History Of The Dashnak Party

[TashnagZinvor]

MJ you quickly forget who Robart Kocharian and the leading generals in Artsakh politically belonged to. You forget which political group saved the "Armenian" nation from total erradication by means of Soviet assimilation, Azeri mass population during the second world world, and by Turkish claims of the land itself. The fighters of Turkish and Eastern Armenia, were Tashnags, there were no Hnchagians, or Ramgavar communists at the time. Tashnags, who stood for the liberation of Armenia, sadly enough the only thing that was liberated was your half of the nation. Bow down to the Tashnags and lick their feet, without them youd be more than a Half-Turk Hybrid. Youd be a full blown Islamicist.

[MJ]

MJ you quickly forget who Robart Kocharian and the leading generals in Artsakh politically belonged to. You forget which political group saved the "Armenian" nation from total erradication by means of Soviet assimilation, Azeri mass population during the second world world, and by Turkish claims of the land itself. The fighters of Turkish and Eastern Armenia, were Tashnags, there were no Hnchagians, or Ramgavar communists at the time. Tashnags, who stood for the liberation of Armenia, sadly enough the only thing that was liberated was your half of the nation. Bow down to the Tashnags and lick their feet, without them youd be more than a Half-Turk Hybrid. Youd be a full blown Islamicist.

Believe me, I haven't forgotten anything - I remember everything that was essential. And you can go and tell such fables to your unfortunate children - and that before they would have the capacity to inquire for their own.

[TashnagZinvor]

There is no point in arguing with someone who belongs to a culture that is socially, culturally and politically OUTCASTED. Have all the pride you want in what you claim to be whatever it is you stand for

 

Edited by Sasun

[Armen]

Melkonian is someone that Armenian youths should look up to.

I agree with this sentence of yours. Other than that...

 

Monte was not a Tashnag and hated Dashnags more than anyone in this world. Monte personally killed ASALA's leader Hagop Hagopian to stop the ASALA terror. He was not crazy, as he was one of the best military professionals that Armenian nation produced at the end of 20 century. This implies that Monte was a very balanced person.

Moreover Monte never hated Azeries when he fought in Karabagh. He just loved Armenia.

[TashnagZinvor]

Crazy in a sence that he would murder a renound Armenian political activist.

[Harut]

I was speaking of the Iranians who were muslim during the war of Avarayr...

no comments.

[Sasun]

I have done some clean up in this thread

[Artsakh]

i am just curious as why this important topic is not continuting.

[Armen]

Artsakh jan, I could add some two or three paragraphs about Dashnak party history but the moderators will ban me after that.

[Artsakh]

hey bud.

 

i have sent u an email. perhaps we can talk about this amongst us.

[Armen]

I was joking Artsakh jan. They would ban me for the huge amount of foul language

[KnightOfArmenia]

They'd bad you for history? Or, do you mean, you'd just insult all Dashnaks and their mothers, and then claim that you are being censored by the Dashnaks when you got banned for it?

 

Honestly... I love criticism (hell, I've nearly been removed from the AYF due to my criticism of it), but there is a difference between criticism and just plain hate.

[KnightOfArmenia]

And did that guy just call Hakop Hakopian a renowned "Armenian political activist"? He advocated the willfull murder of civilians (not just turks, but Italians and Frenchmen as well). He was a terrorist, and I'm glad he's gone.

 

Part of the reason I criticize my party so much is that much of the rank and file fall under this category... if I had a nickel for everytime I had one call me a traitor for saying Dashnak, I'd have at least two bucks. Maybe even three.

