April 15-19 Identify the goals of the major World War 1 participant countries.    1914 Two Allies in Europe The Third Union and Antanta set the stage for a war whose goals were imperialistic and unfair.

Germany sought to create a “Greater Germany” state in the center of Europe. Captured the colonies of France, Great Britain and Belgium. Take away Russia from Ukraine, Polish lands, dominate the Balkan peninsula and the Middle East. Germany’s ally Austro-Hungary has set a task to seize Slavonic states with Germany, capture Serbia, Montenegro, Polish lands within Russia, to dominate the Andriatic, Black Sea and Aegean seas. Italy sought to take away the Austro-Honduras from the northern shores of the Andriatic Sea, Albania, the lands in Asia Minor, the Aegean islands, and dominate the Mediterranean Sea.
The Ottoman Empire has set a task to divide Russia, occupying East Armenia, Georgia, the entire Caucasus, the Crimea, Central Asia, and Iran, the Iranian Ataturk. The Young Turks, who were in power, wanted to develop Pan-Turkism with these occupations, one of the goals of which was the mass destruction of Armenians.
Britain was aiming to strengthen the integrity of its colonial empire and defeat Germany. In addition, Britain was planning to take over the Ottoman Empire, occupy Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Arabia and to strengthen itself in Egypt. France wanted it not only to return Elzas and Lorraine in 1871, but also to capture the left shore of the richest Rhine. France also aimed at seizing Syria, other Arab lands, Cilicia and German colonies. Russia sought to defeat Germany and Austria-Hungary to split the Ottoman Empire, to divide the Bosporus and the Gardanel Straits, Western Armenia to reach the Mediterranean Sea. Russia also included the Gallia conquest within the Austro-Hungarian territory. Japan was intended to seize not only the German colonies in the Pacific but also to dominate China.
Some participating countries of the World War I were participating in the liberation of their country. They were Serbia, Montenegro, Armenia and so on.

2. Identify the consequences of the First World War,
a) in respect of human losses;
The correct size of human losses is difficult to determine. But if in rough numbers, about ten million soldiers were killed in the war, about thirty million civilians were killed. Additionally, some 20 million people have been wounded and miserable, and nine million children have lost their parents and families. The number of captives reached three million, and the migrants were about ten million. After these tragedies, the daily lives of three generations of people broke down, the number of criminals increased, the number of addicts and drug addicts.
b) in terms of material losses;
The First World War brought a variety of material losses. For example, about $ 240 billion was spent on ammunition and ammunition, which in turn caused damage to $ 350 billion. The cost of war was one third of the wealth of the participating countries. There were also cultural losses, one of which was not rebuilt. For example, the Germans destroyed the city of Louvain, Belgium, which was considered a museum of cultural values.

April 8-12. Armenian government and inner build

Armenia became independent from the Soviet Union on 28 May 1918 as the First Republic of Armenia. After the First Republic collapsed on 2 December 1920, it was absorbed into the Soviet Union and became part of the Transcaucasian SFSR. The TSFSR dissolved in 1936 and Armenia became a constituent republic of the Soviet Union known as the Armenian SSR.

The population of Armenia voted overwhelmingly for independence in a September 1991 referendum, followed by a presidential election in October 1991 that gave 83% of the vote to Levon Ter-Petrosyan. Ter-Petrosyan had been elected head of government in 1990, when the National Democratic Union party defeated the Armenian Communist Party. Ter-Petrosyan was re-elected in 1996. Following public demonstrations against Ter-Petrosyan’s policies on Nagorno-Karabakh, the President resigned in January 1998 and was replaced by Prime Minister Robert Kocharyan, who was elected President in March 1998. Following the assassination in Parliament of Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsyan and parliament Speaker Karen Demirchyan and six other officials, on 27 October 1999, a period of political instability ensued during which an opposition headed by elements of the former Armenian National Movement government attempted unsuccessfully to force Kocharyan to resign. Kocharyan was successful in riding out the unrest. In May 2000, Andranik Margaryan replaced Aram Sargsyan as Prime Minister.

Kocharyan’s re-election as president in 2003 was followed by widespread allegations of ballot-rigging. He went on to propose controversial constitutional amendments on the role of parliament. These were rejected in a referendum the following May at the same time as parliamentary elections which left Kocharyan’s party in a very powerful position in parliament. There were mounting calls for the President’s resignation in early 2004 with thousands of demonstrators taking to the streets in support of demands for a referendum of confidence in him.

The unicameral parliament (also called the National Assembly) is dominated by a coalition, called “Unity” (Miasnutyun), between the Republican and Peoples Parties and the Agro-Technical Peoples Union, aided by numerous independents. Dashnaksutyun, which was outlawed by Ter-Petrosyan in 1995–96 but legalized again after Ter-Petrosyan resigned, also usually supports the government. A new party, the Republic Party, is headed by ex-Prime Minister Aram Sargsyan, brother of Vazgen Sargsyan, and has become the primary voice of the opposition, which also includes the Armenian Communist Party, the National Unity party of Artashes Geghamyan, and elements of the former Ter-Petrosyan government.

The Government of Armenia’s stated aim is to build a Western-style parliamentary democracy as the basis of its form of government. However, international observers have questioned the fairness of Armenia’s parliamentary and presidential elections and constitutional referendum since 1995, citing polling deficiencies, lack of cooperation by the Electoral Commission, and poor maintenance of electoral lists and polling places. For the most part however, Armenia is considered one of the more pro-democratic nations in the Commonwealth of Independent States. Observers noted, though, that opposition parties and candidates have been able to mount credible campaigns and proper polling procedures have been generally followed. Elections since 1998 have represented an improvement in terms of both fairness and efficiency, although they are still considered to have fallen short of international standards. The new constitution of 1995 greatly expanded the powers of the executive branch and gives it much more influence over the judiciary and municipal officials.

The observance of human rights in Armenia is uneven and is marked by shortcomings. Police brutality allegedly still goes largely unreported, while observers note that defendants are often beaten to extract confessions and are denied visits from relatives and lawyers. Public demonstrations usually take place without government interference, though one rally in November 2000 by an opposition party was followed by the arrest and imprisonment for a month of its organizer. Freedom of religion is not always protected under existing law. Nontraditional churches, especially the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have been subjected to harassment, sometimes violently. All churches apart from the Armenian Apostolic Church must register with the government, and proselytizing was forbidden by law, though since 1997 the government has pursued more moderate policies. The government’s policy toward conscientious objection is in transition, as part of Armenia’s accession to the Council of Europe. Most of Armenia’s ethnic Azeri population was deported in 1988–1989 and remain refugees, largely in Azerbaijan. Armenia’s record on discrimination toward the few remaining national minorities is generally good. The government does not restrict internal or international travel. Although freedom of the press and speech are guaranteed, the government maintains its monopoly over television and radio broadcasting.

April 1-8 Identify the causes of two military-political blocs in Europe. List the participating countries.

Francis did not agree with the defeat of the French-Prussian war and the loss of Elsac and Lorraine. In Germany, Bismarck sought to defeat France once more. Russia was against it because it did not want to have a strong possession in its neighborhood. Austria-Hungary had the goal of spreading its influence in the Balkan countries, which impeded Russia. In northern Africa there were also controversies between France and Italy. Bismarck created a powerful military alliance with Germany, Austria, Hungary and Italy in 1879-1883 after the failure of an agreement with Russia on the French issue. Unlike France and Britain in 1904, created an “external consensus” shorter than French in Antanta, and in 1907, Russia joined the Antanta. While Britain was conducting a “brilliant isolation policy”, but due to powerful Germany, she was afraid to lose her treasures as a cause for rapprochement between France and Great Britain.
The three-party alliance and the triumphant union, Antanta’s competition, eventually led to the global war.

2. What were the main causes of wars in the new century? What was the nature of the wars? Bring examples.
In the new era, the causes of the war were single, there were wars that were aimed at the liberation of the nation. The War of 1921-1832 took place in the Greeks, thanks to which the Greeks became the first people to be freed from the Ottoman yoke.
The wars of the new era are Napoleonic wars called the Revolutionary War that Napoleon has led to with different European states.
1828-1829 one of the Russian-Turkish wars took place, in which Russians had great success and intensified the Turks.
The first Balkan war, in which Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, and on the other hand, participated in the Ottoman Empire. The war took place between 1912 and 1913, when the states sought to take the lands they consider to be the Ottoman Empire. That war ended with the London Treaty.
The main reasons for the wars of modern time were the occupation of new lands by states, the liberation of the alien yoke, the protection of the colonial influence, the economic influence of the states.

The Govrnment Building Of Armenia

Our visit to the government of armenia, first we sat with a man who answeres to those who need help or who sugest something new, we heard that they have around 120 messages a day and they need to answer them all, after that we visited the the place where they work and saw how’s the things going, we saw how they work on messages they get from people and accept their help afterwards we saw the prime ministers helper that i quite didnt like him because he was a little wierd a little dificult but he was showing that he can work with their team as one he said that there are two helpers for prime minister which one was working for inner country other was working for out. Then we sat in confferance and saw how they talked for many situations. Big importance messages and rlly hard situations. And each gave a solution which i was satisfied
We sat there around 20 minutes and came out. We took our phones and passports back and went to our houses.

The Four Stages of Evolution

The Four Stages of Evolution: Since the emergence of the new need and new consciousness to theories International Politics, the study of international relations has passed through four main stages of development. Kenneth W. Thompson has systematically analyzed the development of international relations in four stages: (1) The Diplomatic History Stage. ADVERTISEMENTS:

(2) The Current Events Stage.

(3) The Law and Organisation Stage.

(4) The Contemporary Stage.

1. The First Stage: I. The Initial Attempts: The first stage of the evolution of the subject stretched up to the end of the First World War and was dominated by the historians. “Before World War I,” writes Schleicher, “there was almost no organised study of international relations either in American universities and colleges or elsewhere, although Paul S. Reinsch was pioneering in the field when, in 1900, he lectured on World Politics at the University of Wisconsin.” ADVERTISEMENTS: In the few courses that existed there, initial efforts were little more than unsystematic and often superficial attempts at discussing a wide variety of current problems which differed greatly in the level of their importance. No real attempt was, however made to study international relations in an organised and systematic way.

2. The Second Stage:

The Current Events Stage:

The concern and experience with the study of war-time relations gave a new turn to the discipline of International Politics. The creation of the Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Relations at the University of Wales opened a new era in the study of the subject. The study of current events and problems came to be regarded as the central theme of International Relations.

The review of newspapers, periodicals and journals was considered to be the right and necessary step for understanding the day to day relations among nations. Several scholars now came forward to place emphasis upon the need for the interpretation of current developments and problems at international level. An attempt was made to overcome the shortcomings of the first stage and replace the historical bias by the study of present events.

However, in itself this second stage was almost as much incomplete, partial and inadequate as the first stage. The first stage remained concerned with the study of past without relating it to the present. Likewise the second stage, the current events stage, was concerned with the present without attempting to trace the historical roots of the problems and events. This stage also lacked an integral view of international relations. Like the Diplomatic History stage, this stage also failed to study the future of international relations.

3. The Third Stage:

The Legal-Institutional Stage or the Law and Organisation Stage:

The third stage, which developed simultaneously with the second stage, involved an attempt to reform the nature and content of international relations in future through the development of international law and institutions. Shocked by the suffering inflicted by the First World War, the scholars adopted an idealistic outlook which focussed attention upon the task of reforming international relations by institutionalizing these through the development of international institutions like the League of Nations, and by the codification the rules of International Law.


The Fourteen Points listed by President Wilson of United States were together regarded as a charter of reforms for relations among nations. The Paris Peace Conference and the subsequent establishment of the League of Nations gave strength to the optimism that it was possible and desirable to make efforts towards an improvement of international relations for eliminating war, violence, tyranny and inequalities.

For this purpose the Legal-Institutionalisms proposed three alternative approaches:

(1) Creation of supra-national institutions for guiding and directing the efforts towards the preservation of international peace and security.

(2) Securing a legal control of war by creating new international norms (International Law) for deterring war and should it occur, its destructiveness.

(3) By eliminating weapons through global disarmament and arms control, peace should be strengthened.

The study of international relations at this stage was influenced by a strong faith in goodness of human relations, and consequently, it sought to study, codify and improve international law and institutions. War was looked upon as both a sin and an accident which was to be eliminated through institutionalization of relations.

It was believed that all international problems could be solved by developing a system of international law and by successfully organizing and working international organisations. The scholars at this stage were infused with a spirit of reformism under the influence of which they sought to reform the future of international relations. The establishment of an ideal international society free from war violence and other evils came to be adopted as the ideal.

The approach at this stage was again partial and incomplete. It concentrated upon future without realizing the importance of the past and present. It made little attempt to base the study of international relations upon an understanding of the past history and the knowledge of current problems faced by the nations.

It ignored the hard realities of international relations and instead adopted an idealistic approach which was soon found to be superficial and inadequate. The outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 proved the idealistic and unhelpful nature of the third stage.

No doubt the Law and Organisation approach rightly stressed the need for strengthening peace at international level, yet the solution that it offered was almost Utopian. It was idealistic in nature and content and was far away from the hard realities of international relations—use of power by for the states for securing goals of national interest. The scholars were putting the cart before the horse by attempting to develop legal institutions and organisations without first trying to understand the true nature of international relations.

Since the focus at this stage was narrow, the Law and Institutional approach failed to provide a durable basis to the study of highly dynamic nature and scope of international relations. The rise of dictatorships, aggressive nationalism, desperate quest for security, and certain other factors, like the economic depression of the 1930s, made the matters worst both for the League of Nations and International Law. The outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 gave a death blow to this stage and it virtually ended the era of idealism in international politics, as was advocated by the Law and Organisation Approach.

Ottoman empire. And armenian genocide

On the eve of World War I, there were two million Armenians in the declining Ottoman Empire. By 1922, there were fewer than 400,000. The others — some 1.5 million — were killed in what historians consider a genocide.

As David Fromkin put it in his widely praised history of World War I and its aftermath, “A Peace to End All Peace”: “Rape and beating were commonplace. Those who were not killed at once were driven through mountains and deserts without food, drink or shelter. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians eventually succumbed or were killed .”

The man who invented the word “genocide”— Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer of Polish-Jewish origin — was moved to investigate the attempt to eliminate an entire people by accounts of the massacres of Armenians. He did not, however, coin the word until 1943, applying it to Nazi Germany and the Jews in a book published a year later, “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.”

But to Turks, what happened in 1915 was, at most, just one more messy piece of a very messy war that spelled the end of a once-powerful empire. They reject the conclusions of historians and the term genocide, saying there was no premeditation in the deaths, no systematic attempt to destroy a people. Indeed, in Turkey today it remains a crime — “insulting Turkishness” — to even raise the issue of what happened to the Armenians.

In the United States, a powerful Armenian community centered in Los Angeles has been pressing for years for Congress to condemn the Armenian genocide. Turkey, which cut military ties to France over a similar action, has reacted with angry threats. A bill to that effect nearly passed in the fall of 2007, gaining a majority of co-sponsors and passing a committee vote. But the Bush administration, noting that Turkey is a critical ally — more than 70 per cent of the military air supplies for Iraq go through the Incirlik airbase there — pressed for the bill to be withdrawn, and it was.

The roots of the genocide lie in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Ղարաքիլիսայի ճակատամարտ

Ղարաքիլիսայի ճակատամարտ (1918), տեղի է ունեցել 1918 թ. մայիսի 25-30-ին հայկական և թուրքական զորքերի միջև, Ղարաքիլիսայի մոտ։ Ռուսաստանում 1917 թ. Հոկտեմբերյան հեղափոխությունից հետո ռուսական զորքերը հեռացել էին Արևմտյան Հայաստանի տարածքից, և գեներալ Թովմաս Նազարբեկովի (Նագարբեկյան) գլխավորած հայկական կորպուսը մնացել էր թուրքական գերազանց ուժերի դեմ։ Թուրքերը, խախտելով Անդրկովկասյան կոմիսարիատի հետ Երզնկայում 1917 թ. դեկտեմբերի 5-ին կնքած զինադադարը, 1918 թ. սկզբին ներխուժեցին Արևմտյան Հայաստան, վերանվաճեցին Երզնկան, Կարինը, Սարիղամիշը, Կարսը, մայիսի 15-ին գրավեցին Ալեքսանդրապոլը։ Թուրքական գերակշիռ ուժերի ճնշման տակ հայկական կորպուսը նահանջեց, նրա հետ արտագաղթեցին նաև տասնյակ հազարավոր արևմտահայեր, որոնց անվտանգությունն ապահովում էր Անդրանիկի ջոկատը։ Ալեքսանդրապոլից թուրքական զորքերի մի մասը շարժվեց Երևանի մյուս մասը՝ Ղարաքիլիսայի ուղղությամբ։

Մայիսի 20-ին թուրքերը գրավեցին Ջաջուռը, Աղբուլաղը, Ղալթաղչին, մայիսի 21-ին՝ Վորոնցովկան։ Ջալալօղլիի մոտ, երկօրյա մարտերից հետո (մայիսի 21-22-ին), Անդրանիկի ջոկատը կենտրոնացավ Դսեղ գյուղում, ապա շարժվեց դեպի Դիլիջան։ Գեներալ Նազարբեկովի հրամանով 1-ին դիվիզիան (հրամանատար՝ գնդապետ Բեյ-Մամիկոնյան) և երկու լեռնային մարտկոցներ քաշվեցին դեպի Շահալի, մնացածները կենտրոնացան Դիլիջանի ։ Մայիսի 24-ին գրավեցին Համամլուն։ Ղարաքիլիսայի մոտ կենտրոնացած հայկական զորքը (հրամանատար՝ Թ. Նագարբեկով) ուներ 6 հազար զինվոր, 70 հրանոթ և մոտ 20 գնդացիր, թուրք, զորքը (հրամանատար Ջավադ բեյ)՝ 10 հազար ասկյար, 70 հրանոթ և 40 գնդացիր։ Մարտերին մասնակցել են Ղարաքիլիսայի շրջակա գյուղերի բնակիչները։

Հայկական ուժերը թուրքերին հիմնական հարվածներ հասցրին Ղշլաղ գյուղի (այժմ՝ Վանաձորի Տարոն թաղամաս) մոտ, Բզովդալիմատույցներում և Մայմեխ լեռան լանջերին ու թուրքական գերակշիռ ուժերին հարկաղրեցին նահանջել դեպի Համամլու։ Մարտերի ընթացքում հայերը տվեցին մեծ կորուստներ (շուրջ 2500 մարդ սպանված, վիրավոր և գերի)։ Մեծ կորուստներ տվեցին նաև թուրքերը, սակայն, համալրում ստանալով, նրանք անցան հակահարձակման, և հայկական ուժերը հարկադրված նահանջեցին Դիլիջան։ Ղարաքիլիսայում և շրջակա գյուղերում թուրք ջարդարարները կոտորեցին հայ բնակչությանը, ավերեցին գյուղերը։

Establishment of Armenian Eastern National Council


After the February Revolution in Transcaucasia national councils emerged, which were governed by the nation. These were founded by the Transcaucasian Muslims, the Georgians, and later the Armenians. Thus, the Western Armenian National Council was followed by the creation of the Eastern Armenian National Council.

1917 The first congress of Eastern Armenians took place in Tbilissi in September-October. More than half of the congressional delegates were members of the Dashnaktsutiun party. The Congress examined a number of important issues of external and internal nature (self-defense, migration, food, etc.). At the end, a 15-member Armenian (National) National Council was formed on a multiparty basis. Social-political figure, writer Avetis Aharonyan was elected chairman of the board. The Armenian National Council had its departments or commissariats, military, immigration, school, food, medical, etc. The Armenian National Council actually became the supreme power of the Armenian people until the proclamation of Armenia’s independence.

Besides the Armenian National Council established in Tiflis, local councils were also established as branches and local authorities. Armenian National Councils were established in Baku, Yerevan, Karabakh, Akhalkalaki and elsewhere.

Thus, national councils were established as OSCA and class-based workers, soldiers and peasant councils, as national authorities.

The First Assembly of the Western Armenians (the Congress of Refugees) took place on May 2-11, 1917 in Yerevan. Participated in 59 MPs, about 400 guests (representatives of political parties, clergymen, Russian, English, and Armenian pro-Armenian organizations that support Western-Armenian migrants). Andranik was elected as honorable president of the congress.


There are historical events that Armenians did not have direct participation, but they did not directly, but seriously influenced the fate of the Armenian people. The series of such events can be described as the Brest-Litovsk multilateral peace treaty on March 3, 1918.

This treaty was signed between Soviet Russia, the Ottoman Empire, the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian, and the Kingdom of Bulgaria. The contract was signed in five equal languages: Russian, German, Hungarian, Turkish, Bulgarian. True, there are five states in the treaty, but it is considered to be bilateral because it is legally signed between Soviet Russia and the Commonwealth countries (Quartet Alliance) acting as allies in the First World War. Under this treaty, Soviet Russia recognized itself as loser and went out of war.

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was, first of all, a disgraceful treaty for Soviet Russia. It was the first major blow to the Bolshevik authorities in Russia and not just to Russia. By capturing the power, the Bolsheviks immediately showed that there were no sanctities and boundaries for them. They were ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of the maintenance and consolidation of power.

In World War I, until the spring of 1917, Russia won both in the Western and Caucasian fronts. The Russian troops had dominant positions in the West and in the Balkans against their enemies, and on the Caucasian Front, having the support of Armenians, they had captured all of Western Armenia.

But in February 1917 the revolution in Russia won, and the provisional government had to ask for a cease-fire in order to address the country’s internal problems. And in October 1917 the Bolsheviks seized the power and assumed the sole governance of the vast country.

Civil war broke out in Russia. The Lenin government was ready for great concessions and impunity for all the forces to solve Russia’s internal problems and to ensure the Bolsheviks’ victory in the civil war.

Already on December 9, 1917 Russia started negotiations with the countries of Astrakhan, separated from its former allies in Brest-Litovsk. The Russians themselves offered land for peace to the former enemies, to secure the desired peace for the establishment and consolidation of the Bolshevik power in Russia at the cost of great sacrifices.

By the power of Lenin, the Bolsheviks were holding talks with a Jewish diplomat Ioffen.

Under the Treaty of Germany, the Baltic Sea and Poland passed to Germany.

It is difficult to find another case in the world history when the defeated and defeated country in the war (Germany), by its fate, has great achievements and goes out of the war as a winning country.

Taking advantage of Russia’s weakness, during the negotiations, the countries of the Quartet underscored greater demands for Russia, which Bolsheviks refused to do, nevertheless, withdrew their troops from the tracks that were ready to surrender. However, it did not prevent the allies from re-attacking the whole front in February, which forced Russia to sign a peace treaty in line with German demands.

On February 22, a ceasefire was signed and Russia was given 48 hours to sign an ultimatum.

Finally, Russia took over and Brest from St. Petersburg, a Bolshevik party representative, Jewish Sokolnikov, signed the Brest-Litovsk disgraceful agreement.

The contract was signed on March 3 and ratified by Russia on March 8, at the 7th congress of the RC (b).

Russia was not only vast in the West, but was also obliged to return to Turkey the Armenian lands occupied during the First World War. Moreover, the Russian government expressed readiness to return the Turks to Kars and Ardahan regions attached to Russia by the Treaties of Adrianapolis and Berlin in 1878. By the way, Article 4 concerns the Armenian Question in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.

It is noteworthy that the representatives of Germany, not Turkey, but the representatives of the Kars and Ardahan regions submitted their claim.

In total, Russia lost about one million square kilometers, about half of its population, the third part of the economic capacity of the former Russian Empire.

However, the humiliation of Russia did not end with the reconciliation of Brest-Litovsk. By the agreement signed in Berlin in August 1918, the Bolsheviks were obliged to pay Germany a huge 6 million mark-up warrant.

