DISCUSSION ON THE PROTECTION OF ARMENIA FROM AGGRESSION AND THE THREAT OF EXTERMINATION OF THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE

DISCUSSION ON THE PROTECTION OF ARMENIA FROM AGGRESSION AND THE THREAT OF EXTERMINATION OF THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE Ninth Plenary Session of the First Assembly of the League of Nations Geneva, November 22, 1920, 10:30 AM Chair: Mr. Hymans

Report of the Secretary-General on the Council’s Activities – Proposals Regarding Armenia

The discussion on the Secretary-General’s report resumed. Chairman: We shall now consider the various proposals submitted in connection with the Council’s report. Let us begin, if you agree, with the proposal submitted by Lord Robert Cecil, amended by Mr. Lafontaine. The proposal reads:

“To request the Council to immediately examine the situation in Armenia and to submit to the Assembly proposals aimed at preventing the danger threatening the remaining portion of the Armenian race and at ensuring the permanent settlement of that country.”

Mr. Lafontaine’s amendment proposes that the Assembly appoint a committee of six members to examine what measures can—and whether they can—be taken to end the hostilities between Armenia and the Kemalists.

Mr. Spailakovitch (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes):

Allow me, gentlemen, to draw your attention for a moment to a duty that has haunted and troubled my conscience for days as a member of this Assembly. Others have already pointed to this duty. I return to it because the telegrams I receive compel me to speak openly and honestly about my view on this matter. I shall read one of these telegrams to you:

“The Armenian community of Alexandria respectfully urges Your Excellency to support Lord Robert Cecil’s proposal in favor of Armenia—the victim of a new conspiracy against liberty in the Middle East.”

Gentlemen, is this truly just a new conspiracy against liberty? The Armenians have shown extraordinary tolerance toward the persecutions they endure. I believe I am right in stating that there is a widespread and longstanding conviction in the Middle East of an old and deadly conspiracy.

Lord Robert Cecil’s powerful report struck directly at the heart of every Serb. We have suffered too much not to recognize this abhorrent system of methodical and deliberate extermination—carried out against an entire people through continuous waves of individual condemnations, summary executions, and mass killings.

This cold-blooded and cynical method of annihilation has been used—and is still being used—by the Turks against Christian peoples. They assign the role of bloody executioners to certain national groups of Muslim faith, using Kurds against Armenians in Asia just as they once used Albanians against Greeks and Serbs in the Balkans.

In supporting the Armenian cause, I am simply fulfilling my natural duty as a Serb and as President of the Serbo-Croato-Slovene delegation. I act with consistency and sincerity.

I believe, gentlemen, that our Assembly must fulfill its urgent duty in this matter. Action by the Great Powers is imperative. I am well aware that the governments of these powers are burdened with numerous grave problems accumulated over recent years. But we must not allow such considerations to divert us from the path dictated by noble aspirations and elevated sentiments.

States will hardly remain indifferent to the appeal of the League of Nations Assembly. At one time, the American Senate, though unwilling to accept a mandate over Armenia for the United States, was nevertheless inclined to send its fleet to aid the suffering Armenian people.

Clearly, gentlemen, Article 10 of the League’s Covenant cannot, unfortunately, serve as a basis for our action in this case. Regrettably, this article binds only those states that are members of the League. We face the challenge of saving Armenia on one hand, and securing the necessary support from the United States on the other. In this situation, the Covenant is not only useless—it leaves us in a stronger position without it. Therefore, we must turn to another procedure.

Without rejecting the final decision on Lord Robert Cecil’s proposal submitted last Wednesday, I respectfully propose that we immediately affirm the indignation of the League of Nations Assembly regarding this particularly grave situation—a situation in which the very physical existence of a people is at stake.

I have the honor, gentlemen, to propose the following:

We must immediately send a telegram to the Parliaments of the Great Powers, expressing, as the Assembly’s first and most urgent recommendation, our unanimous desire that the Governments of these powers agree on swift and effective action to save the remaining portion of the unfortunate Armenian people.

