Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Treaty of Batum

The Treaty of Batum comprised three bilateral agreements signed on 4 June 1918 in between the and the newly independent of Azerbaijan, , and , formally ending hostilities in the after the military advances enabled by Russia's withdrawal from following the . These treaties recognized the sovereignty of the signatory republics while stipulating peace and friendship, mutual military assistance upon request, demobilization of Armenian and Georgian armies, demilitarization of Georgia's , and protocols addressing trade, borders, the status of Muslim populations, prisoners of war, and the Baku-Batumi oil pipeline. Territorial concessions favored the , who regained approximately 20,000 square kilometers including , , and the Kars-Julfa railroad from Armenia and Georgia—aligning borders roughly with those established in 1828—while Azerbaijan received preferential treatment without major losses, reflecting strategic alliances amid the power vacuum left by the Bolshevik and Transcaucasian Federative Republic's dissolution in May 1918. The unequal terms, negotiated under duress from occupation and the republics' military weakness, facilitated further operations toward and but proved short-lived, as the in October 1918 curtailed gains, with subsequent Allied interventions altering the regional .

Historical Context

World War I and the Caucasus Front

The entered aligned with the , initiating hostilities against through the on October 29, 1914, which targeted Russian ports including and , prompting Russia's declaration of war on November 2. The Front subsequently emerged as a theater of grueling , with Russian forces launching incursions into Ottoman eastern from November 1914, exploiting the rugged terrain and Ottoman logistical vulnerabilities. Ottoman defenses, centered on the Third Army, prioritized holding key passes and fortresses to shield Anatolia's interior, amid supply strains and harsh winter conditions that amplified attrition. A pivotal early engagement was the Ottoman counteroffensive at the , launched December 22, 1914, under with approximately 150,000 troops aiming to envelop positions and reclaim territories lost in prior Russo-Turkish conflicts. Harsh weather, inadequate clothing, and overextended supply lines resulted in forces suffering 50,000 to 90,000 casualties, predominantly from frostbite and exposure rather than direct combat, while losses totaled around 20,000. Despite the defeat, remnants regrouped to contest probes, preserving control over core eastern Anatolian provinces and forestalling a decisive penetration into the empire's heartland. offensives intensified in 1915–1916, with General Nikolai Yudenich's forces capturing on February 16, 1916, following a January offensive that inflicted 20,000 casualties on the Third Army's 65,000 defenders, leveraging superior artillery and garrison weaknesses. These advances coincided with ethnic unrest, as authorities perceived communities in border regions as facilitating incursions through organized resistance, exemplified by the Van uprising in April 1915, where seized the city, killed Muslim civilians and officials, and coordinated with advancing troops until recapture in July. In response, the government promulgated the Tehcir Law on May 27, 1915, authorizing the relocation of from frontline eastern provinces to southern interiors like to neutralize security threats from rebellion and espionage, affecting roughly 400,000 from sensitive areas amid wartime exigencies. Implementation involved convoys vulnerable to , , and privation, contributing to high mortality rates, though records framed it as a precautionary measure against documented fifth-column activities rather than extermination. By 1917, Russian military cohesion unraveled post-February Revolution, with desertions and supply failures prompting the Armistice of on December 5, 1917, which suspended combat between forces and provisional Transcaucasian authorities, effectively freezing the front lines. This truce, coupled with the signed March 3, 1918, whereby Bolshevik relinquished Kars, , and Batum—territories ceded to s in recognition of prior wartime positions—enabled Ottoman redeployments and recaptures, bolstering their regional leverage amid the collapsing Russian sphere.

Russian Collapse and Transcaucasian Independence

The erupted in Petrograd on March 8, 1917 (New Style), culminating in II's on March 15 and the establishment of a that pledged to continue Russia's participation in . This upheaval rapidly eroded discipline within the Russian Caucasus Army, where soldiers, already strained by prolonged campaigns against Ottoman forces, formed committees that prioritized political agitation over combat duties. Desertions surged as troops questioned the war's purpose, with Bolshevik propaganda amplifying calls for immediate peace and the end of "imperialist" conflict, further hastening the front's collapse by late 1917. The on November 7, 1917 (New Style), saw the Bolsheviks under seize power, leading to the on March 3, 1918, which formalized Russia's withdrawal from the war and mandated demobilization of its armies, including those in the . By early 1918, the Russian forces in Transcaucasia—reduced to approximately 50,000-60,000 effectives amid mass desertions and returns home—effectively ceased to function as a cohesive unit, leaving a exploited by local ethnic groups and external powers. Bolshevik commissars and agitators actively promoted anti-war sentiments among remaining troops, framing obedience to the or continued fighting as , which compounded ethnic tensions between Russian units and local , , and Azerbaijani populations. In response to the Russian retreat, the , a provisional body formed in November 1917 by regional socialist and nationalist parties, convened the Transcaucasian Seim in Tiflis () and declared the (TDFR) independent on April 22, 1918. Comprising territories inhabited primarily by , , and , the TDFR sought unified sovereignty but was undermined from inception by ideological fractures: Georgian Mensheviks favored and federation, Armenian Dashnaks prioritized territorial defense against , and Azerbaijani Musavatists emphasized Muslim autonomy and pan-Turkic ties. The extended to the TDFR on April 28, 1918, viewing it as a expedient acknowledgment of the sovereignty vacuum to facilitate negotiations while their armies pressed southward. These divisions proved irreconcilable amid escalating ethnic clashes and external threats, prompting the TDFR's dissolution after just over a month: proclaimed on May 26, 1918, followed by the Democratic Republic of Armenia and on May 28. The nascent republics inherited fragmented militias and no unified foreign policy, rendering them vulnerable in dealings with the Ottomans, whose advances capitalized on the absence of Russian backing and internal discord. This fragility stemmed directly from the revolutions' cascade effects, which dissolved imperial control without forging stable alternatives, exposing Transcaucasia to realist power dynamics where hinged on military capacity rather than declarative .

