by Alexandros Lordos » Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:47 pm
I would add, on a more general level, that our documentary should strive to present this period as one where both sides acted irresponsibly. The GCs by striving to unilaterally enforce changes to the constitution, and the TCs by walking out instead of "fighting it" from within. (After all, it is not as if the 13 points were already enforced. If such changes were ever actually made, then the TCs could easily have invoked Turkey's support through the Treaty of Guarantee to scare GCs back into the constitution). This is my view of the situation. But again, the various historical details should be examined more closely, as Insan suggests, before we can put flesh and bones to this argument.
Do you all think that this is a fair way of presenting the period, or not?