In connection with the outbreak of the controversy surrounding the article “Why attack Baku Moscow correspondent Washington Post” BakuToday publishes eighth essay from the author’s series Stanislav Tarasov “Azerbaijan myths about Karabakh”.

In the seventh essay, the author stopped at the fact that at the beginning of March 1921 the Kremlin and the diplomatic disposition Angora were as follows. Erivan, Zangezur and part of Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of Dashnak government has carried out at the end of February 1921 an anti-Bolshevik coup. In this regard, the representative of the Soviet Armenia was not involved in the talks with the delegation arrived in Moscow VNS Turkey. Attempts to gain recognition of Baku Soviet status of Azerbaijan’s independence from the RSFSR to act as a subject of international law and get an opportunity to engage in diplomatic and other relations with other countries, were eventually blokirovany.V Moscow and Angora were left alone.

Commissariat of the RSFSR George Chicherin understood that the signing of an international instrument, which was carried out by the representative of the state or outside of his term, this action is ultra vires, and as such does not create any binding effects for the State.

This raises the issue of legal capacity delegation Kemal Ataturk. Much depended on the outcome of talks held at a conference in London – England, France, Italy, Greece, and invited the Turkish delegation. Based on demand, which did on the eve of Chicherin Commissar for Foreign Affairs TGNA Bekir Sami Bey on arrangements in London Krasin “the East”, one can assume that the Soviet side gave any advances Angora solve the problem of legitimacy of the government of Mustafa Kemal (Izvestia, February 13, 1921. № 32).

In addition, this position was held by Churchill. “Until now – he wrote February 22, 1921 – I have never met a single British official, who did not keep to the view that our Eastern and Middle Eastern trouble extremely facilitated would be if we made peace with Turkey. Features resumption of the war make me the greatest concern. The Greeks may be possible to divide the Turkish Nationalists at the front and to penetrate some distance into the interior of Turkey, but the large area they would take and the longer they stay in it, the more it will cost them. The results of this situation things will respond mainly to us and to a lesser extent in French. Possible effects are extremely unfavorable for us. Turki and will be in the arms of the Bolsheviks, in Mesopotamia unrest would break out just at the critical time when our army in these parts is reduced. In all likelihood, we are not able to hold Mosul and Baghdad without the help of a large and expensive army. The French and the Italians in their interpret their tactics, and we are everywhere portrayed as the main enemy of Islam “(IM Lemin. The foreign policy of Great Britain from Versailles to Locarno, 1919 -1925. Moscow, 1947. with. 322).

In London, the Turkish delegation made in the joint structure – a “legitimate” government in Istanbul and the Government of SCST, which was awarded to only the status of de facto. Many historians believe that in such a way that is, using the factor of legitimacy, the British diplomats sought to thwart held at the same time in Moscow, the Soviet-Turkish talks. There is a second argument: as he wrote himself, Mustafa Kemal, the Commissariat TGNA Bekir Sami Bey, “undertook to persuade the Turkish government to a policy of expansion in the Soviet Caucasus, in order to mobilize the Caucasian peoples under the leadership of the Turks and with the support of the British to fight against Bolshevism “(Mustafa Kemal. The path of the new Turkey. T.4. M., 1929,. 12-14). But, first, London is not actually retired from the position of the preamble of a trade agreement with Russia, and secondly, he made it clear to the Kremlin that is necessary to conduct a “common game”: bolsheviziruyte Caucasus, but use the contracts and agreements signed by the Allies.