We must not hesitate, gentlemen, to raise our voices in defense of enslaved, tormented, and massacred peoples. Let us now, without delay, raise our voice in defense of the Armenian nation.

Mr. Branting (Sweden):

From the reports we receive from Armenia, it is clear that the massacres continue. This seems to indicate the inability of the Great Powers to intervene effectively in defense of the Armenian people. If such events persist, it will be a reproach to humanity and pose a grave danger to the League of Nations itself.

I am confident, gentlemen, that we all agree on the need to exert pressure on the Great Powers, which possess the military means necessary for intervention. It is vital that these crimes not be repeated, that this extermination of a people—whose horrors have been revealed to us in recent telegrams—be brought to an end.

I fully support Lord Robert Cecil’s proposal, amended by Mr. Lafontaine, and I hope that the demonstration, which I presume will be carried out by unanimous vote of the Assembly, will exert sufficient influence on the Great Powers to compel them to move from words to deeds and finally take effective steps to save the tormented people of Armenia. (Applause)

Mr. Balfour (British Empire):

If possible, let us momentarily set aside the general necessity of aiding the Armenians and focus on the practical difficulties that stand in the way. Good intentions are the foundation of sound policy, but good intentions alone are utterly useless unless means are found to implement them.

I hope my colleagues in the Assembly will recognize that one of the most serious difficulties faced by the Council—and which the Assembly must now confront—is that the League’s mechanism, as outlined in its Covenant, was not designed to resolve the kind of situation we now face in Armenia.

The situation envisioned by the framers of the Covenant presupposed the existence of organized states with clearly defined borders—states open to the influence of civilized public opinion and, at the very least, susceptible to the threat of economic pressure. These were the essential conditions under which the League of Nations was expected to help preserve global peace, prevent disputes from escalating into wars, and ensure that civilized nations, through arbitration or other means, would never again allow their disagreements to erupt into the horrors of a major war.

However, note that the current situation in Armenia does not meet any of these conditions. We are not dealing with states with clearly delineated borders. Armenia has no defined frontier. President Wilson agreed to assume responsibility for establishing these borders, but as far as I know, nothing has yet been accomplished in that regard.

Again, we are not dealing with relations between civilized states. We are not dealing with a people responsive to public opinion, for whom the transparency we so highly value would hold any appeal. What significance does the opinion of the League of Nations or the judgment of the civilized world hold for Mustafa Kemal? Or the fact that any humane nation would condemn his actions? He regards all such considerations with complete indifference.

I repeat: one of the League’s primary instruments of influence—indeed, the most important among them—is economic pressure. But what economic pressure can be exerted on Mustafa Kemal? He bears no responsibility for the finances of an organized state; he is not accountable for the trade of Asiatic Turkey. He leads disorganized bands of marauders who are utterly indifferent to the motives that naturally guide the League of Nations and form the basis of its actions.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to say that declarations of goodwill and noble intentions have been generously extended toward Armenia for at least a generation. For many years, statesmen concerned with this issue have recognized its gravity. Each, to the best of their ability, has tried to act. Yet, I regret to say, all that has been done has amounted to very little. It is a tragic situation.

We find ourselves like those standing on shore, watching people aboard a sinking vessel. We call out words of encouragement, express horror at their plight, and offer our sympathy for their suffering—but we have yet to discover a way to provide effective help.

Mr. René Viviani (France):

Gentlemen, we are united in expressing our sympathy for Armenia’s suffering. On behalf of the French delegation, I affirm that throughout Armenia’s tragic history, it has found deep compassion in the hearts of the French people.

Given the circumstances, I propose a concrete resolution that, compared to Mr. Lafontaine’s draft, has the advantage of avoiding delays, preserving the dignity of the League of Nations in the eyes of the world, and not encouraging unrealistic hopes. On behalf of the French delegation, I propose the following:

The Assembly, seeking to cooperate with the Council to swiftly end the horrors of the Armenian tragedy, requests the Council to reach an agreement with the Governments to entrust a Power with the responsibility of taking necessary measures to halt hostilities between Armenia and the Kemalists.

