Vol. 2 No. 20 (2020): 2020-2

The Armenian people made a worthy contribution to the victory in the Great Patriotic
War. In all, about 600,000 Armenians took part in the war, of which 300 000 were from Soviet
Armenia, 200,000 from other USSR republics, and 100 000 from the Diaspora. Of these, 106
were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union, four of them in the Soviet-Finnish War
(1939-1940), 99 in the Great Patriotic War, and three in post-war peace. Hovhannes
Baghramyan and Nelson Stepanyan were twice awarded the high rank. In addition, 10 foreign
citizens of Soviet Armenia were also awarded the title of Hero. 26 Armenian soldiers were
honored with the 3 rd , 2 nd and 1 st Degrees of the Order of Glory, becoming full knights of that
Order. Hovhannes Baghramyan was awarded the title of USSR Marshal, Hovhannes Isakov –
the title of USSR Admiral, Hamazasp Babajanyan – the title of Chief Marshal of the Command
troops, Armenak Khanperyants (Sergey Khudyakov) – the title of Marshal of Aviation, Sergey
Aganov – the title of Marshal of engineering troops, 149 military were awarded the title of
General, and 9 the title of Admiral. Eight Armenians were awarded the title of Socialist Work
Hero during the war. Six Armenian national divisions operated in the Red Army. Backward
workers, Diaspora Armenians, Armenian participants of the guerrilla and resistance movement,
the Armenian Apostolic Church, prominent Armenian state figures, scholars and intellectuals
made their worthy contribution to the victory in the war

In the brilliant constellation of Admirals of the Fleet of the Soviet Union, the name of the
Soviet Admiral, Hero of the Soviet Union Ivan (Hovhannes) Stepanovich Isakov (Ter-
Isahakyan) has its worthy place. He was born on August 22, 1894, in the village of Hadjikend
of Getashen region of northern Artsakh. His father was Armenian, and his mother was
Swedish. After graduating from the Tiflis realschule, he continued his studies at the Petersburg
Institute of Technology and in 1914 he entered the Naval Guards School. After graduating
from the school, Isakov devoted his life to the defense of the Homeland. He actively
participated in World War I, Civil, Soviet-Finnish and Great Patriotic Wars, held the posts of
Commander of the Navy, Chief of Navy Staff, chief of the Main Maritime Staff and chief of
the Main Navy Staff of the USSR, he was awarded high management awards, and was one of
the first to receive the title of Admiral. In addition to being a talented military commander,
Isakov was a prominent scientist, writer, and teacher. He was awarded a State Prize for the
work “The Atlas of the Sea”. In 1953, Isakov visited Armenia, went to Yerevan, Echmiadzin,
Sevan, met with Martiros Saryan, Avetik Isahakyan, Victor Hambartsumian and published the
book “Armenian Navy in the Great Patriotic War”. Although on October 4, 1942 he was
injured and lost his left leg, he continued his military service after being treated. The famous
Admiral died on October 11, 1967, in Moscow and is buried in the Novodevichy Cemetery.

The work presents the memoirs of the employees of Yerevan State University, who
participated in Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). They are considered an important historical
source both for the military operations of the Patriotic War and for the combat route of the
national divisions. The memoirs contain information on the 409 th, 76 th and 89 th divisions, as well as data on the battles of Berlin, Stalingrad, Warsaw and others. The article presents the memoirs of Eduard Jrbashyan, Hamlet Sahakyan, Liparit Gyulbudaghyan, Garsevan Sharoyan, Leon Babalyan, Rem Karapetyan, and Hovhannes Movsisyan

The glorious sons of the Armenian people, heroes of the Soviet Union, commanders,
Armenian National Divisions made a significant contribution to the Red Army, as well as to
the heroic work of the rear during the Great Patriotic War. The article covers the heroic deeds of 16 brave Armenians from Georgia, who took part in the Great Patriotic War, which have been compiled and replenished based on the material of Armenian, Russian, Georgian and Abkhazian Soviet and post-Soviet literature and press. Their heroic participation in the war for freedom and independence, as well as in the military operations was highly appreciated by the Soviet Government, hence some of them were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.

Since the XVIII century researchers have proposed about two dozen candidates, who
ruled in the Kingdom of Sophene, which are considered in this article. As a result of the study, it was clarified that during its 95-year history the Kingdom of Sophene had five kings:
Zariadres (Zareh) – 189 - c. 170 BC, Xerxes – c. 170 - 165 BC, Mitrobuzanes (Mehruzhan) – 165 BC - ?, Arkatios / Artak / Doron – ?, Artanes (Arsakes) – ? - 94 BC.

Formation of the Kars kingdom took place in the middle of 970s, when Mushegh, the
Prince of Kars city, took advantage of the Byzantine movement to the western regions of
Armenia and proclaimed himself king, ruled for nine-ten years and died in 984. The kingdom
of Kars included the western part of Ararat region of the Greater Armenia: the territories
between provinces of Shirak and Tchakatk in the east to the Taik and Karin provinces in the
west, and from the Childir lake in the north to the Bagrevand province in the south

The issue of salvation and Armenian education of about 50.000 children orphaned by the
Hamidian pogrom policy on the basis of the Time Press and archival materials is elucidated in the article. During the massacre and especially after it ended, charitable and social
organizations from a number of countries hastened to help carrying out donations aimed at
helping the survivors but the need was so great that the help was negligible. It is worth
mentioning that help from foreigners sometimes changed the religion of Armenians, especially orphans. Since the first days of his tenure, Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople M. Ormanyan took measures for the salvation and protection of orphans. In 1898, there were 22 orphanages in Western Armenia. After the Hamidian massacres, various missionary institutions were involved in the works of the salvation of Armenian orphans. M. Ormanyan appreciating their efforts, at the same time warned them not to change the religion of Armenians under the name of charity. He also appealed to the Armenians from abroad with appropriate notes urging them to contribute to the upbringing of Armenian orphans. In 1901, thanks to his efforts, under the patronage of the Patriarch there were 37 orphanages with 1813 orphans, of which 1680 boys and 133 girls. In the meantime, workshops had been opened in the diocesan centers since 1902, where orphans were taught different crafts. Thus, the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople using all possible means of the time did some work to save Armenian orphans, which unfortunately could not be performed more efficiently in the difficult political conditions.

Obwohl Urfa sich weit im Innern des Osmanischen Reiches befand, machten sich
die Folgen des Weltkrieges dort recht früh bemerkbar. Wegen eines Abbruchs der
Postverbindung erreichten die aus der dortigen Station der Deutschen Orient-Mission
(DOM) in den ersten sechs Kriegswochen nach Berlin bzw. an die Missionsgesell-
schaft geschickten Briefe ihre Adressaten nicht.

Since the end of the 18th century, the city of Shushi has become an integral part of the life
of the Armenian people. After joining the Russian Empire, Shushi began to actively develop
and at the beginning of the XX century turned into one of the prominent centers of the
Caucasus region. During the First Russian Revolution, Shushi turned into an arena of
Azerbaijani-Armenian clashes. The Armenian population of the city rose against the
encroachments of extremely nationalist and anti-Armenian-minded Azerbaijani ruffians, who
were openly supported by the satraps of the tsar. Despite the inequality of forces, the
Armenians living in the city were able to protect themselves. But, nevertheless, these bloody
clashes and the anti-Armenian policy of tsarism had serious negative political and socio-
economic consequences for the Armenian population of the Caucasus. The situation in
Artsakh, including Shushi, was also difficult. World War I, the collapse of the Russian Empire
and the creation of independent states in Transcaucasia extremely aggravated interethnic
relations in the region. From the first days of its formation, the Republic of Azerbaijan began to
pursue a fierce anti-Armenian policy, which, first of all, posed a threat to the existence of the
Armenian population of Artsakh and Zangezur. The culmination of this barbaric, inhuman
policy was the destruction of Shushi. From March 23 to April 6, 1920, the armed formations of
the Turks, the Azeri and the Kurds living in the Azerbaijan Republic massacred almost the
entire Armenian population of Shushi. The thirty-five thousand Armenians of Shushi ceased to
exist. The once flourishing and prosperous city, the famous center of Armenian culture was
ruined. The defeat of the administrative and cultural center of Artsakh became an irrevocable
loss for the entire Armenian ethnic group. The fall of Shushi and the genocide of its population
left a bloody trace in our memory and taught serious history lessons: the guarantee of the
existence and development of the Armenian nation is the indestructible unity of the Republic of
Armenia, the Artsakh Republic and Spyurk (Armenian Diaspora); we are doomed to create a
politically, socioeconomically, morally and psychologically cohesive and strong society; the
guarantee of the existence of our ethnos and the two Armenian states is and will be the
Armenian Army; it must always be remembered that in all political, socio-economic situations,
Azerbaijan will make territorial claims against Armenia and the Armenian people; the
Armenian people should develop strong, good-neighborly relations with the Republic of
Georgia, the Islamic Republic of Iran and constantly be aware that the Russian Federation is
and will be the only reliable ally forever.

In 1914, by the initiative of Johannes Lepsius the German-Armenian Society (GAS) was
set up in Berlin to promote the cooperation of German and Armenian peoples on cultural
grounds and establish strong and lasting relations between them. However, two months after
the establishment of the society, World War I broke out, under the guise of which tragic events
happened in Western Armenia, which cancelled the original plan of the society, and its primary
goal became the organization of the salvation of endangered Armenians. GAS returned to its
original mission only after the establishment of peace and the declaration of an independent
Armenian state in the South Caucasus. The article provides a comprehensive overview of the
work the society had been doing to achieve its goals since its establishment.

The article is a an overview of the materials published in the periodicals “Hayrenik” and
“Jakatamart” on Talaat Pasha’s murder and Soghomon Tehliryan’s trial. The paper examines
these two periodicals in the period from March to July, 1921. The choice of these two
newspapers is not accidental; the “Hayrenik” daily mainly published articles on the Armenian
Cause and the activities of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, while the “Jakatamart”
editorial office was the organizing center of the Nemesis Action in Constantinople. It should
also be noted that in these two newspapers we found both news of own correspondence and
translations of the articles published in foreign press. The article also touches upon some of the
articles published in “The New York Times”, from which we receive valuable information on
these cases.

The 1921 February rebellion is one of the contradictory issues in the newest period of
Armenian history. There is rich historiographic literature with discrepant assessments on the
issue both in Armenia and Diaspora. The paper presents H. Tumanyan’s role during the
February rebellion. Consequently, we aim to introduce H. Tumanyan’s policy of appealing for
reconciliation to both opposing sides.

The pivotal point of current study is the article, written in 1902 by eminent literary critic
Archag Tchobanian (1872-1954) on prominent writer and researcher Ghevont Alishan (1820-
1901). It shows how Tchobanian, being one of the first in the appreciation area of his subject
study, gave short and precise evaluations of Alishan’s multifaceted work with special literary
insights, making many important and valuable generalizations, which are still perceived with
their scientific value; they are interesting and valuable especially with their points of
theoretical and really fundamental value of Alishan’s poetical works.

Ambiguity of opinions prevailing in scientific studies concerning the main word stock of
the Armenian language makes it difficult to describe the scope of its characteristics and
coverage. Traditionally, the scope of word stock is sometimes unnecessarily extended. We are
convinced that the main word stock of the Armenian language is characterized by very certain
features: etymologically, the word stock mainly includes native Armenian words or old
borrowings and their compoundings, it developed in Old Armenian and Grabar and has
undergone few changes during the historical development of the language; morphologically, it
mainly consists of simple words or word stems; in terms of communicative function it is vital,
widely used, and has polysemic characteristics; with some phonetic and pronunciation changes
it has been preserved in all manifestations of the Armenian language. Due to changes in public
life or other factors, active vocabulary changes may be included in the main word stock
conditionally and within certain scopes. The main word stock of the language and the general
word stock do not have strictly defined boundaries