This, first of all, there was a Treaty of Sèvres. We offer options to compare two documents. Treaty of Sevres: Eastern Thrace with Adrianople, Gallipoli Peninsula, as well as Izmir and surroundings were transferred Greece. Article 62 provides “local autonomy for those areas in which the predominant element of the Kurdish and are located to the east of the Euphrates, south of the southern boundary of Armenia.” Article 64: “If during the term of one year referred to the Kurdish population in the areas of article 62 apply to the Council of the League of Nations, pointing out that the majority of the population in these areas want to be independent of Turkey, if the Board finds then that this population is capable of such independence, and if he offers to give him her, that Turkey is now committed to comply with the proposal and give up all rights and title to these areas. ” Articles 88-93 dealt with Armenia. Turkey declared that it recognizes Armenia as a free and independent state (Article 88). Turkey and Armenia agree to submit to arbitration the decision of President of the United States definition of borders between Turkey and Armenia in the wilayats Erzurum, Trabzon, Van, Bitlis and … (V. 89). Syria, Iraq and Palestine were separated from the Ottoman Empire and were to be mandated territories (Art. 94-95), and Gedzhas recognized by Turkey as an independent state (Article 98).

Reply letter of the RSFSR People’s Commissariat Chicherin national leader in Turkey, already cited above sets out the conditions of establishing diplomatic relations with the RSFSR Angora: “1. Proclamation of independence of Turkey. 2. The inclusion of the Turkish state unquestionably Turkish territories. 3. Proclamation of Arabia and Syria as independent states. 4. Action taken by the great national assembly, to provide Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan, Lazistanu, Batumi region, eastern Thrace and the population within the territory of a mixed Turkish-Arab elements to express themselves about their own fate. 5. The recognition of minorities within the new Turkish state led by a large national assembly, all rights granted by the national minorities of Europe with the most free system “(Pravda, № 123 of June 9, 1920). This was the Kremlin’s version of Sevres.

London conference (end of February – early March 1921) finished the following important to understand and assess the situation conditions. The first is the Turkish delegation may be held legally legitimate only in a “unified version of” Istanbul – Angora. Secondly, the positions of the Treaty of Sevres is basically preserved. Third: The eastern border of Turkey should take place on the Turkish-Iranian border line, according to the agreement signed between Turkey and Armenia Alexandropol agreement dated December 2, 1920.

We recall in this connection, some of the provisions of this treaty: the retreating Turkish Kars region and Surmalinsky county districts of Nakhichevan, and Sharur Shahtakhti declared temporarily placed under the protectorate of Turkey, where “by means of a plebiscite will be established a special administration.” In turn, Armenia recognized canceled Treaty of Sèvres.

Thus, from a formal legal perspective the most that could count the Turks at the talks in Moscow, this recognition (!) It Alexandropol contract signed with the Angora Dashnak Armenia, which in fact, taken the Turkish diplomats in Moscow. If the Kremlin went on the script in London, that is, “returned to the Entente,” and continued to adhere to the previously announced principles of building relationships with Angora, it could not be ruled out fighting the Bolsheviks with the Kemalist Turkey. It is included in the plans of London, since April, was scheduled to attack the Greek troops Angora. “During the London conference, during his stay in London, the Greek delegates, of course, carried the impression that the British prime minister at heart would not be upset if he saw that the offer of mediation and rejected by the Greek offensive resumed,” – noted English foreign policy in one document (IM Lemin. op. cit. 325).

This is – the mysterious episode in the history of the Soviet-British relations of the period. The Kremlin had to make choices. Recognition Alexandropol contract, as insisted by the Turkish side withdrawal of the Armenian question in the scope only of the Armenian-Turkish relations. Adoption of the proposed UK regulations “game” is focused on simultaneous military offensive in the Caucasus with Angora direction of Soviet troops, and from the west were to attack the Greeks.

Next, we give them documents in strict chronological order. At the same time we emphasize once again: they are well known to historians. Findings should make the reader.

Letter from the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Turkey chairman of the Foreign Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Turkey Ismail Hakki. January 23, 1921: “In Baku, a friend Ismail Hakki. Dear Comrade, Numbers 3, arrived in Kars, traveled to the army. Kyazimov Karabekir Pasha met us very sincerely and friendly. The spirit of the troops is extremely strong, powerful liberation movement and strong. Despite in general a sympathetic attitude toward the Bolsheviks, has spread in recent news of the senseless proposal Chicherin Bekir Sami to join Van and Bitlis to Armenia, very strongly shaken the credibility of the former Russian …… Because of the uncertainties the borders of Turkey and Armenia, an unprecedented proliferation of rumors give our comments mistrustful and dangerous “(RGASPI. F. 544. On. 3. D. 46. Ak. 48-49).