 

I've tried explaining that Mashtots formed the modern alphabet by basing it on the Greek order, as in Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta (Aip, Bet, Gem, Da, I believe are the Armenian versions). I've tried explaining why races introduced to us years after the formation of our alphabet (such as the Arabs) are written with letters that, in Eastern Armenian, sound the same as their names for themselves, but not in Western Armenian (for example, when we met the Arabs, we wrote them as Ah-Rh-Ah-Buh, as in the second letter of the alphabet; now, if the second letter of the alphabet is sounded as "puh" rather than "buh," and if the hard "ppuh," the 26th letter, is actually the sound "buh," then ]i]why in the hell[/i] didn't our ancestors write it with the 26th letter? There can be no tradition when you encounter a new race; you hear what they call themselves and then you write the same sounds in your own language). All of this fails; they either blame it on tradition, or say that I just don't want to accept it.

 

Now, back to the history (I say this having literally come out of taking Dr. Marashlian's Russian History final, having already finished with Armenian History, Armenian Diaspora, and Mid-East Politics): as the records of the Republic clearly show, Alexander Khatissian was not in the government when he signed the Treaty of Alexandropol. Not only was it signed after midnight, thus making it a day after Armenia surrendered to the USSR, but he himself was already out of the government, and thus had no power whatsoever to make any treaty. From their own writings, they had hoped that the Russians would not accept a treaty signed by people who had no right making a treaty that gave away lands now belonging to the Russians, but they miscalculated. Regardless, considering that Karabekir threatened to unleash his troops into Armenia if he did not sign, it's a shame that he is viewed so negatively at all. The turks had taken the land already, and could have taken more (or at least slaughtered thousands more Armenians).

 

You also fail to consider that it is because Khatissian signed the treaty (which was illegal by world law, then and now), and the subsequent treaty of Moscow was based on the treaty of Alexandropol, that the current Republic has a legitimate claim to Western Armenia. Were it not for this (or if they had waited until the Soviets themselves signed a deal of some sort with the turks), we'd have no legal right to ask for those lands. Yes, I know that some of you have completely disdain for world law and believe that might makes right, but having one can lead to the other (and this workds both ways).

 

Any other reasons why they were evil?

 

Edit: And yes, I say "Rramqavar" and "Hnchaq."

Edited June 10, 2004 by KnightOfArmenia

[Armen]

They'd bad you for history? Or, do you mean, you'd just insult all Dashnaks and their mothers, and then claim that you are being censored by the Dashnaks when you got banned for it?

 

Honestly... I love criticism (hell, I've nearly been removed from the AYF due to my criticism of it), but there is a difference between criticism and just plain hate.

Knight, if this was addressed to me, you got it all wrong. Read it again. I was joking.

I don't hate all Dashnaks and there has been many great personalities among them (many of which have left the party actually). The topic is about the party's history and I believe overall their contribution could be a lot better. They took resposibility on goals they couldn't accomplish. Second, they love to privatize the heroic pages of our history, like the liberation of Artsakh. I don't have time for a lengthy discussion now. We could talk about this later.

[KnightOfArmenia]

Ah, then I was mistaken.

 

And by no means am I some brainwashed "Tashnag;" when I found out that General Andranik was not viewed as a "real" hero by the party, I nearly left (I postponed indefinitely my swearing ceremony as it is; that man is my greatest hero). The party today, in the West at least, is little more than an organization that feeds upon itself for the most part, driven by nepotism and tradition rather than actual belief; for example, recently, the ANC held a contest among young Armenians to send 4 of them to Washington, D.C., to intern at the ANC offices. A dozen or so youths applied, all of them connected (usually by blood relation) to some ranking member of the Dashnak party. Those without such connections, such as myself, didn't even bother.

 

Or the fact that the Socialist organization which is the ARF (again, in the US) doesn't even know that it is Socialist; a few of my fellow AYF members and I spent Christmas day with the strikers during California's grocery store strike. Only 4 of us came. The vast majority didn't want to involve themselves with "those stupid strikes." Not a single Dashnak I've met, other than myself, knows the lyrics to The Internationale (in any language), and only a handful even knew what that was. <_< (Note: Yes, I actually am a Socialist, and would love to debate its merits with anyone! )

[MJ]

as the records of the Republic clearly show, Alexander Khatissian was not in the government when he signed the Treaty of Alexandropol. Not only was it signed after midnight, thus making it a day after Armenia surrendered to the USSR, but he himself was already out of the government, and thus had no power whatsoever to make any treaty. From their own writings, they had hoped that the Russians would not accept a treaty signed by people who had no right making a treaty that gave away lands now belonging to the Russians, but they miscalculated.

