After some preliminary remarks about the discourse on the Armenian Genocide before the Nineties of the last century in Turkey and having made some reference to personal memories in order to better outline the general atmosphere of speach attitudes in those years to the subject, the author tries to clarify the content and intent of this paper which develops on two levels:
a. Questions pertaining to the conceptual framework that covers the most crucial dimensions of the Catastrophe of 1915.
b. The reasons for the acceptance or denegation of the term «Genocide», and the question as to whether and how this problem can be overcome.
Some topics, closely related to the subject, remain, however, outside of the investigative framework.
c. The evidence that the Catastrophe of 1915 was genocide.
d. The analysis and differentiation of semantically related terms such as «genocide», «ethnocide», «democide» and others.
e. The psycho-analytical approach, which is crucial and beneficial for both sides to overcome the trauma.
f. The analysis, from the vantage point of international law, of legal issues pertaining to the problem, especially those of «responsibility» and «compensation».
g. The Armenian terror activities of the 1970s and the Karabagh issue.
The intent of the present examination is summarized as follows:
i. The intent is not to blame or incriminate a nation or a people in general or, in the present case, the Turkish nation or the peoples of Turkey in particular.
ii. The aim of remembering a past calamity should certainly not be to reopen old wounds. Yet, we should also not forget a few issues: a) history is a standing reality which cannot be wiped out. History can be instructive and guide us, if it is examined in a way that neither exalts, nor denigrates, and refrains from inciting hatred and enmity; b) where there exist open wounds stemming from the past, such an approach to history is an inescapable necessity for the treatment and the healing of these wounds.
Subsequently the author develops a detailed analysis on the following main issues:
a) The meaning of the terms tehcir (expulsion/deportation) and genocide. The author tries to demonstrate that tehcir, a term used by the Turkish official version of history, as was practiced in the Armenian case, to minimize what happened, constitutes indeed the darkest and most terrible dimension of the Armenian Genocide. It meant the uprooting of the Armenian people from its homeland, which had been the cradle of its identity, culture, and civilization, where it used to live for almost three millennia.
b) The issue of trauma which is a common feature, even if for different reasons and in different ways, both to Armenians and Turks.
c) The ways how to come out from the trauma: the author suggests a process of catharsis, analyzed in its various dimensions.
d) Finally the key issues of recognition and compensation are analyzed. The author suggests three ways for a morally and legally requested, humanly satisfying and politically possible satisfaction.
The conclusion emphasizes the absolute need and necessity, for both Armenians and Turks, to establish normal relations, to transcend the trauma, so to be able addressing the future with confidence.