Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can anyone please explain, why is it so important to include into this article the opinion of a Russian chauvinist Denikin about the Republic of Azerbaijan? Obviously, he was bitter that he failed to eliminate the independent Azerbaijan and Georgian Republics and bring them back under the control of Russian empire. I think that such articles should include opinions of neutral people, which Denikin never was. Grandmaster 11:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not see a point of indicating that ADR allowed woman to vote. Indeed, no elections took place in Azerbajan between 1918-20 as the parlament was assembled - not elected. Elections were planned, I believe, but did not take place. Please provide reference for the indication that women should vote was supported by ADR government, or if there was a legislation of any sort, with regards to this. Reference to Russian Uchreditelnoe sobranie probably is not applicable to Azerbaijan. Abdulnr 21:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Also - we can eliminate a long quote from Denikin i think it is irrelevant.

The fact that also women could vote ( even if, as you rightly say, no election took place in ADR ) was decided on July 21, 1919, as you can read for example in this site [1] (July 21. Men and women both guaranteed the right to vote) and in this other one [2](For the first time, women had right to vote too.) About Denikin quote, I think it can be useful because in this way the reader can hear also "another bell", but anyway if you both think it is irrelevant, feel free to eliminate it, I won't oppose. Wish you all a happy new year dear friends. Best regards ;) (Virgilio 01:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC))
In my opinion we should keep in the article the indication that women had a right to vote in Azerbaijan, while in many western countries they were not allowed to do so. As for Denikin quote, I don’t mind “another bell”, but it should come from someone unbiased, unlike Denikin, who tried to eliminate independent Azerbaijan, but failed. I wish you too happy and successful New Year. Sincere regards, Grandmaster 09:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Map

Where is the map of ADR? That map was presented at the Paris Peace Conference, it was recognized de facto by the League of Nations and de jure by a number of states, put out by a legitimate and democratic government. And it is reprinted in various publications [3] And why is the infobox about some dispute there? --AdilBaguirov 06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, if we put this "contradicts" box, we should place the same on the Armenia page too, for consistency and even-approach. --AdilBaguirov 22:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I wonder what the source of their map is and why they consider it to be accurate. Grandmaster 09:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Adil if the contradict box is added here then it should also be added to the Armenian article. Baku87 18:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87
The ADR's map also contradicts the one of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. A coincidence? -- Clevelander 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I added the text to say that this is the map of the Republic of Azerbaijan as presented to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. I think this should end the dispute, no one can say that ADR did not present this map to Paris Peace Conference. Grandmaster 05:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Both Georgia and ADR had a military and partnership agreement signed in 1919, which shows that their relations were very friendly and constructive. Indeed, both had to work out differences on their claims to certain territories. But those differences are normal -- to this day all countries have to clearly demarkate their borders and have special commissions working for many years and trading parcels of territories (e.g., Georgia-Russia, Azerbaijan-Russia). Also, the overlapping territories were not as extensive and large as in case with Armenia's claims on both republics (Armenia waged war on both republics, ADR and Georgia). Also, all territories in ADR map had predominant or substantial Azerbaijani population. At that time ethno-national composition of territories was more important, especially since all those countries were self-determining for the first time. And once more, the ADR map is the offical map - it is from archives, it is published, and was accepted on ADR's application, and recognized as ADR's de facto borders. There is also an important fact - the Georgia map says that Zakatala and some other lands was in "stable Georgian control by Oct 1920". Well, by April 1920, Azerbaijan was invaded by Bolsheviks, and ADR officially ceased to exist on April 27-28, 1920. Thus, it's possible that in the ensuing chaos Georgia had control of those territories -- indeed, many Azerbaijanis, who were either majority or substantial in those territories, preferred capitalist and Europe-oriented Georgia, than bolshevik Russia. --AdilBaguirov 08:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AdilBaguirov well said! Baku87 13:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Great, but there's still no explanation as to why your map neglects to show Zaqatala as a disputed territory with Georgia and why Lori is shown shown as disputed between Georgia and Azerbaijan and not between Georgia and Armenia. I think that all maps (like Grandmaster said) represent wishful thinking. Someday, we'll iron all this out, but for now, all three maps clearly contradict one another and it should be left like this. -- Clevelander 20:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Map issue solved

Okay, our Georgian counterparts on Wikipedia have turned me on to a website called Atlas of Conflicts (the source for the map as seen on the DRG article). The page presents a fairly accurate history of the territorial disputes in the Caucasus during World War I. I replaced the Armenian map I made (based on Hewsen's work) with the one used on their website. Alas, they did not have one for Azerbaijan, though. So for now, we have to continue using the Paris Peace Conference map. Although I am not opposed to displaying the map (as it is a historical document), I noted when captioning it that it does not accurately depict its territorial disputes or areas of administration with other countries in the region. In other words, the map the ADR presented at the Paris Peace Conference was, as Grandmaster said, "wishful thinking" showing most of their territorial disputes unanimously solved even though this was not the case. -- Clevelander 19:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

March Events.