The answers to the questions of Mustafa Kemal authorized the Board of propaganda and action of the Orient E. Eshby: “January 29, 1921 Neck:” Secret “. Tov. Eshba … Questions are: what is the … policy and intentions of the revolutionary Turkey, Eastern question ? … Kemal: Your opinion on the fact that Turkey is of great importance in the lives of all peoples of the East quite rightly … III International Ideas can not be welcomed by every honest revolutionary … Unfortunately, some provisions do not apply International Program in Turkey. There is no denying that Communism has a disdain for religion … I fully understand that communism can not be an issue of national and state borders … For example, the communist Azerbaijan voluntarily handed Communist Armenia part of its territory. If you ask Armenia to give her part of Turkish territory, the people under the influence of the young and strong nationalist feelings certainly do not agree to this and will oppose it … A few days later in Moscow, a conference of our delegates, which will consolidate this strong and indissoluble union supporters who were like us, so and Moscow. But on February 21 is going to London conference of the Entente, which will be revised and softened by the Treaty of Sevres.’s allies said the government of Constantinople – Teffik Pasha, that they invited the Turkish delegation, made up and I should go, or a person authorized by me. .. Just as Moscow found it convenient to send a delegation to England for talks, we also believe it necessary to use the situation to clarify the Entente nations of our essence and our purpose … ” (RGASPI. F. 544. On. 3. D. 46. Ak. 40, 42, 44-46).

Nota Commissariat Chicherin Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Government of the Great National Assembly Bekir Sami, “February 8, 1921 .. We allow ourselves to assure you that our negotiations with the British government no final decision has not been made. Given that the British Government requires that the preamble to the trade agreement between Soviet Russia and the United Kingdom, we have undertaken to refrain from any action hostile to British interests, as well as any support of such actions, particularly in Asia Minor, Persia, Afghanistan and India, we put up with his side claim that this text was included the following addendum: “For its part, the United Kingdom Government would refrain from any hostile action to support themselves, or propaganda, in whatever form it would clothe against interests or safety of Soviet Russia, as in the above countries and in countries whose territory had belonged to the former Russian Empire, but which now, according to the principle of self-determination of peoples, became independent states. Similarly, it would refrain from supporting or promoting any hostile acts from Japan, Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Greece and Yugoslavia, and it will not interfere in relations of Soviet Russia with other countries and will not obstruct such relationships. Both contracting parties mutually undertake to respect the independence and integrity of Persia, Afghanistan and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. “This is our counter-proposal to the draft preamble, represented Great Britain. Under the Grand National Assembly of Turkey means that the space on which to spread its authority on the basis of the principle of self-determination of peoples, and soon the time will come when all the attacks would be stopped and the foreign invaders will have finally come to terms with the right of the Turkish people to self-determination. (Documents of Soviet foreign policy. Moscow, 1959. T. III. pp. 512-514).

