armenia of 1918 and the Bolshoves

[ace]

Wow, looking at that map, I thought 2 things.

1) How great would it have been if the Treaty of Sevres borders were realized. Armenia would not be landlocked, and would have maintained a small portion of Western Armenia, Vana Lij, and Mt. Ararat.

2) Then I thought, since most Western Armenians had died or were on the way to forming the diaspora, who would have lived in the western portion of the Armenian Republic? Who lived there in 1920? Turks, Kurds, and Hamshens? Would Armenia have been a multi-cultural republic? Would those Turks and Kurds be speaking Armenian today as their state language?

I probably have it all wrong. But it was something that sparked my interest.

Most Turks and Kurds would've fled due to war. Yah, that land would've been really nice though.

[arabico]

Wow, looking at that map, I thought 2 things.

1) How great would it have been if the Treaty of Sevres borders were realized. Armenia would not be landlocked, and would have maintained a small portion of Western Armenia, Vana Lij, and Mt. Ararat.

2) Then I thought, since most Western Armenians had died or were on the way to forming the diaspora, who would have lived in the western portion of the Armenian Republic? Who lived there in 1920? Turks, Kurds, and Hamshens? Would Armenia have been a multi-cultural republic? Would those Turks and Kurds be speaking Armenian today as their state language?

I probably have it all wrong. But it was something that sparked my interest.

M. Ararat was under Armenian control between 1918-1920.

If sevres was realized there also would've been a Kurdistan in the southeast of Turkey. Most likely the kurds were going to migrate to south and the remaining of western Armenians would resettle in the lands granted by sevres and everybody would've lived happily ever after

why sevres failed? i think western forces were busy with the middle east and internal problems. also because Armenia felt to the bolshoves. The situation was perfect for Ataturk and the Turks won militarily and diplomatically.

[bell-the-cat]

M. Ararat was under Armenian control between 1918-1920.

If sevres was realized there also would've been a Kurdistan in the southeast of Turkey. Most likely the kurds were going to migrate to south and the remaining of western Armenians would resettle in the lands granted by sevres and everybody would've lived happily ever after

why sevres failed? i think western forces were busy with the middle east and internal problems. also because Armenia felt to the bolshoves. The situation was perfect for Ataturk and the Turks won militarily and diplomatically.

The Armenian genocide made any proposal to create Armenian territory out of Turkish controlled territory completely untainable - that, after all, was the point of the genocide.

The territory proposed to Armenia by the Sevres treaty was totally unworkable - this was the reason that no foreign Power actively supported it. 90% of the population there was not Armenian, and you are living in fantasy-land if you suppose that they would have just left. And any attempt to remove them would have triggered a Turkish military response. It was heavy-handed Armenian attempts to gain actual, rather than on-paper, control of the Muslim-populated territories around Ararat, Kaghizman, and Oltu that was used as an excuse for the renewed Turkish offensive against Armenia in 1920.

Further to my "Your researching skills suck" comment.

Between 1915 and 1917 the Russian Army did not pursue an offensive war against Turkey. Throughout WW2, the policy of the Russian forces was one of active defense - the territorial advances that were made were made as a result of defeats of offensive Turkish actions, or by pre-emptive strikes made to neutralise the risk of Turkish offensives. The war in the Caucasus Front was always a sideline for the Russian Empire.

After the November 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Russia signed a peace treaty with Germany and its allies which required the withdrawing of its forces. But most had already left anyway - they had "self-demobilised" themselves - by the summer of 1917, and an unofficial armistice was operating along the Russo-Turkish front.

It was not until February 1918 that the Turkish army renewed the war. The attacking Turks were mostly unopposed by the vastly outnumbered Armenian forces, who were mainly engaged in protecting civilian refugees fleeing from the advancing front-line. Kars was lost in on the 25th April, without a shot being fired. The Armenian republic lost Kars again in October 1920, before the Bolshevik invasion, and it was actually the Dashnak government that signed the treaty of Alexandropol, which ceded Kars province to Turkey.

So the Armenian Republic lost Kars before the Bolsheviks invaded Armenia. They also lost Alexandropol, and, though they managed to recapture it, would probably have lost it again if it were not that the Bolshevik forces were perceived by Turkey to have strong Russian allies waiting to intervene if Turkey again renewed its offensive.