Grandmaster, could you please provide an internet link to Tadeusz Swietochowski's and Firuz Kazemzadeh's relevant texts?

If there is no such internet page, can you provide the relevant paragraphs here for both authors? Smith's "12,000 people" was misquoted here as "12,000 men," so I would like to see the paragraphs from these sources. Especially when the Azeri source provided by Plato states that the source is ADR's official Azeri newspaper:

Once the dust from the March 18th massacre cleared, an estimated 12,000 civilians had been murdered in their homes and in the streets of Baku. [Source: "Azerbaijan" newspaper - the official organ of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic government].

http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai102_folder/102_articles/102_overview_alakbarov.html

And if these authors cite sources for the facts included in the article, could you mention them too. Thanks in advance.--TigranTheGreat 20:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why u continue to "share" the responsability of March genocide in equal way, the massacre was done by the Dashnaks; Bolsheviks as well as other pro-Russia parties were of course in the middle of the fights but 90% of the killings were done by the Armenian militiamen. Every source can confirm you this thing. You use the tactic of putting the Bolsheviks before so it seems that the Bols. did most of the crime and the Dashnaks played a minor part, while it was exatly the contrary. The reason of this "tactic" is clearly to defend the Dashnaks, I don't know for what reason. I know it's difficult to follow the Dashnaks, let me think.. first they were with the Czar and white armies, then stabbed Whites in the back and switched side to the Reds, then they stabbed Reds in the back and switched side for Brits and then .. and then.. and then..very coherent persons. (Plato77 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

I put Bolsheviks before Dashnaks only in the list of the political parties, and only because Bolsheviks were the rulers of Baku. I am not defending Dashnaks, but clearly if we have 6-7 political parties fighting the Muslims, clearly it wasn't *just* the Dashnaks, while your edits tend to state that. Yes, it was shared. You are trying to blame everything on Armenians. The sources (the verifiable ones--Smith, HRW, Walker), all say that all the groups engaged in "confrontation," not just one sided massacre. Yes, civilians were killed, but we are mentioning that anyway.--TigranTheGreat 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, u wrote "All the non-Azeri political groups of the city joined the Bolsheviks against the Muslims: Bolsheviks, Dashnaks .." Don't u see how absurd is this sentence? Bolsehviks joined the Bolsheviks? And why not to say Bolsheviks joined the Dashnak as actually was? And for your information Bosheviks weren't the "rulers" of Baku, despite the Soviet head was Shaumyan ( an armenian! How strange..) they were in minority in the Baku Soviet government, their intent was to exlude violently the azeri parties like Musavat and Ittihad and in this they have a common goal with the Dashnaks. And indeed when these two parties were out, majority was held by Dashnaks and SRs and right for this reason when Dashnaks asked for british intervation the Bolsheviks were in minority and left Baku. If they were the "rulers" how could they be in minority and to be kicked off by the Dashnkas then? If you continue to change the text I'll put the POV tag in the section.(Plato77 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

No, Plato, read carefully. I wrote (actually I modified, the two sentences were written by you) "All joined Bolsheviks against Muslims: Bolshevics etc etc for the first time joined together." So, the second part states all the groups that joined together. Dashnaks joined bolsheviks since bolsheviks were the rulers of the city. Majority doesn't matter--they held the de-facto authority of the city (and yes, Shaumyan, a Bolshevik, was the head of the Soviet). At any rate, Dashnaks themselves weren't a majority, as you admitted yourself, so it can't be that everyone else joined the Dashnaks. It wasn't Dashnaks who kicked Bolsheviks out, it was everyone else together. You are giving too much power to Dashnaks.--TigranTheGreat 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get to the bottom of dispute-

1)Bolshevik allied with Dashnak party to come to powerwas establish power after Muslim league refused to recognize the authorities 2) Bolshevik ships bombarded muslim quarter for several days. Many dead, hospital in Chemberekend bombed Heavy fighting near the Old City - downtown demolished and gutted (Ismailiyya, etc) 3) Some of the worst atrocities in the central Muslim quarter commited by Dashnaks - Russian forces did not commit murder and rape at this scale - they were more organized force rather than militia. So it is not a whitewash. 4) Stepan Shahumyan tried "stop" the massacres - at least this is his reply to pleas of fellow Bolsheviks (Narimanov, et al). Would appreciate if our armenian friends shed more light on this I will try to assemble more sources on this later this month. abdulnr 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


