The denial of the Armenian Genocide is the basis of Turkey's existence
Kemal Atatürk was personally familiar with many key plans of the movement of the Young Turks, but didn't take part in the upheaval of 1908, so that later, when the organizers of the Armenian Genocide were taken into court, Atatürk wasn't among them.
The founder of modern Turkey Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is still "an inviolable person" in Turkey. In every city there is the statue to Atatürk, his pictures may be found in all government institutions. After his party lost its power in 1950, people still continued worshiping Kemal Atatürk. A law was passed, concerning any kind of offence towards Atatürk's picture or any kind of criticism of his activities or slandering the facts of his biography.
Besides, it is forbidden to carry the surname Atatürk. The publication of his letters to his wife is forbidden as well, since it would give the father of the Nation an image of a "simple" human being. Any doubts about the "purity of the intentions of the father of the Nation" were subject to criminal liability. Kemal Atatürk was personally familiar with many key plans of the movement of the Young Turks, but didn't take part in the upheaval of 1908, so that later, when the organizers of the Armenian Genocide were taken into court, Atatürk wasn't among them. Moreover, perhaps he was the only one among the Turkish political figures who qualified the deportation of the Armenian people as a "slaughter". Atatürk simply couldn't use the term "genocide", because he was introduced in the international law only in 1948 as a result of adoption of the UN Convention of Genocide Punishment and Warning
However, let's suppose that Atatürk qualified the events of 1915-1923 as "slaughter", the official Turkish historiography prefers to call it "tehjir". The name of the act "Tehjir Kanunu" is sounds as an act about resettlement. While describing the events, most often terms like "tenkil, or "nakletme" are used, which may be translated as "transportation" or "removal" and terms like "deportation", never "exile" were never used to qualify those events. But in spite of this, out of ignorance or out of the desire to make things look more dramatic, the Armenians and some western authors choose terms like "exile". Both from historical and philological point of view this is nothing but an intentional error," says the article covering the events of 1915 in the site of the Turkish Ministry of Culture.
Yet, referring back to Atatürk who in July 1926 in his interview to the Swiss journalist Emil Hildebrand mentioned the "slaughter", of course putting the blame on the Young Turks. It shouldn't be forgotten that in 1926 there were still orphanages where thousands of Armenian children were sheltered, the organizers of the Armenian Genocide were already starting to feel the revenge of the Armenian avengers and Atatürk simply couldn't say anything else. Because of it again in 1926 a group of nationalists with Zia Khurshud at the head intended to kill Kemal during his visit to Izmir, however the plot was discovered and the group was arrested, five of them shot. By the way, after being elected the President of Turkey, Atatürk gave his close fellow-fighters land and made expensive presents, which as the evidence shows were of "Armenian origins". However Atatürk was the one to put a taboo on mentioning the events of the 1915 and gave the Turkish historians the right of having their own interpretation of these horrifying years. It was in the constitution written by Atatürk that the notorious Article 301 about "insulting the Turkishness" first appeared. Historian Taner Aksham, who had to leave Turkey because of this very Article, writes: "Extermination of a whole nation is the base of Turkey's existence". In the light of these details it becomes clear why we have put a taboo on this issue, which in fact played a very important role in formation of our national consciousness and state. The fact that the events of 1915 were mass killings wasn't subject to any discussion. The main topic of discussion of those times was how to punish the "Turks" for the slaughter of the Armenian people. The trial was one of the punishments. Dividing Anatolia was another means of punishment. In other words, the Western powers closely hid their imperial aims behind the reality of mass killings of the Armenian people. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his fellow-fighters took this reality; those who are guilty were to be punished, but they opposed to the allotment of Anatolia". Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said: "A nation's case may not be protected with irresponsibility. A Nation's case, before becoming a matter of politics, should become a well-considered ideal. Propaganda must always lean on positive knowledge. It is necessary to calculate each movement and to determine the succession of the action."
However, let's suppose that Atatürk qualified the events of 1915-1923 as "slaughter", the official Turkish historiography prefers to call it "tehjir". The name of the act "Tehjir Kanunu" is sounds as an act about resettlement. While describing the events, most often terms like "tenkil, or "nakletme" are used, which may be translated as "transportation" or "removal" and terms like "deportation", never "exile" were never used to qualify those events. But in spite of this, out of ignorance or out of the desire to make things look more dramatic, the Armenians and some western authors choose terms like "exile". Both from historical and philological point of view this is nothing but an intentional error," says the article covering the events of 1915 in the site of the Turkish Ministry of Culture.
Yet, referring back to Atatürk who in July 1926 in his interview to the Swiss journalist Emil Hildebrand mentioned the "slaughter", of course putting the blame on the Young Turks. It shouldn't be forgotten that in 1926 there were still orphanages where thousands of Armenian children were sheltered, the organizers of the Armenian Genocide were already starting to feel the revenge of the Armenian avengers and Atatürk simply couldn't say anything else. Because of it again in 1926 a group of nationalists with Zia Khurshud at the head intended to kill Kemal during his visit to Izmir, however the plot was discovered and the group was arrested, five of them shot. By the way, after being elected the President of Turkey, Atatürk gave his close fellow-fighters land and made expensive presents, which as the evidence shows were of "Armenian origins". However Atatürk was the one to put a taboo on mentioning the events of the 1915 and gave the Turkish historians the right of having their own interpretation of these horrifying years. It was in the constitution written by Atatürk that the notorious Article 301 about "insulting the Turkishness" first appeared. Historian Taner Aksham, who had to leave Turkey because of this very Article, writes: "Extermination of a whole nation is the base of Turkey's existence". In the light of these details it becomes clear why we have put a taboo on this issue, which in fact played a very important role in formation of our national consciousness and state. The fact that the events of 1915 were mass killings wasn't subject to any discussion. The main topic of discussion of those times was how to punish the "Turks" for the slaughter of the Armenian people. The trial was one of the punishments. Dividing Anatolia was another means of punishment. In other words, the Western powers closely hid their imperial aims behind the reality of mass killings of the Armenian people. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his fellow-fighters took this reality; those who are guilty were to be punished, but they opposed to the allotment of Anatolia". Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said: "A nation's case may not be protected with irresponsibility. A Nation's case, before becoming a matter of politics, should become a well-considered ideal. Propaganda must always lean on positive knowledge. It is necessary to calculate each movement and to determine the succession of the action."
