CC BY
92
The criticizm of the policy of “militray communism” applied in Soviet Armenia by the social-political thought...
7. Susnjic Buro. Metodologija: kritika nauke. - Beograd: Cigoja stampa, - 2005.
8. МилиЬ BojHH. Социолошки метод. - Београд: Завод за уцбенике и наставна средства, - 1978.
9. Bloch Marc. Apologija historije ili zanat povjesnicara. - Zagreb: Srednja Europa, - 2008.
10. Тош Цои. У трагану за исторром. Цилеви, методи и нови правци у проучавану савремене исторре. - Београд: Clio, - 2008.
11. Бродел Фернан. Списи о исторри, - Београд: Српска книжевна задруга, - 1992.
12. Браjзах Ернст. Историографра: стари век, средни век, ново доба. - Београд: Clio, - 2008.
Stepanyan Khachatur Rostomi, Candidate of historical sciences, ASPU after Kh. Abovyan, Docent of the Chair of the History of Armenia E-maij: [email protected]
The criticizm of the policy of “militray communism” applied in Soviet Armenia by the social-political thought of Armenian Diaspora (1920-1930s)
Abstract: The social-political thought of Diaspora highly criticized the policy of militray commuism of the newly sovietized Armenia in 1920-1930s. The reapplication of cruel experience that was failed in Russia was a real nonsense for Armenia that was destroyed after the wars. Moreover, the explanations for the expropriations have no justification.The policy of military communism in Armenia that was facing serious social-political period also had its consequences.The representatives of the social-political thought of Diaspora were of the same opinion that it was the main reason for February revolution.
Keywords: Soviet Armenia, militray communism, Bolshevik, social-political thought of Armenian Diaspora.
On November 29, 1920 after the defeats of the Armenian army in the Turkish-Armenian war Armenian militray revolutionary committee formed in Baku entered Ijevan accompanied by the Soviet army and announced the downfall of Dashnak Government and the Sovietization of Armenia. Armenian Revolutionary Committee together with the help of Soviet Russia promised to restore the country’s destroyed economy and build a new life.
On December 2, 1920 the treaty of Yerevan was signed between Russian SFSR authorized representitive Boris Le-gran and representatives of the Armenian government Dro and Hambarcum Terteryan. The treaty provides a peacful transition of the power from the Dashnkas to the Bolsheviks. The principles of the transition of the power were established as follows: The power in Armenia was temporarily given to the military revolutionary committee till the congress of councils which included 5 communists and 2 left-dashnak representatives; the members of Armenian Revolutionary Federation and non-bolshevik socialist party would not be subjected to persecution for their earlier struggle against the communist party and the Soviet Russian guaranteed the independence of Soviet Armenia [1, 101-102]. However, the newly formed Bolshevik party didn’t fulfill its obligations.
Armenian communists didn’t have their own development plan for the country so they repeated the Russian experience and the most vivid example of it was the practice of “military communism" policy.
Military communism was based on rationing of food stuff. Only some part of the food stuff would be left for the villagers (for eating and as a seed), and the rest would be seized for state needs. All the factories, workshops and means of production would be nationalized. Despite the fact that the policy of military communism was not justified in Russia the newly formed Armenin Bolshevik government decided to apply it in Armenia [2, 21].
Expropriations were carried out in villages with the direct participation of people’s commissariat and local revolutionary committee for the reason of helping the Soviet army. The central committee of the Communist party of Armenia urged the villagers to deliver bread for the Red army with their own vehicles [3].
It should be noted that there was no consensus of opinion in the policy of military communism of the communist government of Armenia. The president of the Armenian revolutionary committee Sargis Kasyan was against applying the economic policy of Russia in Armenia.
Despite the internal disputes Armenian Bolsheviks started to apply the policy of military communism that had failed in Russia. Expropritaions were handled in the roughest way without taking into account the peculiarities of the country and the people. Armenian communists applied various methods and techniques of ravage and plunder within a short period under the name of the so-called expropriation.
