Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 04:31:23 -0800 (PST)
To Whom It May Concern:
When anyone such as myself is interested in the facts and only the real facts,
I turn to Encyclopedia Britannica. I have believed that being such a respectable
publication with such a long history, considered to be the number one and most
comprehensive source of scholarship, all its contents could be trusted without
any further checking and re-checking. However, I have become gravely disappointed
and my trust completely shattered when encountered a rather miswritten, if not
biased, treatment of a subject, I know well, and have spent years researching
and writing on. The subject(s) in question are printed in the "Armenia.
Modern Armenia. Armenia and Europe" article of the online Encyclopedia
Britannica, at URL
http://search.eb.com/eb/article?query=modern+armenia&eu=115474&tocid=44274#44274.toc
written
by two authors, one of whom is Ronald Grigor Suny, an Armenian professor in
the US.
I will not cite all the facts, since this is not a research paper and I still
think it is a job to be performed by the EB editorial staff. Neither do I want
to raise the legitimacy of an ethnic Armenian writing not only about Armenia,
but also about the neighboring states, such as Azerbaijan and Georgia, relations
with which are not always exemplary. However, there are three main points I
would like to emphasize upon:
1) "In 1813 the Persians were obliged to acknowledge Russia's authority
over Georgia, northern Azerbaijan, and Karabakh, and in 1828 they ceded Yerevan
and Nakhichevan."
The above statement is very vague, since despite the fact that some of the
entities listed above were in (nominal) dependence from Persia and its Shah,
others were not. For example, the Karabakh khanate (an Azerbaijani kingdom),
was independent from Persia from the day it was founded till its last days in
1805. Not only does history remember that Qajar Shah of Iran tried to subjugate
the khanate in 1797 and failed, and in fact, died near Shusha (the largest city
in Karabakh), but at the time of Karabakh khanate's incorporation into the Russian
Empire, a treaty was concluded between Ibrahim khan, the sole ruler of
Karabakh,
and the czar of Russia. Moreover, when after the wars, Persia tried to claim
the khanates of Northern Azerbaijan (including Karabakh) back from Russia, citing
illegality of their incorporation, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs forwarded
a letter to the Shah which stated that these khanates were independent at the
time of their inclusion into Russia, and thus Persia's claims are null and void.
In addition, why is only Karabakh so clearly separated from (other khanates
of) Northern Azerbaijan? There were some 15 khanates and sultanates on the territory
of Northern Azerbaijan, and Karabakh was one of them, with its Azerbaijani ruler,
population, army, etc. In this context, Prof. Suny is clearly preparing the
reader for further groundless Armenia territorial claims revolving around Karabakh.
2) "In what would later be known as the
'first genocide' of the 20th century,
hundreds of thousands of Armenians were driven from their homes, massacred,
or marched until they died."
Prof. Suny is definitely and clearly wrong here. Not only the charge of genocide
is fiercely debated by scholars, and is indeed better identified as massacres
on both sides, but the very categorization of the event as being "first"
in the 20th century does not do any honor to such a respectable publication.
It is well-known that the first true genocide of the 20th century has happened
to the Hereros people in Southwest Africa in 1904, when over 80% of the nation
was destroyed. There is no debate about it, no counter-arguments -- it is very
clear, and any respectable genocide-related encyclopedia and publication will
unequivocally state so.
Incidentally, it is not the first occurrence of the chronological order misuse
in regards to Armenia. Examples such as "Armenia was the first Christian
kingdom," had the "first church build" or had "world's first
alphabet" are rampant, and equally incorrect. There are many pressures
in the society to be "first" in everything, including in a tragedy,
for added emotional and political impact. It is important not to fall into such
traps and let only facts to speak for themselves.
3) "In March 1922 Armenia joined Georgia and Azerbaijan to form the Transcaucasian
Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, which joined the U.S.S.R. on Dec. 30, 1922.
Nakhichevan, a largely Muslim region, was awarded to Soviet Azerbaijan, as was
Nagorno-Karabakh, an overwhelmingly Armenian district."
