Map Close  
Person info Close  
Information Close  
Source reference Close  
  Svenska
 
Index

Armenia

The Urartu Civilisation

Victory for Independence

Artashisian Dynasty on the Armenian Throne

Armenia caught between Rome and the Arsacids

The Acceptance of Christianity

Defending Christianity

Armenia Under the Bagratouni Dynasty

Cilicia - the New Armenia

Armenia Under Turanian Rule

The Renaissance or the Resurrection of Armenia

The Eastern Question

Russia in the Caucasus

The Armenian Question

Battle on Two Fronts

Tsarist Russia Against the Armenians

The Revolution of the Young Turks and the Armenian People on the Eve of World War I

The First World War

The Resurrection of Armenia

Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918

- Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918

Eastern Armenia

Western Armenia

"The Fateful Years" (1914-1917)

"Hopes and Emotions" (March-October, 1917)

The Bolshevik Revolution and Armenia

Transcaucasia Adrift (November, 1917

Dilemmas (March-April, 1918)

War and Independence (April-May, 1918)

The Republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia

The Suppliants (June-October, 1918)

In conclusion

Soviet Armenia

The Second Independent Republic of Armenia

Epilogue

Previous page Page 452 Next page Smaller font Larger font Print friednly version  
Interpretations of Armenian Independence

Thus, the Republic was created under conditions so tragic as to defy adequate description. Yet, there was an Armenia. In mid-1918, even that was a remarkable accomplishment. The events surrounding the establishment of independence have been subject to divergent interpretations and acrid disputations. Dashnakist authors, in particular, insist that the heroic resistance at Sardarabad, Gharakilisa, and Bash Aparan compelled the Ottomans to recognise the existence of a separate Armenia. Had it not been for these victories, the enemy would certainly have driven into Yerevan, permitting Enver to annex every inch of the guberniia. However, these same authors often ignore the fact that independence, acquired willingly or unwillingly, was not the goal of most national leaders, who had consistently opposed sovereignty under the prevailing conditions. Yet, having taken the decisive step, these same leaders made the best of an unfavourable situation and, by the end of the World War in November, 1918, were to become the staunch champions of national independence. Opponents of Dashnaktsoutiun, especially Soviet historians, have ridiculed and denounced as disastrous the policies of that nationalist party. They have equated "independence" of the "Dashnakist Republic" with enslavement of the Armenian people under the yoke of "Turkish imperialism." Yet during the 1950s Soviet historiography of the period underwent basic changes. While still vilifying Dashnakist leaders, the new generation of Soviet writers praises the defensive efforts of the "Armenian people" and contends that, indeed, it was this resistance that compelled the Ottomans to recognise Armenian independence. They stress that, to subdue Armenia completely, at least several more weeks and many more Turkish troops would have been required. The Ittihadist regime had the immediate choice of crushing Armenia or hastening the conquest of Baku. The latter alternative promised far greater rewards. Thus, until emerging victorious at Baku, the Ottomans would tolerate a helpless and harmless Armenia. Already in control of the transportation routes north and south of Yerevan, Enver's armies, after having extirpated the foe in Baku, could readily resumed the project of annihilating the remaining Armenians and their pitiful "republic." Approaching the question from the opposing points of view, there now exists a marked correlation between Dashnakist and Soviet interpretations. Furthermore, regardless of political sympathies, almost all serious students of this topic are agreed that the rulers of Turkey, in furthering either plan, had to deal with the deepening antagonism of their German ally.