Negotiation and Conference

Prelude and Ottoman Advances

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed on March 3, 1918, obligated Soviet Russia to cede , , and Batum to the , but the rejected these territorial stipulations during preliminary talks in Trebizond from March 14 onward, prompting military action to secure compliance. The Third Army, commanded by Vehib , initiated spring offensives aimed at reclaiming these districts—lost to Russia in 1878—and advancing pan-Turkic objectives of establishing contiguous territories linking with and other Turkic regions in the . Ottoman forces captured on April 14, 1918, exploiting the rapid disintegration of Russian-supported Transcaucasian units, and pressed eastward to retake on April 25 amid minimal organized resistance from local militias. These victories, facilitated by the power vacuum following the Bolshevik Revolution and Russian demobilization, inflicted heavy losses on Transcaucasian defenders and underscored the strategic vulnerability of the region without external reinforcement. In parallel, the Transcaucasian Seim appealed to and for to counter the incursions, but these entreaties yielded no substantive support, as Allied resources remained committed to the Western Front after Russia's exit from the war. Under duress from the ongoing advances, the Seim declared Transcaucasian independence on April 22, 1918, fulfilling an precondition for renewed diplomacy, though this did little to halt the momentum of operations. By late April, representatives formally acknowledged this on April 28 and insisted on convening talks in —a site now secured by their troops—effectively dictating the venue through battlefield gains rather than mutual agreement. This setup reflected the causal primacy of military dominance in compelling negotiations, as Transcaucasian delegates confronted irredentist demands without viable alternatives to terms.

Proceedings of the Batum Conference

The Batum Conference convened on 11 May 1918, with a single official plenary session where representatives, led by Rauf Bey (Orbay), presented maximalist demands to the (TDFR) delegation under Akaki Chkhenkeli. These included the cession of territories beyond the pre-1878 "Three Districts" of , , and Batum, with border adjustments to incorporate areas of Muslim demographic majorities, and the establishment of the TDFR as an protectorate. The demands invoked historical claims and ethnic compositions to justify regaining control over regions lost in the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War, amid ongoing military superiority following their recapture of Batum on 14 April. Following the TDFR's rejection of these terms, negotiations devolved into two weeks of written note exchanges centered on territorial haggling, with insisting on expansive border revisions to secure Muslim-populated enclaves and strategic passes. On 15 May, Ottoman forces under Halil Pasha (Kut) resumed advances toward Tiflis, exerting direct military pressure that underscored the conference's precariousness and compelled Transcaucasian concessions to avert total collapse. Armenian forces mounted resistance, notably at Sardarapat from 21-29 May, temporarily stalling Ottoman progress and buying time for diplomatic maneuvering, though the overall imbalance favored Ottoman leverage. The conference's structure fragmented as the TDFR dissolved on 26 May with 's declaration of independence, followed by and on 28 May, prompting rejection of any federative framework in favor of bilateral talks to exploit divisions—a divide-and-rule approach that isolated each republic. From 29 May to 3 June, separate negotiations proceeded: under , under Mehmet Emin Resulzade, and under Aleksandr Khatisyan, focusing on localized border disputes amid persistent invasion threats. A German observer mission, headed by General , attended but offered limited mediation, aligning broadly with priorities to secure the Caucasian front against Bolshevik incursions while pursuing separate German interests in the region.

Provisions of the Treaty

Mutual Recognition and Sovereignty

The treaties signed on 4 June 1918 between the and the Transcaucasian republics of , , and formally established mutual recognition of sovereignty, with the delegation, led by Halil Bey, acknowledging the independence of each republic as independent entities capable of conducting . This recognition constituted the inaugural international validation of the and the , both proclaimed in late May 1918, while endorsing the Democratic Republic of 's independence declaration of 26 May 1918 amid the collapse of the short-lived . The agreements, denominated as treaties of peace and friendship for and and a treaty of friendship for , committed all parties to non-aggression and the maintenance of peaceful relations, reflecting the Empire's strategic imperative to stabilize its eastern frontiers following the in March 1918, which had exposed the region to potential Bolshevik incursions or Russian . These diplomatic pledges facilitated the prompt establishment of formal relations, including provisions for reciprocal consular and trade protocols to normalize economic exchanges and counter shared vulnerabilities from Russian instability. By prioritizing pragmatic state-to-state accommodation over ideological enmity, the clauses underscored a mutual interest in preservation, with the Ottomans gaining assurances against Transcaucasian alignment with adversarial powers.

Territorial Adjustments and Cessions

The ceded the districts of and , along with the Surmalu , to the under the terms of the treaty signed on June 4, 1918. These territories, acquired by Russia in the 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish War and reaffirmed in Ottoman favor by the 1918 , encompassed approximately 10,000 square kilometers and reflected Ottoman military advances that had established control amid the collapse of Russian forces in the . Pre-war Russian imperial censuses indicated mixed ethnic compositions in these areas, with substantial Turkish and Muslim populations—often forming pluralities in rural districts of and majorities in parts of —aligning Ottoman claims with local demographic realities and principles of for Muslim-majority communities displaced or suppressed under tsarist rule. The yielded the district, including the strategic port, to administration, effectively reverting borders toward those established before the 1829 Treaty of Adrianople and granting the Ottomans vital access to maritime trade routes. This concession, spanning roughly 3,000 square kilometers, stemmed from Ottoman occupation of the area following their spring 1918 offensive and Georgia's inability to mount effective resistance without external support. While the port's infrastructure and surrounding lands supported diverse ethnic groups including , , and , the transfer prioritized Ottoman logistical needs over Georgian , though it was framed as a temporary measure tied to broader security arrangements. The faced minimal territorial losses, conceding only minor border adjustments in frontier zones while securing recognition of its sovereignty over as an autonomous region under Azerbaijani administration, with provisions for joint -Azerbaijani defense. This arrangement formalized a corridor linking to territories via , where Azerbaijani Turks formed the predominant ethnic group, and avoided significant cessions by leveraging shared Turkic interests and favoritism toward Baku's government. Overall, the treaty's territorial reallocations transferred an estimated 20,000 square kilometers to control across the Transcaucasian states, codifying battlefield gains rather than equitable negotiations.

Military Demobilization and Security Clauses

The treaties signed at Batum on 4 1918 imposed obligations on and , requiring both republics to disband their armies for the duration of , while additionally agreed to demilitarize its to eliminate naval threats along the shared coastline. These measures addressed concerns over potential Transcaucasian military following the Empire's collapse, which had left border regions vulnerable to renewed hostilities amid the power vacuum. faced no such requirements, reflecting its alignment with interests and the absence of active in that sector. Security provisions emphasized Ottoman commitments to regional stability, granting the empire the right to dispatch to , , or the republics upon their request, thereby positioning forces as a deterrent against external threats such as Bolshevik incursions from the north. This arrangement responded to the empirical instability caused by Soviet Russia's evacuation of the under the , which had ceded territories without local consent and invited opportunistic invasions. Supplemental protocols permitted use of Transcaucasian for troop movements, ensuring rapid enforcement of these guarantees without establishing permanent garrisons beyond ceded areas. Separate protocols accompanying the treaties with and regulated the status of prisoners of , facilitating their exchange and repatriation to conclude hostilities from the recent campaigns. No were demanded from the Transcaucasian states, a pragmatic concession given the prohibitive costs of prolonged in a theater already strained by withdrawals and the need to redirect resources against Allied fronts. These clauses collectively prioritized stabilization through asymmetric , leveraging battlefield advantages to preempt escalations in a fragmented post-imperial landscape.

Signatories and Implementation

Key Representatives and Signatures

The Ottoman delegation was led by Halil Pasha (also known as Mirza Halil Bey), a senior military commander and uncle to , who served as the chief negotiator advancing the objectives of reclaiming territories lost in the . Halil, drawing on his experience commanding forces against Russian and Transcaucasian positions, emphasized pragmatic territorial demands rooted in Brest-Litovsk precedents. Assisting him was Vehib Pasha, commander of the Ottoman Third Army, whose frontline successes, including the capture of key positions like and Alexandropol, provided leverage in talks and reflected the empire's strategic imperative to secure eastern borders amid collapse. The Transcaucasian side featured representatives from the newly independent republics, each navigating distinct nationalist and survival pressures post the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic's dissolution on May 28, 1918. For Georgia, Akaki Chkhenkeli, a Menshevik socialist and former head of the federative government's foreign affairs, acted as the primary delegate, prioritizing diplomatic stabilization to protect Georgian sovereignty against advances while aligning with social-democratic ideals of regional federation. Azerbaijan's delegation included Mammad Hasan Hajinski, the republic's foreign minister and a Muslim nationalist intellectual, who focused on securing recognition and potential alliance against Bolshevik threats, reflecting pan-Turkic affinities and the need for military support in consolidating independence proclaimed on May 28, 1918. Armenia's representatives were headed by , foreign minister of the First Republic (declared May 28, 1918), a Dashnaktsutyun figure managing acute internal disarray from influxes and territorial disputes, compelled to negotiate under duress from proximity to . Separate treaties were signed on June 4, 1918—peace and friendship accords with and , and a friendship treaty with —formalizing the representatives' endorsements amid debates over voluntariness, with Transcaucasian accounts citing military positioning as influencing participation, though records frame it as mutual cessation following Brest-Litovsk.
Republic/EmpireKey SignatoryRole and Affiliation
Halil PashaChief negotiator; CUP-aligned military leader
Vehib PashaThird Army commander; operational authority
Akaki ChkhenkeliForeign minister; Menshevik diplomat
Mammad Hasan HajinskiForeign minister; Muslim nationalist
Foreign minister; Dashnak politician

Ratification and Initial Compliance

The parliaments of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan and the Democratic Republic of Georgia ratified the Treaty of Batum shortly after its signing on June 4, 1918, compelled by the immediate proximity of Ottoman armies that had advanced deep into Transcaucasian territory during the spring offensive. This rapid formal adoption reflected the precarious security situation, where refusal risked further territorial losses or collapse of the nascent states, rather than any broad ideological endorsement of the terms. The government endorsed the via imperial decree, enabling preliminary implementation measures such as halting advances beyond ceded territories and initiating limited withdrawals from undisputed zones, in line with the military demobilization clauses. These steps demonstrated initial adherence by the stronger party, stabilizing the front lines temporarily and allowing to consolidate control over its recognized borders with support. In contrast, the withheld ratification, citing severe domestic turmoil—including refugee influxes from advances and internal factional strife—that hampered governance and compliance with requirements. These delays stemmed from verifiable power imbalances and logistical chaos post-independence, not deliberate rejection of the treaty's framework, though they prompted accusations of non-compliance and foreshadowed escalated tensions. Overall, early observance highlighted driven by coercive realities, with gaps exposing the fragility of among weaker signatories amid ongoing regional volatility.

Immediate Consequences

Ottoman Military Occupations

Following the Treaty of Batum signed on 4 June 1918, forces consolidated military control over the ceded territories of , , and , where they had already advanced militarily in the preceding months. troops captured on 14 April 1918 after light fighting against a of approximately 3,000 defenders, establishing garrisons that numbered in the thousands across the region to secure supply lines and administrative functions. In , units laid siege on 23 April 1918 to the fortress city, then under and anti-Bolshevik control, overcoming resistance through combined infantry and artillery operations that reflected prior ethnic clashes in the , such as mutual raids during the 1917-1918 turmoil. These garrisons prioritized logistical support for ongoing war efforts, including the extraction of local timber, foodstuffs, and port facilities at for shipment to amid broader strains. Local administration emphasized rapid stabilization over expansive bureaucracy, implementing simplified governance structures that resolved disputes through oral directives or minimal ation from provincial governors. In , multilingual policies accommodated , , , and in official dealings, while strict military policing—enforcing corporal punishments like 31 lashes for theft—effectively suppressed criminality and potential insurgent activities, including infiltrations by Bolshevik agents amid regional revolutionary ferment. Economic measures included currency stabilization, pegging 16 rubles to one and halving values to counter scarcity, though these strained port commerce and local livelihoods already disrupted by war. Such security protocols drew on precedents of intercommunal violence, where Armenian had previously targeted Muslim populations in Kars-Ardahan during the post- collapse, positioning actions as defensive necessities rather than unprovoked aggression. Ottoman withdrawals commenced in late October 1918, preempting the Armistice of Mudros signed on 30 October, with orders issued on 24 October to evacuate Batum and adjacent gains, though full disengagement from Kars extended into December 1918 and Batumi until January 1919 due to logistical delays. This phased retreat created immediate security vacuums: British forces occupied Batumi by early December 1918 to safeguard Black Sea routes, while General Anton Denikin's White Russian armies advanced into Kars-Ardahan, exploiting the void amid competing local ethnic militias. Eyewitness accounts from Batumi residents noted the restoration of basic order under Ottoman rule but little regret upon departure, underscoring the transient nature of the occupation amid collapsing imperial fronts.

Regional Reactions and Instability

In the Democratic Republic of , the Treaty of Batum was welcomed as a diplomatic success, securing formal recognition of Azerbaijani and opening prospects for military alliance against Bolshevik threats, despite minor territorial adjustments. Azerbaijani leaders viewed the friendship treaty signed on June 4, 1918, as bolstering their sovereignty amid regional chaos. The similarly accepted the treaty on June 4, 1918, prioritizing Ottoman acknowledgment of its independence over territorial concessions, which included ceding areas up to the Russo-Persian border; Georgian officials expressed pain at the losses but relief from immediate invasion threats. In contrast, the First Republic of Armenia's National Council signed under duress on June 4, 1918, facing devastation from extensive cessions like and ; internal opposition highlighted the treaty's coercive nature, with parliamentary debates reflecting resentment over forfeited historic claims and the government's dictatorial latitude in negotiations. Post-treaty implementation escalated ethnic clashes in ceded zones, as forces advanced into areas like Olti and Alexandropol, encountering resistance from irregulars and civilians amid unresolved territorial disputes rooted in pre-war demographic tensions. These incidents, including skirmishes during handovers, stemmed directly from local efforts to retain control, prolonging instability despite the . British and French Allied representatives criticized Ottoman territorial gains as excessive, protesting advances beyond Brest-Litovsk lines, yet refrained from intervention due to overriding priorities in finalizing the European and reallocating resources post-Mudros on October 30, 1918. This inaction underscored Allied focus on Western Front victory over Caucasian enforcement, allowing short-term consolidation.

Long-term Impact

Effects on Successor States

The territorial concessions imposed on the under the Treaty of Batum, including the districts of , , and Olti, diminished its western frontier and strategic buffers, curtailing military resources and population bases essential for defense. These losses, ratified on 4 June 1918, eroded Armenia's capacity to consolidate internal stability amid ongoing ethnic conflicts and refugee influxes, indirectly heightening susceptibility to the Bolshevik Red Army's offensive launched on 29 November 1920, which culminated in Soviet control by 2 December 1920. In contrast, the Democratic Republic of benefited from the treaty's explicit Ottoman recognition of its and clauses permitting requests for , forging operational alliances that dispatched forces to bolster Azerbaijani defenses against Bolshevik incursions and local unrest. This support, including the under Nuri Pasha, secured Baku's recapture in September 1918 and sustained nominal sovereignty until the Soviet invasion on 27 April , despite underlying economic dependencies on oil exports. The of Georgia's cession of and adjacent territories severed access to its primary outlet, paralyzing export routes for —constituting the bulk of pre-war Transcaucasian shipments—and inflicting immediate economic dislocation through port shutdowns during administration from June to December 1918. British intervention post-Armistice of Mudros, including occupation forces in July 1919, mediated Georgia's reassertion of control over by mid-1920, mitigating long-term isolation but underscoring the treaty's role in exposing infrastructural vulnerabilities that compounded fiscal pressures leading to Soviet overthrow on 18 1921. Collectively, the treaty functioned as a pragmatic expedient for these nascent republics, trading peripheral lands for cessation of hostilities and sovereignty amid the Civil War's chaos, thereby extending fragile against dual Turkish and Bolshevik perils until comprehensive Soviet absorption between 1920 and 1921.

