Ataturk: A Biography of Mustafa Kemal, Father of Modern Turkey

by John Patrick Douglas Balfour, Lord Kinross

Reprint of the respected edition published by Morrow in 1964 also in the UK under the title Ataturk; the Rebirth of a Nation . Cited in BCL3 . Now printed on acid-free paper but bound, alas, only in paper covers. Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Middle East, Politics, Turkish, Biography Memoir

615 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 1964

About the author

John Patrick Douglas Balfour, 3rd Baron Kinross (1904–1976) was a Scottish historian and writer noted for his biography of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and other works on Islamic history.

He studied at the University of Oxford.
In 1938, he married Angela Mary Culme-Seymour, daughter of George Culme-Seymour and Janet (née Orr-Ewing) and former wife of the artist John Spencer-Churchill. They were divorced in 1942, whereupon Angela married the Comte de Chatellus. She was the model for "the bolter" in Nancy Mitford's novel The Pursuit of Love.

Despite the brief marriage, Lord Kinross was homosexual. He had no issue and was succeeded by his brother David Andrew Balfour, 4th Baron Kinross.--wikipedia

Reviews

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

How many people do you know who have
- defeated a super-power
- established themsleves a superior military tactician
- removed a corrupt imperial power
- revitalised education and the language
- reformed the writing system by changing scripts
- replaced a religon-based legal system with a modern secular constitution and set of laws
- revived national, civic and architectural pride
- negotiated the peaceful transfer of the popoulations of two major regions without further loss of life
- established a republic
- inspired allegience amongst millions even 80 years after his death
amongst other achivements, all in a fairly short life?
There are precious few 20th Century figures that can come close to the achievements of (Gazi) Mustafa Kemal (later Ataturk).
Lord Kinross' biogrpahy is thorough, exhaustive and detailed. In other words, long (500+ pages). But worth every page. While clearly admiring Ataturk and his achievements, Kinross is not afraid to find fault. Not that there is a lot to find, at least in his public achievements. Ataturk's rebirth of Turkey into a modern secular republic was visionary, but was a Herculean task, opposed, we learn, every bitter step of the way. To truly appreciate the respect that modern Turks have for their first republican, his full story and list of achievements need to be understood. Kinross has made that possible for english-speaking readers.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the İstanbul bookstore where I bought this book, I also found a newer biography of Atatürk written in 2000 by Andrew Mango. I stood there for at least 15 minutes browsing through the two books, deciding which one to buy. Eventually I chose the Kinross version, even though it was written more than 40 years ago. It had a personal familiarity with both the man and his age that was extremely compelling, in a way that Mango's very precisely analytical -- and therefore rather sterile -- volume lacked. I have not regretted this choice in the slightest; Kinross's biography contains both the erudition and the narrative consistency to tell the story both fully and accurately. Further, its structure and pacing are expertly executed, allowing the book to hold me captive as a reader and therefore best inform me about one of the most interesting political figures of the 20th century -- and the cultural and historical backdrop that guided his actions.

[Trina · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book many years ago, yet it has stuck with me as one of the best biographies I've ever read. He dragged Turkey, kicking and screaming, into the modern era, and tried his darnedest to get it to embrace parliamentary democracy before kicking the bucket himself at an early age, unfortunately, from cirrhosis of the liver. In a sense, he was their version of George Washington, as someone once put it, trying to provide some perspective for an American. But Ataturk wasn't a founding father so much as a visionary. He not only overthrew the sultan, but dismantled the whole Ottoman way of life. He abolished the veil, the fez, even the Arabic alphabet as the most visible reforms, and it was he who gave women the vote. He married a woman, a writer with an independent streak, as I recall, a union which didn't last (or produce heirs, more's the pity) but was an admirable attempt to put his money where his mouth was. He was ahead of his times, yet ironically failed to groom or appoint a successor who could carry through his reforms into the next century. Turkey has struggled with its identity ever since. I bet he's rolling in his grave as more and more young women cover their hair and political leaders slip into religious conservatism. Ataturk was a soldier, a man of action, and as such someone who would certainly take ownership of his country's actions, right or wrong, in their attempt to remain relevant in today's world.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is a distressing sameness to most biographies: They begin with their subject's birth, follow him or her through a (mostly) promising youth, until the apogee is reached. From there, it is all downhill. So it is with Lord Kinross in Ataturk. Its subject, Mustafa Kemal, a.k.a. Kemal Ataturk, is the re-inventor of Turkey. What in his youth was a decrepit and moribund empire, he turned into a foward-looking republic (with the overtones of a benign dictatorship) that still reveres him some sixty-five years after his death in 1938.

I was of two minds about Ataturk. On one hand, he was a great military hero and a decisive, if not autocratic, political leader. On the other hand, I probably would not have fared terribly well under his rule.

But then, there is Turkey today. A hundred years ago, no one would have bet a dime that it would be today a relatively prosperous democracy. That was all Ataturk's doing.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Three points for the biography itself plus another star for it being about a major historical figure of Turkish history. There are in fact far too view good books of Turkish history written for the general public that are available in English.

There is a second English language biography of Ataturk (Mustapha Kemal) authored by Andrew Mango. If one had to read only one I would recommend Mango's. This much said, the two complement each other very well. Lord Kinross concentrates on the military and political career of Ataturk whereas Mango focuses on his campaign to modernize Turkey. Both do an outstanding job in the areas that they set to to cover. One can read both with profit.

A major weakness in the Kinross book is that is that it contains an inordinate number of anecdotes Atarturk demonstrating either great personal courage, exceptional intelligence or an uncanny ability to predict the future. Ataturk certainly possessed some of these qualities; he could not have accomplished all the many things that he did if he had not been a truly remarkable man. Unfortunately Kinross goes over board telling too many stories of great feats most of which must be fictions.

All in all a great read, despite my reservations.

[Ayse Sen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Atatürk'ü böylesine tarafsız anlatan kitap hala Türk yazarlarımız tarafından yazılmamış sanırım. Çok kapsamlı bir çalışma olmuş. Ayrıca Osmanlı Tarihi kitabının da kütüphanenizde bulunmasında fayda var. Bu iki kitap ansiklopedi niteliğinde. Herkesin okumasını tavsiye ederim.

[Sparklinggrace · Rating 4 out of 5]

A truly enlightening book for me, such an amazing leader, with such foresight and skill, I wonder why so little is know of him when his contribution was so significant. Personally I would have like the author to have given more attention to his political and reforming years, section three of the book. His reforms were very far reaching and I would have liked to have learned more of this era of his life.

[Caner Ergen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Atatürk üzerine yazılmış Türkçe kaynakların çoğunu okudum fakat neredeyse hiçbirinde bu derece detay ve objektiflik bulamadım. Özellikle kişiliğine dair çok fazla detay var kitapta. Çanakkale savaşlarından sonra geçtiği Suriye cephesinde yaptıkları, mecliste muhaliflerle yaşadıkları, suikast davası detayları, devrimlerin yapılışı ve zamanlaması, zaman zaman fevri çıkışları detaylıca ele alınmış.

[Emiliya Bozhilova · Rating 1 out of 5]

Напълно безинтересна биография на една от най-изпъкващите личности на 20-ти век, съчетала в себе си най-благородната и част от доста ужасната човешка сърцевина. Балфур е успял напълно да опропасти Мустафа Кемал и да откаже читателя да отгръща страниците. Лично аз непрекъснато заспивах. Книгата ще представлява интерес единствено за върлите фенове на военните хроники, където са разписани техническите параметри да дадена битка по часове и минути. Балфур от дърветата е изгубил гората, и “човекът” Ататюрк изобщо не присъства тук, а останалите участници от епохата са само отметки в огромни списъци със събития, които наподобяват пазарските, и са точно толкова интересни.

1,5⭐️

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A revealing account of the life of one of the most interesting(and overlooked in the West) men of the past century.

Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, who built a modern nation out of a medieval backwater by what amounted to sheer force of will, was a truly amazing giant of history.

Kinross clearly has a great admiration for the man, and I worried at first that the text would be little more than hero worship. But he isn't afraid to show that Ataturk, while being brilliant, progressive and a wily and adept statesman was also a profoundly flawed individual. From his alcoholism and womanizing to his emotional abuse of both friends and enemies...Ataturk the man was kind of a jerk. But that fact is overshadowed by his vast accomplishments (he abolished the Caliphate and outlawed the Burqa [among other shocking steps forward for the time:]in Turkey!) and his keen and somewhat eerie foresight (he foresaw very clearly the course of the second world war in Europe nearly a decade before it broke out and despite the fact that he died before it really began for instance).

It's with good reason that he remains revered as the 'Father of the Turks' in the Republic that he founded and his story is a fascinating one from an eastern or western perspective.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

A shout out to my friend, Asi, for recommending this one. It’s a detailed, blow-by-blow tale of how Mustafa Kemal together with a handful of native sons and daughters of Turkey, managed to not only rescue that country from post-war colonial powers, but to also transform it into a modern “western” democracy with institutions of justice, economy and education. This tale was written by a British admirer in the early 1960s, and the language is a bit dated, but the tale is worthwhile and the viewpoint fairly balanced.

There once was a boy by the name of Mustafa Kemal, from Salonika in Macedonia. He joined the Ottoman army to get an education and move up in the world, but he was unhappy with the state of the Ottoman Empire. It was bloated, top-heavy. Did not respond to the needs of the people of Turkey (Kemal was Turkish). It was a far-flung empire that cost too much to maintain, and the Sultan’s government was too comfortable to make drastic changes, or any changes, really. The Ottoman Empire was happily easing along, mostly minding its own business. But there were too many imbalances in the area for this to be sustainable. The Balkans were splitting up. Russia wanted access to the Mediterranean and was willing to fight other Europeans for it. Germany was an upcoming power in the center of still colonial Europe. So change for the Ottoman Empire was going to come, sooner or later.

