Latest / The Story of Armenia: Survival Through Empires and Genocide — Fexingo History / The Erzerum Congress: Armenian Nationalism on the Eve of Genocide
Transcript
- Lucas: So, Luna, we've talked a lot about Armenian resistance — the fedayee, the battles, the massacres. But there's a moment I think is really underappreciated: the summer of 1919, just after World War I ended, when Armenian leaders gathered in Erzerum — the same city that had been a center of Hamidian violence — to try and carve out a future. Luna: Erzerum — that's deep in Ottoman Armenia, right? Wasn't it under Russian control at that point? Lucas: Exactly. The Russian army had taken it in 1916, and by 1919 it was technically under Allied administration, but the reality was chaotic. The Ottoman Empire had collapsed, the Bolsheviks were pulling out, and local Armenians, Turks, and Kurds were all jockeying for control. Into that mess came the Erzerum Congress — a gathering of 203 delegates from across the Armenian world. Lucas: These weren't just politicians. There were clergy, village elders, intellectuals from Tiflis and Baku, even representatives from the diaspora in the United States. They had one goal: to agree on a unified vision for an independent Armenia. But they were deeply divided. Luna: Divided over what, exactly? Wasn't independence the obvious goal? Lucas: It was, but the question was what kind of independence, and on what terms. The Dashnaks — the Armenian Revolutionary Federation — wanted a fully independent state that would include Ottoman Armenia and parts of the Russian Caucasus. They were willing to fight for it, and they distrusted Allied promises. On the other hand, the more moderate liberals, like those from the Armenian National Council, believed they should work within the framework of the Paris Peace Conference and trust Woodrow Wilson's promise of self-determination. Lucas: Then there were the Hunchaks, the socialist party, who argued that class struggle was more important than national borders. They wanted a federation with other peoples of the Caucasus — Georgians, Azeris — and were deeply skeptical of any bourgeois nationalism. One delegate, Hakob Ter-Hakobyan, wrote in his memoirs that the debates got so heated that at one point a Dashnak speaker accused a Hunchak of being a 'Turkophile.' Luna: Wait, really? Accusing a socialist of being pro-Turkish — that's a serious charge in that context. Lucas: It was. And it shows how raw the wounds were. But the most contentious issue was borders. Wilson had proposed what became known as 'Wilsonian Armenia' — a huge territory stretching from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, including Trabzon, Erzerum, Van, Bitlis, and Diyarbakir. But many delegates knew that these areas had mixed populations, and that claiming them would mean war with the emerging Turkish nationalist movement under Mustafa Kemal. Lucas: Some argued for a more modest, defensible state centered on the Armenian-majority regions. Others said: if we don't claim everything, we'll get nothing. The congress ended up passing a resolution that demanded full independence within the Wilsonian borders, but it was a compromise that pleased no one fully. Luna: It sounds like the same dilemmas Armenia faces today — how to balance idealism with realism, and how much to trust external powers. Lucas: Absolutely. And that's why this congress matters. It wasn't just a historical footnote; it shaped Armenian political thought for generations. The debates about self-reliance versus alliance with great powers, about ethnic versus civic nationalism — those are still alive in Yerevan today. Lucas: If today's conversation has given you something useful to think about, the way these episodes stay ad-free is through listener support. You can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo — it's a simple way to keep this history accessible to everyone. Luna: Yeah, it's a small gesture that really helps us keep going. And it means we never have to run ads. Lucas: Exactly. So, back to Erzerum. One of the most fascinating documents from the congress is the speech by a delegate named Garegin Nzhdeh — he was a military commander and a fierce nationalist. He stood up and said: 'We have no right to beg for our homeland. We must take it.' Luna: Nzhdeh — I've heard that name. He was involved in the defense of Zangezur later, right? Lucas: Yes, he became a legendary figure for his role in holding the Syunik region against Azerbaijani and Bolshevik forces. But at Erzerum, he was already advocating for a militarized approach. He argued that the congress should create a unified army and launch offensives to secure the borders before the Allies could decide otherwise. Lucas: Of course, that was easier said than done. Armenia was exhausted, with maybe 10,000 soldiers under arms, facing a Turkish nationalist army that would soon number over 70,000. The congress ultimately rejected Nzhdeh's proposal, but his vision of 'self-reliance at all costs' became a powerful current in Armenian nationalism. Luna: So what happened after the congress? Did any of their resolutions actually take effect? Lucas: In the short term, very little. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920 did recognize an independent Armenia with borders close to what the congress had demanded, but it was never implemented. The Turkish nationalist movement rejected it, the Bolsheviks invaded from the north, and by the end of 1920, Armenia was a Soviet republic. The congress's vision of a free, united Armenia was crushed. Lucas: But the legacy lingered. The very act of gathering, of debating, of producing a detailed political program — it showed that Armenians were capable of modern state-building, even in the face of genocide. Many of the delegates who survived went on to serve in the First Republic of Armenia, and later in the diaspora, they kept the idea of an independent Armenia alive. Luna: It's remarkable that they could hold such a congress at all, given the circumstances. The massacres were still fresh, and they were surrounded by hostile forces. Lucas: Exactly. And that's why, for me, the Erzerum Congress is a symbol of resilience. It wasn't just about politics — it was about asserting that Armenians had a right to exist as a nation, and that they would shape their own destiny, even if the world was against them.