Tweet
DENIAL OF ARMENOCIDE POLICY AND MYTH OF REBELLION
Azat Artsakh - Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
25 March 05
Eighty-five years ago the town of Shushi was set to fire and ruined.
In several hours the values of world importance created throughout
centuries turned into piles of ash, and the people who had created them
fell victims to cruel manslaughter. This tragic event must be viewed
in the context of the Turkish policy of genocide of the Armenians in
East Armenia, Transcaucasia after the extermination of a major part
of the West Armenians and their displacement from their historical
cradle - West Armenia. The evaluation of the tragedy of Shushi given by
historians is not absolute and satisfactory. What is more, Shushi has
not become subject of a thorough study; no serious attempts were made
to discover the causes of the tragedy. There were only accusations
and swearing on both sides. In parallel with the tragic events the
Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (DRA) put forth the false version
of the riot of the Armenians trying to present the crime committed by
themselves as the consequence of the riot of the Armenians. Whereas,
we deal with a policy of genocide worked out by Turkey and implemented
by the government of the DRA, as well as with a recurrent attempt
of denying it. In the resolutions passed at the general meeting of
the political party Musavat on March 30, 1920 and the parliament
of Azerbaijan on April 1, 1920 the Armenians and the government of
Armenia were brazenly accused of the events in Shushi. Casting all
the blame on a group of "insurgents" Azerbaijan did not forget to
threaten that everything would be much worse if the Armenians of
Karabakh did not become sensible and obedient. Our compatriot Leo,
paying homage to the tendency of praising the new Bolshevist power,
as well as the false pivotal idea of equality it put forth that both
the Musavatists and Dashnaks were to blame for the tragedy in Shushi,
almost repeats the groundless accusations of Bolshevists inherited
from the Musavatists (see Leo, "From the Past", Tiflis, 1925, p. 437
~@" 438). Listing the aggressive actions of the enemy and exposing the
inevitability of a crucial collision, A. Mikaelian tried to prove that
there had been enough potential for resistance and providing security
of the population, however, the chance was not used (Arsen Mikaelian,
"The Latest Events in Karabakh", Hayrenik Journal, Boston, 1923,
p. 118, p. 121). In fact, it would take too much space to present
all the opinions but the above-mentioned two are quite typical and
vivid. It should be mentioned that the viewpoints, contradicting
information we come across in various documents cause confusion
and make it almost impossible to insist on a definite version. This
disorderly state persists in later studies. There is an impression
that often the archival documents had not been treated critically,
and the information in them had not been verified for truthfulness
and source. Studying a great many documents of this period the
majority of which was published in collections, scientific journals
and appendices of scientific works, it can be concluded that there is
a lot of information in them which disorient, do not meet scientific
requirements, and why not are untrustworthy. A careful and critical
approach is needed in order not to be caught in this web. We do not
want to play down the work of the previous investigators. However,
we can express our opinion on these works the general fault of which
is the lack of political thought and evaluation. This is especially
obvious against the impertinent trumpeting and exaggerating of
the "myth" of insurgency; we do not think that everything took
place exactly the way it is described, especially that it smells a
recurrent political provocation on the part of the opponent. Some
of the investigators (B. Ulubabian, H. Harutyunian, H. Abrahamian)
tried to manoeuver between two points of view (i.e. insurgency or
armed resistance against the Azerbaijani troops). There is a general
tendency to think that in the atmosphere of tension Sultanov and the
other executioners were waiting for an occasion to carry out the plan
of extermination of the Armenians. This also can be accepted. However,
the false version that this occasion was enabled by the Armenians is
not convincing and logical. The fact is that the Armenians defended
themselves from the gangs and regular army formed of Turk-Azerbaijanis
and Kurds, and the self-defence was presented by the Azerbaijani
propaganda as an insurgency to confuse the international community
by presenting the consequences instead of the cause and to justify
the destruction of the once prosperous town of Shushi and massacres
of the Armenian population. To get convinced of this it is enough
to recall the preceding and succeeding events and the image of the
