How Turkey attacked Armenia

Soldiers stand over the remains of genocide victims who were burned alive by the Turks in the Armenian village of Sheikhalan in the Mush Valley. Caucasian Front during the First World War. Western Armenia

100 years ago, the Turkish army invaded Armenia. The war was caused, on the one hand, historical the conflict between the Turks and the Armenians, on the other hand - the intervention of the United States and the Entente in the affairs of the Caucasus.

Surrounded by enemies

After the collapse of the Russian Empire, the Armenian people had to experience great disasters. The First World War, when the Russian army was victoriously advancing on the Caucasian front, gave the Armenians hope for reunification with Western Armenia, which was under the Turkish yoke. The collapse of the Russian Empire and the beginning of the turmoil buried these hopes. Moreover, Turkey was now trying to implement its plans to annex the Caucasus. The Christian people of the Caucasus and especially the Armenians were threatened with genocide.

Soviet Russia, unable to wage war with Germany and Turkey, signed the "obscene" Peace of Brest, abandoning the territories of Western Armenia, as well as the regions of Batum, Kars and Ardahan, which had been recaptured from the Turks in the previous Russian-Turkish wars. The unviable Transcaucasian Federation (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) disintegrated, in May 1918 the First Republic of Armenia was created. Turkey, taking advantage of the situation of complete collapse in the South Caucasus, launched a large-scale invasion. The Armenians tried to resist, but could not offer serious resistance to the superior forces of the enemy. The war was accompanied by massacres and acts of genocide. Moreover, Armenia had no allies. Civil war was raging in Russia.

Relations with their immediate neighbors, Georgia and Azerbaijan, have been contradictory, unstable and often hostile due to territorial disputes. Azerbaijan took a pro-Turkish position and claimed historical Armenian lands. The Georgian authorities in their anti-Russian policy were guided by Germany and Turkey. Although it was a suicidal policy for Georgian Christians. As a result, tensions were established between the Transcaucasian republics, up to armed clashes and a trade and economic war. For example, the Georgians hijacked the entire rolling stock of the railway, blocked any supply of food from the north. Tiflis stated that Armenia is an unviable state. In Armenia, because of the blockade (the only transport route of Armenia to Russia, the railway, passed through the Georgian-controlled Batum), famine began. Until 1918, the Erivan region received a third of all foodstuffs from Russia.

Thus, Armenia found itself in complete isolation. The Armenians lost the 1918 war. Under the agreement in Batumi (June 1918), Armenia became a small enclave around the cities of Erivan and Echmiadzin. At the same time, local hostilities of Armenian detachments and pro-Turkish Muslim formations in Zangezur and Karabakh continued. However, the Ottoman Empire found itself in the camp of the losers during the world war. On October 30, 1918, the Mudross Armistice was signed. The Entente countries occupied the most important cities, ports and regions of Turkey. The Turks were forced to leave the occupied regions in the South Caucasus. In November 1918, the Armenians were able to return to Karaklis, in December to Alexandropol. At the same time, the evacuating Turkish forces took out everything they could (grain, livestock, fuel, metals, equipment) and destroyed the rest, leaving scorched earth behind. Later, overcoming the resistance of the Turks, who did everything to slow down the evacuation and create local Muslim military formations, the Armenians in the spring of 1918 established control over Kars, Oltu and Kagizman. Also, for a while, Armenia was able to occupy Nakhichevan.

Entente

The German-Turkish occupiers were replaced by British ones. England included Transcaucasia in its sphere of influence. British troops appeared in Batumi, Tiflis, Baku, Nakhichevan and Kars. The British established their control over the strategic Transcaucasian railway, the Baku-Batum oil pipeline. The arrival of the British "allies" caused great excitement in Armenia. Many hoped that with the help of the Entente, territorial disputes in the South Caucasus would be resolved, the socio-economic situation would be improved (problems of hunger, epidemics, lack of essential goods, etc.). True, it soon became clear that these hopes were illusory. The British had their own plans for the Transcaucasus - confronting Russia, capturing the tasty morsels of the fallen empire, and were not going to help Armenia. At the same time, they relied on Georgia and Azerbaijan and held back the creation of the Armenian army. The British refused to transfer the reserves of the Russian army in Kars to the Armenians. It was reported that weapon, ammunition and equipment will pass into the hands of the White Army, but in fact a significant part fell into the hands of Muslims.