In the social-political frames of the Armenian diaspora the issue of militray communism applied in Armenia became
19
Section 3. History and archaeology
a subject of serious discussion, which, by the way, was one of the main reasons of the anti-Bolshevik uprising in February 1921. In the series of ratings about the policy of military communism the most prominent are the expatriated members of the National Salvation committee.
Turning to the issue of expropriations, the former member of the Salvation committee Irazek (Hakob Ter-Hakobyan) points the unprecedented ferocity of the Revolutionary committee’s adopted policy. The Bolsheviks were trying to change the regime by force forgetting the fact that all the revolutions and rebellions are the result of violence [4, 307].
Irazek says that the expropriations began to become commonplace soon after the first days of the sovietizaton of Armenia. The population was plundered everywhere, in cities and villages. “And because it was badly organized, and the community was mostly immoral, outlaw and opportunist, so the so-called expropriation turned into widespread looting and became a real disaster for the whole country”, concludes the eyewitness Irazek [4, 308]. According to the former president of the Salvation committee, Simon Vratsyan, the expropriations increased in severity when the presidnet of Cheka Gevorg Atarbegyan arrived in Armenia [5, 86]. Vratsyan also states that primarily the food supplies of the peasants were seized [9, 99].
Thus, the leaders of the uprising against the government showed their great dissatisfaction towards the military communism policy carried by the same authorities. Both Irazek and Vratsyan convicted that among the reasons of February uprising the key role played the expropriation policy of the Bolsheviks with its most severe forms. Bolshevik’s policy was disastrous for the country.
It is noteworthy that the methods of expropriation were gradually “improved”. S. Vratsyan states that in these expropriations the most accuartely planned and organized thing was, surely, the “ration week” or according to the description of Yerevan residents the “plunder week” at the end ofJanu-ary [6, 111]. Inspired by the successs of the plunder week, Bolsheviks were planning other weeks, for example “linen week”. Vratsyan ironically points out that in this way Yerevan lays aside bourgeois prejudices and firmly stands on the way of communist construction. Armenian proletariat fulfilled its historic mission on the doorway of Asia [6, 113]. Thus, according to Vratsyan by saying communist construction, Armenian Bolsheviks, meant the theft and robbery of the property of people.
The seizure was getting more absurd. As Vratsyan describes the revolutionary committees in villages demanded not only sheep, cow and chicken, but also butter, cheese and eggs. The villages in the basin of Lake Sevan were obliged to supply fish to the Bolsheviks. The most absurd thing was the demand of hunting animals. For example in Jrvezh village a tribute was given to the partridge [9, 99]. In some cases not only animals and ration, but also money, gold, jewellery, carpets, silk and other precious fabrics, sugar, soap and various clothes were taken from ransaked houses [5, 86].
Referring to the problem of seizure Vratsyan points out also the work of Bolshevik historan Bagrat Boryan and concludes that even Bolshevik historians criticized this policy [7, 206]. Boryan was one of the unique historians of The Soviet Union who dared to reveal the real reasons of the rebellion while even a decade didn’t pass, where the expropriations were also highlighted. “Without organized and disciplined governing methods, without preaching preparatory work and without taking into consideration the specific conditions of the country the revolutionary committee came up with a slogan. Confiscate and capture the ration of the private individuals of the towns and the supply of the bread of the peasants”, writes B. Baroyan [10, 126]. In fact, S. Vratsyan confirms the anti-democratic nature of Bolshevik expropriations according to the conclusions of Soviet historian. By the way, “Droshak” periodical also refers to the viewpoint of Bagrat Boryan [11, 4-8].
Diaspora’s social-political thought also criticizes the expropriation policy of the Bolshevik governement as the expropriated ration and goods were being taken out from the country.
“White flour, condensed milk, kakao, sugar, leather, clothing was sent from Armenia in auto carriers as a present to “Mr. Lenin” or “Red army”, writes Vratsyan [7, 204]. The same politican states that people waited for assistance from Russia while their last morsel was taken and sent to Russia [8, 544].
