Why were the Armenians disproportionate among the reds in the Russian civil war?

What are the stats that make it disproportionate?

The historian Sheila Fitzpatrick notes that in the twenties of the last century the Bolsheviks were disproportionately represented by ethnic minorities. The Bolsheviks of Jewish origin were the second ethnic group after the Latvians, whose share in the party was disproportionately large. The Jews made up around four and half percent of the Party members and only two percent of the total population. Fitzpatrick explains this by the fact that, no longer restricted by the Pale of Settlement, young Jews from the west of the country flocked to Moscow and St. Patersburg, joined this extremist leftist party en masse and quickly made careers in the new administration. It gave the critics of the proletarian paradise a reason to claim that 'the savages who enslaved Russia' were of certain origin. The Bolshevik party was multiethnic one and it included representatives of many ethnicities. The Armenians were certainly represented, a prominent Armenian among the Bolsheviks was Anastas Mikoyan.

Girgisjus said:

I'm suprised considering they are generally a very mercantilistic & religious people? not to mention if the whites won, they would have fought against the turks ending the Armenian genocide earlier.

Click to expand...

I think the Armenian case is more complicated. Firstly, there were two distinct Armenian regions before WWI:

1) A Russian core in the southern Caucasus with estimates of 1.5 - 1.7 million (Eastern Armenians), and
2) An Anatolian/Ottoman core, a bit larger, with estimates of about 1.8 - 2 million (Western Armenians).

There were smaller Armenian communities in Iran and the Balkans, and a few other places. But the reality is that there were two major Armenian cores: Ottoman and Russian.

Between 1914 and 1916, 50 - 70% of the Western Armenians perished during WWI. An estimated 400,000 - 500,000 became refugees in Lebanon and Syria (the Levant), Iraq, Egypt, France, the USA, Greece, and South America. Around 100,000 - 200,000 moved to the Eastern Armenian world, i.e., the southern Caucasus.

So the key here is that the Armenian genocide occurred during WWI and targeted Western Armenians, not Eastern Armenians. Then, in 1915–1916, the Russian Caucasus Army, with Armenian volunteer units, pushed deep into Ottoman territory, capturing several cities in Anatolia.

In 1917, the Russian Revolution occurred; the key here is that the Russian armies disintegrated and withdrew from the Caucasus front. Armenian defense shifted to local forces, and by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Russia ceded Kars, Ardahan, and Batum to the Ottomans. The Ottomans then pushed east into the Caucasus and Eastern Armenia with an eye on Baku’s oil and Pan-Turanianism momentum.

A short-lived union of the Transcaucasian states for Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan- existed from 22 April–late May 1918 (the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic) but collapsed under Ottoman pressure and internal divisions.

On May 21–29, 1918, the Battle of Sardarabad (along with Bash Abaran and Karakilisa) halted the Ottoman advance toward Yerevan. Historians widely agree that defeat would have meant the destruction of Eastern Armenians and the loss of all Armenian territorial base.

The First Republic of Armenia (the first independent Armenian state since the Middle Ages) was established on May 28, 1918. This is, in my opinion, the main goal of Armenians.

The reasons that led to the creation of modern Armenia are several. The first and most important reason was the trauma of what had just transpired in the Western Armenian world. It necessitated establishing an independent Armenian state; only an Armenian nation-state could ensure survival. The Bolsheviks or Whites were never the “solution”; they were temporary frameworks for survival until that European-style nationhood could be secured. It helped that the Russians were mainly CHiristnas rather than Muslims, but it was never the end of the Armenian aspiration and goal, rather a means.

A second reason was the European nation-building wave after the French Revolution. In the Ottoman sphere, the Greek model was an early inspiration, first for the Greeks themselves and then, across the Balkans, for Romanians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Montenegro, and Serbs, and later, in Anatolia, for Turks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Arabs, etc.. The Greek model combined European liberal-nationalist rhetoric with Orthodox communal identity.












.

At Each Kilometer said:

The historian Sheila Fitzpatrick notes that in the twenties of the last century the Bolsheviks were disproportionately represented by ethnic minorities. The Bolsheviks of Jewish origin were the second ethnic group after the Latvians, whose share in the party was disproportionately large. The Jews made up around four and half percent of the Party members and only two percent of the total population. Fitzpatrick explains this by the fact that, no longer restricted by the Pale of Settlement, young Jews from the west of the country flocked to Moscow and St. Patersburg, joined this extremist leftist party en masse and quickly made careers in the new administration. It gave the critics of the proletarian paradise a reason to claim that 'the savages who enslaved Russia' were of certain origin. The Bolshevik party was multiethnic one and it included representatives of many ethnicities. The Armenians were certainly represented, a prominent Armenian among the Bolsheviks was Anastas Mikoyan.

Click to expand...

I think we must be very careful to avoid the persistent “Jewish Bolshevism” myth, which still lingers strongly today. While some Jews were prominent in the early Bolshevik movement, their role has been greatly exaggerated in hostile propaganda.

