yerevan region and the
town of Yerevan: I am going to the front today with the boys. If some people, after
I have left, introduce themselves as Deli-Qazar’s boys and misuse my name as a
blackmailer, they will be punished severely by the nation and the military
authority.” [30]
By 1918, The Dashnag Government had recruited all its citizens below 35 to the army
and had reestablished “volunteer” units for the war to be fought against Turkey.
In their publications, they made announcements threatening those who would go
against this decision with death and proclaimed that “those who were wise” would
not act against them. The issue dated March 1, 1918 of the Dashnag organ, Arev
contains such information. [31] In another document kept in the Armenian State
Archives it is stated that special troops have been dispatched to punish the
villages of Berd, Verhniy, Karmir, Ahbyur and the Shamshadinsk region. [32]
The Dashnag organ, Martik, published in Gumru states that two cannons, one
machine gun and a team of soldiers will be dispatched to the villages of those who
have not participated in the military mobilization and that those who resist will be
bombarded. [33] The Dashnag authority had even formed troops named “Terror Organ”
in order to fight the deserters and posted such announcements on the village walls:
“To all the deserters and the Armenian people: On the night of
March 1, somebody stealing a horse and two others deserting the regiment betrayed
our country and the Armenian people and the three Armenian soldiers were executed by
shooting. All the deserters should report to their troops and do their military
service before it is too late. Otherwise they will be punished in the same way.
Death to the traitors who will give Turks the opportunity of raiding Shiraq (Şirak).
Terror Organ. Gumru, March 2, 1918” [34]
[26] See A. Karinian, “K. Harakteristike Armyianskih
Nationalisticheskih Techeniy”, bolshevik Zakavkatzia, No. 9-10, 1928, p. 70
[27] See A Karinian, “K Harakteristike Armianskih Nationalisticheskih Techeniy”,
Bolshevik Zakavkazia, No. 9-10, 1928. p. 70
[28] See İbid p. 70 vd.
[29] T. Hachikoglian, 10 Let Armyanskoy Strelkovoy Divizii, İzdatelstvo Polit.
Uprav. KKA, Tiflis, 1930, p. 5
[30] İbid, p.5 vd.
[31] Arev, No. 46, March 1, 1918 cited in: A. Lalaian, “Kontrrevolyutsiyonnıy
‘Dashnagsutyutiun’ İ İmperialistcheskaia Voina 1914-1918 gg.”, p.
96.
[32] Armenian SSR Central State Archive (TsGA Arm. SSR) f. 67/199, d. 139, y. 230
cited in: A.M.Elchibekian, Ustanovlenie Sovyetskoy Vlasti V. Armenii,
İzdatelstvo AN Armyanskoy SSR, Yerevan, 1954, p. 76
[33] Martik, No. 2, 1918 cited in: T.P. Agaian, Veliki Oktyahr i Borba Trudyashihsia
Armenii Za Pobedu Sovyekskoy Vlasti, İzdatelstvo AN Aramianskoy SSR, Yerevan,
1962, p. 134
[34] T. Hachikoglian, op.cit., p. 7
|
| |
Jogavurd, one of the organs of the Armenian ruling powers states in its issue of
June 29, 1920 that the Dashnag Government blocked the flow of the river Zhangi (Zangi) and
cut their water supplies to punish the resisting peasants in the region. As a result of
this punishment many people died and the crops were ruined. [35]
Mauses Petros, one of the Dashnag ex-Foreign Ministers, who, like Katchaznouni, makes an
appraisal of the past period in an open letter he wrote to Simeon Vratsian, one of the
Dashnag ex-Prime Ministers and says that the past adventurous attitude of the government
has brought poverty and national conflicts to the country. Petros’ open letter was
published in Zang, the organ of the Hınchaq Party in Tabriz, on September 21, 1921.
[36]
Armenian Peasants Enthusiastically Greeting Turkish Army
The Dashnags acting violently against the Turks and Kurds and massacring them caused
antipathy also among the Armenian people. Moreover, some Armenian documents show the warm
feelings displayed by Armenian peasants towards the Turkish Army. The report written by an
Armenian officer sent from the town of Echimiadzin (Eçimiadzin) to the villages of Gumru,
in search of the Armenian soldiers who had deserted the army is striking. The commander,
on the information he received from the report, reports to the Headquarters, on October
14, 1920, that:
“The Armenians in the Gumru region showed a hostile attitude towards
the Dashnag officer and even attempted to turn him in to the Turks a few times. The people
in many villages seem averse and hostile towards the military. In the villages of Ilhiab
and Kapanak red flags have been put up. (…) My officer has come across a Turkish cavalry
guard accompanied by horsemen from the Selchan (Selçan) Armenians. The Turks were
welcomed with bread and salt. Peasant women cooked dishes in cauldrons. When my officer
asked them who they were cooking the dishes for, they answered: 'Certainly not for you,
they are for the Turks.' “ [37]
The reception by the Armenian people themselves, of the Turkish Army, accused of genocide
today, in this warm manner, gives an idea about how authentic the accusation is.
