2860) Russian-Turkish Treaty of 1921 Expired in 1946 & Comment by Sukru Aya

 south%2Bcaucasus%2B1921 © This content Mirrored From  http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com (GoogleTranslated from Russian. Please contribute a better translation)

Known more as "Moscow" because of the severity of the political content of the Soviet era and subsequent years to be one of the least studied by historians and a polyglot of international instruments. The significance of the treaty from the perspective of the Soviet and later Russian and Armenian, as well as the Armenian-Russian joint foreign policy interests is comparable to the Brest treaty or concern Yuzhnokurilskih islands, and emotionally sound - with the question of ownership of Alaska and the Crimean peninsula. . .

But more importantly and seems to be true for the Armenian-Russian joint foreign policy interests, patriotic Armenian, at least, the politicians need to take all measures to ensure that emerging against the backdrop of a hard-line United States and a united Europe to the full "rejection" of Armenia from its traditional pro-Russian orientation as well as notable attempts at the current stage of the Republican administration of U.S. isolation, and if not isolation, then limiting the influence of Russia in the international arena in general, including in the Caucasus region, pre-empt and return to track the political potential of this contract. In the arsenal of Western Political Technologies, Moscow Treaty can become the dangerous heart lever, which had previously been separated with little effort from the Baltic countries through Russia, one must admit, a good professional sense, information and other relevant work, using the secret Annex to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty.

Regarding the Russian-Turkish agreement , the analysis of the historical situation of the beginning of the century, the international political and diplomatic importance of the effects, as well as the legal wording and stylistic features to confidently point to the existence of some notional "secret protocols", possibly in the form of separate applications or supplements to see the document in the completion of its logic and scope of the problems of the form. An important factor in determining the urgency of a new study of the treaty, is strong and self-sufficient historical evidence that the contract was concluded for a certain time, namely - for 25 years, that the logic of our approach along with other important matters specified in secret protocols. "

sixteenth in March 1921 in Moscow is Russian-Turkish treaty, which from Armenia to Turkey and Azerbaijan rejected the three provinces. In autumn 1921, on the basis of the Moscow Treaty is quadruple the Kars Treaty between Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, which is edited husks Moscow Treaty. The signing of the Kars Treaty is logical because a treaty with Turkey was signed on behalf of Russia and have not yet had a formal relationship to the countries of the Caucasus. Russian-Turkish treaty is published in the documents of foreign policy (DVP), the USSR under the name "Moscow".

main articles of the Treaty are: the first , which deviates from the area of Batumi Georgia, Turkey, sovetiziruet "it creates the illusion of" nepozornosti "Agreement for the young Soviet country and to some extent, provides a" brand "the young Bolshevik government. The second article: Turkey is moving away Surmalinskaya the province of Kars and Armenia with Mount Ararat, and the third: a protectorate of Azerbaijan by the Armenian province of Nakhichevan. Thus, at the expense of Armenia's appetites were satisfied with Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Republic had been declared the Soviet Caucasus.

significant that in the text of the Moscow third article of the treaty accessories Nakhijevan end with the words "without the right to a third party", which means Iran. However, in the Kars Treaty, this phrase is absent. By the autumn of 1921, Iran has made no secret of his irritation over the creation of the state in the Caucasus under the name "Azerbaijan", which claimed to unite the same with Iranian and Turkish-speaking province of its rejection in favor of the Soviet state. Until now, Tehran believed "bad habit" called Azerbaijan the country, preferring to call it simply Baku, sometimes even in a very responsible and official documents. It is no coincidence 30 November 1989, when even in the Baltic countries on the State Sovereignty of talking about "whisper", the Majlis of Nakhichevan ASSR "suddenly announced to withdraw from the USSR and the Azerbaijan SSR. The same night the state border with Iran, the Soviet Union was swept by armed militia detachments of Nakhichevan. Information about the "incomprehensible" the episode of the Soviet press has been traditionally skomkana, although the situation was quite clear. In those years in Moscow, the main source of expertise on Iran is the Iranian branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies, USSR Academy of Sciences, completely in the hands of the Azerbaijani scientists - representatives of Nakhichevan clan after Heydar Aliyev.