Turk-Tatar (Azerbaijani) political thought and logic based on their
interpretation of these events, which is, by the way, typical of the
nomadic tribes at a rather law level of development which suddenly find
themselves in a civilized and prosperous country completely strange to
them. While developing this idea we based on the results of synthesis
and analysis of the cynical evaluations and "counterarguments" set
forth by the Turk-Azerbaijanis to the genocide of Armenians in 1915,
the tragic events in Baku in September 1918, the extermination of
the Armenian population of the adjacent areas of Shushi in 1919,
the ethnic cleansing in the former state of Elizavetpol in 1920,
the barbaric events in Sumgait in 1988, Baku in 1990 and Maragha on
April 10, 1992 and the NKR ~@" Azerbaijani conflict in general. The
March 1920 tragedy of Shushi is a link in this chain~@¦ The "myth"
of insurgency and the scenario of "extermination of Armenians in
reply" are used by Turks since old times. Even the genocide of
Armenians in 1915 when 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered,
is cynically presented by them as a reply to the insurgency of the
Armenians. Whereas, the riots if there were any, and generally the
national liberation movement of the Armenians was against the national,
religious, cultural and economic pressure of the Turks; for the people
living in extremely hard conditions there was nothing to do but to
make their last efforts to save from slow death. And this provoked,
and why not imposed riot was used by the Turks as an occasion to
perpetrate the extermination of the Armenians. Studying the evidence
of the past we come to believe that even if the Armenians had not
resisted, they would be condemned to slow death. In both cases the
Turks had nothing to lose; more exactly they were favoured while the
Armenians lost in any case. An example of such falsification is the
cunning expression of Nuri Pasha, "Armenians are also to be blamed
for the ruin of the Armenians of Turkey for they became toys in the
hands of these great powers (Great Britain and Russia ~@" M.H.),
started mutinies, gave rise to suppression against them and lost"
(see "Massacres of Armenians in the States of Baku and Elizavetpol
in 1918 - 1920", ed. A. Virabian, compilers S. Mirzoyan, A. Ghaziyan,
Archive of History of RA, 2003, document 29, p. 45, 49). However, the
monstrous plan of extermination of the Armenians had been worked out
long before and strange though it may seem, without any guise, along
with an anti-Armenian hysteria and a campaign of instilling hatred. It
is a fact that already by the beginning of 1920 the Ittihat had emerged
in Azerbaijan and propagated aggressive moods among the government and
the entire Muslim population. At that time the representative of the
legacy of Armenia in Azerbaijan Tigran Bekzadian informed about this
in his report on his talk with Wardrope (see "Massacres of Armenians
in the States of Baku and Elizavetpol in 1918 ~@" 1920", document 362,
p. 434) which confirms our viewpoint about the existence of a plan of
genocide which included the destruction of Shushi. In our opinion,
the events took place in the following order: Sultanov ordered the
troops to hit the center of Armenians Shushi. At the same time the
troops deployed in Aghdam and the armed mop, as it had been foreseen,
moved in the direction of Askeran ~@" Khojalu ~@" Khankendi ~@" Shushi
aiming to aid the criminals suppressing (but in reality slaughtering)
the Armenians of Shushi. Another fact proving that the DRA had openly
started war against the Armenians of Artsakh was that the Azerbaijani
troops attacked in the direction of Gandzak and Shamkor for the aim
of ethnic cleansing. The state policy of the DRA aiming to terrorize
and subdue the Armenians of Artsakh through horrible massacres was
first implemented in Shushi because since 1919 the population of the
capital of Artsakh had been in the state of hostages (see Leo) and,
according to the archive documents, it was viewed by the enemy as
an important factor in invading Artsakh. In his report addressed to
the chairman of the Azerbaijani council of ministers Sultanov wrote,
"I hope by officially subduing the Center and the Armenian movement in
the town of Shushi the question of subduing the Armenians of Karabakh
will be completed successfully." According to the tactics worked out
beforehand the defence forces defeated the Azerbaijani invaders on
March 23, 1920 and liberated Askeran, which was a strategic point for
preventing further advance of the Azerbaijani forces from Aghdam and
protecting the rear of the defenders of Shushi and Khankendi. These
very events of self-defence were falsified by the Azerbaijanis and
defined as "insurgency" to "justify" their crimes, on the one hand,
denying and refuting the genocide, on the other hand.
MHER HARUTYUNIAN. 25-03-2005
--Boundary_(ID_8B3Oar2inprRBGPWfqrvfQ)--
Azat Artsakh - Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
25 March 05
Eighty-five years ago the town of Shushi was set to fire and ruined.
In several hours the values of world importance created throughout
centuries turned into piles of ash, and the people who had created them
fell victims to cruel manslaughter. This tragic event must be viewed
in the context of the Turkish policy of genocide of the Armenians in
East Armenia, Transcaucasia after the extermination of a major part
of the West Armenians and their displacement from their historical
cradle - West Armenia. The evaluation of the tragedy of Shushi given by
historians is not absolute and satisfactory. What is more, Shushi has
not become subject of a thorough study; no serious attempts were made
to discover the causes of the tragedy. There were only accusations
and swearing on both sides. In parallel with the tragic events the
Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (DRA) put forth the false version
of the riot of the Armenians trying to present the crime committed by
themselves as the consequence of the riot of the Armenians. Whereas,
we deal with a policy of genocide worked out by Turkey and implemented
by the government of the DRA, as well as with a recurrent attempt
of denying it. In the resolutions passed at the general meeting of
the political party Musavat on March 30, 1920 and the parliament
of Azerbaijan on April 1, 1920 the Armenians and the government of
Armenia were brazenly accused of the events in Shushi. Casting all
the blame on a group of "insurgents" Azerbaijan did not forget to
threaten that everything would be much worse if the Armenians of
Karabakh did not become sensible and obedient. Our compatriot Leo,
paying homage to the tendency of praising the new Bolshevist power,
as well as the false pivotal idea of equality it put forth that both
the Musavatists and Dashnaks were to blame for the tragedy in Shushi,
almost repeats the groundless accusations of Bolshevists inherited
from the Musavatists (see Leo, "From the Past", Tiflis, 1925, p. 437
~@" 438). Listing the aggressive actions of the enemy and exposing the
inevitability of a crucial collision, A. Mikaelian tried to prove that
there had been enough potential for resistance and providing security
of the population, however, the chance was not used (Arsen Mikaelian,
"The Latest Events in Karabakh", Hayrenik Journal, Boston, 1923,
p. 118, p. 121). In fact, it would take too much space to present
all the opinions but the above-mentioned two are quite typical and
vivid. It should be mentioned that the viewpoints, contradicting
information we come across in various documents cause confusion
and make it almost impossible to insist on a definite version. This
disorderly state persists in later studies. There is an impression
that often the archival documents had not been treated critically,
and the information in them had not been verified for truthfulness
and source. Studying a great many documents of this period the
majority of which was published in collections, scientific journals
and appendices of scientific works, it can be concluded that there is
a lot of information in them which disorient, do not meet scientific
requirements, and why not are untrustworthy. A careful and critical
approach is needed in order not to be caught in this web. We do not
want to play down the work of the previous investigators. However,
we can express our opinion on these works the general fault of which
is the lack of political thought and evaluation. This is especially
obvious against the impertinent trumpeting and exaggerating of
the "myth" of insurgency; we do not think that everything took
place exactly the way it is described, especially that it smells a
recurrent political provocation on the part of the opponent. Some
of the investigators (B. Ulubabian, H. Harutyunian, H. Abrahamian)
tried to manoeuver between two points of view (i.e. insurgency or
armed resistance against the Azerbaijani troops). There is a general
tendency to think that in the atmosphere of tension Sultanov and the
other executioners were waiting for an occasion to carry out the plan
of extermination of the Armenians. This also can be accepted. However,
the false version that this occasion was enabled by the Armenians is
not convincing and logical. The fact is that the Armenians defended
themselves from the gangs and regular army formed of Turk-Azerbaijanis
and Kurds, and the self-defence was presented by the Azerbaijani
propaganda as an insurgency to confuse the international community
by presenting the consequences instead of the cause and to justify
the destruction of the once prosperous town of Shushi and massacres
of the Armenian population. To get convinced of this it is enough
to recall the preceding and succeeding events and the image of the
Turk-Tatar (Azerbaijani) political thought and logic based on their
interpretation of these events, which is, by the way, typical of the
nomadic tribes at a rather law level of development which suddenly find
themselves in a civilized and prosperous country completely strange to
them. While developing this idea we based on the results of synthesis
and analysis of the cynical evaluations and "counterarguments" set
forth by the Turk-Azerbaijanis to the genocide of Armenians in 1915,
the tragic events in Baku in September 1918, the extermination of
the Armenian population of the adjacent areas of Shushi in 1919,
the ethnic cleansing in the former state of Elizavetpol in 1920,
the barbaric events in Sumgait in 1988, Baku in 1990 and Maragha on
April 10, 1992 and the NKR ~@" Azerbaijani conflict in general. The
March 1920 tragedy of Shushi is a link in this chain~@¦ The "myth"
of insurgency and the scenario of "extermination of Armenians in
reply" are used by Turks since old times. Even the genocide of
Armenians in 1915 when 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered,
is cynically presented by them as a reply to the insurgency of the
Armenians. Whereas, the riots if there were any, and generally the
national liberation movement of the Armenians was against the national,
religious, cultural and economic pressure of the Turks; for the people
living in extremely hard conditions there was nothing to do but to
make their last efforts to save from slow death. And this provoked,
and why not imposed riot was used by the Turks as an occasion to
perpetrate the extermination of the Armenians. Studying the evidence
of the past we come to believe that even if the Armenians had not
resisted, they would be condemned to slow death. In both cases the
Turks had nothing to lose; more exactly they were favoured while the
Armenians lost in any case. An example of such falsification is the
cunning expression of Nuri Pasha, "Armenians are also to be blamed
for the ruin of the Armenians of Turkey for they became toys in the
hands of these great powers (Great Britain and Russia ~@" M.H.),
started mutinies, gave rise to suppression against them and lost"
(see "Massacres of Armenians in the States of Baku and Elizavetpol
in 1918 - 1920", ed. A. Virabian, compilers S. Mirzoyan, A. Ghaziyan,
Archive of History of RA, 2003, document 29, p. 45, 49). However, the
monstrous plan of extermination of the Armenians had been worked out
long before and strange though it may seem, without any guise, along
with an anti-Armenian hysteria and a campaign of instilling hatred. It
is a fact that already by the beginning of 1920 the Ittihat had emerged
in Azerbaijan and propagated aggressive moods among the government and
the entire Muslim population. At that time the representative of the
legacy of Armenia in Azerbaijan Tigran Bekzadian informed about this
in his report on his talk with Wardrope (see "Massacres of Armenians
in the States of Baku and Elizavetpol in 1918 ~@" 1920", document 362,
p. 434) which confirms our viewpoint about the existence of a plan of
genocide which included the destruction of Shushi. In our opinion,
the events took place in the following order: Sultanov ordered the
troops to hit the center of Armenians Shushi. At the same time the
troops deployed in Aghdam and the armed mop, as it had been foreseen,
moved in the direction of Askeran ~@" Khojalu ~@" Khankendi ~@" Shushi
aiming to aid the criminals suppressing (but in reality slaughtering)
the Armenians of Shushi. Another fact proving that the DRA had openly
started war against the Armenians of Artsakh was that the Azerbaijani
troops attacked in the direction of Gandzak and Shamkor for the aim
of ethnic cleansing. The state policy of the DRA aiming to terrorize
and subdue the Armenians of Artsakh through horrible massacres was
first implemented in Shushi because since 1919 the population of the
capital of Artsakh had been in the state of hostages (see Leo) and,
according to the archive documents, it was viewed by the enemy as
an important factor in invading Artsakh. In his report addressed to
the chairman of the Azerbaijani council of ministers Sultanov wrote,
"I hope by officially subduing the Center and the Armenian movement in
the town of Shushi the question of subduing the Armenians of Karabakh
will be completed successfully." According to the tactics worked out
beforehand the defence forces defeated the Azerbaijani invaders on
March 23, 1920 and liberated Askeran, which was a strategic point for
preventing further advance of the Azerbaijani forces from Aghdam and
protecting the rear of the defenders of Shushi and Khankendi. These
very events of self-defence were falsified by the Azerbaijanis and
defined as "insurgency" to "justify" their crimes, on the one hand,
denying and refuting the genocide, on the other hand.
MHER HARUTYUNIAN. 25-03-2005
--Boundary_(ID_8B3Oar2inprRBGPWfqrvfQ)--