"3) Some of the worst atrocities in the central Muslim quarter commited by Dashnaks - Russian forces did not commit murder and rape at this scale - they were more organized force rather than militia." abdulnr said exatly what I wanted to say, that's why I think this section is "too soft" with the Dashnaks. (Plato77 21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

It is indeed soft - Smith tells that Baku March massacre was most bloody event of the Russian revolution and no whitewashing will help to stop. The following sources I have I need to get translated here - memoirs of N, Narimanov; Shahumyan letters, report on disarming "Wild division" that led to conflict. Truth is that muslims did not have ammunition and supplies to engage in fighting, whereas Dashnaks were all supplied with arms by retreating Russian troops. It is hard for Armenians to accept that for once they were perpetrating massacres. abdulnr 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible for Dashnaks to have had such a role as they didn't have the support or the numbers. Some of them cooperated with other leftists against Islamist militia. That's all. Far more Armenians were massacred than Azeris when the Army of Islam showed up to join their Turanist/Islamist friends.--Eupator 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

False, Dashnaks did most of the atrocities, the brother of my greatgranfather was killed by these armenian militiamen who even stolen his house. And it is not a question of "leftists" and "rightists", it was a question of "non-muslims" against "muslims". In fact azeri leftists were on muslim side and also russian-armenian rightists were on bolshevik side. It has nothing to do with politics, but with ethnic cleansing, non-azeri forces committed a genocide against muslims. Forget the "left" and the "right", it has nothing to do with it. Musavat itself was a progressive party, not conservative. (Plato77 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

Science-fiction has its place, it's not here.--Eupator 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither for your sarcasm, how likeable you are.. (Plato77 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