In Armenia, they hoped that with the help of the West, a state would be created that would unite the Russian (eastern) and Turkish (western) parts of Armenia, and gain access to the Black Sea. Hoping for the help of the Entente in resolving the issue of Western Armenia, Erivan in 1919 sent its delegation to Paris for a peace conference, although the Armenians were not recognized as a belligerent party and were not even invited to France. On May 14, 1919, the Paris Conference delegated the mandate to Armenia to the United States. American President Woodrow Wilson sent General Harbord and the King-Crane Commission to Turkey to clarify the situation on the ground and decide on the possibility of creating an independent Armenian state under a US mandate.

It should be noted that there was no unity in Armenia itself at that time. The ruling Dashnaktsutyun (Armenian Revolutionary Commonwealth) party was split. Some politicians stood for the autonomy or federation of Armenia (including the western part) within Russia. The other part demanded an independent “Great Armenia” with access to the Black Sea, possibly to the Mediterranean Sea. The radicals hoped for a split in Turkey, where their own turmoil began, and for the support of the Entente. This "Great Armenia" project was supported by the United States. True, America was far away and was not going to support this idea by the force of its arms and economy. Armenian Social Democrats, associated with the Georgian Mensheviks, opposed relations with Russia. The social revolutionaries and the "people's party" (liberals) were in favor of joining with Russia. The Armenian government had to take into account the current dominance of the Entente in the region and its hostility towards Soviet Russia. Therefore, no attempts were made to improve relations with Moscow. And relations with the VSYUR (white movement) were built with an eye on the British. At the same time, the policy of the Denikinites, with their "one and indivisible" Russia, repelled Erivan.

Wars with Georgia and Azerbaijan

In December 1918, the Armenian-Georgian war broke out. The reason was the territorial dispute over the territory of Borchali district and Lori region, where rich copper mines were located. The population of the disputed areas was mixed, but with a predominance of Armenians. After the evacuation of Turkish troops from Akhalkalaki and Borchali districts, clashes broke out between Armenian and Georgian forces. Georgia placed all male Armenians between the ages of 18 and 45 in camps. Neither the Armenians nor the Georgians were able to achieve a decisive victory. The conflict was frozen with the mediation of Britain, which, in fact, supported Tiflis. In January 1919, an armistice was signed in Tiflis: the northern part of the Borchali district was transferred to Georgia, the southern part to Armenia, and the middle part was declared a "neutral zone" under the control of the British. In the future conflict between Armenia and Turkey, Georgia took a neutral position.

Territorial disputes, acts of mutual massacre, the conflict in Nakhichevan led to the Armenian-Azerbaijani war of 1918-1920. The parts of the former Russian Elizavetpol province were controversial: the Kazakh district, Nagorno-Karabakh and Zangezur. The Republic of Armenia fought against Muslim formations in Nakhichevan, Surmaly, Sharur-Daralagez, Erivan districts of the former Erivan province, the Republic of Azerbaijan confronted the units of the Armenian National Councils in Karabakh and Zangezur. At the same time, the Transcaucasian republics avoided direct conflict with each other. The conflict had historical, ethnic, religious, economic and strategic preconditions and was accompanied by bloody massacres. Turkey and England actively intervened in the war. Denikin's government provided military material assistance to Armenia and exerted diplomatic pressure on Baku. The war was stopped only by the establishment of Soviet power, first in Azerbaijan, then in the entire South Caucasus. In the spring of 1920, the Red Army defeated the remnants of the Denikinites in the North Caucasus and reached the borders of Azerbaijan. In April 1920, the Soviet 11th Army and the Caspian flotilla carried out the Baku operation (Baku “Blitzkrieg” of the Red Army). Soviet power was established in Azerbaijan, the ASSR was proclaimed.

In May 1920, an uprising of local Bolsheviks and Muslims against the ruling Dashnaktsutyun party began in Armenia. The uprising was supported by Soviet Russia and the ASSR. The Dashnaks suppressed the uprising, its leaders were executed. As a result, it was not possible to immediately establish Soviet power in Armenia, as in Georgia. On June 2, two Soviet states (Russia and the ASSR), on the one hand, and Armenia, on the other, came to an agreement on a ceasefire in Karabakh, Zangezur, Nakhichevan and the Kazakh district, but separate clashes continued after that. On July 28, the Nakhichevan Soviet Socialist Republic was proclaimed in Nakhichevan. On August 10, a ceasefire agreement was signed between Armenia and Soviet Russia, securing the presence of Soviet troops on a temporary basis in the disputed territories: Zangezur, Karabakh and Nakhichevan.

Territorial claims of Azerbaijan and Armenia presented at the Paris Peace Conference (1919)

Situation in Turkey

Turkey had its own quarrel at that time. The Ottoman Empire was defeated in the war and surrendered in October 1918. Demobilized the army, surrendered the fleet. She transferred strategic points, bases, railways, communications and warehouses to the Entente. The West began to dismember the Ottoman Empire. Turkey lost all its possessions in North Africa and the Arab world, withdrew troops from the South Caucasus. British, French, Italian and Greek troops began to occupy the most important points in Turkey, including the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, Constantinople. At the same time, the Entente was going to dismember and Turkey itself, to transfer parts of Anatolia to the Armenians, Kurds and Greeks. The intervention provoked resistance. All this took place against the backdrop of the most severe socio-economic crisis caused by the war. Complete collapse of the economy, finance, transport system and trade. Poverty and hunger. The flourishing of banditry, local conflicts at the borders.

The country has split. There were two centers of power - the Sultan government of Mehmed VI and the national liberation movement of Mustafa Kemal. The government of the Grand Vizier Damad Ferid Pasha was ready for an agreement with the Entente at any cost. The Sultan's government was in Constantinople occupied by the allies and was ready to fulfill any will of the West. With the support of the Entente, a "caliphate army" was formed. But in fact, the region was under the control of the sultan's authorities only in the area of ​​the capital. In September 1919, the Turkish Congress of the Society for the Defense of the Rights of Anatolia and Rumelia was held in Sivas and a Representative Committee headed by Kemal was elected. Turkish patriots demanded that Turkish sovereignty be ensured within national borders and that parliament be convened. In January 1920, a new parliament was convened, in which Kemal's supporters had a majority. In March, Parliament was dispersed by the British. In response, in April the Kemalists formed a new parliament in Ankara - the Grand National Assembly (VNST), which declared itself the only legitimate authority in the country. The Kemalists declared that the Sultan was "held captive by the infidels" and therefore his orders were not subject to execution. Mehmed declared Kemal a rebel, he was sentenced to death in absentia.

The Entente tried to suppress the Turkish liberation movement. This mission was entrusted to the Greeks, who occupied Smyrna from 1919. In the summer of 1920, Greek troops launched an offensive in Anatolia, captured Bylykesir, Bursa. Also the Greeks occupied Adrianople (Edirne). The Greek authorities dreamed of “Greater Greece” (the restored Byzantine Empire). The Allies planned to give Greece the remaining Turkish possessions in Europe, Smyrna. In a year, the Greeks were able to occupy the western part of Anatolia, and their successes ended there.

Greek troops in Izmir. 1919

To be continued ...

Comments

[Gloomy skeptic]

Soldiers stand over the remains of genocide victims who were burned alive by the Turks in the Armenian village of Sheikhalan in the Mush Valley.