It is interesting that Dashnags themselves advocated a pro-Turkish stand when the Soviet
rule was established in Armenia, to be able to maintain their existence. Dashnags, who had
displayed hostility towards communism for a long time and had suppressed the progressive
people among Armenians, fighting against imperialism now started to defend alliance with
Turkey as a way out. This fact too disproves the claims that Turkey practiced genocide on
Armenians. In the article published in the Dashnag newspaper, Arach (Araç), on
October 20, 1920, titled “The Question of Armistice and Our Direction”, it is stated
that “if the Armenian people wish to maintain their existence, they are to adopt an
inclination towards Turkey, not Russia”. [38]
This preference is explained also in Ayrenik, [39] the organ of the Armenians in
the USA. Here, they even speak about how they caused wars by making too many demands on
the Ottoman authorities in both the Abdulhamid and the Ittihad Terakki periods and how the
Armenians are responsible for the killings.” [40]
[35] Jogovurd, No.102, June 1920 cited in: A.A. Lalaian,
“Kontrevolyutsionnaya Rol Partii Dashnagsutiun”, p. 102
[36] See Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPİ) f. 64, I. 1, d.
208, y. 167-171.
[37] TsGA Arm. SSR f. 68/200, d. 867, y. 278 cited in: A.M. Elchibekian, Velikaya
Okyabrskya Sotsialistiçeskaya Revolyutsiya İ Pobeda Sovyetskoy Vlasti V Armenii,
İzdatestvo A N Armyanskoy SSR, Yerevan, 1957, p. 209
[38] Arach, No. 255 October 20, 1920 cited in: A.A. Lalaian, op.cit. p. 105 and T.P.
Agaian, op.cit. p.31
[39] A. Myasnikov, Armyanskie Politiçeskie Partii Za Rubejom, İzdatelstvo “Sovyetski
Kavkaz”, Tiflis, 1925, p. 19.
[40] T.P. Agaian, op.cit. p. 31
|
The Invaluable Katchaznouni Report and other Armenian Documents
|
There have been endless allusions to “documents” in the discussions concerning
the facts of World War I, from the point of view of Turkish-Armenian relations. It
is as if everybody is in search of a “magic document” to prove or disprove the
“Armenian Genocide”. It is quite absurd to attempt at proving or disproving a
historical fact such as genocide with one or two documents. However, if the public
opinion and the academia are in need of valuable documents, the Katchaznouni Report
is matchless in this respect, for the author is the first prime-minister of Armenia;
not of Turkey. And he encountered the incidents termed as genocide when he was the
prime authority in the Dashnagsutiun Party and the Armenian Government.
He evaluated the events calmly and conscientiously not during but after the war,
after it was over. The person who wrote the report was the leader of one of the
parties at war, in fact, of the party which is claimed to have suffered genocide.
The Prime-Minister of Armenians, who are claimed to have suffered genocide,
evaluates the incidents as events of war and what is more, sincerely admits that
they have been manipulated by the imperialists.
The document in your hands is not in the Turkish archives but in the Russian and
Armenian archives. Who should the imperialists trust if they do not trust the
Armenian Prime Minister, when they are making an appraisal of the claims about the
“Armenian Genocide”? If the Armenian archives do not persuade them, which other
archive will?
The Katchaznouni Report puts an end to the great imperialist lie of “Armenian
Genocide”. What remains is to launch a world-wide campaign of publishing the
Katchaznouni Report and other Armenian documents which expose the facts in Turkish,
English, French, German, Armenian, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, Spanish and other
languages.
Here are the facts from the pen of Katchaznouni, the first Armenian Prime-Minister
and leader of the Dashnagsutiun Party.
It will be appropriate to send a copy of this report to the Committee of
International Relations of the US House of Representatives, to the parliaments of
various USA states, the French National Assembly, the German Federal Parliament, to
the Swedish National Parliament etc. They will learn from the Armenian
Prime-Minister the authenticity of the decisions of “Armenian Genocide” taken by
their parliaments.
Mehmet Perincek
October 11, 2005
Generala Tyuleneva/ Moskova [Moscow]
|
| INTRODUCTION |
However the propagandist may try, historical truth cannot be
subverted forever in a free country. However hard Dashnag propagandists may try to twist
and bury the truth, and glorify the failure of their Independent Armenian Republic, truth
must eventually prevail. Now, for the first time in English, is a deep and incisive
self-study by a competent Dashnag observer.
The author was a pillar of Dashnagtzoutiun. He was the first prime minister of the
Republic. He knew every Party secret before, during and after the founding of the
ill-fated Republic. Few were in a position to know more, nor to express themselves with
greater clarity, logic and foresight than Hovhannes Katchaznouni.
