Re: If Armenians stayed Zoroastrian...
The Georgia's blatant aggression against Armenians in 1918 is rarely discussed within Armenian society today. Note that the aggression came at a time when Armenia was barely alive, struggling to get on its feet. They, as a nation, are a bunch of filthy cowards on par with Turks, if not worst. I look forward to the day when the Armenian Republic will number Javakhq and Batumi as its districts as well.
THE ARMENIAN-GEORGIAN WAR OF 41918
Armenian-Georgian relations figure hardly at all in public
discussion. Yet in their enduringly fraught character they have been
and to this day remain important to the fashioning of Armenian
nationhood and are also significant for the future stability of the
Armenian state and the region as a whole. Varik Virapian's `The
Armenian-Georgian War of 1918' (250pp, Yerevan, 2003) provides
therefore a valuable introduction to the subject starting from the war
that exploded between the two states immediately upon their formation
in that same year.
As with Armenian-Azeri and Armenian-Turkish relations, disputes over
territory were a main cause for the hostilities between Armenia and
Georgia with the latter laying claim to regions such as Lori and
Akhalkalak both of which were populated overwhelmingly by Armenians.
Georgian ambition to annex these territories flouted pre-independence
agreements made by the major nationalist forces in the Caucuses - the
Armenians, Georgians and Azerbaijanis - to mark out new state borders
in accord with demographic facts and the wishes of the majority
populations inhabiting disputed territory. Georgia had its reasons for
disregarding such agreements.
Besides seeking an expansion of territory Georgian ambitions were
driven by another equally important domestic consideration.
Historically the Georgian elite had rallied its forces against
Armenian economic supremacy in Georgia. Following independence it
seized the opportunity to destroy bastions of Armenian power,
resorting to whatever means it could. In this enterprise the Georgian
state had every interest in weakening its Armenian neighbour that it
regarded not only as a contestant over territory, but as a possible
defender of Armenian elites in Georgia and a contender in the struggle
for hegemony over the Caucuses.
In the looming war the Georgian state had a decided advantage. The
ruling Menshevik Party provided it with an experienced and well-oiled
political machine that received critical support from German
imperialism that had made of Georgia a semi-colony. Here it is perhaps
worth noting that though all post 1918 territorial disputes in the
Caucuses were generated by the clash of locally rooted nationalist
forces, these were exacerbated by European powers who acted the role
of chess players manipulating and moving their chosen regional allies
in accord with these allies' intrinsic powers but to a design of their
own ambitions.
Throughout the disputed regions and Georgia as a whole, the Georgian
authorities moved fast to secure advantageous positions. They
systematically tightened the political and military noose round
Armenian populated regions. They set deadlines for the removal of
Armenian national organisations from Tbilisi and demanded the
immediate disarmament of Armenian military contingents that were based
on what they regarded as their sovereign territory. Simultaneously
they launched a political and economic assault on all Armenians in
Georgia - with raids on Armenian properties, confiscations of goods,
unprecedented tax levies and other arbitrary demands. In Lori and
Akhalkalak Georgian forces having disarmed local Armenian units began
to plunder the population, confiscating crops, foodstuffs and
property. Thus was set the basis for the Armenian-Georgian war of
1918.
Armenia was ill equipped to wage war. Virapian's quotes from many
founders of the Armenian republic pointing to the new state's economic
and social dislocation and its political and military isolation,
surrounded as it was by two other hostile neighbours, Turkey and
Azerbaijan who also had appetite for territory populated by Armenians.
Reminiscent of Armenian politics today, Armenian disadvantage was
compounded by the refusal of Diaspora capital and its educated elite
to come to its assistance. Armenian military operations were further
hindered by lack of political and military centralisation, huge
logistical and communication problems and increasing indecision by the
Armenian government as well as by hostile Turkish and British
manipulation.
Armenian-Georgian tensions finally exploded into open war in December
of 1918. Full-scale military clashes followed attempts by Georgian
forces to repress an Armenian uprising in Lori protesting against
Georgian misrule and abuse. Taking the form of a popular peoples' war,
Armenian forces initially registered significant gains particularly
under the leadership of General Dro. Rapidly however their fortunes
dipped. Armenian positions were undermined by Georgian control of sea,
road and rail routes essential for Armenian supplies and
reinforcements. Georgia also received significant direct and indirect
support from Turkish and Azeri forces. In disputed regions where
political and military control changed hands regularly Georgia was not
averse to Turkish conquests hoping these would drive out Armenian
populations fearful of renewed Turkish slaughter. Once they retook
possession of these areas, in an indirect form of ethnic cleansing,
they proceeded to erect barriers to returning Armenian refuges thus
beginning a hoped for demographic transformation of Lori and
Akhalkalak.
The conclusion to the war and the final anti-democratic settlement
expressed accurately both the balance of forces and the predatory
ambitions of the Georgian elites. Armenia, against its will, against
the wishes of the local population and against previously agreed
principles of dividing territory according to the democratic wishes of
national majorities was forced to concede the larger part of disputed
areas.
Though Virapian's account is in many places over-detailed he
nevertheless supplies a shocking record of Georgian chauvinist assault
on the half million-strong Armenian community within its borders. This
community was treated as a criminal entity, thousands were arrested,
their property was confiscated and they were beaten, humiliated,
isolated and transformed into pariahs. So the basis was set for the
neutralisation and assimilation of Armenian communities in Georgia.
During the Soviet era this process continued by other means.
There is in Virapian's account a significant gap. He does not explain
why Georgian nationalism proved to be so decisive and why Armenian
strategy and tactics so prevaricating, based on wishful thinking and
expectations of British or other European assistance. Independence for
the Georgian nationalists presented them with the political power with
which to take on and defeat their main internal competitor, the
Armenian economic class. So brimming with confidence they set out to
secure for themselves the lion's share of Caucasian territory that
would give them the best geo-political and economic foundations for
their state. In contrast, the Armenian elites lacked all these
qualities. They had in fact opposed the formation of an independent
Armenian state. They preferred instead a confederation of Caucasian
nations that would secure them rights to function freely throughout
the Caucuses and particularly in Tibilisi and Baku that for them were
pastures more profitable than Yerevan. Independence for the Armenian
elite was a set back, a hoped for temporary inconvenience to be put
right by imperialism. So the Armenian elite floundered while vainly
waiting for imperialist charity.
Virabian's book also prompts thought about another important problem
of history that today receives little or no attention. In its own way
the experience of the Armenian-Georgian war demands consideration of
received opinion that the individual nation state is necessarily the
most appropriate form for national freedom. In the Caucasus
nation-state formation led to repeated wars, to the persistence and
even aggravation of wartime miseries, illness, hunger, starvation and
to a further dislocation of local economic life. During the Soviet era
dominant elites hoping to build homogenous nation-states resorted to
quiet ethnic cleansing, national repressions, cultural assimilation
and isolation of `foreign communities' that had in fact inhabited the
region for centuries. The seeds were sown for yet more hatred and yet
more war. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union new elites
exploited old hatreds to wage war for new privileges, war in which
once more the common people suffered whilst a tiny minority built
mansions. Whether there are alternatives more amenable to harmonious,
democratic inter-national coexistence requires further consideration,
and here too the Armenian experience offers a rich legacy.
-
Re: If Armenians stayed Zoroastrian...
Georgians are a "classic" example of cultural inferiority complex. Until now they have the hardest time accepting the fact that Bagratouni was an ancient (goes back to the times Tigran Mets) family originating from the Armenian Plateau. The reason is of course it was a member of this family that united the "shivarats" tribes of Iberia and gave a national identity. Their most revered king is a descendant of Ashot Bagratouni, an Armenian. You can sit them an hour explaining this simple fact of history and not get an inch. Also, and this is quite shocking, considering they themselves have struggled with the Turkic menace, Georgians openly question the facts of the Armenian Genocide with the usual "there are two sides to every story" bullxxxx. And as Armenian mentioned, they are in bed with the Turks and turn their back on the very people who have been there for them, just so they can chase the near-sighted dream of proving to Russia that they're a powerhouse to be reckoned with.Originally posted by Armenian View Post
Their paranoia and low self-esteem runs so deep that when recently some German folk music label mistook Georgian music as Armenian in a CD of Caucasian folk music, Georgians went ape-xxxx, writing editorials, saying the dirty trickster Armenians are trying to steal Georgian cultural heritage. It's laughable, but the illness runs deep. And this was on the national level, with famous artists saying complete inanities.
I have no doubt that at some point in their History, they were noble, courageous, helpful people. They have in fact come to the help of our people in the past against *gasp* the Turks, as have we. And there has been much cultural, friendly contact. So, truly the modern Georgian sensibilities and allegiances are a sad turn of events (for them of course).Leave a comment:
-
Re: If Armenians stayed Zoroastrian...
In recent history, Armenians and Georgians have been on opposite sides of the fence, politically and sociologically. The primary problem with Georgia is that the nation is not homogeneous, they have many distinct ethnicities living within its borders, with Turkic tribes being most prominent amongst them.
The multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-faith national reality has always been a problem for the Georgians because they have not been able to formulate a cohesive national character, one that is a representative of all peoples who live within Georgia. Moreover, unlike Armenians, Georgians tend to hate and distrust Russians for various reasons. Furthermore, Georgians have deep rooted historic animosities against Armenians as well. Armenians have always been baffled by this because Armenians have contributed greatly to Georgian culture.
The "Bagratuni" Georgian kingdom that rose to prominence within the thirteenth century A.D. by defeating numerous Turkic armies was of Armenian decent and its military leadership and troop strength was comprised of many Armenians. Armenian Christian monks evangelized Georgian tribes and, thereafter, administered their church for several centuries. Armenians founded or directly influenced the national script of Georgians and also heavily influenced their national architecture. Many prominent Georgians, including their present president, are of Armenian decent. The Armenian population of Tbilisi, during the nineteenth century outnumbered Georgians, exceeding fifty percent.
Despite the above, Georgians have portrayed hostile attitudes towards Armenians. Within the late ninetieth and early twentieth centuries, at a time when Armenians were desperately struggling against Turks for their survival, Georgians often allied themselves with Turks against Armenians. The Georgian military even attacked northern Armenia in 1918, but was defeated by Armenian troops under the leadership of Drastamat Kanayan. Even today, the volatile situation within Armenian populated region of Javakhq is a blaring example of how explosive Georgian-Armenian relations are.
Consequently, there is not much respect towards Georgian politics and society on the behalf of Armenians. What's more, with strong Turkic, American and J-e-w-ish influences within Georgia today, I do not see Georgians looking favorably toward Russians within the foreseeable future. Armenia has always been Russia's only natural ally within the southern Caucasus. Recent history can corroborate my statement.
Most Armenians, including myself, don't have any problems with the Georgian people and its national culture. Our problems with them is their constant pro-Turkish policies and their ongoing betrayal of their neighbor to their south. Moreover, my biggest disappointment in Armeno-Georgian relations is that although Armenians and Georgians have great potential in working together within the Caucasus, due to Georgia's intimate involvement with Washington, Tel Aviv, and Ankara - this potential has not been realized.
Our only two allies within the regions are and have always been Russia and Iran.Leave a comment:
-
Re: If Armenians stayed Zoroastrian...
Georgians aren't turk?Originally posted by Lucin View Post
How are they hostile?Leave a comment:
-
Re: If Armenians stayed Zoroastrian...
I wouldn’t compare it with Georgians, for the simple reason that the scums called Georgians, are just Christian Turks (georgian is an alias) and unlike Persians, they have ALWAYS been hostile to us… Thus, without Christianity, we would have been assimilated easily to muslum Iranians …Last edited by Lucin; 05-02-2007, 05:12 AM.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: