the famed tolerance of the empire for minority populations within its borders
Except when it came to dealing with rebellious subjects - which, like I said, were met with harsh reprisals. And some Armenians/Christians were at least restive during WWI (which is what all genocide apologia focuses on). There was also the famous conscription of Christian boys etc. The Ottomans were more religiously tolerant than most European states (especially of Jews), but they still lived in an age when collective punishment was the standard mindset. But, yeah, definitely an arguable question.
(given that ataturk did the genocide)
AFAIK, he did not (except in that he was an officer for a government that was doing it). He was a mid-level officer when it started (1914), was busy fighting WWI battles during it, and only became a national figure in 1918, when it was basically concluded. He later fought the Turkish-Armenian War where more civilian massacres occurred, so those are on him. But he had little power when the bulk of it took place.
part of me wonders about the reputation of the young turks ... are they hailed as liberal and progressive simply for being a secular/nationalist/liberal rebellion in the imperial core of a dying Islamic empire?
Great question for someone Turkish! I can only offer a glimpse of the Soviet perspective, which was generally anti-Turkey (NATO country, long-time Russian enemy), pro-Ataturk (Lenin and Ataturk were allies against the Entente powers during the Russian Civil War).
My guess is that people who're actually trying to reform the country after it had been declining and losing wars non-stop for like a century would be appreciated.
That was super helpful, thanks! FWIW American-Armenians have a page dedicated to Ataturk's completion of the genocide, but yeah you'd have to talk to a Turk comrade and/or an Armenian comrade to get a more accurate picture of how the folks most impacted view his role.
Except when it came to dealing with rebellious subjects - which, like I said, were met with harsh reprisals. And some Armenians/Christians were at least restive during WWI (which is what all genocide apologia focuses on). There was also the famous conscription of Christian boys etc. The Ottomans were more religiously tolerant than most European states (especially of Jews), but they still lived in an age when collective punishment was the standard mindset. But, yeah, definitely an arguable question.
AFAIK, he did not (except in that he was an officer for a government that was doing it). He was a mid-level officer when it started (1914), was busy fighting WWI battles during it, and only became a national figure in 1918, when it was basically concluded. He later fought the Turkish-Armenian War where more civilian massacres occurred, so those are on him. But he had little power when the bulk of it took place.
Great question for someone Turkish! I can only offer a glimpse of the Soviet perspective, which was generally anti-Turkey (NATO country, long-time Russian enemy), pro-Ataturk (Lenin and Ataturk were allies against the Entente powers during the Russian Civil War).
My guess is that people who're actually trying to reform the country after it had been declining and losing wars non-stop for like a century would be appreciated.
That was super helpful, thanks! FWIW American-Armenians have a page dedicated to Ataturk's completion of the genocide, but yeah you'd have to talk to a Turk comrade and/or an Armenian comrade to get a more accurate picture of how the folks most impacted view his role.