This chapter is from Tatul Hakobyan’s volume – KARABAKH DIARY; GREEN and BLACK
The accounts of the 1905 massacres at Baku were slowly filtering into the papers while British author Luigi Villari was in Georgia. “Every day news came of fresh horrors, some true, some exaggerated, some purely fictitious. So I determined to hurry to the oil city. My train was almost empty, but every train I met coming in the opposite direction was crowded with refugees flying from the town.”
The Armenian-Tatar bloodbath of 1905-06 involved Baku, Nakhijevan, Elizavetpol, Yerevan, as well as Tiflis. The NK-Azerbaijani conflict of 1991-1994 was nothing new in the history Armenian-Azerbaijani bitter relations, but the scale of the 1905-06 clashes cannot be compared with either it or even the bloodletting of 1918-20.
If the 1918-20 and 1991-94 conflicts, immediately followed by the collapse of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union respectively, were territorial disputes by nature, in contrast, the essence of the first Armenian-Tatar atrocity was different.
One fact which made a deep impression on Villari during his stay at Baku was the “extreme bitterness of the foreign elements against the Armenians; its sympathies, save in two or three instances, seemed wholly on the side of the Tartars.” He mentions one prominent Englishman who said he would “be glad to see the whole Armenian nation wiped out!” Even when common Russian soldiers and policemen were questioned as to who was to blame for the troubles, they replied unhesitatingly, “Armiane.”
Tadeusz Swietochowski, a Polish-American historian and Caucasus expert, has a different interpretation. He argues that at the beginning of the 20th century the world media had more sympathy towards the Armenians and wrote more about Armenians being killed than Tatars. According to Firuz Kazemzadeh, an American scholar of Persian origin, “it is impossible to pin the blame for the massacres on either side. It seems that in some cases (Baku, Elizavetpol) the Azerbaijanis fired the first shots, in other cases (Shusha, Tiflis) the Armenians.”
But Azerbaijani historians completely blame the Armenians and partly the Russians. “The Dashnaks, who extended their structure and thoroughly armed, started to fulfill their nefarious aims – remove the Moslems from their homeland and fight for creation of an Armenian state. The first attacks took place in areas with dense Armenian populations – Yelizavetpol, Yerevan province, Kars, Shusha and Nakhchivan, because their chances were better here. Members of armed units, taking advantage of the absolute indifference of Tsarist Russian government bodies, started to mobilize Armenians for a struggle against the ‘Turks’. Fast moving Dashnak armed forces fell upon unprotected Turk villages like a tidal wave and mercilessly devastated them. Their tactics was very simple: launch surprise attacks against the civil population to kill them, loot and burn their houses, and then to retreat in order to avoid revenge.”
According to Villari, the origin of the outbreak was obscure. The Tartars (Villari used the word Tartars for present-day Azerbaijanis) and Armenians accused each other of having instigated the conflict, but both agreed that the authorities prompted, or at least encouraged, the feud based on their old principle of divide et impera. During the Golytzin regime, the Armenians were weeded out of government service. Gradually, a new staff was appointed in the Armenian and mixed districts, consisting either of Tartars or Russians who shared Golytzin’s prejudices. As Villari wrote, the Russian authorities were constantly predicting an Armeno-Tartar outbreak, and telling the Tartars that the Armenians were sure to attack them sooner or later. In 1904, Prince Golytzin left the Caucasus for good, but Prince Nakashidze, a Georgian noble and Governor of Baku, “remained behind to continue his anti-Armenian policy. Its natural outcome was the Baku outbreak in February, 1905.”
Naturally, there was the religious factor, which is at the heart of all quarrels between Christians and Moslems. The Tatars were Mohammedans of the Shiah sect, and it must be mentioned that in the Caucasus it was only the Shiahs who attacked the Armenians. The Sunnis, who were also numerous, took no part in and in some cases, for instance in Shemakha, actually prevented the Shiahs from starting a pogrom. According to Villari, “The Baku pogromy formed part of the bloody drama of Armeno-Tartar hostility, and indeed, they are also part of that wider feud between modern ideas and Asiatic barbarism.”
The European media of the time also chiefly pointed to the provocative role of the Tsarist authorities and the different positions of the Armenians and Tatars regarding the 1905 revolution. The Armenians, caught up with the spirit of revolution, were threats to the Tsarist authorities.
Sufficient causes, internal and external, existed for the Armeno-Tartar feud. Villari wrote that there was another view, shared by the bulk of the Armenians, according to which Tartar outbreaks were merely part of a much wider movement of Pan-Islamic character and that, “it was vast conspiracy organized in Constantinople and in Tehran, to bring about a union of the whole Mohammedan world.”