seq Russian-Turkish agreement represent independent interest to researchers the historical situation of that time the Caucasus, as well as the general policy of Russia in this region. In particular, it is that, even in the hungry and tormented Russia 20-ies of the Russian diplomats did attempt to rescue captured Russian soldiers. Other articles of the Treaty - excellent examples of strategic planning. The contract specifies the article guaranteeing the absolute performance of the conditions of this agreement as an international document. However, all the penalties and the methods prescribed in the contract in case the need for equity to restrain the parties to refer only to Armenia through its territory, under the dictation of Turkey in the region took place on reconciliation.

The strategic interests of both countries and people - to find common ground, which ensures our people are fundamentally the harmonious co-development and protect from attempts to reject Western Armenia from Russia in the hands of political adventurers Yerevan, using for the extravagance of traditional politicians and diplomats in Moscow "shapkobratalskih" sentiments with regard to Armenia.

One of the most convincing arguments West Armenia to be "yes" or "against" Russia in the logic of our approach is the Russian-Turkish treaty. West sooner or later, will deploy an information campaign "about the true friends of the Armenian people." Serious attempts to teach the treaty as a "betrayal" Russia Armenia observed in 1990 - 1996 years, through the Armenian "politicians-Democrats." It appears, then the West will not decide to use the entire arsenal of information tools for the destruction of the Armenian-Russian relations because of the large employment of Georgia and Azerbaijan, but also because of the political distance between Yerevan and Moscow was not yet so large. According to our records, in May 1997, under the veil of government in Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, the highly sensitive form of it by members of the United States were invited to begin the process of unwinding of this problem, but has not been "understanding" of the particular to the time relationship with the President of Turkey.

very text of the treaty has in Armenia not a secret or something unreachable. In the circles of historians, nationally-minded politicians, it is an objective discussion. But more to the fact that "the Armenian Bolsheviks" rather than Russia, where "strong Armenia" always "needed", handed over the territory, and resulting in the traditional Armenian beau monde disputes about who was better for the country - communists or dashnaktsakany . The traditional position of Russia east of true intellectuals Armenians leads, in most cases, though in some sense to the pious, but historically justified by the avoidance of discussion of the role of Russia in the historical fate of Armenia. Soviet-era ideological reasons ( "do not offend the Russians") have also left their mark. Sensible representatives especially the older generation could not ignore the fact that even in a difficult time, the beginning of the century and especially in later Soviet years, Russia has done much good for Armenia, and even comparable to the heavy loss of national character - Mount Ararat.

It should be noted that the treaty itself on the many compelling, in our opinion, arguments and assumptions in fact, as we have said, was for a period of 25 years. Thus, excluded from membership of the three provinces of Armenia to Turkey and Azerbaijan, in legal terms from March 16, 1946 is a historical nonsense. Here are a few direct and indirect arguments in favor of the fact that, in addition to the basic treaty signed by some "secret protocols" that determine the main thing - the existence of temporal parameters of the contract. These documents, the relevance of the search which is evident not only in terms of historical justice, but also in conformity with national and strategic interests of Armenia in Moscow, can and should be preserved in the archives of the signatories to the treaty, in particular Russia.

In the late 70-ies The author of these lines under the supervision of the doctor of historical sciences, Professor, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Armenian SSR at the time J. Kirakosyan, one of the biggest specialists in the history of Armenia beginning of the century, a professional deal with this issue. The point is that in the mid 70's mostly in Europe and the United States and Canada has started a wave of terrorist activities of the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), whose purpose was to draw international attention to the fact of the Armenian Genocide. Stocks were mostly against official Turkish diplomatic missions and persons. It is true that the wave then indeed proved to be effective in the sense that litigation in European courts over the terrorists have led to serious promotion in Europe, the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide. There was a need to urgently look into the political content of the activities of ASALA and provide positional recommendations. Some Soviet and Western researchers, historians and political scientists were inclined to consider action when ASALA as the beginning of the national liberation struggle of Armenians.