Unlike most Dashnag leaders who were revolutionists, and reared in the early Russian
socialist-revolutionary schools, Katchaznouni was born in Akhaltzkha in the Caucasus, the
son of a revered Armenian priest. He was graduated from the Architectural School of the
University of Moscow. His notable works include the magnificent Cathedral at Baku, among
many others.
This booklet is a condensation of his parting words to Dashnagtzoutiun, given in the form
of an address to the Party congress in 1923 — words which proved remarkably prophetic,
and currently are as true as when they were first spoken.
In reprinting Katchaznouni’s address neither the translator nor the editor are assumed
to agree or disagree with his views.
Katchaznouni’s work is published at this time as a refutation to the grandiose,
exaggerated and even outrageously false claims of the Dashnag leadership today, mouthed by
men who for the most part were mere party functionaries during the days of the Republic,
but through the years have blown up themselves into intellectual giants, saviors of
Armenia, etc.
Katchaznouni’s work is a basic source of Dashnag history, and the Armenian Information
Service considers it a privilege to be able to present, for the first time, the writings
of this Armenian patriot and prophet to an American audience.
JOHN ROY CARLSON
August, 1955 (Arthur A. Derounian)
=======================
A Note from the authors of the Turkish version:
As it is explained in the “Translator’s Note” to the 2006 edition that you are
reading now, the missing parts of this condensed booklet are supplied from the edition in
Turkish which was translated from the Armenian original.
======================
TO THE READER
This is a manifesto which I am preparing to the Convention of foreign branches of the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation convened during this month of April, 1923.
Deeply convinced that all the questions raised here will be subjected to the most serious
consideration of not only the members of the Party but also of every single Armenian, I
thought it was my duty to have this manifesto published and thereby make it public
property.
I am having it printed complete and without any alterations except the final three or four
pages which contain concrete proposals that are reserved to the governing bodies of the
Party.
HOVHANNES KATCHAZNOUNI
Bucharest, July, 1923
|
|
 |
|
The first man who led the Republic of Armenia. His name is
sometimes spelled "Kachazouni." |
Comrades:
These matters have had my deliberate and serious consideration. I do not know
whether you, too, have arrived at the same conclusions. Allow me to say more: I am
afraid that my final conclusion — those very difficult words which I shall here
state with all singleness of heart — will cause general embarrassment, perhaps
resentment, in the Convention.
I am prepared for that.
I only ask that you believe: a) that it is more difficult for me to write and sign
those words than for you to listen to them from my own lips; b) that those words are
not the result of thoughtless or petty, transient dispositions or hasty resolve. They
are the result of deep-rooted convictions and a clear awareness, for I am capable of
thinking and understanding, considering and determining a stand point.
I beg of you, therefore, that you be patient and approach the
matters with an open mind, unhampered — something which is not easy for men who
have lived a Party life and have thought from a Party angle.
Let me now proceed with my subject.
In order to present my conclusions in proper sequence I feel it is necessary for me
to refresh your memory with the various phases of the Armenian Cause — from the Great War to the Lausanne Conference [42] — and the role played
by the Dashnagtzoutiun during that period. So that I may not abuse your attention, I
shall curtail my speech and present to you a concise yet accurate commentary.
Following 1914, what stages did the Armenian question pass through, what development
did the events show, how did they come about, what sequence did they follow and and
where did they lead to and in the meantime, what did our party do and what will it
have to do in the future?
When I recall the recent past, with these considerations in mind, and when I
distinguish the important points from the secondary and the arbitrary ones, and
arrange them in chronological order, this is the picture that arises:
At the beginning of the Fall of 1914 when Turkey had not yet
entered the war but had already been making preparations, Armenian revolutionary
bands began to be formed in Transcaucasia with great enthusiasm and, especially,
with much uproar. Contrary to the decision taken during their general meeting at
Erzurum only a few weeks before, the A.R.F. had active participation in the
formation of the bands and their future military action against Turkey.
In an undertaking of such gravity, fraught with most serious consequences,
individual agents of the Transcaucasian A.R.F. acted against the will of our
superior authority, against the will of the General Meeting of the Party.
Why?
Because they were also suffering from the syndrome of following the masses, and were
flowing in the direction that the current was taking them.
This example urges us to recall that the A.R.F. in Transcaucasia in the past had
been a follower rather than an originator of movements that had their inception
beyond their control. Thus it was in 1903 (rebellions and demonstrations on the
occasion of the seizure of Church properties); thus it was in the year 1905-1906
(bloody encounters between Tatars and Armenians); and thus it was also during the
first big movements of the laboring classes (1903-1906) when the A.R.F. was being
led at Baku, Tiflis (Tblisi) and Batoum by the policies of foreign socialistic
parties.