 

Regardless, considering that Karabekir threatened to unleash his troops into Armenia if he did not sign, it's a shame that he is viewed so negatively at all. The turks had taken the land already, and could have taken more (or at least slaughtered thousands more Armenians).

 

You also fail to consider that it is because Khatissian signed the treaty (which was illegal by world law, then and now), and the subsequent treaty of Moscow was based on the treaty of Alexandropol, that the current Republic has a legitimate claim to Western Armenia. Were it not for this (or if they had waited until the Soviets themselves signed a deal of some sort with the turks), we'd have no legal right to ask for those lands. Yes, I know that some of you have completely disdain for world law and believe that might makes right, but having one can lead to the other (and this workds both ways).

 

Any other reasons why they were evil?

 

Edit: And yes, I say "Rramqavar" and "Hnchaq."

 

As always, our knight has offered some "pearls" from Armenian history to this Forum.

 

The Alexandrapole treaty was signed by Drastamat Kanaian. Furthermore, this treaty has as much to do with "Western Armenia" or similar fictitious or merely geographic concepts as with Senegal.

 

Not only the Moscow treaty was not based on the Alexandrapole treaty, but also it annulled the Alexandrapole treaty and any other [parts of] treaties signed before, which might have been related to Armenia one or another way (see Severs Treaty, for example).

 

EDIT: Some small edits were made.

Edited June 10, 2004 by MJ

[KnightOfArmenia]

Actually, this shows your ignorance, MJ. Drastamat Kanaian was the one who gave the government of Armenia over to the Bolsheviks on December 2nd, and Alexander Khatissian was in Alexandropol signing the Treaty of Alexandropol on Dec. 3rd (a few hours after power was given to the Bolsheviks). The terms of Alexandropol was the dismantling of the Armenian army to no more than 1,500 troops, and virtual vassalage to turkey, as well as declaring the Treaty of Sevres null and void, which would be tantamount to renouncing the Armenian claim over Western Armenia.

 

Edit: I was trying to remind myself why your name was flashing in my mind, and then I remembered; you're the one who didn't bother with any sources.

 

Well, I don't want to fall into that same bad habit, so:

 

A Concise History of the Armenian People by George A. Bournoutian:

 

Page 310-311 - By mid-November, the turks had recaptured the entire region they had controlled prior to their withdrawal in November 1918, The Russians, surprised by the rapid turkish advance, feared the loss of the Georgian Black Sea ports and the only rail connection to Iran. They approached the Yerevan government and offered to intercede on their behalf. The turks rejected any RUssian interference. The Dashnak Bureau, now blamed for the turkish victories, gave up the reigns of government to a new cabinet, headed by Simon Vratzian. The cabinet was still dominated by Dashnaks, but had two Socialist Revolutionary members. At the end of November the Bolsheviks entered Armenian territory and insisted that Armenia's slavation lay in becoming a Bolshevik state, denouncing the Treaty of Sevres, and cutting its ties to the West. The turks continued their advance and captured Sharur and Nakhichevan. Faced with total annihilation, the Armenian government sent Khatisian to Alexandropol to negotiate with the turks and appointed a team headed by General Dro to transfer the government to the Bolsheviks. On December 2 Armenia became an "independent" Soviet state and the Bolsheviks promised to restore its pre-September 1920 borders. Contrary to common belief, the Armenian Republic did not completely cease to exist on that date. Although the Republic had changed its political leadership, the Dashnaks, as well as other party representatives were guaranteed freedom and continued to serve the state in a number of positions.