then able to handle large amounts of not only historical information but also very serious amounts of the modern Turkish printed information. In the wave of terrorist attacks and the rise in Europe, extensive public discussions of the issue of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish press, academics, relevant special commission on the Armenian issue MFA, MIT, Department of Defense published a large number of promotional materials - books, pamphlets, newspaper articles. Of course, the purpose of these publications are well-known defense of the Turkish point of view of Genocide, polar removed from the Armenian, "asserting" the alleged guilt of Russia in these events, frontal conditions World War I, and others. However, in the same Turkish material containing an array of indirect, "background" information in the interest of our problems. Along with the other was found a number of additional direct and indirect evidence that the contract was signed on 25 years. The special value of this information - although the materials themselves were more promotional in nature agitok - was that was prepared by the chief - Turkish - Armenian opponent in this matter.

elaborated, in particular, different historically accurate scenes, which, according to the authors agitok, should show the aggressiveness of the young Soviet country. For example, the fact that in 1925 the Ambassador of the Russian Federation in the High Port Vinogradov in the official note demanded the denunciation of Russian-Turkish Treaty of 1921, accompanying "so innovative in the international practice, the behavior of" statements about the readiness of Russia to implement it unilaterally. At the same time, the Turkish (!) The same source, the Ambassador Vinogradov oral interview in the Foreign Ministry explains: "We can not wait 25 years and signed the RTD because we were weak." Now we are strong and demand the restoration of the borders of Armenia. " At that reacts immediately one of the most famous public figures of Turkey, İsmet İnönü that time: the "new country" need to adhere to their international obligations, but "25 years from Turkey, of course, to return the territory." Such private events, directly confirming the substance of the issue and are very reliable in nature, then typed a dozen or two. Indirect, namely the Turkish evidence of our thesis, and the more.

The official history also available significant confirmation of our thesis. Trehtomnik "The history of international relations after the Second World War," edited by Academician Khvostov clearly, albeit in a footnote to the main article formulates: "due to mistakes of Soviet foreign policy of Turkey has not returned the USSR" large areas ". Known also that the spring of 1945 from the Armenian SSR and the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic of Turkey have been territorial claims and the ultimatum of the need to tap its "troops and the people" known to her borders, so that by March 1946, Soviet troops entered the territory.

in historical veracity of this fact is not doubt, as it coincided with the intentions of the Soviet Union to declare war, Turkey, and, regardless of diplomatic simple game of Ankara and the announcement "the curtain" war Germany, Soviet troops protect the legal side of the action, after which they were indeed ready to enter the territory Turkey. Then quartered entire war on the "hot board" in Armenia, 45-I "Georgian" Division was urgently transferred by Berlin, that, apparently, along with Egorov and Qantarah emphasize the Georgian-Russian origin of the leader and share the authorship of the Victory of Soviet people. Instead, by the end of March 1945 at the Turkish border battle arrived, rested and completed four motorized division "Siberian", as they still remember the old people in Armenia in the border areas. His father and grandfather the author of these lines were already in the hands of the appointment of Kars and Erzerum - at the party and head of the military hospital, respectively. Such direct "witnesses" in Armenia is still a lot.

ultimatum of Armenia and Georgia ended anecdotic . Minister of Foreign Affairs, later the head of the Turkish Government at the time Saradzhioglu said verbatim as follows: "We know that the territory of Armenia, and are ready to begin the process of demarcation of ..."," ... But we do not claim, of Georgia, "" Good would prefer that you understand the Soviet Union among themselves, and then divide the skin neubitogo would bear. " Quoted historical fact and is described in Soviet history, and in Turkey the literature.

According to the Armenian scientists claim Ardahan to Georgia to substantiate its claim that in the times of King David the Builder and Queen Tamara Ardahan city was conquered Georgia, Armenia and belonged to her something about a hundred years. It is noteworthy that only two republics of the Soviet Union - Russia and the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic - "have" in the structure of national-local government entities. However, unlike Russia, the letter "F" in its name officially observed federal and democratic character of Russian statehood, Georgian SSR - perhaps with a "feeder" Stalin Constitution "- has always recognized only a unitary country, even if" the Soviet and socialist " . This minor fact explains some of the origins of modern Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian conflict and the period of Gamsakhurdia and Shevardnadze.

