The Mudros Armistice. The Armenian Question and British Diplomacy

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 N/A HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Quaestio Rossica Pub Date : 2024-03-29 DOI:10.15826/qr.2024.1.876
S. Poghosyan, V. Virabyan, Armine Yeprikyan
{"title":"The Mudros Armistice. The Armenian Question and British Diplomacy","authors":"S. Poghosyan, V. Virabyan, Armine Yeprikyan","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Ottoman Empire came out of World War I defeated. The representative of Great Britain signed the armistice agreement with the Turks in the port of Mudros on the Greek island of Lemnos. With that, the Turks were subject to capitulation. The terms of the Mudros armistice also had an impact on the Armenian Question. During the war, the Turks organized the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian territories under Ottoman rule (Cilicia and 7 provinces of Western Armenia) were completely ethnically cleansed. Out of 2.5 million Ottoman Armenians, 1.5 million were killed and 1 million became refugees. The task of this study is to demonstrate how Cilicia was immediately liberated from the Turks by the agreement of Mudros and the Armenians were able to return to their homeland, but Western Armenia was not liberated, which led to the emergence of the Kemalist nationalist movement and the failure of the Armenian Question. The article covers the negative consequences of the conditions of the Mudros armistice in the failure of the Armenian Question. The problem has never been considered from this point of view by historiography. Analyzing facts, the article shows that it was due to the intrigues of British imperialist diplomacy, which was directed primarily against France. However, it also aimed to block Russia’s way from the Caucasus to the south. The British tried to achieve their far-reaching goals through another power – the United States. The work mostly refers to archival materials and documents, also drawing on some studies related to the topic. The article is built on comparative and critical analysis, observing the principles of objectivity and historicity. Many representatives of Western and Russian historiography have addressed the Franco-British contradictions over the Ottoman heritage. Armenian historians have also referred to some aspects of the issue in question. In the study, facts previously published for different purposes are presented in a new way. The problem was set to show the influence of the British far-reaching aims on the Armenian Question.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestio Rossica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.876","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Ottoman Empire came out of World War I defeated. The representative of Great Britain signed the armistice agreement with the Turks in the port of Mudros on the Greek island of Lemnos. With that, the Turks were subject to capitulation. The terms of the Mudros armistice also had an impact on the Armenian Question. During the war, the Turks organized the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian territories under Ottoman rule (Cilicia and 7 provinces of Western Armenia) were completely ethnically cleansed. Out of 2.5 million Ottoman Armenians, 1.5 million were killed and 1 million became refugees. The task of this study is to demonstrate how Cilicia was immediately liberated from the Turks by the agreement of Mudros and the Armenians were able to return to their homeland, but Western Armenia was not liberated, which led to the emergence of the Kemalist nationalist movement and the failure of the Armenian Question. The article covers the negative consequences of the conditions of the Mudros armistice in the failure of the Armenian Question. The problem has never been considered from this point of view by historiography. Analyzing facts, the article shows that it was due to the intrigues of British imperialist diplomacy, which was directed primarily against France. However, it also aimed to block Russia’s way from the Caucasus to the south. The British tried to achieve their far-reaching goals through another power – the United States. The work mostly refers to archival materials and documents, also drawing on some studies related to the topic. The article is built on comparative and critical analysis, observing the principles of objectivity and historicity. Many representatives of Western and Russian historiography have addressed the Franco-British contradictions over the Ottoman heritage. Armenian historians have also referred to some aspects of the issue in question. In the study, facts previously published for different purposes are presented in a new way. The problem was set to show the influence of the British far-reaching aims on the Armenian Question.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
穆德罗斯停战协定亚美尼亚问题与英国外交
奥斯曼帝国在第一次世界大战中战败。英国代表在希腊莱姆诺斯岛的穆德罗斯港与土耳其人签署了停战协定。土耳其人就此投降。穆德罗斯停战协定的条款也对亚美尼亚问题产生了影响。战争期间,土耳其人组织了亚美尼亚种族灭绝,奥斯曼帝国统治下的亚美尼亚领土(西里西亚和西亚美尼亚的 7 个省)遭到了彻底的种族清洗。在 250 万奥斯曼亚美尼亚人中,150 万人被杀害,100 万人沦为难民。本研究的任务是说明西里西亚是如何通过穆德罗斯协议立即从土耳其人手中获得解放,亚美尼亚人得以返回家园,但西亚美尼亚却没有获得解放,这导致了凯末尔民族主义运动的兴起和亚美尼亚问题的失败。文章介绍了穆德罗斯停战条件对亚美尼亚问题失败造成的负面影响。史学界从未从这一角度考虑过这一问题。通过对事实的分析,文章指出,这是由于英帝国主义外交的阴谋所致,其主要目标是针对法国。然而,其目的还在于阻断俄国从高加索通往南方的道路。英国人试图通过另一个势力--美国--来实现其意义深远的目标。作品主要参考了档案材料和文件,也借鉴了与该主题相关的一些研究。文章以比较和批判性分析为基础,遵循客观性和历史性原则。西方和俄罗斯史学界的许多代表都谈到了英法在奥斯曼帝国遗产问题上的矛盾。亚美尼亚历史学家也提到了这一问题的某些方面。在这项研究中,以前出于不同目的发表的事实以一种新的方式呈现出来。问题的设置是为了显示英国的深远目标对亚美尼亚问题的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quaestio Rossica
Quaestio Rossica HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Quaestio Rossica is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on the study of Russia’s history, philology, and culture. The Journal aims to introduce new research approaches in the sphere of the Humanities and previously unknown sources, actualising traditional methods and creating new research concepts in the sphere of Russian studies. Except for academic articles, the Journal publishes reviews, historical surveys, discussions, and accounts of the past of the Humanities as a field.
期刊最新文献
The Union of Russian Emigrants in Paris: Adaptation and Pro-Russian Activities (with Reference to the Sûreté Générale) “We are the Turkestan Rothschilds”: Jewish Firms and Trading Houses in the Turkestan General-Government The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union: The Dialectics of Rupture and Continuity “Duty, Love, and Hate…”: Russian-Polish Relations in the First Third of the 19th Century Empires’ Keif, or Opium Trade on the Tea Route in the Era of Late Empires
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1