It is well known that neither Nakhichevan nor Karabakh, were "awarded"
to Soviet Azerbaijan. How can these lands be awarded when they belonged to Azerbaijan
and its people from times primordial? Both these regions were part of ancient
and medieval Azerbaijani states, as well as independent Azerbaijani khanates
in 18th and 19th centuries, and were part of the first Azerbaijani Democratic
Republic (ADR) of 1918, which was recognized by the League of Nations and several
leading states. At the time of Soviet invasion in 1920 both these regions, as
well as Zangezur (awarded to Armenia in 1920) and others were part of Azerbaijan.
Therefore, quite the contrary, it is Soviet Armenia that was awarded Zangezur
region, as all documents unequivocally prove, along with other Azerbaijani lands,
and autonomous status for Karabakh (albeit still within Azerbaijan). Meanwhile
Nakhichevan's status was determined first by Alexandropol Treaty of 1920 and
then by the Turkish-Russian Treaty of Moscow and subsequently Treaty
of Kars of 1921, which Turkey,
Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed. According to the treaties Nakhichevan
was to remain within Azerbaijan. It is exactly these two treaties that saved
Nakhchivan from being awarded to Armenia like the rest of the Azerbaijani lands.
I hope these facts will be noted and necessary corrections implemented soon
to restore the Encyclopedia's good name, credibility and trustworthiness.
Sincerely,
Adil Baguirov
Back to Top
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 23:07:53 +0100
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is to draw your attention to the factual inaccuracies that your
respectable publication has made it possible to appear by publishing the on-line article "Armenia, Modern Armenia, Armenia and
Europe" (re: http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,115474+8,00.html)
1) The very beginning of the article has no chance but to
immediately catch
the eyes of any historian who has more or less deeply studied history of South
Caucasus. Your author, Prof. Ronald Suny, writes "in 1813 the Persians
were obliged to acknowledge Russia's authority over Georgia, northern Azerbaijan,
and Karabakh, and in 1828 they ceded Yerevan and Nakhichevan." Without
going too deep into the history and turning this letter into an academic paper,
I would like to note that Karabakh, as well as Nakhichevan and, historically,
Yerevan [Irevan] too, have been parts of northern Azerbaijan and constituted
semi-independent from Iran overwhelmingly Muslim-populated khanates (feudal
principalities). Along with Karabakh, Nakhichevan and Irevan, northern Azerbaijan
comprised of Quba, Shamakhy, Talysh, Baku, Sheki, Gence, Derbend, Shirvan khanates
and other lands. Separating Karabakh (Qarabagh), Nakhichevan and Irevan from
the rest of northern Azerbaijan by the ethnically Armenian historian Ronald
Suny has little to do with academia and carries rather political implications,
especially in the light of the recent Armenian territorial claims to the Republic
of Azerbaijan.
It is interesting that Prof. Suny was the editor of the book "Transcaucasia,
Nationalism and Social Change" which fairly admitted that the majority
of population of what Armenians today call "Eastern Armenia" was Muslim
[read Azeri]. In this regard, it is relevant to make a reference to the Armenian
scholars T.Kh.Hakobian and G.A. Bournoutian (T.Kh.Hakobian, Erivani Patmutiene,
1801-1879, Erevan, 1959, pp.523-525 - referred by George A. Bournoutian in "The
Ethnic Composition and the Socio-Economic Condition of Eastern Armenia in the
First Half of the Nineteenth Century", in Ronald Suny "Transcaucasia,
Nationalism and Social Change", pp.80). For you information and according
to George Bournoutian, "[a] number of Armenian historians, quoting the
post-1830 figures, have incorrectly estimated the number of Armenians in Eastern
Armenia in Persian times to have been between 30 to 50 percent of the total
population. In reality - based on the official figures of the Russian survey
following the conquest - the Armenians barely formed 20 percent of the population
of Eastern Armenia, while the Muslims exceeded 80 percent. In any case, the
Armenian population at no time prior to the Russian takeover formed a majority
in Eastern Armenia. In fact, although the Kameral'noe Opisanie indicates the
existence of an Armenian majority in a few mahals of Eastern Armenia, this is
only after the emigration of over 35,000 Muslims from the region; thus
there
is no concrete evidence of there being an Armenian majority in any of the districts
during the Persian administration." (Ibid, pp.77-79)
There can be presented thousands of historical evidence that Karabakh, Irevan
and Nakhichevan were parts of northern Azerbaijan. One of them is the treaty
between the khan of Qarabagh and the Russian Empire on transfer of the Qarabagh
Khanate to Russia (1805). The treaty was signed by the Azeri ruler of the Azeri-populated
Qarabagh Khanate (the full text of the treaty is published in http://www.geocities.com/seidovv/treaty-intro.html).