I strongly urge you to adopt this proposal.

If accepted, the Council would be able to approach the Governments, who could then seek among themselves a Power capable of intervening with sufficient authority in the battlefield events, in an effort to stop the fighting through negotiation.

Dr. Fridtjof Nansen (Norway):

As I understand it, the problem can be divided into two parts. One is purely humanitarian: to save the Armenian people from annihilation. Before we can address the question of borders, we must first save the population—so that there will be people left to inhabit the country whose borders are to be defined.

The second issue is to find a mandatory Power to protect the territory of this country. Today, we must focus on the first issue. This is a purely humanitarian task of the highest importance: to rescue an entire people from destruction. Every day counts. It may well happen that while we are here discussing the Armenian question, the Armenian people will be entirely massacred.

This task, as I see it, resembles the work of repatriating prisoners, though it is likely far more critical for the League. Its significance lies in reducing human suffering and saving a nation from extinction.

In my view, this is essentially a technical matter—a question of dispatching an expedition to rescue the Armenian people from the imminent danger threatening them.

Mr. Ionnesco (Romania):

Gentlemen, Armenia’s plea for assistance imposes an imperative and urgent duty upon all free nations of the world—to save our Armenian brothers.

These massacres are not events of yesterday or today. They have been occurring for a long time. We are all well acquainted with these atrocities, and there is no need for further investigation. If any Armenians are still alive, it is solely due to their resilience and the resistance they have mounted against their oppressors.

The question before us is this: What can the League of Nations do in response to the appeal from our Armenian brothers? Can it offer only moral support, or must it provide material, physical, and effective aid?

Mr. Viviani has just told you that we lack effective force. That is true. The League of Nations, which appears so strong in moral authority, is devoid of material power—and this is its greatest weakness.

Therefore, I can only echo Mr. Viviani’s words: in our desire to help an entire people, we can do nothing but hope.

Nevertheless, we can support Armenia with our moral strength. The fact that forty-one nations stand united here can offer powerful encouragement to Armenia in its daily struggle.

First and foremost, we must act without delay and prove to the Armenians that all the nations of the world are on their side.

Then we must determine whether we can provide them with effective assistance. In my view, Mr. Viviani’s proposal is best suited to this purpose. Requests should be sent to the governments of all countries to ascertain whether any government is willing to practically and effectively protect the Armenians from the Kemalist bands.

It is true, of course, that our moral strength means nothing to the Kemalists—but it means everything to the Armenians. For them, it will be a vital source of support in their struggle.

Mr. Doherty (Canada):

I will not take much of the Assembly’s time. It hardly needs saying that I rise not merely to express Canada’s heartfelt sympathy for all that has been said on behalf of Armenia—though our sympathy is indeed sincere and profound.

I wish to speak briefly about the difficulties so eloquently described to us, and the objections raised with such rhetorical force against Lord Robert Cecil’s proposal, amended by Mr. Lafontaine.

Let me point out that administering mandates is not the only method available to the League of Nations for addressing matters within its competence. It seems perfectly clear to me that the Armenian question is one the League is fully entitled to address.

Resolving the Armenian question, in my view, is a duty of the League of Nations under the explicit provisions of Article 11 of its Covenant. We are undoubtedly dealing with a war—if, indeed, this savage massacre of a defenseless people can be called a war. If it cannot rightly be called war, it certainly carries the threat of war. Therefore, under the direct mandate of Article 11, the League of Nations—and I would say especially its Council—is obligated to address this situation and consider what most effective measures can be taken to secure peace throughout the world.

Thus, this is not merely an appeal to you and to humanity to save an oppressed people facing extermination. It is a specific situation that affects and threatens global peace, and it compels the League of Nations to use every available means to identify and propose an effective form of protection.

