Հայկական հարցը յետպոտսդամեան շրջանի քննարկումներում

Ամփոփում  

THE ARMENIAN QUESTION IN DISCUSSIONS AFTER THE POTSDAM PERIOD

 

HOVHANNES ZATIKYAN

 

 

On July 23, 1945 at 17.10 minutes in Potsdam it was convened the seventh conference with participation of three allies, under the presiding of Truman, who, summarizing the discussed issues, also touched upon the Armenian ter­ritories and, explaining the US position, said: “With regard to the territorial is­sue, it applies only to the Soviet Union and Turkey and should be settled be­tween them.”

As for the requirements of the territorial issue, later, except this evasive thoughts, he wrote in his memoirs that the USSR, in the presentation of the re­port of Molotov, intended to solve the territorial problems “before the alliance signing”. We are talking about the new Soviet-Turkish treaty, which was re­quired by the USSR.

After that the territorial issue has not been longer seen, although on July 23, 1945 during a meeting of the foreign ministers it was agreed to amend the agenda as submitted for review by the government, including the Turkish ques­tion.

In the postwar years, the geopolitical contradictions had not been silenced , but there also have been found the new outbreaks in different regions. After the defeat of Japan and using of nuclear weapons the USA had already considered themselves as a superpower state. In this direction there have been developed the Truman Doctrine as well as the Marshall program. After the formation of the USSR as a nuclear power state, the arms race has received a new strength.

Simultaneously to noting the new movements, the focus remained on the unresolved issues analysis. In a number of these problems the Armenian ques­tion was remained, although it seemed to be not under that name, but as “ter­ritorial requirements to the Turkey from the Republic of Armenia.”

The Anglo-American part tried to find out whether the Armenians had re­ally territorial demands or it was a provocation on the part of the Soviet gov­ernment, and who owned these areas actually.

Henceforth it was formed a point of view that the territorial demands were nothing as the imperial intentions for the implementation of the exit to the Me­diter­ranean. In this sense, the primary was the defense of Turkey. By this way , the situation that was created during the final stages of the I-st World War till the Lausanne Conference was repeated, when the defeated Turkey was granted the status of the winner.

Hence, at least a partial solution of the Armenian question would paving the way for Russia to Straits and the Mediterranean.

The Kars and Ardahan problem at the highest level was examined in Lon­don in September 1945 during the meeting of the Foreign Ministry with the par­ticipation of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The problem of the Armenian territories in Potsdam was raised, as the doc­uments show, without preparation, without any organized preliminary dis­cus­sions of the allies, hastily.

The Soviet part was full of hope that the Turkey will accept the demand, as in the war years, the Turkey's behavior tended to appropriate decisions and in order to avoid the punishment, the Turkey would agree. But quite the opposite was happened. The Turkey refused not only providing the bases in the Straits, as well as the requirement of territorial concessions.

It was also illogical the following novalty from the Soviet part , when after some time, Georgia was represented as a next claimant .

In fact, the Soviets did not solve the just demands of the Armenian ques­tion, without historical foundation they had intrоduce a third party, which, more­over, has deprived the Armenian question authority, creating conditions for re­maining the problem as unsolved.

The same opinion was the international media, which reported its view on the Armenian lands. They considered the territorial claims as one of the tricks of the USSR.

In contrast to the Anglo-American-Turkish position many progressives, who were familiar with the history of the Armenian genocide of 1915 , defended the view to return the territory to its rightful owners - Armenians.

The Anglo-American alliance was able to implement its program. The atomic bomb, the Truman Doctrine, the NATO’s development, the creation of the FRG were significant steps that have shaped the new geopolitical world­view, engaging the world in a new bipolar arena of conflict . In this context, once again the Armenian question was in a fragile state, as a process of rupture of enough weak link, Motherland-Diaspora was started, bringing to the verge of splitting the unity of the Armenian Church. This state was the appropriate choice both for the USSR and the USA. Demonstrating the false protection and compassion the USA sent the Armenian Diaspora to the way of criticism of anti-Armenian policy of the USSR in the national question and the Soviet Union, using the repressive levers, sent the guidance of the Arm. SSR on the path of non-domestic forces, accusing them in "the nationalism", predicting a bright future of the socialist homeland, presenting it as the greatest achievement in resolving the Armenian question.

With the participation of three members from each party there was created a governing body of the council. The President of the Council was elected as a Democrat Petros C. Terzian, including twenty national organizations. In dif­fe­rent states of the country there were formed till fifty branches.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation "Dashnaktsutyun” " under the guidance of A. Darbinyan and S. Vratsyan in the USA formed the Armenian National Committee. Under the chairmanship of A. Chopanyan there was cre­ated a French-Armenian National Committee. In Egypt, a national committee was formed headed by the artist Al. Sarukhanian. The National committees ope­rated in Lebanon, Greece, Uruguay, Palestine.

In February and May 1944 the French-Armenian youth has developed four brochures that secretly, under German occupation, were propagated in the Ar­me­nian communities in France.

The brochures in oratorical style reported to multiple masses on the re­structuring of the Armenian diaspora in the future, predicting the decision of the Armenian question, which follows from the basic provisions to protect the rights of peoples.

12.00€
Հատոր  
Էջեր  
35
Լեզու