|
|
|
Armeno-Georgian
War of 1918 and Armeno-Georgian Territorial
Issue in the 20th Century By Andrew Andersen and Georg Egge
|
|
|
|
Results and Consequences of Armeno-Georgian War of 1918 The four-week military conflict, cost
Armenia and Georgia thousands of human lives, caused severe material damage
and added serious complication to the bilateral relations between the two
nations born out of the Great War and the Russian turmoil, whose
international status had been questionable even before the beginning of the
hostilities. None of the parties of the conflict that signed the provisional
peace agreement on January 17, 1919, was satisfied with its terms. Georgia
not only failed to establish the border line, which they considered fare and
indisputable, but even lost a small section of prewar-controlled land that
was reorganized into the Neutral Zone. The territorial gains of Armenia (a tiny
strip of land in the county of Borchalo) were
negligible, compared with what Armenian leaders expected to achieve as a
result of the war. In addition, having concentrated almost all their forces
against Georgia, the Armenians lost their opportunity to gain a stable
control over much larger and strategically important territory in the south
of Erivan Province (Nakhichevan and Sharur)[1]. The military leadership of both Armenia and
Georgia – strongly believed that the war was actually won by them and blamed
the Entente Powers for their interference and "snatching victory from
the winners’ hands". In the societies of both countries emerged
alienation, bitterness, and some old prejudices against the neighbour nations
revived. One of the clear results of the war was the destabilization of the
transport connection between Georgia and Armenia, which added further
complication to the already miserable economic situation in Armenia, putting the
republic in almost complete isolation from the outside world[2]. In addition to the above mentioned
consequences of the war on the regional level, the Armenian-Georgian conflict
also had a negative impact for both countries on international level. As of
today, the vast majority of historians who have seriously studied the
described conflict agree on the fact that the December 1918 war caused severe
damage to the reputation of the two newly independent countries and
substantially reduced their chances for success at the Paris Peace
Conference, including the recognition of their independence[3]. Here we would like to take a liberty of
expressing an alternative opinion. Not in any way questioning the axiom that
piece is better than war, it should be noted that the politics of Georgia and
Armenia during their first years after regaining independence did not differ
much from the politics of both new and old nations of Europe of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Here it
would suffice to recall the bloody conflicts between the Balkan states during
the two Balkan Wars of 1912-13 and later - the territorial conflicts between
the countries that emerged from the wreckage of the collapsed
Austro-Hungarian Empire (conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia, Poland
and western Ukraine, or the conflicts of Hungary with all her neighbours,
etc.). And would it be easy to figure out the major differences between Armeno-Georgian strife over Borchalo-Akhalkalaki
and much older conflict between France and Germany over Alsace-Lorraine? We
find it difficult to explain why the territorial claims of Armenia and
Georgia in 1918-20 could be considered more immoral than “land-collecting
projects” of other countries that took place during the same historical
period. Therefore, reading the harsh criticism of the South Caucasian states
on behalf of the European politicians of the early 20s as well as a number of
historians, who accuse the entire population of the region of "inability
to live in peace" and "the struggle for a few dozens of square
miles of territory with a few villages", inevitably brings to mind such
terms as "double standards". Summing up the events of Armenian-Georgian
war of 1918, it is also important to note that, despite the number of
incidents that are inevitable in any military conflict, that military
conflict was not accompanied by mass killings and ethnic cleansing, which
distinguishes it from other wars that took place in the South Caucasus in
1918-1920.
|
|
|