In any case, returning to what has been said, I simply wish to emphasize that our duty is undoubtedly to find an exceptional means of protection for this exceptional case. After all, in this world, only one thing is more precious than peace—and that is justice. Justice is the sole foundation upon which peace can securely rest.

This crime, like others of its kind, calls upon humanity to restore violated rights. When such rights are not restored, the situation harbors a constant threat of war. Violated justice always cries out for retribution and keeps alive in the heart of the oppressed a yearning to see justice done against the guilty.

In such a situation, we are confronted with a reality that touches every human sentiment—and if the crime is not prevented or at least remedied, it will continue to pose a permanent threat to peace.

Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa):

A great event is unfolding—one that threatens peace with war, and has already unleashed a conflict of the most destructive kind. The League of Nations, created to preserve peace, cannot and must not remain indifferent to the emergence of a new and terrible war.

We are obliged—whether we like it or not—to take every possible step to determine what can be done to end this crisis. I am very pleased that we are attempting negotiations, or considering appeals to the Powers, or exploring other means—be it a mandate, direct assistance, or direct intervention.

However, I must say that I would be appalled by any resolution of the Assembly that does not provide for action in this critical situation, and that declares the organization created to preserve peace powerless in the face of such a grave emergency.

This morning, Mr. Balfour concluded his remarks with a comparison of our position to that of people standing on the shore, watching a shipwreck unfold before their eyes. Yes, gentlemen, that is our position. A shipwreck is occurring. Indeed, an entire nation is being exterminated.

Will we attempt to send a lifeboat to rescue those in mortal danger—or will we simply stand aside and say: “There is nothing we can do. You must perish, for we are unable to intervene”?

Mr. René Viviani (France): We are all in agreement on the principle. Surely, we cannot stand here, at a distance, watching the terrible drama unfold in Armenia without taking action. The real question is: what action shall we take?

Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Lafontaine have proposed that a Committee be formed to examine what measures should or could be taken to halt the hostilities. I have already emphasized that the vagueness of the resolution’s wording led me to believe that no real measures would be taken.

I do not intend to criticize the Covenant here to demonstrate how difficult it is to activate our machinery. I appeal to Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Lafontaine to help us reach consensus. We are told that Armenia is suffering, that it is in agony and pleading for help. We hear this cry from afar. And what solution is offered? A Committee. When someone in a household lies dying, do we not send for a doctor? Yet we, gentlemen, pause at the threshold and say: “A Committee.”

Mr. Balfour (British Empire): Mr. Chairman, I wish to clarify for myself and perhaps for other members of the Assembly. I believe I am correct in understanding that Mr. Viviani and the French delegation wish the Assembly to take immediate steps, and for some Power to begin negotiations with Mustafa Kemal to preserve the existence of the Armenians.

Before we adopt this proposal, we must be clear: is this truly its essence? How can one negotiate—or ask someone to negotiate—with Mustafa Kemal if the negotiator has nothing to offer him? How can negotiations proceed before the necessary consultations with the Powers involved in the Treaty with Turkey and the settlement of Asia Minor?

What are the chances that Mustafa Kemal, who is essentially the leader of an irregular band of insurgents, will accept anything we might offer? There are only two things we could offer him: money or territory. Are we prepared to offer either? If not, what persuasive tools do we believe we possess?

These are the questions that must be considered. Perhaps there are answers—I do not deny that. I would welcome immediate action. I agree with Mr. Viviani that the idea of sending an expeditionary force of sixty or eighty thousand men to Armenia is so difficult that we may have to abandon it. Therefore, if negotiations can help us overcome this obstacle, let us pursue that path as soon as possible.

I fully support such an approach, but before endorsing the principle, I would like to understand the French position and clarify what we mean by “negotiations.” Negotiations are discussions between two civilized states, where one offers something to the other with mutual consideration of interests. But what can we do in the current situation in Asia Minor? Can we treat Kemal as a civilized state? Can we offer him anything he would accept?