Letter from the Chairman Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan SSR MLMamedov V. Lenin, “February 16, 1921 Dear Vladimir Ilyich. Goes to the Turkish delegation to Moscow with our representative Beibut Shakhtakhtinskaya. I said here in some detail with the Turkish delegation. For me, there is no doubt that angortsy sincerely want to cast its lot with us against England. The most delicate question for them – it is Armenian, in this respect they have shown the maximum energy to be resolved in their favor. I was talking about Batum of Akhaltsikhe, but they said: ” Armenian question is a matter of life and death. If this issue we give in, the mass will not do for us. “Of course, they are against the Entente, and they are ready to fight with us against England to the last man, but if Moscow because of the Armenian issue would alienate angortsev of themselves, they are in despair, may throw into the arms of England. What could then be? angortsy increasingly becoming popular, as fighters for freedom from the yoke of European imperialism in the Muslim East. In part, we ourselves have contributed to declaring a holy war. If we abandon angortsev, we not only lose all its influence in the Muslim East, but unheard of for himself open the eastern front. If England took advantage of this moment, will open the western front again in the face of Poland and Romania, we can imagine our devastation in our situation. Dear Vladimir Ilyich, I anticipate hour of danger, and therefore consider it necessary to not hide anything from you. I trust and they say everything I have written and oral reports on the situation and to all the outlying autonomous republics to us. All the reports talk about the colonialist policy of Soviet Russia. In all of these republics Local officials of the Cheka agents terrorized and Special Branch. Everywhere these bodies mereschatsya nationalists, not noticing that the first rough nationalists are the agents of the same organs and other workers were sent from the Centre. These employees to attract the attention of the Centre, according to stories and create these hideous atmosphere. Sometimes you think, not whether the agents of England those comrades who want to show that they are doing for the benefit of Soviet Russia … I must warn you: Comrade. Chicherin confuses the Eastern question, he is too fond of the Armenian issue and does not include anything that might, if the gap with angortsami will, it is because of the Armenian question. I categorically declare the present situation in the Caucasus (Dagestan and Georgia), if we want to retain the Azerbaijan, we must conclude angortsami strong Union at all costs. I emphasize: this alliance will give us the Muslim East, and the general discontent, which was created by us as our inept East politics, will be eliminated, and the tear in the hands of the British instrument of provocation. Nariman Narimanov ” .

This letter contains important registration. We give them: Lenin: “Comrade Stalin, I ask two words recall and send to all members of the CC (secretly) to read, noted below, that read, and return to me. 19/II. Lenin.” “I have read. Bukharin. If I’m not mistaken, the delegation had already arrived, and nowhere can not get reception. I told someone from the staff of the Central Committee that they would come. The question in general you need to put on the Central Committee on Thursday. NB ” (RGASPI. F. 2. On. 1. D. 24 501. Pp. 1-2.).

Minutes of the meeting of the conference of the Allied Powers in London. Recording interviews February 18 – March 18, 1921: “The meeting of the Conference of Allied Powers in the office of Lord Curzon in the building of the British Foreign Office, London, February 26, 1921, 11:00. MINUTES British Secretary. Present:

British Empire: The Honorable Earl Curzon, the Foreign Minister (Chair); political analysts: Mr. Vansittart, Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Howorth, Lt. Col. George WJ. Walker.

France: Mr. Berthelot, a political expert, Mr. Kammerer, Secretary Mr. Massigli.

Italy: Count Sforza, a political expert, Mr. Galli.

Japan: Baron Hagashi, political expert, Mr. Nagai, Secretary, Mr. Sato. Translator: Mr. Kemerlink.

Armenia: HE Bogos Nubar Pasha, His Excellency Mr. Aharonian, Mr. Malcolm, General Bagratuni.

The Turkish delegates: Constantinople: His Excellency Osman Nizami Pasha, the Ottoman government representative in Rome. Angora: HE Bekir Sami Bey, deputy of Amaziah, the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Head of delegation), Dr. Nihad Reshad Bey Bey Myunir.

Lord Curzon said that he would like to ask some questions. Both the Armenian delegation demanded that the Supreme Council called for the integrity of the Treaty of Sevres. At the same time he Bogos Nubar admitted that there were serious difficulties. According to Lord Curzon, these difficulties can be reduced to three groups, namely Bolshevism in Russian Armenia, the occupation of Mustafa Kemal most of the Armenian territory and the inability of states to send significant forces to help Armenia. It would therefore be useful to know what the territorial boundaries of Armenia, Armenian delegation is essential. They remember that the Conference of San Remo gave the definition of the borders of Armenia President Wilson. President Wilson established the border, which includes several sections of the Turkish territory, as well as port Trabzon. It is clear that there are serious practical difficulties in establishing such a boundary. Hence, Lord Curzon, the delegation would like to ask two specific questions, namely:

1. What important for Armenia’s borders seeking both delegations?

2. What are the resources – human and monetary – Armenia is able to mobilize to achieve its independence?

Bogos Nubar Pasha replied that the decision of President Wilson was not brought to the attention of the Armenian delegation. Lord Curzon had just said that the limit set by President Wilson, includes Trebizond in the territory of Armenia, but it should be recalled that since last year’s London Conference, when the Commission on the proposed boundaries do not include Trabzon to Armenia – Armenian where both delegations agreed – Armenians themselves have never claimed to Trebizond, and even in the recent memorandum of their claims, sent to New York and Washington, the Armenians deliberately excluded the port of Trabzon (where the Armenian population is not most) of their program. All that they demand – it’s free access to the sea via Trabzon. As for the rest of the decision of President Wilson regarding the boundary, it is difficult to express an opinion, because Armenians did not know what it involves. Armenians, however, willing to be accommodating.

Lord Curzon, thanking Bogos Nubar for his statement, asked Mr. Aharonian provide information about the agreement between Mustafa Kemal and Armenia before the country became a Soviet. What does this agreement? What are the borders between Armenia and Turkey, he called for? Have they been recognized as the Armenian delegation? Was he concluded before or after the invasion of the Turks in Armenia? Mr. Aharonian back again referred to the instructions received from his government after the fall of Kars. The contract was imposed by force and was flatly rejected by the Armenians. As for the borders, he do not know exactly how it goes, roughly follows the boundary of the river Arpa Chai to its confluence with the river Araz, Kars and Turkey were handed Kagizman. After Aras boundary turns west and follows the latitude of Erivan.

Lord Curzon reminded of the proposal Bogos Nubar on the possibility of reaching any agreements concerning the protection of the Armenians in Cilicia, and asked the French delegation, she would like to speak on this issue. Mr. Berthelot said that France has always expressed its determination to do everything possible to protect the Christian minority. This obligation is contained not only in the Treaty of Sevres, but also in the tripartite agreement. The French government does not think that will probably require the establishment of a special regime for Cilicia. Nothing like this had never been sought in the Treaty of Sevres. On the other hand, France is determined to do everything so that you can provide a full guarantee of security of the Armenian minority, or by creating a mixed gendarmerie, commanded by French officers, or in any other way. In any case, France will not abandon its responsibility, whatever its relations with Turkey.

Bogos Nubar Pasha expressed his desire to respond to the statement Kammerer, but Lord Curzon, intervened and said that the conference should address the main issues on the agenda. Lord Curzon, proposed that the Conference now proceeded to discuss the Armenian question, and referred to the articles 88-93 of the Sevres treaty relating to this issue. When the Treaty of Sevres was developed, it was decided that the western borders of Armenia shall be submitted to an arbitral award of President Wilson. Borders, which established the President include the county, which are now largely in the hands of Turkish nationalists. In addition, the nationalist-led invasion and occupation of Kars and Alexandropol, the Government of Russian Armenia just before Bolshevization country has signed an agreement with the Kemalist government. However, this treaty was never ratified and therefore does not legally exist. It remains to work out a new contract.

Lord Curzon said that he wants to be perfectly frank. He wants the Turkish delegation made it clear that Europe – ie power, victorious in the war – gave a solemn commitment to create an independent Armenian state. It is therefore impossible to establish peace, which does not provide this independence, and which does not provide clear boundaries of Armenia. Although he does not want to discuss the details of such boundaries, however, you must immediately declare that the powers can not imagine any establishment of Armenia, which does not include the Kars, Ardahan and Alexandroupoli.