Influence on Subsequent Treaties and Borders

The , signed on 30 October 1918, mandated the immediate withdrawal of forces from the , leading to the evacuation of territories gained under the Treaty of Batum and enabling Allied occupations, such as the control of until 1921. The , executed on 10 August 1920, further sought to nullify Batum's provisions by designating an independent encompassing , , and adjacent districts previously ceded to the s, though these arrangements collapsed amid the and remained unratified. Despite these reversals, Batum's border framework substantially prefigured the post-war delineations confirmed in the on 13 October 1921, whereby retained and against Soviet and , while transferring suzerainty over and northern to with provisions for regional . The Kars accord also enshrined Nakhchivan's status as an autonomous entity under Azerbaijani auspices—echoing Batum's preferential Ottoman-Azerbaijani terms—creating an exclave configuration that has defined Azerbaijan- strategic alignment and endured through Soviet and post-Soviet eras. Armenian assertions of sovereignty over , premised on pre-1918 demographics and unfulfilled mandates, persisted into the Soviet period but yielded to de facto Turkish administration reestablished in September 1920, bolstered by the area's longstanding Muslim-majority populace (over 80% Turks and by mid-19th-century estimates, with comprising under 12%) and subsequent population shifts from wartime displacements. These cartographic legacies from Batum via have stabilized modern frontiers, with minimal alterations despite intermittent irredentist rhetoric.

Strategic and Geopolitical Ramifications

The , concluded on 4 1918, provided the with a temporary resurgence in the by securing territorial gains encompassing approximately 20,000 square kilometers, including the districts of , , and Batum. This outcome reinforced Ottoman military positioning amid , allowing redirection of resources and bolstering the leadership's expansionist stance under . Aligned with pan-Turkic objectives, the treaty facilitated Ottoman advances toward —captured in early October 1918—and into , aiming to forge connections with Turkic populations in and counter Russian influence. These moves supported Enver Pasha's vision of geopolitical reconfiguration, temporarily enhancing Ottoman leverage against Allied powers and aiding the nascent Turkish in resisting post-armistice partitions. Control over key infrastructure, including regulation of the Baku-Batumi pipeline via a concurrent agreement among , , and the Ottomans, shifted resource dynamics by granting access to Baku's prolific fields, which supplied a substantial share of pre-war global output critical for industrial and military sustainment. This positioned the Ottomans to influence export routes to the , threatening interests in and broader supply lines. The evident fragility of the nascent Transcaucasian republics—evidenced by coerced territorial concessions—exposed regional vulnerabilities, prompting British military deployments to by December 1918 to secure strategic flanks against and remnants. presence initially curbed Soviet penetration, but the Mudros Armistice on 30 October 1918 nullified gains, accelerating power vacuums that facilitated Bolshevik expansions into (April 1920), Armenia (November 1920), and (February 1921). These dynamics underscored emerging great-power rivalries in the , with -German tensions over resource spheres prefiguring inter-imperial competitions that echoed in subsequent mandates and Soviet consolidations, laying groundwork for enduring geopolitical fault lines.

Controversies and Viewpoints

Coercion Claims and Military Realities

The Transcaucasian republics faced military advances that had secured key territories such as and by March 1918, following the Russian withdrawal mandated by the on March 3, 1918, which left the region without external allied support. and sources have described the treaty's signing on June 4, 1918, as occurring under duress, citing the proximity of forces to their borders and the recent defeats, such as the loss of Batum in early April 1918. However, this pressure stemmed from the structural collapse of Russian alliances after the Bolshevik Revolution, which demobilized imperial forces and isolated the nascent republics, offering no viable alternative to negotiation amid their disorganized state. The Third Army under Vehib Pasha, structured into three corps with nine divisions by January 1918, outnumbered and outorganized the Transcaucasian militias, which consisted of fragmented local units lacking cohesion or heavy weaponry following the evacuation. Pre-treaty engagements, including captures of strategic positions before defensive successes like Sardarabad in late May 1918, demonstrated this inferiority, as the republics' forces—totaling irregulars and remnants of troops—could not sustain prolonged resistance across multiple fronts. The choice to sign thus represented a pragmatic recognition of these realities, preserving core territories rather than risking total overrun, akin to ' strategic capitulation at Brest-Litovsk under analogous German advances into war-weary . Narratives framing the treaty as an extension of genocidal aggression overlook empirical battlefield outcomes, where gains aligned with control over districts featuring Muslim-majority demographics from pre-1914 censuses, enabling claims of ethnic amid the Wilsonian era's emphasis on plebiscites for homogeneous populations. Such interpretations, often from accounts, fail to account for the power imbalances inherent in post-imperial vacuums, where defeated parties routinely conceded under without implying ulterior extermination motives beyond territorial recovery stipulated in prior accords like Brest-Litovsk.