And how, I'm embarrassed to ask, did the author of the caption on the photo find out that the poor fellows were burned alive? Did he see it himself or does he know a person whose neighbor has an uncle in the village to whom his ex-mother-in-law told all this? In those distant times, there were no examinations that could determine whether a living person was killed in the fire or not. Again a reprint from the yellow newspapers for the sake of fried facts? Not solid somehow, for the heading "history". Not solid at all.

[Zaurbek]

I think from interviewing witnesses. Maybe the bodies remained unburned ..... not the whole picture in the photo. Many photos of those years began to be published. The Turks did not fight with the soldiers, they killed civilians. And clashes with the armies of neighboring countries, as a rule, in modern times ended badly for the Turks.

[Gloomy skeptic]

What poll? Turks, burning people alive - left witnesses? Are you not a close friend of the author?

[Zaurbek]

Did the Germans, burning civilians, leave witnesses? There were cases in Belarus that two or three people from their village were saved ... and the whole village was killed and burned.

[apro]

Quote: Zaurbek

The Turks did not fight with the soldiers,

And no one knows the reason for the repressions? The uprising of Armenians in Turkey? Stab in the back during the war?

[Andobor]

Quote: apro

And no one knows the reason for the repression?

There was no single uprising, as it were, there were acts of resistance, as it was decided to deport an unreliable population from the frontline zone, the deportation resulted in a massacre, both on the spot and in the process of deportation.

[Petrik66]

Well, it's very simple, when exposed to high temperatures, there are clear marks on the bones, let me not go into details, very often, parts of clothing remain with traces of fire, metal things melt, etc. The walls of the room, and it is made of bricks in the photo, necessarily bear traces of the effects of temperature and specific "soot", I will not go into details again .. If you look closely, you can see several charred logs in the foreground, and a bush is visible on the right of the photo. part of which is also charred, the top of the stump in the photo is charred as well. Thus, it is obvious that the bodies were burned. And the fact that at least 10 people were murdered does not bother you? The place hardly resembles a cemetery ...

[welder]

Actually it was. The characteristic postures of corpses can tell how a person died (alive or wounds with mutilations were received posthumously).

[Olgovich]

Only United and Indivisible Russia ensured the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the Transcaucasus

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Olgovich

Only United and Indivisible Russia ensured the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the Transcaucasus

After the collapse of the USSR, the fate of all the Transcaucasian republics hangs in the balance, for there is a large and greedy Turkey nearby, the eternal enemy of the Christians of Armenia and Georgia.

[Assyrian]

Quote: Olgovich

Only United and Indivisible Russia ensured the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the Transcaucasus

Oddly enough, but here I completely and completely agree with you.
I know about individual episodes of this historical period from the stories of the older generation, including grandfathers and grandmothers.
A terrible time for the layman, the civilian population.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Assyrian

A terrible time for the layman, the civilian population.

Do not oppose the king's grandfather, and live in peace, no one will touch you.

[Assyrian]

Quote: tihonmarine

Do not oppose the king's grandfather, and live in peace, no one will touch you.

The average man (in the good sense of the word), firstly, is apolitical, and secondly, he has no time, he builds a house, plants a garden, raises children. Oppose the king or the general secretary? You need to try very hard to force the man in the street to grab the pitchfork.
Perhaps in the previous post I did not accurately express my idea.
The fate of civilians who find themselves in the territory of hostilities or civil war is terrible.
Some grandmother from near Donetsk or Stepanokert, to whom a shell flew into the garden, hardly deserved this.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: tihonmarine

Do not oppose the king's grandfather, and live in peace, no one will touch you.

So they opposed the czar's father in Petrograd, and the whole country suffered. Panas are fighting, and at lackeys forelocks are cracking.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Olgovich

Only United and Indivisible Russia ensured the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the Transcaucasus

Yeah, Baklanov's blows.

[Sergey Oreshin]

Quote: Olgovich

Only United and Indivisible Russia ensured the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the Transcaucasus

At the price of the blood of the Oryol, Bryansk, Tambov, Ryazan, Pskov peasants who perished hundreds and thousands of miles from their home.
Do Russian people really need it?

[Olgovich]

Quote: Sergey Oreshin

At the price of the blood of the Oryol, Bryansk, Tambov, Ryazan, Pskov peasants who perished hundreds and thousands of miles from their home.
Do Russian people really need it?

And you don't need anything.

Enough of the Moscow region.

And yes, without the arrangement of borders, the blood of the Oryol, Bryansk, Tambov, Ryazan, Pskov peasants spilled an order of magnitude more, but already in Ryazan, Pskov and Orel, see. History

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Oreshin

At the price of the blood of the Oryol, Bryansk, Tambov, Ryazan, Pskov peasants who perished hundreds and thousands of miles from their home.
Do Russian people really need it?

And here there are no options: either Russia is at war in the Caucasus, or the Caucasus is at war in Russia, turning the entire south of Russia into a zone of risky farming accommodation.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Alexey RA

And here there are no options: either Russia is at war in the Caucasus, or the Caucasus is at war in Russia, turning the entire south of Russia into a risky farming area of ​​residence.

And it seems OBVIOUS things, but, come on, do not reach some

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Greek authorities dreamed of "Greater Greece"

Another part demanded an independent "Great Armenia" with access to the Black Sea

nd, after WWI there was a queue of applicants for "greatness".

[Zaurbek]

Each aboriginal, in the past - the conqueror of the territory.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Zaurbek

Each aboriginal, in the past - the conqueror of the territory.

deep.
And from what moment should it be considered an autochthon? I understand that all claims of anyone on any territory are groundless?

[Zaurbek]

After the last war and peace treaty. So I understand. How to relate to the eviction or killing of aborigines after the seizure of the territory .... you have to think.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Zaurbek

After the last war and peace treaty. So I understand.

interesting interpretation of the term "aboriginal".

Quote: Zaurbek

How to relate to the eviction or killing of aborigines after the seizure of the territory .... you have to think.

well, well, think, think about "killing". Just not for very long, otherwise, you see, you will find an excuse for any ethnic massacre)

[Zaurbek]

What to think ... there are examples:
1. Jews
2. Armenians
3. Circassians

Fresh events of the 19-20 century.




The situations are different everywhere. In fact, there was a population, no population .... and instead of another population. Which considers itself already a local population with roots ...

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Zaurbek

Fresh events of the 19-20 century.

And the gypsies were not very sorry.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Zaurbek

What to think ... there are examples:
1. Jews

and where are the Jews in the 19-20 centuries considered themselves and were considered "aborigines"?

[Zaurbek]

In the Pale of Settlement ... Ukraine, Belarus, Poland ... the local and large population were

[Timofey Charuta]

Sound idea, but in Europe, in my opinion, only Hungarians have a national holiday of Finding the Motherland. Somewhere in the early 90s I was in Budapest and just got to the magnificent celebration of the millennium of the Finding of the Homeland by the Hungarians. Only they admit that they migrated here from somewhere from beyond the Urals 1000 years ago and have never lived here before.
In Kiev, I saw a memorial sign (at Askold's grave - who knows) - the Hungarians themselves put it. We walked quietly past Kiev and did not touch anyone. Obviously, they were looking for little / unpopulated area and found ....

All the others say in different variations - We have always lived here! This has always been our land! etc. etc. A well-known historical fact - the Great Migration of Nations - is about everyone, but not about them. Moreover, the lower the cultural level, the sillier and funnier all this is presented.
With regard to Asia - probably the same way. In the darkness of centuries, so much is mixed ...

Another thing is that international law is in force now. But even here not everything is thankful to God. There is the principle of inviolability of borders and there is the right of nations to self-determination (under this sauce, the colonial system was destroyed in the 60s with the Soviet Union's suggestion). So turn around, as you know ...

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Timofey Charuta

Another thing is that international law is in force now. But even here not everything is thankful to God.

It was then that they forgot about God.

[Ulrich]

This all of course applies to everyone, but not to Russians, right? Or in Russia there is a holiday "Finding the Motherland", and Russians do not repeat about the fact that "We have always lived here" or about "primordially Russian lands" ...

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Zaurbek

Each aboriginal, in the past - the conqueror of the territory.

Rather dreaming of becoming a conqueror, and the real conquerors, as always, were, and like the Bali, the Anglo-Saxons remained, and also the Turks.

[Zaurbek]

Did the Russian Empire liberate everyone? And the empress gave no man's land?

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Zaurbek

Did the Russian Empire liberate everyone?

Well, as Britain shot the sepoys by tying guns to the muzzles, and destroyed the Indians, this was not the case in the Russian Empire.

[Zaurbek]

Presumably, all voluntarily entered the composition. The Chinese, for example, were thrown into the Amur.

[Oprichnik]

Hunghuz-cutthroats were cleaned and done right. The Chinese authorities themselves in those days even considered Manchuria the end of the earth, and Cupid was generally not beyond the Land and they punished those who left there and then returned.

[Esoteric]

There was an interesting custom in India at that time. The wife was burned alive together with the deceased husband, naturally without asking her wishes. The Anglo-Saxons, as you say, hung up in a crowd because of this, and they did the right thing. And what atrocities your favorite sepoys did, ask yourself.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

and the colonization of Siberia and the Far East?

[Oprichnik]

So what ? Did our great-Orthodox ancestors carve out someone in the developed, practically empty territories? On the contrary, they established more just laws there and prohibited various savagery: the slave trade, bandit raids, carried culture, law and order in accordance with their understanding, their education and customs of that time.

[Zaurbek]

This is what we need to talk about in schools and museums ... and not force the "mastered" peoples to celebrate the day of their voluntary entry into Russia.

[parusnik]

yes, after WWI there was a queue of applicants for "greatness"

At the same time, please note that the Allies in the Entente were not scattered with special lands ...

[Artavazdych]

How complex intricacies in the history of the Caucasus ...
Another thing touches me - I read today the Wikipedia on the history of Karabakh. 80 percent of all the facts of the massacre are on the conscience of the Armenians (!), And the atrocities - well, just Auschwitz is resting. And the women's breasts were cut off, and the children were lifted on bayonets ... Especially in 1918, this was when the Turkish troops were there, as I understand?
And so, there is a passing mention of the destruction of a couple of Armenian villages in revenge.
I suppose, about the same is written in relation to the Greeks and Serbs, etc.?
Well, there is no such extreme cruelty in the genes of Christian peoples, even if you crack. Otherwise, the example I have cited Auschwitz would not have been out of the ordinary.

[frog]

Do you know a word like Yugoslavia ?? I'm talking about the end of the existence of this state .... Serbs, say, Croats, Bosniaks .... They are not Europeans ????

[Artavazdych]

Sorry, I didn't understand your rhetoric. Serbs are Europeans. AND?
Croats, Bosniaks are also Serbs, therefore, Europeans. However, I will make a reservation - these are Serbs with the stamp of Judas in their genes. Just like our Westerners, for example.

[frog]

Yes, I am for cruelty and Christianity. No more. Well, I got excited with the barefoot, I admit)))

[Artavazdych]

I understood. Well, for Bandera, this is a screen. The Croats have the same thing.
In general, the atrocities of the Croats or Bandera are a direct consequence of the betrayal of their ancient ancestors. True, this is purely from the spiritual sphere, I don't know if you believe in it or not.

[Sergey Oreshin]

Quote: tihonmarine

Do not oppose the king's grandfather, and live in peace, no one will touch you.

So most of the townsfolk did not oppose the king)) They just woke up one fine day, and they were told - "The Tsar-Father has renounced"

[Gloomy skeptic]

Quote: Petrik66

metal things melt

Learn Russian, and only then comment, although the nonsense that you are carrying cannot be called a commentary, absolutely impossible.

