Customer Reviews

Turkey: A Modern History

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is the probably the best history of Turkey in the modern period now available in English. Zurcher makes the point that his is a MODERN history of Turkey, rather than just a history of modern Turkey. The distinction is important, as he utilizes a wealth of recent resarch to flesh out the fairly one-dimensional and celebratory approach of many earlier Western writers dealing with Turkey, such as Bernard Lewis. Zurcher deals objectively with topics, such as social and ethnic problems, that are often neglected by some other writers.

The book emphatically does not display anti-Turkish bias, as suggested by Mr. Pipes in his review below; the Armenian genocide may indeed be an "incendiary" topic in Turkey, but its reality is accepted by serious historians throughout the world, and to conclude that it was ordered by the government in power at the time is hardly controversial except among Turkish-nationalist circles and those who seek to curry favor with them.

All in all, an excellent account, by a master of the field.

This book can definitely be recommended to students and general readers finding their way into the often controversial history of modern Turkey. It is well-balanced and clearly written, picking a sensible path between the distorted versions of Turkish history offered by those academics with too strong a pro-Turkish or anti-Turkish bias. Turkey's present-day authorities will almost certainly object to the book's conclusions about how best to tackle the long-standing Kurdish problem (Zurcher proposes guarantees for Kurdish culture and the Kurdish language, and some form of autonomy for the south-east). But the passages on the Kurds do not dominate the book, which is concerned mostly with tracing Turkey's turbulent road to modernity.

I knew absolutely nothing about Turkey when I picked up this book, which I bought in preparation for a trip to Turkey next month. I found that the author, unlike some academics, writes limpid, readable prose. He does dwell in considerable detail on the political jousting that takes place inside the government; it seems that there have always been competing factions within the power structure in Turkey, and they appear at times to have changed position from week to week. I therefore found myself skimming through parts of this book. I wish he'd focused a bit more on cultural history, as this was the bit I found most interesting. Still, all in all, a good read for what is essentially a textbook. I've started "Turkey Unveiled" by Hugh and Nicole Pope, two journalists who are clearly aiming for a more popular treatment of the subject matter, and I can tell that my having read Professor Zurcher's book will make their book much more interesting.

I have been studying this book throughly in college and also using it for writing essays. It is a great review of the Turkish History from a very objective point of view. It gives just enough information to get an idea of the political history of Turkey, but it may as well a bit too detailed for those who are not interested in political science. Zurcher's book focuses on more political issues than cultural issues; it tells about the political leaders and their policies but it is not a biography on any of the leaders of modern Turkey. The book does not at all talk about gender issues or private lives of the leaders but has a clear understanding of good and bad effects they had on the making of modern Turkey. To those who are interested in the life of Ataturk, I would reccomend Lord Kinross's book "Ataturk" which is available at Amazon. In general Zurcher's book is a great source for students and anyone who is interested in politics and history.

As I'm a Turkish student I have always read subjective history which were written by Turk authors.This book looks the events with third eye so I can study Turk near-history objectively and I learn different views of Turk history.

This is an interesting book that starts in the declining Ottoman empire of the nineteenth century and follows developments of that time forward to quite recent events in Turkey of today, concentrating on political and economic issues. The author clearly knows his stuff and the information is thoughtfully presented. Because this book covers a lot of ground, it usually doesn't go into a lot of depth on any given set of events. My main criticism is that the author tends to compress his version of events in such a way that important points are often obscured or presented extremely briefly. This makes the book sometimes hard to follow. Nonetheless this is a good overview for anyone interested in Turkey. I came away with a renewed admiration for Ataturk and what he managed to accomplish. I would recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.

Erik Zurcher has done a service to all who may have an interest in recent history of Turkey, filling a much-needed gap. This is the second revised edition of the original 93 publication. It expands even more on the recent and more modern history in great detail. It is a nice compliment to Bernard Lewis' "Emergence of Modern Turkey". Zurcher has done a lot more than just reposting known history from other traditional sources. There is much new insight and analysis. Most of it is balanced, but he still has failed to refrain from "recommending" a "multi-national" state "solution" to the Kurdish "problem". As if there is any possibility of it, or as if, after all he has researched and explained about modern Turkey, he would not know, better than anyone else that the unitary nature of the state is what has enabled it to exist in the first place. Given all their ethnic mixes, how often does one encounter a successful model of such a "state" in Europe or Eastern Europe or Middle East? Why such an enlightened solution is rarely pushed ahead in other similar situations, is a mystery. Germany still has to this day, purely ethnic based citizenship laws for example. Besides, why is a democracy that guarantees all individual freedoms to all citizens and makes no distinction among them is still found lacking?

Though he occasionally acknowledges the long history of parliamentary and constitutional rule in Turkey, the judicious and brutally honest study of all the blemishes and imperfections of Turkish democracy throughout decades, creates or more like helps propagate the idea that Turks are in general still not comfortable with the concept of democracy, or that they still do not "get" it. It would have put things in better perspective if Zurcher for example had briefly mentioned what was going on in Europe through 20s, 30s and 40s and even 50s while Turkish democracy one way or another managed to stay on track.

While history of various political parties and their roles has been very well covered, not all topics of importance have received the same attention. Turkey's EU vocation is treated somewhat superficially for example.

This is a serious book about the emergence of modern Turkey. It provides a fairly balanced account of the history of late Ottoman Empire and of Turkey, not a mean feat considering the explosively politicized nature of the subject. For this very same reason, it is not surprising that revisionists (including some illustrious Amazon reviewers) have taken issue with the mainstream version of important events presented in the book.
For instance, the author's recognition of the Armenian Genocide is taken to be nothing more than a proof of European anti-Turkish prejudices!!!!
To be sure, the book is not perfect, e.g. the lack of specificity in its analysis of Ottoman institutional structures (especially those of the key 18th century), the total lack of reference to anti-Jewish persecution, etc.
In general though, this is a serious and carefully researched account of an important part of Turkish History. Throughout the book, one can clearly see that the author's obvious respect for the Turkish people and culture is much more genuine than that of Turkey's self-proclaimed "apologists".

Zürcher, professor of history at the University of Amsterdam, has written a synthetic account of Turkey over the two centuries 1789-1991. The book will probably become the standard English-language account, for it is fast-moving, comprehensive, and reliable. By looking at the Young Turk and the Atatürk eras as a single whole, stretching from 1908 to 1950, it offers valuable new insights into a time too little understood. As for the future, Zürcher sensibly concludes that the country's two main problems are inflation and the Kurdish question.

At the same time, Zürcher's text reflects the anti-Turkish biases regretfully so prevalent among Europeans. On the incendiary issue of Armenian genocide during World War I, he writes that "this author at least is of the opinion that there was a centrally controlled policy of extermination, instigated by the CUP [i.e., the top leadership]." Without condemning Atatürk, Zürcher knocks him down a peg or two. Here we learn that his rule had "totalitarian tendencies." There we are told that his ideology "lacked coherence and . . . emotional appeal." In another place, we find out that his interpretation of the Turkish national movement "distort[s] the historical picture." Instead of this grudging attitude, it would be more helpful if the author (and Europeans in general) celebrated the Republic of Turkey as a success story and as a model for the Muslim world to emulate. The Turks need that boost; and the outside world very much needs for them to succeed in their bold, Atatürkist experiment.

Middle East Quarterly, June 1995

This study succeeds where others fail because it dares to take on the myth and the legend of Kemal Attaturk, a figure revered in Turkey (it is illegal and a crime to criticize him in print or on the internet in Turkey). This study discusses in detail Attaturk's voracious homosexual appetite, his taste for young boys, particularly Greek, Jewish and Armenian under the age of 14, and his male lover who lived with him until his death in 1938, a national hero and legend.

This study understands the unarticulated issue of modern Turkey, which is the bisexuality and homosexuality of many Turkish men. Although hardly a gender study, this book is a step in the right direction. The homosexuality of "gastarbeiten", guest workers, from Turkey living in Germany, is well-known but largely uncommented upon. This dichotomy largely explains the frictions between Greek and Turks, between Turks and Kurds, between Turks and Iraqis and between Turks and Iranians.

An excellent book, and one which will interest the political scientist as well as the gender studies specialist or the gay/lesbian reader.