[arabico]

Between 1915 and 1917 the Russian Army did not pursue an offensive war against Turkey. Throughout WW2, the policy of the Russian forces was one of active defense - the territorial advances that were made were made as a result of defeats of offensive Turkish actions, or by pre-emptive strikes made to neutralise the risk of Turkish offensives. The war in the Caucasus Front was always a sideline for the Russian Empire.

call it a pre-emptive strikes. The facts are there. By the end of 1916 russians advanced, occupying vast areas including Erzurum and Van. You can have your own analysis but the facts remain the same.

Regarding the issue of Kars, the treaty of alexandropol was signed the same day that bolshovs came to power in Armenia. The dashnaks who signed it had no power anymore. It's like the diaspora signing a treaty with azerbaijan to give up artsakh...

in fact, the bolshovs gave up kars even before they came to power in Armenia through the treaty of "Brest-Litovsk" in 1918. The dashnaks knew that the bolshovs will give kars to turkey if they came to power so they did it themselves to concentrate fighting bolshovs.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: armenia of 1918 and the Bolshoves

call it a pre-emptive strikes. The facts are there. By the end of 1916 russians advanced, occupying vast areas including Erzurum and Van. You can have your own analysis but the facts remain the same.

Actually, a correct analysis of the facts are vital on this point, and you seem to be inadvertantly supporting the Turkish State.
It is the Turkish official position that in 1915 its empire was under immediate threat from Russian invasions and Armenian 5th-columnists, and that is why the "evacuations" of Armenians were necessary. All that is nonsense - there was no aggressive Russian invasion supported by Armenians. In fact, it was Turkey that was always the aggressor - starting in 1914 when they invaded northern Iran, and committed genocide against the Armenians and other Christians living there - an event which, significantly, preceeded the Armenian Genocide proper.

[EMRE]

Re: armenia of 1918 and the Bolshoves

Wrong. The Dashnaks gave Kars in the treaty of Alexandropol between Armenia and Turkey so that they can fight against the armenian Bolshevicks. It is the biggest treachery they have ever done. The Dashnaks gave them Kars and the Turks recognised the Republic of Armenia as sovereign state.
For this reason, Turkey is the first country to recognise Armenia as an independent State.

Basically the bourgeois of our nation chosed to fight against their own countrymen instead of the Turks. If they didn't signed the Treaty of Alexandropol the Red Army could have demanded Kars from the Turks.



If the Bolshevik revolution didn't took place there would no be Armenia today. The armenians would have been more or less what the Chechens are today, in the best case. The only reason that we have an independent state is because of that revolution.

If the Bolshevik revolution happened sometime later, we have would both an independent state and Greater Armenia. Had our bourgeois , in this case the Dashnaks, sided with the Soviets, history would be very different today.

If the bolshevik revolution hadnt taken place,in this way russia wouldnt have saved armenia from turkey.because we had gained victory against dashnak armenians,and then we could have expanded towards yerevan and have invaded some parts of armenia and may be whole armenia.because ataturk had indignant feelings against armenians,but without russian assistance armenians wouldnt have independant state,but at that time,was palpable that turkey didnt want to reclaim the lost ottoman lands in this region.russians took action strategically and signed very logical agreement with ataturk turkey

of course they wouldnt demand kars from turkey,because russia wouldnt want turkey to fall into the hands of allied forces troops(especially france)because after russian defeat in anatolia,russians gave their all war hardwares and equipments to turks.for the purpose that turkey must defend their lands against imperialist forces,and declare independance.russian policy was at that time,l couldnt invade some parts of anatolia,other allied powers mustnt invade anatolia.and it was a clandestine military treaty between russia and turkey before it.


maybe Im mistaken,but I knew always that,turkey is the first country to recognize armenia as an independant country in 1990 after the demise of the soviet union.not as in your comment that bolshevik and dashnak times.

[ace]

Re: armenia of 1918 and the Bolshoves

Wow, looking at that map, I thought 2 things.

2) Then I thought, since most Western Armenians had died or were on the way to forming the diaspora, who would have lived in the western portion of the Armenian Republic? Who lived there in 1920? Turks, Kurds, and Hamshens? Would Armenia have been a multi-cultural republic? Would those Turks and Kurds be speaking Armenian today as their state language?

I probably have it all wrong. But it was something that sparked my interest.

You do, if the Armenians of Western Armenia were not exiled from their land, they would not be the DIASPORA, and would still live on those lands - thus, still living in Western Armenia. Kurds and Turks would be a small minority, as they were back then.

[TomServo]

Re: armenia of 1918 and the Bolshoves

Laule.

[arabico]

Re: armenia of 1918 and the Bolshoves

If the bolshevik revolution hadnt taken place,in this way russia wouldnt have saved armenia from turkey.because we had gained victory against dashnak armenians,and then we could have expanded towards yerevan and have invaded some parts of armenia and may be whole armenia.because ataturk had indignant feelings against armenians,but without russian assistance armenians wouldnt have independant state,but at that time,was palpable that turkey didnt want to reclaim the lost ottoman lands in this region.russians took action strategically and signed very logical agreement with ataturk turkey

of course they wouldnt demand kars from turkey,because russia wouldnt want turkey to fall into the hands of allied forces troops(especially france)because after russian defeat in anatolia,russians gave their all war hardwares and equipments to turks.for the purpose that turkey must defend their lands against imperialist forces,and declare independance.russian policy was at that time,l couldnt invade some parts of anatolia,other allied powers mustnt invade anatolia.and it was a clandestine military treaty between russia and turkey before it.


maybe Im mistaken,but I knew always that,turkey is the first country to recognize armenia as an independant country in 1990 after the demise of the soviet union.not as in your comment that bolshevik and dashnak times.

What a stupid analysis. You contradict yourself in many ways. and what's with the unrelated issue of turkey recognizing armenia in 1990? we are talking in 1920. ok? we know turkey loves armenia very much and cares about its existence

at least get this fact: Russia was in war with Turkey before the fc.king belshovic revolution. This is a facttttt. look it up. Turkey's ass was being kicked. This is also a fact. You can't find this in Turkish history books neither in communist russian history books.

the bolshevic revolution was a gift from god to ataturk. It made russia turky's ally.

before: turky was fighting russians >>>>> after: they fought small armenian resistance. no more russians fighting with turkey.

With all these facts, i can't understand how some people think that without the bolshoves armenia would've been conqured by turkey. It's the absolute opposite. Turkey was being conqured by russia. If this sudden change never happened in russia, do you think the russians would've withdrew from van or erzurum? no! they would even go deeper in turkey. If Turkey was fighting two fronts at the same time instead of only one in the west, they would've lost both of them since they only relied on mass soldier numbers.


without this revolution, Turky's map would've been very small both from the west and east.

Emre, I suggest that you put a picture of lenin next to the picture of ataturk in your home

[mdundar57]

Re: armenia of 1918 and the Bolshoves

What a stupid analysis. You contradict yourself in many ways. and what's with the unrelated issue of turkey recognizing armenia in 1990? we are talking in 1920. ok? we know turkey loves armenia very much and cares about its existence

at least get this fact: Russia was in war with Turkey before the fc.king belshovic revolution. This is a facttttt. look it up. Turkey's ass was being kicked. This is also a fact. You can't find this in Turkish history books neither in communist russian history books.

the bolshevic revolution was a gift from god to ataturk. It made russia turky's ally.

before: turky was fighting russians >>>>> after: they fought small armenian resistance. no more russians fighting with turkey.

With all these facts, i can't understand how some people think that without the bolshoves armenia would've been conqured by turkey. It's the absolute opposite. Turkey was being conqured by russia. If this sudden change never happened in russia, do you think the russians would've withdrew from van or erzurum? no! they would even go deeper in turkey. If Turkey was fighting two fronts at the same time instead of only one in the west, they would've lost both of them since they only relied on mass soldier numbers.


without this revolution, Turky's map would've been very small both from the west and east.

Emre, I suggest that you put a picture of lenin next to the picture of ataturk in your home

Arabico, are you a history proffesor? so u had research about all of these which not in none turkish or russian books or recordings... great.. then you should know the turks nature? russians could never go any deeper then erzurum because even fighting against the whole world still a new army was ready to fight against russians but they left country before a fight but that army had a war with armanians and won. Kazim Karabekir was the leader of the army and he is known as the hawk of the east.. in 28 september 1920 Kazim Karabekir won armenians and got back sarıkamis in sept. 29 and kars in 30 th sept. then armenians wanted peace and promised to no to fight against turkiye again.. Read the Turkish History and u will see Turks always win when equal.. always..