On the same day, turkey demanded that Armenia immediately sign a treaty renouncing Sevres and all claims to western Armenia, including Kars and Ardahan. In addition Armenia had to accept temporary turkish jurisdiction in Nakhichevan and Sharur. In return the turks would guarantee the independence of the remaining portion of the Republic. Khatisian, aware of Dro's negotiations with the Bolsheviks, delayed Armenia's acceptance until the midnight of December 2. He then signed the Alexandropol agreement in the early hours of December 3. A small part of Armenia was thus saved from turkish occupation. Since his government no longer existed on December 3, Khatisian calculated that the Bolsheviks would denounce the treaty as null and void and would demand that the turks return to their former boundaries. At the same time the Dashnaks hoped that if the Bolsheviks did not keep their promises and tried to completely take over the Republic, they could rely on the turkish guarantee to repulse them. The Armenians thus hoped to use either the Russians or turks to their benefit. It was a calculated move that ultimately failed.

 

And in regards to the Treaty of Moscow:

 

Page 312 - Their victory was temporary, for after the Sovietization of Georgia, the Red Army returned in March and, by the beginning of April, the rebels were forced to withdraw to Zangezur where, under the leadership of Njdeh they fought on, declaring the region as the INdependent Mountainous Armenian State (Lerna-Hayastan). In the meantime, after the fall of Yerevan to the Red Army in March, the turks and Russians, without any representatives from Armenia or Georgia, negotiated the fate of Armenia and the rest of Transcaucasia. As far as the Armenians were concerned, the terms followed the general line of the Treaty of Alexandropol, but with some significant changes. Nakhichevan and Sharur would not be returned to Armenia but would become part of Azerbaijan. In order for the turks to be closer to Nakhichevan (they later exchanged a strip of land with Iran which gave them a common border with Nakhichevan) they demanded the district of Surmalu with Mount Ararat, which had never been part of western Armenia. The Russians, in exchange for Batum and parts of Akhalkalak and Akhaltsikh, which the turks had occupied, agreed to give up Surmalu and Mount Ararat, the symbol of Armenia, to the turks. Finally, it was agreed that the treaty would be later signed and ratified by the Transcaucasian Republics. The treaty of Moscow, signed on March 16, 1921, was the last breath of the first Armenian Republic, some one thousand days after its formal beginning.

 

 

Don't try revisionism. It's best left to the turks.

Edited June 11, 2004 by KnightOfArmenia

[MJ]

Well, I am glad that now “Bournoutian agrees with your opinion as well,” but next time I see or talk to him, I’ll ask why would he write such bizarre and contrary to the account of the participant of the events things in his book, assuming, of course, that you have not forged things from his book, which is not an uncommon thing with the students of Armenian history – in literary and actual senses of this characterization. But I am almost certain that you have forged things from his book - especially in view of some of the contextual falsifications. But I'll indicate it a bit later.

 

Now about the sources...

 

The primary and the only original source on the subject is Simon Vratsian's “Republic of Armenia,” vol. 2. Vratsian was the prime minister of Armenia at the time, by the way, a historian, and he was making the last minute decisions with the surrender of Armenia. There is a more or less detailed description of communication between Vratsian and Kanaian in the book, whereby Kanaian presents the text of Turkish ultimatum to Vratsian and asks for instructions on how to proceed. Vratsian claims that his answer was, "You are free to do whatever you deem right to do." However, at that time, the government of Armenia had already resigned (and the power effectively was transferred to Bolsheviks as a measure of saving what was left of Armenia) and Kanaian was not informed about it. Vratsian explains his ambiguous answer as maneuvering tactics to win time, and to be able to claim down the road that Alexandrapole treaty was signed by Kanaian, who was representing a government, which had already resigned at the time. All this was taking place on December 1-2, 1920.

 

I am still trying to understand how does all this relate to "Western Armenia..."

