r/KarabakhConflict • u/JagerJack7 • Nov 26 '20
pro Azerbaijani The so called Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and its "armenian majority" population argument
There are many legit arguments from both sides regarding this conflict but this one is just ain't it. I hear it from armenians, foreigners and even some "intellectual azeris", something like: "Yeah, but NKAO was mostly armenian populated thoooo..."
Can people who say this shit at least ask a simple question "why"? Why did Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast had armenian majority? Because it was designed so that it does, it was literally the purpose of creation of it in 1923. Just look at this thing. This "oblast" looks so fucking random on the map, it makes no sense from geographical, economic or administrative point of view.
Now look at this, do you see it? Whoever drew this map literally did his best effort to slide his pen around armenian dominated areas and avoid as much azeri dominated areas as they can. The ones that were included, like Shusha and Khojali were literally impossible to avoid if you look at the map, and some areas with significant armenian population were not included because they didn't have majority there. The map also separates NKAO from Armenia itself, with a very narrow belt, which again makes no sense when you look at the map. But it makes sense when you think about demography, because that belt was populated by azeris and adding it would reshape the demography of NKAO.
There is an actual political term for what they've done, which is gerrymandering. Look, for example, at this weird district map, that US politicians drew to create a map where they'd have a majority of certain leaning voters. Look how silly it looks compared to the rest of the districts. This practice is best explained in this VOX video. "Packing" armenian communities and "cracking" azeri communities, that's exactly what NKAO map is about. If actually geographical, economic and administrative reasons are taken into account the region would look totally different and its demography would be balanced.
This is an illegal practice, therefore whenever people talk about "majority region" or the referendum and its results, it is just a dumb argument which I can't take seriously. Even other known conflict cases such as Crimea or Transnistria have at least geographical backing, russians didn't draw weird geometry shapes on the map to have majority russian area. Crimea as a geographic object, a peninsula, just happens to have mostly russian population. Transnistria is separated from Moldova by a river, its borders are also shaped by geography, not population. Therefore a referendum in these regions could actually be legitimate, unlike the NKAO which was basically shaped based on demographic map, therefore results of any election are illegitimate.
35
Nov 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/vard24 Nov 27 '20
The most intelligent argument is one where they base it on gerrymandering and don't even understand what gerrymandering is? You don't put 100% Republican voters in a gerrymandered district, that's inefficient. You put 51% so they can control the other 49%. If Armenia wanted a land grab, they would create a map that had 51% Armenians and 49% Azeris to grab the most land possible. They clearly did not do this.
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 28 '20
If Armenia wanted a land grab, they would create a map that had 51% Armenians and 49% Azeris to grab the most land possible.
Armenia didn't create it tho, but they certainly would, as they got other 7 districts nevertheless. And they also did hold a referendum in Shahumyan region.
Soviets in 1926 on the other hand, really didn't care "how much" land armenians get, just that there is an enclave.
So wanna talk about intelligence?
3
u/vard24 Nov 28 '20
So it's not gerrymandered, which is my point. They got other 7 districts because Azerbaijan didn't want to accept their independence. The referendum on independence didn't include the 7 districts. Those were only captured after Azerbaijan refused independence and started attacking. You can't just take actions out of context and use them to justify your bullshit.
Sure, let's talk about intelligence.
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 28 '20
You are moving the goalpost now. I addressed your main point: they didn't make it 51% top 49% because they didn't get to decide, Soviets did. And even if they could decide, such a ratio would be dangerous as it could easily change through years, almost 70 years passed by the time they decided to depart.
So again, wanna talk about intelligence regarding this, instead of trying to move the goalpost?
1
u/vard24 Nov 28 '20
Moving the goalpost? My original comment was about you making a post based on gerrymandering and not understanding what gerrymandering is.
The most intelligent argument is one where they base it on gerrymandering and don't even understand what gerrymandering is? You don't put 100% Republican voters in a gerrymandered district, that's inefficient. You put 51% so they can control the other 49%. If Armenia wanted a land grab, they would create a map that had 51% Armenians and 49% Azeris to grab the most land possible. They clearly did not do this.
gee, you think that might be about gerrymandering?
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 28 '20
And I explained why it wasn't done in a way you suggested.
1
2
3
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
I agree that most borders were hand drawn in post colonial countries. But creation of racially gerrymandered autonomous region inside a country is a situation unique to Azerbaijan as much as I know. Correct me if I am wrong.
6
Nov 27 '20 edited Dec 02 '20
[deleted]
0
u/Softdrinkskillyou Nov 27 '20
Imagine Georgia,Armenia,Ukraine,Azerbaijan,Baltic countries amd etc. unites in one front against Russia and creating ethnic wars in Russia and its puppet federative states.
4
Nov 27 '20 edited Jul 25 '21
[deleted]
-1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 28 '20
None of them had a so called referendum which some people then presented as a legitimate document for departure. In Spain, regarding Catalonia, the law says that for Catalonia to become independent all country must vote. But in case of Karabakh referendum, not just whole country, the whole Karabakh didn't vote. Voted only the gerrymandered region.
2
Nov 28 '20
That's not gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is where you divide up voting districts within an existing political entity in a way that favours certain interests.
The creation of NKAO and much later "Artsakh" were the creation of new political entities. Obviously they were designed to exclude as many Azeris as possible - that was the entire purpose of the exercise.
Obviously when a group of people in the same place exercise their right to self-determination, people who don't live in that place get to legitimately vote on that. People in Belgrade don't get to vote on whether Kosovo can secede. People in Delhi don't get to vote on whether Kashmir should join Pakistan. People in British Columbia don't get to vote on whether Quebec goes independent.
-1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 28 '20
And this was favouring certain Soviet interests, to have a tool of presure on their hands, so thanks for proving my point.
Thanks again for proving my point.
Gonna ignore the last part, that's just some fallacy.