The Ottoman Empire was aligned with Germany. The reason why is not discussed here. But when the major European nations collectively stumbled into World War I, the Ottoman Empire was inevitably sucked into the fray. France and England wanted to open a new front against Germany/Austria to the south, and Greece saw a chance to gain some ground as a result.

One early attempt to achieve this was to get control of the Dardanelles, the sole access point from the Black Sea into global water. The British had a brilliant plan to land on the shore at Gallipoli, and in a lighting strike, take control of the Strait of Hormuz (excuse me, I meant the Dardanelles). The problem was, Turkey had other plans. The British thought the Ottoman (i.e., mostly Turkish) army would fold against the might of those brave Christian “war fighters”, the Brits, backed up as they were by the might of “the strongest military in the world” (Hegseth) i.e., the British Navy. But Kemal (remember him?) was a solid strategist who anticipated the British move and placed his men accordingly. For four brutal months the British (the Anzacs) attempted to gain the heights of Gallipoli, only to be constantly thwarted by the tougher Turks, who were defending their homeland.

The Brits eventually folded their tents and went home. They had other armies and directions of attack on this “soft underbelly” (Churchill, next war) of Germany. The British armies later outmaneuvered and outran the Ottoman army in Lebanon and Syria. With Kemal, again in charge, the Ottoman Army held the British north of Aleppo. But it was 1918, and eventually Germany was defeated, so the Ottoman Empire was forced to concede.

It is at this point that the story really gets interesting. Because the Allies decide that they will parcel up the Ottoman Empire as they see fit, and everything that follows is still being played out today in this region—something that we are all having to now suffer through, in one way or another, due to the pervasiveness of petrochemicals in the global economy.

This book does not deal with what happened to Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, or Iraq, though there are hints around the edges. What it does deal with in great detail, is the Allies stance on what happens to Turkey itself (i.e., what we all now know as modern Turkey).

At the end of WWI, the Sultan in Constantinople had agreed to a one-sided peace treaty with the Allies (the Allied specialty—see The Treaty of Versailles). Turkey was going to be a protectorate of the Allies, and British, Italian and Greek troops, and French, were being sent to many of the major towns. Kemal, along with pretty much the entire country, were outraged by this. Kemal, as the hero of the Gallipoli campaign, was feared by the Sultan and the Allies as a possible rallying point for the Turkish people. (And they were right about that.) But he was a sharp player and cannily got himself a government assignment to “quell unrest” in eastern Turkey, then slipped away from danger of arrest in Constantinople.

During this time, the Greeks were like – “Oh gee, those poor Greek Christians in Symra (western coast of Turkey), we have to help those poor souls out, protect them from those dastardly Muslim Turks” (wink, wink). The other Allies (Italy, France, England) were like—well … sure okay. But after the Greek Army took over this coastal area, the Greek Prime Minister wanted more. And so he spun a tale where the Greek Army next really needed to go east into central Turkey, because you know, those nasty Turks, boy, you never know what they might do, so better safe than sorry, right? They might even be two weeks from having a nuclear weapon.

But all the European military advisors said to their prime ministers—no, that does not sound like a good idea. That will just piss off the Turks and it will end badly. And all the prime ministers LISTENED TO THEIR ADVISORS, except one…. Lloyd George (the Brit). Lloyd George, like any good Oxbridge graduate, was steeped in Greek lore and culture, and really had a soft spot for those Greeks. (Maybe his election was even bankrolled by some of those rich pro-Hellenists living in England!) So he backed the Greeks, and they went ahead and sent their army deep into Anatolia (the Turkish central area). This turned out to be a huge mistake.

Because as soon as Kemal arrived in Ankara (Angora, it was then called), he started hitting the telegraph wires to local Turkish leaders with a strong appeal for establishing a more modern government that represented the will of the people. When the Sultan’s government got wind of what he was up to, they fired him by telegraph, but he did not care, having already drummed up support for a democratically elected government in central and eastern Turkey. These Turks held a constitutional congress and established their own government, called the Nationalists. So now the Allies, backing the Sultan, really had a fight on their hands.