 

Next... about Western Armenia, in general... I have notices that Bournoutian frequently use the term "Western Armenia" to characterize part of historic Armenia. This is unfortunate. Sevres treaty has had nothing to do with Western Armenia, since such entity has never existed throughout the entire Armenian history. Severes treaty related to Armenia. Never in history of Armenia there have existed two different Armenias, except for a very short period of time around the 11th century, with the coexistence of Bagratuni and Artsruni kingdoms. The usage of term “Western Armenia” on medieval maps is equivalent to the usage of the term “Atrapatakan” on the same maps. Thus, “Western Armenia” has existed only to the extent that Atrapatakan, for example, has existed. I would claim even less than that.

 

Now, about me and revisionism…

 

If I were a historian, I definitely would have been a revisionist, with the purpose of cleaning the traditional narration of Armenia history from all the filthy lies and falsifications. Turkish and Azerbaijani misrepresentations of history were born on the fertile ground and replicating the traditions of misrepresentations of Armenian historians. The fact of the matter is that up until lately, Armenia history was written by people who could not differentiate ideology and politics from history (in Armenia). As to Diaspora Armenians, up until lately, every other owner of an Armenian Grocery had considered it to be his/her duty to write a book on Armenian history and, especially, the Genocide. That’s why we currently have voluminous productions and reproductions of forgery, which not only embarrass us on the professional and international stage, but does real practical harm in shaping an image and disarming us even when the truth is on our side. My best wish is that others don’t read the absolute majority of the books written by Armenia historians - perhaps starting from Khorenatci and continued by other monks, so that not to pin a label of forgerers of history on us. So again, if I were a professional historian, I would have gladly revised the narration of Armenian history by Armenian historians, so that to clean it from all the falsifications.

 

Now about the references from the Bournoutian book, which, I am almost convinced have been referenced here with less than knight's honor and dignity…

 

“The Russians, surprised by the rapid turkish advance...”

 

Russians had no reason to be surprised with the rapid advancement of the Turkish troops, since they were the ones to get these troops out of the deep hole they were in, by financing and arming the demolished Turkish army in 1920. There are multiple accounts of Russians sending three shiploads of arms and gold to the government of Turkey prior to the latter’s 1920 expedition towards Armenia. But this statement about their “surprise” may just be an interpretation issue…

 

There is a reference, allegedly from page 312 of Bournoutian’s book, in our knight’s last message. It is not clear to me where does Bournoutian’s contemplation stop and where does knight’s creative writing exercise start. The lines are somewhat blurred. However, regardless, I don’t see how does it address or respond to the issues questioned before, rather than mislead the uninformed reader. Furthermore, the reference on “Lerna-Hayastan” confuses the issue further, by blurring the lines between the subject of current argument (related to the events of December 1-2, 1920) with the events, which have come effective February 8, 1921.

 

Finally, if Bournoutian claims that Khatisian has signed the treaty of Alexandrapole, he has to explain why does his account of these events differ from that of Vratsian, who was the head of the Armenian government at the time. But again, I highly doubt that Bournoutian has written such a bizarre thing.

Edited June 11, 2004 by MJ

[KnightOfArmenia]

First, you could very easily actually bother to check the book if you have it (or purchase it, if you wish) to check it; instead, you accuse me of lying. That is also more along the lines of turkish historiography.

 

Second, Simon Vratzian is a primary source, and one you can't trust (even though he doesn't say that Dro signed the document, but asked him directions for it, as it was known that Khatisian was asking Dro what to do; I'll put a source to this at the end of this post, since I love you accusing me of forgery without even bothering to check). That would be akin of reading George W. Bush's memoirs to understand the Iraq War, for example. Although this person experienced everything, he experienced it with an obvious bias, and everything written has to be taken with a grain of salt (anyone even starting the road of a history scholar knows that it takes about 50 years for bias to wear away and impartial history to be written).