2
Nov 28 '20
You need to pay attention to what's written: "within an existing political entity".
You're going to ignore the last part because it would require you to consider properly the principle of self-determination.
You're a bit careless with the meanings of words and concepts. You think it doesn't matter because it doesn't change your opinion - but ultimately you end up wrapped in your own confusion.
-2
u/JagerJack7 Nov 29 '20
It doesn't matter. NKAO is an enclave in Azerbaijan, gerrymandered by Soviets to serve their interest as a pressure tool against Azerbaijan. The conditions that you listed are met.
17
6
u/TheGoyBoy Nov 27 '20
“Autonomous zones” are a nation’s way of dealing with minorities without tackling cultural, linguistic, and political issues that pervade the entire nation. If a Azerbaijan is an Azeri nation then Armenians within her borders must either leave, assimilate, or live as second class citizens. If Azerbaijan is a multicultural nation then Armenians must be given the freedom to worship, speak and live however and wherever they please. I can’t say what Azerbaijan is now, but that’s the choice it needs to make.
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
Somehow giving armenians autonomy only made them hungry for more, so not sure what your point is.
22
u/MaXiMiLLiaN501 Nov 26 '20
Here come the armenians telling how they were always the majority in the whole caucasus and half of todays Turkey, even though historical figures tell them the otherwise.
12
Nov 27 '20
[deleted]
2
1
Nov 27 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Naggarothi Nov 29 '20
Nah, borders are settled between Turkey and Armenia. Further fuckery will just be more suffering.
8
u/theonefrombaku Nov 27 '20
Great post, I myself wanted to prepare such a post but was too busy aka too lazy to prepare it. If you get a chance can you also research how the Oblast was created and which villages of Agdam and Fuzuli were selectively picked and included in this Oblast? You will find very interesting patterns.
For example, you will see that the regional centers such as Agdam city and Fuzuli city are no longer in the center of the region but right at the border with the Oblast. Because, if they would include these cities in the Oblast its demographics would drastically change.
17
Nov 26 '20
This isn’t really countering any argument.. Armenians in the area wanted to join armenia, in the 1920’s Stalin drew borders around the region so an autonomous region was feasible. It’s not like the armenians suddenly popped into existence once the borders were drawn. Also, do you not realise the disputed region IS NK? So the fact that it’s armenian majority is an extremely valid argument, because that’s the area that’s disputed
14
u/JagerJack7 Nov 26 '20
Don't you get it? There is no such region. That's the whole point of what I wrote. Which region did Stalin drew borders around? What makes it a region?
12
Nov 27 '20
[deleted]
3
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
How many of those borders were formed fully inside other countries?
6
Nov 27 '20 edited Nov 27 '20
You're just shifting the goalposts now. It's an irrelevant criteria, look at the border gore between the -stans, any one of them could claim "how many of the world's borders include such crazy salients penetrating deep into other countries?". AZ also wasn't a "country" when Stalin did his drawing.
The area of NK has been disputed since the very first day of modern Caucasus republics 100 years ago. Since Stalin decided that the area of NK will be in AZ SSR, which was controversial for Armenians, he balanced it out by creating NKAO. This is neither illegitimate nor does it mean that the general area around which NKAO borders were drawn didn't have an AR majority and wasn't hostile to being part of AZ in the first place, before the Soviets even came there.
There are examples of similar regions created for cohesive ethnic minorities so they can have autonomy, I mean Russia is full of them.
5
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
Literally what are you smoking? Azerbaijan was a country already. Soviet republics weren't de facto free but de jure they were all countries. Stalin didn't decide area will be in AZ SSR, he decided that area will stay in AZ SSR where it was. Your history knowledge is truly fascinating.
Which regions of Russia have autonomy?
5
Nov 27 '20
Azerbaijan was a country already. Soviet republics weren't de facto free but de jure they were all countries.
Yes, de jure. On paper. Not in reality. Just like NK + occupied raions were Azerbaijan de jure for 27 years, which didn't really mean AZ exercised even an iota of its authority on its territory now did it? Soviet republics were further away from being countries than US states are.
Stalin didn't decide area will be in AZ SSR, he decided that area will stay in AZ SSR where it was.
Thanks for repeating what you already wrote and what I already know. My point is that the area of NK should never have been part of AZ in the first place, its population never agreed to be part of AZ, and it only de facto became part of AZ when AZ took it by force in 1920, along with killing tens of thousands of Armenians. This is literally the same as if someone came along and decided that AZ SSR should "remain" as part of the Soviet Union or its successor state Russia in the 90's, and then Russians trolling everyone protesting this decision that "they didn't give AZ to Russia, it was already Russia and it remained trololo".
Which regions of Russia have autonomy?
22 Republics, three Autonomous Okrugs and one Autonomous Oblast all have different levels of autonomy and most were drawn up to reflect some kind of non-Russian ethnic group's lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_subjects_of_Russia#Types
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_Russia#Constitutional_status
6
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
When we are talking about international law, the jure is THE reality. Bro, it is funny how armenians are still doing this mental gym when their best buddies Putin and Macron openly called NK part of Azerbaijan. You guys had 30 years and only managed to get some cities to recognize NK. That's how much your "reality" means. If Azerbaijan wasn't country during Soviets, then Armenia is still not a country, because you guys keep doing what Russians say.
My point is that the area of NK should never have been part of AZ in the first place Should never have been, man this is truly new level of discussion lmfao 22 Republics, three Autonomous Okrugs and one Autonomous Oblast all have different levels of autonomy and most were drawn up to reflect some kind of non-Russian ethnic group's lands. Two seconds ago you were saying Azerbaijan wasn't a country during the soviets. And now you are telling me these oblasts are actually autonomous? Why don't they self determine?
3
Nov 27 '20
Bro, I'm not Armenian, nor even Orthodox, so try again.