Old Armenian possessed three phonemic categories – voiced ((ձ /j/, ջ /ǰ/), non-aspirated
voiceless (ծ /c/, and aspirated voiceless (ց /cʻ/, չ /čʻ/) /č/). According to several Armenologists,
namely H. Pederson, A. Meillet, H. Acharian, E. Benveniste, H. Vogt, W. S. Allen, H.
Muradyan and others, Old Armenian (OA) affricates were typically aspirated, which was a
phonemic feature. This theory is supported by two main hypotheses. 1. Being the reflection of
Indo-European aspirated voiced occlusive (*b h, *g h, *d h), OA voiced occlusives had preserved
their aspiration. Hence, no transfer of occlusive consonants took place in Armenian in the
traditional sense. 2) The voiced aspiration typical of voiced occlusive and affricates of several
dialects of Historical Armenia (those of Akna, Hamshen, Hajn, Sebastia, Ararat, Mush, Nor
Jugha, Nor Nakhichevan, etc.) bears a phonemic value. Moreover, they differentiate a four-
category system of voiced occlusive and occlusive-fricatives in some dialects, (those of Ararat,
Mush, nor Jugha) – with such phonemic contrasts as բ հ/b h/~ բ/b/~ պհ/p h/~ պ/p/, ջ հ/ǰh/
~ ջ/ǰ/~ճ/č/~ չ/čʻ/. The second theory, which is supported and further grounded by us, postulates that
OA affricates had only a phonemic value, i.e. there was no distinctive factor (G. Jahukyan, E.
Aghayan). This theory rests on another interpretation of the above-mentioned two hypotheses.
1) The aspiration of IE occlusives was not a phonemic feature. 2) The aspiration of the voiced
occlusive-fricatives (also occlusive consonants) of corresponding Modern Armenian (MA)
dialects carries a phonetic and not a phonemic value, because these dialects lack voiced–
aspirated contrasts. Therefore, dialects with the so-called four-category system of occlusive
and occlusive-fricatives distinguish between only three phonemic categories of the given
consonants – voiced, non-aspirated voiceless and aspirated voiceless ones

The article is devoted to the synchronic and diachronic examination of the vowel
alternations which are commonly referred to as accent-shift-conditioned sound changes in
grammars and textbooks of Modern Eastern Armenian. Аlthough these alternations all had
their source in regular sound change, namely, the reduction and/or loss of certain vowels and
diphthongs in pretonic syllable, now they are no longer a productive phonological pattern in
the modern literary language, having already become lexicalized and morphologized to a more
or less extent. On the other hand, analogical leveling is occurring intensively, which accounts
for the abundance of reduced and non-reduced doublets. And as expected, the frequency of use
with its preserving effect, has a pivotal role in determining the choice of the variants: the
original alternations are retained relatively well and the reduced variants are still more
preferable and accepted in the literary language in the case of high-frequency words. In
contrast, with relatively low-frequency words the alternations are almost lost, with the non-
reduced variant having been generalized throughout the paradigm, or, if the variation stage still
persists, the non-reduced variant is already conceived of as more preferable and standard in the
literary language

The unique early medieval monument of Garnahovit has been studied by a number of
scholars, who expressed various viewpoints on the sculptural images depicted on all four sides
of the memorial. Toros Toramanyan ascribed it to the pagan period, without regard to the
image on the front side, on which, according to Garegin Hovsepyan, an Old Testament scene of
Abraham’s sacrifice is represented (Genesis 22. 1-13). Incomplete image on the forth side was
correctly interpreted by Babken Arakelyan, who mentioned that here the lower long wing of a
cross is carved. The main riddle are the images on the second and third sides, where the king
Tiridates III, Holy Mother (B. Arakelyan), pagan goddess Anahit (Sirarpi Ter-Nersesyan and
others) or Abraham's wife, Sarah (Zaruhi Hakobyan) are supposedly depicted. As a result of our research it was revealed that on the second and third sides the prince Spandarat
Kamsarakan and his wife Arshanush Arshakuni are depicted. Thus, Garnahovit stela is ascribed
to the period of their activities, i.e. to the middle of IV century.