 

As for the source: The Armenians by John M. Douglas (not as high a source as Bournoutian, but as I'm accused of forging regardless, doesn't quite matter):

 

Page 439 - Poweless, hopeless, and with broken spirit, Simon Vratsian resigned on December, 2, 1920 after being in power for only seven days and General Dro established a dictatorial rule as a regimen to avert chaos. Meanwhile the Armenian delegates in Alexandropol were continuing their negotiations with Karabekir for a treaty with the turks. On December 2, 1920, they were informed that their government had resigned in Erevan and Dro, acting as an interim leader, had no legislative or statutory power to authorize a treaty. Alexander Khatisian, as the chief Armenian delegate, wired Dro for insturctions with regard to the signing of the treaty. In the absence of a legitimate governmental body, General Dro instructed Khatisian to use his own discretion to sign or not to sign the treaty. Faced with a grave responsibility, the Armenian delegates decided to sign the treaty with the turks on December 3, 1920, agreeing to declare the Treaty of Sevres null and void, thus putting an end to the Armenian Question and renouncing the Armenian territorial claim over Western Armenia. With this treaty, the turks finally crushed the half century Armenian struggle for political self-determination.

 

As for your "no western Armenia" argument, that is also false; Armenia has been historically divided into an East and a West, though never as an independent nation; that is akin to saying that there was no such thing as East or West Germany, since "Germany" has always included both regions. Considering the fact that it gets confusing as to who controlled the region (Roman/Byzantine/Ottoman Armenia, Parthian/Arabian/Iranian/Russian Armenia), it has since been given a geographic, rather than political, connotation; thus, "Western" Armenia refers to the Armenia that had been historically attached to the first three Empires, and "Eastern" Armenia to the parts historically attached to the latter 4. The borders have changed little, especially with the Ottoman/Iranian/Russian spheres (the Arabian control, for example, extended into W. Armenia as well, but not the entire thing as it is now known).

 

And I included the Lerna-Hayastan passage because it was in that paragraph and I didn't want to remove anything; I didn't know what your response to my use of sources would be, though I should have guessed, as the other parts of your argument stank of their historiography.

[MJ]

I will respond when I can commit time to it.

[KnightOfArmenia]

Oh, I'm sure you will.

 

Here are the scanned pages of the Bournoutian book. I can scan the Douglas book if you want. I don't know how important you think you are, but you wouldn't be worth the effort it would take to forge something, if I did do things like that. Your ignorance in history is obvious enough that forgery would only hurt my case.

 

Next time, don't accuse someone of forging a quote if you haven't even read the source they quoted. Genius.

[KnightOfArmenia]

Page 311 -

[KnightOfArmenia]

And Page 312. Just for you.

[MJ]

As to the controversy regarding Khatisian, while I might’ve forgotten that his signature may have been placed on the Alexandrople Treaty, for which I am ready to apologize if it is verified, the following must be noticed: Alexandropole Treaty was a treaty of capitulation of the Republic of Armenia forced to Armenia as the result of the total decapitation of the Armenian Army [without a single shot] and because of the total demoralization of the army and the nation resulted from the inaptness of the Armenian Government of the time. It amounted to accepting the perimeters of Armenia equivalent to that of the Yerevan Gubernia – basically Yerevan, the basin of the lake Sevan, and parts of Lori and Shirak as we know it. It indeed reduced the size of the Armenian Army to 1,500 people – basically a police force rather than an Army. This is the significance of the referenced Treaty. This comes to demonstrate, at least, that the Moscow Treaty was not based on the Alexandropole Treaty (as I said earlier, Moscow Treaty totally removed any relevance which the non-ratified Alaxandropole Treaty might have even theoretically had). Furthermore, as mentioned by the knight, Khatisian was not in the government of Armenia at the time – he was already a former prime minister. To the contrary, Kanaian was the defense minister at the time and they were signing a capitulation treaty. Guess who was running the “show…” Besides, Kanaian was a member of the ARF Burro (spelling?), if I am not mistaken. It has to be understood that all decisions were being made by the Burro (if needed, I can provide evidence).