No it is not impossible.. as you know in 1918 (should look at 1897 census) Azeris were only the largest minority at 30-40% in Baku, with Armenians not far behind. with lesser number of Russians et all. Situation not too dissimilar to Lebanon in 80s. You must have not been to Baku - there was compact area of Armenian-populated district called Armenikend where the raids were orchestrated. This argument does not stand. Also I dislike juggling human figures as if they are nothing - but as I have no objection for you opening the site on Army of Islam massacre in Sept, 18. I can not call science fiction something that people lived through abdulnr 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How I wish it were so, maybe we would have had at least a quarter of our lands today. Sadly if they couldn't get rid of Tatar invaders on their own homeland or in places were they were a majority I find it highly unlikely that they would do so in Baku. Anyway, we're not supposed to be discussing our personal thoughts here.--Eupator 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate your restrait in this matter!! To remind of the issue here - we are disputing role of the Dashnak militial in the events of March 1918. As to your comment, i don't see this as unlikely - The large migration of Armenian population to Baku(mainly from Karabakh) occured since 1860s. Armenians contributed large proportion of population in every large city in the Caucasus. In Tbilisi they were the majority. abdulnr 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some sources on Baku March massacre:
Just as Turkey was poised to become the dominant power in the region, the Baku Dashnakist forces, which included many of the refugees from Anatolia, staged a sudden and unprovoked massacre of the city's Muslims. The debacle lasted from March 31 until April 2 and resulted in at least 3,000 fatalities, many of whom were Iranians.
Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683 Grandmaster 05:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The truth is that the Armenians, under the guise of Bolshevism, rushed on the Muslims and massacred during a few frightful days more than 12,000 people, many of whom were old men, women, and children
Firuz Kazemzadeh. The Struggle for Transcaucasia, 1917-1921 Grandmaster 05:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but what sources do they cite? Particularly Karimzadeh for the 12,000 figure? The Azeri author from Plato's Azeri site, for example, says that the source is the official Azeri paper of the Azeri Republic. What does Karimzadeh say?--TigranTheGreat 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither Smith nor Kazemzadeh cite their sources, but they provide the number of 12,000, which should remain in the article. Btw, Walker also refers to Kazemzadeh to describe March massacre. Swietochowski refers to Shaumian, who was actually responsible for staging the massacre. Not the best source, but since Swietochowski is a reputable source, we include it in the article as well. Grandmaster 09:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The next day, on 19 March/1 April, Bolsheviks decided to use artillery against Azerbaijani residential quarters. Shelling forced immediate capitulation and the acceptance of the soviet’s ultimatum: unconditional recognition of the soviet’s power and withdrawal of “Muslim” forces from the city, in return for which Armenian forces were also to be withdrawn. Armenians expressed dissatisfaction with these “mild terms”.
After the Azerbaijani representatives accepted the terms, the Dashnaks took to “looting, burning and killing in the Muslim sections of the city”. By Shaumian’s estimate, more than 3,000 were killed during two days. The Armenian soldiers became more brutal as resistance subsided, and for a day and a half they looted, burned and killed. Thousands of Azerbaijani Turks fled the city. The British vice consul in the Baku, Major A. E. R. MacDonnell, wrote, “not a single Musulman of any importance remained”.
Audrey L. Altstadt. The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule. ISBN: 0817991816
As you can see, the sources place the blame for the massacre on the Armenian Dashnak forces. Grandmaster 09:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have things to do in the upcomming weeks so I wont waste my time answering what [I qualify] nonesense. Few notes, I have already provided the sources of the 12,000, you know I did it, so I can not assume good faith here. It comes from the Azeris delegation at the Peace conference, published under "Claims of the Delegation of the Republic of Caucasian Azerbaijan Presented to the Peace Conference in Paris" published in Paris in 1919, the figure comes from page 18, the source is known, so it is logical to quote the original source. Second, I also provided the figure from the investigation, also, the minima range is not 3000, but 2000, it is from the only commission, which British Consul Stevens cite, which was 2,000 Azeris. Also, your own source, which is Smith in his Anatomy of a Rumour: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narratives of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-20 (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 211-240 ) place things in context which is quite different than the version you are trying to sell.--Fad (ix) 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, Smith is more credible as a source than Altstadt, while Altstadt hasn't published any paper about this specific event, Smith did.--Fad (ix) 16:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In light of Fadix's response I will agree to include the 12, 000 figure if we mention where it originated from (Azeri delegation at the Paris Peace Conference).--Eupator 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you should also mention the source of 3,500 figure abdulnr 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably modern authors figures.--Fad (ix) 19:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The source of 12,000 are Smith and Kazemzadeh. The article is properly referenced. Grandmaster 18:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Not quite right, what you are proposing is to construct a credibility over something by using secondary sources and supressing its origin. The first time the 12,000 has ever been used was at the peace conference. McCarthy for this time around was honest enought to source that figure. Also, Kazemzadeh while not directly implicit at least leave readers evidence themselves as what the origine of the figures were(again, from the Azeris delegation). This is not about the interpretation of history according to authors, but rather a figure and its origine. This figure is not from Smith neither from Kazemzadeh, the origine should have precedence. I am again amazed once more about your uses of human tragedy to slap Armenians.--Fad (ix) 19:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So the only reference we have is from the above authors on 12,000. In any other circumstance this woild be put in as a source (one of the sources). Read for instance Sabra and Shatila or Karantina massacre... . Lets stop this juggling of human figures. abdulnr 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the figure of 2000 is from a commission and 3000 from that period too. I was refering to the 3500, which is probably derived from the estimates of "more than 3000."--Fad (ix) 03:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Abdul, this is not about juggling human figures, it's about being accurate. We Armenian editors could use elevated figures (such as 2 million, found in some sources) on the Armenian Genocide page, but we didn't do it--we look at various figures, and evaluate sources. Yes, in any other circumstance we would use a figure contained in a source. But in this circumstance, we have wildly differing numbers--HRW says 3 - 3.5 thousand, the Tadeush dude gives the same estimate, Smith never says that the 12,000 were Muslims (perhaps because he knows the figure has Azeri source). Karimzadeh doesn't use a source, while we have evidence (even by Azeri scholars) stating that the sources is the official Azeri claim. Clearly, this is not the usual circumstance, and we can't use 12,000 as a neutral estimate. If we use it, we need state that it comes from the estimate by Azerbaijani government. And if we do that, we also need to provide the Armenian estimate for the Armenian massacre in September, which is 30,000. And none of that "revenge" stuff, which is POV. The September massacre was part of the ongoing Armenian Genocide--Enver was massacring Armenians everywhere on his way to Baku, and Baku wasn't an exception. But, I am willing not to mention the Armenian Genocide, if we exclude the revenge stuff.