That said, the appeal of Bolshevism for Jews and other non–Russian Orthodox groups is easy to understand and obvious. For Jews, Bolshevik secularism and the dismantling of tsarist-era antisemitic laws were both compelling and an imperative. For Armenians and other Christian minorities who had historically existed in an Islamic world, the Bolsheviks’ non-Muslim, anti-Ottoman stance aligned with their own recent survival struggles.

Girgisjus said:

And the whites were even more anti-islam & anti-ottoman

Click to expand...

The reality is that neither white nor red was appealing to the Armenians, and your premise is not correct historically that a large number of Armenians joined the Bolshevik Revolution. They did not. A few certainly did, but not in large numbers.

The reality is that the Russian Empire was dead against Armenian nationhood and, on top of it, the Russian Empire was a merger of Orthodox Christianity and autocracy anchored in Russian nationalism. This was not appealing to the Armenians. The Armenians’ end goal was to establish their own nation modeled after the post-French Revolution, specifically the Greek adoption, and more importantly, under specific Russian and Ottoman contexts, and influenced by local realities.

Again, some Armenians may have joined the Bolshevik revolution, and many around the world found this whole movement very appealing for a number of decades, but the end goal was their own independence.

Rostam said:

For Armenians and other Christian minorities who had historically existed in an Islamic world, the Bolsheviks’ non-Muslim, anti-Ottoman stance aligned with their own recent survival struggles.

Click to expand...

The red demonic faction from the ninth circle of hell was attractive to a part of the Armenian population of the former glorious old empire for several reasons. It should be noted though that they were militant atheists, the very essence of their ideology, meaning they destroyed churches & ate Orthodox priests on regular basis, this is what they did. Back to Armenians, firstly, the red devils promised land & freedom from the oppression, which was especially relevant for the low classes: the peasants & proletariat. Secondly, their hellish ideology questioned traditional social structures & religious authorities, which could be attractive to those dissatisfied with the existing situation and thirdly, again despite their internationalist diabolical ideology, the red deceivers paid attention to the national question, meaning they promised support to the national minorities and the right to self determination, which created hope for the Armenians for preservation of their culture & language in the proletarian hell on earth.

Maybe partly because Armenians are not Orthodox Christians. They have their own religion from 300 BC. It was only incorporation in the Russian Empire in the 19th century. So maybe more opposition to Czarist rule.

Poland and the Baltic states were also recently incorporated into the Russian Empire and were mostly Catholic or Protestant.

Similarly with Jews, those areas had other reasons besides Socialist politics to oppose the Czars.

They had their own millet in Ottoman empire: Ermeni millet. It split relatively early during the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror, the sultan who captured Constantinople and effectively ended ERE, from the Rum (Roman) Orthodox millet because of religious problems. The Armenians church is Monophysite and the Orthodox one belongs to the Chalcedonian Christianity.

Armenian Christians don't believe in the Trinity, and are considered heretics by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Similarly, the Catholic Church considers Protestants to be heretics.

betgo said:

Armenian Christians don't believe in the Trinity

Click to expand...

The tern is nontrinitarianism. The Arians (Visigoths, Vandals etc) are known nontrinitarians of the past. Some protestant groups of today belong to this form of Christianity. Armenian Christians do believe in the Trinity.

At Each Kilometer said:

The tern is nontrinitarianism. The Arians (Visigoths, Vandals etc) are known nontrinitarians of the past. Some protestant groups of today belong to this form of Christianity. Armenian Christians do believe in the Trinity.

Click to expand...

One of the (many) theories of the relative ease of the Omeya takeover of Hispania is the Arian roots of many Visigothic clans (prior to Recaredo's conversion decree) and it's similarity to monotheistic islam. Making them sympathetic to a new regime. There were also other reasons to be sympathetic.

Not a theory I subscribe to, I should add.

Incidentally, in Almohad times, they constantly referred to the Christians as "the Polytheists" (meaning trinitarians)

betgo said:

They have their own religion from 300 BC.

Click to expand...

The Armenians during the reign of first Orontid rulers were most likely Zoroastrians. Still three centuries until the birth of you know who.

Rostam said:

I think we must be very careful to avoid the persistent “Jewish Bolshevism” myth, which still lingers strongly today. While some Jews were prominent in the early Bolshevik movement, their role has been greatly exaggerated in hostile propaganda.

That said, the appeal of Bolshevism for Jews and other non–Russian Orthodox groups is easy to understand and obvious. For Jews, Bolshevik secularism and the dismantling of tsarist-era antisemitic laws were both compelling and an imperative. For Armenians and other Christian minorities who had historically existed in an Islamic world, the Bolsheviks’ non-Muslim, anti-Ottoman stance aligned with their own recent survival struggles.