What makes then Prof. Suny separate Karabakh as well as Nakhichevan and Irevan
from the rest of northern Azerbaijan?
Therefore, the correct wording of the sentence could be as follows: "in
1813 the Persians were obliged to acknowledge Russia's authority over Georgia
and part of northern Azerbaijan, and in 1828 they ceded the rest of northern
Azerbaijan - the Nakhichevan and Irevan Khanates."
2) Furthermore, the author refers to the civil war of 1915 in Eastern Anatolia
as "the first genocide of the 20th century." Not only is the very notion of the so-called Armenian genocide (let alone the first
in the 20th century) disputable, unproven and rejected by academia, it also disregards hundreds of thousand, if not millions,
of ethnic Muslims killed by the Armenian guerillas during the same civil war.
The notion of genocide is just as much inappropriate in this context as it would
have been if we refer to the civil war in North America as "the first genocide
of the 19th century" followed by another "genocide" in today's
Northern Ireland and East Timor. There were hostilities, there were casualties
from both sides, there was a resettlement from Eastern Anatolia to Syria, but
no evidence has been found proving that the Ottoman leaders gave a direct order
to exterminate the entire nation. Therefore, the phrase referring to the "first
genocide of the 20th century" must be removed from the text altogether.
3) Finally, Prof. Suny writes "on Dec. 30, 1922. Nakhichevan, a largely
Muslim region, was awarded to Soviet Azerbaijan, as was Nagorno-Karabakh, an
overwhelmingly Armenian district." The author ignores the historical documents
that clearly show that when the Russian Bolsheviks started territorial segregation
after the Red Army's occupation of Transcaucasia, the Kavburo decided on 5 July
1921 to 'preserve Karabakh' within, but not to 'award' it (in Armenian words)
to, Azerbaijan. The document clearly says "preserve" and not "award"
or "transfer". Prominent Bolshevik member Anastas Mikoyan, originally
Armenian, in his report to Lenin on 22 May 1919 pointed out: "The Dashnaks,
the agents of the Armenian government, strive to join Karabakh to Armenia. This
would deprive the population of Karabakh of the source of life in Baku and connect
it with Erivan, with which it has never been connected before." [The Central
Party Archive (Moscow), file 461, list 1, doc.45252, p.1, from Chiraq, No 1,
1989, p.38.]
As a result, on the referendum in August 1923 the population of the NKAO (the
Autonomous Region of Nagorno-Karabakh) voted against secession to Armenia. Moreover,
the very notion of Nagorno-Karabakh (Mountainous Karabakh) did not exist prior
to the creation of the NKAO in 1923. Throughout the history it had been the
integral part of entire Karabakh where, according to the American scholar Tadeusz
Swietochowski, the majority was Azeri. It was not until the Kavburo's resolution
to preserve Karabakh within Azerbaijan and to create Armenian autonomy in the
mountainous part, that the notion of Nagorno-Karabakh came to existence.
Therefore, it would be historically accurate to change the wording of the above
phrase as follows: "on Dec. 30, 1922, Nakhichevan, a largely Muslim region,
was left within Soviet Azerbaijan, as was Nagorno-Karabakh, ethnically Armenian
part of the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan."
I believe, your respectful publication will consider the above remarks and
make all the necessary changes in the article.
Sincerely,
Vugar Seidov, PhD in History
Central European University (Hungary)
Back to Top
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 08:30:06 -0000
Dear
Encyclopedia Britannica editors and staff,
EB
has always had a reputation of the most credible and comprehensive source of
information and references in the world. I wish it remains such for long years
ahead and that’s why, I apply to you to substantially revise the “History of
Armenia” section in EB (http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,115474+1+108699,00.html),
which, being co-written by an ethnic Armenian professor, has a number of
incorrect assessments and ungrounded claims.
