Mustafa Kemal Atatürk served long years in the Ottoman military and fought a series of battles. No sources during this time ties him to any of the Genocidical acts against the non-muslim populations. Even though he was a member of the Committee of Uniom and Progress, he was not one of the influential members. In history his military career is more visible and successful than his political career.
After WW1 in the years of the Turkish War of Independence massacres were ongoing both on the eastern and western front. These were mainly sacking and looting of villages, and were not directly issued by The National Movement, but some in some calculations and analysis of the Greek and Armenian Genocides its time span is stretched to the year 1923. The armed forces under The Nation Committee carried out atrocities, which in this phase of the war had become a usual thing to the enemy and their civilian population. One particular episode is mainly discussed, and that’s the Great Fire of Smyrna. It’s discussed if the fire were intentional and aimed to destroy the Greek populace of the city, or if it were started by the retreating Greek army.
But Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is normally not accused for genocidal atrocities against the non-muslim population. Generally because of his opinions on several topics on how ethnic issues should be resolved, compared to other former CUP and The National Movement members. The population exchange between Greece and Turkey also shows Atatürks will to keep the peace without more bloodshed. Some would argue Atatürks desire for making a homogeneous Turkish population in Asia-minor fueled this exchange, but this forced population exchange were not an act of genocide. Furthermore as I mentioned some events during the wars after the fall of the Ottoman Empire is counted in the Genocide statistics, this could be the only tie Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had to the events, but no further direct evidence shows he was a perpetrator of any of the atrocities. An expert on the area(of genocide research in Anatolia) Taner Akçam discusses the nature of the ethnic conflict during the years 1918-1923, and focuses on extremely violent behavior from both sides of the conflict. A violent behavior to homogenize the demographic composition though ethnic cleansing and oppression. And some highlights from Akçams book on the Armenian Genocide underlines Atatürks personal and political views on the genocidal atrocities. In these cases Atatürk clearly is not in favor of ethnic cleansing:
“According to one newspaper, Nurettin Paşa had suggested not only deporting the Greek and Armenian populations remaining in Anatolia, but also killing them, a suggestion rejected by Kemal.”
“The members of the new Turkish parliament in Ankara understood their Armenian policy as an attempt to complete the unfinished work of the previous government. During a debate in parliament, one deputy suggested that the Armenians left in Anatolia should be shipped abroad: “I’ll make you a sound proposal. Let’s finish this job properly. Let’s sift out the Armenians and send them off to Yerevan. That way they’ll be comfortable and so will we.… (Howls of approval were then heard).””
“Mustafa Kemal’s speeches follow this line; for instance, he expressed the official position, saying that Ankara “looks favorably upon an Armenia established beyond the Ottoman borders.” Additionally, there are a number of speeches given by Kemal before secret sessions of the Turkish parliament that support this view. “We recognize the independence of those Armenians who have founded and formed the Armenian Republic.…””
Still atrocities were carried out in the of The National movement, possibly caused by a continuation of the earlier Ottoman policies and leaders who blindly believed in these policies.
“There were massacres throughout 1920–23, the period of the Turkish War of Independence—especially of Armenians in the east and the south, and against the Greeks in the Black Sea region. Massacres of Turks were also carried out by the Greek and Armenian forces.”
“The third issue is how to evaluate the events between 1917 and 1922, whether the terms “acts of revenge” or “continuation of the genocide” are accurate. There is no doubt that the events in Caucasus were part of a historical continuity in the region. However, while there is continuity of the actors, there are significant changes to the context in which these events took place. The decline of empires and rise of new nation-states changed the nature of the events in very important ways that negate a description of Muslim deaths during this period as simply “acts of revenge.” The newly formed Armenian state was itself attempting to establish an ethnically homogenous nation. After the suppression of a Bolshevik uprising in May 1920 in Yerevan, “the government … turned the regular army and Western Armenian detachments against the constantly defiant Muslim-populated districts.…”” (Taner Akçam, A shamefull act, p. 293-304)
After Mustafa Kemal Atatürk becomes the first president and purges the rival ex-CUP members, he openly criticized and condemned the violent nature of the genocidal atrocities.
“The second element, I am now about to deal with ruthlessly, is the group of men who in the pre-republic days were known to the world as the Committee of the Union of the Young Turks. … I am about to show these plotters that the Republic of Turkey cannot be overthrown by murderers or through their murderous designs.” “These left-overs from the former Young Turkey Party, who should have been made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule. They have hitherto lived on plunder, robbery and bribery and become inimical to any idea or suggestion to enlist in useful labor and earn their living by the honest sweat of their brow.”
Leave a Reply