The same characteristic line of action appears, as we see a little later, in the
conduct we pursued afterwards generally.
It would be useless to argue today whether our bands of volunteers should have
entered the field or not. Historical events have their irrefutable logic. In the
Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organized themselves and fought against the
Turks because they could not refrain themselves from organizing and refrain
themselves from fighting. This was an inevitable result of a psychology on which the
Armenian people had nourished itself during an entire generation: that mentality
should have found its expression, and did so.
And it was not the A.R.F. that would stop the movement even if it wished to do so.
It was able to utilize the existing conditions, give effect and issue to the
accumulated desires, hopes and frenzy, organize the ready forces — it had that
much ability and authority. But to go against the current and push forward its own
plan — it was unfit, especially unfit for one particular reason: the A.R.F. is a
people’s mass, strong in instinct but weak in comprehension.
42.
In the Treaty of Lausanne, signed July 24, 1923 between the
Allies and Turkey, reference was no longer made to Armenia or Armenians. Both had
ceased to exist in the eyes of both Turkey and the Allies. Thus the “Armenian
Question” and the question of Armenians was buried in the grave of diplomatic
silence.
|
| |
It is also useless, today, to question who is responsible for the wrongs (if the
issue of responsibily does ever come up). If it had not been Bishop Mesrop, A.
Hatisov, Dr. Zhavriev, S. Arutniov, Dro and Andranic, there would have been others
to do the same things in their place. If the formation of
bands was wrong, the root of that error must be sought much further and more deeply.
At the present time it is important to register only the evidence that we did
participate in that volunteer movement to the largest extent and we did that
contrary to the decision and the will of the General Meeting of the Party.
The Winter of 1914 and the Spring of 1915 were the periods of greatest enthusiasm
and hope for all the Armenians in the Caucasus, including, of course, the
Dashnagtzoutiun. We had no doubt that the war would end with the complete victory of
the Allies; Turkey would be defeated and dismembered, and its Armenian population
would at last be liberated.
We had embraced Russia whole-heartedly without any compunction. Without any positive
basis of fact we believed that the Tzarist government would grant us a more-or-less
broad self-government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets liberated from
Turkey as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and assistance.
We had created a dense atmosphere of illusion in our minds. We had implanted our own
desires into the minds of others; we had lost our sense of reality and were carried
away with our dreams. From mouth to mouth, from ear to ear passed mysterious words
purported to have been spoken in the palace of the Viceroy; attention was called to
some kind of a letter by Vorontzov-Dashkov to the Catholicos as an important
document in our hands to use in the presentation of our rights and claims —a
cleverly composed letter with very indefinite sentences and generalities which might
be interpreted in any manner, according to one’s desire.
We overestimated the ability of the Armenian people, its political and military
power, and overestimated the extent and importance of the services our people
rendered to the Russians. And by overestimating our very modest worth and merit we
were naturally exaggerating our hopes and expectations.
The deportations and mass exiles and massacres which took place during the Summer
and Autumn of 1915 were mortal blows to the Armenian Cause. Half of historical
Armenia —“ the same half where the foundations of our independence would be laid
according to the traditions inherited by European diplomacy —“ that half was
denuded of Armenians: the Armenian provinces of Turkey were without Armenians. The
Turks knew what they were doing and have no reason to regret today. It was the most
decisive method of extirpating the Armenian Question from Turkey.
Again, it would be useless to ask today to what extent the participation of
volunteers in the war was a contributory cause of the Armenian calamity. No one can
claim that the savage persecutions would not have taken place if our behavior on
this side of the frontier was different, as not one can claim the contrary, that the
persecutions would have been the same even if we had not shown hostility to the
Turks.
This is a matter about which it is possible to have many different opinions.
The proof is, however — and this is essential —“ that the struggle began
decades ago against which the Turkish government brought about the deportation or
extermination of the Armenian people in Turkey and the desolation of Turkish
Armenia.
This was the terrible fact!
Civilized humanity might very well be shaken with rage in the face of this
unspeakable crime. Statesmen might utter menacing words against criminal Turkey. “Blue”,
“yellow”, “orange” books and papers might be published condemning them.
Divine punishment against the criminals might be invoked in churches by clergymen of
all denominations. The press of all countries might be filled with horrible
descriptions and details and the testimony of eye-witnesses. . . Let them say this
or that, but the work was already done and words would not revive the corpses fallen
in the Arabian deserts, rebuild the ruined hearths, repopulate the country now
become desolate. The Turks knew what they ought to do and did it.
The second half of 1915 and the entire year of 1916 were periods of hopelessness,
desperation and mourning for us. The refugees, all those who had survived the
holocaust, were filling Russian provinces by tens and hundreds of thousands. They
were famished, naked, sick, horrified and desperate floods of humanity, flooding our
villages and cities. They had come to a country which was itself ruined and
famished. They piled upon each other, before our own eyes, on our threshold dying of
famine and sickness. . .