I
understand that you have limited time, but I ask you to consider thoroughly the
arguments I made below, since they are crucial for EB to keep the quality of its
work. I thank you in advance for
your time and attention.
1)
I strongly urge you to reconsider the map
of
“Greater Armenia”
(http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/single_image/
0,5716,4788+bin%5Fid,00.html).
The borders shown in this map, which is basically an enlarged and exaggerated
compilation of all the Armenian or claimed-to-be-Armenian states and state
formations has no historical grounds, Armenian state, even in its largest
borders, never had such vast territory. The only thing this map serves to,
is propaganda and rousing of nationalistic ambitions and ethnic strife.
Moreover, it is indisputable that “Greater Armenia”, even if to assume it
existed in the borders shown in the map, was an empire and not a monoethnic
state.
Here
is what Strabo wrote about ancient Armenia: «...Armenia, being a small
country before, was enlarged by the warfare carried out by Artaksi (Artashes)
and Zariadrij... Together they expanded their possessions by occupying part
of the lands belonging to the surrounding peoples…» (Strabo
XI, 14, 5)
(translation from Russian source).
2)
In
“The Artaxiads” subsection of the “History of Armenia” the author
wrote: “Iberia
(Georgia), Albania, and Atropatene had already accepted Tigranes' suzerainty”.
This is
not correct. Albania and Iberia, albeit had underwent Armenian invasions in
various periods of history, however, never were subordinated to Armenia.
Moreover, In I-IV cc AD Albania’s situation was far better than that of
Armenia. Whereas the Romans conquered Armenia in I c AD, Albania was the only
state in the Caucasus to keep its sovereignty. As far as the territories of
present day Karabakh and the whole left bank of the Kura river in Azerbaijan is
concerned, I cite below ancient Armenian author Moses Khorenatsi, who wrote
about the borders of ancient Albania: [Albanian
ruler, presumably Arran] «inherited the Albanian plain with its mountainous
part, beginning from the river of Yeraskh (Araz) till the fortress called
Khunarakert... » «the tribes of Utis, Gardmans, Tsavdeys and the Gargarian
principality derives from! ! the descendants of Arran». ( Moses
Khorenatsi II, 8)
(all the named tribes were the inhabitants of present-day Karabakh
region).
As
you see, the historical evidence is contrary to the Armenian belonging of the
present-day Karabakh and the whole left bank of the Kura river, which were
historically a part of the Caucasus Albania.
3)
The
author of the “History of Armenia” writes in the “Ottomans and Safavids”
subsection: “In mountainous Karabakh a group of five Armenian maliks
(princes) succeeded in conserving their autonomy and maintained a short
period of independence.”
The author definitely tends to
exaggerate the historical role of the Armenian meliks, most of whom were not
even locals and arrived in Karabakh after XVII-XVIII cc. Below is the origins of
the Armenian melikdoms in Karabakh in XVII-XVIII cc. according to the historical
work “Karabakhnameh”, one of the most valuable sources on the history of
Karabakh by XIX c. Azerbaijanian historian Mirza Adigezal bey (1770-1848):
The
founder of the Dizak melikdom was Yegan originally from the Lori region in
Armenia. He moved to Karabakh and got the melik title by Nadir shah's farman (in
XVIII c).
The
founder of the Varanda melikdom was Mirza Shahnazar originally from the Sevan
region in present-day Armenia. He moved to Karabakh in the beginning of XVII c.
during the Safavid-Ottoman war and in 1603 got «the melik of Varanda» title
from the Safavid shah Abbas I.
The
melik of Chelaberd was melik Allahkulu from the clan of Yesayi. He was
originally from Syunik in Armenia and moved to Karabakh in 1637.
The
Talish (Gulistan) melikdom was established in the beginning of XVIII c. Its
melik was melik Usub from the Beyleryan clan of the village of Nij in Kabala
region of Azerbaijan where the Udins live.
And, at last, the Khachin melikdom was the only local melikdom in
Karabakh. Its possessors claimed to be the heirs of Hasan Jalal, the
descendants of local Christian Albanians. The melik of Khachin Mirza, like the
melik of Varanda, was the Karabakh khan's ally.
You can check this information further
in Mirza Adigezal bey’s “Karabakhnameh”, preferably using the Russian, or
better, the Azeri version.
4)
In the “Armenia
and Europe”
subsection the Author
writes: “In 1813 the Persians were obliged to acknowledge Russia's authority
over Georgia, northern Azerbaijan, and
Karabakh, and in 1828 they ceded Yerevan and Nakhichevan.”
I can understand that the author, being an
ethnic Armenian, naturally, doesn’t want to associate Karabakh with Azerbaijan
and therefore, puts Karabakh separate from Azerbaijan, even though it’s the
historical fact, that Karabakh khanate was one of the 18 state formations that
emerged in the territory of present day Azerbaijan in XVIII c. But I was
astonished that Prof. Suny contrived to pass over such a historical event in the
history of Armenia (and not only of Armenia alone), as the massive
resettlement of Armenians from Iran and the Ottoman Empire to the territory of
South Caucasus, particularly to Azerbaijan in 1828-1830.
Here
is what XIX c. Russian authors write about resettlement of Armenians in the
Caucasus:
N.I.
Shavrov: «After the war of 1826-1828 ended, during the period of 1828-1930
we (i.e. Russia) have resettled to the Transcaucasus more than 40.000 Persian
and 84.600 Turkish Armenians and placed them in the best state lands of
Yelizavetpol and Erivan provinces, where [the number of] the
Armenian population was miserable, and in Tiflis, Borchaly, Akhaltsiki
and Akhalkalaki districts» (all mentioned districts are the territory of
present-day Georgia). Shavrov continues: «Of 1 million 300 thousand
Armenians living nowadays in South Caucasus, more than 1 million don't belong to
the indigenous population of the region and were settled by us»
(Shavrov
N.I. «New threat to the Russian affairs in the Transcaucasus: forthcoming sale
of Mughan to strangers» (Novaya ugroza russkomu delu v Zakavkazye:
predstoyashaya rasprodazha Mugani inorodcam) Saint Petersburg 1911 p.59-61 (in
Russian).
And
here is what great
Russian writer, ambassador of Russia to Iran in 1818-1829 A.S. Griboyedov,
wrote: «Armenians, in most of their part, were settled in the lands of
the Muslim landowners...The settlers are by themselves in very constrained
situation and constraint the Muslims, which grumble, and with good reason...we
discussed a lot about the influences which we have to exercise on the Muslims [i.e.
the Azeris who accepted the Armenian settlers] to reconcile
them with their present burdened situation, which will not last long, and to
eradicate their fear concerning that the Armenians will seize forever the
territory, where they were allowed to for the first time»
(Griboyedov
A.S. Works (Sochineniya) in 2 volumes, vol. 2 Moscow 1971 pp. 339-341,
translation from the original Russian source).
I
hope you will consider these facts when revising the material as well.
4)
Further
in “History>The
republic of Armenia”
subsection the
author wrote: “on
Dec. 30, 1922. Nakhichevan, a largely Muslim region, was awarded to
Soviet Azerbaijan, as was Nagorno-Karabakh, an overwhelmingly (!) Armenian
district.”
The very structure of the
sentence explicitly implies that the historical truth here has been
intentionally distorted. “Awarded” is definitely not the right term here.
Below is the decision of the Kavburo on Karabakh dated June 5 1921:
«Proceeding
from the necessity of national peace between the Muslims and Armenians, and
economic links of the upland and lowland Karabakh, its constant link with
Azerbaijan, to leave the Mountainous Karabakh within the
Azerbaijan SSR, having granted it a broad regional autonomy with the
administrative center in the town of Shusha included in the autonomous region»
([Azerbaijan
Communist] Party Archive [PAAF IML] reserve 1, inventory 74, folder 123, list
64, also cited in many other sources).
I
could continue the list of inaccuracies in the material (e.g. the presenting of
alleged “Armenian genocide” as a historical fact without substantiating it,
ignorance of the factor of the Azeri Turks (and not "Turkmens" or
"Persians" as prof. Suny put it) in the history of Armenia etc) but
don’t want to overuse your attention. I really hope that the facts I cited in
this message will be seriously considered and the material on the history of
Armenia spoiling EB’s reputation will be revised.
Sincerely
Yours,
Tabib Huseynov
Baku, Azerbaijan