Of course, the Nationalists did not have an easy time of it. There was a point during their months of organization when pretty much all of the non-aligned regions of Turkey were breaking into tiny fiefdoms and roving gangs, and Kemal’s forces were having to fend off not only assassination attempts but also rebels who did not want any central government at all. But Kemal had enough solid ex-army buddies and allies around the area that he and the Nationalists were able to weather this crisis. And during this time the Nationalists successfully concluded treaties with the French, and then the Italians, and started purchasing more weapons from them. When the Greek Army pushed east to the doorstep of Angora, the Turks held them back. After a tense winter standoff, the Turks counter-attacked and broke the Greek army in two. The Turks then approached the Allied protected areas around the Strait of Dardanelle and Constantinople, and a provisional peace with the Allies was at that point concluded. And in a more formal peace treaty the following year, he even got the Europeans to give back their special economic privileges they had gotten out of the Sultan.

The politically astute Kemal next targeted the Sultanate for his too ready cooperation with the Allied occupation, and the Sultan fled to Switzerland with the help of the Brits. Kemal then managed to abolish the Caliphate (the government appointed head of Islam in Turkey), which he described as extraneous, because Islam was not the government. Having eliminated these vestiges of the Ottoman empire, Kemal then pushed to reform society by introducing a modern legislative system, laws based on more modern “Western” values rather than older religious (Islamic) teachings, education for women, and elimination of the Arabic alphabet in favor or Latin letters, on the theory that Latin phonetics are easier to learn.

But while he is pushing these reforms, the tarnish begins to appear on the hero, because Kemal cannot tolerate dissent among his followers or interference with his plans. So when his friends, who are among the founders of the Nationalist party, start to point out that democracy means principled disagreement, in addition to free speech, Kemal’s thoughts turn to paranoia. When some Kurdish leaders revolt against the secularism of the new state, and the central government has to send in the army to quell the revolt. Kemal takes this opportunity to shut down the Turkish opposition press, and jail or allow gangs to execute opposition leaders. The author calls Kemal’s paranoid state of mind “Oriental”—which is … strange. I mean, we can see this type of paranoia in England’s King Richard, or in DJT today. It’s a personality type, although there may be some odd biological connection. In any case, in addition to all the modernizing accomplished by and under Kemal, later renamed Ataturk, there was also a good dollop of authoritarianism and elements of dictatorship.

But, in the end, during the worldwide depression, Kemal realized that his pursuit of a single party government has created a bunch of yes men that has lost touch with conditions of the people, and so he experiments with bringing back some sort of controlled opposition or at least more openness to the state party.

A special thanks to Asi for introducing me to this terrific book and bit of history. Someday, if I am still alive and things have calmed down, I hope to travel to this part of the world.

[Judy Abbott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Elimden bırakamadan, durmaksızın okudum. Öyle akıcı bir dille Atamızın yaşamını, İstiklal savaşımızı, modern Türkiye'nin kuruluşunu olumlu olumsuz detaylarıyla anlatan mükemmel bir eser.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a very quaint book that hasn't aged well. The very first line insists on Kemal's "fair" skin and there is numerous mentions of blood and race, such as the "pure fair" blood of his mother etc. The author has a very imperialist view and speaks condescendingly of all non-Western Europeans, frequently speaking of how "primitive" and "savage" the Turks are (the Greeks and Arabs don't come out much better).

The historical method is also out of date as there is little use of sources and instead a heavy reliance on anecdote and rumour. The book is readable in part but the middle is an unbearable slog that I ended up skipping. There is also next to no discussion or explanation of the context of Attaturk's time.

[Philip Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kinross’s biography of Atatürk is a tome I've been avoiding for the best part of thirty years. Lackadaisically, I suppose, but mostly it's been from mild trepidation. Not that I expected the book to be full of awkward truths, since it has a kind of authorised status here in Turkey. In spite of its hallowed subject, I’m pretty sure the Turkish translation would be uncensored. My fear is of joining the Atatürk cult, his gradually diminishing band of diehards.

As a foreigner – we Brits have to admit that we too are aliens – as a foreigner here in Turkey you’re not expected to be more than respectful towards the great man’s name, and the public commemorations him. Though his legacy isn’t universally approved, you won’t hear much open criticism. It’s more like the dissenters tend to groan ever so softly when someone gets up to make a speech about him and his philosophy. It’s drummed into kids at school, when every morning elementary pupils take turns in reciting his address to students. And even those Turks who still bother to oppose his nationalist, statist politics, tend to use Kemalist arguments when it suits them. Just the same as how many Brits who know Churchill wasn’t all good will grudgingly admit his useful role in wartime.

Lord Patrick of Kinross, then, a career diplomat who served a good deal of his time in Turkey, is as much apologist as historian; his book, indeed now nearing sixty years old, has become a feature of the scene. Having finally got the paperback in my hands, I read it almost as much as an historical document as a plain life.

The early chapters especially can’t shake off the laudatory style of homegrown accounts. As Atatürk grows up and becomes a soldier, Kinross plays Uncle Storyteller in a style more than just a little condescending. Though he's candid enough about Mustafa Kemal’s preference for prostitutes, his early drinking and gambling, and his generally rakish character, it’s all rather Boys Own stuff, and somewhat lacks the first hand, eyewitness testimony you would expect from a more penetrating study. Was MKA a Young Türk, for example? Well, yes, but we’re not actually told this in so many words, as though it’s all still rather hush-hush. Reading through the lines then, not only was he a young Young Turk, he was a hothead rebel amongst rebels. There, I’ve said it.

At times, I can’t help wondering to what extent Kinross was party to the truth, or was just an educated guesser. For example, as a junior staff officer in the Ottoman Army, MKA had to traverse Egypt disguised as an Arab. Just before crossing into Libya (to help organise resistance to an Italian invasion) he was detained by British troops. He was apparently let go after a short time, with Kinross implying the British secretly approved of his mission. As a diplomat, I suppose, the author would often have occasion to know more than the general public. So he leaves you to fill in the details for yourself. In this case, the year was 1912 and Britain had a military alliance with Italy. If the Brits really did let him go on his way, then it suggests they opposed their ally’s expansionist policy in the Mediterranean, which is not uncreditable. This is about the first of many intimations that portray MKA as a player in what the British called The Great Game.

Of course, as everyone knows, soon MKA would be fighting the Allies on the Gallipoli peninsula. First establishing his dissent at the way Enver, Talat and Cemal (the Young Türk triumvirate then at the helm of the Ottoman Empire) had dragged their country into the war on Germany’s side, Kinross shows plenty of enthusiasm for the successful defence he makes of its exposed western gateway, invaded by the French, Italian and British Empires. British incompetence and Turkish tenacity, backed up by MKA’s inspired insubordination, contained the bridgehead long enough to ensure the invaders moved elsewhere, and earned the young commander his crucial laurels. This much is orthodox history.

But after the war, in The Bandırma affair, when MKA again twice gives the British the slip, we are left to wonder if this wasn’t all somehow with the complicity of the troops on the ground, if not tacitly sanctioned by Whitehall. Although UK prime minister Lloyd George was to finally lose his job over backing the Greeks in what the Turks call their Independence War, Kinross’s portrayal of the British is rather like that of referees, forever cropping up on the pitch and blowing their whistles in Turkey’s favour. Even after the establishment of the Turkish Republic at Ankara, one British ambassador after another is happy to join MKA’s drinking and gambling cronies.

I would have liked a clearer picture of MKA’s linguistic abilities. We are told he had assistance with his French from various Turkish society ladies in Istanbul, and during a brief sojourn as a military attaché in Sofia. But during the negotiations with the French over the sovereignty of Hatay province, we are told he had the help of a translator. And when he reads HG Wells’s “Outline of History”, we learn he immediately calls for the book’s translation into Turkish. Does that mean he has read it in the original English?

His personal life is gone into in some detail, though no doors of skeleton-bearing cupboards are suddenly allowed to swing open. Close both to his mother and sister, we learn, the stepfather (like the real father, who died while he was a child) was a remote person who didn’t do much to help his advancement, or to form his character. The women he lived with openly were not allowed to interfere in his politics or his drinking habits, leading to separation; followed by divorce in one case and suicide in another. Names of casual partners are not given, though we are led to believe he sometimes carried on with married women, even the wives of foreign diplomats. His affairs seem to have been conducted above scandal. If this led him into a certain amount of manipulation, we’re not told. I get the feeling His Lordship the author simply preferred not to go into sordid details, though surely some penetration of the man’s psychology would have been appropriate, even sixty years ago.

Likewise his adoption of several children - with whom he liked to live in a semblance of family life - is reported in the ‘he was fond of the young’ vein. Atatürk saw himself as a teacher to his nation, often examining youngsters (and the not-so-young) in a brusque, dialectical manner. He seems to have taken some delight in weighing up young people’s worth, and on occasion would elevate some bright spark whose answers impressed him. The airwoman Sabiha Gökçen was one of his prodigies. We hear nothing about any illegitimate offspring he is alleged to have had.

Mostly Atatürk, as he became known when surnames were introduced, surrounded himself with good old boys. Of Celal Bayar, he’s reported to have remarked, “I gave him a bag of gold, and he gave me a bank.” İsmet İnönü, the comrade in arms he named as his successor, was too much of a family man to have been a close friend. MKA liked the company of rich, or at least of ambitious, businesses men – many of whom profited from accompanying him at the all-night sessions of rakı and mezzes that would eventually kill him. He would call famous musicians and poets to perform, often at short notice; on one occasion even Nazım Hikmet was summoned, though Lord Kinross fails to tell his readers that the poet was a communist who had recently been released as a political prisoner. He enjoyed his many processions around the country, where crowds greeted him as “Gazi” - a term actually meaning wounded veteran. In many ways, he was a fitting successor to the padishas who had ruled the empire. Some evenings he would slip out of his Dolmabahçe palace on the Bosphorous and only several hours later would his minders find him, drinking with some locals in a fisherman's tavern. In other words, MKA led the life of a dapper bachelor. As President of the Republic he created, he was its principal playboy.