Armen Sevan describes Bolshevik expropriations as official loot, and complained that the last means of living of people were taken by force for feeding the russian army in Armenia or were sent to the soldiers of Baku or Russia as a present [12, 93]. In fact, most of the seized items were sent out of the country, while there was an immediate need of it in Armenia. This was done for the naive purposes to make the people in Azerbaijan and Russia believe that there was a regular transportation of goods among these 3 socialist republics. Besides, Armenian Bolshevik leaders wanted to prove Russian Bolshviks that they were devoted communists.
Avetis Arshakuni, a diaspora figure, when speaking about the arbitrariness in the expropriations, states that they sometimes end up with the family’s honor reviling [13, 43]. Onik Mkhitaryan tells about these expropriations with the following impression. “By saying communism they (Bolsheviks) understood unrestrained loot, violence that was typical for the 18th century Persian khans, human’s moral destruction and hellish enslavement” [14]. In fact, expropriations were accompanied by the violation of the diginity of families, the cruelty of the violence was compared with khan brutality of the 18th century Armenia.
The prime minister of the first Republic of Armenia Hov-hannes Qajazuni who was in exile also referred to the expropriations of the Bolsheviks. As it is known Qajaznuni came up with a critical report in 1923 about the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and left the party. Nevertheless, Qajaznuni who was criticising the ARF also criticized the expropriation policy of the Bolsheviks stating that it was one of the main reasons
20
The criticizm of the policy of “militray communism” applied in Soviet Armenia by the social-political thought...
of the February revolution. Here are the words of Qajaznuni. “Every dictatorship is a violence by its nature and cannot be another thing. Every revolutionary government is forced to turn to drastic and extreme measures and this is also an unavoidable necessity, that stems from the situtation. But the violence of Bolsheviks and the cruelty applied in Armenia had a specific trait, that was even more irritating and intolerable, that the violence was useless, superfluous and pointless. February revolution was thoroughly the affair of the Bolsheviks, a natural consequence of their violence and endless expropriations, that destroyed the last remnants of the economy, depriving the starving people from the last piece of bread” [16, 46].
A special committee for expropriating houses was created in order to obtain apartments for the newly arrived Bolshevik military figures. Another prime minister of the first Republic of Armenia Alexsander Khatisyan stated the fact that he had worked under the Tsarist reaction conditions for almost 20 years and didn’t notice such violence, as he saw after Bolsheviks came to power. Thus the prime ministers of the First Republic of Armenia who were in exile indeed emphasized the policy of military communism applied by Bolsheviks when speaking about the reasons of February revolution.
The policy of militray communism was highly criticized by the press in Diaspora.
Referring to the issue of expropriations Boston “Hayre-nik” (Homeland) periodical notes that it was accompanied by special violence and was carried out ruthlessly [15]. The periodical concludes that instead of carrying construction work the Soviet government was organizing robbery in Armenia. Even condensed milk and sugar that was brought from America as an aid was expropriated and sent to Russia. Konstantinoupolis “Chakatamart” (Battle) periodical also states about the expropriation of the food stuff that was sent to Russia and Azerbaijan received from America [17]. Referring to the issue of military communism the “Chakatamart” writes that the 25th ofJanuray of1921 was announced a raid day.According to the command each person had the right to keep only a month’s supply, that is 1 pound of flour and 2 pounds of oil and so on. But the raid was a terrible thing that lasted 24 hours. That was not a raid but a real robbery. Robbery is something more terrible. “They took arbitrarily everything from houses and particularly they put their severity on West Armenians”, mentions the periodical [17]. The issue of the the expropriation of private libraries is discussed in one of the editions of the “Chakatamart”, which as Bolsheviks explained was because of the fact that bourgeois couldn’t read books [18].
Thus, the newspapers in Diaspora also criticized the policy of militray communism led by the Bolsheviks. Touchig upon the issue in the frames of February revolution, various arbitrary activities are described, that were carried out during expropriations for state and revolutionary needs.
Non Dashnak figures also referred to the issue of militray communism.