[Sergey Oreshin]

Quote: Olgovich

see history

Well, let's see the history. In the XNUMXth century. a turning point has come in the fight against the Crimean Tatar threat. The Crimean Khanate was conquered, the Nogais were subdued, most of the Kalmyks left for Asia, the rest submitted to Russia. The steppes became safe and began to actively develop and expand. At the end of the XNUMXth century. the "steppe threat" has come to naught.
And smart people suggested: we must firmly stand on the Terek and Kuban and not cross these rivers, not go deep into the "jungle of the Caucasus Mountains", because from the peoples there "there is a lot of screeching, little wool", the Empire will suffer a lot of financial, human and other losses, will be drawn into a bunch of exhausting wars, will be forced to solve a bunch of problems with local peoples, and there will be little benefit in the end.
But no - we climbed further and further in the name of imperial ambitions, put a bunch of people, threw in a lot of money, thank you from the locals, essno, did not wait, but rather the opposite. Well, why all this hemorrhoids to a simple Russian peasant ??

[Sergey Oreshin]

Quote: Alexey RA

either Russia is at war in the Caucasus, or the Caucasus is at war in Russia

For what time?
Until the beginning of the XVIII century. The highlanders of the North Caucasus knew almost nothing about Russia and did not really contact her, except for the Greben Cossacks. The objects of the mountaineers' raids were mainly the state formations of the Transcaucasia + wars with the Crimean and Kalmyk khanates (which themselves regularly raided the Caucasus) + wars with Persia and Turkey, which tried to subjugate the Caucasus.
Well, let them (Turks, Persians, Tatars, etc.) shed their blood there, but why would the Russian people get in there? Earth? So in the mountains of the North Caucasus it does not exist, and Transcaucasia is densely populated by local peasants, you cannot resettle Russian peasants there in large numbers

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Oreshin

Well, let them (Turks, Persians, Tatars, etc.) shed their blood there, but why would the Russian people get in there? Earth? So in the mountains of the North Caucasus it does not exist, and Transcaucasia is densely populated by local peasants, you cannot resettle Russian peasants there in large numbers

For the ground and climbed. But not for the one that is in the Caucasus itself and behind it, but for the one that is in front of it - the Stavropol Territory, the Kuban, etc.
And it was for the safety of these fertile flat lands that Russia climbed into the Caucasus. Because there were two options:
Or to build a full-fledged border (expensive and requiring a lot of strength) - and still lose military people and civilians, because the enemy will hit the weakest points of the border, and then break through to the plain and rob and drive away the peaceful population. And there will be no end to this - because Russia will fight with the consequences, not the reasons. The closest example is Chechnya before 1994 and in the period from 1996 to 1999.
Or "to beat the enemy on its territory", destroying the base of the raids, killing the most aggressive and bringing more or less adequate ones under your arm. With the prospect of a peaceful Caucasus and tranquility in the flat lands.
The losses in the second option will ultimately be less than in the continuous war in the rewind option.

[Sergey Oreshin]

Yes, but in the end, a lot of money was thrown into the Caucasus, they lost a lot of human lives of Russian people, and the result - you know what
It was also possible to act differently - to create "buffer (quasi) states" between Russia and the highlanders, to redirect the mountainous expansion to the South (against Persia and Turkey, for example), etc.
But if about the North Caucasus, I can still agree in principle that there was a certain reason in its conquest, then Transcaucasia certainly did not surrender to us.
As a result, we climbed into a continuous tangle of contradictions, which began hundreds of years (if not a thousand!) Before the arrival of Russia - and we still cannot get out of it.

[Elturisto]

Why lie. Maria Temryukovna is one of the wives of Ivan the Terrible. The Kabardian princes were in the oprichnina, and the first campaign of the Moscow troops in the Caucasus was under the son of the Terrible Theodore in the 16th century. And this is not counting the lively trade along the Volga-Caspian route, at least 1000 years.

[RoTTor]

History that you need to know, understand and draw conclusions.

There is only one conclusion: "The war was stopped only by the establishment of Soviet power, first in Azerbaijan, then in the entire South Caucasus."

Baku region and Erivan region will not fight