And we should neither portray the massacre as one sided nor lay the whole blame on Dashnaks. Smith, Walker, and others make it clear that Muslim militia was armed, barrickaded in the city, and ready to fight. They also confirm that this was a two sided conflict, and all the leftists forces joined the Bolsheviks in the fights. --TigranTheGreat 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The figure of 12,000 comes from Smith and Kazemzadeh. They don’t refer to Azeri sources, therefore we should attribute the figure to them. We cannot include our guesses of what the source for that figure could be, we just refer to those who provide the figures. The figure of 3,000, provided by Altstadt and Swietochowski, comes from Shaumian, a person, who was personally responsible for organizing the massacre and who was not interested in revealing the real scale of the atrocities. As for the role of Dashnaks, the sources make it clear that the massacre of the Muslim population was committed by them. Indeed, Russian soldiers had no interest in intercommunal violence, they were just fighting for power and were trying to keep Baku a part of the Russian empire or the Soviet Russia. Once the Muslim guerilla laid down their arms, Russian soldiers ceased fire, but Dashnaks took advantage of the situation and killed as many Muslims as they could. This had nothing to do with Enver or anyone else, it was a policy of ethnic cleansing, Dashnaks were trying to cleanse the territory of South Caucasus of the Muslims to create their own state. And following massacre of Armenians was a revenge for the March massacre, the sources make that clear too. It is the history of our region, each atrocity led to another one, and both sides were guilty. In this particular case though it was the Armenian side who started this evil circle. Grandmaster 04:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Not accurate, we are here discussing human losses after world war I. I propose you to email the 12,000 figure to any military analyst with a bacground in demography and explain that person that it was done in three days. The discussion does not revolve around if Armenians could have commited murder, I think they're human too, unlike your belief on Azeris being special people. The 3000 does not originate from Shaumian, it has been widely used during that period, while the 12,000 was exclusivally brought by the Azeris delegation. 12,000 in three days for such a city and with the military equipment of that period is simply a statistical impossibility without population evacuation and isolation. For the Ottoman to kill that much Armenians during three days it took methods such as forcing an evacuation in the desert and liberating from central prisons criminals and introducing them in the special organization. The only Commission prepared to investigate reported 2,000 Azeris victims, and Smith your own source in a paper he wrote present an entirly different picture as the one you are trying to sell, like presenting the more like battles conditions and the more minor role played by the Dashnaks during that period. Just a comparaison, in Baku probably about 10,000 Armenians were killed, lower than your figure of 12,000 for the Azeris..., but in Baku it happened when the Ottoman forces crossed the border, and they had among them specifically criminals who personally ordered the entire liquidation of the Armenians in the section they were controling in Eastern Anatolia. In Baku Armenians who were killed faced evacuation brought in the vicinities and killed, as it was the only way to effectivally supress and liquidate a population, even the Germans with their military equipments had to evacuate the targeted population. There are German reports of the slaughter, there are various records of that time on the intensity of the killings, much more than(a lot more) than the reported March massacres, but still knowing the region, demography..., I know that it is an improbably that more than 10,000 Armenians were killed. But one thing is clear though, is that according to the reports the massacres of Armenians was clearly in severity worster, it was prepared for weeks as the German General Paraquin reported to his superiors before it happened. The Commission which was used by the British to minimise the Armenian losses and compare them with the Azeris ones, still reported two times more casulties in the Armenian cases. In short the most notable figure and important of that time, was provided by the only commission to investigate it, the 3000 figure was not an Armenian figure, and the 12000 figure had originated from the Azeris delegation. Smith and others who provide figures are secondary sources, by proposing that they haven't take it from the primary source you are suggesting that they may have just fabricated some figure. Primary figure, the first time that figure was used, is what matters.--Fad (ix) 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the question should not be focoused on the numbers, but on the fact that Dashanks clearly did a massacre taking advantage of the caothic situation. The Muslims just wanted peace and even accepted the Soviet's condition in order to avoid a carnage because the Musavat militiamen couldn't resist too much against well equipped and well trained Bolshevik Red Guards and Menshevik People's Guard who even had artillery. And in fact they decided to give up only when the Russian forces started to bomb the muslim quarters, and they surrended because these bombings could kill civilians. The compromise found was that even Dashanaks had to disarm, Bolsheviks and other parties agreed, Muslims trusted on Shaumyan words and gave their weapons to the Soviet's authorities. At that point the Dashnaks, who didn't accepted these terms, took advantage of these situation and started the massacre with Shaumyan apparently doing nothing to stop them. At the third day of the Dashnak slaughterhouse, the vice-chairmen of the Soviet, a georgian socialist named Dzhaparidze and a commissar, a russian bolshevik named Petrov saw that Dashnaks went too far and threated them saying that if they wouldn't stop the killings, the Red Guards and People Guards would have attacked the armenian quarters. Only then Dashnaks ceased the massacre. Dzhaparidze and Petrov acted probably on their initiative because the unstability could damage russian interests in the aerea and Shaumyan was doin' almost nothing. Lenin himself was angry with Shaumyan for these events, because his task was just to steal oil and send it to Russia and not to create instability on the region.(Plato77 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