Something similar happened at the end World War II. His favorite game is the leader of the royal gifts - to take advantage of the situation and give appropriate city Ardahan Georgia - turned out that after the atomic bombing of Japan was a very amenable Stalin: the time has been lost, the question of the Armenian territories were simply removed from the agenda. But not for long. There are negotiations with Turkey at Molotov 195 (3) year (this is possible, my mistake on one or two years. - L. E.) on the territorial issues. They often wrote to the Turkish press at the beginning of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in the late 80's. As a result of the Molotov talks in mid-50's from the border areas with Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan were deported in large numbers of Turkish-Ottoman. It is noteworthy that when in 1956 in Tbilisi hosted a series of anti-Soviet statements, according to eyewitnesses, they were involved and adzhartsy (Batumi area), which demanded "the return to Turkey."

24 and April 25, 1965 in Yerevan, in the days when the first Armenian people, let them higgledy-piggledy, and by the standards of that time is illegal, said the 50-th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Empire, the inhabitants of the border with Turkey, the city of Gyumri (Leninakan) and adjacent to the border villages observed the strange behavior of troops in neighboring side. Instead of concentrating troops on the border, that is logical and the everyday in such a situation, the Turkish border units (and on some sections of the border viewed as cutting edge 2-nd and 3 rd field Turkish armies) quickly reduce heavy equipment and waste in inland. Apparently, "the Turkish side that the Soviet Union could not be" unauthorized "massive public speeches, and what is happening in Armenia was seen as the beginning of possible provocations against Turkey with far-reaching plans.

Later, in the days of Arab - Israeli campaign of 1967 and 1973 and the provision of Soviet military aid to Egypt, the Soviet Union it was necessary to obtain an air corridor for MIGs flown at low altitude over the territory of Turkey, which was due to the peculiarities of the flight characteristics of military vehicles. The Turkish press of the time in the brightest colors described wisdom Majilis resolved without delay, this fly over national territory, since "Russian just remembered about the land." He was even alleged the threat of the Soviet Union break "tank gap" to Syria in the event of failure.

noteworthy that after 1921 the first official document on the level of bilateral agreements Russia (USSR) and Turkey, claiming that the parties have no mutual territorial claims, is the interstate agreement signed in August 1978 during the official visit of the Turkish prime minister Ecevit B. in Moscow. A. Kosygin signed the Treaty of August 22, 1978, he published in "Izvestia". The paragraph is the absence of mutual territorial claims - the second one. Feedback from the Turkish press of the time frankly happily suggest RTD.

It can not be ignored and the reaction Turkish politicians and the press to supply electricity to Turkey from Armenia in the 70 years after the commissioning of ANPP. Itself the Turkish Government has always been extremely interested in the industrial development of eastern regions of Turkey. There are five-year, continuously updated the Turkish government of the GATT on the development of Eastern Anatolia. Despite this, and now in Kars Surmalinskom provinces and the population density does not exceed 5 persons per square km, whereas in the western parts of Turkey, it exceeds 130. Members of Parliament and especially the Turkish press 1976-78gg. in connection with preparing the draft of electricity supply in these areas are strongly opposed, arguing that starts a hidden process Soviet "occupation" and "return of the Armenians" their territory.

To our knowledge, the latter on Time Interstate document affecting the subject, is signed in 1990 by A. Kozyrev agreement, which reaffirms the basic provisions of RTD, including the premise of territorial claims. Fair to assume that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkey has demanded an urgent confirmation of Russia's rights in the Soviet Union pravopreemnost in full, including especially its sensory details, although the contract was formally signed by the USSR and Russia.

