He actually did not deny the existence of the Armenian genocide - he explicitly condemned it multiple times. To blame him for ‘benefitting’ from the genocide when the man was anything but in a position to stop it seems strange. I’m not aware of him condemning the massacres against the Assyrians, but I’m also not aware of him being in any sort of serious position to stop them, again. The Greeks is a fair criticism, since during the Turkish War of Independence he displayed a blase attitude towards restraining his troops from expelling Greek populations.
While the Turkish government did eventually take a much harsher and even genocidal stance against ethnic minorities, and while Ataturk was certainly a Turkish nationalist, many of the actions which the Turkish government is associated with are later innovations in this area, and do not date to Ataturk’s reign. The ban on the Kurdish language, in particular, was a product of the 1980s, by which time Ataturk had been dead for some 45 years. Mustafa Kemal, in fact, acknowledged the Turkish Republic as a land for both Turks and Kurds multiple times throughout his life. I have a book I can quote once I can find it.
I would like to admit, on the other hand, that Ataturk certainly did not find the defense of minority rights a high priority, with the surname law requiring all Turkish citizens to adopt a surname also forbidding ethnic name endings, and that the suppression of the Kurds during the Dersim Rebellion and subsequent genocide had begun in the last year of Ataturk’s life, though with significant evidence that the army and local functionaries were committing a massive degree of falsification and whitewashing in their reports to the central government.
Clearly I have more reading to do, thank you for calling my knowledge and assumptions into question. If he was as outspoken against the Armenian genocide as you say then that already does a great deal to shift my perspective.
By benefiting from the genocide, I meant that his government benefited from the availability of valuable land that had been depopulated, and that it was easier to enforce cultural erasure and ethnic assimilation after the dirty work of mass slaughter had already been done. The “Citizen, speak Turkish” campaign in the 30’s certainly had the effect of strongly discouraging (and in some places punishing) ethnic minorities from speaking their native languages in public.
You also raise a good point that we shouldn’t conflate every act of the government with the views and policies of one man. Just like the President of the United States isn’t my entire government. I ought to examine this period of history much more critically.
By benefiting from the genocide, I meant that his government benefited from the availability of valuable land that had been depopulated, and that it was easier to enforce cultural erasure and ethnic assimilation after the dirty work of mass slaughter had already been done.
Oh, yes, certainly. If memory serves, Ataturk refused certain minorities expelled during the Ottoman Empire the right to return in some regions, on the account that, while what happened to them was horrible, it would be ‘dangerous’ for them to return amongst simple country folk who still bore those gruesome prejudices. Which is, of course, also horribly convenient for establishing those areas as Turkish-dominated going forward.
He actually did not deny the existence of the Armenian genocide - he explicitly condemned it multiple times. To blame him for ‘benefitting’ from the genocide when the man was anything but in a position to stop it seems strange. I’m not aware of him condemning the massacres against the Assyrians, but I’m also not aware of him being in any sort of serious position to stop them, again. The Greeks is a fair criticism, since during the Turkish War of Independence he displayed a blase attitude towards restraining his troops from expelling Greek populations.
While the Turkish government did eventually take a much harsher and even genocidal stance against ethnic minorities, and while Ataturk was certainly a Turkish nationalist, many of the actions which the Turkish government is associated with are later innovations in this area, and do not date to Ataturk’s reign. The ban on the Kurdish language, in particular, was a product of the 1980s, by which time Ataturk had been dead for some 45 years. Mustafa Kemal, in fact, acknowledged the Turkish Republic as a land for both Turks and Kurds multiple times throughout his life. I have a book I can quote once I can find it.
I would like to admit, on the other hand, that Ataturk certainly did not find the defense of minority rights a high priority, with the surname law requiring all Turkish citizens to adopt a surname also forbidding ethnic name endings, and that the suppression of the Kurds during the Dersim Rebellion and subsequent genocide had begun in the last year of Ataturk’s life, though with significant evidence that the army and local functionaries were committing a massive degree of falsification and whitewashing in their reports to the central government.
Clearly I have more reading to do, thank you for calling my knowledge and assumptions into question. If he was as outspoken against the Armenian genocide as you say then that already does a great deal to shift my perspective.
By benefiting from the genocide, I meant that his government benefited from the availability of valuable land that had been depopulated, and that it was easier to enforce cultural erasure and ethnic assimilation after the dirty work of mass slaughter had already been done. The “Citizen, speak Turkish” campaign in the 30’s certainly had the effect of strongly discouraging (and in some places punishing) ethnic minorities from speaking their native languages in public.
You also raise a good point that we shouldn’t conflate every act of the government with the views and policies of one man. Just like the President of the United States isn’t my entire government. I ought to examine this period of history much more critically.
Oh, yes, certainly. If memory serves, Ataturk refused certain minorities expelled during the Ottoman Empire the right to return in some regions, on the account that, while what happened to them was horrible, it would be ‘dangerous’ for them to return amongst simple country folk who still bore those gruesome prejudices. Which is, of course, also horribly convenient for establishing those areas as Turkish-dominated going forward.