Two neighboring nations living side by side were dispersed to different sides of the barricade because of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The armed confrontation was followed by an informational one.
In fact, there is nothing reprehensible in the willingness of the two nations to represent their point of view to the world community and give proofs in their favor. However, when the basic rule of inadmissibility on using falsification as a proof is violated, even if it intends to intensify the impression of the user with the help of other materials (photos, video materials, agreements, documents, letters, etc.),it is irrelevant to speak about the authenticity of other facts. In this case it is evident that the whole propagandistic “dance on bones” doesn’t strive for the victory of justice, but pursues solely defamational goals.
It happened so that the Azerbaijani side, feeling an urge to have its “personal” genocide (not a bit worse than their neighbors have), undertook multishift and multifold actions to fix some dates on the calendar as the days of a genocide against Azerbaijani (azerbembassy.org.cn/rus/31march_docs08.html).
During the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, the civilian population was repeatedly exposed to armed attacks, and in some cases, to pogroms and slaughter. Among the most well-known episodes could be mentioned the following: the murder of Armenian civilian population in the village Maragha in Nagorno-Karabakh, the ethnic purges of Armenians in Nakhijevan Autonomous Region, in the Azerbaijan SSR, in particular, the pogrom of Armenians in Sumgait (February 26-29, 1988),in Kirovabad (November 21-27, 1988, and in Baku (January 13-19, 1990), the killings of civilian population in Stepanakert, fired at by facilities “Grad” from Shushi and Khojaly.
However, the killings of rural population of Khojaly in the February of 1992, when at night the inhabitants of the settlement were leaving for Azeirbajani town Aghdam, is, undoubtedly, an episode having more publicity. The Armenian side claims that they were given the opportunity of a free corridor, while the Azerbaijani side denies this fact. According to the Azerbaijani side, 613 people were killed on those days.
This very occurrence differs from others, first of all, by the fact that the Azerbaijani side fully controlled the territory where the Khojaly inhabitants were killed and had the opportunity to make an unimpeded and unrestricted survey not only of the very spot but also of the dead, by taking photos and video filming. In particular, Azerbaijani camera-man Chingiz Mustafaev, found himself in the place of the death practically straight away and it is his materials that underlie all the documentary materials on Khojaly.
After the defeat in the war with Armenians, a process of formation of national identity began in the present Azerbaijan. In this scheme Armenia and Armenians became the main antagonists. In the process of modeling of the national self-consciousness, the Khojaly events were declared as one of the several genocides against Azerbaijani, though, it is absolutely evident that the Khojaly events, by no means, fall under the category of genocide. In spite of this, Azerbaijan, on a governmental level, is engaged in presenting the Khojaly events as genocide: at the Web Site of the president of Azerbaijan there is a section devoted to a number of genocides against Azerbaijani, including “the genocide in Khojaly ” (http://president.AZ/browse.php?sec_id=56). There are sections on the “genocide in Khojaly” at the Web Sites of Embassies of Azerbaijan Republic to different countries as well. All this is an evidence of the great role of the Khojaly tragedy in Azerbaijan state propaganda.
Now we will examine the documentary base exploited by Azerbaijan to demonstrate and prove their version of Khojaly events.
This time we will diverge from the standard references to the sources of “pro” and “contra” and will look into factual materials, namely, photographs and video-chronicles. We will refer to Web Sites devoted to the Khojaly events, the themes and resources where this subject matter is touched upon.
We will in turn examine a number of photos taken from Chingiz Mustafaev’s video-chronicles and different variations of his two reportages.