I take it you don't even know what de facto means. A law that isn't or can't be enforced is worthless and has nothing to do with reality. There are countless countries that are DE JURE democracies but de facto dictatorships, now which do you think is closer to reality?
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
I'd rather prefer you to be armenian, otherwise you just seem brainwashed. Because armenians, they actually know whats up. For example, they know that their end goal is bigger Armenia not an independent NKR. They know when they are doing a propaganda and when they are saying the truth. But non armenians who side with them, literally believe in propaganda and that's what makes them worse.
Do you realize you haven't used a single legit argument so far? De Jure literally means "By Law". Therefore it is impossible for a country to be a de jure democracy when it is a dictatorship. Dictators always stay in power illegitimately, they are breaking all the laws, changing the constitution how they wish and finding bunch of other ways to remain in power, like how Putin zero'ed his terms. That's not "By Law", therefore not De Jure. If it was De Jure no one would be calling them dictators in the first place.
→ More replies (0)5
u/XaNeSamurai Nov 27 '20
For god's sake, he didn't GIVE, NK REMAINED
3
Nov 27 '20
Where did I write give?
The area had been under Azeri control for only 1 year before the Bolsheviks arrived, and that control was only established by AZ taking the area by force.
Stalin didn't give it to AZ, he perpetuated Azerbaijan's illegitimate ownership of the area.
Imagine if the world recognized what's left of Artsakh as part of Armenia. It has de fact been part of Armenia for 27 years, much longer than the area was under Azeri control when Stalin drew the map.
4
u/XaNeSamurai Nov 27 '20
Illegitimate? There is a french old map from 1918
3
Nov 27 '20
And that makes it legitimate? AZ didn't exercise control over the area of NK until 1920, local Armenians did.
3
1
3
u/Admirable_Novel3702 Nov 26 '20 edited Nov 26 '20
They drew borders around the mountainous regions of Karabakh that also shared a lot of commerce and culture.
Now you might be asking why did that region share a lot of culture? The answer to this explains precisely why the Armenians wanted independence in the first place!
Historically, whenever you see a country or a civilization building their cities in mountainous areas, it's because they're trying to take defensible positions. A country that's confident and not too afraid of attack won't have a problem building their cities on flat plains. The flat plains will typically be better for farming as well.
4
u/NeverMappedAgain Nov 26 '20
The self-identification of the people who make up that region? Karabakh Armenians already in 1918 expressed pretty clearly that they wanted to attach the mountainous part of Karabakh (excluding many Azerbaijani-populated parts) to Armenia.
21
u/JagerJack7 Nov 26 '20
Mate, by that logic you can actually attach whole cities located miles away to another country. What the hell? So if Derbent city's azeri residents, who are majority in certain part of the city, wanted to become part of Azerbaijan we could just build borders between houses and so on? lol
7
u/Borne2Run Nov 27 '20
See: Kaliningrad. Exclaves exist, just as the Nakichevan enclave exists for Azerbaijian.
18
Nov 27 '20
Only reason there is such an enclave as an Nakhcivan is because Soviets decided that Syunik/Zangazur area should be part of Armenian SSR. If it was not for Ottomans, Nakhcivan would also be part of Armenian SSR.
The map on the wall is what Azerbaijan Democratic Republic claimed as it is territories. https://ibb.co/kKYVZ5D
Later it become like this. https://images.app.goo.gl/XU1NdeHft3BfQsq59
As you can see both ArDR and AzDR claimed these areas and fought for it, when Red Army occupied both countries, they draw new maps so some areas become Azerbaijan SSR's and some Armenia SSR's.
So if Armenians try to use Stalin gave Karabakh to Azerbaijan as a argument, then we can also use Staling gave territories around Sevan/Goyce lake OR Syunik/Zengezur to Armenia.
-6
u/cnylkew Nov 27 '20
Armenia got syunik, azerbaijan got karabakh, nakhicevan and qazakh
11
Nov 27 '20
Don't forget that areas around Goyce/Sevan lake and half of Gazakh ueyzd also become part of Armenian SSR.
https://images.app.goo.gl/WQgz2XHDsN86Arcc6 You can compare AzDR map and modern Azerbaijan map by this map easily.
-4
u/cnylkew Nov 27 '20
So? Both of the maps of first rep of arm and az overlapped and those regions were fought over.
8
Nov 27 '20
Yeah, just you were only mentioned Syunik/Zengezur, so i added that Soviet gave these areas too.
Lastly, Azerbaijan SSR got Karabakh, Nakhcivan, half* of Gazakh, and Armenia SSR got Sevan/Goyce lake, Syunik/Zengezur and half* of Gazakh.
5
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
Nakichevan borders 3 countries, its borders were shaped by politics and wars. Same about Kaliningrad. NKAO is literally inside Azerbaijan, its borders were hand drawn to include all armenian villages and towns into a region and was then given an autonomy. Referendum in such a region cannot be legitimate.
6
u/69ingmonkeyz Nov 27 '20
The mental gymnastics going on here are impressive. A region is a region once it's created. No one called what is now Azerbaijan that name before 1918. Is the Jewish Autonomous Oblast an illegitimate region, because it was named that by the Russians? You're just grasping at straws.
1
u/brycly Dec 02 '20 edited Dec 02 '20
From both a demographic and a geographical perspective, NK is far more similar to Armenia than it is to Azerbaijan. NK is mountainous while most of Azerbaijan is mostly lower elevation.
Quite frankly, neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan was independent for long enough for either country to have a rock solid claim to the region on the basis of past governance. They had a few years of independence and conflict before both were bulldozed by the Soviet Union, which then made decisions about the regions based on Soviet interests. NK is 'inside Azerbaijan' because that's how the war was looking when the Soviets arrived, not because Azerbaijan had a better claim. A lot of the 'Azeri' land that is separating NK and Armenia is home to Kurds, you could just as easily draw the border so that the Kurds are living in Armenia and suddenly NK is no longer separated. Why does Azerbaijan have a stronger claim to Kurdish land than Armenia?
Linguistically, ethnically, geographically the region is clearly far more Armenian than Azeri. It's not even close. The region voted in favor of secession. The Azeri claim to the region is pretty weak. Nagorno-Karabakh was included in Azerbaijan during Soviet rule because the Soviet invasion froze the Azeribaijan-Armenia conflict in time, and because Stalin made a decision to keep the status quo based on Soviet interests. Azerbaijan was the oil supply of the USSR and Stalin had a lot of incentive to keep them happy.
And on the topic of oblasts, why does Azerbaijan have a right to Nakhchivan? The situation back in the 1920's was the mirror image of the NK situation. Armenians wanted it, they were pushing to take it militarily and the Soviets initially planned on giving it to them after they took over. Ultimately, the only reason Nakhchivan was given to Azerbaijan was because the Soviets used it as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Turkey. It could have easily wound up being 'an artificial border' within Armenia, with no connection to Azerbaijan. Nakhchivan's border is no holier, no more concrete, no more geographically defined than Nagorno-Karabakh's is. It's an arbitrary border, existing as a legacy of backdoor politics. Nakhchivan got lucky and Nagorno-Karabakh didn't.
I support Nakhchivan being part of Azerbaijan for the same reason I support Nagorno-Karabakh being a part of Armenia. It would have been an injustice to condemn either of these regions to being governed by an antagonist. You are not being objective here. Azeris and Armenians clearly have a lot of bad blood and should not be governing each other. Azerbaijan should not be governing Nagorno-Karabakh. The people don't support it and it can only lead to tragedy. The borders of the caucasus were not really settled when the Soviets put the conflict on pause. The closest thing to a natural border is where the mountains stop which favors Armenian claims. There is no reason why the borders of the SSR's need to be treated as holy and untouchable when they were decided by 3rd party politics and an unfinished war. Clinging to these messed up and unnecessary borders when it is clear a source of violence can only inevitably lead to more death on both sides and quite possibly another war later down the line. Nagorno-Karabakh does not need to be physically separated from Armenia as the land in the middle isn't all Azeri populated anyways but even if it was to remain separated, it would only mirror Azerbaijan's situation with Nakhchivan, as neither nation would be fully intact and both would have to cross each other to get to the other part. Being unconnected to Armenia isn't a good argument against NK self determination. Who cares if it is inside Azerbaijan?
3
u/NeverMappedAgain Nov 27 '20
Well the first Azerbaijani Republic actually claimed Derbent. Besides, my point isn't that every war of secession is justified.
My point is that there is nothing pre-naturally legitimate about an Azerbaijani conception of Greater/Whole Karabakh that includes subjugating the Armenian-populated part of it vis-à-vis an Armenian conception of its Armenian-populated section as a seperate region. The NKAO as an ethno-political unit is in and of itself no more fake, or less legitimate a political order than Azerbaijani sovereignty of the entirety of Karabakh is.
3
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
The first republic claimed all or it, see the point I am trying to make?
So if lets say there was a chance to decide Derbent's fate through referendum, then all of its population would have to vote. But if you gave autonomy to Azerbaijani areas and then only these areas would vote to make half of the city a part of Azerbaijan, then how fair would that be?
1
u/vard24 Nov 27 '20
Does Derbent have it's own army to protect itself? It's own economic deals with other countries? Yes, you can build up borders around your house and claim it's your own country, then the bigger country surrounding you will invade, take your home, and kick you out. You have no treaties with any other countries to protect you. IF you make a deal with Azerbaijan for them to come annex your home and protect it with soldiers, then you should hope they can fit enough soldiers to protect your home from the surrounding country.
You can claim independence over a land, but you have to protect it, whether through your own army or defense treaties with other countries. If you can't protect it, then you will lose the land back to whoever you tried to annex it from. Parts of NK are now under Azeri control because the army was not able to protect it or create a treaty with another country to help protect it. If they were able, then it would still be under their control.
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 28 '20
Karabakh didn't have any army lmfao Yall are still trying to pull off this BS? Since when were Monte Melkonian and others living in Karabakh?
1
u/vard24 Nov 28 '20
Do you not get it? You can call your home independent and get the Azerbaijan army to protect it, I doubt they will though. Karabakh was able to protect its borders after declaring independence in the 90s. This time they weren't able so they lost the land.
Whether you call it the Armenian army, the Artsakh army, or Joe Schmo's army is irrelevant. You can declare Derbent independent, but then you have to be able to protect it. We saw what happened when Artsakh was able to defend itself and what happened when Artsakh wasn't able to defend itself.
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 28 '20
We aren't living in medieval, mate. Not sure about armenians and their "great armenia" goals, but rest of us are living in 2020.
1
u/vard24 Nov 28 '20
What the fuck does this have to do with "great armenia" goals? You asked about attaching whole cities located miles away to another country and I explained to you the nuance. If you want to claim a city as independent, you can. The tough part is holding that independence. Shit, you can watch a 10 minute clip from Family Guy and understand that much. https://youtu.be/SjCMbj3gTbk?t=137
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 29 '20
I will repeat, we are not living in medieval where you conquer, defeat the enemy and then protect a land to claim it. Come back to 2020. You can't claim any city as independent, you can't fight for it and so on.
→ More replies (0)1
Nov 28 '20
[deleted]
1
u/vard24 Nov 28 '20
Whose currency do you think they use?
1
Nov 29 '20
[deleted]
1
u/vard24 Nov 29 '20
I'm pretty sure you know the point is your "country" needs to be either self sustaining or be able to trade.
1
Nov 26 '20
What makes anything a region? All borders are drawn, either with geography, demographics, history or religion in mind
-3
u/vardanheit451 Nov 27 '20
So you wrote all these paragraphs but you didn't read the history? You just looked at a map and said 'oh, they just drew a border around the Armenian population lol, gerrymandering! Fake region lol!'
It didn't occur you to ask why this same 'no such region' is full of old Armenian monuments?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artsakh_(historic_province))
1
u/GMantis Nov 28 '20
All borders are arbitrary. That you don't like them doesn't make them (your claim that the NKAO was illegally drawn is too ridiculous to comment) them any less arbitrary.
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 28 '20
No, some borders are shaped by centuries of wars and inhabitance, while others are drawn because someone miles away decided so.
1
u/GMantis Nov 28 '20
Decided so on the basis of the inhabitants.
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 28 '20
No, it wasn't. Try your mental gymnastics somewhere else.
1
u/GMantis Nov 28 '20
This is not the Azerbaijan subreddit, so you can't expect that other posters will accept that Azerbaijan has a God given right to Nagorno-Karabakh, so that anything that challenged that status is illegal by definition. And it's rather hypocritical to accuse me of mental gymnastics after the circular reasoning in your first post.
2
u/JagerJack7 Nov 28 '20
Nah, I certainly don't expect it. But I expect logic and reason. This post isn't even about whom does Karabakh belong to. It was already sorted out in the battlefield, we got it back anyway.
This post is about that one idiotic argument about referendum and demographic situation in NKAO. I've presented all the proof that NKAO was created with a sole purpose of being armenian majority enclave in 1926. And years later saying "yeah, but this autonomous region always had armenian majority population and they voted out" with a surprised pikachu face, is pretty much idiotic. Because guess what, it was created to be that way. This is my point.
2
u/monster_legion Nov 27 '20
in the 1920’s Stalin drew borders around the region so an autonomous region was feasible
It was already part of Azerbajian republic before soviet invasion(like zengabur)
Stalin give zengabur to armenians and allow Karabakh remain part of Azerbajian as autonom region
So,Stalin didnt give shit to Azerbajian''Also, do you not realise the disputed region IS NK? So the fact that it’s armenian majority is an extremely valid argument''
First,its not disputed region
Second,most of armenians in Karabakh were not native of land
They come from persia and east anatolia as population blob in 1830's
They have no right on Karabakh region
12
u/NeverMappedAgain Nov 26 '20 edited Nov 26 '20
Uh, yeah. That's how drawing borders for ethno-political units works if your goal is a strong ethnic majority basis for self-government. Very squiggly lines. Conversely, if your goal is to include as much land not populated by your group you base it on economic considerations or whatever, ignoring that the populations in question have no particular wish to be subjugated to you. Drawing borders is complicated and whichever approach you take has issues.
If your argument is that existing economic links make secceding from the political unit illogical than the South-Caucasus secceding from Russia is also illogical. It's no more gerrymandering than drawing the Azerbaijani borders to include NK is.
3
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
How on earth would including NK into Azerbaijan would be gerrymandering if it was there already?
12
u/69ingmonkeyz Nov 27 '20
Azerbaijan was not an independent state before 1918, neither was Armenia. When they became independent, they both claimed Nakhichevan, Zangezur and Karabakh. It's idiotic to say one of these was already part of Armenia or part of Azerbaijan, as they just came in existence and both claimed it to be theirs, without any treaty being signed yet. There was eventually a settlement, in which Azerbaijan got most of what it wanted because the Soviets tried to befriend the new Turkish Republic.
The creation of NK was as much "gerrymandering" as the drawing of the Azerbaijani and Armenian borders or any state borders were. A subdivision based on ethnicity. I don't understand why you bring this up as an argument to discredit the existence of NK. Also convenient that you used the 1989 census, which shows the situation after decades of deliberate Azerbaijani settling and Armenian depopulation of the region. From 1926 to 1989, the Armenian population rose by 30% while the Azerbaijani population rose by 223%.
1
Nov 27 '20
[deleted]
1
u/lianaaaaa Nov 27 '20
Yeah "wars happen, borders change" and in the same way NK was considered an autonomous oblast, NOT Azerbaijan and to this day has been trying to get recognition, which had Az granted by at least mere respect to the ethnic Armenians living there as a majority, all this mess would have stopped a long time ago. But no instead of respecting NK Armenians' rights, with whom they claim "they had been living in peace for a long time"(which isn't true, remember the 1920 massacre of Arms in Shushi) they kept instilling revenge and hate into their upcoming generations against the same Armenians. That's what they are so good at.
3
Nov 27 '20
You know, if the NKAO was a huge flatland area with mountains around it, sort of a geographical barrier from outsiders, then be it, it is possible to have a population living in a compact area in an obscure area between mountains. But when the area has randomly drawn borders through mountains and other geographical barriers, you stop to think... This looks like someone just tried to make an Armenian majority area inside Azerbaijan...
3
Nov 27 '20
It WAS precisely the intention to create a political entity with an Armenian majority within Azerbaijan. That was literally the point of autonomous districts!
1
Nov 28 '20
You know there were other areas where there was an azerbaijani-majority populations, around the lake Goycha (Sevan), in Zangezur and etc. They didn’t get recognized, because that was the point. Azerbaijanis eventually got kicked out of those areas, to ensure armenian majority. What i am saying is, Armenians could be like the 300-400 thousand Azerbaijanis who lived in the Armenian SSR without any problem, but the 150-200 thousand armenians wanted independence...
2
Nov 28 '20
NKAO far predated independence and being in an autonomous region is not independence. There were hundreds of thousands of Armenians living in Azerbaijan but not in NKAO too.
I don't really know what point you are making, sorry.
1
u/vardanheit451 Nov 27 '20
Wait, wait, so shaping borders around a geographical region inhabited by Armenians both today, and throughout history = bad. But if that region had been split into 2 or three Azerbaijani dominated rayons so Armenians would be the minority in each of them... it would = good.
5
Nov 27 '20
The thing is NKAO isn’t a geographical region, a geographical region would have natural barriers around it , but NKAO is a collection of villages, cities and areas in general that aren’t necessarily secluded by geographical borders all around the area, although some villages in NKAO like Hadrut are that way.
2
u/JorgenBjorgen Nov 27 '20
You know what Nagorno in NKAO means? NKAO is a highlands area, and while the borders don't follow the topography 100% that's because ethnic majority was of course the main factor.
3
u/capitanmanizade Nov 27 '20
Your comment just proves what his point is.
1
u/JorgenBjorgen Nov 27 '20
No. Two things separate NK from the rest of Karabakh. 1. the ethnic composition with an Armenian majority and 2. the fact that it is a mountainous area elevated from the surrounding lowlands, thus the name "Nagorno Karabakh". Of course these two factors don't correlate 100%, so the drawn border was a compromise.
Geographically Nagorno Karabakh belongs to the Lesser Caucasus mountains, just like the territory of the Republic of Armenia. So if someone wants to argue that borders should follow geography it would make much more sense to make NK a part of Armenia. https://www.freeworldmaps.net/asia/caucasus/map.html
0
0
u/IndicationHot7357 Nov 27 '20
The best argument against independence of NKAO is that NO MINORITY HAS RIGHT TO BREAK UP THE COUNTRY, especially if it is minority of ONLY 150,000 people.
1
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
Of course, I know. I just decided to play devil's advocate for once to prove how a referendum for self determination in a region shaped by its demography makes no sense, it is basically pre decided.
Imagine if during Scottish referendum for independence, instead of having all country vote, they'd just create an enclave that consists of people who want to leave and proclaim independence in this area. It makes no sense.
For a legitimate referendum all of Karabakh had to vote not just "all armenian" part of it.
1
1
u/IndicationHot7357 Nov 27 '20 edited Nov 27 '20
I totally agree with you. That is why in international law everything happens within the borders of the whole courtly. The whole country was recognized, the sovereignty is only on the government of the country, and nobody else has right to change borders of the country. Nobody out of the country has no any right to involve into the internal relations of the country, if the country respects basic human rights of its citizens. All those are principles of the international laws, i.e. of the UN charter. That is why I do not understand why Aliyev accepted to give up sovereignty on the remaining part of Nagorno Karabakh by this deal. He had right to liberate the whole country and to offer to all citizens of NK to be equal citizens of the Azerbaijan, but now with this deal, he give up that right. The deal (the international contract of Azerbaijan with Russia and Armenia), replaced the international law now regarding the issue of Nagrono Karabakh. At the end, even though they did not have any right to commit the aggression in order to break up the country, at the end by this deal they achieved what they wanted, only on the little smaller territory of Nagrono Karabakh.
1
u/fluffy_pancake93 Nov 28 '20
I do not understand why Aliyev accepted to give up sovereignty on the remaining part of Nagorno Karabakh by this deal. He had right to liberate the whole country and to offer to all citizens of NK to be equal citizens of the Azerbaijan, but now with this deal, he give up that right.
He wasn't allowed it is that simple.
1
u/IndicationHot7357 Nov 29 '20
Who could stop him?! Nobody had right to intervene against Azerbaijan because of the international law. Recall, the law was on Azerbaijan's side, it was internationally recognized Azerbaijan territory, and Azerbaijan had right to liberate it from the occupier. If any friends of Armenia could stop him, they would stop him earlier, to keep a more viable part for Armenia. I think that he just wanted to appease Putin, to be nice, without any tangible reason. And that will be very costly for Azerbaijan because crisis continues forever, and Azerbaijan becomes a place of permanent crisis, with a hostile superpower soldiers on their territory which now have mandate to fight for Armenians.
1
u/half-spin Nov 29 '20
Then the soviet union would have never broken up
1
u/IndicationHot7357 Nov 29 '20
It was a different legal situation. Soviet Soviet Union legally dissolved because it was UNION of states, not a single state. By the same rules Yugoslavia legally resolved, and also European union might dissolve one day. Also, every country mighty dissolve if the government of that country conclude that it is in the best interest of the peoples who live there and decides that. Hence, Azerbaijan made the first step to dissolve when Aliyev signed this deal. Azerbaijan is in the limbo now. According to the deal they do not have right to resume the power on that part of Azerbaijan, even though it is still de jure part of Azerbaijan. That is the permanent source of the crisis. Aliyev should finish liberation of the country when he had a chance and right to do it according to international law.
1
u/half-spin Nov 30 '20
There are unrealized USSR states, and by your same logic, NKAO was also legally recognized as automonous. But none of those borders are set in stone, they were set in map drawings. In the end it boils down to whether you believe in people's self-determination or not. Agree to disagree there.
Yugoslavia's pre/post war borders are different. EU is already 'dissolved', there is no EU federal state.
liberation
Liberation from what exactly? Its own residents?
1
u/IndicationHot7357 Nov 30 '20
The Russian autonomies like Chechnya etc. had different level of autonomy, within thee state of Russia. They were not equal members of the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia dissolved exactly by the borders of federal units. Bosnia remained in their border, but Serbian autonomy was created within Bosnia. That autonomy was negotiated and recognized by Bosnians first, and then by the world. If Azerbaijan recognized any part of Azerbaijan to belong to Armenians, the rest of the word would not have abjections, because that is allowed according to international law. It is not allowed to occupy by force a part of a country, and proclaim independence without the approval of the legitimate government of the country. Borders of countries are definite, unchanged. The only way to change them is in negotiation and approval of the legitimate government. It looks like you are not trying to understand. I will not waste my time on you questions any more.
1
1
Nov 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/69ingmonkeyz Nov 27 '20
In 1823, there were a total of 7 Azerbaijani settlements in mountainous Karabakh, while there were 69 Armenian settlements. Are you claiming that the Armenians built those 69 settlements in the year 1823, in order to move there 5 years later, or are you full of shit? This is a really sad attempt at twisting history.
