What do you think?
Rate this book
Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was virtually unknown until 1919, when he took the lead in thwarting the victorious Allies' plan to partition the Turkish core of the Ottoman Empire. He divided the Allies, defeated the last Sultan, and secured the territory of the Turkish national state, becoming the first president of the new republic in 1923, fast creating his own legend.
Andrew Mango's revealing portrait of Atatürk throws light on matters of great importance today-resurgent nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and the reality of democracy.
Andrew Mango's revealing portrait of Atatürk throws light on matters of great importance today-resurgent nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and the reality of democracy.
666 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
About the author
Andrew Mango
16 books50 followersAndrew James Alexander Mango is a British author who was born in Turkey as one of three sons of a prosperous Anglo-Russian family. He is the brother of the distinguished Oxford historian and Byzantinist Professor Cyril Mango. Mango's early years were passed in Istanbul but in the mid-1940s he left for Ankara and obtained a job as a press officer in the British Embassy. He moved to the United Kingdom in 1947 and has lived in London ever since. He holds degrees from the University of London, including a doctorate on Persian literature. He joined BBC's Turkish section while still a student and spent his entire career in the External Services, rising to be Turkish Programme Organiser and then Head of the South European Service. He retired in 1986.
source
source
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews
Read
December 12, 2021Ataturk is a hard man to sum up. A brilliant leader, a supporter of the Enlightenment and an enemy of religious obscurantism, he managed to drag Turkey by the scruff of its neck into the modern era and create the basis for a semi-European society there. A great soldier, he was more responsible than anyone for preserving Turkey's independence and territorial integrity after the First World War, and the Turks will never be allowed to forget it! While he believed in democracy, he was smart enough to know that the Turks weren't ready for it, and he also realized that, whatever happened, Turkey was better off with him personally at the wheel, which he was until his death. His un-abstemiousness is what probably killed him in the end, Ataturk enjoying the pleasures of strong drink, all-night partying, chain smoking and feminine company almost right to the end. Andrew Mango has written a thorough and entertaining account of this fascinating man's life, and it would be unthinkable to try and understand modern Turkey without a knowledge of Ataturk's thoughts and deeds. He is to be commended for carefully keeping his narrative in historical context, and personalities and events are described to aid those not familiar with modern Turkish and Ottoman history. There is even a helpful list of short biographies of other characters. Highly recommended.
July 28, 2013
A great book. At 500 pages, it still feels like a whirlwind tour through the life of the father of the Turkish Republic. The man got an incredible amount done in a sadly short life. Prior to reading the book I only had a broad stroke sense of it, but this book makes the sheer scale of his achievement clear. Ataturk, and the people surrounding him, managed to reverse 200 years of decline and place Turkey on an upswing. That they were able to do this while being besieged by the victors of World War I, and without the middle class that their predecessors had deported/executed is truly extraordinary. Mango manages to provide the outlines of this accomplishment, and much of its historical context both briefly and enjoyably.
Mango manages to avoid outright hagiography, pointing out Ataturk's many flaws and getting a lot closer to an honest description of the Armenian issue than I thought you could get while publishing in Turkey. As is probably inevitable in a biography, most of the supporting characters come across as one-dimensional. The men and women surrounding him are either dedicated idealists, or thuggish hangers-on there doesn't seem to be much in between. None of the other characters get more than one note to play. Mango's description of Ismet Inonu also seems to strain credibility a bit. Nobody could be that capable.
Mango refers to Ataturk as a "man of the enlightenment" on a couple of occasions and I like that formulation. You could see him as the last, and one of the greatest exemplars of that tradition. In a century of Romantic Tyrants pursuing a range of totalitarianisms, he was an old fashioned enlightened despot who built the forms of a representative democracy that did eventually follow him. He was allowed to do this because his ruined country provided him with an opportunity. As Rahm Emanuel once put it, you should never let a good crisis go to waste. This man certainly did not.
Mango manages to avoid outright hagiography, pointing out Ataturk's many flaws and getting a lot closer to an honest description of the Armenian issue than I thought you could get while publishing in Turkey. As is probably inevitable in a biography, most of the supporting characters come across as one-dimensional. The men and women surrounding him are either dedicated idealists, or thuggish hangers-on there doesn't seem to be much in between. None of the other characters get more than one note to play. Mango's description of Ismet Inonu also seems to strain credibility a bit. Nobody could be that capable.
Mango refers to Ataturk as a "man of the enlightenment" on a couple of occasions and I like that formulation. You could see him as the last, and one of the greatest exemplars of that tradition. In a century of Romantic Tyrants pursuing a range of totalitarianisms, he was an old fashioned enlightened despot who built the forms of a representative democracy that did eventually follow him. He was allowed to do this because his ruined country provided him with an opportunity. As Rahm Emanuel once put it, you should never let a good crisis go to waste. This man certainly did not.
May 29, 2023
Nationalist Revolutionary.
The First World War saw the death of four great empires and its ancient monarchies. Imperial Germany, the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungry, the Russia and Ottoman Empires all fell, with a new rise of political class grasping onto power. Some grips were stronger than others and Turkey has its own story. Andrew Mango tells the story of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his ascent to absolute power in a new Republic of Turkey in the aftermath of the Great War.
If you go to Turkey (or Türkiye) today, portraits of Atatürk are everywhere, on billboards, in shops and even in taxis. He is a national hero, the founder of the modern Turkish nation. But who was this Ottoman infantry officer who successfully defended Istanbul against British and ANZAC troops in the Gallipoli campaign and then lead a successful defensive war against the Greeks in order to secure independence and territory for the Turks? What where his political views? What did he think of fellow Turks and their culture? What about the sultan and the old Ottoman Empire? Who was he as a private man and who was he as a president? Mango seeks to answer these questions.
Atatürk’s prominence and his finest hour are embedded in WWI. He was relevantly unknown until after 1919, but had success as a skilled military commander in the war, famously raising morale so that his soldiers fought on. This enabled him to gain the title of ‘Pasha’ which means essentially ‘senior military officer’. In fact ‘Kemal’ is not a second name, but a given name meaning ‘perfection’ allegedly given by his school teacher as he was so good at maths. Like much of Atatürk’s life, much is open to debate and his memoirs, as so often with others, don’t match up to events or other recollections. What seems to be certain is that he was a very gifted man and stood out amongst his peers. His outlook, however was typic of them. Like many middle class officers in the ottoman army he was associated with the Comity of Union and Progress (CUP), a Young Turk organisation dedicated to constitutional reform, nationalism and with other things linked to the genocides of minorities within the state boarders.
Atatürk had a difficult and strained relationship with the sultans he served under, but wasn’t always a Republican. He later maintained he was, but the relationship was complicated. He also had complex journey with Enver Pasha the charismatic military leader in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire. Like so many others, the First World War changed so much and stripped down and rebuilt so many men. The world changed and with it those caught up in the winds of destiny. Without the war Atatürk would have been assigned to the war in the east and disappeared into history.
He was however, was in some ways an oxymoron. A Turkish nationalist, he seemed to dispose Turkish culture. Banning the fez, traditional dress, culture, buildings, changing art and of course abolishing the monarchy and caliphate. But he fought bravely in an inspired way to resist the demands of the victorious allies on his people. When the sultan and Istanbul government ostracised him and wanted to capitulate, he fought on. The war of independence was extremely successful for him and gave him his dictatorial power. He wasn’t going to give this up. Neither a western or soviet, he strode between the two and used each to his ends. He wanted to create a modern, secularised state and doing so there was a mix of good and bad. Increased rights and votes for women, is a good thing he achieved, but as with much of Atatürk a contradiction. To him women will still to be subservient in the private life. The bad includes the execution of political activists, continued Armenian genocide and persecution of the Kurds, as these peoples were not Turks, so did not fit into Atatürk’s new world.
Atatürk’s regime was born of the First World War and in some ways survives to this day, unlike his contemporaries in Russia, Germany or Italy. Mango does an excellent job of showing who the man was and how he came to be the famous father of his nation. The private and public, the military and political, the war and peace all shine through with equal attention.
The First World War saw the death of four great empires and its ancient monarchies. Imperial Germany, the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungry, the Russia and Ottoman Empires all fell, with a new rise of political class grasping onto power. Some grips were stronger than others and Turkey has its own story. Andrew Mango tells the story of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his ascent to absolute power in a new Republic of Turkey in the aftermath of the Great War.
If you go to Turkey (or Türkiye) today, portraits of Atatürk are everywhere, on billboards, in shops and even in taxis. He is a national hero, the founder of the modern Turkish nation. But who was this Ottoman infantry officer who successfully defended Istanbul against British and ANZAC troops in the Gallipoli campaign and then lead a successful defensive war against the Greeks in order to secure independence and territory for the Turks? What where his political views? What did he think of fellow Turks and their culture? What about the sultan and the old Ottoman Empire? Who was he as a private man and who was he as a president? Mango seeks to answer these questions.
Atatürk’s prominence and his finest hour are embedded in WWI. He was relevantly unknown until after 1919, but had success as a skilled military commander in the war, famously raising morale so that his soldiers fought on. This enabled him to gain the title of ‘Pasha’ which means essentially ‘senior military officer’. In fact ‘Kemal’ is not a second name, but a given name meaning ‘perfection’ allegedly given by his school teacher as he was so good at maths. Like much of Atatürk’s life, much is open to debate and his memoirs, as so often with others, don’t match up to events or other recollections. What seems to be certain is that he was a very gifted man and stood out amongst his peers. His outlook, however was typic of them. Like many middle class officers in the ottoman army he was associated with the Comity of Union and Progress (CUP), a Young Turk organisation dedicated to constitutional reform, nationalism and with other things linked to the genocides of minorities within the state boarders.
Atatürk had a difficult and strained relationship with the sultans he served under, but wasn’t always a Republican. He later maintained he was, but the relationship was complicated. He also had complex journey with Enver Pasha the charismatic military leader in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire. Like so many others, the First World War changed so much and stripped down and rebuilt so many men. The world changed and with it those caught up in the winds of destiny. Without the war Atatürk would have been assigned to the war in the east and disappeared into history.
He was however, was in some ways an oxymoron. A Turkish nationalist, he seemed to dispose Turkish culture. Banning the fez, traditional dress, culture, buildings, changing art and of course abolishing the monarchy and caliphate. But he fought bravely in an inspired way to resist the demands of the victorious allies on his people. When the sultan and Istanbul government ostracised him and wanted to capitulate, he fought on. The war of independence was extremely successful for him and gave him his dictatorial power. He wasn’t going to give this up. Neither a western or soviet, he strode between the two and used each to his ends. He wanted to create a modern, secularised state and doing so there was a mix of good and bad. Increased rights and votes for women, is a good thing he achieved, but as with much of Atatürk a contradiction. To him women will still to be subservient in the private life. The bad includes the execution of political activists, continued Armenian genocide and persecution of the Kurds, as these peoples were not Turks, so did not fit into Atatürk’s new world.
Atatürk’s regime was born of the First World War and in some ways survives to this day, unlike his contemporaries in Russia, Germany or Italy. Mango does an excellent job of showing who the man was and how he came to be the famous father of his nation. The private and public, the military and political, the war and peace all shine through with equal attention.
November 12, 2015
Mustafa Kemal was arguably the most important man to live in the 20th century. Not only did he save Turkey from being carved by the West into unrecognizable pieces like the Arab states (inaugurating a seemingly endless period of political dysfunction), he was the prototype for the secularizing military strongman. He has inspired countless imitators, right up to people like Pervez Musharraf and Abdulfattah Sisi, none of whom have ever been able to match his success either on the battlefield or in his effort at cultural revolution.
We are still feeling the effects of Ataturk's heroic efforts in the Turkish War on Independence, as well as his traumatic attempt at de-Islamizing of Turkish society, as well as the abolishment of the last historically legitimate Caliphate. His record is very mixed. He instituted a type of Mao Zedong-like cultural long march towards Westernization (a specific type of Westernization that even Westerners became disillusioned with), and that partly counts against him, but on balance, at the end of the day he kept Turkey alive. Although he created a form of authoritarian politics which survives, he gave his country a chance to become something it wants to be, however long that might take, by keeping it intact in the face of imperialist aggression.
It is also very notable that unlike many other rulers for whom there is vast a cultural and educational between them and their people, he didn't despite them. In fact, he clearly loved them. He wanted to create them in an image that resembled him (he said as much) but he did so because he thought that would be the only way they could survive in the ruthless world of modernity. Many of his shabby contemporary knockoffs on the other hand clearly hold their uneducated people in contempt, and use them instead as a vehicle for extracting wealth and power. Ataturk did not enrich himself vastly or create a hereditary dynasty, he truly did what he thought was best. Ultimately, although some of his decisions were misguided, even disastrous, he succeeded in creating something that has survived and even allowed his people to thrive; at a time when they had faced a future of absolute devastation.
The book itself is detailed, based on Turkish sources, and probably even necessary reading for people with an interest in this subject. Having said that it is for the most part a dry recitation of fact, and is by no means a gripping or accessible read. Nonetheless is still a herculean effort at telling this story in great detail (maybe even too much detail at times), so I can't detract too much from it.
We are still feeling the effects of Ataturk's heroic efforts in the Turkish War on Independence, as well as his traumatic attempt at de-Islamizing of Turkish society, as well as the abolishment of the last historically legitimate Caliphate. His record is very mixed. He instituted a type of Mao Zedong-like cultural long march towards Westernization (a specific type of Westernization that even Westerners became disillusioned with), and that partly counts against him, but on balance, at the end of the day he kept Turkey alive. Although he created a form of authoritarian politics which survives, he gave his country a chance to become something it wants to be, however long that might take, by keeping it intact in the face of imperialist aggression.
It is also very notable that unlike many other rulers for whom there is vast a cultural and educational between them and their people, he didn't despite them. In fact, he clearly loved them. He wanted to create them in an image that resembled him (he said as much) but he did so because he thought that would be the only way they could survive in the ruthless world of modernity. Many of his shabby contemporary knockoffs on the other hand clearly hold their uneducated people in contempt, and use them instead as a vehicle for extracting wealth and power. Ataturk did not enrich himself vastly or create a hereditary dynasty, he truly did what he thought was best. Ultimately, although some of his decisions were misguided, even disastrous, he succeeded in creating something that has survived and even allowed his people to thrive; at a time when they had faced a future of absolute devastation.
The book itself is detailed, based on Turkish sources, and probably even necessary reading for people with an interest in this subject. Having said that it is for the most part a dry recitation of fact, and is by no means a gripping or accessible read. Nonetheless is still a herculean effort at telling this story in great detail (maybe even too much detail at times), so I can't detract too much from it.
July 21, 2021
Andrew Mango is a professional historian who has written a book for other professional historians. Hailed as the "definitive biography" of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, it is marked by the strengths and weaknesses of that genre. On the one hand, it's very well-researched, very detailed and very exacting with respect to the likely truthfulness of the sources cited. On the other hand, it's overly detailed, it follows a rigid chronological form, keeps up an unvarying tempo, and is quite boring. Mango is a historian who can't tell a story to save his life. Nor is the book generally very analytical about the man, his country, or his incredible times. For the most part, it's a dry recitation of facts and events. You should only read this book if you have a deep and abiding interest in modern Turkish history and want to know the gritty details.
Having said all that, here's the rough summary of the story:
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is a revered figure in Turkey. His statues grace many city squares, his photo hangs on the wall of every government office. He is a sort of George Washington and Napoleon all rolled into one, and because he only died in 1938, he is still within the memory of elderly Turks still living.
His accomplishments lay in many fields. On the military front, he first came to national attention as one of the commanding generals in the Battle of Gallipolli in 1915, when the Turks defeated an invading force of British, French, Australians and New Zealanders, with very heavy casualties on both sides. Coming in the midst of World War I, a war where Turkish victories were few and far between, it helped salvage Turkish national pride.
In the wake of the loss of the war, the Ottoman Empire was largely dismembered by the victorious Allies, with pieces going to various Balkan countries, Greece, Armenia, and assorted newly created Middle Eastern states controlled by the French and British. The empire was reduced to a rump that was soon to be called simply "Turkey". Even that rump was endangered when the Greek Army invaded the Aegean coast and started pushing inland into Anatolia.
In the midst of this disastrous situation, Ataturk seized the initiative in organizing senior military leaders along with some civilian ones to put together a new regime, completely parallel to the still-functioning Ottoman administration under the Sultan in Istanbul, which was under the thumb of the occupying Allies. Setting up a de facto new capital inland in Ankara, Ataturk steadily eroded the credibility, authority and political power of the Ottoman regime. It was this new government that put together the army that eventually stopped the Greek advance in August 1921 at the Battle of Sakarya.
Biding his time, by one year later in 1922 Ataturk felt strong enough to attack the Greek forces and start pushing them out of Anatolia. In the two-day battle of Dumlupinar, he routed the Greek army, which retreated in disorder to the Aegean coast and was soon evacuated back to Greece. The Turkish army followed hot on its heels, and retook the main coastal city of Izmir (known as Smyrna to the Greeks). Allied warships then evacuated over 200,000 civilians, almost the entire Greek population of the city, as the city burned. Very soon, well over two millennia of Greek presence in Anatolia came to an end.
This spectacular and unexpected victory re-established Turkey as a serious power that the wartime Allies, who still occupied Istanbul and various other parts of the country, had to negotiate with. Within less than a year, the Turks negotiated a new treaty at Lausanne, which is the only major treaty of the immediate post World War I era to survive to this day. By its terms, the Allies withdrew their forces, renounced their special privileges, and recognized the borders of the new Turkey. The remaining Greek civilians from various parts of the country, especially Istanbul, the Sea of Marmara coast and the Black Sea coast, were expelled and in return Turks from the Balkans and Greece were sent to Turkey. The sultan was sent packing, the caliphate ended, and Ataturk was the (almost) unchallenged leader of the new Republic of Turkey.
If Ataturk had ended his career then and there, he would still be a revered figure. But he remained in power for another 15 years, during which time he remade Turkish society. He believed that Turkey would forever be dominated by the West unless it modernized and became "civilized". To this end, he implemented countless changes: he abolished the old Arabic script and created a new Turkish alphabet based on the Roman alphabet. Arabic and Persian words were banned from the new Turkish, to be replaced with Turkish terms or loan-words from Western languages. The Islamic calendar was replaced with the Western one. The fez was abolished and civil servants required to wear European hats. Islam was dis-established as the state religion. Religious schools were closed and replaced with secular ones. Foreign-owned enterprises were nationalized. The national railway network was vastly enlarged. Women were given legal rights for the first time, including the right to inherit, to vote and to serve as elected representatives. The capital was moved from Istanbul to Ankara. It must have been quite dizzying for Turks, especially those in the educated elite.
Meanwhile, Ataturk put in place the form of a political democracy without much of its substance. When the Kurds revolted (as they did more than once) against the suppression of their language, it was brutally put down, and their leaders executed in a mass hanging. The opposition party -- created at Ataturk's behest by his own allies -- was quickly banned a few months later. The independent press was shut down. Opponents were arrested and in some rare cases executed on trumped-up charges. Even Ataturk's own comrades in arms, if they became too powerful, soon found themselves shunted aside and even arrested.
Ataturk created and transformed modern Turkey, but by the time of his death of cirrhosis of the liver in 1938 -- he liked the good life a bit too much -- it remained a backward country. With a population comprised overwhelmingly of rural peasants, the illiteracy rate remained above 80%. The loss of the Greek and Armenian populations was crippling to the economy, since they had made up almost the whole of the commercial and craftsmen classes, and almost all of them had emigrated or been slaughtered in the Great War and the War of Independence. Their skills took a long time to replace. Still, the country was steadily modernized. Although it took the better part of three generations, long after Ataturk's death, by the end of the twentieth century Turkey had joined the ranks of the fast-growing developing nations, and was a regional super-power. It even has a genuine functioning democracy with an Islamist party in power. And even through Ataturk was himself a secular autocrat, modern Turkey is very much his legacy.
[Postscript 10 years later, in 2021: Turkey has shed a lot of the traits of a democracy in the last 10 years, as Recep Tayyip Erdogan enters his third decade as president. In this trend towards autocracy, he joins the ranks of many populist nationalist leaders around the world, in countries as varied as the US, Hungary, Poland, the Philippines, Brazil, Mexico and others.]
Having said all that, here's the rough summary of the story:
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is a revered figure in Turkey. His statues grace many city squares, his photo hangs on the wall of every government office. He is a sort of George Washington and Napoleon all rolled into one, and because he only died in 1938, he is still within the memory of elderly Turks still living.
His accomplishments lay in many fields. On the military front, he first came to national attention as one of the commanding generals in the Battle of Gallipolli in 1915, when the Turks defeated an invading force of British, French, Australians and New Zealanders, with very heavy casualties on both sides. Coming in the midst of World War I, a war where Turkish victories were few and far between, it helped salvage Turkish national pride.
In the wake of the loss of the war, the Ottoman Empire was largely dismembered by the victorious Allies, with pieces going to various Balkan countries, Greece, Armenia, and assorted newly created Middle Eastern states controlled by the French and British. The empire was reduced to a rump that was soon to be called simply "Turkey". Even that rump was endangered when the Greek Army invaded the Aegean coast and started pushing inland into Anatolia.
In the midst of this disastrous situation, Ataturk seized the initiative in organizing senior military leaders along with some civilian ones to put together a new regime, completely parallel to the still-functioning Ottoman administration under the Sultan in Istanbul, which was under the thumb of the occupying Allies. Setting up a de facto new capital inland in Ankara, Ataturk steadily eroded the credibility, authority and political power of the Ottoman regime. It was this new government that put together the army that eventually stopped the Greek advance in August 1921 at the Battle of Sakarya.
Biding his time, by one year later in 1922 Ataturk felt strong enough to attack the Greek forces and start pushing them out of Anatolia. In the two-day battle of Dumlupinar, he routed the Greek army, which retreated in disorder to the Aegean coast and was soon evacuated back to Greece. The Turkish army followed hot on its heels, and retook the main coastal city of Izmir (known as Smyrna to the Greeks). Allied warships then evacuated over 200,000 civilians, almost the entire Greek population of the city, as the city burned. Very soon, well over two millennia of Greek presence in Anatolia came to an end.
This spectacular and unexpected victory re-established Turkey as a serious power that the wartime Allies, who still occupied Istanbul and various other parts of the country, had to negotiate with. Within less than a year, the Turks negotiated a new treaty at Lausanne, which is the only major treaty of the immediate post World War I era to survive to this day. By its terms, the Allies withdrew their forces, renounced their special privileges, and recognized the borders of the new Turkey. The remaining Greek civilians from various parts of the country, especially Istanbul, the Sea of Marmara coast and the Black Sea coast, were expelled and in return Turks from the Balkans and Greece were sent to Turkey. The sultan was sent packing, the caliphate ended, and Ataturk was the (almost) unchallenged leader of the new Republic of Turkey.
If Ataturk had ended his career then and there, he would still be a revered figure. But he remained in power for another 15 years, during which time he remade Turkish society. He believed that Turkey would forever be dominated by the West unless it modernized and became "civilized". To this end, he implemented countless changes: he abolished the old Arabic script and created a new Turkish alphabet based on the Roman alphabet. Arabic and Persian words were banned from the new Turkish, to be replaced with Turkish terms or loan-words from Western languages. The Islamic calendar was replaced with the Western one. The fez was abolished and civil servants required to wear European hats. Islam was dis-established as the state religion. Religious schools were closed and replaced with secular ones. Foreign-owned enterprises were nationalized. The national railway network was vastly enlarged. Women were given legal rights for the first time, including the right to inherit, to vote and to serve as elected representatives. The capital was moved from Istanbul to Ankara. It must have been quite dizzying for Turks, especially those in the educated elite.
Meanwhile, Ataturk put in place the form of a political democracy without much of its substance. When the Kurds revolted (as they did more than once) against the suppression of their language, it was brutally put down, and their leaders executed in a mass hanging. The opposition party -- created at Ataturk's behest by his own allies -- was quickly banned a few months later. The independent press was shut down. Opponents were arrested and in some rare cases executed on trumped-up charges. Even Ataturk's own comrades in arms, if they became too powerful, soon found themselves shunted aside and even arrested.
Ataturk created and transformed modern Turkey, but by the time of his death of cirrhosis of the liver in 1938 -- he liked the good life a bit too much -- it remained a backward country. With a population comprised overwhelmingly of rural peasants, the illiteracy rate remained above 80%. The loss of the Greek and Armenian populations was crippling to the economy, since they had made up almost the whole of the commercial and craftsmen classes, and almost all of them had emigrated or been slaughtered in the Great War and the War of Independence. Their skills took a long time to replace. Still, the country was steadily modernized. Although it took the better part of three generations, long after Ataturk's death, by the end of the twentieth century Turkey had joined the ranks of the fast-growing developing nations, and was a regional super-power. It even has a genuine functioning democracy with an Islamist party in power. And even through Ataturk was himself a secular autocrat, modern Turkey is very much his legacy.
[Postscript 10 years later, in 2021: Turkey has shed a lot of the traits of a democracy in the last 10 years, as Recep Tayyip Erdogan enters his third decade as president. In this trend towards autocracy, he joins the ranks of many populist nationalist leaders around the world, in countries as varied as the US, Hungary, Poland, the Philippines, Brazil, Mexico and others.]
January 8, 2023
A vast and detailed chronicle of the founder of modern day Turkey. I can't fault the depth or breadth of the research in this one, but the style is very dry and academic and does very often get bogged down in superfluous detail (e.g. who was in the car with Mustafa Kemal) which detracts from what was going on.
I think this one is for the purist/Ataturk fanatic who would like to do some in depth research and I'd recommend it for undergraduate studies perhaps. But for an introduction (as was my state of knowledge at the start of this) it's too detailed and hard to follow at times and would recommend something a bit less detailed.
I think this one is for the purist/Ataturk fanatic who would like to do some in depth research and I'd recommend it for undergraduate studies perhaps. But for an introduction (as was my state of knowledge at the start of this) it's too detailed and hard to follow at times and would recommend something a bit less detailed.
February 16, 2009
This is a wildly apologetic and slanted biography of the founder of the State of Turkey. That said, any adult with an outline of 20th Century geopolitics will pretty easily read between the lines. Kemal Ataturk was an autocrat who skirted around the edges of a sort of National Socialism Lite. But, as these are the realities, this is the texture and the framework that makes Ataturk such an interesting figure—a sort of modernist benevolent dictator. Benevolent, I suppose, unless you are a political opponent. Mapping the development of Ataturk's nationalism, which he turned into the idea of Turkey and Turkishness, and managed to foist upon the vast and varied peoples of Anatolia, becomes some of the most fascinating reading in this narrative.
Most probably unawares, Ataturk formulated a melange of history & pseudo-history, fanciful language, and whole-cloth "national character" that echos strangely off of the edges of Irish Nationalism, Black Power, and Naziism, all movements roughly contemporary with his own program.
Mango's biography of Ataturk would generally satisfy the personality cult even now current in Turkey, and generally fails to expose the subject's more monstrous flaws and actions. But after a perhaps slow start it is a genuinely good and lively read, and highly informative. Students of our current Middle East will benefit from understanding the place of the Ottomans and the Turkish state and nation in context and detail.
Most probably unawares, Ataturk formulated a melange of history & pseudo-history, fanciful language, and whole-cloth "national character" that echos strangely off of the edges of Irish Nationalism, Black Power, and Naziism, all movements roughly contemporary with his own program.
Mango's biography of Ataturk would generally satisfy the personality cult even now current in Turkey, and generally fails to expose the subject's more monstrous flaws and actions. But after a perhaps slow start it is a genuinely good and lively read, and highly informative. Students of our current Middle East will benefit from understanding the place of the Ottomans and the Turkish state and nation in context and detail.
February 21, 2011
I got this book for one reason, I wanted to know how one person succeeded in distancing Islam and people in a country that was once the heart of the Muslim Caliphate. I have heard stories from Muslim scholars about Mostafa Kemal, and to me most of what I heard sounded like a conspiracy theory, so I needed to get the story from an "unbiased" source so I got this book during my last trip to Istanbul.
The book itself is too detailed to my taste, sometimes it felt like reading chronicles, also too much military details were given, probably I have felt this way because I was only interested in one aspect of the man's life, his religious views and beliefs.
The author made it clear that Mostafa Kemal didn't really believe in religion, as he related it many times to superstitions, but according to the author, Kemal's reasons to drop Islam were mainly because he felt that for Turkey to advance and become a civilized country of this world, they have to follow the western model of civilization, in which secularism is cornerstone, this went to the extreme of changing the Turkish language to use the Latin alphabet instead of the Arabic one. The author seemed to fully accept that Islam was responsible for the backwardness of Turkey in the beginning of the 20th century, and that giving it up was the right thing to do.
The other thing, is that Mostafa Kemal was a nationalist, so he believed in Turkey for the Turkish people instead of a Muslim nation that combines all races, he was also a firm believer of the superiority and the nobility of the Turkish race, this led him to the "Turkization" of Turkey which hosted back then a mixture of all the nations that comprised the Muslim world, this obsession with Turkization led to the creation of an almost new language in which all words with non-Turkish roots were eliminated and replaced with a new Turkish vocabulary, he also insisted that the call for prayer (Azan) to be recited in Turkish which remained that way until the 50's, he also tried to make the prayers themselves to be in Turkish, which wasn't really possible.
So, with regards to the conspiracy theory, the author makes it clear that the choices of Mostafa Kemal were coming form his beliefs that Westernization and Nationalism were the only way for Turkey to progress, I have no way to judge, as I didn't see what's inside his heart, but when I was searching for the word "Donmeh" which describes the ethnicity of Mostafa Kemal, I found this definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donmeh) which leaves all possibilities open.
The book itself is too detailed to my taste, sometimes it felt like reading chronicles, also too much military details were given, probably I have felt this way because I was only interested in one aspect of the man's life, his religious views and beliefs.
The author made it clear that Mostafa Kemal didn't really believe in religion, as he related it many times to superstitions, but according to the author, Kemal's reasons to drop Islam were mainly because he felt that for Turkey to advance and become a civilized country of this world, they have to follow the western model of civilization, in which secularism is cornerstone, this went to the extreme of changing the Turkish language to use the Latin alphabet instead of the Arabic one. The author seemed to fully accept that Islam was responsible for the backwardness of Turkey in the beginning of the 20th century, and that giving it up was the right thing to do.
The other thing, is that Mostafa Kemal was a nationalist, so he believed in Turkey for the Turkish people instead of a Muslim nation that combines all races, he was also a firm believer of the superiority and the nobility of the Turkish race, this led him to the "Turkization" of Turkey which hosted back then a mixture of all the nations that comprised the Muslim world, this obsession with Turkization led to the creation of an almost new language in which all words with non-Turkish roots were eliminated and replaced with a new Turkish vocabulary, he also insisted that the call for prayer (Azan) to be recited in Turkish which remained that way until the 50's, he also tried to make the prayers themselves to be in Turkish, which wasn't really possible.
So, with regards to the conspiracy theory, the author makes it clear that the choices of Mostafa Kemal were coming form his beliefs that Westernization and Nationalism were the only way for Turkey to progress, I have no way to judge, as I didn't see what's inside his heart, but when I was searching for the word "Donmeh" which describes the ethnicity of Mostafa Kemal, I found this definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donmeh) which leaves all possibilities open.
January 4, 2022
Book: Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey
Author: Andrew Mango
Publisher: Harry N. Abrams; Reprint edition (26 August 2002)
Language: English
Paperback: 539 pages
Item Weight: 685 g
Dimensions: 15.37 x 6.22 x 22.86 cm
Price: 1730/-
540 pages of bliss….
Hundreds of books have been penned on diverse characteristics of Atatürk’s life and work, their titles ranging from ‘Atatürk and Medical Students’ and ‘Atatürk and Meteorology’ to ‘Atatürk and Eurasia’ or even ‘Atatürk’s Love for Children’.
Most of these are in the form of eulogies that portray the creator of modern Turkey as a sagelike slot machine of astuteness endowed with omniscience and insight in a diversity of fields, or even as a philosopher-king who strove to lay down laws de omni scibili.
Only a petite number are concrete monographs.
Authors have used his alleged views to prove almost any point.
Thus we have both:
1) Atatürk Was an Anti-Communist and Islamist
2) Atatürk Was a Communist
In the meantime, Turkish official history tends to depict Atatürk as a leader from birth, with attempts to present his world through the prism of the person rather than vice versa.
In Turkey, for example, there are still history professors who judge Mustafa Kemal the architect of the 1908 Young Turk Revolution, even though his authentic role was subsidiary.
Likewise, for many years Turkish historiography maintained that Mustafa Kemal had warned American Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur in 1932 about a looming general war that would obliterate the civilized world.
On this basis, Turkish scholars have credited Atatürk with having anticipated the Second World War even before the Nazis ascended to power.
Fresh research, however, has revealed that Atatürk told MacArthur precisely the reverse.
The minutes of the meeting read, “When the achievable dangers of war were discussed, His Excellency the Gazi said that the occurrence of a world war in the next ten years was virtually impossible.”
Thus, any scholar seeking to wrestle with the historical Atatürk must employ first and foremost in demythologizing, historicizing, and contextualizing through the use of prime source material.
This is no easy task.
And the author of this book achieves his object without breaking sweat.
What is the single greatest accomplishment of this book?
Well, the author, through analyzing Atatürk’s life, ideas, and work, has tried to investigate the perturbed changeover from the Late Ottoman imperial order to the modern Turkish nation-state.
In so doing he hypothesizes an indispensable connection as opposed to the swift rip apart often depicted in the historiography on this subject.
A spin-off of this investigation is a new appraisal of the impact of Atatürk’s legacy on modern Turkey.
Kudos! Highly recommended!
Author: Andrew Mango
Publisher: Harry N. Abrams; Reprint edition (26 August 2002)
Language: English
Paperback: 539 pages
Item Weight: 685 g
Dimensions: 15.37 x 6.22 x 22.86 cm
Price: 1730/-
540 pages of bliss….
Hundreds of books have been penned on diverse characteristics of Atatürk’s life and work, their titles ranging from ‘Atatürk and Medical Students’ and ‘Atatürk and Meteorology’ to ‘Atatürk and Eurasia’ or even ‘Atatürk’s Love for Children’.
Most of these are in the form of eulogies that portray the creator of modern Turkey as a sagelike slot machine of astuteness endowed with omniscience and insight in a diversity of fields, or even as a philosopher-king who strove to lay down laws de omni scibili.
Only a petite number are concrete monographs.
Authors have used his alleged views to prove almost any point.
Thus we have both:
1) Atatürk Was an Anti-Communist and Islamist
2) Atatürk Was a Communist
In the meantime, Turkish official history tends to depict Atatürk as a leader from birth, with attempts to present his world through the prism of the person rather than vice versa.
In Turkey, for example, there are still history professors who judge Mustafa Kemal the architect of the 1908 Young Turk Revolution, even though his authentic role was subsidiary.
Likewise, for many years Turkish historiography maintained that Mustafa Kemal had warned American Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur in 1932 about a looming general war that would obliterate the civilized world.
On this basis, Turkish scholars have credited Atatürk with having anticipated the Second World War even before the Nazis ascended to power.
Fresh research, however, has revealed that Atatürk told MacArthur precisely the reverse.
The minutes of the meeting read, “When the achievable dangers of war were discussed, His Excellency the Gazi said that the occurrence of a world war in the next ten years was virtually impossible.”
Thus, any scholar seeking to wrestle with the historical Atatürk must employ first and foremost in demythologizing, historicizing, and contextualizing through the use of prime source material.
This is no easy task.
And the author of this book achieves his object without breaking sweat.
What is the single greatest accomplishment of this book?
Well, the author, through analyzing Atatürk’s life, ideas, and work, has tried to investigate the perturbed changeover from the Late Ottoman imperial order to the modern Turkish nation-state.
In so doing he hypothesizes an indispensable connection as opposed to the swift rip apart often depicted in the historiography on this subject.
A spin-off of this investigation is a new appraisal of the impact of Atatürk’s legacy on modern Turkey.
Kudos! Highly recommended!
Read
April 11, 2024Was surprisingly hard to find a good Ataturk biography but this one does a very good job. One theme that kept recurring was the dichotomy between his love of Turkey on the one hand and his very real westernness on the other. At first glance he even looks Caucasian (and the author speculates he mostly was); further he was born in Salonica (not a part of Turkey anymore) and spent most of his training in Macedonia, Istanbul, and Syria. Spending his career in Libya and Bulgaria, and seeing frontline action in Gallipolli and Iraq, it's hard not to get the impression that inner Anatolia would have represented a somewhat strange place for him, yet he was to upend his life and find his purpose there. Another central theme that emerges in the first half of the book is his relationship with Enver Pasha, who aspired to be a sort of Turkish Napoleon. His erratic actions make so much more sense in light of that comparison, and while the postwar Nationalist movement no doubt built itself out of many lower and middle-ranking members of the former CUP, most of the top brass was held aloof by Kemal due to their 1) general incompetence given they led the Ottomans into a losing war and 2) associations with genocide. While not usually purged outright, they were generally politely rebuffed when they offered to help and/or not allowed to return to Turkey.
There's this really interesting lull where the fighting is over and the Ottomans have lost, but given that they haven't completely collapsed internally the way their allies did, they don't lose completely. Fronts are collapsing and armies melting away but Mustafa Kemal winds up in charge of the largest stretch of the frontline and and starts coordinating a resistance: don't do anything stupid, just don't surrender your weapons. He's not a crazy CUP ideologue, and he's still relatively unknown despite his success at Gallipoli. The British need someone they can trust during the demobilization phase and he shoots up in the ranks except instead of demobilizing he yeets to Ankara. What follows is reminiscent of Trotsky's account of Dual Power and the gradual buildup of soviet power--minus the class stuff. Drawing on the hastily organized Societies for the Defense of National Rights, Ataturk and his associates somehow managed to build up a rival center of power on a shoestring budget (literally they had congresses in high school buildings lol), all while the Istanbul government keeps losing face as they accede to every British demand. Starting from a relatively innocuous platform and affirming loyalty to the monarch (every peasant revolt ever), the Nationalists kept upping the ante, dividing their enemies, reorganizing an army, and waiting for the British to go too far. Ataturk kept his hand close to his chest, couching everything in the language of popular self determination and even Islam, saving his secular republican vision for later. Ataturk ultimately consolidates his position and head of the resistance and reads his would-be allies just as well as his enemies. For example, when Ankara was still struggling to assert its authority over its own hinterlands, he had no problem enlisting the help of morally dubious allies such as Topal Osman (famously of the Armenian and Greek genocides) to do some dirty work, only to turn a blind eye when they were assassinated after serving their purpose.
The Turkish War of Independence is covered really well, and this book really sheds light on just how much of it was won by diplomatic means. I've always been impressed and baffled with how the Ankara government managed to fight off so many invaders at once, but it almost seems like the victorious occupying powers were only halfheartedly occupying. The French and British both had massive new mandates to oversee in the Levant and Mesopotamia, so committing even more troops to the region in a time of general mobilization wasn't really an option. The Italians renounced their claims in return for a very vague sphere of influence so, and the Armenian army buckled quickly given that it wasn't exactly an army, leaving just the Greeks, against whom Ataturk took to the field like a boss.
Mango goes through his civic reforms before closing on the somewhat underwhelming later presidency of Mustafa Kemal. Though he took some authoritarian measures early in his tenure and shut down the nascent parliamentary opposition, he by and large created a system that was successful enough to continue without his hands on the wheel. Apparently this wasn't much fun, and Ataturk describes the situation as remarkably boring and only requiring a few hours of work (mostly signing things), after which he would play billiards by himself. Such a depressing visual, and yet also a tribute to his remarkable skills as a leader. Turkish history is of course littered with examples of larger-than-life leaders such as Mehmet and Suleiman, but Ataturk deserves credit not for expanding an empire through conquest, but salvaging a nation mired in the wreckage of a centuries-long collapse and leaving it better than he found it.
There's this really interesting lull where the fighting is over and the Ottomans have lost, but given that they haven't completely collapsed internally the way their allies did, they don't lose completely. Fronts are collapsing and armies melting away but Mustafa Kemal winds up in charge of the largest stretch of the frontline and and starts coordinating a resistance: don't do anything stupid, just don't surrender your weapons. He's not a crazy CUP ideologue, and he's still relatively unknown despite his success at Gallipoli. The British need someone they can trust during the demobilization phase and he shoots up in the ranks except instead of demobilizing he yeets to Ankara. What follows is reminiscent of Trotsky's account of Dual Power and the gradual buildup of soviet power--minus the class stuff. Drawing on the hastily organized Societies for the Defense of National Rights, Ataturk and his associates somehow managed to build up a rival center of power on a shoestring budget (literally they had congresses in high school buildings lol), all while the Istanbul government keeps losing face as they accede to every British demand. Starting from a relatively innocuous platform and affirming loyalty to the monarch (every peasant revolt ever), the Nationalists kept upping the ante, dividing their enemies, reorganizing an army, and waiting for the British to go too far. Ataturk kept his hand close to his chest, couching everything in the language of popular self determination and even Islam, saving his secular republican vision for later. Ataturk ultimately consolidates his position and head of the resistance and reads his would-be allies just as well as his enemies. For example, when Ankara was still struggling to assert its authority over its own hinterlands, he had no problem enlisting the help of morally dubious allies such as Topal Osman (famously of the Armenian and Greek genocides) to do some dirty work, only to turn a blind eye when they were assassinated after serving their purpose.
The Turkish War of Independence is covered really well, and this book really sheds light on just how much of it was won by diplomatic means. I've always been impressed and baffled with how the Ankara government managed to fight off so many invaders at once, but it almost seems like the victorious occupying powers were only halfheartedly occupying. The French and British both had massive new mandates to oversee in the Levant and Mesopotamia, so committing even more troops to the region in a time of general mobilization wasn't really an option. The Italians renounced their claims in return for a very vague sphere of influence so, and the Armenian army buckled quickly given that it wasn't exactly an army, leaving just the Greeks, against whom Ataturk took to the field like a boss.
Mango goes through his civic reforms before closing on the somewhat underwhelming later presidency of Mustafa Kemal. Though he took some authoritarian measures early in his tenure and shut down the nascent parliamentary opposition, he by and large created a system that was successful enough to continue without his hands on the wheel. Apparently this wasn't much fun, and Ataturk describes the situation as remarkably boring and only requiring a few hours of work (mostly signing things), after which he would play billiards by himself. Such a depressing visual, and yet also a tribute to his remarkable skills as a leader. Turkish history is of course littered with examples of larger-than-life leaders such as Mehmet and Suleiman, but Ataturk deserves credit not for expanding an empire through conquest, but salvaging a nation mired in the wreckage of a centuries-long collapse and leaving it better than he found it.
October 13, 2013
Mango's Ataturk must certainly be the most authoritative and accessible English biography of Ataturk available. Mango's detailed biography is a chronological narrative that starts with a clear account of Mustafa Kemal's family, place of birth and origins and ends with the death of the great leader and the fall out thereof. This sweeping biography is placed in the context of late Ottoman decline and early 20th century European strife and conflict and seeks to understand the nationalistic ideals that motivated and informed Kemal from the beginning to the end of his career. Mango has tried to capture the full picture of Kemal and searches to separate fact from legend (not always easy) and present a full picture of the man: his strengths, weaknesses and insecurities. Kemal's life is certainly an interesting one and the rich color that infuses this book from beginning to end makes it an enjoyable and stunning biography that anyone with the slightest interest in modern Turkey's origins and the development of Turkey as the nation state it is today should read.
As noted above, Ataturk's life and legacy is inextricably linked to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of Turkish nationalism and the modern state of Turkey. It is on this canvas which Mango carefully crafts a lucid and clear narrative that helps to develop as complete an understanding of the many faces of Ataturk as is possible. This canvas is filled with an extraordinary number of other characters and events that were pivotal in the formation of Ataturk the man. The events covered include the first Balkan's war, the rise of the CUP or Young Turks, World War I and the Gallipoli Campaign, the Turkish War of Independence against the Greeks and the allies and the negotiations and treaties signed by Turkey to ensure Turkey's claim to nationhood and to become a part of the global constellation of independent countries. As for people, the last Caliphs and Sultans are included as are the young Turks (Talat and Enver) and some other brutal character such as the ruthless and cruel Bearded Nurettin and Ali Faut and Ismet Ionu.
Manogo shows that from a young age Ataturk understood the needs of the Ottoman state, understood the weaknesses that threatened it and as he grew and matured seemed to grasp the remedies required to fix the then Ottoman State. Among Ataturk's main gripes were the influence of religion amongst the Turks and how they viewed menial tasks as being beneath them and how religious education took precedent over the acquisition of practical skills that were required to shift the state forward. Indeed, at the end of the Turkish War of Independence and after all the great dislocations of people in Anatolia, basic skill sets for simple jobs were in great need. Ataturk's complete deconstruction of the religious structures, his dislike of the religious schools and of the Hoca are evident throughout his adult life. Ataturk from a young age, deeply influenced by the French revolution and ideals, had a clear desire for the separation of Religion and State. Additionally, he also encouraged the military and the state to be separate entities and understood clearly the need for a polity separated from the military.
One of the most interesting parts of this book is the creating of the Turkish state: from Mustafa Kemal's exile in Anatolia in the early 1920's to the development of parliament in Ankara and the influence he had without the support of a military shows the tremendous tact, political nous and incredible influence he had among the people he would lead. The development of the Turkish state from 1923 through to his death in the late 1930s is an interesting period of his life and one that is worth spending time on.
There is no getting around the fact that Kemal was a dictator. Apparently he didn't like to be called that and Mango argues that perhaps Kemal should be viewed as a latter day king. However, the fact is he did rule over a one party state for much of his presidency and although the trappings of democracy were being developed under his guidance, he was loathe to cede power. I have heard it said elsewhere that Hitler called him a communist, Stalin a Fascist and the western powers a dictator: whatever the case may be, the Turks today call him The Father of he Turks (Ataturk). His legacy was one of independence, freedom, emancipation from the yoke of religion, emancipation from the trappings of an old sick empire and ultimately, the greatest gift he gave to the Turks was a stable state that had the political structures to grow into a modern, independent state at peace with its neighbors.
Mango's comprehensive biography of this amazing and incredible life is worth the read. His writing is clear and lucid, his narrative colorful and eventful. This is the perfect biography of Ataturk for those with a passing interest in the man and his life and times. A tremendous introduction to late Ottoman decline, the creation of the Turkish state and the development of the structures needed to ensure the longevity of the state. Ataturk was born an Ottoman and died a Turk and his life and times were certainly interesting.
As noted above, Ataturk's life and legacy is inextricably linked to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of Turkish nationalism and the modern state of Turkey. It is on this canvas which Mango carefully crafts a lucid and clear narrative that helps to develop as complete an understanding of the many faces of Ataturk as is possible. This canvas is filled with an extraordinary number of other characters and events that were pivotal in the formation of Ataturk the man. The events covered include the first Balkan's war, the rise of the CUP or Young Turks, World War I and the Gallipoli Campaign, the Turkish War of Independence against the Greeks and the allies and the negotiations and treaties signed by Turkey to ensure Turkey's claim to nationhood and to become a part of the global constellation of independent countries. As for people, the last Caliphs and Sultans are included as are the young Turks (Talat and Enver) and some other brutal character such as the ruthless and cruel Bearded Nurettin and Ali Faut and Ismet Ionu.
Manogo shows that from a young age Ataturk understood the needs of the Ottoman state, understood the weaknesses that threatened it and as he grew and matured seemed to grasp the remedies required to fix the then Ottoman State. Among Ataturk's main gripes were the influence of religion amongst the Turks and how they viewed menial tasks as being beneath them and how religious education took precedent over the acquisition of practical skills that were required to shift the state forward. Indeed, at the end of the Turkish War of Independence and after all the great dislocations of people in Anatolia, basic skill sets for simple jobs were in great need. Ataturk's complete deconstruction of the religious structures, his dislike of the religious schools and of the Hoca are evident throughout his adult life. Ataturk from a young age, deeply influenced by the French revolution and ideals, had a clear desire for the separation of Religion and State. Additionally, he also encouraged the military and the state to be separate entities and understood clearly the need for a polity separated from the military.
One of the most interesting parts of this book is the creating of the Turkish state: from Mustafa Kemal's exile in Anatolia in the early 1920's to the development of parliament in Ankara and the influence he had without the support of a military shows the tremendous tact, political nous and incredible influence he had among the people he would lead. The development of the Turkish state from 1923 through to his death in the late 1930s is an interesting period of his life and one that is worth spending time on.
There is no getting around the fact that Kemal was a dictator. Apparently he didn't like to be called that and Mango argues that perhaps Kemal should be viewed as a latter day king. However, the fact is he did rule over a one party state for much of his presidency and although the trappings of democracy were being developed under his guidance, he was loathe to cede power. I have heard it said elsewhere that Hitler called him a communist, Stalin a Fascist and the western powers a dictator: whatever the case may be, the Turks today call him The Father of he Turks (Ataturk). His legacy was one of independence, freedom, emancipation from the yoke of religion, emancipation from the trappings of an old sick empire and ultimately, the greatest gift he gave to the Turks was a stable state that had the political structures to grow into a modern, independent state at peace with its neighbors.
Mango's comprehensive biography of this amazing and incredible life is worth the read. His writing is clear and lucid, his narrative colorful and eventful. This is the perfect biography of Ataturk for those with a passing interest in the man and his life and times. A tremendous introduction to late Ottoman decline, the creation of the Turkish state and the development of the structures needed to ensure the longevity of the state. Ataturk was born an Ottoman and died a Turk and his life and times were certainly interesting.
October 7, 2015
This book was simply wonderful, well written and full of useful information.
The author Andrew Mango a British national born in early three year old republican Istanbul 1926 depended on Turkish sources to write this great autobiography on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk the founder of the modern republic of Turkey.
The author takes us from early bringing up in late Ottoman Salonica to military education in Macedonia and Istanbul bringing Mustafa Kemal into the world of politics and revolutionaries. He then introduces us to Mustafa Kemal the successful military leader in both the great war and war of independence to then reach the final stage of Mustafa Kemal the founder then president the Republic of Turkey.
Within this book the reader will be exposed to a great number of subjects which include :
Politics, a great deal of complicated politics from the opposition to Sultan Abdülhamit II to the Young Turks period to the great war and the struggle against the allies ending with the establishment of the Republic in 1923. The complicated political scene continues with internal struggles for power between senior names in the history of the Republic which eventually cools down by 1927 but to still have the scene continue with the political performance of Atatürk along with his special right hand İsmet İnönü.
Idealogy and human thought was displayed and discussed with great talent by the author.
Atatürk personal side was also discussed including family history and his own personal life at it's different stages.
Late Ottoman History was brilliantly accounted for and displayed to the reader.
The famous Kemalist reforms were discussed along with the various reactions with or against it.
Interrelations between various ethnic and religious groups especially in the middle east.
I believe the author did give us a reasonable objective and fair account on Mustafa Kemal Paşa where he did actually give his criticism on some of the events and information on various debatable subjects.
I highly recommend this book for a reader wishing to gain a comprehensive picture on the subject of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk but strongly believe that having a basic idea on Ottoman and Middle East history along with early 20 century history will help in understanding the book and it's rich material and content.
I will definitely depend on this book whenever I need a reference on this subject and other related subjects mentioned in the book being a great piece of work by the late author may he rest in peace.
The author Andrew Mango a British national born in early three year old republican Istanbul 1926 depended on Turkish sources to write this great autobiography on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk the founder of the modern republic of Turkey.
The author takes us from early bringing up in late Ottoman Salonica to military education in Macedonia and Istanbul bringing Mustafa Kemal into the world of politics and revolutionaries. He then introduces us to Mustafa Kemal the successful military leader in both the great war and war of independence to then reach the final stage of Mustafa Kemal the founder then president the Republic of Turkey.
Within this book the reader will be exposed to a great number of subjects which include :
Politics, a great deal of complicated politics from the opposition to Sultan Abdülhamit II to the Young Turks period to the great war and the struggle against the allies ending with the establishment of the Republic in 1923. The complicated political scene continues with internal struggles for power between senior names in the history of the Republic which eventually cools down by 1927 but to still have the scene continue with the political performance of Atatürk along with his special right hand İsmet İnönü.
Idealogy and human thought was displayed and discussed with great talent by the author.
Atatürk personal side was also discussed including family history and his own personal life at it's different stages.
Late Ottoman History was brilliantly accounted for and displayed to the reader.
The famous Kemalist reforms were discussed along with the various reactions with or against it.
Interrelations between various ethnic and religious groups especially in the middle east.
I believe the author did give us a reasonable objective and fair account on Mustafa Kemal Paşa where he did actually give his criticism on some of the events and information on various debatable subjects.
I highly recommend this book for a reader wishing to gain a comprehensive picture on the subject of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk but strongly believe that having a basic idea on Ottoman and Middle East history along with early 20 century history will help in understanding the book and it's rich material and content.
I will definitely depend on this book whenever I need a reference on this subject and other related subjects mentioned in the book being a great piece of work by the late author may he rest in peace.
November 20, 2021
Hard times make great men.
قِلة من هم في التاريخ من تتاح ليهم ظروف اجتماعية و تاريخية للاحتكاك بها لتكوين شخصيات متفردة مثل تلك التي يمتاز فيها الغازي مصطفي كمال أتاتورك، شخصية مركبة غاية في التعقد، أنقذ بلده من حرب أهلية و حررها من منظومة حكم متخلفة " الخلافة "، و أعطي البعد القومي للجمهورية التركية التي تمتاز به اليوم، أتاتورك كان له آراء عن التفوق العرقي للأتراك بصفتهم شعب محارب و غازي و هذا نتيجة تأثير كل من الثورة الفرنسية بصفتها شعلة التنوير في العالم، و انتشار الآراء العرقية التي امتازت تلك الفترة بها، مثل كتب لماذا الانجلو_ساكسون مميزين.. إلخ، تكمن نقطة كمل أتاتورك هو إدراكه البعد الجيوسياسي لتركيا في سن صغير جدًا و الحفاظ علي قوميات داخل اطار قطري لا يميل الي اي نزاعات عرقية، و ثم توجيه الدفة للتغريب في كل شيء، و نتيجة الهزة الي تعرضت لها الخلافة من خسارة الحرب و ابادة اكثير من ربع مليون شخص كان الشعب التركي " الفتي " متقبل و مستعد لتغير مثل كذلك، الكتاب مليء بتفاصيل التفاصيل عن حياة كما أتاتورك و أعتقد أنه كان موضوعي و صادق الي حد كبير فهو لم يميل لجعله آله مثلما يفعل المؤخيين الأتراك، أو شيطنته مثلما يقوم الأصوليين الإسلاميين.
قِلة من هم في التاريخ من تتاح ليهم ظروف اجتماعية و تاريخية للاحتكاك بها لتكوين شخصيات متفردة مثل تلك التي يمتاز فيها الغازي مصطفي كمال أتاتورك، شخصية مركبة غاية في التعقد، أنقذ بلده من حرب أهلية و حررها من منظومة حكم متخلفة " الخلافة "، و أعطي البعد القومي للجمهورية التركية التي تمتاز به اليوم، أتاتورك كان له آراء عن التفوق العرقي للأتراك بصفتهم شعب محارب و غازي و هذا نتيجة تأثير كل من الثورة الفرنسية بصفتها شعلة التنوير في العالم، و انتشار الآراء العرقية التي امتازت تلك الفترة بها، مثل كتب لماذا الانجلو_ساكسون مميزين.. إلخ، تكمن نقطة كمل أتاتورك هو إدراكه البعد الجيوسياسي لتركيا في سن صغير جدًا و الحفاظ علي قوميات داخل اطار قطري لا يميل الي اي نزاعات عرقية، و ثم توجيه الدفة للتغريب في كل شيء، و نتيجة الهزة الي تعرضت لها الخلافة من خسارة الحرب و ابادة اكثير من ربع مليون شخص كان الشعب التركي " الفتي " متقبل و مستعد لتغير مثل كذلك، الكتاب مليء بتفاصيل التفاصيل عن حياة كما أتاتورك و أعتقد أنه كان موضوعي و صادق الي حد كبير فهو لم يميل لجعله آله مثلما يفعل المؤخيين الأتراك، أو شيطنته مثلما يقوم الأصوليين الإسلاميين.
April 22, 2020
تنبيه: المُراجعة طويلة، طويلةٌ جدّا، أشبه بتلخيصٍ للسّيرة .. إذا قرّرت قراءتها رغم ذلك فكان الله في عونك
يُعرف مصطفى كمال أتاتورك أنّه مؤسّس الجمهورية، والباشا الغازي محرّر تركيا.. كما يعرف عنه أيضا أنّه ملغي الخلافة، والديكتاتور المنحرف أخلاقيّا الذي فرض الإصلاحات العلمانيّة قسرًا، بدءًا من اعتماد الأبجديّة اللّاتينية لكتابة اللغة التركية إلى منع الأذان بالتركية وحظر حجاب المرأة والملابس الدّينية خارج أماكن العبادة.
بعد أربع سنوات من تولّي السّلطان عبد الحميد الثّاني العرش، آخر سلطان عثمانيّ يمارس السّلطة الأوتوقراطية الفعليّة، في ظلّ امبراطورية تخرج حديثًا من أعقاب حربٍ روسيّة عثمانيّة، لا تزال تتهدّدها الأخطار العسكريّة والأطماع الامبريالية، بينما يحاول السّلطان إنقاذ ما أمكن إنقاذه وتطوير الصّناعة وأوضاع السّكان الاجتماعيّة، وعلى مقر��ة من رياح أوروبا التي تعيش حقبتها الحضارية الجميلة، ولد مصطفى (كمال أتاتورك) في سلانيك (اليونانيّة حاليّا)، ونشأ في أسرة مسلمة محافظة. جعله كرهه للمظاهر الخارجية للحياة الشرقية يتوق إلى أن يبدو شبيها بالضّابط والسّيد الأوروبي، فالتحق بالمدرسة الإعداديّة العسكريّة. وبدأت حينها مسيرته العسكريّة التي ستدوم طويلاً.
كان لشاعر الوطن والحرّية نامق كمال تأثيرا على فكر مصطفى كمال الشّاب، وبدأت أفكاره المعارضة وروحه الثّورية تتكشّف مع ما كان يتنامى لسمعه هو وباقي ضبّاط الكلّية الحربية من استشراء الفساد السّياسي والماليّ، وبداية تزعزع ثقته بالسّلطان التي لم تكن قويّة أصلا. ثمّ تمخّضت هذه الأفكار عن ميلاد جمعيّة الاتحاد والتّرقي التي ضمّت أغلب أعضاء الأتراك الشّباب، والتي بدأت في نشر أفكارها عبر الجرائد اليدويّة والاجتماعات السّرية.
نجح الاتّحاد والتّرقي، بعد تنامي قواه، في خلع السّلطان عبد الحميد الثّاني بعد احتلال إسطنبول العاصمة، وإحلال محلّه أخاه الأصغر محمد رشاد (محمد الخامس) الذي أصبح أول السّلاطين الثّلاثة الذين سلّموا زمام حكمهم للسّياسيين وقادة المقاومة. واصل مصطفى كمال أثناء ذلك عمله في الجيش العثماني بمواجهة الاضطرابات الناتجة عن تغيير النّظام وسيطرة الاتّحاديين على الحكم وحضور المناورات العسكرية ثمّ المشاركة في قمع الثّورة الألبانية التي عارضت حكم الاتحاديين وطالبت بإقليم مستقلّ في غرب الرّوملي مخصّص للألبان.
تتالت الحروب والمعارك العسكريّة، فبعد أن تطوّع مصطفى كمال للخدمة في ليبيا تحت قيادة أنور ب��شا لمواجهة الإيطاليين وتنظيم الثّوار البدو اللّيبيين؛ عاد إلى إسطنبول بعد شهور ليجد أنّ الأراضي العثمانيّة غرب العاصمة قد تقلّصت بعد أن تحالفت دول البلقان لاستعادة هذه الأراضي. انتهت حربا البلقان بسقوط أدرنة في أيدي البلغار ثم استعادتها للأتراك، وبإشعال فتيل العداوة والحقد بين دول التّحالف والتّمهيد للاندلاع الحرب العالمية الأولى.
شارك مصطفى كمال في الحرب في عدّة جبهات، ورقّي إلى رتبة أميرالاي في السّنة الأخيرة وعيّن على رأس الجيش السّابع أين خدم في سوريّة وفلسطين. وبعد توقيع الهدنة مع الحلفاء، ترك الجيش العثماني والتفت إلى المقاومة وقد آلمه الخزي ��الذّل الذي اضطرّت بلاده أن تتحمّله كثمن للسلام.
عاد إلى أنقرة وجعلها مقر قيادته بعد أن انتخب رئيسا للمؤتمر القومي، وقائدا للجنة التنفيذية الدائمة لمنظمات المقاومة. أنقرة التي ستصبح عاصمة تركيا بعد الاستقلال احتضنت آراء مصطفى كمال وآماله نحو تحقيق إرادة الأمّة وتنظيف الأراضي التركية من بقايا الاحتلال الخفيّ، وشهدت شرارة اندلاع حرب الاستقلال بعد تنامي إشاعات عن اليونان التي تتجهّز لضمّ منطقة إزمير. حربٌ ستستمرّ ما يزيد عن ثلاث سنواتٍ لتنتهي إلى نتائج عسكريّة وسياسيّة غيّرت من مصير الأمّة التّركية.
قاوم القوميّون (أعضاء الجمعيّة الملّية الكبرى) ببسالة وعزم خلال هذه الحرب، إلى أن وقّعت معاهدة لوزان بعد مفاوضات طويلة تسبّبت بإلغاء السّلطنة (دون الخلافة) الخاضعة للاحتلال وحلّ حكومة إسطنبول ليتمكّن قوميّو أنقرة من إيصال المفاوضات إلى نتيجة متناسقة مع مبادئهم ومع الجهد الذي بذلوه طوال تلك السّنوات الثّلاث. استقلّت تركيا، وعمل مصطفى كمال مع رفاقه على صياغة وتعديل موادّ الدّستور الأوّل وإعلان الجمهوريّة التّركية.
ولعلّها أصبحت البرقيّة التي أنهت سلطته كخليفة، فقد جاهر مصطفى كمال برغبته أخيرا في إلغاء الخلافة، ووقّعت الجمعيّة الملّية القانون، ليضطّر عبد المجيد مع كلّ أسرته الحاكمة مغادرة قصر دولما بهتشه وينفى إلى سويسرا ثمّ فرنسا ليقضي بقيّة أيّامه هناك.
واصل مصطفى كمال إصلاحاته بعزم، واثقا من خياراته التي ستجعل تركيا تتقدّم إلى دائرة الأمم المتحضّرة.. اعتمد أبجديّة لاتينية من أجل اللغة التركية ليتوافق ذلك مع هدفه، نمّى بإلحاح وبذكاء القوميّة الوطنيّة التّركية في أبناء شعبه الذين سيعتبرهم أبناءه حقّا حين يسمّي نفسه " أتا تورك " أي حرفيّا جدّ الأتراك.
يُعرف مصطفى كمال أتاتورك أنّه مؤسّس الجمهورية، والباشا الغازي محرّر تركيا.. كما يعرف عنه أيضا أنّه ملغي الخلافة، والديكتاتور المنحرف أخلاقيّا الذي فرض الإصلاحات العلمانيّة قسرًا، بدءًا من اعتماد الأبجديّة اللّاتينية لكتابة اللغة التركية إلى منع الأذان بالتركية وحظر حجاب المرأة والملابس الدّينية خارج أماكن العبادة.
إنّ الخلاف المحيط بأتاتورك يعمل لمصلحة كاتب السيرة والمؤرخ، لأنه لا يطرح مقولات جديدة فحسب، وإنما مصادر جديدة للمعلومات أيضًا
بعد أربع سنوات من تولّي السّلطان عبد الحميد الثّاني العرش، آخر سلطان عثمانيّ يمارس السّلطة الأوتوقراطية الفعليّة، في ظلّ امبراطورية تخرج حديثًا من أعقاب حربٍ روسيّة عثمانيّة، لا تزال تتهدّدها الأخطار العسكريّة والأطماع الامبريالية، بينما يحاول السّلطان إنقاذ ما أمكن إنقاذه وتطوير الصّناعة وأوضاع السّكان الاجتماعيّة، وعلى مقر��ة من رياح أوروبا التي تعيش حقبتها الحضارية الجميلة، ولد مصطفى (كمال أتاتورك) في سلانيك (اليونانيّة حاليّا)، ونشأ في أسرة مسلمة محافظة. جعله كرهه للمظاهر الخارجية للحياة الشرقية يتوق إلى أن يبدو شبيها بالضّابط والسّيد الأوروبي، فالتحق بالمدرسة الإعداديّة العسكريّة. وبدأت حينها مسيرته العسكريّة التي ستدوم طويلاً.
كان لشاعر الوطن والحرّية نامق كمال تأثيرا على فكر مصطفى كمال الشّاب، وبدأت أفكاره المعارضة وروحه الثّورية تتكشّف مع ما كان يتنامى لسمعه هو وباقي ضبّاط الكلّية الحربية من استشراء الفساد السّياسي والماليّ، وبداية تزعزع ثقته بالسّلطان التي لم تكن قويّة أصلا. ثمّ تمخّضت هذه الأفكار عن ميلاد جمعيّة الاتحاد والتّرقي التي ضمّت أغلب أعضاء الأتراك الشّباب، والتي بدأت في نشر أفكارها عبر الجرائد اليدويّة والاجتماعات السّرية.
نجح الاتّحاد والتّرقي، بعد تنامي قواه، في خلع السّلطان عبد الحميد الثّاني بعد احتلال إسطنبول العاصمة، وإحلال محلّه أخاه الأصغر محمد رشاد (محمد الخامس) الذي أصبح أول السّلاطين الثّلاثة الذين سلّموا زمام حكمهم للسّياسيين وقادة المقاومة. واصل مصطفى كمال أثناء ذلك عمله في الجيش العثماني بمواجهة الاضطرابات الناتجة عن تغيير النّظام وسيطرة الاتّحاديين على الحكم وحضور المناورات العسكرية ثمّ المشاركة في قمع الثّورة الألبانية التي عارضت حكم الاتحاديين وطالبت بإقليم مستقلّ في غرب الرّوملي مخصّص للألبان.
تتالت الحروب والمعارك العسكريّة، فبعد أن تطوّع مصطفى كمال للخدمة في ليبيا تحت قيادة أنور ب��شا لمواجهة الإيطاليين وتنظيم الثّوار البدو اللّيبيين؛ عاد إلى إسطنبول بعد شهور ليجد أنّ الأراضي العثمانيّة غرب العاصمة قد تقلّصت بعد أن تحالفت دول البلقان لاستعادة هذه الأراضي. انتهت حربا البلقان بسقوط أدرنة في أيدي البلغار ثم استعادتها للأتراك، وبإشعال فتيل العداوة والحقد بين دول التّحالف والتّمهيد للاندلاع الحرب العالمية الأولى.
شارك مصطفى كمال في الحرب في عدّة جبهات، ورقّي إلى رتبة أميرالاي في السّنة الأخيرة وعيّن على رأس الجيش السّابع أين خدم في سوريّة وفلسطين. وبعد توقيع الهدنة مع الحلفاء، ترك الجيش العثماني والتفت إلى المقاومة وقد آلمه الخزي ��الذّل الذي اضطرّت بلاده أن تتحمّله كثمن للسلام.
عاد إلى أنقرة وجعلها مقر قيادته بعد أن انتخب رئيسا للمؤتمر القومي، وقائدا للجنة التنفيذية الدائمة لمنظمات المقاومة. أنقرة التي ستصبح عاصمة تركيا بعد الاستقلال احتضنت آراء مصطفى كمال وآماله نحو تحقيق إرادة الأمّة وتنظيف الأراضي التركية من بقايا الاحتلال الخفيّ، وشهدت شرارة اندلاع حرب الاستقلال بعد تنامي إشاعات عن اليونان التي تتجهّز لضمّ منطقة إزمير. حربٌ ستستمرّ ما يزيد عن ثلاث سنواتٍ لتنتهي إلى نتائج عسكريّة وسياسيّة غيّرت من مصير الأمّة التّركية.
قاوم القوميّون (أعضاء الجمعيّة الملّية الكبرى) ببسالة وعزم خلال هذه الحرب، إلى أن وقّعت معاهدة لوزان بعد مفاوضات طويلة تسبّبت بإلغاء السّلطنة (دون الخلافة) الخاضعة للاحتلال وحلّ حكومة إسطنبول ليتمكّن قوميّو أنقرة من إيصال المفاوضات إلى نتيجة متناسقة مع مبادئهم ومع الجهد الذي بذلوه طوال تلك السّنوات الثّلاث. استقلّت تركيا، وعمل مصطفى كمال مع رفاقه على صياغة وتعديل موادّ الدّستور الأوّل وإعلان الجمهوريّة التّركية.
وجد الخليفة عبد المجيد نفسه في الواجهة فور إعلان الجمهوريّة، فأرسل برقيّة تهنئة على عجلٍ إلى مصطفى كمال
ولعلّها أصبحت البرقيّة التي أنهت سلطته كخليفة، فقد جاهر مصطفى كمال برغبته أخيرا في إلغاء الخلافة، ووقّعت الجمعيّة الملّية القانون، ليضطّر عبد المجيد مع كلّ أسرته الحاكمة مغادرة قصر دولما بهتشه وينفى إلى سويسرا ثمّ فرنسا ليقضي بقيّة أيّامه هناك.
واصل مصطفى كمال إصلاحاته بعزم، واثقا من خياراته التي ستجعل تركيا تتقدّم إلى دائرة الأمم المتحضّرة.. اعتمد أبجديّة لاتينية من أجل اللغة التركية ليتوافق ذلك مع هدفه، نمّى بإلحاح وبذكاء القوميّة الوطنيّة التّركية في أبناء شعبه الذين سيعتبرهم أبناءه حقّا حين يسمّي نفسه " أتا تورك " أي حرفيّا جدّ الأتراك.
وبعد عمرٍ بلغ 58 سنة، «ودّع الوطن قائده العظيم أتاتورك بدموعه، وانحنوا له قاطعين على أنفسهم عهدا بألّا ينسوه أبدا» لأنّه كان رجل التّنوير، والتّنوير لا يصنعه القدّيسون.
February 22, 2021
ولد أتاتورك في سلانيك في سنة ١٨٨٠ وقد اصبحت هذه المدينة تابعة للدولة اليونانية بعد الحرب العالمية الاولى ، وتنتمي اسرته الى الطبقة المتوسطة . وسم الصراع بين الافكار المحافظة والتقدمية ، وبين الاسلام التقليدي والفكر الاوروبي الحر حياة اتاتورك منذ بدايتها ، كانت أمه مشبعة بالمواقف التقليدية ، اما والده وهو موظف صغير في الخدمة المدنية فقد كان مؤمناً بالتقدم .لبث اتاتورك ١٣ سنة في الدراسة العسكرية ، عززت الدراسة العسكرية ميل اتاتورك الى السي��رة والتآمر . في ١٨٩٨ أتم اتاتورك تعليمه العسكري الثانوي بمناستر ، وفي ١٨٩٩ التحق مصطفى كمال بالكلية الحربية في اسطنبول في سن ١٨ .كان تلامذة الضباط يعاملون بخشونة وينامون في المهاجع ويتبعون نظاماً غذائياً بسيطاً قوامه يخنة الفاصوليا الناشفة . وقد أحب أتاتورك الطعام المقشف وبعد سنوات عندما اصبح رئيساً للجمهورية ظلت يخنة الفاصوليا طبقه المفضل . لا يقدم سلوك مصطفى اتاتورك في شبابه أي دليل على الايمان الديني الراسخ . تخرج ثامناً في نهاية السنة الاخيرة عندما قُلد ملازماً في المشاة وكان في الحادية والعشرين عندما حقق هدفه المباشر ، اي القبول في كلية الاركان التي تقدم الإعداد الضروري لمهنة في القيادة العليا .
في خدمته في سوريا وفلسطين وجد مصطفى نفسه في بيئة اسلامية غير تركية للمرة الاولى ، واثناء خدمته أظهر هناك اول أمارات التحول الى القومية التركية ، بعدها واصل مصطفى طوال الازمة عمله في اركان قائد الجيش الثالث في سلانيك .
عندما وصل مصطفى الى اسطنبول في عام ١٩١٢ ، كانت الممتلكات العثمانية في أوروبا قد تقلصت الى العاصمة ومشارفها الى الغرب ، كانت السياسات في اسطنبول تصنع في الشوارع . ردت الحكومة العثمانية على تعبئة جيرانها في البلقان بأن أمرت قواتها بالتعبئة وشُكل هيكل جديد مرتجل للقيادة . كان من الصعب الدفاع عن الاراضي العثمانية في اوروبا في وجه هجوم متزامن من كل الجهات ، كما ان القوات العثمانية كانت أقل عدداً . لم يهرب الجنود العثمانيون امام جيوش الحلفاء فحسب ، وإنما مئات الالاف من المدنيين المسلمين ايضاً فقد ذبح نحو ١٢ الف مسلم محلي وحوِّل اقدم المساجد الى كنائس . في ٢٣ كانون الثاني أجبر المتآمرون كاظم باشا على تقديم استقالته الى السلطان . جاءت أخبار الانقلاب الذي اصبح معروفاً على الفور بإسم "الإغارة على الباب العالي " . كان مصطفى كمال يشير الى نفسه انه شجاع وحاسم وشديد الطموح مع الرجال،فإنه مفرط الدماثة ، وخجول جداً مع النساء من طبقته الاجتماعية الجديدة ، وعندما تزوج أخيراً لمدة وجيزة ومن دون نجاح ، كانت عروسه الشابة وتدعى "لطيفة" هي المبادرة .
كان الحرب العالمية الاولى في الشرق الادنى بدأت بسلسلة من العمليات غير المتقنة ، اندفعت القوات العثمانية اولاً ولقيت هزيمتين . في شبه جزيرة "غاليبولي " كان مصطفى اتاتورك بصفته قائد منطقة ميدوس مسؤولاً عن الدفاع الشاطئ الشرقي لشبه الجزيرة ، وخاضعاً في آن معاً لإمرة الفيلق الثالث وقيادة المنطقة الحصينة . كان مصطفى قائداً مميزاً على خطّ الجبهة في القطاع الشمالي ، لم يكن مصطفى وحده منقذ اسطنبول ، لكنه قدم مساهمة ملحوظة في الدفاع عن العاصمة . شكلت "غاليبولي أساس حياة مصطفى المهنية ، لكت شهرته لم تمتد في البداية الى أبعد من صفوف الجيش التركي .