Bekir Sami Bey said his government strongly wishes to establish an independent Armenia in those regions where the Armenian majority and where the logic can be created by an independent state. In addition, they very much want to live in peace with the Armenia. With regard to the contract concluded with the Government of Dashnak Armenia, it is true that the treaty be ratified, but now that the Dashnaks returned to power, the government of Angora every day waiting for ratification. At the same time, Bekir Sami said that he gladly paid attention to the statement by Lord Curzon that the contract which has not been ratified, does not legally exist. He hopes that this principle will be applied also to the Treaty of Sevres. He further noted that, when it came to Kurdistan, had been mentioned vilayets Van and Bitlis, but if these vilayets considered Kurdish, where it turns Armenia? Armenia should be established on an ethnic basis, but even without relying pre-war statistics, we can not imagine how Armenians can make claims to territory in Turkey. In addition, the population of the city of Kars is in the majority of Turkish, in Ardahan lived only 20 percent of Armenians and Georgians now live there, on the other hand, is completely Alexandroupoli and the Armenian town of Turks do not make any claims on it. In conclusion, Bekir Sami Bey expressed his willingness to agree to a plebiscite on the three cities.

Lord Curzon, interrupted speech, and said that should remind Bekir Sami Bey, that he actually claims to territory that did not belong to Turkey for 50 years, and that it is inconceivable that Turkey, which was defeated in this war, came out of it with of territory. Bekir Sami Bey said that he based his claim on those districts on the concept of nationality, but that he was ready to leave this decision to the Supreme Council.

Lord Curzon agreed that this issue be addressed to the Supreme Soviet, and that will be developed proposals that the Turkish delegation offered to accept “(Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939, First series, volume XV, London, 1967. P. 207, 210 -212, 215-216).

Letter to N. Narimanov V. Lenin, “February 21, 1921 Dear Vladimir Ilyich, I ask you to pay serious attention to the report by Comrade. Kaminsky: You already know that the Soviet power in Armenia overthrown. In view of this, I would consider that the Armenian issue negotiations with the Turkish delegation should not play a role. The details will report to you Comrade. Kaminski. I ask you to pay attention to the activities of Special Branch in Azerbaijan. AKP congress sharply negative attitude to the activities of Special Branch. With communist greetings, N. Narimanov “. Litter hand of Lenin, “the archive” (RGASPI. F. 2. On. 1. D. 24 504. Ak. 1-2).

Report Plenipotentiary Representative of the Azerbaijan SSR and the RSFSR People’s Commissariat B. Shakhtakhtinskaya the second half of February 1921: “In view of the forthcoming conference in Moscow, it is my duty to highlight the situation in the countries participating in this conference, and coming prospects. I shall dwell first on the negative facts:

1. There are numerous indications that the Angora Government negotiated with the mission of Izzet Pasha, arrived in Angora from Constantinople.

2. According to the contract Alexandropol Dashnaks entrenched now in Daralageze and Zangezur, have the right to demand protection from the Turks to their authority, both from external and internal enemies of. Meanwhile, it Dashnak government, covering the mountainous part of Karabakh, the Armenian peasant organizing board by releasing his name printed an appeal to the Muslim population to unite the Armenians for a joint struggle against the Bolsheviks, yet never called for the implementation of the agreement and entered into by Turkey of obligations. One gets the impression that the Dashnaks are going to require that the Turkish security only when the Allies finally able to come to terms with Turkey when the latter this will have a physical possibility.

3. Who came from abroad after the establishment of Hatisov in Soviet Armenia has signed an agreement that turned Armenia into an autonomous region of Turkey.

4. Stubborn refusal of the Turks to evacuate Alexandropol to the conference, although I know for certain that the Turks on the kinds of Alexandroupoli do not have.

Now focus on the positive facts.

1. After an adverse report to us the former head of the Turkish delegation in Moscow, Bekir Sami, many members of the Angora Government began to think that Russia can not hope to have, and every aspiration of Turkey to establish a revolutionary any contact with Russia is useless. Other members of the government, and especially the current chairman of the Turkish delegation Yusuf Kemal, argued that to refuse contact with Russia Revolutionary Turkey should not and can not, because without contact with Russia, Turkey will not stand the pressure of the Entente, and therefore the rejection of an alliance with Soviet Russia is logically correct step to an agreement with the Entente. The National Assembly discussed the issue, unanimously agreed that the revolution would be crushed by the Entente first in Turkey and then in Russia, if the two revolutionary countries not conclude between themselves closer union, and therefore revolutionary, Turkey should once again engage in a frank talks with Russia and try to find common ground in order to sign the death warrant Entente.