Mr. René Viviani (France): It is claimed that we are dealing with a savage who has no concept of humanitarian norms. But is it the first time in the history of civilization that a civilized nation has defended the elementary interests of humanity—even against a savage?

It is objected that Mustafa Kemal will not listen to us. Let us at least try. This is the first time we have gathered here. For the first time, the League of Nations has brought together representatives of the entire world under one roof. Shall we begin by declaring our impotence?

Who can say that this savage, who knows Europe and the world, will not be struck when he learns that the government appointed to mediate has the backing of the entire world? Who can say that a man who violates all laws of humanity and exterminates an entire people will not be affected by the knowledge that behind this one Power—despite any hidden motives—stands the whole world and all of humanity?

However savage he may be, he may yet recoil in horror at the suffering concentrated on Armenian soil.

Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa): I believe that, one way or another, other means will be found by the world—or at least by the majority represented here—to enforce its will by strength, if negotiations fail. I hope the Committee to be appointed will not be discouraged in its efforts to find a way forward, even if Mr. Viviani’s plan does not succeed.

Negotiate by all available means—but do not give the impression that the Powers of the world are powerless if negotiations with a man like Kemal fail. (Loud applause)

Chairman: It seems to me that the debate is nearly exhausted and that the time has come to put the matter to a vote. I must first remind you of Article 5 of the Covenant, which states:

“Except where otherwise expressly provided in this Covenant or by the terms of the present [Versailles] Treaty, decisions of the Assembly or of the Council shall be made unanimously by the Members of the League represented at the meeting.”

Thus, only procedural matters and those concerning individuals may be decided by majority vote. Therefore, to adopt a resolution in this case, unanimity among all states represented in the Assembly is required.

I remind you that Lord Robert Cecil has now accepted Mr. Lafontaine’s amendment, and we therefore have a joint proposal, which may be referred to as the Cecil-Lafontaine proposal. Its content is as follows:

“To appoint a Committee of six members to examine and report to the Assembly during the present session on what measures can—and can possibly—be taken to end hostilities between Armenia and the Kemalists.”

On the other hand, Mr. Viviani proposes:

“That the Assembly, seeking cooperation with the Council to bring an end as soon as possible to the horrors of the Armenian tragedy, requests the Council to reach agreement with the Governments to entrust a Power with the responsibility of taking necessary measures to halt hostilities between Armenia and the Kemalists.”

After the exchange of views here, it seems to me that Mr. Viviani’s proposal is broader in scope and does not exclude the Cecil-Lafontaine proposal. Therefore, to allow everyone to express their views, we shall vote first on Mr. Viviani’s proposal.

Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa): May I respectfully ask, Sir, that both proposals be voted on together? I would be in great difficulty if they were voted on separately. If the Assembly is asked to adopt only Mr. Viviani’s proposal, I would be forced to vote against it; and if only mine is put to a vote, he would undoubtedly vote against mine. That is why I ask that they be combined into a single proposal.

Mr. Gabriel Hanotaux (France): Should Mr. Viviani’s proposal be voted on first, for logical reasons?

Chairman: Yes. It will be voted on first because it is broader in scope and does not exclude the other proposal. There is an understanding that the two proposals complement each other.

From the explanations given by Lord Robert Cecil and, as I understand it, accepted by Mr. Viviani, it follows that the two proposals are closely linked and form a unified whole. I will not read the entire text again, but I note that at the end of Mr. Viviani’s proposal, we add a second paragraph, which reads:

“And appoints a Committee of six members to examine and report to the Assembly during the present session on what measures can—and can possibly—be taken to end hostilities between Armenia and the Kemalists.”

Mr. Motta (Switzerland): I propose that, in the event the vote is not unanimous, this should not be considered a final rejection of the matter, and that we should revisit our decision at tomorrow’s session.