Michael Varandyan, a Dashnak party theorist and ideologue, confirmed that under Russian rule the Armenians and Tatars lived in “peace and harmony” and maintained “simple, friendly and honest relations” in the provinces. He explained that the “sudden outbreak of the conflagration” was due to “economic, political, cultural and religious” reasons. “Baku was one of the largest Russian and international oil producing centers. The Tatar elites were centralized in Baku. Not only was the Turkish bourgeoisie there, the mine-owning class with its immense wealth, but the Tatar influential clergy, fanatic and Armenian- hating, who received their slogans from Istanbul, and Turkish intellectuals, contaminated by the breath of Pan-Islamism. In the 1880’s, the flow of Armenians to Baku began, where the production of oil using Western methods was just beginning. Together with Russians, Jews and Europeans, Armenian businessmen also began purchasing oil mines from the Tatars and in just thirty years, not only did the Armenian element collect considerable wealth, but filled the oil world with its intellectuals, engineers and all sorts of specialists and held top posts. This situation would provoke the native masses.”
Vardanyan mentions another “significant fact”. Armenians were also irreconcilable rivals in the eyes of Transcaucasia’s Tatars because for many decades the Armenians had been fighting against the Turkish Empire, kith and kin to the Tartars, and were striving to create an “independent, self-governing Armenia with the help of Europe”.
Vahan Papazyan , a Dashnak leader, who was in Nakhijevan for almost eight months in order to ensure its self-defense, wrote that “The ARF prepared a self-defense program, allocated resources and organized the forces.” “Abraham Gyulkhandanyan, Sepuh and Martiros were sent to the Gandzak region. The region of Tiflis was handed over to Garo Pastrmajyan. Karabakh’s defense was assumed by Vardan of Khanasor and Hamazasp, and the large region of Yerevan to Nicole Duman. Very quickly the Tatars and the Russian government received severe blows from the ARF forces.”
On February 19, 1905, the Tatars killed random Armenians. Even though Nakashidze had 2,000 solders under his command, he did not interfere in any way to prevent the bloody Armenian-Tatar clashes. They continued for three days – 218 Armenians and 126 Tatars were killed.
The ARF organized the self-defense of Armenians in Baku. “The Dashnak’s counter-offensive was vigorous, stunning. It was a surprise both for the Turkish and Russian authorities. The ARF had just entered the arena and already almost one hundred enemy corpses and one hundred injured people were lying in the streets.”
Hoping to end the massacres, the Tatar and Armenian clergy jointly prayed at the local church and mosques for peace. The ARF disseminated fliers aimed at “the Turks in Baku”. “Our city had turned into an arena for bloody and shameful acts. For four days we witnessed and involuntarily became accomplices in a pointless and disgusting fratricide. As for who is responsible for those dreadful days: we will discuss later. We were not thirsty for that blood. We recall the recent days with disgust and we will apply all our efforts so that they aren’t repeated. We invite you to the same reconciliation. Muslims, do not search for the enemy somewhere where he does not exist!”
However, the inter-ethnic hostility had developed to such an extent that a lasting peace was impossible. The Armenians especially suffered in the district of Nakhijevan. Here the clashes were also provoked in the same way as in Baku. At the beginning of May 1905, the corpse of a Tatar was found, who, it later turned out, had been killed by two other Tatars. This murder was the long awaited pretext. The Babayan family was the first victim of the massacres. Yerevan’s Vice Governor visited Nakhijevan and calmed the Armenians down, suggesting that they return to the market and open up their shops.
But a short time later armed Tatar groups suddenly entered the market, burning and looting the shops of the Armenians. After the three hour bloodshed had ended, fifty Armenians had been killed and many others injured. “A circumstance which proves that the plot had long been arranged beforehand is the fact that the assailants were divided into four parties, each of which had definite duties assigned to it. one was to attack and kill the Armenians, another was to plunder and burn the shops, a third was to remove the plunder in carts, which were kept ready for the purpose, while a fourth was to attend to the Tartar killed and wounded (if any),” wrote Villari.
Varandyan wrote that in the province of Nakhijevan, where the khans were the masters and the majority of the population was Turkish, the Armenians losses were about 400 dead and injured. According to Villari, the total number of Armenians killed amounted to 239. “As to the responsibility for these atrocities, it rests in the first place with the Tartars, and secondly with Russian authorities who neglected to take measures for the protection of the Armenians.”
After the bloodshed in Nakhijevan, relations between the Armenians and Tatars became tense in Yerevan. Violent clashes took place in the Artashat (Ghamarlu) and Ashtarak regions. In a letter to the ARF Bureau, Nicole Duman reports that, “about 300 Armenians and a much larger number of Turks have been killed in Yerevan province”.