It would be interesting if you could source any of the claims you provide here, that is not what Smith write in his paper whch I cited. There were 4000 Armenians serving in Baku by March, under Dashnak leadership, Smith provides the source at page 226. And there were 6000 Bolshevic Russians, the Muslims had according to Bolshevic sources 10,000 among their side. According to Smith, the decision to attack was taken by the Bolshevics under their own claims of Muslim upraising it was for the control of the Streets of Baku (p.226) The Russians seeked vengence on January killing of over a thousand of Russian male who were disarmed by the Azeris which led the commissar Alesha Dzhaparidze to conclude that the Muslims were closing a counterrevolutionary circle around Baku and that soldiers of the Savage Dvision were conspiring to lead a rebellion in Baku. Besides, Smith does not say 12,000, he says up to 12,000. (p. 228) Not to say that this event happened during the establishment of the Bolshevic Commune from March to June, while the later attack against the Armenians was specifically destinated at their total liquidation from Baku, and while the losses of Azeris does not show any demographical anomaly, the one of the Armenians does.--Fad (ix) 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are talking only about the first part of the events who were the fights between pro-Russia Soviet forces vs Muslim militia ignoring what happened later. Let's start again from the beginning. If you read the letter between Narimanov and Shaumyan, you 'll see that the condition for the surrender of the Muslim militiamen to the Soviet forces was that also the Dashnaks has to disarm. And they accepted and went to the Hummet Party ( Muslim marxists close to bolsheviks but pro-Azeri, Narimanov's party ) offices to give disciplinately all the weapons they have. The problem is that after this, when the fights were ended, Dashnak didn't accept the fact they should be disarmed and went on disarmed muslim starting thew massacre. Shaumyan had the task to disarm them but he didn't do and in fact Narimanov was very angry with him because he broke the pact. After a lot of massacres were commited Dzhaparidze and Petrov threated the Dashnaks imposing them to cease the carnage.

Cronology is this one:

1) Bolsheviks, SRs, Mensheviks and so on attack the Muslims.

2) Muslims oppose resestance but they have to give up when Red guards start to bomb the Muslim quarters

3) they found a compromise, Soviet power will be recongized and they'll give all the weapons to it, but at the conditions Dashnaks will be disarmed. This solution was found thanks to Narimanov. Shaumyan ( the head of the Soviet ) agrees.

4) Muslims give all their weapons to Soviet authorities

5) Dashnaks don't disarm and Shaumyan doesn't disarm them.

6) Dashnaks attack the Muslims doing the massacres.

7) Dzhaparidze managed to stop them. (Plato77 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

Sources would help, I request sources, but I recieve none.--Fad (ix) 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a POV recount of the events (i.e. "Muslims were peaceful, Armenians wanted to kill them"), we should be neutral, as both sides incurred losses and used violence against the other. Indeed sources confirm this. This is from Smith:

Мартовские события начались, по версии мусульманской стороны, когда Бакинский Совет без законных к тому оснований разоружил небольшую группу почётного караула молодого Тагиева и запер её на корабле. Мусульманское население Баку восприняло весть об этом как оскорбление убитого горем Тагиева-отца и новую провокацию: это положило начало конфронтации. Вести о том, что большевистские и армянские отряды только что провели ряд жестоких обысков и арестов в Шемахе, еще больше накалили обстановку. 31 марта многотысячная толпа мусульман собралась у входа в штаб-квартиру Мусульманского благотворительного общества в Баку и потребовала, чтобы почётному караулу было возвращено оружие. Советы проявили сдержанность и выразили готовность вступить в переговоры при посредничестве “Гуммета” и “Мусавата”. Но вооружённые мусульманские отряды уже стремились к конфликту. [4]

To paraphrase (and note, this is the *Muslim* version), Bolsheviks disarmed an Azeri guard, Muslims tooks this as an insult, and this started the confrontation. News about brutal searches by Bolsheviks and Armenians in other areas of Azerbaijan further heated up the situation. Many thousands of Muslims went to some headquarters and demanded return of weapons. Soviets were ready to compromise. But Armed Muslims were aiming for a conflict.

Here is more:

Мартовские события для Расулзаде были национальной войной, развязанной российскими большевиками против беззащитного азербайджанского народа. В стычках и погроме погибло не менее 12 000 человек. ... Именно так воспринимает их “Мусават”, обвиняя не только большевиков и дашнаков, но и самих себя, бессильных лидеров разъярённых масс.

I.e. for Rasulzade (the Tatar leader), the March events were a national war, started by Russian bolsheviks against defenseless Azeri people. In confrontations (i.e. fights) and pogroms, no less than 12000 died. Musavat blames this not only on Bolsheviks and Dashnaks, but on itself.

Here is from CJ Walker:

A mass meeting was held in the courtyard of a Baku mosque: return the crew's arms to them.

Then shooting started in the streets; civil war – known as the 'March days' – was soon raging in Baku. Allied with the Bolsheviks were all the other parties – Mensheviks, Dashnaks, Kadets, Social Revolutionaries. The Bolsheviks saw the Musavat defiance as counter-revolution; the Dashnaks in less ideological terms. The shooting intensified in early April, and vast mobs ran riot, killing, burning, pillaging. The two sides that laid into one another with special vigour were the Armenians and the Azerbaijani Tatars, the Armenians having the edge over the Tatars in ferocity.