Brest-Litovsk reconciliation was a tragedy not only for Russia but also for many other nations, especially Armenians

At the same time, there was a separate power in Transcaucasia, the Transcaucasian Seim, who did not recognize the articles about the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, the Armenian lands. To discuss those articles, the Seimas in Trabzon Chkhenkeli, and from the Armenian side.


How long did armenians lives before genocide

Armenian presence in the region dates back to the Indo-European peoples’ migration, between 2000 and 3000 B.C. The first known mention of Armenia is dated to the year 521 B.C., namely in the Persian king Darius I’s clay tablet in Persepolis. The designation of Armenia and the Armenian Highlands has since then been used for the area which today consists of the eastern and southeastern Turkey. Armenia has thus, as a country or nation, been around for over 2,500 years. However, some also include the kingdom of Urartu, as the forerunner of today’s Armenians, i.e., the people who were assimilated by the Indo-European Armenians who came to the area. Armenia has been independent state to and from since around 10th century B.C. and one could mention four royal dynasties, five including Urartu

February 4-8 Tasks .1. Submit the military-political programs of the Ottoman Empire and Russia

Colonel Bronzart von Scheelendorf, the head of the German military mission, completed the draft of the Ottoman Army on June 7, 1914. It was prepared before the First World War and therefore did not address the current situation, but mainly concerned the danger coming from the Balkans and not the ongoing war, as well as possible war with Russia if the latter supported the Balkan countries.
According to the Scheldorf plan, Ottoman troops would be stationed along the Greek and Bulgarian borders. The Turkish army could only make observations of the adversary troops, avoiding contact with opposing troops. Most of the Turkish troops were deployed in the eastern part of the Armenian Highland to attack the Russian troops, if possible. Great attention should also be paid to the control of Istanbul and the straits. Edirne and Çatalalja Protected Areas were designed to protect the roads leading to the capital and the front of the Ottoman Empire. The main forces should be centered on Chatalagha.
After the July 1914 events, the military plan had to be replaced with a change of gambling. Signing an agreement with the German Empire on August 2, 1914 was followed by signing an agreement with Bulgaria. Since the Ottoman Empire became a member of the Central Forces Alliance, its enemy became not only Russia, but also members of the Antagonistic alliance. An attack on Russia and Serbia could have been the Russian empire’s attack on the Caucasus and eastern Turkey.

2. List the Armenian volunteer squads and their command staff.
In September 1914, he allowed Armenian volunteer troops to organize uncertain promises about the future autonomy of Western Armenia. The Armenian national parties, believing in the assertions of the Tsarist government and in the interests of the Armenian people, pursued vigorous activity in that direction. 250 soldiers were drafted from the 2054 thousand Armenians living in the Russian Empire. Representatives of the Armenian secular and spiritual circles called on their compatriots in the Transcaucasus and the Armenian communities to recruit the armies of the Entente countries voluntarily to liberate Western Armenia from the Turkish yoke. Initially, four volunteer detachments were organized. Commanders were appointed Andranik (1st detachment), Drastamat Kanayan (2nd detachment). Hamazasp Srvandztyan (3rd detachment), Keri (Arshak Gafavyan, 4 th detachment). Later, the fifth (commander, A. Janpoladian), 6th and 7th detachments were created. By the end of 1915 the total number of volunteers reached about 10,000. Grigor Avsharyan, the commander of the 6th detachment, died of his death (January 1915) and replaced him with Hayk Barkikyan (Gay). The 7 th detachment was organized in the fall of 1915 under the command of Hovsep Arghutyan.

c) Remove the meaning of the Armenian volunteer movement / written, textbook and other sources.
The Armenian public-political circles before the war, based on the decision of the Tsarist government to supplement the Russian army with volunteers on July 23, 1914 and hoping that by the creation of the Armenian armed forces in the Russian army to liberate Western Armenia, E. With Vorontsov-Dashkov. The Tsarist government, pursuing its interests in the Middle East and Western Armenia, is confident in the sympathy of the Armenian people towards Russia.