In this context, particular interest is the consideration of the impact of the whole Russian-Turkish agreement on the current international situation in the Caucasus, Iran and Turkey, and South regions of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Presented the latest version of the history of Southern Europe including those based on personal impressions of an active participant in the internal political developments and military operations in the region. In addition, based on service since the beginning of 1990, the author of these lines had the most direct, with the right "decision-making, related to the strategic talks in Yerevan, Moscow, Kiev, Tashkent, Alma-Ata, Paris, The Hague, and other capitals in the Vienna Center for the elimination of conflicts and in Brussels, at NATO headquarters. Direct, "the first cast of" participation in the domestic - and foreign policy processes in Armenia and the region as a whole, in part, allows us not only to observe the dynamics of truly epochal change, but in the interest of us the question of justice has repeatedly noted the existence of undeclared international instruments. Below are some typical scenes, supporting the main thrust of the vision problem eye witness. "

In 1990, when the next collapse of the Soviet Union ceased to be a mystery, even to the uninitiated, but in Yerevan in May held its first democratic elections, the MP from the then opposition to the new authorities of the Radical Party had been proposed "to advance" in the parliament a law on known territories. The procedure involved a preliminary denunciation of the National Assembly Kars treaty ratified by the Parliament of the first republic in November 1921, and then an appeal to governments and legislators in Russia and Turkey with a similar proposal in the RTD. The meaning of the proposed legislation was that by the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Kars Surmalinsky, Nakhichevan and counties should be declared temporarily occupied an integral part of the territory of Armenia. At first glance, romantic and dramatic the bill really was not naive to the political impulses yunnatov or adventurers, but the result of sober at that time and the calibrated calculation.

In those years, the West absorbed without parsing frenzy in principle, any projects that "worked" for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Turkey also could not afford to aggression against Armenia: it would immediately reverse the collapse of the consolidation of the Soviet Union, which Ankara in no case would the same partners in the NATO led by the United States. Moreover, there are serious arguments in favor of the fact that the West, in agreement with Turkey to take into account and did not rule in their strategic plans for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the possibility of demarcating the territories known. Enough to make an analysis of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), defining the range on heavy weapons, and thus provides a system of collective security on the continent, which in turn means for the different regions of headquarters work to establish the borders of new states.

case that the only part of the borders in Europe "exclusion zone" CFE Turkey as it had been announced, due to fighting the Turkish army against Kurdish rebels will not be liable to a system of European security in this part of its territory, which in the language of strategic planning is the possibility of rejection. However, topographical analysis shows that the territory of "exclusion zone" is equal to the territories of Turkey Kars, Surmalinskogo and Nakhichevan county minus the territory of Adjara (Batumi area). It is the understanding of Ankara upcoming territorial "loss" is due to hasty Turkish Communiqué of December 1990, which did not give any real quality acquisition and subsequent over-aggressiveness of Turkey in the Balkans found understanding of its partners in Brussels and has remained inadequately "unnoticed" in the overall context of the war in Yugoslavia.

Unfortunately, the process of Armenia made by hand "radical reformers" by the West, pragmatic, but poorly in the specific issues of geopolitics or elementary history "democratic leaders", physics and mathematics education. Western abstract "overall value" of Armenian followers sample 90, ironically, did not differ on the outcomes of the belief in the need for "world revolution" such as "not remembering kinship" Moscow's policy in 1921, previously signed a treaty of Brest ... The bill of these patriots of Armenia, which is by definition consistent with the interests of both Armenia and the entire Christian world, both foreign and strategic interests of Russia, had been ostracized.

Another fact newest history of the region, confirming the worst RTD management processes in the Caucasus, are the events of the late spring of 1992, when Armenian armed forces virtually the only time during the war, retreating to the north-east front of Karabakh. Then, as a result of beginning the revitalization of political contacts, the Armenian leadership to the West, and follow immediately after that surround betrayal, we have lost Getashen subdistrict, Shaumian and half Martakert region of Karabakh, and are still controlled by Azerbaijan. Until now, however, remain unknown or little-known fact that the offensive was halted while the Azerbaijanis decisive action in Iran. Tehran Ultimate note was sent to Baku (and formal notification to this effect in Yerevan), demanding an immediate stop the Azerbaijani army. Otherwise, the 7 th Armored Division, staffed exclusively fanatic "pasdarami (the guards), which was already to pull the Iran-Nakhichevan border, according to the Iranian side, ready to cross the border and take Nakhijevan and thereby disrupt the entire inner RTD logic. A few years later in an informal conversation the author of these lines with the Ambassador of Iran in Yerevan, it was confirmed not only the seriousness of the Iranian side, but was extremely surprised that in Yerevan from Baku, in contrast, few people are interested in international law Iran in Nakhijevan, specified by the treaty of 1921.