Chairman: We shall now proceed to vote on the joint proposal of Mr. Viviani, Lord Robert Cecil, and Mr. Lafontaine.

(The proposal was adopted with applause.)

Chairman: I propose that the officers of the Assembly, after consultation with the various interested groups and individuals, appoint the six members of the Committee whose creation has just been approved.

(This proposal was also adopted.)

League of Nations. The Records of the First Assembly Plenary meetings, held from
15 of November to 18 of December, 1920. Geneva. P. 184-202 621

Sources: United Nations Archives Geneva; Riverside Daily Press 22 November 1920 — California Digital Newspaper Collection

Yuri Barsegov “Nagorno-Karabakh in International Law and Global Politics”

Artatsolum

Read Also:

• Ancient and Medieval Sources on Artsakh (Karabakh) as Part of Armenia’s State Territory
• Message from Gandzasar Catholicos Esayi to Peter I August 10, 1716
• Memorandum Issued to Ivan Karapet Along with the Imperial Letter to the Armenian People Regarding Russia’s Readiness to Take the Armenians of Karabakh Under Its Protection June 3, 1723
• Decree of Peter I to the Armenian People Regarding Russia’s Willingness to Offer Protection to the Armenians of Karabakh
• On Armenian Hopes for Russian Assistance
• Report of Minas Vardapet to Peter I
• Contents of the Secret Letters from the Armenian Assembly and the Armenian Army of Karabakh to the Russian Emperor and Chancellor August 1724
• Contents of the Secret Letters from the Armenian Assembly and the Armenian Army of Karabakh to the Russian Emperor and Chancellor August 1724
• State Charter of Peter I On the Acceptance of the Armenian People Under the Protection of the Russian State and Their Resettlement from Karabakh to Newly Acquired Persian Provinces November 10, 1724
• Letters from the Catholicos and the Meliks of Karabakh
• Charter of Catherine I Addressed to the Armenian Assembly
• Message General Mkhitar—to the Russian Government
• The Armenian Assembly’s Request for Military Assistance June 19, 1727
• Result from Russia’s failure to fulfill its promises of assistance to the Armenians March 1736
• On the Issuance of the Decree Appointing Panah Khan
• Letter from General Potemkin to Prince Argutinsky with questions about the liberation of Armenia
• Appeal of Gandzasar Catholicos Hovhannes to Catherine II
• Letter from Melik Apov Iosifov to Provide Assistance to Russian Military Forces for the Liberation of Enslaved Karabakh
• Report of Prince G. Potemkin to Catherine II
• Request of General P. Potemkin to Prince G. Potemkin
• Letter from Archbishop Joseph Argutinsky to General P. Potemkin
• Memorandum to Catherine II on the Project for the Restoration of the Armenian Kingdom
• Decree of Paul I to General Count I. Gudovich
• Letter from Archbishop Joseph Argutinsky
• Report by State Councillor P. Kovalesky
• The Khan’s Vizier, Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabakhsky
• From the Report of General Marquis Palluci to Alexander I
• The Gulistan Treaty – An Interstate Act of Iran’s Cession of the Karabakh Territory to Russia
• Report of General A. Yermolov to Alexander I Requesting the Waiver of Tax Arrears for the Karabakh Khanate
• LETTER FROM GENERAL A. YERMOLOV TO MEHTI-KULI KHAN
• Directive from General A. Yermolov to General I. Velyaminov
• Letter of Metropolitan Sarkis Hasan-Jalalyan To General A. Yermolov
• Letter from General I. Paskevich
• TREATY CONCLUDED BETWEEN RUSSIA AND PERSIA AT TURKMENCHAY
• Russian Military Historian V. Potto on the Essence of the Treaty of Turkmenchay
• Order of General I. Paskevich to Colonel L. Lazarev
• STATEMENT ON THE DIFFERING ATTITUDES OF ARMENIANS AND TATARS TOWARD THE ANNEXATION OF KARABAKH TO RUSSIA
• REPORT By the Acting Uezd Chief of the Dzhevanshir Uezd, D. Baranovsky
• From the Memoirs of a Member of the Russian National Council in Baku (1918–1919)
• “TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP” Between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Armenia