On the political stage, named president for life, he took delight in winding up the clockwork dolls of democracy, in order to see them strutting about, knocking into each other and falling flat on their faces. His purpose – the transformation of a decrepit, superstitious empire into a lean & thriving modern democracy - was true and lasting reform. But as a human being, Kinross points out, he was a dictatorial, misogynistic dilettante. In doing away with the caliphate, he traduced Turkey’s standing in the Moslem world. In transforming the alphabet, he cut off the nation from its literary roots. In searching for the roots of Turkishness, he set scholars off on a scientific wild goose chase. Moreover, he didn’t seek rapprochement with the large Kurdish speaking minority, which has left deep scars on the nation’s identity. Again, you have to read between the lines to understand that Izmir was burned on his watch, that he was actually in the city while it was looted and torched, to say nothing of the fate of the people who lived there.

This biography, subtitled “The Rebith of a Nation”, not only leaves many questions unanswered, it fails to address key points. Published as it was sixty years ago (soon after a military coup in which the then prime minister was hanged), neither can it address the question of what MKA would have made of the modern Turkish state, or its current rulers. The progress I've seen in the twenty eight years I've lived here has been immense. Despite charges of political oppression and many unresolved issues regarding the position of women, the fourth estate and the Kurds, modernisation has been swift and mainly sure. The soaring economy that (despite what many foreigners and Turks alike believe) seems to rebound from every setback would surely have impressed the Gazi. While the role of religious values, an issue on which MKA was adamant, has repeatedly gnawed at the secular lives of a powerful, modernist, Westward-looking minority. As the Turks approach the centenary of the Republic Atatürk created for them, they are a nation still struggling to discover who they really are.

[Kutay Kumbasar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Daha önceden Atatürk ile ilgili Çankaya ve benzeri kitapları okumuştum. okuduğum kitapların ortan yönü bu kitapların yazarlarının Türk olmalarıydı. Bu kitap ile Atatürk'ü başka bir millete mensup bir yazarın gözünden görmüş oldum. Bu nedenle benim için farklı bir deneyim oldu.

İlk olarak Lord Kinross Atatürk hakkında öznel yorumlarda pek bulunmuyor. Atatürk'ün kişisel özellikleri hakkındaki fikirlerini Atatürk'ün yakınlarının hatıratlarından ve Atatürk'ün söylevlerinden almış olduğu aşikar. Hatta bu nedenle bazı noktalarda çelişkiler görmek mümkün ama bahsettiğim çelişkiler daha çok zaman veya detaylar ile ilgili. Kitap ile ilgili hoşuma giden özelliklerden biri Lord Kinross'un bir çok yabancı kaynaktanda yararlanmış olması. Bazı olayları İngiliz ve Fransızların tarafından görebilmek olayları daha iyi kavramanıza yarıyor. Ek olarak Lord Curzon gibi devlet adamlarının olaylar hakkındaki görüşlerinin kullanılması diğer ülkelerin politikacıları ve politikaları hakkında bir nebze fikir veriyor insana.

Lord Kinross, Atatürk'e bir insandan çok tarihi bir figür olarak yaklaşıyor. Yer yer kişilik özelliklerine dokunuyor ve hatta banal sonuçlara varıyor gibi oluyor ama genel olarak etliye sütlüye pek dokunmuyor. Hatta kendinden gelen tek kısmın sonuç bölümü olduğunu söyleyebilirim. Sonuç bölümü de gayet kısa ve öz açıkcası. Bu kitabı bir olay örgüsü kitabı olarak düşünmek pek yanlış olmaz. Dili nedeniyle Atatürk üzerinden anlatılan meşrutiyet ve erken cumhuriyet tarihi kitabı demek. pek yanlış olmaz. Bu nedenle bazılarına pek uygun bir kitap olmayabilir ancak Nutuk'u okumak istiyorsanız ve bir nebze tarafsız bir biyografi okumak istiyorsanız bu kitap size bir altyapı sağlayacaktır.

Son olarak, bu kitap sayesinde Türk inkılabını bir yabacının gözünden öznel olarak görmüş bulundum. Devrimlerin nasıl uygulanıp uygulanmaması gerektiğini söyleyebilecek bir konumda değilim. Bana kalırsa bir çoğumuzda değiliz çünkü geçmişin koşullarını bir iki biyografi ve tarih kitabı okumakla algılanabileceğini düşünmüyorum. Ek olarak buna gerekte olduğunu düşünmüyorum. Atatürk, bizleri kendini Tanrı'nın gölgesi olarak konumlandırmış bir ailenin kulu iken bir millet olmanın ve hatta birey olmamızı sağladı. Kurtuluş savaşının kazanılması ile milletin farkında olmadan kazanılmış haklarımızı bizlere geçmesinin önünü açtı. Ve ne yazık ki gerçekleştirdiği kazanımların bir çoğunu göremeden kalplerimizde ölümsüzlüğe kavuştu.

[Rick Blasiak]

A little hard to get into because of the numerous place-names that I was unfamiliar with and because this was my first reading of the ottoman -- turkish republic era. Kemal presents lots of contradictions and it seems hard to decipher how he came to hold all of the contraary views at the same time. A womanizer who did a lot for the emancipation of women. Someone who advanced the republic and democratic ideals but was ruthless with a political purge of opponents. Someone who apparently loved Turkey but thought that its traditions and religion were holding it back and decided to change it. A revolution from the top.

[ser · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bu Atatürk biyografisini okumaya beni iten şey Mustafa Kemal’i çok seven biri olarak onunla ilgili örgün eğitimin bana dayattığı şeyler dışında hiçbir şey okumamamış olmamın verdiği rahatsızlık hissiydi. Ki yine bu kitabı okuduktan sonra gördüğüm üzere kendisini tam anlamıyla pek tanımamış ve anlamamışım. Devrimci kişililiğini net bir şekilde görebilmenin yanında, bir insan olarak kusurlu yanlarını da görmek çok kıymetliydi. Yeni öğrendiğim tüm yönleriyle bu yeni Mustafa Kemal’i bize öğretilenden daha çok sevdim.

[Goksel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Atatürk`ün hayatini, orta cagdan kalma bir ulkeyi ve yillarca cahil birakilmis halkini nasil dirilttigini anlatan okudugum en objektif ve dili itibariylede oldukca akici bir kitap.

[Steve Shulman-Laniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spectacular.

[Emirhan AVCI · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uzun süre önce telefonda epub olarak başladığım, sonrasında ise telefon yüzünden yarım kalan bu harika eseri, zor da olsa basılı halini temin ederek bitirdim. Atatürk'e dair okuduğum en kapsamlı ve en akıcı eserlerden biriydi diyebilirim. Çocukluğundan ölümüne kadar geçen zamanı tüm yönleriyle ele alan, ve hiçbir sayfada insanı sıkmayan müthiş bir çalışma. Falih Rıfkı Atay'ın Çankaya kitabı ve bu kitabı, ulu önderimizi her yönüyle ve tarafsız bir şekilde tanımak isteyen herkese şiddetle öneririm.

[Gk-Turk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Var oluşumuzun muhteşem hikayesinin kısa ama güzel bir özeti. Mustafa Kemal mutlaka farklı farklı yazarlardan okunmalı, okutulmalı. Hangi yollardan geçtiğini bilmeyen bir toplum nereye gideceğini de tayin edemeyecektir.

[Caner Sahin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okurken Şerafettin Turan ile karşılaştırdım. Tavsiyem Şerafettin Turan biyografisidir.

[Emel Tuzgen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Her Türk vatandaşının lise yıllarında okuması gereken bir kitap. Bu yaşa kadar okumadığım için utandım doğrusu. Keşke bize verdikleri sıkıcı ve yetersiz tarih eğitimi yerine derslerde bu kitapları okutsalardı. Atatürk'ün hayatını, 1. Dünya Savaşı'nı, Kurtuluş Savaşı'nı ve Cumhuriyet dönemini bir roman akıcılığıyla ve rahat okunabilir bir dille anlatıyor. Kesinlikle okunmalı; hatta birkaç kere.

[Madeleine · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read, bogged down with Orientalism and always written under the assumption of its basic premise: that Atatürk was by and large an admirable and great, if flawed, man.

Would like to read again.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

Couldn't finish this. As is the problem with many biographies, way too much detail to avoid boring a reader who is not fascinated with the subject.

[WIlliam Gerrard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was from humble beginnings. He lived through a critical period of Turkish history, witnessing the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire and making it possible for the modern secular, Western-focused nation state of Turkey to phoenix itself from the Ashes. Atatürk was a military man and although very lucky, his innovative and dedicated intellect assisted in him being Turkeys only undefeated senior commander during World War 1 and their last bastion of defence as plunderers tried to savage the imperial remnants of the Ottomans. A weak caliph and a corrupted government, led for quite some time by leaders of the Young Turks, were features that led to Atatürk's politicisation. Eventually, after a civil war, he would set up a new Anatolian capital in Ankara and slowly tried to seep away power and influence from the decadence of Constantinople or Istanbul. Atatürk, was a workaholic. It left him little time for family. He was dependent on alcohol and this would eventually cause his premature death. As power grew within him he could often display treachery towards his old friends and allies, and it was in Atatürk a certain sense of ego that caused some of the more irrational yet adventurous moves in both his career as a soldier and later as a global politician. The man was undoubtedly remarkable and is one of the most colourful and indeed successful people from the early twentieth century. To this day in modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's legacy lives on.