After the events of 1992, all Western projects of the Armenian-Turkish (and Turkish and Azerbaijani) reconciliation - from the endless "plans Gobla" to the negotiations at the level of the presidents of the two countries, in Florida, at a place named with typical Key West ( "Key to the West") - prefer such options exchanges Territories which exclude Armenia common border with Iran. Thus, our observations and on the assumption that Western opponents in the preparation and implementation of its projects of colonization of the South Caucasian region take into account the basic provisions of RTD is not an exaggeration.

fundamental postulates of RTD in the Western political and the military headquarters of a very pragmatic and widely used in strategic planning for the major projects for Southern Europe, Iran and Turkey, as well as in the construction of certain elements of a pan-European collective security system and plans to move to Central Asia and the Middle East. You can view the minutes of meetings of the pan-European transport project TRASECA, when the American side was categorically opposed to the project of Germany, offers convenient for the entire route of the European transport routes through Armenia to Iran and then to the Persian Gulf region. You can also compare the rich natural resources (oil, gas, gold, uranium, nickel and other) areas of Karabakh, passed in 1992 as a result of betrayal in Yerevan, the Azerbaijani side with a similar situation 1998 - 2000. in Serbia and Kosovo. It is possible to consider the route of the South Caucasus region on transcontinental pipelines and compare them with the reasons for the continuing war in Chechnya. You can also consider the fate of "unclaimed" in the RTD Sc. "exclusion zone" of Turkey. It is likely to assume that this "zone" is a formal "right of Turkey to the war" can be used not only against the self-determination of the Turkish Kurds, but also to encourage the establishment is clearly not pro-Kurdistan on the Iraqi territory with the prospect of moving as a whole in the Arabic East West representations and systems of global security. Given the arguments and the arguments for such bold assertions do not fall in contradiction with the generally accepted standards of scientific consideration, and the taking into account the historical retrospective of the geopolitical region in terms of the version values of RTD in the destiny of nations and peoples of Southern Europe and the Middle East.

In conclusion, our modest historical essays is constructed in several epistolary genre appeal to friends of Armenia and the true patriots of Russia, I would like to draw attention to the famous "crisis of ideas" in contemporary international political science. Major global revolutionary upheaval the last decade of last century on the European continent have had a tendency to attenuation that does not mean the completion of these processes on the mainland Eurasia and in the world at large. Endless the "chess board" with a very questionable one vector for transoceanic unipolar world with the arrival of new leadership in Russia is determined to be in the past millennium.

Regardless of how God will be the location of the author of the foregoing, it is quite clear: the question of the return of sacred Mount Ararat is a political creed and deed throughout life. Just like this dream is apparently seen only with the closest historical and spirit of the Christian people and the country. Will "higher" state stronger and more compelling considerations of interest, for example, some oil companies - the second case. History can be rewritten only on paper, but do not stop. Did anyone ever will, sooner or later the truth.

But today there is a tendency for sufficiently serious plan Russia in relations with its current formal military-strategic partner - Armenia on a positive level. However, the very future foreign policy, economic, and strategic direction - Southern Europe and the Middle East.

existence of "secret protocols" is not doubt. Description of direct and circumstantial evidence may take many pages and effort, which is why the most typical episodes that are relatively easy and quickly you can check. Attempts to persuade the rather to the contrary should be viewed as a manifestation of "higher" public interest, which exclude the appropriateness of their publications at the present time, or, even simpler, as the ratio of an attorney-nedouchke, though, can not admit having a good education and a significant experience and political and diplomatic work. Even without an archive search of materials on RTD issues raised in the pamphlet's problems were self-interest to ensure that a true patriot of Armenia did not commit another mortal sin - the sin of despair.