And we were unable to save those precious lives. Angered and terrified, we sought
the culprits and quickly found them: the deceitful politics of the Russian
government. With the politically immature mind peculiar to inconsequential men, we
fell from one extreme to another. Just as unfounded was our faith in the Russian
government yesterday, our condemnation of them today was equally blind and
groundless.
It was claimed that the Russians were intentionally slow to act, showed uncertainty
and provided the grounds and the means for the Turks to slaughter the local
Armenians. It was professed that the reason behind this attitude on the part of the
Russians was to vacate Armenia and later settle the Kossacs there and that Count
Lobanov-Rostovsky’s widely known project “Armenia without Armenians” was in
progress.
It was not only people, but our party and many of our citizens with common sense who
also shared this idea.
We were reluctant to understand that there did not have to be such a project as “Armenia
without Armenians” to explain the Russian stand and that the Russian plans did not
necessarily have to involve such an item as unconditionally taking on the defence of
the Turkish Armenians. Such a plan definitely did not exist. We were only projecting
our own wishes on the Russian government and accusing them of disloyalty.
Our volunteer units were naturally trying to capture Van and Muş without any
waste of time. They headed for these places to save the Armenians. However, Russians
did not only consist of Armenians and they had other intentions. Their sluggishness
and uncertainty to act which we evaluated as disloyalty is explainable by the
customary ineffectiveness of the Russian command ( which was witnessed many times on
other fronts as well) or other general military conditions unknown to us now.
This incident being very much original and interesting, demands to be taken up
individually. By an extraordinary mental aberration, we, a
political party, were forgetting that our Cause was an incidental and trivial phase
for the Russians, so trivial that if necessary, they would trample on our corpses
without a moment’s hesitation.
I am not saying that we did not know the circumstances. Of course we knew and
understood and so we started when it was necessary to explain the situation. Deep
down in our hearts, however, we did not grasp the full meaning of that word-formula;
we forgot what we already knew and we drew such conclusions as though our Cause was
the center of gravity of the Great War, its cause and its purpose. When the Russians
were advancing, we used to say from the depths of our subconscious minds that they
were coming to save us; and when they were withdrawing, we said they are retreating
so that they allow us to be massacred. . .
In both cases we misinterpreted the consequence with the purpose and intention. We
sought proofs of Russian treachery and of course we found them — exactly as we
sought and found proofs of the same Russians— undeniable benevolence six months
before. To complain bitterly about our bad luck and to seek external causes for our
misfortune— that is one of the main aspects of our national psychology from which,
of course, the Dashnagtzoutiun is not free.
|
| |
One might think we found a spiritual consolation in the conviction
that the Russians behaved villainously towards us (later it would be the turn of the
French, the Americans, the British, the Georgians, Bolsheviks — the whole world —to be
so blamed). One might think that, because we were so naive and so lacking in foresight, we
placed ourselves in such a position and considered it a great virtue to let anyone who so
desired to betray us, massacre us and let others massacre us.
In February 1917 the Russian Revolution broke out. New possibilities opened up before us
unexpectedly.
A democratic order was under way in Russia. Extremely important social issues (such as
appropriating the lands into public ownership) were waiting to be solved. We, the
socialists and democrats welcomed this new order with enthusiasm. Also, as a national
political party, we concentrated on the issues of taking over the administrative power
from the central authority and the autonomy of individual regions and peoples.
We set out on a hard work.
The old state mechanism needed to be changed and the local units of the new authority
needed to be set up. The central government which was going through the first phases of
the Revolution did not have the means to look into this question. The local cadres were
wholly entrusted with this issue. Social institutions such as political parties, workers’
unions and national governments were authorized with dealing with the issue (or, rather
they took it upon themselves to deal with it).
The issue of national participation in the government was a particularly complex and
difficult question in Southern Caucasia. National councils among which were Armenian
councils were established in important centers.
The Southern Caucasian Commissariat and Worker, Soldier and Peasant Soviets Southern
Caucasian Center were established. These were two independent establishments of the
central government and were assigned with governing the region until governmental
institutions were set up.
“The Soviets Center” had lost its authority by the end of the year and it left the
political scene. On the other hand, the Southern Caucasian Commissariat gained strength
and turned into the governing power of the whole Southern Caucasia.
As it later proved to be in the Seym and in the Southern Caucasian government, the “Commissariat”
was also a coalition.
This coalition represented the parties in name and form and the nations, in essence. The
main parties were: The Menshevik Fraction, the Social Democrats, the Musavat and the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnagtzoutiun. These parties in fact represented the
three main nations of the region: the Georgians, the Azerbaijani Tatars [43] and the Armenians.
