According to the sources and facts covering the policy of the Russian Empire in Transcaucasia, the policy of the USSR was a continuation of the policy of imperialist Russia. Anastas Mikoyan was a vivid representative of the advanced policy of the USSR in Transcaucasia. And even today, the policy of the Russian Federation is no different from the imperial and Soviet.
Among the promoters of the immutable politics, there are many bright representatives with surnames ending in “yan” or “ian”, who zealously and with pleasure support the policy of elimination of Armenia and Armenians. And the “explanations” of the ideas, which are as cynical and talentless as Mikoyan’s, are presented below.
At that time, the Soviets put a bet on the Kemalists in Turkey, who were thought to be fighting against the Western imperialists. The fact that the Turks have been exterminating small nations was, in Mikoyan’s opinion, just another, not so important side of the issue. What happened next and what happens now is known firsthand.
By the way, the Western imperialists, in particular, the Anglo-French, did not have the aims of exterminating Armenians, unlike the no less imperialist Turks and Russians. Another thing was the Germans, who took an active part in the extermination of Armenians, but in contrast to the Turks, later recognized the extent of their participation.
- Mikoyan’s meeting with the scientists of the Armenian branch of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, March 14, 1962.
Ts. Aghayan: The sixth question. Attitude towards the Kemalist movement of 1920. It is known that the Soviet government positively treated and strongly supported the Kemalist movement. But at the same time, the Kemalists acted like ardent nationalists, who enslaved and exterminated other peoples like Greeks, Armenians, etc.
In particular, they brought many calamities and suffering to the Armenian people, seizing Armenian territories and killing civilians. How to treat these facts?
- Mikoyan: We supported the Kemalist movement because of what? Because it was against the English and French imperialism.
Until then, no one spoke against the imperialists, our main enemies. Secondly, we sought allies among the peoples of the East. It was assumed that other countries of the East would rise up in a chain reaction against those imperialists.
Inside the country, the Kemalists opposed the Sultan’s regime and feudal orders. In this sense, the Kemalist movement must be considered progressive.
But this is just one side of the phenomenon. The second side of the question is that the Kemalist movement was directed against small nations.
Consequently, with the Kemalist movement, there are two tendencies – positive and negative. But the main thing at the time was the struggle against Anglo-French imperialism, which was supported by us.
The above-stated policy of Kemalists’ oppression of small nations led to aggressive actions on the part of the Turks. As a result, the Armenian people suffered significantly and lost their state territory. Among other factors, the reactionary tendency of the Kemalist movement affected this as well.
Characterizing the Kemalist movement, it is necessary to emphasize its anti-imperialist character, but at the same time, it is impossible not to note its reactionary side-aggressive actions towards other nations.
Source: Համատեքստ Hamatext
