Relying on sources and facts that shed light on the policy of the Russian Empire in Transcaucasia, published in previous articles, for example: here and here, the policy of the USSR was essentially a continuation of the policy of imperialist Russia.
Mikoyan was a bright representative of the policy promoted by the USSR in Transcaucasia. Today’s policy of the Russian Federation is no different from that of the imperial and Soviet ones.
Also, among those promoting the unchanged policy, there are many bright representatives with surnames ending in “yan”, who eagerly and with pleasure advance the policy of destroying Armenia and Armenians.
And the explanations of the ideas promoted by them are as cynical and inept as those of Mikoyan, presented below.
At that time, the bet of the Soviets was made on the Kemalists in Turkey, who, according to the Soviet establishment, allegedly fought with Western imperialists, and the fact that the Turks physically destroyed all small nations – this, according to Mikoyan and those like him, is just another side of the issue. What happened next and what is happening now is well known.
By the way, the Western imperialists, in particular the Anglo-French, did not have the goal of exterminating the Armenians, unlike the Turkish and Russian non-imperialists. The Germans were a different story, who took an active part in the extermination of the Armenians, but unlike the Turks, they acknowledged the degree of their involvement.
Meeting of A. Mikoyan with the scientific staff of the Armenian branch of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism on March 14, 1962
Agayan Ts. P. — The sixth question. The attitude to the Kemalist movement of 1920. It is known that the Soviet government positively regarded and supported the Kemalist movement in every possible way. But at the same time, the Kemalists acted as fierce nationalists, enslaving and exterminating other peoples – Greeks, Armenians, etc.
In particular, they brought a lot of disasters and suffering to the Armenian people, seizing Armenian territories and destroying the civilian population. How to relate to these facts?
Mikoyan A. I. — Why did we support the Kemalist movement? Because it was against English and French imperialism.
Before that, no one stood up against the imperialists – our main enemies. This is the first point. Secondly, we were looking for allies among the peoples of the East. We assumed that as a chain reaction other Eastern countries would rise against the imperialists.
Inside the country, the Kemalists stood against the Sultan’s regime and feudal orders. In this sense, the Kemalist movement should be considered progressive.
But that’s one side of the phenomenon. The other side of this phenomenon is that the Kemalist movement was directed against small nations.
Therefore, in the Kemalist movement there were two tendencies – positive and negative. But the main thing at that time was the struggle against Anglo-French imperialism, and this struggle was rightly supported by us.
The above-mentioned policy of the Kemalists of oppressing small nations led to aggressive actions on the part of the Turks, and from this the Armenian people suffered significant casualties and loss of territory. This particularly reflected the reactionary tendency of the Kemalist movement.
In characterizing the Kemalist movement, it is necessary to emphasize its anti-imperialist nature, but at the same time, one cannot fail to note its reactionary side – aggressive actions towards other nations.
Source: Համատեքստ Hamatext