The Georgian Mensheviks assumed the authoritative position, the leading role in the
Commissariat and later both in the Seym and in the government.
What was the reason?
Here are some reasons:
Firstly, the Commissariat had taken over its authority from the Provisional Government, or
rather the State Duma circles in Petrograd. The Georgian representatives, over a long
period of time, had acquired important positions and influence and had established
contacts, relying on a strong organization which was the Russian Social Democratic Party.
When a “Commissariat” was established in Southern Caucasia, the priority was naturally
given to the Georgians and not to the Armenians and the Tatars who were not conspicuous in
the Duma.
Secondly, there were people more or less experienced in state affairs, among the
Georgians. These people had acquired some habits and experience due to active
participation in the work done in the Duma. Neither we, nor those from the Musavat,
however, had been through such a school and were not prepared. Musavat was new and
Dashnagtzoutiun was in fact only prepared for underground activity. Doubtlessly, the
qualities of the party leaders were also important to a certain extent. The Georgians had
bred a few capable people or social leaders; we had nobody to sit next to them and we used
to sit behind them in the second or third rows.
Another point was that in the times of the old regime, the state affairs were in the hands
of the Georgians. This fact continued after the Revolution, for more people were to be
found among the Georgians, who were capable enough to conduct technical work. Experience
in official service naturally formed a strong basis for the Georgians to gain further
strength in administrative duties. So was the situation from the “Commissariat” to the
affairs relating to the railways and the post and telegraph.
The most important was the following: The Georgians were the best organized people with
the highest social consciousness in Southern Caucasia. On the other hand, there was no
threat against the physical existence of the Georgian people. For these reasons, the
Georgians were stronger than the other peoples.
The geographical location of the Georgian people and the fact that they inhabited the same
area together, that they suffered fewer losses in the War and also that they bred no
mutual antagonism (serious enough to be a threat to their national existence) against
their neighbours made them luckier in being able to be heard, in comparison to the
Armenians and the Azerbaijanis. No matter what, the Georgians could be on better terms
with Turkey and Azerbaijan, compared to the Armenians. What was more, a Georgian
population outside the borders of Georgia, whose lives were under threat did not exist.
However, Armenians had kins living in Azerbaijan and so did Azerbaijanis, living in
Armenia.
The Georgians were living in peace and quiet on their own land; although they did have
certain border problems with their neighbours, these arose from imperialist claims and
could easily be increased or completely solved without putting the present or the future
of Georgia under threat. On the other hand, the relations between Armenians and Turks and
Armenians and Tatars were different. Between them there had been problems going on for
centuries and it was impossible to solve them without major conflicts. Turkey,
unconditionally defeated on the west, was trying to open up a future for itself and
consolidate it on the northeast. And here the Armenians interjected between Erzurum and
Baku and blocked their way.
Insolvable land problems stood between Armenians and Azerbaijanis . The problem was not
occupying one or two towns but having the national population inhabit an unbroken,
continuous geography. This wish was fostered both by the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis.
Armenia could not survive without Şarur-Nakhichevan and the importance of Nakhichevan
for Armenia was different from the significance of Zaqatala, Akhalkalaki and Lori for
Georgia. This was why both Armenia and Azerbaijan were unlucky.
It was perhaps possible for politically mature peoples to find peaceful solutions. However
neither we nor the Azerbaijanis were mature enough; for this reason, the conflict between
the two peoples had mutually become a source of antagonism and distrust.
43.
Tatars: The author here refers to the Azerbaijani Turks. Katchznouni sometimes prefers the
word, “Tatar” is it was sometimes used by the Tsar regime but occasionally uses the
word “Azerbaijanis” to refer to the same people. (LA)
|
|
The Georgians used the Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Tatar conflicts cleverly (in
other, stronger words, opportunistically), in order to consolidate their privileged
situation. Relying on Turks and Tatars and threatening us with moving the borders in
this or that way, they complicated matters for us and forced us to accept their
conditions. Whenever they needed to ally with us, they started threatening the
Azerbaijanis. This kind of behaviour was politically an absolute blackmail and it
provided a superiority for the Georgians over their neighbours and established their
hegemony over others.
I have digressed a little but in order to make the political situation clear in that
period in Southern Caucasia, it was necessary.
Our party must understand and keep in mind that the party was under the hegemony of
the Georgian Social Democratic Party in the most difficult days, and it acted
abominably.
In September 1917, the Armenian Convention met in Tiflis (Tbilisi). A national board
was established as its executive organ and was named the Central National Council.
This National Council later acted on behalf of the Armenian people of Southern
Caucasia and became the fully authorized representative of the nation.
Dashnagtzoutiun played the leading role both at the Convention and on the board and
the council.
Towards the end of the same year, elections were held in Southern Caucasia for the
members of All Russia Provisional Assembly.