2. The Turkish delegation consists of: Yusuf Kemal, Ali Fouad and Dr. Reese Nuria. Yusuf Kemal look I gave above. As for Ali Fuad Pasha, then his faith in Soviet Russia has no borders. He said the military units and it believes that it will open stores in Moscow and sent to Turkey, all that is possible. Sent them to agents able to buy in Italy and smuggled to deliver a shipment of arms to Anatolia. While distributing the weapons he formally announced an order that the weapon that sent the union and fraternal revolutionary Russia. He is one of the initiators of the revolutionary movement in Turkey and all the time was commander of the western Anatolian front. Third Delegate Riza Nuri is considered a great Anglophobia, but because of the Armenian people have little confidence now and for us.

3. All Turks young and old alike are convinced that a sincere agreement with Russia is certainly a death sentence for the Allies.

4. All Southeastern Anatolia Region and head of its Karabekir Kyazimov Pasha are the most ardent and sincere our friends. This can be explained psychologically, and as follows: Eastern Anatolia, which in previous wars hit by the burden of Russia’s hand is convinced of the invincibility of Russia, in its fathomless human material. Of all the wars of Russia emerged victorious. Conversely, an unsuccessful expedition to the British and French on Dardanelle dispelled illusion of omnipotence England. Karabekir Kyazimov Pasha knows the mood of the masses, and, moreover, he in his literary works are studied in all schools in Anatolia, the shameless way he should defy England, wanting to introduce into the soul of Turkish youth contempt for the British. So spread the influence of the Entente to mean the end of Karabekir Anatolia, which is currently the most powerful and popular person in the whole of Anatolia.

5. Agents Turkish official, rather, the Entente, the main argument against the treaty with Soviet Russia expose what Bolshevism in Russia will not stay long, and then Turkey will be a face to face with Europe and even nationalistic Russia. On this argument, opponents told me himself Karabekir.

From the above data the conclusion has to make himself the center, taking, however, the following considerations:

1) According to the Turks, in the spring of the Entente attacks being made against them, as the Anatolian and Baghdad at the front. In response, the Turks are taking precautions on the widest scale. On the first call of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Syria and Tripoli will raise the most serious and organized rebellion. In addition, formed a large, superbly organized army, intended to capture Chanakh Kala and Constantinople, but the Army has no weapons. Put in a difficult situation under the threat of a new long struggle with the Allies, without money and arms the Turks gradually begin to waver. These variations can be fatal to our eastern policy.

2) We must once and for all abandon the idea that the Turks want to wrest from us here and how much gold and weapons, then to get away from us, or even direct it against us. Obtaining by false pretenses from the Russian gold and weapons under any circumstances can not flow from the ideology of the modern Turkish revolutionaries, who at every opportunity and an awkward case emphasize that they are proud of the fact that their history has no example of them to change their ally. In negotiations with Turkey can be a stumbling block the Armenian question. The Armenian issue most Turks show intransigence, citing the fact that they find themselves in the position of the Constantinople government made concessions on this issue. In order to conclude a firm alliance with the Turks, we should not question the Armenian object of our negotiations. For the final decision of the Armenian issue can be found another, more convenient time. We must demand from the Turks and then purifying Alexandropol in those counties where there are a short distance from the railway line, to get them to retreat to a greater distance. Nakhichevan region as the most important for strategic reasons corner, under any circumstances can not be given under the protectorate of the Turks. Nor can now allow its accession to Armenia, because, firstly, that opposes itself the population of this region and, secondly, it will not agree to the Turks. Therefore, we must still turn this region into a self-governing under the protection of Soviet Russia region. This way of solving the question will shift from the Turkish occupied their positions and can not satisfy Armenia. If we turn this land into a self-governing unit under the auspices of Russia, then we can begin immediately after her trade with the rich Persian provinces, and we will be able to feed not only Armenia, but also located here our army units, freeing, so the center of any food concerns against Armenia. It is possible that someday the circumstances force us in the name of self-sabotage Nakhichevan region to make the side of Persian Azerbaijan, and may even be against Turkey, but such moves should never be done by or on behalf of Armenia. Finally, keep in mind that with the accession of the region of Nakhichevan to Armenia, Makinsk Khanate immediately announce itself as part of Turkey, but it is not profitable for us in all respects.