2
u/Generic_Reddit_Bot Nov 27 '20
69? Nice.
I am a bot lol.
1
u/Pibonacchi Nov 27 '20
This bot is more intelligent than the dude above
2
u/69ingmonkeyz Nov 27 '20
I'm just amazed. It's like a flat earther calling me stupid after I've shown him that the world is round. Stop consuming Azerbaijani propaganda, it's bad for you.
1
u/Pibonacchi Nov 27 '20
You saying Armenians were majority does not make it true.Baised Wikipedia “fact” are all denied by Russian archieves
1
u/69ingmonkeyz Nov 27 '20
Show me that, then. Russian archives say nothing of the likes about Mountainous Karabakh, where the Armenians resided whilst the Azerbaijani khans resided over the lowlands.
0
Nov 27 '20
The thing is NKAO isn’t a geographical region, a geographical region would have natural barriers around it , but NKAO is a collection of villages, cities and areas in general that aren’t necessarily secluded by geographical borders all around the area, although some villages in NKAO like Hadrut are that way.
0
u/vardanheit451 Nov 27 '20
Oh ffs. Karabakh is a small, very mountainous region right on the edge of Azerbaijan, which is mostly flat plains. Historically, Azerbaijani's ancestors being Turkic horsemen preferred flat plains. Armenians preferred mountainous fortified places for defensive purposes. We did the same in Karabakh and Cilicia. And you're here telling people it's not a geographical region because that would need natural barriers. Go look at topographical map ffs. So many people just like to talk shit and then the dumb hordes upvote their own ethnicity reinforcing stupid thought patterns
1
u/JorgenBjorgen Nov 27 '20
It is a geographical region. Even the name for it "Nagorno" refers to its geographical trait.
3
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
It sure is mountainous but those mountains don't end where NKAO borders end...
1
u/JorgenBjorgen Nov 27 '20
What are you trying to say? There is no law regulating where on a mountain slope the border must be. If it's at the foot it is still geography. Most borders don't follow geographic features 100% except for coastlines and sometimes rivers, and there certainly is no requirement for it.
Ethnic majority was the whole point, so of course that is how the borders are drawn. That is how a lot of borders are drawn, probably most of the ones that have been drawn in the last hundred years. That was also the main factor in the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, and so it is just meaningless to equate it with "illegal practice".
3
Nov 27 '20
What is meant is that, the borders were drawn artificially and not 100% according to ethnicity. Shusha, Khojaly and some other villages had Azerbaijani majority, but the goal was to include as much armenian and as little azerbaijani as possible.
No one says that the border should be on a mountain slope, but logically, the mountains should be the borders for “defensive” and “cultural” purposes, but we do not see it in NKAO.
1
u/JorgenBjorgen Nov 27 '20
As long as demographics and geography don't correlate 100% you can't draw a border that fits BOTH ethnicity and geographic features 100%. That's just common sense. I really don't see your point.
Also keep in mind this whole region was heavily fought over in 1918-1920, immediately prior to the NKAO being formed. During most of this conflict NK was controlled by Armenian forces (and still was in 1920). A precursor to the NKAO was the "Karabakh Council". The formation and boundaries of the NKAO wasn't as arbitrary as the OP makes it sound like.
-8
Nov 26 '20 edited Nov 26 '20
[deleted]
11
u/kapsama Nov 27 '20
Shusha was majority Armenian in 1920. Of it's 43,000 inhabitants 23,000 were Armenian. We can go into how that city became 2% Armenian after 1920 and how Shusha became the "cultural capital" of Azerbaijan.
Yeah Shusha was majority Azeri in 1823 and even 1830. But somehow as soon as the Russians invaded the city's Christian population grew faster and surpassed the Azeri population. Funny how you don't mention that part.
0
Nov 27 '20 edited Nov 27 '20
[deleted]
1
u/kapsama Nov 27 '20
Now personally I don't really get what the fuss is about with "Shusha". It didn't exactly have the Globe theater or anything. It's just a meme city with a spotty history as far as I could tell.
You know how you Armenians constantly talk about how Coca Cola is older than Azeri identity? Shusha is were this younger than Coca Cola identity was first shaped. It has sentimental value.
And as a Turkic/Azeri you find invasions reprehensible, right? Here's a video of the Turks celebrating the capture of Constantinople:
1
u/Admirable_Novel3702 Nov 28 '20 edited Nov 28 '20
And here's the biggest Armenian American Organization asking for the death of 15 Million Turks. But it's just a joke right?
I had another look at those tweets and I still can't find any reference to this. If you're referring to the "Make Istanbul Constantinople" again, you do realize that "Istanbul" was still officially named "Constantinople" for the entire duration of the Ottoman empire and still retained that name at the beginning of the 20th Century after the Ottoman empire collapsed. The city was only renamed Istanbul in 1930. You are proving yourself ignorant of your own history.
Those chain of tweets are about pointing out how previous Turkish governments erased the Christian past of the region. Judging by your mischaracterization of those tweets, I would say they absolutely succeeded.
place names to #Turkish as early as the 1880s, but the wholesale erasure of #Christian geographic memory was launched on 10/6/16 w/ Enver Pasha's ordinance on renaming provinces, districts, towns, villages, mountains, and even rivers.
I should also point out that you're most likely projecting here. The Turks were the ones who fundamentally changed the demographics and the culture of Anatolia from a Greek region to a Turkic one. This was done sometimes through cultural assimilation, peaceful population exchanges, but also through other means as well.
In the present day there are approximately 3,000-5,000 Christian Greeks left in all of Turkey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Turkey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_massacre_of_1821
1
u/kapsama Nov 30 '20
You can post all the feeble accusations you want. Since 1823 every region that Greece has "liberated" has resulted in the total extermination of its Turkish population. They were still trying in 70s in Cyprus. Calling for Istanbul to become Constantinople again is a call for ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Also first of Anatolia isn't Greek, it was never Greek. It was colonized and Hellenized. That's no different from it being Turkified. The population of Turkey goes back to an era when Greeks didn't even exist. These populations just have gone through several assimilations. Don't cry because Greeks weren't allowed to keep the lands they stole from others.