Perspectives from Involved Parties

The Ottoman Empire regarded the Treaty of Batum, signed on June 4, 1918, as a strategic success that formalized territorial recoveries and neutralized threats from the nascent Transcaucasian states following Ottoman military advances under the Third Army. Ottoman Foreign Minister Halil Bey, who led negotiations, emphasized the treaty's role in securing eastern borders amid World War I pressures, including demilitarization clauses and economic concessions that bolstered Ottoman leverage without prolonged occupation costs. This perspective framed the agreement as a pragmatic endpoint to hostilities initiated after the Transcaucasian Republic's declaration of independence on May 26, 1918, aligning with Ottoman aims to exploit Russian withdrawal per the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The , represented by Akakii Chkhenkeli, viewed the treaty as a necessary capitulation to avert total military defeat, ceding districts such as Ahıska () and —totaling approximately 10,000 square kilometers with 350,000 inhabitants—to control. Georgian leaders expressed reservations during the Batum Conference (May 11–June 4, 1918), arguing that demands violated prior understandings, but prioritized state survival amid encirclement by hostile forces. Post-signing, Georgian officials like later critiqued the territorial losses as undermining national integrity, though the treaty provided recognition of Georgian sovereignty. Armenian representatives, including Avetis Aharonian of the National Council, signed under explicit protest, refusing ratification on grounds of duress from invasions that had captured and Alexandropol by late May 1918, resulting in Armenian territorial reduction to roughly 10,000 square kilometers. The First Republic of 's government deemed the treaty invalid, citing violations of principles and ongoing atrocities; General Andranik Ozanian explicitly rejected it, continuing guerrilla resistance in the region to preserve Armenian claims in disputed western areas. This stance reflected broader Armenian elite consensus that the agreement, which nullified earlier Wilsonian aspirations for a larger state incorporating , was coerced rather than consensual. The , via delegate Mammad Hasan Hajinski, perceived the more favorably as it secured international recognition as a sovereign entity—the first such accord for —and aligned with pan-Turkic sympathies, conceding minimal territory (e.g., parts of temporarily) while gaining military assistance against forces in and . Azerbaijani leadership under highlighted the 's provisions for troop withdrawals and trade access as stabilizing, fostering a short-lived that facilitated Baku's consolidation amid Bolshevik threats. This positive outlook contrasted with neighbors' grievances, positioning the as a foundational diplomatic win despite underlying dominance.