Now, if there is any anything that has annulled the Sevres Treaty (more exactly the articles concerning Armenia), that would be the fourlateral Kars treaty, on which the signature of the Republic of Armenia is placed (through the Socialistic Republic of Armenia, but from the perspective of the international law and judicial inheritance, unless the Third Republic announces otherwise, it is to be honored).

As to my suspicions about the potential falsifications of the content of Bournoutian’s book by the knight are concerned, I obviously was wrong (in view of the scanned material) and apologize for it. However, I will take my dismay with George when the opportunity arises, rather than discussing it here.

However, to explain further why my cautiousness about things that may come from the knight, which is based on past experience, I would like to paste below a material written by George Bournoutian, himself, a while ago. I think it goes to the heart of the subject of forgeries on Armenian history and will demonstrate why I am so skeptical when it comes to the knight. Perhaps another Armenian writing a history book under an “odar” name?

 

Overall, I think the signing of the Alexandropole Treaty is one of the most interesting chapters of the First Republic – at least from an academic point of view. As embarrassing as it was, and as tragic as its consequences might have been had it been enforced, in my view it must be –considered one of the best diplomatic moves of the Armenian government at the time - and they haven’t had many.

 

If I find passion in me to write more on this issue, I will do it at a later time.

______________________________________________

 

 

Books: A Whodunit of Another Kind

 

 

AIM: Armenian International Magazine; 4/30/1992; George Bournoutian

 

AIM: Armenian International Magazine

 

04-30-1992

 

BOOKS: A Whodunit of Another Kind.

 

In a large and somewhat comprehensive book, John M. Douglas paints a most sympathetic picture of Armenia and its people from the dawn of civilization to the present day. The author has obviously adopted the Armenians, their history, their hopes and aspiration as his own.

 

Unfortunately, The Armenians is another example of good intentions gone awry. The dust-jacked describes Douglas as "well versed in classical history and the author of many books." However, there is no indication of his educational background nor other credentials nor is there a list of any of his books. A search in a number of libraries, books-in-print catalogues and a national computer data base inquiry failed to produce any books by a John M. Douglas who is a classical historian. No one seems to know anything about this "famous" scholar. The J.J. Winthrop Corporation (apparently not a publishing house) is not listed in any New York directory, and the sales flyer provided only a P.O. box in Illinois.

 

The introduction explains that the author was moved by the 1988 earthquake in Armenia to assemble the data that he and his father had collected on the Armenians and the Middle East. According to Douglas, his father (no name given) was a scholar of Ottoman history and a newspaper editor, who left many rare documents which Douglas claims to have used. The author adds that he has traveled widely around the world for his research and has spent time in Armenian refugee camps in the Middle East, where he interviewed survivors of the Armenian Genocide. Since no indication of the date is given, on assumes that Douglas visited the refugee camps and interviewed Armenian survivors in the 1920s (because by 1930 there were practically no such camps left in the region). Douglas must therefore be 90 years old!

 

There are a number of general problems and many specific inaccuracies. There are no bibliographical data and no footnotes; the two explanatory notes mention to sources, and numerous quotes appear without references. Furthermore, for a book of his size with thousands of names and terms, the index is a mere three pages! The order of certain events is haphazard and vignette-like and there is no critical analysis of major statements involving controversial issues. Douglas employs myriad dates without substantiating them. There is no transliteration system; some strange renditions of proper names appear, e.g. Madteos Ourhayetsi, Katchuk Kaimardji, Ashin instead of Oshin, Emperor Tchimishkik instead of Tzimisces, Behemund, Edesa, and Mkhitar Koch (Gosh). For a work of this nature, it is surprising to find only one map, and that map is erroneous. In particular, the borders of the present-day republic are inaccurate. The work can and probably will be attacked by anti-Armenian groups as very biased, praising everything Armenian and attacking every Muslim or Turkish action without citing sources.