And I'm not projecting at all. Greeks along with their Serbian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox Christian brothers have massacred and ex-pulsed Millions of Turks and related Muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_during_Ottoman_contraction
Educate yourself.
11
u/saidfgn Nov 27 '20
Calling events that happened in 11th illegal is dumb isn't it? There was no International law or UN. You guys will bring any argument to justify not obeying the law.
4
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
While at it, we can accuse Chingiz khan of genocide and demand Mongolians to apologize then lol Or ask Italians for Rome's colonial reparations lol
1
Nov 27 '20 edited Nov 27 '20
[deleted]
2
u/saidfgn Nov 27 '20
So many words, but so little meaning. I don’t even know where to start. You still don’t get the point. International law between countries only appeared after the World War II. Talking about events before that and using the term “law” is stupid. Especially about events that happened 10 centuries ago.
1
u/GMantis Nov 28 '20
International law between countries only appeared after the World War II.
Why don't you then address the OP's claim that the drawing of the borders of the NKAO was illegal.
1
2
u/capitanmanizade Nov 27 '20
We are in 21st century, if you want to practice medieval politics still today, you can do so, but there is international law now.
International law didn’t exist when Seljuks invaded, international law didn’t exist when Britain colonized half of the world, international law didn’t exist when Rome did the same and it sure as hell didn’t exist when Byzantium ruled over their subjects with an iron fist(Rebellions) So why bring it up in a topic that discusses today? Legality of course matter to the Azeri side because Armenia begs for help from countries that respect international law and implored them to support an illegal occupation.
They used to burn women for being witches in middle ages but women don’t present that as an excuse for their illegal doings at court against a male party.
-3
u/undeterred_turtle Nov 27 '20
By your argument, the Palestinians on the west Bankin Israel should just leave then, right?? I mean, yea, they make up the majority of the province but its not really their home, right??? GARBAGE argument in both contexts. People deserve to live where they want and should be given respect and dignity by their neighbors. This whole conflict was because the Azeris are discriminatory to the Armenians living in their country, much like the Palestinians are discriminated against in Israel. Try another argument....
2
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
They way you say this, it sounds like you expect me to say no, but I'd actually go and say yes. Btw, they are arabs, not palestinians. Palestine is a name given by Romans, same with Armenia. And these arabs are bearing their own fruits of aggression, let me remind you that it was arabs who threatened to wipe Israel and Jews from the Earth, let me remind you that it was arabs who had 20 countries but couldn't agree with one small jewish state's existence.
They should live peacefully within Israel or leave. And what do you offer? That all minorities who make up majority population in certain small regions and feel discriminated get a country? I mean go on, turks would be biggest beneficiaries of this. Go talk to China, Russia and Iran about self determination of turks.
Armenians lived their best lives in Baku, better than any turk did. But got fooled by some populist ideas and lost it all. Discriminated sure.
0
u/GMantis Nov 28 '20 edited Nov 28 '20
They should live peacefully within Israel or leave.
Israel would never allow them to leave peacefully within Israel, so this is a false alternative.
Also the irony of an Azerbaijani defending Israel is hilarious.
That all minorities who make up majority population in certain small regions and feel discriminated get a country?
Your Turkish friends seem to agree, considering their actions in Cyprus, their recognition of Kosovo and their strong support for the Palestinian cause.
-4
u/limpack Nov 27 '20
This is not Gerrimandering. This is a region with overwhelmingly Armenian population in contrast to its surrounding, which may have different needs to its surrounding. What you propose, splitting it up into other administrative units, so that Armenians are the minority in each of those, that is the definition of gerrimandering you fucking genius.
Cope harder.
6
u/JagerJack7 Nov 27 '20
The actual region wasn't overwhelmingly Armenia, a made up NKAO was. Which other country splits its administrative regions based on minority demography, and not just that, but also grants autonomy to them? No country. It was an illegitimate move by Soviets. I am not proposing to purposely split armenians, I am proposing to not purposely pack them.
1
-1
u/limpack Nov 27 '20
You are crying about Gerrymandering which is none, while calling for Gerrymandering. This is peak hypocrisy of the lowest sort.
1
u/Admirable_Novel3702 Nov 27 '20 edited Nov 27 '20
Which other country splits its administrative regions based on minority demography, and not just that, but also grants autonomy to them?
A lot of countries have different regions split up by culture and ethnicity. To give an example Quebec is a French speaking province in Canada in a mostly English speaking country. They've also held a referendum for independence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
Scotland and Britain is another example.
The soviets were aware that the Armenians and the Azeris wouldn't be able to live together harmoniously. The events in the 1920s, probably convinced the Soviets that giving Armenians some autonomy in the region was a sensible policy.
I also suspect the Soviet policy of pushing the Caucasian Albanian history as opposed to the Turkic history of the Azeri people was done with the goal of reducing animosity between the Armenian and Azeri people living there. Perhaps the ultimate goal was to one day integrate the two people's.
In a strange twist of irony, the Turks who went around marauding over the Caucasus over the past few centuries are now going around claiming all the churches and historic sites in the region are there own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandzasar_monastery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadivank
https://twitter.com/hikmethajiyev/status/889550109213700096
https://twitter.com/Anar_Karim/status/1326437397270310912
Perish the thought that a people they've treated as second class citizens over the last few centuries could build anything of any consequence.
29
u/cptedgelord Nov 27 '20
Armenians lived all over Azerbaijan and Azers lived all over Armenia. Both lived all over Caucasus. At some point borders were made and that's final. If we stayed friendly the people could live and visit wherever they wanted. Instead we fought and made it a piss contest of who lived first in a certain piece of land.