References

  1. [1]
    Batum, Conference and Treaties of - 1914-1918 Online
    Jun 1, 2021 · On 4 June, the Ottoman delegation signed treaties of peace and friendship with Armenia and Georgia, and a treaty of friendship with Azerbaijan; ...Missing: terms | Show results with:terms
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Intractability and mediation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
    75 Armenia, on its own, negotiated the 4 June Treaty of Batum with the Ottoman Empire, in which it lost. Kars, Ardahan, and portions of the Tiflis and Erivan ...
  3. [3]
    Historical Documents - Office of the Historian
    After these negotiations the Transcaucasian government, which consisted only of Georgians and Armenians, was compelled to accept the loss of Kars and Batum ...Missing: "primary | Show results with:"primary
  4. [4]
    Black Sea Raid | Historica Wiki - Fandom
    The Black Sea Raid occurred on 29 October 1914 when the German-led Ottoman Navy shelled the Russian Black Sea ports of Odessa and Sebastopol, marking its entry ...
  5. [5]
    World War I - Turkish Fronts (1914–1918) - MegaMilitary
    Sep 24, 2023 · The Battle of Sarikamish (December 29, 1914) wiped out all but 12,000 of the would-be invaders, a loss from which the Turkish army would not ...
  6. [6]
    Turkish Debacle at Sarikamish - Mental Floss
    Jan 6, 2015 · On December 22, 1914 elements of the Turkish Third Army, numbering 150,000 men altogether, began advancing against the Russian Caucasian Army ...
  7. [7]
    Russians Advance on Erzurum - Mental Floss
    Jan 17, 2016 · Overall the Ottoman Third Army suffered 20,000 casualties out of a total 65,000 men, while the Russian Caucasian Army lost just 12,000 out of ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] A Critical Evaluation of the 1915 Armenian Rebellion in Van as the ...
    Nov 6, 2024 · Keywords: Van, Armenian rebellion, massacres, disputed genocide, gomidehs, counterinsurgency. Introduction. Shortly after World War II, genocide ...
  9. [9]
    The Armenian Genocide | History of Western Civilization II
    In 1915, the Ottoman government decided to issue the Tehcir Law, which started the mass deportation of ethnic Armenians, particularly from the provinces ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  10. [10]
    [PDF] the armenian “genocide”?
    officers in the Ottoman Empire during World War I, was equivalent to a ... “…Devoid of its historical context, the Ottoman decision to deport the Armenians.
  11. [11]
    end of the caucasus campaign: armistice of erzincan: dec 1917
    This put an end to all military operations. The Russian army virtually collapsed from within, and by April individual units were in full retreat. Bythe ...
  12. [12]
    Southern Asia 1918: Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - Omniatlas
    Transcaucasia's armistice with the Ottomans broke down in February 1918, by which point the Bolsheviks had largely secured their control of Russia and ...
  13. [13]
    What Was The February Revolution Of 1917? | Imperial War Museums
    Result: Abdication of the Tsar and the end of nearly 500 years of autocratic rule in Russia. Provisional Government established and reforms introduced. Russia ...
  14. [14]
  15. [15]
    Condition of the Troops at the Front
    Defeatist agitation is increasing and the disintegration of the army is in full swing. The Bolshevik wave is growing steadily, owing to general disintegration ...
  16. [16]
    History of Independence of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia
    In April 1918, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic was declared, but soon it dissolved into three separate states. On 26 May 1918, the Georgian ...
  17. [17]
    Full article: From Transcaucasia to the South Caucasus: Structural ...
    Jun 7, 2023 · The Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, which lasted 44 days, dissolved after the three countries established three distinct ...<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Western Azerbaijan in the Transcaucasian statehood system
    The union of Azerbaijan and Georgia in a coalition with Armenians was the recognition of their territorial security. This idea is relevant to the Seim and ...
  19. [19]
    Historical Documents - Office of the Historian
    The Transcaucasian delegation was obliged to accept, at the conclusion of the negotiations at Trebizond, the stipulations of the treaty of Brest Litovsk as a ...
  20. [20]
    Caucasus - Turkey in the First World War
    Jan 7, 2024 · Hostilities ceased by 15 August, concluding with 10,000 Turkish soldiers losing their lives and 6,000 becoming Russian prisoners. While the ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  21. [21]
    Full article: The Origins of the Caucasus Campaign: 'Bellum' Ante ...
    ... primary source materials from German and Russian archives and Turkish memoirs that add more evidence to our understanding of these events as constituting ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] The Ottoman occupation of Batumi, 1918: a view from below
    May 29, 2018 · The capture of Batumi on 14 April was welcomed in the press with euphoria. Recent works by Turkish historians have greatly improved our ...
  23. [23]
    The Fall of Kars - April 25, 1918 - Aniarc
    Apr 25, 2021 · On the evening of April 25, the first Turkish units entered the city and, on the following day, General Deev, Military Commissar Misha ...
  24. [24]
    Caucasus Front - 1914-1918 Online
    Aug 14, 2023 · The Caucasus Front was the area where combat operations between the Russian and Ottoman Empires were conducted from October 1914 until December 1917Missing: conflict | Show results with:conflict
  25. [25]
    Azerbaijan - 1914-1918 Online
    Mar 31, 2016 · On 22 April 1918, the Seim declared the independence of the Democratic Federative Republic of the Transcaucasus. The Ottomans immediately ...
  26. [26]
    Treaty of Batum (1918)
    According to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed on March 3, 1918, between the countries of the Quadruple Alliance (German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, ...
  27. [27]
  28. [28]
    [PDF] 93 Great War in Transcaucasia: From Ottoman Occupation to the ...
    On May 11, a fruitless German-mediated conference opened at Batumi. The Ottomans now extended their demands to include Tiflis as well as Alexandropol and ...Missing: Batum mediation
  29. [29]
    The political situation on the eve of the signing of the Treaty of Batum
    Since mid-May 1918, Germany had already taken serious practical steps to protect Georgia from Turkish military actions. It was pointless to discuss the stance ...
  30. [30]
    Ankara, Baku celebrate 102 years of diplomatic ties - Daily Sabah
    Jun 4, 2020 · ... Treaty of Batumi with the then-Ottoman Empire on June 4, 1918 ... Mammad Amin Rasulzade and ADR's Foreign Minister Muhammad Hasan Hajinski.Missing: Batum | Show results with:Batum
  31. [31]
  32. [32]
    An Armenian Source: Hovhannes Katchaznouni
    Oct 4, 2017 · The Treaty of Batum was signed on June 4, 1918 between Turkey and ... Katchaznouni sums up : “The Armenian Parliament had given a dictatorial ...
  33. [33]
    Armenian-Turkish Relations in the Second Half of 1918 - Aniarc