Click to expand...

correct.

lenin was impressed with the revolutionary zeal of the latvians, for example and he favored getting surrounded by them. many 'nationalities' looked at the revolution as a way to advance their interests against an imperial regime where they had always occupied a second class category. see the first three leaders of the soviet union: a russian (part tatar, part jewish), a georgian and a ukrainian.

not that bad.

At Each Kilometer said:

The red demonic faction from the ninth circle of hell was attractive to a part of the Armenian population of the former glorious old empire for several reasons. It should be noted though that they were militant atheists, the very essence of their ideology, meaning they destroyed churches & ate Orthodox priests on regular basis, this is what they did. Back to Armenians, firstly, the red devils promised land & freedom from the oppression, which was especially relevant for the low classes: the peasants & proletariat. Secondly, their hellish ideology questioned traditional social structures & religious authorities, which could be attractive to those dissatisfied with the existing situation and thirdly, again despite their internationalist diabolical ideology, the red deceivers paid attention to the national question, meaning they promised support to the national minorities and the right to self determination, which created hope for the Armenians for preservation of their culture & language in the proletarian hell on earth.

Click to expand...

hey! we dont worship satan!

we worship a georgian...

At Each Kilometer said:

The tern is nontrinitarianism. The Arians (Visigoths, Vandals etc) are known nontrinitarians of the past. Some protestant groups of today belong to this form of Christianity. Armenian Christians do believe in the Trinity.

Click to expand...

yes . armenians are trinitarians.

actually their miaphysistism had nothing to do with the aryan heresy.

the actual aryan controversy had to do with the homoousios vs homoeousios discussion. just one letter difference can send you to hell, my friend.

johnincornwall said:

One of the (many) theories of the relative ease of the Omeya takeover of Hispania is the Arian roots of many Visigothic clans (prior to Recaredo's conversion decree) and it's similarity to monotheistic islam. Making them sympathetic to a new regime. There were also other reasons to be sympathetic.

Not a theory I subscribe to, I should add.

Incidentally, in Almohad times, they constantly referred to the Christians as "the Polytheists" (meaning trinitarians)

Click to expand...

i dont buy that theory either.

visigothic nobles had the customary tendency of backstabbing anyway, throughout the centuries. the difference with the muslim conquest was simply the foreign actor there.

At Each Kilometer said:

The Armenians during the reign of first Orontid rulers were most likely Zoroastrians. Still three centuries until the birth of you know who.

Click to expand...

I meant the 300 AD.

At Each Kilometer said:

The Armenians during the reign of first Orontid rulers were most likely Zoroastrians. Still three centuries until the birth of you know who.

Click to expand...

They were Zoroastrian or, more accurately, they had adopted a Zoroastrian-influenced Armenian paganism. In fact, during the early years of the Parthian Empire, they were heavily Persianized/Iranianized, religiously, linguistically, culturally, and politically. Had that trajectory continued unbroken, I reckon that today Armenians would identify as fully Iranians just like the Persians, Azerbaijanis, Gilakis, Luris, etc.

Then, in the early 4th century (314 AD), Armenia embraced Christianity faster and more decisively than any other state, becoming traditionally the first nation to adopt Christianity as its state religion. Armenia’s adoption of Christianity was not just a religious event or change of faith; it was a civilizational act of cultural preservation and survival as a small nation caught between the imperial powers of the day, the Persian and the Roman. By becoming one of the first officially Christian nations, Armenia secured a unique place in the region and made itself neither fully aligned with one imperial culture nor the other, but clearly marked itself as a separate and unique civilization.

Furthermore, once it became a Christian nation, a religion that the Romans and later on the Byzantine Empire also adopted, it clearly differentiated its brand of Christianity from their adoption. First, by making Armenian the language of the Church, and with the creation of the Armenian alphabet by Mesrop Mashtots in the early 5th century, it gained an independent script and literature. Second, by adopting Miaphysitism (rejection of Chalcedonian Christology), Armenia placed itself outside the official theological orbit of Byzantium.

At Each Kilometer said:

The historian Sheila Fitzpatrick notes that in the twenties of the last century the Bolsheviks were disproportionately represented by ethnic minorities. The Bolsheviks of Jewish origin were the second ethnic group after the Latvians, whose share in the party was disproportionately large. The Jews made up around four and half percent of the Party members and only two percent of the total population. Fitzpatrick explains this by the fact that, no longer restricted by the Pale of Settlement, young Jews from the west of the country flocked to Moscow and St. Patersburg, joined this extremist leftist party en masse and quickly made careers in the new administration. It gave the critics of the proletarian paradise a reason to claim that 'the savages who enslaved Russia' were of certain origin. The Bolshevik party was multiethnic one and it included representatives of many ethnicities. The Armenians were certainly represented, a prominent Armenian among the Bolsheviks was Anastas Mikoyan.

Click to expand...

The Russian Empire oppressed ethnic and religious minorities, and those policies drew many into revolutionary ranks. That trend began well before the revolution.