![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldApologies for the lack of alternate-historical content last week, but catching a Toronto performance of Avenue Q with Jerry easily took priority.
One note: I came up with the idea for this one several weeks before the recent South Caucasus war.
* * *
Nathan L. Tchobanian and Samuel Gonzalez. Armenia: From Soviet Republic to Independence. Harvard University Presses: Boston, 2008.
Tchobanian and Gonzalez's tome is one of the latest book-length academic histories of modern Armenia and to my mind one of the most compelling ones written since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's not easy, given the politicization of historical--never mind contemporary--studies in the South Caucasus and the northern tier of the Middle East, but it does seems to hold together.
The authors begin with a portrait of Armenia as it existed after its 1940 annexation by the Soviet Union. Together with the Balts and of course the Poles, the Armenians were the only secessionist group on the periphery of the Russian Empire to successfully establish their own national states. That success in itself was a major achievement highly contingent on historical circumstances: If Turkey had somehow avoided its collapse in 1919 and eventual reformation as a British proxy shorn of Thrace and its other peripheries, the post-genocide Armenians--themselves benefitting from British support would have been hard-pressed to survive. That said, Armenia's two decades of independence were marked by squabbling of all kinds, from the low-level warfare that accompanied the consolidation of the Armenian nation-state within the contested Sèvres frontiers to the constant fear of Soviet annexation. When it did come, unnoticed in 1940 between the far more momentous events, the authros do court some controversy when they suggest that the Armenians welcomed annexation as the only possible way to avert the German-allied Turkish state's revanchism. The eventual settlement of course saw the reverse happening, with the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic serving as the forward base for Turkey's forcible communization. If nothing else, the Armenians did get off lightly compared to the Estonians and Lithuanians in terms of the numbers of Stalinist dead.
Tchobanian, an economic historian, presumably wrote the bulk of the fascinating Chapter 5, which outlines Armenia's economic development under Soviet rule. In the European Soviet Union, economic development was retarded by Communism, but in Armenia like the more troubled Georgia the devleopment of capital-intensive industry was aided, as was the enhancement of Armenia's human capital. The Armenian SSR might have been severed from the large Armenian diaspora, but the chapter describes how Armenians came to constitute a disproportiopnately large component in circular migration towards the great Siberian development projects, providing a new source of remittances.
The book's concluding chapter, tackling Armenia's existential questions in the post-Soviet world, is the one that appeals the most directly to my core interests. Who are the Armenians? Armenians' attempt to radically eredefine themselves after the 2002 Sunflower Revolution is given prominence, with a law of return granting Armenian citizenship to Armenians in the diaspora being taken up by Iran's Armenians at the same time that the Armenians--like the Georgians--try to define themselves as a "European" nation deserving of full integration into the European Union. This last question, the authors rightly point out, is complicated by the fact that Yerevan is separated from Constantinople by a Turkey generally considered to be non-European by the Union's citizenries. (The relationships with Turkey and Azerbaijan, both with historical claims to portions of Armenian territory, are rightly described as strained and in desperate need of the sort of reconciliatory project that no one is really interested in providing.) Armenia's reluctantly supportive relationship to the American adventure in Iraq is also given space, as are the interesting emergent ties with Georgia. The coverage given to the active renewal of ties the diasporic populations in the Union and North America is also appreciated. Can area specialists reading this chime in
Armenia: From Soviet Republic to Independence deserves to be the new standard on the most recent generations of Armenian history. I think this, at least; I've got area specialists reading this who could (hopefully) supplement my approval.
One note: I came up with the idea for this one several weeks before the recent South Caucasus war.
Nathan L. Tchobanian and Samuel Gonzalez. Armenia: From Soviet Republic to Independence. Harvard University Presses: Boston, 2008.
Tchobanian and Gonzalez's tome is one of the latest book-length academic histories of modern Armenia and to my mind one of the most compelling ones written since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's not easy, given the politicization of historical--never mind contemporary--studies in the South Caucasus and the northern tier of the Middle East, but it does seems to hold together.
The authors begin with a portrait of Armenia as it existed after its 1940 annexation by the Soviet Union. Together with the Balts and of course the Poles, the Armenians were the only secessionist group on the periphery of the Russian Empire to successfully establish their own national states. That success in itself was a major achievement highly contingent on historical circumstances: If Turkey had somehow avoided its collapse in 1919 and eventual reformation as a British proxy shorn of Thrace and its other peripheries, the post-genocide Armenians--themselves benefitting from British support would have been hard-pressed to survive. That said, Armenia's two decades of independence were marked by squabbling of all kinds, from the low-level warfare that accompanied the consolidation of the Armenian nation-state within the contested Sèvres frontiers to the constant fear of Soviet annexation. When it did come, unnoticed in 1940 between the far more momentous events, the authros do court some controversy when they suggest that the Armenians welcomed annexation as the only possible way to avert the German-allied Turkish state's revanchism. The eventual settlement of course saw the reverse happening, with the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic serving as the forward base for Turkey's forcible communization. If nothing else, the Armenians did get off lightly compared to the Estonians and Lithuanians in terms of the numbers of Stalinist dead.
Tchobanian, an economic historian, presumably wrote the bulk of the fascinating Chapter 5, which outlines Armenia's economic development under Soviet rule. In the European Soviet Union, economic development was retarded by Communism, but in Armenia like the more troubled Georgia the devleopment of capital-intensive industry was aided, as was the enhancement of Armenia's human capital. The Armenian SSR might have been severed from the large Armenian diaspora, but the chapter describes how Armenians came to constitute a disproportiopnately large component in circular migration towards the great Siberian development projects, providing a new source of remittances.
The book's concluding chapter, tackling Armenia's existential questions in the post-Soviet world, is the one that appeals the most directly to my core interests. Who are the Armenians? Armenians' attempt to radically eredefine themselves after the 2002 Sunflower Revolution is given prominence, with a law of return granting Armenian citizenship to Armenians in the diaspora being taken up by Iran's Armenians at the same time that the Armenians--like the Georgians--try to define themselves as a "European" nation deserving of full integration into the European Union. This last question, the authors rightly point out, is complicated by the fact that Yerevan is separated from Constantinople by a Turkey generally considered to be non-European by the Union's citizenries. (The relationships with Turkey and Azerbaijan, both with historical claims to portions of Armenian territory, are rightly described as strained and in desperate need of the sort of reconciliatory project that no one is really interested in providing.) Armenia's reluctantly supportive relationship to the American adventure in Iraq is also given space, as are the interesting emergent ties with Georgia. The coverage given to the active renewal of ties the diasporic populations in the Union and North America is also appreciated. Can area specialists reading this chime in
Armenia: From Soviet Republic to Independence deserves to be the new standard on the most recent generations of Armenian history. I think this, at least; I've got area specialists reading this who could (hopefully) supplement my approval.
