army. The number approximated 200,000. They were purged through mass
burials, incineration, executions and weakness in labor battalions. The
leftovers of those who survived those phases were primarily children, women
and aged people. All of them were to be deported to distant regions of
Empire. Within six months of deportation half of those who survived first
two phases were killed, buried alive or thrown into the sea or the rivers
along the way.[7]
The murder of Armenians was characterized like the war against
Entente, as a jihad or holy war. Throughout the Empire it became illegal
to assist the survivors. The governmental decree established a penalty for
everyone who broke the law, which was to hang those who were helping
Armenians in front of their own house; the house was to be burnt.[8] Yet,
history records the removal of some governors from the office for the
resistance to the supreme order. Many Kurds and Arabs throughout Empire
were saving the refugees. The outcome of the genocide was catastrophic.
Out of two to three million Armenians in Western Armenia, a million and a
half perished during the massacres. Thousands of those who escaped the
purge and fled to Russian Armenia died because of starvation that had been
dwelling in Russia after the WWI. Those Armenians, who converted to Islam
and remained within Ottoman Empire borders never regained the status of
citizens and lost the ability to retain a sense of religious or national
identity. [9]
The history of the massacres in Nagornyi Karabakh and Baku took the
following path.
The survivors of the genocide have been affected by a deep
psychological shock, caused by the pathos and negligence that the European
community attributed to the Armenian Question on the brink of the twentieth
century, and Turkish endeavor to deny the crime. Once the horror seemed to
be over, a totalitarian and oppressive, yet protective system of the Soviet
Union gave guarantee to its subjects to prevent any external attack or
invasion, or in a case of such to defense. Armenia’s fear of Turks has
almost vanished, even though neighboring Azeris by their culture, group
language and historical background belonged to Turks. Armenia had to
barter its right to seek justice and the recognition of the Genocide for
the security provided by the USSR. This illusion of peace and fear-free
life crashed in 1988. The aura of the past became vivid again. It
occurred after the doctrines of Mikhail Gorbachev on glasnost’ and
perestroika became an essential part on sociopolitical aspects of the
domestic policy. The president of the USSR declared that the time had come
to correct past errors of the Stalin era. The message seemed to be
addressed directly to the Armenian population of Armenia and Nagornyi
(Mountainous) Karabakh, for despite the prevailing percentage of Armenian
population located in Karabakh, the administration of this region was
conferred upon Azerbaijan by the central government in 1921.[10]
Since late nineteenth century and especially after 1915 nationalism
has been on a wave amongst Armenians. This preoccupying doctrine of
“biological survival, identity, and nationality” became the dominant
argument for trading-off national independence in 1920 to Soviets, aiming
thus, to escape another assault by the Kemalist Turks. However, the
protectorate of the Soviet government employed brutality and violence
towards the new republic. It led to an uprising in Armenia against Soviet
system in February 1921. However, the revolt was suppressed by Bolshviks,
and later on the territory was attached to the republic of Azerbaijan
populated primarily by Shi’ite Moslem Turks. In 1923, the Karabakh region
was defined as the “Autonomous Region of Mountainous Karabakh,” the
population was 94 percent Armenian at that time, and it was 75 percent
Armenian in 1988.[11]
The conflict over Nagornyi Karabakh didn’t come about overnight.
Nationalism and feeling of insecurity drove Armenians to petition to the
Soviet Supreme for unification of Armenia with Nagornyi Karabakh, however,
the central government didn’t take into consideration any of the appeals.
Granted Karabakh to Azerbaijan wasn’t the only legacy of Sovietization.
Some other factors contributed to the development of conflict over years.
First, all referrals to the genocide were prohibited from 1920 to 1965,
second, the Soviet dictatorial regime caused fragmentation of society,[12]
third, despite all the efforts Soviet rule failed to achieve it’s objective
of “ethnic symbiosis.” [13] Every time when there was a change in
leadership of central state government Armenia reasserted it’s national
ambition and longing for re-unification with Nagornyi Karabakh. This issue
involved all aspects of the Armenian national predicament: Karabakh is
governed by Azerbaijan, viewed by Armenians as the traditional enemy
Turkey, the population is experiencing various discrimination and is
coerced to migrate, the question of preserving cultural identity is
crucial, and economic issues are arising.[14]
During brutal decades of Stalin regime the movement for the
reunification of Karabakh was almost out of question, for any revolts were
put down immediately, and those found guilty were punished severely.
However, from 1956 till 1961, during Khrushchev rule, when his “Thaw”
policy was enforced as a key of foreign and domestic policies, the
reassertion of the Armenian claim began to unfold again and acquire support
from Armenian Diaspora in the West. In 1965, the fiftieth anniversary of
the genocide was marked by demonstrations in Armenia. Demonstrators made
it clear that their top priorities were the reunification with Karabakh and
establishment of a monument into commemoration of the genocide. The
monument was built, yet the petition for the reunification was declined
again.[15]
Then began Gorbachev era, during which the “nationality question”
became a sensitive issue not only in Armenia and Azerbaijan. The history
of the conflict proved that it didn’t develop suddenly, however it
escalated as a nationality problem in a multinational state during periods
of crisis or sociopolitical changes in ideology and a governmental
structure. Preceding 1987 Gorbachev didn’t approach the problems with
ethnic groups within USSR from ethno-psychological perspective, which was
perceived as an interfering element for a functioning economic
internationalism.[16] Instead, he identified the nationality question with
the “total economic complex,” with “national distribution of resources,”
and “intra-national division of labor” in the Soviet Union.[17]
When the conflict broke out, Gorbachev had to accept the failure of
his affirmation of the “national question, which has been basically
solved,” that he made himself three months earlier. As the conflict was
growing more complicated, Gorbachev referred the Karabakh crisis as the
outcome of local mafia disagreements.[18] Soviet central government
refused to take any actions towards solving the conflict when it still was
at a negotiable stage. However, lack of competency and willingness not to
let bloodshed to begin caused first pogroms of anti-Armenian nature in
Sumgait, an industrial city of Azerbaijan. The same governmental
negligence led to liquidation of thousands of Armenians in Turkey in the
early twentieth century.
On 12 and 13 February 1988, the district councils of Mountainous
Karabakh adopted a resolution that called for a meeting of the Regional
Council of Deputies of Mountainous Karabakh for the purpose of examining
the issue of reunification. On the 21st, this council voted in favor of
reunification by a large majority, providing a legal basis for Armenian
demands.[19]
The massacres that took place on February 28-29 brought in tragedy and
interrupted the peaceful events. A few dozens of Armenians according to
official records, were killed by Azerbaijanis in the industrial city of
Sumgait, although estimates range is as high as two hundreds. The
percentage of the Armenian population estimated less that 10% of all
inhabitants of Sumgait. During the night of 27 February several hundreds
of Azerbaijanis armed with weapons and flammable liquids raped, tortured
and burned alive victims after beatings and torments. There were hundreds
of wounded who became invalids. The rapes included rapes of underage
girls. More than two hundreds houses were destroyed and robbed;
automobiles owned by Armenians were burnt or smashed. Thousands of
refugees fled to Armenia and Russia.[20]
The past became present. Such words as “pogroms,” “massacres,” and
even “genocide” became current vocabulary words in the turbulence of the
events. This provoked resurrection of memories and implied immediate,
direct analogy with the Genocide of 1915. The Azerbaijanis related by
race, language, and culture to the Turks were perceived by Armenians as the
same savage executors who carried out the genocide of 1915.[21]
There were traced some indirect evidences that led Armenian community
to suspect Azerbaijani governmental authority being involved in these
murders.
1. During the days preceding 27 February, the Third Party Secretary of Baku
personally participated in several violently anti-Armenian television
broadcasts.
2. Some Azerbaijanis in Sumgait, knowing the massacres were coming three
days before the 27th, warned some Armenians of their fate.
3. Piles of rocks were delivered beforehand by trucks to the outskirts of
the Armenian quarters.
4. The killers were brought to Sumgait in special coaches and vans.
5. Telephone lines linking Sumgait and the outside world were cut before
the killings.
6. Soviet soldiers stood aside for three days, doing nothing to put a stop
to the massacres.