Prominent historian Arshak Alpoyachyan who was in
Kahire, also criticized the policy of Bolshevik expropriations, that was the main reason for February revolution. Alpoyachyan writes that in provices behind the control of central government, local adventurous and inscrupulous figures taking advantage of the opportunity were oppressing people and rankling peasants. Bolsheviks demanded to provide the food products to the Red Army. Expeditions were organizing rummages and were taking weapons and militray clothing from the peasants, officially they took goat and sheep and non officially butter, cheese, jewellery, money and etc [19, 250]. The result of the expropriations was the increase of the number of com-plainers. “The expropriation of goods, the nationalization of factories and even mills also contributed to the humiliation of people”, writes Alpoyachyan [19, 251].
Anti Dashnak figure S. Baghdasaryan from Persia writes about the expropriations, “The revolutionary committe didn’t take into account the specific conditions of Armenia and acted in the same way as the majority did in Russia and that was the biggest mistake of the committee which resulted in the February revolution of 1921” [20, 13].
In fact, the policy of militray communism of Armenia was criticized not only by the Dashnaks who were deprived from authority. Various non Dashnak figures from Diaspora also blamed the Bolsheviks in organizing large-scale expropriations in Armenia.
In the end it should be mentioned that in some places sponataneous revolts were organized because of the expropriations that were suppressed by the punitive units sent from Yerevan [6, 114].
Thus, the social-political thought of diaspora criticized the policy of militray communism of the newly sovietized Armenia. The reapplication of cruel experience that was failed in Russia was a real nonsense for Armenia that was destroyed after the wars. Moreover, all the explanations for the expropriations have no justification. The policy of military communism in Armenia that was facing serious social-political period at that time also had its consequences. The representatives of the social-political thought of Diaspora were of the same opinion that it was the main reason for February revolution.
References:
1. Khatisyan A. The origin and development of the Republic of Armenia. “Hayrenik” monthly, - Boston, - 1926, October (in Armenian).
2. Ghazakhetsyan V. Armenia in 1920-1940. - Yerevan, - 2006 (in Armenian).
3. “Communist”. - Yerevan, - 1920, December 14 (in Armenian).
4. Irazek. February 18, “Journal of memories of ARF Dashnaktsutyun (1890-1950)”. - Boston, - 1950 (in Armenian).
5. Vratsyan S. Memories from the recent past. “Hayrenik” monthly, - Boston, - 1924, January (in Armenian).
21
Section 3. History and archaeology
6. Vratsyan S. Memories from the recent past. “Hayrenik” monthly, - Boston, - 1924, March (in Armenian).
7. Vratsyan S. Armenia between bolshevik hammer and Turkish plate. - Boston, - 1941 (in Armenian).
8. Vratsyan S. Republic of Armenia. - Yerevan, - 1993.
9. Sasuni K. February uprising. “Hayrenik” monthly, - Boston, - 1925, October (in Armenian).
10. Boryan B. Armenia, the International Diplomacy and the USSR, - v. II, - M - L, - 1929 (in Russian).
11. “Droshak” monthly. - Paris, - 1931, - No 1-2 (in Armenian).
12. Sevan A. The revolution of February 18. “Vem” magazine, - Paris, - 1936, - No 1 (in Armenian).
13. Arshakuni A. February uprising. “Hayrenik” monthly, - Boston, - 1927, February (in Armenian).
14. “Hayrenik” newspaper, - Boston, - 1928, February 18 (in Armenian).
15. “Hayrenik” newspaper, - Boston, - 1931, February 19 (in Armenian).
16. Qajaznuni H. ARF Dashnaktsutyun has nothing more to do. - Vienna, - 1923 (in Armenian).
17. “Chakatamart” newspaper, - K. Polis (Istanbul), - 1921, March 5 (in Armenian).
18. “Chakatamart” newspaper, - K. Polis (Istanbul), - 1921, March 9 (in Armenian).
19. Alpoyachyan A. The independent Armenia, “Annual calendar of all ” (comp. by Theodik), 16th year, - K. Polis (Istanbul), -1923 (in Armenian).
20. Baghdasaryan S. The Soviet Armenia. - part 1, - Tehran, - 1927 (in Armenian).
22