Out of the parties which participated in the election campaigns, the Menshevik
Social Democrats won 12, the Musavat won 10 and the Dashnagtzoutiun won 9 seats. The
number of seats won by the other parties was negligible.
These three parties represented three great peoples who could be listed, according
to their political weight, as the Georgians, the Tatars and the Armenians. These
elections showed that the strongest, or rather the only organized party was
Dashnagtzoutiun.
The All Russia Provisional Assembly. could not meet. The Bolshevik Revolution broke
out in October and was triumphant in Moscow and Petrograd. The Soviet order was
proclaimed and the meeting of the All Russia Provisional Assembly was not permitted,
as this assembly was considered to have bourgeois tendencies.
Southern Caucasia, loyal to the February Revolution did not recognize the Soviet
sovereignty and system
Why?
Because in this corner region the dominant parties preferred a democratic platform
based on a broad mass membership and for this reason would not accept especially a
party dictatorship. On the other hand, they thought that the country was not mature
enough for a fully socialist, let alone a communist regime (besides, the Musavat
Party possessed nothing in the name of socialism). The socialism of the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation Dashnagtzoutiun was only on the surface and had no deep
roots among the masses of people within the party. Among the Georgian Mensheviks, on
the other hand, the nationalistic anti-Russian trend was strong.
Secondly, the Georgian Mensheviks which determined the atmosphere in the political
life of Southern Caucasia, had broken away from the Bolsheviks and were openly
opposing them.
The Mensheviks who were loyal to their party regulations and the general political
line of their party, were pursuing here, exactly the same policy their Russian
comrades were pursuing in Russia. The Musavat which had enthusiastic desires about
capturing Baku and had Panturkist ideals, wanted an immediate separation from
Russia.
The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnagtzoutiun had formed close relations
with the local Bolsheviks and was assisting them, in case the Tatars would capture
Baku. In Tiflis (Tbilisi), on the other hand, they could not close their eyes to the
reality of the Georgians and Tatars and so could not put in practice Bolshevik
policies. They would not have been able to do so even if they had wanted. Anyway,
they had no desire to do so, because the Bolshevik ideology and tactics did not
appeal to them.
Our Party stood in the anti-Bolshevik camp partly due to certain convictions within
the Party and partly because of being under the pressure of outside factors.
I have to remind you here of the neutral and reluctant stand our comrades took in
Baku.
Baku, the industrial city which bore a proletariat of tens of thousands and strong
workers’ organizations offered very favorable conditions for the development of
Bolshevism. That city had been the only region where the Bolsheviks could find a
reliable sanctuary and a sound support in the whole Southern Caucasia since the
first days of the Revolution. Baku did not refuse, in form, the sovereignty of the
Southern Caucasian Commissariat even after the October Revolution. In reality,
however, the power was in the hands of two local organs: the Social Organizations
Soviet and the Workers’ Representatives Soviet.
In the first one, anti-Bolshevik groups, and in the second one the Bolsheviks
dominated. Our Party was represented on both the organs. Inside these organs which
were independent of each other and were of different nature, an open struggle for
domination was going on.
In the first period, the Social Organizations Soviet was stronger (here, the mild
socialists and the liberal bourgeoisie had formed a silent alliance against the
Bolsheviks). The Workers’ Representatives Soviet was gradually gaining strength
and by January 1918 it had gained control over the entire situation.
This Soviet was led by the Bolsheviks. Bolsheviks were not an important force then;
their accomplishments were essentially due to the insecurity prevailing in the other
camp.
Only two parties, Dashnagtzoutiun and Musavat could demonstrate any strength against
the Bolsheviks. However, though these two parties needed to act in alliance if they
wanted to accomplish anything in the struggle against Bolshevism, this was
unimaginable, for there was no mutual trust. Dashnagtzoutiun was aware that its
support for Musavat was required only because of the Bolshevik threat. Musavat had
to erase Dashnagtzoutiun from the political scene, after having eliminated the
Bolsheviks. No doubt, the Bolsheviks would do the same to Dashnagtzoutiun after
having destroyed the Musavat with the help of armed Dashnag troops. For the Armenian
community, the Bolshevik dictatorship was more acceptable in comparison to the
Musavat dictatorship.
The fact that our people got more and more involved in the Bolshevik movement in
Baku and that they provided a kind of sustenance to them is explainable only with
this.
Just as we unintentionally came under the domination of the Georgian Mensheviks in
Tiflis (Tbilisi), we were under the influence of the Bolsheviks in Baku. In both
cases the motivating force was the Turkish-Tatar threat. Bolsheviks wiped out
Musavat in Baku with our support (March 1918); we, on the other hand were able to
protect Baku against the Turkish-Tatar assault with the help of the Russian elements
among the Bolsheviks.
Later, again with our initiative, British forces were invited over from Iran. This
happened in the last moments when the Bolsheviks were getting ready to escape to
Russia and had got on the ships.