So, the Muslims started the fights. They were aiming to fight. A bunch of political parties (including Bolsheviks) participated in the civil war. True, Dashnaks were among the, but were not the only ones. And maybe Dashnaks were more ferocious than Muslims, but the violence was mutual. Neither HRW, nor Smith, nor Walker say anything about Dashnaks starting and conducting the whole massacre.--TigranTheGreat 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not like both sides were equally guilty, as Tigran tries to suggest. The sources make it clear that the Armenian militia committed a large scale massacre of the Muslim population. See my sources above, Swietochowski, Altstadt, Kazemzadeh. Even extremely pro-Armenian Walker accepts this, even though he cannot of course do that without slamming Turks: “At the same time the Armenians showed that they were as capable of killing off large numbers of non-Armenians (in this case Azerbaijani Tatars) as the Turks were of killing them”. Russian soldiers fought with Muslim militia, but when the latter put down their arms, they ceased fire. Shaumian even promised that he would withdraw both Muslim and Armenian forces from the city, but when Azerbaijani forced laid down their arms Dashnak forces started killing civilian Muslim population. It is perfectly clear from the sources. And the number of 12,000 as provided by Kazemzadeh and Smith remains in the article, as it comes from reputable sources. Grandmaster 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting those sources both you and Plato are talking about. It is also funny that you call Walker an extremly pro-Armenian when you in the same sentence provide Altstadt and Kazemzadeh names. Also, I have enough of your manipulations of sources, I repeat again, Smith says 'up to 12,000' the term up to is used when there are different estimates and the author says 'the highest of them is'. You are once more attemptong to sanitise sources which yu do not like and supress the primary source and originator of a figure speifically to pump its credibility. Walker is slamming Turks? How is he doing that?--Fad (ix) 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can provide any proof of your claims about sources of Smith and Kazemzadeh, then go ahead and do it. Otherwise it is not worth talking about. Grandmaster 08:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that this is not how it works. You are the one claiming that they have exactly provided independently the figure provided by the Azeris delegation at the peace conference. Smith says up to, which means he does not claim 12,000, but rather that the highest estimate is 12,000. The highest estimate was provided by the Azeris delegation at the peace conference(which is 12,000). You refuse to include the origine of that figure because without it it'll boost the credibility of a figure that including Altstadt doesn't take seriously.--Fad (ix) 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that Smith never says 12,000 were exclusively Muslim--he says 12,000 "people," who died in pogroms and *fights*.--TigranTheGreat 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The origin needs to be proved. We cannot add to the article that Fadix thinks the figure comes from such and such source. Smith says up to, and so does our article. His figure is presented as the highest estimate. Grandmaster 07:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It has, McCarthy personally in his highest range of estimate which is 12,000 provide the origine of the source and the page. Justin McCarthy is highered by Ankara and even him is enough honnest to provide the origine of the figure. Up to, is specifically used when there are different range of figures and that you claim that the highest of them is that figure. The origine also refers to the first time that figure was used, unless there is a table of new estimates a figure could be used independently, if not, its origine should clearly be written, and if you reguse to do that, you are negativally affecting the accuracy of the article.--Fad (ix) 16:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Please find a reference to the source you propose in the article of Smith or the book of Kazemzadeh. If you do, I will include it, otherwise it's not worth talking about, we don't inlcude guesses and other original research in the article. Grandmaster 18:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He already did--it comes from the "Claims of the Delegation of the Republic of Caucasian Azerbaijan Presented to the Peace Conference in Paris," published in Paris in 1919, page 18. Even the Azeri Dr. from the Azeri website states that it comes from ADR's government. Therefore, we will include it in the article (i.e. that 12,000 is Azeri estimate) when it gets unprotected, along with the 30,000 number claimed by Armenian sources for the September massacre.