[Robert Bram · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book to be a highly compassionate view of Atatürk's life.

Patrick Kinross’ narration is insightful and reads like a story; very different from a dry historical text presenting fact after fact. He draws a rich picture of the life of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in terms of the changing political, religious and social landscape of his country in the first quarter of the 20th century. Atatürk literally created the nation of Turkey from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire as World War 1 re-drew the political lines of Europe.

He gives the reader a very personal understanding of the intense sense of purpose and duty that drove Atatürk throughout his life, and also how it led to many contradictions in his life. Atatürk created a secular nation by first engendering the support of eminent religious authority figures, without telling them his aim was a secular nation. Atatürk wanted Turkey to become just like a “modern Western democratic republic”, but became a benign autocrat, leading a one party system where all representatives were hand picked by Atatürk.

Kinross begins with Atatürk’s birth in Salonika and traces his troubled early school years and enrolment into the Military Secondary School where Atatürk discovered himself as a soldier and was given the first name “Kemal”, meaning “perfection”. From his portrayal of Atatürk in his younger years, we are given to understand that Atatürk developed very early a fierce sense of dedication to a country he recognized as flawed and in need of change. He demonstrates an astounding prescience, has a sharp mind, a passion for rakı and debate, and an abiding abhorrence for what he saw as the role of religion in the decline of his country.

We follow Atatürk through the despairing times of World War 1, where Atatürk’s actions and leadership are nothing short of heroic. The insights he develops into the military and political situation of the time picks him out as a potential threat to his superiors, but also identify him as an invaluable commander. For many years he works in the background to develop a network of resistance against the self serving Ottoman authority. Instead of bringing about a change of government, he finds himself pushed to the side as several revolutionaries take the fore, become despots in their own right and are then torn down – such as Enver Pasha. “Enver Pasha killed Enver Bey” is a telling quote I remember.

Eventually the situation for Atatürk comes to a head when the allies of the First World War begin plans to dismantle Turkey and occupy the country. Atatürk, using all his skill and cunning as a diplomat, soldier and hero rallies a new line of defense that pushes the allies out of Turkey and forms a new government, the first Republic of Turkey.

I found some important subjects were left out or not given sufficient attention. There was only a passing reference to the swap of Greek and Turkish population in 1923. And although the Kurds’ role in the independence war was described in some detail and the conflicts between Armenians, Kurds, Greeks and Turks over land was much discussed, there was no evaluation of Atatürk’s attitude towards each group as a people or how this affected his actions.

At times, Kinross seemed too compassionate towards Atatürk, almost apologetic. The book made much of the contradictions within Atatürk, but rarely explored the darker side of his character. Instead, his actions were repeatedly explained or justified by his admirable sense of duty to his country. Nowhere was this clearer than in the portrayal of Atatürk’s involvement in the Independence Tribunals of 1927. These tribunals were brought in to punish the leaders of a Kurdish revolt, but were also used to summarily round up all of Atatürk’s political enemies at the time – including former friends and compatriots without whom the Republic of Turkey may never have come about.

I understand now, why there is still a deep reverence throughout Turkey for this politician and leader, Atatürk, who people still call the Father of Turkey. For he was truly the father of Turkey: he led a movement that completely and permanently changed the political and social face of the nation. Turkey changed from a caliphate to a republic, and that was just the beginning. After that, Atatürk gave the people a new language (yes, “gave” – he helped create it and personally taught it); laws were introduced changing the national costume; and women were made equal to men – all this in less than fifteen years!

I also understand that a major part of Atatürk’s legacy is the shock of such massive changes introduced in such an extremely short time – a shock that still resonates today. At least one of the multiple coup d'état in the latter half of the 20th century (after Atatürk’s death) were instituted by people who felt empowered to act by a sense of duty and revolution that Atatürk himself encouraged. The fact that religion lost its primacy under Atatürk also left his country with a deep and lingering conflict between religious and secular life that is at the forefront of Turkey’s political situation today. Much like present day Indonesia, religious parties have gained prominence and seek to re-assert religion as part of government.

I began reading this book on the plane trip home from my first holiday in Turkey to visit my partner's family. It took me six months to finish the book and has given me a much deeper connection with this beautiful country and the people I met.

If you are a student of history, or if you have ever visited Turkey and wanted to know “how”.. I highly recommend this book.

From my blog: http://robertmarkbram.blogspot.com.au...

[Sharly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelente biografía; se hace muy amena. Muy recomendable.

Por ponerle un pego, Hecho en falta algunos mapas y esquemas de las batallas y algún mapa politico de la Turquía antes y después de la primera guerra mundial.

[Trish]

Given that President Erdogan seems to think he's the reincarnation of Ataturk...

[Erdem Dogan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Atatürk'ü objektif olarak ele alan önemli bir eser.