 

To cite only a few of the many specific problems: The author mentions the great Armenian scholars and lists a certain Parbetsi among them - no first name. One presumes he means Lazarus of Pharb. Douglas' claim that Darius was a son of a Parthian king and not an Achaemenid is inaccurate. He does not mention the inscription at Behistun and the Armenians. He lists Armenia as comprising the 13th and 14th satrapies, when in fact it was the 13th and 18th satrapies. Douglas indicates that Alexander the Great entered Armenia; he never did.

 

He reports that Chairman Mao planned to adopt the Armenian alphabet to replace the Chinese characters, an interesting though outrageously false notion, especially since there is again no footnote to justify this. He wrongly accuses the Seljuks of "deporting" Armenians to Cilicia, and the Armenian survivors of that "holocaust" then brought sheep and forests to the area. Douglas refers to an Armenian woman ruling Egypt and being responsible for the establishment of Mamluk rule there, again citing no sources.

 

The author lists the number of Armenians living in the various cities in Turkey. This and statements from the survivors of the Genocide would have been extremely valuable had the author bothered to mention his sources. Otherwise, such statements as well as many other pro-Armenian statements could be interpreted as biased and unsubstantiated propaganda. He quotes the famous line, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," without mentioning Santayana as one of its authors. It appears from Douglas's prose that Shaumian planned to escape to Yerevan via the Caspian Sea! His explanation of the Armenian conversion to Christianity follows the same old legends and ignores modern research on the subject. Further-more, he gives 303 A.D. as the date of conversation, but adds that recent studies claim it to be 314 A.D., failing to explain how either date was arrived at. Douglas totally ignores the Armeno-Arab treaty between Theodorus Rshtuni and the Muslim caliphate in Damascus, and concentrates on creating an exaggerated picture of Arab terror.

 

Other statements are completely false. He claims that the Arabs tried to convert the Armenians and that only after they failed did they classify them as dhimmis, or the protected people. In actuality, the Arabs from the start classified all Christians and Jews as the people of the scriptures, and thus, dhimmis. Douglas depicts Peter the Great as having no plans for expanding southward towards Persia, not responding to Israel Ori's plan. This is inaccurate. Peter the Great did give Ori hope for the future and in 1722 did attack the Caspian littoral and northern Persia. Douglas claims that the Russians triumphed over the Turks and annexed Eastern Armenia. The region, in fact, was under Persian suzerainty and Russia annexed it after the Russo-Persian Wars of 1804-1813 and 1826-1828.

 

Finally, Douglas ends the book by saying that he hopes that Armenians will one day return to their homeland - the Plains of Mount Ararat. The present-day Armenian Republic is located on the plain of Ararat!

 

The absence of any concrete information on the author renders the entire project extremely suspicious, and forces one to assume that this is either a private effort by someone (probably an Armenian) who has passionately tried to acknowledge the great injustices inflicted upon the Armenians, or an effort to make money from the current interest in Armenia. Unfortunately, his effort can do more harm than good. I hope John M. Douglas identifies himself and rewrites this work, which could have been a valuable contribution to the history of the Armenian people.

 

Ethnic NewsWatch © SoftLine Information, Inc., Stamford, CT

[KnightOfArmenia]

I did give a grain of salt when I quoted Douglas, but that is not a forgery. Neither is my Bournoutian source. A source being incorrect is a world apart from a source being forged.

 

Second, the point of Alexandropol's invalidity is that Khatisian was not in the government at the time; I have said this several times already. And I didn't ever say that the Treaties of Alexandropol and Moscow were the same exact thing, but that Moscow was based on Alexandropol. Again, citing Bournoutian. There are some changes (thus why I said based on, rather than the same exact thing), but they are fundamentally the same.