    Nov 12, 2023 · Khalil Pasha was not in principle against the demands to extend Armenia's lands. He proposed that Armenians vacate the Meghri region of Zangezur ...
  34. [34]
    The Armenian Genocide Timeline
    Ignoring the June 14, 1918 Batum treaty, the Turkish troops attacked Alexandropol on August 15. The 15-hour Armenian resistance gave an opportunity to the ...<|separator|>
  35. [35]
    Turkish Settlement and the Caucasus, 1918-20 - jstor
    This was the Treaty of Sevres which was signed between the Allies and the. Ottoman government in Constantinople on 10 August 1920. The main pro- visions of the ...
  36. [36]
    Why and what territories Armenia had to concede under the Treaty ...
    The treaty was signed in a formal ceremony on June 4, 1918. Its full name was “Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Ottoman Imperial Government and the ...Missing: terms | Show results with:terms
  37. [37]
    The Calamitous 1921 Treaty of Moscow - EVN Report
    May 2, 2021 · During the Turkish-Armenian War, which took place from September to November 1920, Armenia was seriously defeated. Terms were imposed by Turkey ...Missing: Batum | Show results with:Batum
  38. [38]
    Turkey, Azerbaijan mark 102 years of diplomatic ties - Anadolu Ajansı
    Jun 4, 2020 · With the treaty, the Ottoman Empire recognized the independence of Azerbaijan, which could in turn apply to the Empire for military help in the ...Missing: Batum | Show results with:Batum
  39. [39]
    Ottoman Administration of Batumi (April-December 1918)
    Feb 20, 2025 · In April 1918, the era of the Ottoman occupation of Batumi began. An Ottoman administration was formed, which was undisciplined and technically inadequate in ...<|separator|>
  40. [40]
    Dunsterforce in the Caucasus - National Army Museum
    On 30 October 1918, the Ottoman Empire signed the Armistice of Mudros with the Allies, so its occupation of Baku and the oilfields was short lived.
  41. [41]
    TREATY_OF_SEVRES - WESTERN ARMENIA
    Armenia accepts and agrees to embody in a Treaty with the Principal Allied Powers such provisions as may be deemed necessary by these Powers to protect the ...
  42. [42]
    Armenians In The Sevres Treaty And The Lausanne Conference
    In this treaty it was provided that Armenia would be recognized as a free and independent country, and its borders would be determined by US President Wilson.
  43. [43]
    The Curious Treaty of Kars - Modern Diplomacy
    Sep 11, 2018 · The Treaty of Kars, signed in the fall of 1921, established the borders between the Soviet Union and what was to become the Republic of Turkey.
  44. [44]
    [PDF] THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN TURKEY AND THE USSR - CIA
    By Article II of the treaty,. Turkey ceded Batum back to Georgia. "Treaty of Friendship between Russia and Turkey signed at. Moscow 16 March 1921," British and ...
  45. [45]
    Kars Treaty (1921) - Karabakh.org
    The Kars treaty established the borders between Turkey and the three Transcaucasian republics of the Soviet Union, which are now the independent republics ...
  46. [46]
    How Did Nakhchivan Become Autonomous? - History
    Article 3 of the treaty stipulated that an autonomous structure was to be established in Nakhchivan province, indicated in an appendix to the treaty, under the ...
  47. [47]
    The Treaty of Kars - Milwaukee Armenians
    Oct 14, 2016 · The Treaty of Kars, signed on October 13, 1921, confirmed the division of Batum, created a new boundary between Turkey and Armenia, and Turkey ...Missing: garrisoning Batumi details
  48. [48]
    Kars Region | Historica Wiki
    On 19 March 1847, Kars had a population of 179,090 people, with 50.2% being Kurds, 28.8% Turks, 11.1% Armenians, 7.7% Georgians, 1.2% others, and 1 ...
  49. [49]
    Myths and Reality about the Treaty of Kars - Factcheck.ge
    Feb 21, 2019 · The Treaty of Kars was based on a principle similar to that of the Treaty of Moscow. In particular, Turkey's north-east border remained untouched.
  50. [50]
    Panturkism - 1914-1918 Online
    Oct 30, 2017 · Pan-Turkism is the nationalist ideology that emphasizes the common ethnic, cultural, and linguistic roots of Turkic peoples living across Eurasia.
  51. [51]
    [PDF] baku expedition of 1917–1918: a study of the ottoman policy ...
    By using Pan-. Turkism, Enver Pasha wanted to transform the geopolitical dynamics of the Ottoman. Empire and Asia. Additionally, Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa (Ottoman ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  52. [52]
    Petroleum - 1914-1918 Online
    Jan 7, 2015 · By controlling more than 70 percent of the world-wide petroleum production, the Entente powers had a decisive military advantage.Missing: Batumi | Show results with:Batumi
  53. [53]
    [PDF] The Democratic Republic of Georgia and Great Britain
    On December 22, 1918,. Major General Forestier Walker led the 27th Division of the British Army to Batumi. In all, 60,000 British soldiers were stationed in the.
  54. [54]
    TREATY OF BATUM - Milwaukee Armenians
    Jun 3, 2017 · Three separate treaties were signed in Batum between the Ottoman Empire and the three Transcaucasian republics on June 4-5.Missing: terms | Show results with:terms
  55. [55]
    Georgia - 1914-1918 Online
    Sep 14, 2021 · The Bolshevik victory in Petrograd led Transcaucasia's parties, dominated by the predominantly Georgian Transcaucasian Regional Committee of the ...Missing: agitation | Show results with:agitation
  56. [56]
    [PDF] British military operations in North Persia and the Caucasus 1918
    The Young Turk leaders also hoped to retake long lost provinces in. Caucasia from Russia and eliminate British and Italian de facto control of Ottoman ...
  57. [57]
    The emergence of the Azerbaijani and Georgian republics (1918 ...
    So not only the weakness of the land forces, but also the ideological weakness of the Georgian and Azerbaijani military establishment played a crucial role ...
  58. [58]
    (PDF) Batum, Conference and Treaties of - Academia.edu
    Jun 1, 2021 · The Batum Conference (May 1918) and treaties ended the state of war between the Ottoman Empire and various governments of the South Caucasus ...Missing: "primary | Show results with:"primary
  59. [59]
    [PDF] The-Armeno-Georgian-War-of-1918-EN.pdf - Tbilisi - gfsis.org
    May 28, 2024 · Turkish General Khalil Pasha offered to cede some Turk- ish-occupied territories to Armenia. This included not only the occupied area of the ...
  60. [60]
    The depth of the deadlock? Underlying themes in the Georgian ...
    Apr 21, 2022 · ... Treaty of Batum/i on 4 June 1918 by the Ottoman Empire and the Transcaucasian States. In the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 Georgians did ...<|separator|>
  61. [61]
    [PDF] NAKHIJEVAN FROM THE TREATY OF BATUM AND THE MILITARY ...
    Jan 17, 2024 · Later on the Treaty of Batum was signed on June 4,. 1918, between Ottoman Empire and three new independent Transcaucasian States of Armenia, ...Missing: Nakhchivan | Show results with:Nakhchivan
  62. [62]
    [PDF] FOREIGN POLICY OF THE AZERBAIJAN DEMOCRATIC ...
    The Treaty of Batum also stood out for being the first international agreement concluded by ADR15. Afterwards, Petroleum Treaty was signed between. Turkey, ...