During the Armenian-Tatar clashes, the Armenians suffered the most in Baku and Nakhijevan and the Tatars in Shushi, Yerevan and Tbilisi. According to Varandyan, the Tatars were the first to attack in Yerevan too. On the first day of the clashes, about twenty Armenians were killed. “The next day the Armenians opened fire; the Turks tried to launch a mass attack against the Armenian districts, but our organized resistance ruined their plans. The following day there were about one hundred dead Turks and several injured. On the same day three bombs were thrown into a Turkish house, killing about twenty people.”
In August 1905, clashes took place along the length of the Yevlakh-Shushi road, especially in Aghdam. On August 20, one Tatar was killed in Shushi and three Armenians were killed close to Shushi on the 29th. The crossfire continued for three days. In the Armenian district of Shushi, Armenians burnt the homes of Tatars. The Tatars did the same with Armenians homes in the Tatar district – about 400 homes and shops were set alight. The Armenian Aguletsots Church was seized and desecrated, turning into a Tatar military foothold.
“The Tartars determined to destroy the Armenian quarter and attacked it vigorously, but the Armenians replied with heavy fire of their own. On September 2, the Moslem chiefs sent a messenger to the Armenians and a peace conference was held at the Russian church. Tartars and Armenians publicly embraced one another and swore eternal friendship… until next time. Prisoners were exchanged, just as between properly constituted belligerents. The number of killed and wounded amounted to about 300, of whom two-thirds were Tartars, since the Armenians were better shots and also enjoyed the advantage of position ,” Villari wrote.
According to Varandyan’s data, “In none of the Transcaucasia’s towns were the Armenian-Turkish clashes as furious and bloody as in Karabakh and its capital city of Shushi.” The shooting lasted for five days. The result – 40 dead and 68 injured on our side. The number of dead Turks was about 500.”
After the Shushi fighting, about 10,000 Tatars and Kurds from Zangezur, together with 500 from the other side of the Persian frontier, attacked Armenian villages. On September 6, they had a fierce encounter with the Russian Cossacks. A party of Cossacks had gone to Minkend to protect the Armenians, but on the assurance of the Tatar mayor and the pristav that there was no danger, they left. As soon as they departed the Tatars fell upon the Armenians, killing 140 and wounding 40, before the eyes of the pristav, who did not interfere.
According to Varandyan, the incident in Minkend raised a wave of horror and anger in the entire Caucasus. The Armenians did not let those brutalities go unanswered. “They burned, destroyed and ruined several Turkish villages: Gyulaplu, Avdal, Divanlar, Hazraflu, Gharadaghlu, etc.” Armenian-Turkish armed clashes occurred in Baku in August, during which “400 people were killed – 270 Turks, 130 Armenians and foreigners. The Balakhani mines and the oil-wells of the Armenians were burned.”
New Armenian-Tatar tensions, which ignitedt in the second half of October, were prevented with the help of the intervention of the Russian armies. The Armenians avoided further bloodshed. The Tatar mob surrounded an Armenian building with 200 residents. At the last minute the soldiers saved the Armenians from an imminent massacre.
The Armenian-Tatar feud in Elizavetpol began in mid-November. Two Armenians were the first to be killed. The clashes continued for five days. The ARF detachments successfully managed to resist the armed Tatar groups moving towards the Armenian district. A ceasefire was established. The warring sides exchanged those killed and the hostages. The city was divided in two by the river; the Tatar and Armenian halves. In Tiflis, where the Armenians outnumbered the Tatars, clashes occurred in the third week of November. They were quickly extinguished but not before two dozen people had been killed or injured.
There is no clear information about the number of people killed during the first Armenian-Tatar massacres. Tadeusz Swietochowski mentions a number ranging from 3,000 to 10,000. According to Philip Makharadze’s data, on February 1905, more than 1,000 people were killed in Baku; the majority Armenians. He wrote that from 1905 to 1907 the Armenian-Tatar massacres claimed more than 10,000 lives. According to Davit Ananun’s calculations, at least 1,500 Armenians and 1,600 Tatars were killed.
An exceptional and informative work based on a rich and varied source base. Its impartiality is striking. A much needed monograph destined to persevere as the ‘textbook’ for Armenian diplomacy. As a pioneering initiative that presents an accurate reinterpretation of the Karabakh struggle for self-determination, this book captures the essence of the issue with an illuminating portrayal of many of the key figures and events that have come to define the Karabakh issue. The conflict cruelly shaped the destinies of thousands of average people and the ordeals they bore underline the responsibility of those at the top, in whose hands a resolution of the Karabakh conflict rests. The author’s secret, revealed in the pages of Green and Black, is that he does not shy away from presenting those facts and realties no longer considered expedient to remember. Anyone wishing to be informed and regarding the Karabakh conflict must read this book.
Paperback: 416 pages,
Language: English,
2010, Antelias,
ISBN 978-995301816-4.
Image – Baku, the end of the 19th century or the beginning of the 20th