• Letter from A. Mikaelyan, Representative of the Karabakh and Zangezur Fellowship
• Note of Protest from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
• Appeal of the Karabakh Armenian National Council To the Commander of Allied Forces in Baku
• LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE KARABAKH ARMENIAN NATIONAL COUNCIL
• Turks in Shushi
• Letter of Welcome from the Karabakh Armenian
• LETTER FROM GENERAL BAGRATUNI
• FROM THE MESSAGE OF THE ARMENIAN TELEGRAPH AGENCY
• REPORT FROM THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE OF ARMENIA IN GEORGIA
• Resolution of the Fifth Congress of Armenians of Karabakh
• Report by Prime Minister Hatisov to the Council of Ministers of Armenia
• FROM THE MEMORANDUM OF THE KARABAKH ARMENIAN NATIONAL COUNCIL
• 🇬🇧 ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BRITISH MILITARY MISSION IN SHUSHA
• From the Memorandum of the Armenian Representative to the British Military Mission in Shusha
• Report from the Office of the Governor-General of Karabakh
• NOTICE FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BRITISH MILITARY MISSION IN SHUSHI
• 🇬🇧 Doubts Expressed by British Delegate Eric Forbes Adam
• LETTER FROM THE ARMENIAN DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE
• Assessment by the Karabakh Armenian National Council
• “The Caucasian Word” on the Confirmation by a British Command Representative
• Letter from the Acting Governor-General of Karabakh
• OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION IN THE CAUCASUS
• Proclamation of the Zangezur Armenian National Council
• Telegram from the Prime Minister of Armenia to the British High Commissioner
• MESSAGE TO THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE
• Photographic Evidence of the Annihilation of Shushi’s Thirty-Thousand Strong Armenian Population
• Appeal of the Karabakh Soldiers and Officers of the Armenian Army
• Territorial Dispute Between the Azerbaijan SSR (as part of the RSFSR) and the Republic of Armenia
• Telegram from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia
• Telegram from G. Ordzhonikidze to V. Lenin, I. Stalin, and G. Chicherin
• LETTER FROM MEMBERS OF THE CAUCASIAN BUREAU OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B): A. AVANESOV, R. KATANYAN, AND AYKUNI
• Report of the Karabakh Community Delegation of Tiflis
• From the Report of People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR
• Letter from the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR, G. Chicherin, to V. Lenin
• EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE POLITBURO
• LETTER FROM MEMBERS OF THE CAUCASUS BUREAU OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B)
• LETTER FROM MEMBERS OF THE CAUCASUS BUREAU OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B) 11TH RED ARMY
• Telegram from the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR, G. Chicherin
• Appeal from the Commander of the Armenian Expeditionary Detachment
• TELEGRAM OF THE PLENIPOTENTIARY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RSFSRIN ARMENIA B. LEGRAND
• Letter from Armenian Foreign Minister A. Ohandjanian to the Head of the French Military Mission
• Telegram from Member of the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee
• Telegram from Member of the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP(b)
• First Addendum to the Draft Peace Treaty between the RSFSR and the Republic of Armenia
• Telegram via Direct Line from RVS Member of the Caucasian Front V. Trifonov
• THE ATTITUDE OF THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSIONER IN ARMENIA, COLONEL GASKELL, TOWARDS THE ARBITRARILY ESTABLISHED BORDERS OF THE TRANSCAUCASIAN STATES
• The Question of Armenia’s Borders at the First (Preliminary) Conference of the Allied Powers in London
• 🇺🇸 U.S. SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 359
• LETTER FROM THE HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA REGARDING THE AGGRESSION OF BOLSHEVIK RUSSIA, SOVIET AZERBAIJAN, AND KEMALIST TURKEY