And by the way, since on the Nakhichevan page you argued that Menteshashvili's numbers shouldn't be included unless verified by primary source data--the same applies to Karimzadeh's figures. Since he is the only one giving the figure, and since its unsourced, and since we have evidence that it came from Azeri sources, it can't be included, unless it's stated as an Azeri claim.--TigranTheGreat 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The source of the figure is Kazemzadeh himself. Meteshashvili refers to the authorities of "NKR". Therefore Kazemzadeh will remain as a source of that info. Grandmaster 10:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Menteshasvhili refers to a Russian journal. Kazimzadeh's number is unsourced. And we have sources stating that the number came from Azeri claims. So, we will delete the number. Or we will report it as Azeri claim. Along with the upped Armenian claims.--TigranTheGreat 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Menteshashivili refers to a British parliamentarian, who in turn refers to the authorities of “NKR”. Kazemzadeh provides his own estimates, which we should include in the article with reference to him. And the figure of 3,000 is based on Shaumian’s estimates, who was obviously not interested in revealing the real scale of his crimes. If you want to report Armenian and Azeri claims, you might as well wish to include the figure of Azeri casualties from this official website [5]. It claims the number of 25,000 Azeris killed. Grandmaster 07:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Menteshashivili does no such thing (with respect to the statistics itself). Karimzadeh is not the final word on the number. We never use single source for a fact, we compare sources and come up with an answer. Karimzadeh's number is unsourced and disputed (by HRW). We have 3 sources (two Western, including McCarthy, and one Azeri--the Dr.) who state that the number came from the ADR's official claims. We can't ignore them and instead choose one unsourced, secondary, and disputed information. The Azeri website doesn't claim 25,000, it claims that an "Armenian" named Avanes Apresyan wrote it in his book--I have never heard of the guy, it's a question whether he or his book even exist (they were even brought up by Turks on the Armenian Genocide page and refuted by Fadix), neither he nor the site are reputable to include him.--TigranTheGreat 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to present fantastic Armenian claims that site is as good as any other. As for Kazemzadeh, we don't present his figures as a fact, we just provide the range of estimates by various neutral sources, but make no assertion as to whether any of them is accurate or not. Walker's figure is not sourced either, but still you included it in the article. So Kazemzadeh's estimate shall remain, as that of any other reputable source. Grandmaster 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to present imaginary Azeri losses such as 12,000, you are more than welcome to do so if you identify them as Azeri source. Your site didn't claim that the number was 25,000. Unlike in Walker's case, we do have sources stating that Karimzadeh's reported number came from Azeri side. If you want to keep the number, we should state it as Azeri claim.--TigranTheGreat 00:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The figure comes from a reputable source, and it will remain with a reference to that source. We cannot include in the article personal guesses about its origin. Grandmaster 07:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I will not waste my time, and I'll leave others doing so. I am a verry busy man and will remain this way for a long time to comme. I will just reiterate my previous statment which you have ignored and had you really cared of accuracy you would not have. Justin McCarthy is very clear in his footnote, which I have related, and I believe with the pages etc., He clearly state from where those figures come from. Kazemzadeh has published in the 50s, at least this was the edition of the book I had gotten when I decided to interloan it(while the Azeris figures were presented at the Peace conference beginning 0f the 20s by the Azeris delegates) 2 years back. I did not pay attention to the figures of Azeris, but rather Armenians at that time, he provides the figures from some Armenian source and then contend if my memory serves me right of about 10,000 Armenians dead. I dispute that Kazemzadeh did not provide a footnote for the figure of Azeris dead, I advance that Adil in his paper from where it was recycled at Wikipedia, excluded the possible footnote of Kazemzadeh which I believe was included in his original work.
This, I repeat for the last time, the 12,000 figure has a clear origine, admitted by McCarthy himself who is accused by many of willingly getting granted by Turkey's internal ministry by the intermedary of a so-called interdiciplinary chair of Ottoman history. To this, adds that Tigran has provided an Azeris website which supports McCarthy's presentation for the 12,000 figure. Note that McCarthy also provide Kazemzadeh to support his contention for the massacres, but for the 12,000 figure he does not cut the corners and directly quote the Azeris source in question, had there been an independent estimate in parallel to the Azeris one, scholarity would request, it too, to be included in parallel, for the citating figure, McCarthy hasn't done so, it wasn't because he ignored it, since he plainly quoted Kazemzadeh in the same section. What better to confirm then using Suzanne Goldenberg garbage work, Transcaucasian Bounderies (UCL Press, 1996), while she uses Kazemzadeh in her work elsewhere, for the figure of 12,000 she provides, she source it on page 128 by the following on footnote 57. La République d'Azerbaijan du Caucase (1919, Paris: Delegation de l'Azerbaïdjan à la Conference de la Paix à Paris), 19. This is the only source she provides. Clearly this figure is recognized to be from the Azeris delegation at the Peace conference, and Goldenberg being the most biased in favor of Azerbaijan in the Western Academia (more than Goltz) as well as McCarthy, the most biased with Stanford Shaw in favour of Turkey both present the 12,000 figure to have come from the Azeris delegation.
Note that the only reason I am answering here and not elsewhere(say, at the Karabakh page), is I believe that this is a clear cut cases which should not cause any conflicts. First, you have to provide, lets say a secreenshot from Kazemzadeh work, which would confirm that there is no footnote on that figure, and that if there is one, so that we could know from where it comes. I dispute that it is his own number, you first have to show it is his number by providing a copy. At this point, it is clear from where this number come from. I will not add anything else here, neither anywhere else for soon, unlike some, I don't make a penny on the cyberspace. Fad (ix) 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Here’s a quote from the article you must be familiar with:
The results of the March events were immediate and total for the Musavat. Several hundreds of its members were killed in the fighting; up to 12,000 Muslim civilians perished; thousands of others fled Baku in a mass exodus.
Michael G. Smith. Anatomy of a Rumour: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narratives of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-20. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 211-240 Grandmaster 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)