باشر مصطفى عمله بعناية وبطريقة منهجية ، وكان هدفه تشجيع المسلمين المقيمين في تركيا الذين يعتبرهم هم ورفاقه بأنهم الامة التركية وتنظيمهم وقيادتهم . كان على مصطفى ان يفرض بعض النظام على وضع تسوده الفوضى . لكن لم يكن لديه قوات خاضعة لقيادته المباشرة ، واضطر الى الاعتماد على الخارجين على القانون في العديد من الاماكن . كان مصطفى سياسياً بارعاً في انقرة محاولاً تشكيل الجمعية وفقاً لرغباته والتشاور مع وزرائه ، لأن قاعدة سلطته لا تزال ضعيفك اضطر للعمل بتكتم عن طريق الاقناع والمناورة وقد تجنب الخطابات العامة خارج الجمعية .
كان الصراع على السلطة مرتبطاً ارتباطاً وثيقاً بالسياسات المختارة للتعامل مهمة إعادة الاعمار الجسيمة وتمزق نسيجها الاجتماعي بطرد المسيحيين وفرارهم والحرب الاهلية بين المسلمين ، ومع ان مصطفى كان حذراً في خطاباته في اثناء حرب الاستقلال فقد استشعر خصومه السياسيون انه يؤيد مسيرة التحديث بالقوة وهي المسيرة التي يستطيع وحده قيادتها ، خرج ايضاً عن دائرة السياسيين المدنيين والعسكريين واحتكم الى الشعب مباشرةً أو لفئة الاتراك المتعلمة على الطريقة الغربية .أدى إلغاء السلطنة وهرب وحيد الدين وانتخاب عبد المجيد في اليوم التالي خليفة خاضعاً للجمعية الى فتح الطريق امام إدخال تغييرات جذرية .أراد مصطفى إقناع شعبه بأن الحضارة الحديثة متوافقة مع الاسلام ، ثم فقد الاهتمام في هذه الحجة لأنه قرر ان المشاعر الاسلامية تعيق تحقيق طموحه .
انتخب مصطفى رئيساً للجمهورية وسمي عصمت رئيساً للوزراء . وهكذا استقر شكل الحكومة التركية جيلاً بأكمله وأنيطت السلطة العليا برئيس الجمهورية ، وأصبح لدى مصطفى كمال الان الادوات الادارية التي يحتاج اليها لإعادة تشكيل البلاد بعد ان فشلت محاولة تقييده.
كان مصطفى في ٤٢ من العمر عندما حقق طموحه وأصبح رئيساً للجمهورية التركية اصدرت قرارات في عهده بعد إلغاء الخلافة ، هذه القرارات تعادل ثورة ثقافية طلب من اجلها مساندة الجيش ، فالنظام التعليمي الموحد ينطوي على إغلاق المدارس الدينية التي تعلم الطلاب بالعربية القرآن والحديث والشريعة ، كما ان استبدال مدارس علمانية تدرس باللغة التركية يضع نهاية للتراث الديني والثقافي الاسلامي .
لقد جعل اتاتورك ثورته اللغوية أتبعت بتطور لغة غنية بالاستعارة من كل المصادر وبألفاظ جديدة ، كافية الى حد كبير لخدمة احتياجات مجتمع حديث ، لكن سياسته القائمة على استخدام جذور تركية لتشكيل كلمات جديدة بق��ت حية وجعلت اللغة أيسر منالاً . أدى إدخال الخط اللاتيني واللغة التركية النقية الى قطع الناس عن الماضي الادبي في اعقاب تغيير الخط .
فكر مصطفى كمال طويلاً ومليّاً في اسم العائلة الذي سيعتمده واخيراً اختار لنفسه اسم "اتاتورك " ويعني والد الاتراك . أصبح مبتكر الاسم في ٥٣ من عمره ويشعر بأنه في منتصف العمر ابوياً . تبنى ٥ اطفال بنات لم ينجب صلبه اي طفل .
في ٨ تشرين الثاني عام ١٩٣٨ دخل اتاتورك في غيبوبة وفي صباح ال ١٠ من تشرين الثاني ١٩٣٨ توفي في فراشه في فصر دولما بهشته نتيجة تليف كبده . أجريت الترتيبات لتسجية جثمان اتاتورك في قاعة العرش في قصر دولما ، وذلك مخالف للعادة الاسلامية التي توصي بالتعجيل في الدفن . تم تحنيط جثمان اتاتورك وجرت الجنازة الرسمية في اليوم التالي وقطع المسافة القصيرة الى المتحف الإثنوغرافي الذي اختير مكاناً مؤقتاً لدفن الجثمان الى حين بناء ضريح لائق .
كان اتاتورك قائداً كفؤاً وسياسياً داهية ، ورجل دولة شديد الواقعية ، لكن الاهم من كل ذلك انه رجل التنوير . والتنوير لا يصنعه القديسون .
December 30, 2014
If an expatriate is going to live in Turkey, this book is almost required reading because it is about the person most beloved throughout the nation: Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. I enjoyed this book because it was interesting to see how one person with vision saw enormous opportunity in the decline of the Ottoman Empire and created something completely new. The average leader could get get bogged down in mourning the loss of territory, wealth, and power the Ottoman Empire was experiencing. Ataturk shrewdly knew what was defensible and what was not. He literally "rebranded" an entire nation, calling it "Turkey" and defended it against the Allied Powers. Today, the Turks are proud to be the only Islamic country that has never been colonized. Coming from America, which now celebrates multi-culturalism, this book helped me understand why Turkish people find multi-culturalism so threatening. At the time of the War of Independence, Turkey was threatened with being "nibbled away" by various ethnic groups claiming "Turkish" land for "their people." With Ataturk's leadership, the land mass known as "Turkey" is one piece and one nation. The Turks have begun updating their dated thinking on multiculturalism with the beginnings of a more liberalized attitude toward the Kurds, but there is a long way to go yet. Turkish attitudes towards ethnically-diverse groups within Turkey are similar to where mainstream white America was on the subject in the 1950s: "Aren't we all Americans? Aren't we all Turks?" Turks are coming around very slowly, like we did, to the idea of "Yes, but....there is nothing wrong with celebrating our varied heritages."
There are a couple things that totally impressed me about Ataturk. He excelled at all martial and diplomatic strategic activity. He had the forgiveness and detachment one sees within great leaders like Mandela toward his former foes. For example, when given the opportunity to walk on a Greek Flag to celebrate a Turkish victory, he refused. His neighboring examples of how to run a country were Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Mussolini's Italy, yet when other party members wanted him to put his party above the nation, he refused. He was superb at cutting losses at what wasn't working, such as the Turkish Arabic-style alphabet and Ottoman-era Turkish language infused with many foreign words, simplifying the whole language with a Latin alphabet. He made government secular within a land that was almost 100% Muslim. Rather than be cowed by worries of offending religious sensibilities, he pursued Western-style education and knowledge for his people. He constantly communicated to them his belief that they could make their own destiny. To this day, Turks carry that feeling within them. Mango's book is considered the definitive source for English-language speakers. It's a little scary how completely Mango dominates the reading list for English-language readers on all things Turkish. He have been enormously productive and his output is extensive.
There are a couple things that totally impressed me about Ataturk. He excelled at all martial and diplomatic strategic activity. He had the forgiveness and detachment one sees within great leaders like Mandela toward his former foes. For example, when given the opportunity to walk on a Greek Flag to celebrate a Turkish victory, he refused. His neighboring examples of how to run a country were Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Mussolini's Italy, yet when other party members wanted him to put his party above the nation, he refused. He was superb at cutting losses at what wasn't working, such as the Turkish Arabic-style alphabet and Ottoman-era Turkish language infused with many foreign words, simplifying the whole language with a Latin alphabet. He made government secular within a land that was almost 100% Muslim. Rather than be cowed by worries of offending religious sensibilities, he pursued Western-style education and knowledge for his people. He constantly communicated to them his belief that they could make their own destiny. To this day, Turks carry that feeling within them. Mango's book is considered the definitive source for English-language speakers. It's a little scary how completely Mango dominates the reading list for English-language readers on all things Turkish. He have been enormously productive and his output is extensive.
July 31, 2023
This is the definitive biography of Ataturk (so far). If you want to know anything substantive about him, this is the place to go.
Typical academic history book, long on details that perhaps not many really want to know about. This is a book to be enjoyed if you are as interested in (obsessed about?) Ataturk as the Turkish tend to be. Infinitesimally detailed. I read this for my time in Turkey, to give me insight. I have to admit I learned alot from it, but it doesn't come without its problems.
The book is perhaps too forgiving, as others have pointed out. Ataturk was an autocrat, he mixed history & pseudo-history, to create a type of nationalist mythology very similar in ideas to some more famous unmentionables, which should make some of us a little uncomfortable…
In Turkey there is this incredible personality cult of Ataturk as if he is faultless. He is the benevolent dictator, the exception to the rule. In this book, it points out some of his quibbles (like drinking too much) but probably doesn't dwell enough on some more concretely horrific things he did. For example, in 1937–1938, approximately 65,000–70,000 Alevi Kurds were killed and thousands were taken into exile. You see the turkification process involved a policy of massive population resettlement. This policy targeted the region of Dersim. Today, Dersim's unique culture is almost extinct. This gets one paragraph on page 500, although the numbers are not mentioned, and Ataturk absolved of the crime. But hey that's life when pragmatics and realism are the solution to everything.
Atatürk IS now Turkey and Turkishness. Criticism of Atatürk is illegal in Turkey up to now. Socially, culturally, and politically Ataturk's influence has seeped in more than any other dictator, 'benevolent' or not, in the last century.
So, yeah this book is minutiae in detail, really strict, and has a steady rhythm. Not partiularly entertaining writing here but history books rarely are. If you want to finish this, a few dozen tea cups of discipline is necessary. But is the detail the kind of detail we want for a balanced analysis of the country and its superhero? I'll leave that to you to decide. On and on about Ataturk’s military genius, and his manipulative genius, his conception of realism and pragmatism.
Suffice it to say, this book is long. If it weren't for the lack of good material on Ataturk, I should probably be a bit harsher in my judgement.
Oh, and if you go to Turkey for that pretty holiday you were looking for (it is a beautiful country by the way), please remember: don't criticize Ataturk!
Typical academic history book, long on details that perhaps not many really want to know about. This is a book to be enjoyed if you are as interested in (obsessed about?) Ataturk as the Turkish tend to be. Infinitesimally detailed. I read this for my time in Turkey, to give me insight. I have to admit I learned alot from it, but it doesn't come without its problems.
The book is perhaps too forgiving, as others have pointed out. Ataturk was an autocrat, he mixed history & pseudo-history, to create a type of nationalist mythology very similar in ideas to some more famous unmentionables, which should make some of us a little uncomfortable…
In Turkey there is this incredible personality cult of Ataturk as if he is faultless. He is the benevolent dictator, the exception to the rule. In this book, it points out some of his quibbles (like drinking too much) but probably doesn't dwell enough on some more concretely horrific things he did. For example, in 1937–1938, approximately 65,000–70,000 Alevi Kurds were killed and thousands were taken into exile. You see the turkification process involved a policy of massive population resettlement. This policy targeted the region of Dersim. Today, Dersim's unique culture is almost extinct. This gets one paragraph on page 500, although the numbers are not mentioned, and Ataturk absolved of the crime. But hey that's life when pragmatics and realism are the solution to everything.
Atatürk IS now Turkey and Turkishness. Criticism of Atatürk is illegal in Turkey up to now. Socially, culturally, and politically Ataturk's influence has seeped in more than any other dictator, 'benevolent' or not, in the last century.
So, yeah this book is minutiae in detail, really strict, and has a steady rhythm. Not partiularly entertaining writing here but history books rarely are. If you want to finish this, a few dozen tea cups of discipline is necessary. But is the detail the kind of detail we want for a balanced analysis of the country and its superhero? I'll leave that to you to decide. On and on about Ataturk’s military genius, and his manipulative genius, his conception of realism and pragmatism.
Suffice it to say, this book is long. If it weren't for the lack of good material on Ataturk, I should probably be a bit harsher in my judgement.
Oh, and if you go to Turkey for that pretty holiday you were looking for (it is a beautiful country by the way), please remember: don't criticize Ataturk!
July 11, 2019
Too much detail with not enough analysis. The writing style is clumsy and often obscures rather than illuminates. And most of all for a political biography, well for any biography at all actually, the reader does not get a feel for the subject.
The author sometimes hints and sometimes says quite bluntly that Ataturk hid his tracks rather well. There is an Ataturk history industry that has been assiduously building, renovating and burying this mans life since the early twenties. One small example. He was not racially purely Turkish. But it seems this has been covered up. There is conjecture that his family's origins are at least, in part, Jewish converts from Salonika, Slav and Albanian. It can only be conjecture as there is no proof. Generally, Turks do not have the blue eyes and light hair of Ataturk.
This assiduous "history-making" on the part of Ataturk and later of the state, undoubtedly would make it impossible to get to the development of Ataturk's ideas. He seemingly had the same ideas from 17 until his death. For an astute, pragmatic, intelligent man, this is highly unlikely.
His revolution was from the top. There was not enough native-born Turks in that class loosely called the intelligentsia that makes revolutions or thinks about them. His particular vision was a society based upon the enlightenment, that while democratic in many ways, was not going to broach opposition particularly from reactionary religion.
Much of this history was new to me. I did not know that the European imperial powers wanted present-day Turkey split into small backward states dependent on great powers to survive. Greece was to have almost half of Turkey. There would be an Armenian state which would have had the same relationship that Syria had to France before World War Two, namely a virtual dependency. There would have also been spheres of influence for Italy and Britain. In other words, it was an unstable, brittle territorial settlement continually teetering on the edge of disaster.
Unlike many of the authoritarian leaders of the '20s and '30s, he was not a bloodthirsty psychotic. He was undoubtedly ruthless, but he was careful and practical. And by the end of this biography, this is as much as I knew about the man.
The author sometimes hints and sometimes says quite bluntly that Ataturk hid his tracks rather well. There is an Ataturk history industry that has been assiduously building, renovating and burying this mans life since the early twenties. One small example. He was not racially purely Turkish. But it seems this has been covered up. There is conjecture that his family's origins are at least, in part, Jewish converts from Salonika, Slav and Albanian. It can only be conjecture as there is no proof. Generally, Turks do not have the blue eyes and light hair of Ataturk.
This assiduous "history-making" on the part of Ataturk and later of the state, undoubtedly would make it impossible to get to the development of Ataturk's ideas. He seemingly had the same ideas from 17 until his death. For an astute, pragmatic, intelligent man, this is highly unlikely.
His revolution was from the top. There was not enough native-born Turks in that class loosely called the intelligentsia that makes revolutions or thinks about them. His particular vision was a society based upon the enlightenment, that while democratic in many ways, was not going to broach opposition particularly from reactionary religion.
Much of this history was new to me. I did not know that the European imperial powers wanted present-day Turkey split into small backward states dependent on great powers to survive. Greece was to have almost half of Turkey. There would be an Armenian state which would have had the same relationship that Syria had to France before World War Two, namely a virtual dependency. There would have also been spheres of influence for Italy and Britain. In other words, it was an unstable, brittle territorial settlement continually teetering on the edge of disaster.
Unlike many of the authoritarian leaders of the '20s and '30s, he was not a bloodthirsty psychotic. He was undoubtedly ruthless, but he was careful and practical. And by the end of this biography, this is as much as I knew about the man.
March 3, 2019
"Ataturk was a competent commander, a shrewd politician, a statesman of supreme realism, But above all, he was a man of the enlightenment. And the enlightenment was not made by saints."-Andrew Mango.
