Microsoft Word mitatcelikpaladokto doc

 
 
 
161 
 
alienate Caucasian peoples, and was utilized by the Kavkaz group to criticise 
Prométhée. 
This declaration of the League caused a significant discord between the 
Caucasians centred on territorial problems. First of all, this group initiated a debate 
on the delimitation of the borders of the Armenian and Georgian republics with 
Turkey. In response, the Caucasian Confederation Council issued a decree after its 
meeting on 16 June and made this explanation. 
“1-Neither the Caucasian Confederation Council nor the national centers 
included in it, was previously informed of this declaration. The composition 
of the organisation propagating this declaration is still unknown to us. 
2-The Caucasian Confederation Council, in principle, is in favour of 
friendship and rapprochement between the Caucasian nations, but 
politically the existence of one single political organisation is a must. The 
Caucasian Confederation Council is already functioning, and of course the 
Armenians have a place in it.  
3-Forming political alliances between some of the nations of the Caucasus 
was a detrimental enterprise and could not be permitted by the Caucasian 
Confederation Council. It is evident that this kind of an enterprise will cause 
the collapse of the Caucasian union and create enmity between the nations. 
4-Moreover, the Caucasian Confederation Council reminds all the 
Caucasian nations that border problems and other conflicting issues will be 
solved by reciprocal agreements or forced arbitration following the 
salvation of the Caucasus.”
414
 
 
Moreover, in an article published in Severnyi Kavkaz, the North Caucasian 
emigres lobbied the Armenians and Georgians. They made a correlation between 
the policies of the Bolsheviks and the League, and described the declaration as the 
fabrication of the Bolsheviks.
415
 
 
                                                                                                                                        
413
 For the text of the Declaration see Almanak, 55-58. 
414
 This text was published in Severnyi Kavkaz/Şimali Kafkasya, 26, June 1936 and, Kurtuluş 20 in 
June 1936. It was reprinted in Vesikalar, 45-46, and Kafkasya (Der Kaukasus), (Munich), 14, 
September 1952. 
415
 “Ermeni-Gürcü Birliği,” May 1936. Severnyi Kavkaz/Şimali Kafkasya, 25. 

---

 
 
 
162 
 
Haydar Bammat and Kavkaz also took this issue seriously and examined its 
connections with the ‘Brussels Pact’. With this declaration of the League, Bammat 
asserted that the arguments of the Kavkaz group were being verified. The Georgian 
Mensheviks, by taking sides with the Armenians made the validity of the Pact 
ambiguous. The Pact became null and void. As a result, the Kavkaz group 
advanced as a real organ representing the Caucasian confederation.
416
 
 
From the 1937 and 1938, war was in sight and the Caucasians, having no 
doubt on the collapse of the Soviet Union, started to deal with the issue of the 
border delimitation. While the Armenians and Georgians were dealing with their 
republics’ borders with Turkey, the fantasy of Greater Azerbaijan encompassing 
Iran Azerbaijan found adherents among the Azeri groups. Haydar Bammat started 
to criticise these ideas severely. He pointed out that, the situation and balance of 
power was changing throughout world. European states were separating into blocs 
and tremendous events were taking place in the Far East. All these events have to 
be analysed reasonably. The second chance for the Caucasians after 1918 was 
knocking on the door. Therefore, in order not to loose this chance, once again the 
Caucasian intellectuals had to be awake and organised.
417
 The mistakes of the past 
would not be repeated. From these mistakes new and reasonable path to 
independence has to be constructed. The key point in this way was the necessity to 
act in a unified structure. 
                                                 
416
 Haydar Bammat, “Ermeni-Gürcü İttihadı,”  Almanak, 58-60 and F. Daryal, “Yanlış Yol,” 
Almanak, 63-67. 
417
 Haydar Bammat, “Yine Kafkas Hududları Meselesi,” Yazılar Dergisi II, 3-8. 

---

 
 
 
163 
 
Because of its geography, history, economics and ethnography, the only 
chance for Caucasian independence was Turkey and Iran’s exigency to see the 
Caucasus as a buffer between Russia and themselves. In order to utilise this 
exigency and to obtain the support, the Caucasians had to remove all obstacles 
between these countries and establish close neighbourly relations. Therefore, the 
most critical issue was the delimitation of borders. According to Bammat, the 
activities of some Georgian, Armenian, and even Azeri emigres from this issue 
were a big mistake. This just caused the interference by the Russians. More than 
that, solving the issue, essentially in line with the Caucasians’ demands became 
impossible. 
Bammat in his articles, in fact, indicated indirectly that some of the 
Caucasian territories were in the hands of Turkey. However, he said that the only 
possibility for agreement entailed the renunciation of these territories by Turkey. 
This could be painful but was necessary to attain sovereignty. 
In response to these arguments of Bammat and Kavkaz, the other group 
blamed them for giving Kars, Ardahan and Batum to Turkey and being pro-
Turkish. Bammat and the Kavkaz group in response defined Turkey and Iran as the 
partners that have common interests with the Caucasians.
418
 The existing cultural 
bonds and race connections attach these two nations to the Caucasians. Therefore, 
Bammat asserted relations with Turkey and Iran could only be friendly and cordial. 
Then he frankly stated that, he had never felt it necessary to conceal his 
Turkophilizm. He pointed that, for the all-Caucasian patriots who had a desire to 
                                                 
418
 Haydar Bammat, “Türkiye ve Kafkasya,” Almanak, 67-70. Azerbaycanlı Mehmed Zade, 
“Kafkasyayı, Türkiye ve İrana Bağlayan Tarihi, Etnik ve Kültürel Rabıtalar,” Almanak, 76-80. 

---