So, in the hope of understanding and with gratitude for the patience, and a sincere assurance that all of the above is an honest, probably not very prudent for the policy of recognition and dedication, as well as the fruit of years of research and established beliefs.

Moscow, 4 April 2001

Comment by Sukru Aya
1 June 2009
When writing history or explaining any event, it is unfair to tell only a part of the story and hide the rest, thus giving only one (desired) side of the story!

The editor, in the third paragraph of his essay refers to the Russian – Turkish agreement of March 16, 1921 in Moscow as a “secret protocol” or unfair treatment of the Armenian claims of land.

The writer should have gone back to the first Brest-Litovsk Agreement of 3.3.1918 when the Bolshevik Russia sought peace with Germany and the Ottomans and gave back most of the lands they had acquired lately. Following this agreement the short lived Democratic Republic of Armenia, after declaring independence on May 28, 1918 was compelled to sign a humiliating Peace Treaty on June 4th, 1918 in Batum, becoming “a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire”. However, after the surrender of Turks on 30.10.1918 with Mudros Treaty, the DRA did not only announce their full independence on Nov.30, 1918 but started a new war of land grabbing under the patronage of the British army in Iran and soon took Kars and adjacent area. In February 1919 (only five months after they had kissed the Sultan’s hand in Istanbul) and at the Paris Peace Conference, they were demanding half of Anatolia, “cleaned out of non-Christian elements” which was 85% of the population!

The second time revolt and attacks of D.R.A. this time on Nationalist Turks or the Parliamentary Government in Ankara, ended with total surrender of the Armenian Republic and signing the Peace Treaty of Gumru/Alexandropol on Dec. 2, 1920. Shortly thereafter, the DRA dissolved herself and became a Republic of the Soviets! The Treaty of Moscow, (March 1921) is nothing but a reaffirmation of the Gumru Treaty signed by Armenians directly. The borders decided between Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Armenia were guaranteed again by the Kars Treaty (Oct.23, 1921) and which was ratified by Yerevan on Sept.11, 1922. Therefore, all claims for readjustment of borders fall short of previous three agreements.

To speak of “national character or sacred of Mount Ararat or claim rights as the first Christian state”, does not bring any intelligent dimension or justification to a scholarly discussion.

The writer brings self-justification and praise to some 240 acts of terror, where almost 80 innocent people died, more than half being Turkish citizens not related to the incidents. The writer speaks of “historical (?) fact of the Armenian Genocide” but brings no evidence to the accusation, other than self-verdict, like some criminals to justify their murders!

The writer, rather than being “objective and accept the results of the past mistakes”, encourages new hostilities and claims for land, as if they have enough population to fill up the area or “muscle to get it by force as it was the case in 1916 – 1918 – 1920. The writer expects other countries to fight for them and give them what they want, “just because they cry out loud and insistently”. The writer “formulated a reason and justice for demanding everything” because whatever and whenever they did in the past they were right but victims! Armenian diaspora all around the World are wasting time gambling on jackpot rewards, instead of coming to terms and becoming good neighbors! Armenia is in friendly terms only with Russia and Iran and has demands of land from all other three bordering countries! Is this situation normal and friendly to USA ?


Post a Comment

Please Update/Correct Any Of The
3700+ Posts by Leaving Your Comments Here

- - - YOUR OPINION Matters To Us - - -

We Promise To Publish Them Even If We May Not Share The Same View

Mind You,
You Would Not Be Allowed Such Freedom In Most Of The Other Sites At All.

You understand that the site content express the author's views, not necessarily those of the site. You also agree that you will not post any material which is false, hateful, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or in violation of any law.

- Please READ the POST FIRST then enter YOUR comment in English by referring to the SPECIFIC POINTS in the post and DO preview your comment for proper grammar /spelling.
-Need to correct the one you have already sent?
please enter a -New Comment- We'll keep the latest version
- Spammers: Your comment will appear here only in your dreams

More . . :

All the best