If the British had been able to settle down firmly in Baku, the outcome of the
events would probably have been different. However, the few numbers of the British
troops did not promote trust among the people and they got on their ships and went
back to Iran.
|
| |
We were left alone; we did nothing else besides following the British to Iran.
The Azerbaijani government based in Gäncä so far, entered Baku with the Turkish armed
forces and the armed people. The Armenian people were started to be cruelly massacred;
just as the Muslim people were massacred (on a smaller scale) in March during the
Bolshevik-Musavat conflict.
These incidents were happening outside Armenia, in one of the Tatar regions; nevertheless
they were reflected on our political scene and confused the situation and made it more
difficult.
The Tatars continually provoked the Turks against us and speeded up their assault, in
order to be able to enter Baku. With this intention, they were very cunningly speculating
about the March incidents and were putting the blame of the incidents entirely on the
Armenians. The Georgians were displeased with our association with the Bolsheviks; they
had doubts about us, thinking we were seeking for an opportunity to open the doors of
Southern Caucasia to the Russian Bolsheviks. Apart from this, they interpreted having the
British forces over in Baku when the Germans which they were flirting with, were in Tiflis
(Tbilisi) as a betrayal of the Georgian-German-Turkish-Tatar policies.
As a result of the policies we practiced in Baku, our neighbours started to regard us as
independent allies. Our comrades in Baku, on the other hand, thought that they would be
able to protect the rest of Armenia against Turkish assaults by consolidating their
existence in Baku and attracting the Turkish-Tatar forces to the city. They developed
their policies in this direction. I am going back to the chronological sequence of events.
At the end of November 1917 the Russian Army started to get demoralized and the soldiers
started to abandon their troops on the Caucasian front. The front was being destroyed in
astonishing speed.
At the end of January, there was no longer an army. Negligible Armenian troops, with some
soldiers left over from the army, were charged with defending the Erzurum line.
The situation in Southern Caucasia was getting more and more dangerous.
The Bolshevik Revolution and the civil war spreading wider and wider every day, had
definitely torn away the outer regions from Russia.
The Commissariat which acted in the name of the Provisional Government led by Kerensky
lost the ground under their feet after the Government was turned out of office. There was
a need to establish a new power, authorized in the eyes of the public and capable of
conducting governmental affairs independently and with greater authority. Such a power was
established with the Southern Caucasian Seym and its Government.
The Seym was formed out of the Southern Caucasian members of the All Russia Provisional
Assembly (by multiplying this number with three). Thus the Mensheviks (Georgia) had 36,
the Musavat (Azerbaijan) 30 and the Dashnagtzoutiun (Armenia) had 27 seats in the Seym.
The Seym met in Tiflis (Tbilisi), the natural and indisputable capital of Southern
Caucasia.
At the first general congress on 10th February 1918, the executive committee report was
read and the resignation of the Commissariat was accepted. Later, the Seym taking into
consideration the fact that the relations between our region and Russia had been actually
broken and that it was uncertain as to when they would be reestablished, announced the
independence of the Southern Caucasian Democratic Republic and that it was the only
institution which held the executive power in its hands. Within this context, Y.
Gegechkory (Georgian Menshevik) was assigned the task of forming a provisional government
(a cabinet) responsible to the Seym.
This did not mean a separation from Russia; it only reflected the actual situation and was
temporary. Internationally, Southern Caucasia was considered to be an inseparable part of
Russia.
Encouraged by the increasing corruption of the Russian army, Turkish military troops
hastily got organized, got themselves in order and started to capture one after the other,
the regions they had lost. In the meantime, the Turkish Command (Vehip Paşa) started
to initiate a cease-fire and the continuation of the peace talks.
The Seym took a decision to stop the war and sat down for a settlement with the Turks.
The first talks were conducted in Trabzon in March 1918. The Dashnagtzoutiun fraction was
able to add among other Seym demands the demand for self determination of the Armenians in
Turkey within Ottoman borders, as a separate individual point (there were four separate
demands).
However, this demand ( which was very badly formulated and was open to negotiation) was
immediately answered officially and was stated that the self determination of the Turkish
Armenians was an internal matter of Turkey and nobody had the right to interfere with the
internal affairs of Turkey. Thus, they gave us the message that if we ever brought up the
issue of the Turkish Armenians, they would cut off any talks. The Southern Caucasians did
not bring up the issue any more. The reason why they had brought it up was clear; the Seym’s
decision was only a gesture of good will towards the Armenians, and the Seym never had the
intention of insisting on this demand. The Georgians were not inclined to get into
needless trouble (they did not feel the need to); for the Azerbaijanis, on the other hand,
the Turkish interests were more important than the future of the Armenians and even the
Southern Caucasian Republic. The Armenian members o
|