4) A part of Armenia, namely Daralagez Zangezur and remain in the hands of the Dashnaks, who were able to contact Tabriz, where live agents Entente They captured almost all the mountainous part of Karabakh. All armed us komyacheytsy Armenians in the amount of one thousand people went to the Dashnaks. Extraordinary Plenipotentiary of the Autonomous Republic “(AVPR. F. 04. On. 39. P. 232. D. 53 001. Ak. 76-77).

Letter to the People’s Commissariat Chicherin V. Lenin, “February 22, 1921 Dear Vladimir Ilyich. The Turkish delegates have presented to us the enclosed copy of a letter of Comrade. Mdivani to Kara Bekir and the accompanying translation of a letter Kara Bekir to Comrade. Mdivani. The whole story was to me a complete surprise. I did not know that you and Comrade Stalin. sent a coded message Comrade. Mdivani. The exact content of the coded I still do not know, but on the basis of its comrade. Mdivani on behalf of our Government, as you can discern from This correspondence officially invited Turkish political and military alliance. You surely remember that we always carefully avoided the word “union” in our negotiations with the Turks, for an alliance with the Turks is incompatible with the alleged agreement with Britain. The contract, which was developed by us in the past year Bekir Sami, with and signed by some obscure particulars, called the treaty of friendship and brotherhood, but we then systematically refused to write the word “union.” Meanwhile, Comrade. Mdivani, based on your encryption, even offered not just a union, and political and military alliance.

The Turks grabbed for it, and tells her the mandate of the delegation to negotiate with us about the detention of political and military alliance. Delegates, we are told that they were not authorized by anything else as soon as the conclusion of the political and military alliance, and are based on your encryption. I have long told them the situation, based on the forthcoming agreement with Britain, which does not substantially interfere with the alleged manifestation of our mutual friendship with the Turks, but that makes it impossible for us conclude a formal alliance, because the union means that in the event of an attack on the British Turks we would have to declare war on England and all the means at our disposal to take part in the war against England. After hours of talks delegates proposed to put in the header of the word “union”, and in the text of the treaty to put an article or several articles that restrict the content of union so as not to interfere with our agreement with Britain. They proposed to introduce, for example, a special article that we will not declare war on England, or that we will not send the Turks to help our troops. The main question that I posed to them, is whether they want the essence, or the word that it is possible to have a substance with no mention of the word. They definitely say that to calm the parliament, in which a frustrated Soviet orientation, enough is known in the press, the Majlis must submit a treaty of alliance. In contrast, negotiations with the Entente, it is necessary to present Majlis alliance with Soviet Russia, where it is permissible to any articles of the treaty to limit the substance of the agreement. They are, therefore, they say, very definitely cherish the very word “union”. At this point we still have left, but obviously this will have a lot to say. I currently still not clear how to proceed. If we mention the word in the title of “Union” is, of course, will give occasion for all sorts of protests from Britain and will serve as the theme for the campaign in the British press. But if there are articles that limit the nature of the agreement, as proposed by the Turkish delegates, these articles will be to oppose the British government and in formal negotiations in order to nullify his protests. But it seems to me somewhat uncomfortable to conclude a treaty of alliance with the reduction in the union is not in the text of the agreement. After all, union is not against any other State, and, of course, against the Entente, that is, above all, against England. What a view would be that contract, if there will be told that we do not help the Turks against England. So at the moment I still totally unclear how we can in this case to give the Turks. With communist greetings, George Chicherin “(RGASPI. F. 2. On. 2. AD 526. Ak. 1-2 on).