"He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; It is as if he would catch his people in a trap."- Ataturk
"He wanted to persuade his people that modern civilization and Islam were compatible. Then he lost interest in the argument, not because he had been denied the caliphate but because he decided that Islamic feeling hindered the realization of his project."
"One evening when he went to the Opera, Mustafa Kemal asked whether all the singers and musicians were Bulgarians. Told that they were, he exclaimed: "Now I understand why the Bulgarians won the Balkan war."
The first half of the book talks about the childhood and early adulthood of Mustafa Kemal along with the history of the Ottoman Empire during the early 20th century including the Balkan wars and WWI. The second half discusses the war of independence, the following years of the fall of the caliphate, the cultural revolution, Turkey under Ataturk's leadership and how it moved from a devastated backward country into a modern force with an enlighted educated population. Reading this book, even though it was long and slow, was a very enjoyable and enlightening feat.
Ataturk was an extraordinary leader who did not just succeed in liberating his nation from the UK, France, Italy, Greece, and Armenia after the Turkish army was destroyed in WWI, but who also managed to enlighten the whole population of turkey. Turkey during the late Ottoman empire period was falling in myth, ignorance and general backwardness in all fields of life. Women were not emancipated until Ataturk came to power. Without Ataturk's cultural revolution Turkey would have still been in the Middle ages like many other Muslim countries today.
I hope the leaders of the Arab world read this book.
"He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; It is as if he would catch his people in a trap."- Ataturk
"He wanted to persuade his people that modern civilization and Islam were compatible. Then he lost interest in the argument, not because he had been denied the caliphate but because he decided that Islamic feeling hindered the realization of his project."
"One evening when he went to the Opera, Mustafa Kemal asked whether all the singers and musicians were Bulgarians. Told that they were, he exclaimed: "Now I understand why the Bulgarians won the Balkan war."
The first half of the book talks about the childhood and early adulthood of Mustafa Kemal along with the history of the Ottoman Empire during the early 20th century including the Balkan wars and WWI. The second half discusses the war of independence, the following years of the fall of the caliphate, the cultural revolution, Turkey under Ataturk's leadership and how it moved from a devastated backward country into a modern force with an enlighted educated population. Reading this book, even though it was long and slow, was a very enjoyable and enlightening feat.
Ataturk was an extraordinary leader who did not just succeed in liberating his nation from the UK, France, Italy, Greece, and Armenia after the Turkish army was destroyed in WWI, but who also managed to enlighten the whole population of turkey. Turkey during the late Ottoman empire period was falling in myth, ignorance and general backwardness in all fields of life. Women were not emancipated until Ataturk came to power. Without Ataturk's cultural revolution Turkey would have still been in the Middle ages like many other Muslim countries today.
I hope the leaders of the Arab world read this book.
December 30, 2023
atatürk’ü mitleştirmeden tanımak, milli mücadele dönemi ve sonrası ile ilgili tarih kitaplarında yazanlardan fazlasını öğrenmek isteyenler için adeta bir başucu kitabı.
April 3, 2019
شخصية عظيمة، عزيمة وطموح منذ الصغر. كتاب رائع وفيه ادق التفاصيل لاحداث مهمة جدا جرت في الشرق الاوسط و يشرح فيه فترة الانتقال من الامبراطورية العثمانية الى الجمهورية التركية
اقتبس من الكتاب " كان اتاتورك قائداً كفؤاً وسياسياً داهية، ورجل دولة شديد الواقعية. لكن الاهم من كل ذلك انه رجل التنوير، والتنوير لا يصنعه القديسون."
اقتبس من الكتاب " كان اتاتورك قائداً كفؤاً وسياسياً داهية، ورجل دولة شديد الواقعية. لكن الاهم من كل ذلك انه رجل التنوير، والتنوير لا يصنعه القديسون."
April 2, 2013
When I was looking for a biography of Ataturk, I wasn't able to decide between this volume and a similar one by Kinoross that predates it, so I decided to read both. My thinking was that this one appeared to do a better job at providing the broader context of what was going on, but was also drier and less likely to get more into the mind of the Turkish leader.
But both actually end up sharing similar flaws. Mango's work does a much better job of setting the scene for Ataturk's rise, explaining the state of the Ottoman Empire leading up to the First World War and more background for what was to come. But despite this grander initial view (Kinoross just kind of launches into Ataturk) it ends up getting pretty bogged down in some rather uninteresting minutiae around Ataturk's fighting in World War I and then the War for Independence.
That's fine, but it feels like it comes at the expense of later, arguably more interesting things such as the cultural effect of largely eliminating religion from the state, shifting the Turkish alphabet, and making the country more women friendly, including taking on the headscarf. Those all get some attention, but really only in the last 100 or so pages of the book. And so you get left with an odd impression where you know a lot about what happened until about 1925 or so, but then the remaining decade of Ataturk's time in power feels almost glossed over.
Reading a bit between the lines, the impression given is that Ataturk stopped mattering quite as much as prime minister and got stuck in some weird things (his attempt to show that the root of all language comes from Turkish via people's reaction to the sun is amusing and sad), but it still feels like more attention to the cultural changes would have been welcome.
One other possible explanation for this short shrift is that the reforms made by Ataturk actually weren't as revolutionary as one thinks and that instead were only part of a process that had begun before and after his time in office. That's sort of implied by Mango at the beginning and the end, but never really explained in much detail.
In some ways, the most interesting value of this work is its comparison to Kinoross' book. Mango's chronology almost directly follows Kinoross and frequently points out stories presented in the earlier volume as fact and pokes a hole in it. That makes for an interesting dialogue and probably says something a smart History PhD would say about how those closer to actual events can get twisted in their presentation (my understanding is that Kinoross presented as fact a lot of what Ataturk said), but not necessarily worth reading two volumes of 500+ pages to see that play out.
All that said, I do think that between Kinoross and Mango, the latter is the better work. It challenges more of the myth or legend around Ataturk, does a better job scene-setting, and lacks some of the more annoying great man of history touches that Kinoross presents (things like Ataturk was clairvoyant about the future course of history, for example).
But both actually end up sharing similar flaws. Mango's work does a much better job of setting the scene for Ataturk's rise, explaining the state of the Ottoman Empire leading up to the First World War and more background for what was to come. But despite this grander initial view (Kinoross just kind of launches into Ataturk) it ends up getting pretty bogged down in some rather uninteresting minutiae around Ataturk's fighting in World War I and then the War for Independence.
That's fine, but it feels like it comes at the expense of later, arguably more interesting things such as the cultural effect of largely eliminating religion from the state, shifting the Turkish alphabet, and making the country more women friendly, including taking on the headscarf. Those all get some attention, but really only in the last 100 or so pages of the book. And so you get left with an odd impression where you know a lot about what happened until about 1925 or so, but then the remaining decade of Ataturk's time in power feels almost glossed over.
Reading a bit between the lines, the impression given is that Ataturk stopped mattering quite as much as prime minister and got stuck in some weird things (his attempt to show that the root of all language comes from Turkish via people's reaction to the sun is amusing and sad), but it still feels like more attention to the cultural changes would have been welcome.
One other possible explanation for this short shrift is that the reforms made by Ataturk actually weren't as revolutionary as one thinks and that instead were only part of a process that had begun before and after his time in office. That's sort of implied by Mango at the beginning and the end, but never really explained in much detail.
In some ways, the most interesting value of this work is its comparison to Kinoross' book. Mango's chronology almost directly follows Kinoross and frequently points out stories presented in the earlier volume as fact and pokes a hole in it. That makes for an interesting dialogue and probably says something a smart History PhD would say about how those closer to actual events can get twisted in their presentation (my understanding is that Kinoross presented as fact a lot of what Ataturk said), but not necessarily worth reading two volumes of 500+ pages to see that play out.
All that said, I do think that between Kinoross and Mango, the latter is the better work. It challenges more of the myth or legend around Ataturk, does a better job scene-setting, and lacks some of the more annoying great man of history touches that Kinoross presents (things like Ataturk was clairvoyant about the future course of history, for example).
May 11, 2016
Ataturk was one of the great statesman of the 20th century -- unquestionably the man who made modern Turkey. With accomplishments like that, it's no surprise he was an interesting person. Not necessarily a nice person, but a striking one.
This biography concentrates mostly on his political life. The political maneuvering is front and center, with military aspects secondary. There are a few revealing details about Ataturk's personal life. We hear a bit about his unhappy marriage -- he had his wife sent away when she started complaining about his habits -- and just a bit about his flirtations with other women. But mostly Mango author is interested in chronicling his career as statesman.
The big thing I hadn't understood is that Ataturk was basically a nobody in 1918; he was a moderately successful general in an obscure staff position, with no troops at his command and no following. And he managed by intrigue and bluff and adroit maneuver to create a new government around himself, and then to acquire absolute power.
I had never realized this, but it took a long time before his government in Ankara was recognized internationally -- he had to win the war with Greece and then cajole and intimidate the occupation armies out of Turkey before the western powers recognized him, and not the Sultan, as the head of state.
A comparison Mango doesn't explicitly draw, but that I can't help thinking of, is his contemporary, Stalin. Both of them were relatively obscure leaders who were successful in the war, rose to power as part of a coalition, and then gradually forced out his rivals and every other independent figure in the government, leaving only devoted supporters.
Like Stalin, he pushed through radical national reform in the name of progress and modernity. And like Stalin, he had a cult of personality in his lifetime -- complete with statues, monuments, a national anthem about him personally, and culminating in calling himself "father of the Turks."
The difference of course is that Ataturk was more or less responsible and decent with the power he acquired. Ataturk's political opponents were mostly just forced out of politics or into European exile -- hardly anybody was arrested, let alone killed. And his reforms were largely successful.
This biography concentrates mostly on his political life. The political maneuvering is front and center, with military aspects secondary. There are a few revealing details about Ataturk's personal life. We hear a bit about his unhappy marriage -- he had his wife sent away when she started complaining about his habits -- and just a bit about his flirtations with other women. But mostly Mango author is interested in chronicling his career as statesman.
The big thing I hadn't understood is that Ataturk was basically a nobody in 1918; he was a moderately successful general in an obscure staff position, with no troops at his command and no following. And he managed by intrigue and bluff and adroit maneuver to create a new government around himself, and then to acquire absolute power.
I had never realized this, but it took a long time before his government in Ankara was recognized internationally -- he had to win the war with Greece and then cajole and intimidate the occupation armies out of Turkey before the western powers recognized him, and not the Sultan, as the head of state.
A comparison Mango doesn't explicitly draw, but that I can't help thinking of, is his contemporary, Stalin. Both of them were relatively obscure leaders who were successful in the war, rose to power as part of a coalition, and then gradually forced out his rivals and every other independent figure in the government, leaving only devoted supporters.
Like Stalin, he pushed through radical national reform in the name of progress and modernity. And like Stalin, he had a cult of personality in his lifetime -- complete with statues, monuments, a national anthem about him personally, and culminating in calling himself "father of the Turks."
The difference of course is that Ataturk was more or less responsible and decent with the power he acquired. Ataturk's political opponents were mostly just forced out of politics or into European exile -- hardly anybody was arrested, let alone killed. And his reforms were largely successful.
September 8, 2018
As a Turkish reader who spent most of teenage and early adulthood in Turkey, I have been in a medium of differing opinions about Ataturk. In Turkey, some worships him and gives him a status nothing less than prophethood. Others fail to give him the least status of a patriot who loved his country and people. There are also those who dare, albeit covertly, to call him anti- islam infidel. Therefore I wanted to read an unbiased biography of the man who saved a country a nation from the depths of political, military, economic misery, without any associated agenda or ideology of the writer. Andrew Mango's Ataturk Biography starts from the second half of 19th century and gives a political picture of the world Ataturk was born into. He describes Ataturk's teenage aspirations to be a lieutenant, his going to military school, graduation, proving himself in several war fronts, going through the hell of 1st World War, his uniting of national resistance in Anatolia, his success then building a nation from scratch.
In these endeavors Ataturk did not only fight with allied armies, he had to fight with Ottoman officials who wanted to cooperate with the invaders, he had to fight with rebel fighters spurring all around the country, he had to fight with famine, diseases, he had to compete with other nationalist resistance fighters who had similar aspirations and who were aiming for the top spot as him. Mustafa Kemal also wanted to be the single-man but the difference with him and Enver Pasha or Kazim Karabekir was that his motivation was not selfish. He knew he was the only person who can do this. There are many things I love about this book. But the long story short if you want to read an objective well- researched biography of human Ataturk that gives not only his successes and great qualities but also his failures his limitations, this book is for you.
In these endeavors Ataturk did not only fight with allied armies, he had to fight with Ottoman officials who wanted to cooperate with the invaders, he had to fight with rebel fighters spurring all around the country, he had to fight with famine, diseases, he had to compete with other nationalist resistance fighters who had similar aspirations and who were aiming for the top spot as him. Mustafa Kemal also wanted to be the single-man but the difference with him and Enver Pasha or Kazim Karabekir was that his motivation was not selfish. He knew he was the only person who can do this. There are many things I love about this book. But the long story short if you want to read an objective well- researched biography of human Ataturk that gives not only his successes and great qualities but also his failures his limitations, this book is for you.
October 14, 2016
There are a lot of interesting coincidences between Atatürk and Ho Chi Minh's life. Both chose the date 19th May for their birthday. Both died right after the anniversary of their own republic. Both were great nationalists with tremendous vision for their nation. Both believed in education and in a peaceful, fruitful future of Western civilization inside an Eastern society. None of them had a normal personal life with a wife, sons, daughters... though they deserved much more than that. Vietnamese readers may find many more coincidences as they read this book. Ho Chi Minh was born 9 years after Atatürk. He was living in Paris while Atatürk was leading the Turkish War of Independence against many countries, among which France was an important one. As an active journalist in Paris then, Ho Chi Minh probably known about Atatürk and was inspired by the Turkish War of Independence. Unfortunately I didn't find any information about Ho Chi Minh thought on Atatürk and Turkey.
November 12, 2014
This is the definitive English Language biography of the man who created the Modern Turkey as a state and as a cultural entity. Ataturk rallied the Turkish Army when the diplomats of Western European decided to give away large sections of his country to Greece and seized the Territory that constitutes the modern state of today.
Ataturk was also a ferocious modernizer. He banned the traditional Turkish alphabet and imposed the Latin Alphabet on his country. He also required all Turkish men to wear hats with brims so that they would unable to wear them while performing their daily ritual prayers to Allah.
Somehow it has all stuck. However slowly, Turkey is slowly advancing towards membership in the EU and in Europe as a culture entity, it is certainly moving backwards. This is a great book about a great man.
Ataturk was also a ferocious modernizer. He banned the traditional Turkish alphabet and imposed the Latin Alphabet on his country. He also required all Turkish men to wear hats with brims so that they would unable to wear them while performing their daily ritual prayers to Allah.
Somehow it has all stuck. However slowly, Turkey is slowly advancing towards membership in the EU and in Europe as a culture entity, it is certainly moving backwards. This is a great book about a great man.
May 21, 2014
Ataturk was a competent commander, a shrewd politician, a statesman of supreme realism. But above all he was a man of the Enlightenment. And the Enlightenment was not made by saints.
That last paragraph on page 528 sums it up beautifully.
An excellent book, well researched and extremely fair.
That last paragraph on page 528 sums it up beautifully.
An excellent book, well researched and extremely fair.
December 3, 2015
Impressions on Ataturk:
I write this as I read the book Ataturk, by Andrew Mango. This book is a massive 800 page historical account by a non-Turkish, well respected historian, who is knowledgable in both the Turkish language and culture. It is both finely detailed and exciting.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was by all means a patriot. He had immense love for his country and a clear vision for its progress. He never sought financial gain from his position, and corruption was not a factor in his tenure.
My opinion on Ataturk, a man of great intellect, wit and charisma, is often split. His character intrigues me deeply. He is both loving and brute. Diplomatic and authoritarian. He was a progressive but also an imitator.
His vision sought to move turkey from the shackles of the Ottoman Empire into the deep embrace of the western world. His economic reforms sought to glorify anything Turkish, yet his social reforms were, by and large, adapted from the west.
He enforced western dress, hats, and even letters (ataturk changed the Turkish language from the Arabic script to the Latin alphabet in "three months") He adapted the western philosophy on religion, which is to remove it entirely from issues of the state. His attack on religion was not limited to Islam: by the end of Ataturk's time, Christianity had all but disappeared from Turkish society.
Under Ataturk, education of men and especially women, was promoted and improved. Despite illiteracy rates being fairly high in the end of his reign, the establishments he founded were core to building a Turkish generation that was more educated. There, he must be respected, for any advancement that Turkey currently lives is due to this astounding educational reform. (Something that his bitter Islamist opponents would begrudgingly admit). His reforms in women's rights are also very commendable.
Those who think that he is an enemy of Islam, have to both understand Ataturk, and understand Islam in a deeper manner. His vision of science, progression, along with many of the injustices he stopped, is as crucial to Islam as prayer and chastity.
I discredit the claims that he was an enemy of Islam, for I truly believe that Ataturk's movements were not personal. Yes, certainly he opposed religion and was in no way religious himself, but the reason his voice was heard in the first place was the failure of the Islamic Ottoman Empire.
The ottoman empire's despotic rule was in no way in line with the teachings of Islam. If there is any indication to that, it is the alarming rates of illiteracy in the country at that time.
Illiteracy does not rhyme with the teachings of the Quran, whose first unveiled word was 'Read'.
Had the Ottoman Empire truly sought to promote piety, illiteracy would have been nearly nonexistent, as it had been in the Islamic Golden Age.
If a mere human like Ataturk can remove religion from a body of strong, educated believers, then this religion must be quite weak; and Islam is anything but weak.
Here I find pitfalls in his character: in many of his decisions, Ataturk contradicted himself.
He claims to have no religion; he wishes "all religions at the bottom of the sea." Instead he wants his people to "learn the principles of democracy, dictates of truth, and the teachings of science."
Yet his actions contradicted most of his claims.
The first, democracy, is his greatest contradiction. There was no democracy in Ataturk's reign. He was an unrivalled dictator who did not tolerate opposition. He executed and imprisoned his opponents, and he manipulated the rule of law and the constitution to further his own power.
His attempts at democratizing the country were a joke. He founded his own opposition party (and his aides wrote its platform), then dissolved it when it "created a threat to law and order."
For someone who was well versed in western culture (to the extent that he hand picked German pianists to establish music conservatories in turkey), Ataturk completely disregarded western implementations of democracy. This was something that the country reeled from continuously after his passing.
The second, educating the people on the "dictates of truth", was also not less hypocritical than the previous point. Ataturk did everything in his power to fester one truth: his. He established his own (or closely supportive) news organizations, and closed off any who opposed him. He personally reviewed and banned books that didn't align with his visions for Turkey. His government wrote its own history books, and preserved its own versions of the truth, while discarding the rest. In this sense, there was nothing of his governance that is truthful.
The third, on science and education, I addressed in the beginning of this note.
My most important remark on Ataturk, is his unwavering ego. He was, by all means, an arrogant man, who gave no thought to the possibility of him being mistaken.
He dutifully silenced all those who opposed him and ostracized those who did not fit within his Turkish vision, namely the Kurds and the Ottoman sympathizers. He built statues and portraits of himself, using public money.
He extended his pride to his followers for generations in his address to the youth of turkey, part of his famous six day speech. This speech, in which he explains his actions and outlines his vision, is his version of the truth; and has been drilled into every Turkish school since.
To put it in the authors words, "he thus shaped his own legend, just as he established his own cult by the erection of his statues."
If you think about the amount of people that were forced and frightened into silence, the information we might have about Ataturk's reign could be very different from what is available now.
Reading this book, it is unsurprising the unwavering passionate support that many Turkish people have for Ataturk right now. His pictures adorn walls, wallets and Facebook profile pictures. Yet I think that the Turkish people owe it to their own ideals of science and modernity to take a much deeper look at their leader, and understand that there are many sides to this charismatic man.
Ataturk said that "he is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government."
I think that He is also a weak ruler who needs nationalism to uphold his government. For every injustice and every despot in this world has proliferated under the guise of either religion or nationalism.
The world is headed towards a new ideal: love, compassion, and humility; a future for all races, religions, and cultures.
The new leaders of Turkey are not taking hint, and they're using the same single-minded, egoistic tactics that Ataturk used. They are silencing opposition, seeking an authoritarian rule, and ostracizing minorities.
The new generations of Turkey have to realize that the New Turkey cannot be built on the corpses of your brothers, it must be built together, with mutual compassion and respect.
The single most unified sentiment in all religions and cultures, is love. Find your common ground, find love, and you shall prosper!
Islam teaches humility, the vilest word to Allah is 'Ana' or 'I'.
Let go of you ego, admit your short comings, and seek help from each other, respect each other's views, only then will Turkey move into its new era as a great nation of faith, science, and modernity.
I write this as I read the book Ataturk, by Andrew Mango. This book is a massive 800 page historical account by a non-Turkish, well respected historian, who is knowledgable in both the Turkish language and culture. It is both finely detailed and exciting.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was by all means a patriot. He had immense love for his country and a clear vision for its progress. He never sought financial gain from his position, and corruption was not a factor in his tenure.
My opinion on Ataturk, a man of great intellect, wit and charisma, is often split. His character intrigues me deeply. He is both loving and brute. Diplomatic and authoritarian. He was a progressive but also an imitator.
His vision sought to move turkey from the shackles of the Ottoman Empire into the deep embrace of the western world. His economic reforms sought to glorify anything Turkish, yet his social reforms were, by and large, adapted from the west.
He enforced western dress, hats, and even letters (ataturk changed the Turkish language from the Arabic script to the Latin alphabet in "three months") He adapted the western philosophy on religion, which is to remove it entirely from issues of the state. His attack on religion was not limited to Islam: by the end of Ataturk's time, Christianity had all but disappeared from Turkish society.
Under Ataturk, education of men and especially women, was promoted and improved. Despite illiteracy rates being fairly high in the end of his reign, the establishments he founded were core to building a Turkish generation that was more educated. There, he must be respected, for any advancement that Turkey currently lives is due to this astounding educational reform. (Something that his bitter Islamist opponents would begrudgingly admit). His reforms in women's rights are also very commendable.
Those who think that he is an enemy of Islam, have to both understand Ataturk, and understand Islam in a deeper manner. His vision of science, progression, along with many of the injustices he stopped, is as crucial to Islam as prayer and chastity.
I discredit the claims that he was an enemy of Islam, for I truly believe that Ataturk's movements were not personal. Yes, certainly he opposed religion and was in no way religious himself, but the reason his voice was heard in the first place was the failure of the Islamic Ottoman Empire.
The ottoman empire's despotic rule was in no way in line with the teachings of Islam. If there is any indication to that, it is the alarming rates of illiteracy in the country at that time.
Illiteracy does not rhyme with the teachings of the Quran, whose first unveiled word was 'Read'.
Had the Ottoman Empire truly sought to promote piety, illiteracy would have been nearly nonexistent, as it had been in the Islamic Golden Age.
If a mere human like Ataturk can remove religion from a body of strong, educated believers, then this religion must be quite weak; and Islam is anything but weak.
Here I find pitfalls in his character: in many of his decisions, Ataturk contradicted himself.
He claims to have no religion; he wishes "all religions at the bottom of the sea." Instead he wants his people to "learn the principles of democracy, dictates of truth, and the teachings of science."
Yet his actions contradicted most of his claims.
The first, democracy, is his greatest contradiction. There was no democracy in Ataturk's reign. He was an unrivalled dictator who did not tolerate opposition. He executed and imprisoned his opponents, and he manipulated the rule of law and the constitution to further his own power.
His attempts at democratizing the country were a joke. He founded his own opposition party (and his aides wrote its platform), then dissolved it when it "created a threat to law and order."
For someone who was well versed in western culture (to the extent that he hand picked German pianists to establish music conservatories in turkey), Ataturk completely disregarded western implementations of democracy. This was something that the country reeled from continuously after his passing.
The second, educating the people on the "dictates of truth", was also not less hypocritical than the previous point. Ataturk did everything in his power to fester one truth: his. He established his own (or closely supportive) news organizations, and closed off any who opposed him. He personally reviewed and banned books that didn't align with his visions for Turkey. His government wrote its own history books, and preserved its own versions of the truth, while discarding the rest. In this sense, there was nothing of his governance that is truthful.
The third, on science and education, I addressed in the beginning of this note.
My most important remark on Ataturk, is his unwavering ego. He was, by all means, an arrogant man, who gave no thought to the possibility of him being mistaken.
He dutifully silenced all those who opposed him and ostracized those who did not fit within his Turkish vision, namely the Kurds and the Ottoman sympathizers. He built statues and portraits of himself, using public money.
He extended his pride to his followers for generations in his address to the youth of turkey, part of his famous six day speech. This speech, in which he explains his actions and outlines his vision, is his version of the truth; and has been drilled into every Turkish school since.
To put it in the authors words, "he thus shaped his own legend, just as he established his own cult by the erection of his statues."
If you think about the amount of people that were forced and frightened into silence, the information we might have about Ataturk's reign could be very different from what is available now.
Reading this book, it is unsurprising the unwavering passionate support that many Turkish people have for Ataturk right now. His pictures adorn walls, wallets and Facebook profile pictures. Yet I think that the Turkish people owe it to their own ideals of science and modernity to take a much deeper look at their leader, and understand that there are many sides to this charismatic man.
Ataturk said that "he is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government."
I think that He is also a weak ruler who needs nationalism to uphold his government. For every injustice and every despot in this world has proliferated under the guise of either religion or nationalism.
The world is headed towards a new ideal: love, compassion, and humility; a future for all races, religions, and cultures.
The new leaders of Turkey are not taking hint, and they're using the same single-minded, egoistic tactics that Ataturk used. They are silencing opposition, seeking an authoritarian rule, and ostracizing minorities.
The new generations of Turkey have to realize that the New Turkey cannot be built on the corpses of your brothers, it must be built together, with mutual compassion and respect.
The single most unified sentiment in all religions and cultures, is love. Find your common ground, find love, and you shall prosper!
Islam teaches humility, the vilest word to Allah is 'Ana' or 'I'.
Let go of you ego, admit your short comings, and seek help from each other, respect each other's views, only then will Turkey move into its new era as a great nation of faith, science, and modernity.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 26, 2020
As the founder of the Turkish Republic and the chief architect of the cultural revolution and westernisation of Turkish society that began in the 1920s, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk will be remembered for his incredible contribution to history. His passion for the participation in a universalist, humanist “one civilisation” (reflected in his famous expression “Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh”, or “Peace at home, peace in the world”, the basis of the foreign policy of the early Turkish Republic) underpinned his effort to transform Turkey from a destitute, illiterate, decrepit, and impoverished remnant of the Ottoman Empire into an independent and sovereign nation capable of taking part in modern European civilisation. He was a competent commander, a shrewd politician, a statesman of supreme realism, and a champion of the ideas of the Enlightenment.
Mango gives a nuanced insight into both the ideas and principles that inspired Atatürk’s vision for the Turkish state, and the subsequent events of history, and his character as a rationalist, humanist, and lover of rakı (“What a lovely drink this is; it makes one want to be a poet” after his first tasting during his final year of the War College - his humorous appreciation for the drink has a nostalgic charm that many Turks will understand).
Mango gives a nuanced insight into both the ideas and principles that inspired Atatürk’s vision for the Turkish state, and the subsequent events of history, and his character as a rationalist, humanist, and lover of rakı (“What a lovely drink this is; it makes one want to be a poet” after his first tasting during his final year of the War College - his humorous appreciation for the drink has a nostalgic charm that many Turks will understand).
January 16, 2022
Atatürk ile ilgili okunacak en tarafsız, kapsamlı, detaylı bilgiler içeren, kaynakları belli olan çok büyük bir çalışma Andrew Mango'nun Atatürk kitabı. Çok fazla detay barındırdığı için sindire sindire yavaş yavaş zor okunan bir eser. O dönemleri de nerdeyse başarıyla yansıtmayı başarmış Mango. Sadece olayları ve perde arkasını anlatmadığı gibi Atatürk hakkında da çok fazla detaya yer vererek kafanızda çok net bir Atatürk oluşturmanıza olanak sağlıyor.
Çok fazla bilgi içeren kitap farklı fikirlerdeki görüşlere yer verdiğinden çoğu zaman tarihi doğru analiz etme tercihini size bırakıyor. Yorumunu çok az katmış Mango bu nedenle belki de Atatürk'ü anlatan en iyi kitaplardan biri. Tek eleştirim keşke o dönemleri biraz daha detaylı anlatabilse bazı kararları ve bazı olayları anlamamızı kolaylaştırsaymış dedim okurken.
Remzi Kitabevi'nden Füsun Doruker de inanılmaz başarılı bir çeviriye imza atmış, uzun zamandır okuduğum en iyi çevirilerden oldu. Her zaman kaynakların veya açıklamaların dipnotların ilgili sayfanın altından hemen yazılmasını isterim, arka sayfaları gidip bakmak okuma dikkatini ve zevkini düşürdüğünü düşünürüm bu da yayınevlerine olan eleştirimdir..
Mutlaka ama mutlaka okunması gereken çok önemli bir eser.
Çok fazla bilgi içeren kitap farklı fikirlerdeki görüşlere yer verdiğinden çoğu zaman tarihi doğru analiz etme tercihini size bırakıyor. Yorumunu çok az katmış Mango bu nedenle belki de Atatürk'ü anlatan en iyi kitaplardan biri. Tek eleştirim keşke o dönemleri biraz daha detaylı anlatabilse bazı kararları ve bazı olayları anlamamızı kolaylaştırsaymış dedim okurken.
Remzi Kitabevi'nden Füsun Doruker de inanılmaz başarılı bir çeviriye imza atmış, uzun zamandır okuduğum en iyi çevirilerden oldu. Her zaman kaynakların veya açıklamaların dipnotların ilgili sayfanın altından hemen yazılmasını isterim, arka sayfaları gidip bakmak okuma dikkatini ve zevkini düşürdüğünü düşünürüm bu da yayınevlerine olan eleştirimdir..
Mutlaka ama mutlaka okunması gereken çok önemli bir eser.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews