What do you think?
Rate this book
Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination
Early in his career, Adolf Hitler took inspiration from Benito Mussolini, his senior colleague in fascism—this fact is widely known. But an equally important role model for Hitler and the Nazis has been almost entirely neglected: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey. Stefan Ihrig’s compelling presentation of this untold story promises to rewrite our understanding of the roots of Nazi ideology and strategy.
Hitler was deeply interested in Turkish affairs after 1919. He not only admired but also sought to imitate Atatürk’s radical construction of a new nation from the ashes of defeat in World War I. Hitler and the Nazis watched closely as Atatürk defied the Western powers to seize government, and they modeled the Munich Putsch to a large degree on Atatürk’s rebellion in Ankara. Hitler later remarked that in the political aftermath of the Great War, Atatürk was his master, he and Mussolini his students.
This was no fading fascination. As the Nazis struggled through the 1920s, Atatürk remained Hitler’s “star in the darkness,” his inspiration for remaking Germany along nationalist, secular, totalitarian, and ethnically exclusive lines. Nor did it escape Hitler’s notice how ruthlessly Turkish governments had dealt with Armenian and Greek minorities, whom influential Nazis directly compared with German Jews. The New Turkey, or at least those aspects of it that the Nazis chose to see, became a model for Hitler’s plans and dreams in the years leading up to the invasion of Poland.
Hitler was deeply interested in Turkish affairs after 1919. He not only admired but also sought to imitate Atatürk’s radical construction of a new nation from the ashes of defeat in World War I. Hitler and the Nazis watched closely as Atatürk defied the Western powers to seize government, and they modeled the Munich Putsch to a large degree on Atatürk’s rebellion in Ankara. Hitler later remarked that in the political aftermath of the Great War, Atatürk was his master, he and Mussolini his students.
This was no fading fascination. As the Nazis struggled through the 1920s, Atatürk remained Hitler’s “star in the darkness,” his inspiration for remaking Germany along nationalist, secular, totalitarian, and ethnically exclusive lines. Nor did it escape Hitler’s notice how ruthlessly Turkish governments had dealt with Armenian and Greek minorities, whom influential Nazis directly compared with German Jews. The New Turkey, or at least those aspects of it that the Nazis chose to see, became a model for Hitler’s plans and dreams in the years leading up to the invasion of Poland.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
19 people are currently reading
470 people want to read
About the author
Stefan Ihrig
9 books11 followersProfessor Stefan Ihrig received his BA degree in Law and Politics at the Queen Mary University in London, his MA degree in History, Turcology and Political Science at the Free University of Berlin and his PhD in History at the University of Cambridge. Professor Ihrig spent four years as a project assistant and researcher at the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research and has also spent four years as a Polonsky Fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. He has previously lectured at the Free University of Berlin and the Univesity of Regensburg. In 2016 the Weiss-Livnat International MA Program in Holocaust Studies had the pleasure of welcoming him to the faculty. He is also a professor in the Department of General History at the University of Haifa and at the Haifa Center of German and European Studies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
October 16, 2016
Μια πολύ σημαντική προσθήκη στην ιστορική βιβλιογραφία και κυρίως στα αίτια της δημιουργίας του τέρατος που δημιούργησε ο Χίτλερ. Ο θαυμασμός του Χίτλερ στο πρόσωπο του Κεμάλ, εν πολλοίς έπαιξε σημαντικό ρόλο στην πορεία του.
Εντυπωσιακό το γεγονός, πως από το 1919 έως το 1923, οι γερμανικές εφημερίδες (κυρίως οι ακροδεξιές) με περισσότερα από 2200 άρθρα, έπλεξαν το εγκώμιο της «αδελφής» Τουρκίας και φυσικά του Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ. Άλλο σημαντικό, ότι ο Χίτλερ κατέτασσε στην ίδια μοίρα με τους Εβραίους, τους Αρμένιους και τους Έλληνες, με άκρως υποτιμητικά λόγια.
Το βιβλίο συνοδεύεται από τεράστιο όγκο βιβλιογραφίας, που σημαίνει πόσο σοβαρή δουλειά έγινε.
Εντυπωσιακό το γεγονός, πως από το 1919 έως το 1923, οι γερμανικές εφημερίδες (κυρίως οι ακροδεξιές) με περισσότερα από 2200 άρθρα, έπλεξαν το εγκώμιο της «αδελφής» Τουρκίας και φυσικά του Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ. Άλλο σημαντικό, ότι ο Χίτλερ κατέτασσε στην ίδια μοίρα με τους Εβραίους, τους Αρμένιους και τους Έλληνες, με άκρως υποτιμητικά λόγια.
Το βιβλίο συνοδεύεται από τεράστιο όγκο βιβλιογραφίας, που σημαίνει πόσο σοβαρή δουλειά έγινε.
December 12, 2021
Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination is a book with a mission.
While Ihrig cannot and does not go as far as claiming that Kemalist Turkey was a fascist state, and although he explicitly states that his work does not prove that Atatürk was some sort of proto-Nazi, he draws so many parallels between Turkey and Germany and Hitler and Atatürk, it's easy to lose sight of what is historically accurate and confuse what Ihrig showcases as Nazi infatuation with Kemalists with ideological and societal intimacy between two countries.
Ihrig -no doubt deliberately- highlights the Nazi perceptions towards Turkey and Atatürk, focusing on certain time periods, events or concepts; while omitting whole facets of said events or concepts. There are so many repetitions of the same arguments that the book becomes quite tiring halfway around, and Ihrig seems to be trying to convince the reader rather than simply telling the historical story that he should be telling.
There are many things that Ihrig opts to just see and tell through the eyes of the Nazis without even trying to objectively examine through the Turkish perspective. He remains completely neutral and passive in some segments. While in some he takes the spotlight and tells a whole story by himself.
He brushes over many vital aspects of comparison between Kemalism and Nazism, which might have been natural because that isn't what this piece of work is set to tackle, but then again he hovers above the Armenian question for pages and pages which is just as irrelevant, trying to prove that Nazis were inspired by the Armenian genocide to commit the Holocaust. He seems to have gone on to write an entire book about this afterwards, too.
What he does basically argue is that Atatürk and Kemalism inspired Hitler more than fascism and Mussolini ever did and Nazis were obsessed with Turkey right to the end. He does successfully document the Nazi approach towards Turkey and his work might have been invaluable if he had focused on that with the historically right methodology but instead, he chooses to absurdly exaggerate Turkey's importance for Nazis while, as I said, omitting crucial information, even committing misinformation when he deems necessary.
For example, he writes in detail about German-Turkish relations in the 30's and paints a picture in which the Nazis are genuinely friendly towards Turkey and aside from a single paragraph he doesn't even write about the Nazis' economic policy towards the Middle East. So he makes it look like Germans carried no imperialistic intent and were just very much in love with Turkey. Whereas in reality, Turkey was an important economic market for Germany and the Turks were very irritated by the effect Germany had on their economy. When he doesn't go into detail about that, what is in fact German propaganda towards Turkey turns into some kind of fascist infatuation. He does this numerous times in the book.
He even claims that Hitler never intended to attack Turkey during WW2 which is flat-out incorrect. The German military made detailed plans for a potential attack on Turkey and there were at least three instances during the war that an operation against Turkey was a serious possibility.
In short, the book aims to draw similarities between Atatürk and Hitler and Turkey and Germany. Ihrig states -at least- twice that the book doesn't aim to prove that Atatürk was a proto-Nazi, but his lack of extensive research and the one-sidedness of his methodology ends up implying exactly that. He isn't objective and he is so keen on convincing the reader that the Armenian genocide was the root of all evil, I can't even call his work scientific in methodology. It's ideological to the letter, which is a shame because it does contain valuable information and documents.
While Ihrig cannot and does not go as far as claiming that Kemalist Turkey was a fascist state, and although he explicitly states that his work does not prove that Atatürk was some sort of proto-Nazi, he draws so many parallels between Turkey and Germany and Hitler and Atatürk, it's easy to lose sight of what is historically accurate and confuse what Ihrig showcases as Nazi infatuation with Kemalists with ideological and societal intimacy between two countries.
Ihrig -no doubt deliberately- highlights the Nazi perceptions towards Turkey and Atatürk, focusing on certain time periods, events or concepts; while omitting whole facets of said events or concepts. There are so many repetitions of the same arguments that the book becomes quite tiring halfway around, and Ihrig seems to be trying to convince the reader rather than simply telling the historical story that he should be telling.
There are many things that Ihrig opts to just see and tell through the eyes of the Nazis without even trying to objectively examine through the Turkish perspective. He remains completely neutral and passive in some segments. While in some he takes the spotlight and tells a whole story by himself.
He brushes over many vital aspects of comparison between Kemalism and Nazism, which might have been natural because that isn't what this piece of work is set to tackle, but then again he hovers above the Armenian question for pages and pages which is just as irrelevant, trying to prove that Nazis were inspired by the Armenian genocide to commit the Holocaust. He seems to have gone on to write an entire book about this afterwards, too.
What he does basically argue is that Atatürk and Kemalism inspired Hitler more than fascism and Mussolini ever did and Nazis were obsessed with Turkey right to the end. He does successfully document the Nazi approach towards Turkey and his work might have been invaluable if he had focused on that with the historically right methodology but instead, he chooses to absurdly exaggerate Turkey's importance for Nazis while, as I said, omitting crucial information, even committing misinformation when he deems necessary.
For example, he writes in detail about German-Turkish relations in the 30's and paints a picture in which the Nazis are genuinely friendly towards Turkey and aside from a single paragraph he doesn't even write about the Nazis' economic policy towards the Middle East. So he makes it look like Germans carried no imperialistic intent and were just very much in love with Turkey. Whereas in reality, Turkey was an important economic market for Germany and the Turks were very irritated by the effect Germany had on their economy. When he doesn't go into detail about that, what is in fact German propaganda towards Turkey turns into some kind of fascist infatuation. He does this numerous times in the book.
He even claims that Hitler never intended to attack Turkey during WW2 which is flat-out incorrect. The German military made detailed plans for a potential attack on Turkey and there were at least three instances during the war that an operation against Turkey was a serious possibility.
In short, the book aims to draw similarities between Atatürk and Hitler and Turkey and Germany. Ihrig states -at least- twice that the book doesn't aim to prove that Atatürk was a proto-Nazi, but his lack of extensive research and the one-sidedness of his methodology ends up implying exactly that. He isn't objective and he is so keen on convincing the reader that the Armenian genocide was the root of all evil, I can't even call his work scientific in methodology. It's ideological to the letter, which is a shame because it does contain valuable information and documents.
November 30, 2023
Whereas Mussolini's fascism is generally seen as main role model for Nazis, Ihrig demonstrates that Atatürk's Turkey was actually already before Italy seen as a country Germany should emulate, and continued to be admired until WW II. The history of this admiration is analyzed on the basis of the reporting in press, both generally right wing and specifically Nazi, and official documents.
Already before WW I the Young Türk Revolution was seen as a successful restoration of national glory in German right wing circles. The National Liberation Struggle with which Mustafa Kemal could force the Entente and Greece to revoke the Sèvres Treaty at Lausanne, was regarded by many German right-wingers including the early Nazis as a model for a successful resistance against the "Dikat von Versailles" and a cowardly and decadent political class.
After the failure of the beer hall coup, Nazis became more silent on Turkey as this would contradict their legalistic approach. After the Machtergreifung this changed again. As Ihrig shows the restoration of national power was not the only reason for this. Turkey was also praised as an example for the ethnic homogenisation of a society, after the Armenian genocide and the population exchange with Greece. Ihrig highlights that this stands in the tradition of the denigration of Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire by German right wingers before WW I and in it's aftermath.
Nazi enthusiasm for Kemalism was, however, not reciprocated by the Kemalists, which lead to a decline in positive reporting in Turkey during WW II.
Ihrig highlights correctly that much work has to be done on how the Third Reich was perceived in Turkey, not least in the army and the ruling class (racial theories are imho a pertinent example).
Ihrig does not deal with the fact that the French Radicals admired the Turkish Republic as well because it seemed to confirm the superiority og the laïcité of the Third Republic.
Already before WW I the Young Türk Revolution was seen as a successful restoration of national glory in German right wing circles. The National Liberation Struggle with which Mustafa Kemal could force the Entente and Greece to revoke the Sèvres Treaty at Lausanne, was regarded by many German right-wingers including the early Nazis as a model for a successful resistance against the "Dikat von Versailles" and a cowardly and decadent political class.
After the failure of the beer hall coup, Nazis became more silent on Turkey as this would contradict their legalistic approach. After the Machtergreifung this changed again. As Ihrig shows the restoration of national power was not the only reason for this. Turkey was also praised as an example for the ethnic homogenisation of a society, after the Armenian genocide and the population exchange with Greece. Ihrig highlights that this stands in the tradition of the denigration of Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire by German right wingers before WW I and in it's aftermath.
Nazi enthusiasm for Kemalism was, however, not reciprocated by the Kemalists, which lead to a decline in positive reporting in Turkey during WW II.
Ihrig highlights correctly that much work has to be done on how the Third Reich was perceived in Turkey, not least in the army and the ruling class (racial theories are imho a pertinent example).
Ihrig does not deal with the fact that the French Radicals admired the Turkish Republic as well because it seemed to confirm the superiority og the laïcité of the Third Republic.
October 3, 2015
Conventional wisdom about the Nazis has long suggested that they were inspired by the example of Italian fascism. However, as Ihrig argues here, there was long a more pertinent example for National Socialism in the form of the Kemalists in Turkey, and specifically in the personage of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The intention of this book, as the author makes clear, is not to claim that the Kemalists had fascist tendencies themselves (although that is a point worthy of arguing at least), but rather that they were idealized by the Nazis and used as a "role model" for their own eventual newly created society.
This point is made by mining the direct sources, German newspaper articles, Nazi officials public statements and diaries from the time; and frankly it appears to be quite well substantiated. At the time when both Germany and Turkey lay defeated and humiliated, suddenly Ataturk rose up and waged the Turkish War of Independence, effectively tearing up the Treaty of Sevres, the "Turkish Versailles", and through force of sheer will (as the Nazis saw it) imposing new terms on the Entente as well as upon the newly formed Turkish Republic. The Nazis were deeply impressed by this, and created their own cult of personality around Ataturk himself, as the "Fuhrer" of Turkey. The violent, sudden transformation of the Ottoman Empire to the modern, secular Republic of Turkey was also considered with great regard by the Nazis, who imputed their own beliefs about the necessity of racial purity on the newly formed state, expunged as it as of many of its former Greek and Armenian subjects.
An interesting point, implicitly made throughout and briefly discussed explicitly at the end, is how disingenuous the extent to which German Turkophilia seems to us now. The Turks, despite being viewed in racist terms by much of Europe, and despite the Nazis own virulent racism, seemingly got a pass from them, seemingly out of sheer admiration for the Kemalists accomplishments. Furthermore, given how strong and deep this admiration for the Turks was in the interwar (and during the immediate pre-WWI war period of the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm I), later negative views of Turkish guestworkers in Germany, and of Turkey generally in the post-WW2 period, seem incongruous. What it suggests is a truth, applicable in a variety of contexts, that our views of the other populations are rarely as immutable and timeless as we tend to believe at any given moment. Often, they change with fluctuations in political power, wealth and influence, and are often in fact so weakly rooted that as they change their prior iterations can be almost completely forgotten.
In anycase, this is a fine book for anyone with an interest in National Socialism. My own interest in it was driven by a desire to see how the rapid changes in Turkish society, the same "blank slate" event which arguably was also experienced in places like China and the USSR, was perceived from the outside. While the book is deeply researched and compelling it is also unapologetically academic in nature and is not necessarily a fun read or of general interest.
This point is made by mining the direct sources, German newspaper articles, Nazi officials public statements and diaries from the time; and frankly it appears to be quite well substantiated. At the time when both Germany and Turkey lay defeated and humiliated, suddenly Ataturk rose up and waged the Turkish War of Independence, effectively tearing up the Treaty of Sevres, the "Turkish Versailles", and through force of sheer will (as the Nazis saw it) imposing new terms on the Entente as well as upon the newly formed Turkish Republic. The Nazis were deeply impressed by this, and created their own cult of personality around Ataturk himself, as the "Fuhrer" of Turkey. The violent, sudden transformation of the Ottoman Empire to the modern, secular Republic of Turkey was also considered with great regard by the Nazis, who imputed their own beliefs about the necessity of racial purity on the newly formed state, expunged as it as of many of its former Greek and Armenian subjects.
An interesting point, implicitly made throughout and briefly discussed explicitly at the end, is how disingenuous the extent to which German Turkophilia seems to us now. The Turks, despite being viewed in racist terms by much of Europe, and despite the Nazis own virulent racism, seemingly got a pass from them, seemingly out of sheer admiration for the Kemalists accomplishments. Furthermore, given how strong and deep this admiration for the Turks was in the interwar (and during the immediate pre-WWI war period of the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm I), later negative views of Turkish guestworkers in Germany, and of Turkey generally in the post-WW2 period, seem incongruous. What it suggests is a truth, applicable in a variety of contexts, that our views of the other populations are rarely as immutable and timeless as we tend to believe at any given moment. Often, they change with fluctuations in political power, wealth and influence, and are often in fact so weakly rooted that as they change their prior iterations can be almost completely forgotten.
In anycase, this is a fine book for anyone with an interest in National Socialism. My own interest in it was driven by a desire to see how the rapid changes in Turkish society, the same "blank slate" event which arguably was also experienced in places like China and the USSR, was perceived from the outside. While the book is deeply researched and compelling it is also unapologetically academic in nature and is not necessarily a fun read or of general interest.
March 4, 2019
Doğru düşünceleriniz yanlış insanlara ilham olursa bundan ne kadar sorumlusunuzdur?
February 11, 2018
This was a really interesting book. Even towards the end when it challenged the notion that Germans always had a negative image of the Turks.
In fact it is astounding how an image of a people can change to drastically and can be forgotten so almost completely. Back before the Second World War there were trains to Turkey with the term Enverland written on them in chalk, Enver Bay cigarettes sold in Germany, a bridge named after Enver Pascha in Berlin (it was destroyed in 1945) he must have been quite a celebrity, even called the Turkish Bismarck. Astounding how today almost nothing of it is known.
In fact the almost worship of him and how he was used as an example of how only a strong leader can save you, when you read this you can just see democracy in Germany being in deep trouble back then.
What was written in the Heimatland paper about how Turkey was reawaken due to Greek attacks reminded me of how Hitler allegedly said once that if the Jews did not exist they would have to invent them. Aka that they wanted national rebirth by having an enemy.
Later on what was written here does indeed sound like later Nazi tactics of playing va banque and always considering the vengeance of the enemy. The "for survival" was even there too.
In fact considering how much Neo-Nazis would rail against Turks and how much conservatives are talking about Turks being unable to integrate into German society today, it is really ironic that Turkey and Atatürk was once the role model for the early National Socialist movement as well as other right and far right groups in Germany. Apparently Hitler not only mentioned Atatürk more frequently than Mussolini in those early days but Turkey was one of his choices for immigration and even Himmler apparently was interested in turkey and "Turkish lessons." Talk about irony. Hitler may have attributed even his "collaboration" with the Soviet Union to copying Atatürk.
In fact, the further I read the better the book got. Apparently a circular from April 1936 by the NSDAP stated that Turks are Aryans. And Atatürk so famous that despite being just a day after Kristallnacht when the Nazis tried to downplay the violence of that night, Atatürk's death (which was also mourned by Goebbels in his diary) managed to push itself on the front page and in the following days overshadowed the anniversary of the Hitler Putsch.
Furthermore all this talk about how neither democracy nor the masses can save a country, only a strong leader can, as Atatürk had proven sounds very familiar. Also lots of other "Turkish lessons" sound familiar when you know the later times, especially this "The leader knows better" or "you have to make great sacrifices to save your country"... this shows how insidious it really was and how wrong modern perception of it.
And it wasn’t just Hitler who praised him, like when he stated in 1942 that Atatürk had secured his power through his People's Party and that it is similar in Italy. In fact it is the other big name of the European axis powers who had similar statements. In 1943 Mussolini stated that Of all the so-called 'totalitarian' states that have been founded since 1918, the Turkish State seems to be the most solidly established. In Turkey, there is only one party, the People's Party, the leader of which is the president of the Republic.
Don’t get me wrong here, as any historian will tell you Atatürk was not the only “Führer” figure used by the Third Reich to support their Führer state. They utilized a whole battalion from expected an often cited characters like Frederick the Great and Mussolini, even Roosevelt for a time. But because Atatürk's story already had a happy ending, perceived parallels and was contemporary, it was qualitatively superior to others.
Apart from this though, this book also offered something else: Apparently the Armenian Genocide involved Germany very directly, as it was alleged by the Entente that Germany not only knew about it but had been its chief instigator. No idea why that was ever taken to have any credit, because what would the German command have had to gain from it? Also funny that the Turkish powers don’t seem to jump on that bandwagon.
I would say the book makes a good case regarding the topic of Hitler's knowledge of the Armenian genocide. Considering his own and the media attention on Turkish history, as well as German media attention on it as well as during the trial for the assassination of Enver Pasha, it seems highly unlikely that Hitler would not have known of it. So far we do not know for sure as his infamous Armenian quote is of dubious source.
But in either way, he was knowledgeable of the Armenians and mentioned them like when he was complaining about the German proclivity to sympathize with downtrodden people (here his despised Greeks and Armenians), him likening Armenians and Greeks to Jews (saying they have similar traits), all the looking to Turkey as a model (the way the right understood it), defending the Armenian genocide etc.etc. All of this makes this an even more interesting book than it already was. And very important as the image you get of Hitler from the popular media is quite distorted. Not only would it not allow for him to ever consider someone like Atatürk (or Genghis Khan for that matter) as a role model but you would never guess that under him a member of the third largest fascist movement in Europe was thrown into a concentration camp because Hitler preferred to ally with Antonescu because it served his war efforts better.
And don’t think Turkish German relations were just confined to this worship. In fact they were going up and down constantly during WWII. And in 1941 the Turkish prime minister apparently advised the Germans that what they needed to do to win this war was to kill half of the Russian nation. And remember, it was the German war aim to carve their territory out of the Soviet Union and they did plan to severely reduce the Slavic population.
As a matter of fact, if the Turkish leadership had acted just a tad differently history might have turned out quite differently as Hitler was against military actions against Turkey and bring genuinely interested in a friendship with them. Sadly until the archives in Turkey are opened we won't get much information on what was the Turkish opinions. What we do know is that in the Battle for Berlin Turkic people fought on both sides.
I am not going to pretend that everyone would like this book. In fact I am sure that there are many who would find its premise quite offensive for linking Turks with Nazis or even simply suggesting that Nazism didn’t just spring from the earth fully formed with no outside influences or predecessors.
But in either way, this is an important book as it deals with parts of Nazism’s history that has been often ignored and downplayed and as any student of the Romani Holocaust knows, this has happened before, so there is no reason to think it did not happen in other cases.
In fact it is astounding how an image of a people can change to drastically and can be forgotten so almost completely. Back before the Second World War there were trains to Turkey with the term Enverland written on them in chalk, Enver Bay cigarettes sold in Germany, a bridge named after Enver Pascha in Berlin (it was destroyed in 1945) he must have been quite a celebrity, even called the Turkish Bismarck. Astounding how today almost nothing of it is known.
In fact the almost worship of him and how he was used as an example of how only a strong leader can save you, when you read this you can just see democracy in Germany being in deep trouble back then.
What was written in the Heimatland paper about how Turkey was reawaken due to Greek attacks reminded me of how Hitler allegedly said once that if the Jews did not exist they would have to invent them. Aka that they wanted national rebirth by having an enemy.
Later on what was written here does indeed sound like later Nazi tactics of playing va banque and always considering the vengeance of the enemy. The "for survival" was even there too.
In fact considering how much Neo-Nazis would rail against Turks and how much conservatives are talking about Turks being unable to integrate into German society today, it is really ironic that Turkey and Atatürk was once the role model for the early National Socialist movement as well as other right and far right groups in Germany. Apparently Hitler not only mentioned Atatürk more frequently than Mussolini in those early days but Turkey was one of his choices for immigration and even Himmler apparently was interested in turkey and "Turkish lessons." Talk about irony. Hitler may have attributed even his "collaboration" with the Soviet Union to copying Atatürk.
In fact, the further I read the better the book got. Apparently a circular from April 1936 by the NSDAP stated that Turks are Aryans. And Atatürk so famous that despite being just a day after Kristallnacht when the Nazis tried to downplay the violence of that night, Atatürk's death (which was also mourned by Goebbels in his diary) managed to push itself on the front page and in the following days overshadowed the anniversary of the Hitler Putsch.
Furthermore all this talk about how neither democracy nor the masses can save a country, only a strong leader can, as Atatürk had proven sounds very familiar. Also lots of other "Turkish lessons" sound familiar when you know the later times, especially this "The leader knows better" or "you have to make great sacrifices to save your country"... this shows how insidious it really was and how wrong modern perception of it.
And it wasn’t just Hitler who praised him, like when he stated in 1942 that Atatürk had secured his power through his People's Party and that it is similar in Italy. In fact it is the other big name of the European axis powers who had similar statements. In 1943 Mussolini stated that Of all the so-called 'totalitarian' states that have been founded since 1918, the Turkish State seems to be the most solidly established. In Turkey, there is only one party, the People's Party, the leader of which is the president of the Republic.
Don’t get me wrong here, as any historian will tell you Atatürk was not the only “Führer” figure used by the Third Reich to support their Führer state. They utilized a whole battalion from expected an often cited characters like Frederick the Great and Mussolini, even Roosevelt for a time. But because Atatürk's story already had a happy ending, perceived parallels and was contemporary, it was qualitatively superior to others.
Apart from this though, this book also offered something else: Apparently the Armenian Genocide involved Germany very directly, as it was alleged by the Entente that Germany not only knew about it but had been its chief instigator. No idea why that was ever taken to have any credit, because what would the German command have had to gain from it? Also funny that the Turkish powers don’t seem to jump on that bandwagon.
I would say the book makes a good case regarding the topic of Hitler's knowledge of the Armenian genocide. Considering his own and the media attention on Turkish history, as well as German media attention on it as well as during the trial for the assassination of Enver Pasha, it seems highly unlikely that Hitler would not have known of it. So far we do not know for sure as his infamous Armenian quote is of dubious source.
But in either way, he was knowledgeable of the Armenians and mentioned them like when he was complaining about the German proclivity to sympathize with downtrodden people (here his despised Greeks and Armenians), him likening Armenians and Greeks to Jews (saying they have similar traits), all the looking to Turkey as a model (the way the right understood it), defending the Armenian genocide etc.etc. All of this makes this an even more interesting book than it already was. And very important as the image you get of Hitler from the popular media is quite distorted. Not only would it not allow for him to ever consider someone like Atatürk (or Genghis Khan for that matter) as a role model but you would never guess that under him a member of the third largest fascist movement in Europe was thrown into a concentration camp because Hitler preferred to ally with Antonescu because it served his war efforts better.
And don’t think Turkish German relations were just confined to this worship. In fact they were going up and down constantly during WWII. And in 1941 the Turkish prime minister apparently advised the Germans that what they needed to do to win this war was to kill half of the Russian nation. And remember, it was the German war aim to carve their territory out of the Soviet Union and they did plan to severely reduce the Slavic population.
As a matter of fact, if the Turkish leadership had acted just a tad differently history might have turned out quite differently as Hitler was against military actions against Turkey and bring genuinely interested in a friendship with them. Sadly until the archives in Turkey are opened we won't get much information on what was the Turkish opinions. What we do know is that in the Battle for Berlin Turkic people fought on both sides.
I am not going to pretend that everyone would like this book. In fact I am sure that there are many who would find its premise quite offensive for linking Turks with Nazis or even simply suggesting that Nazism didn’t just spring from the earth fully formed with no outside influences or predecessors.
But in either way, this is an important book as it deals with parts of Nazism’s history that has been often ignored and downplayed and as any student of the Romani Holocaust knows, this has happened before, so there is no reason to think it did not happen in other cases.
May 11, 2018
I admit, as an Ataturk fan who reads pretty much every book in English about him, this was the one I was most reluctant to get to. It is very common place to see a title like that on a work that tries to make the argument that 'Hitler ate sugar' or some other moralistic conflation. But the word 'imagination' in the title is important here, and like so many things in the Nazi imagination, their view of the Turkish Republic was largely a self-serving construct.
What this book does do is show how the surprising fight back and de facto rollback of the post Versailles (or in this case Sevres) by Turkey against the Entente was as inspiring to fascist revanchist movements in Europe as it (more famously) was to anticolonial activists in the Asian possessions of European empires. The rise of a hyper-modernist state from the ruins of the decrepit Ottoman heartland was further vindication that this was the path for Mussolini and Hitler to follow. In so doing , however, their view of what was going in Turkey began to diverge from reality in more ways than one-ways that would become even more convoluted as the emerging Axis and Turkey itself had to navigate increasingly treacherous diplomatic waters.
What this book does do is show how the surprising fight back and de facto rollback of the post Versailles (or in this case Sevres) by Turkey against the Entente was as inspiring to fascist revanchist movements in Europe as it (more famously) was to anticolonial activists in the Asian possessions of European empires. The rise of a hyper-modernist state from the ruins of the decrepit Ottoman heartland was further vindication that this was the path for Mussolini and Hitler to follow. In so doing , however, their view of what was going in Turkey began to diverge from reality in more ways than one-ways that would become even more convoluted as the emerging Axis and Turkey itself had to navigate increasingly treacherous diplomatic waters.
February 7, 2017
It's fascinating how the Turkish state discourse on the War of Independence overlaps the Nazis' interpretation of the events at the time. The justification of the ethnic cleansing of minorities with the "stab-in-the-back myth" (still popularly used in Turkey), the importance of following the one true perfect leader who is the father of the nation.. Turkish history textbooks could have been written by the Nazis themselves.
November 27, 2024
Konusu ilgi çekici ama ben hayatımda bu kadar kötü bir çeviri görmedim. Google translate çevirse bundan kötüsünü yapamazmış. Bu kitap basıma girmeden önce kimse okumuş mu çok merak ediyorum. İngilizce versiyonundan devam edeceğiz artık
December 12, 2025
Ataturk and his new Turkey were great inspirations for the post-WW1 political zeitgeist of the German right-wing. The Turkish War of Independence was almost like a nationalist dream come true, and the reawakened militarist spirit and will to power were admired by many in the pre-NSDAP days of Germany, deep in the feminized rule of the Weimar Republic guided by the passivist historians of the day. Germany and Turkey were in a very similar position before and after WW1, both countries ruined by their weak governments - and Ataturk's success was a guiding light in many ways, in Hitler's own words, Ataturk was his "star in the darkness". The right-wingers of the day repeatedly asked for a Führer of the same caliber, desired an "Ankara government in Munich." All of these ideas were published in the press hundreds of times, some are speculated to be written by Hitler himself anonymously, and many others were written by future leading men of the NSDAP.
Seen from this perspective, Atatürk and his will can be seen as the utmost manifestation of the Nietzschean spirit, a great man moved by the gods, the last of the Hellenes. He was the ultimate proof that not masses, but great men moved history - and real solutions required action, beyond any doctrines. The Turkish spirit was revitalized thanks to the war, the nation entered the war as Ottomans, and left it as Turks. Many other parallels were drawn from ancient history, the decadent Istanbul government was seen as Athens, and the warrior-spirited Ankara government was seen as Sparta. These were also done by these writers to break the orientalist framing put on the Ottomans, and reframe Turks closer to themselves.
But the Nazi admiration for Ataturk reached its peak after the war of independence, when the new Turkey was being built. It was another nationalist dream come true, the whole country reforming itself under the will of a superior leader. A beacon of volkisch light from the east (Ex Oriente Lux). Heinrich Himmler even planned to emigrate to Ataturk's new Turkey as a young man, and live as a miller in Western Anatolia. This dream was realized by another german officer Hans Tröbst, who fought under Atatürk during WW1.
At the end of the interwar period, Hitler would posit that Ataturk was the only "perfect Führer" without mistakes, and his new one-party republic was the strongest among its volkisch ideological cousins (Italy, Germany, Romania). He even said he was their great teacher, that Mussolini was his first pupil and he himself the second. Hitler ordered many busts of Ataturk made, mostly by his sculptor-in-chief Joseph Thorak, and one such bust was one of his most beloved belongings. Thorak also built many of of the great statues dedicated to Ataturk's victory in our cities today.
Some writings from the period showed him as a chosen man, almost a demigod, moved purely by the ancient spirits that moved his Turkish ancestors. From this perspective, his secular reforms were also celebrated as a return to their pagan roots, and tossing the forced Arabo-Perso-Islamic culture which they were under during the Ottoman rule.
All of these are important to understand Ataturk as a völkisch Führer, not merely as a progressive "Man of Enlightenment". The western liberal/radical framing of Ataturk can only see him under such light, but as a soldier and a leader, he was much more.
The book itself is a good historical effort with indisputable sources, but might be accused of cherry-picking in an effort of historical revision (the book clearly does have a biased ideological mission to frame Atatürk as a proto-fascist). I would argue that historians have mostly shown Ataturk under a single liberal/radical framing, as is the norm after WW2. This book is a good effort to see him under a different light.
Seen from this perspective, Atatürk and his will can be seen as the utmost manifestation of the Nietzschean spirit, a great man moved by the gods, the last of the Hellenes. He was the ultimate proof that not masses, but great men moved history - and real solutions required action, beyond any doctrines. The Turkish spirit was revitalized thanks to the war, the nation entered the war as Ottomans, and left it as Turks. Many other parallels were drawn from ancient history, the decadent Istanbul government was seen as Athens, and the warrior-spirited Ankara government was seen as Sparta. These were also done by these writers to break the orientalist framing put on the Ottomans, and reframe Turks closer to themselves.
But the Nazi admiration for Ataturk reached its peak after the war of independence, when the new Turkey was being built. It was another nationalist dream come true, the whole country reforming itself under the will of a superior leader. A beacon of volkisch light from the east (Ex Oriente Lux). Heinrich Himmler even planned to emigrate to Ataturk's new Turkey as a young man, and live as a miller in Western Anatolia. This dream was realized by another german officer Hans Tröbst, who fought under Atatürk during WW1.
At the end of the interwar period, Hitler would posit that Ataturk was the only "perfect Führer" without mistakes, and his new one-party republic was the strongest among its volkisch ideological cousins (Italy, Germany, Romania). He even said he was their great teacher, that Mussolini was his first pupil and he himself the second. Hitler ordered many busts of Ataturk made, mostly by his sculptor-in-chief Joseph Thorak, and one such bust was one of his most beloved belongings. Thorak also built many of of the great statues dedicated to Ataturk's victory in our cities today.
Some writings from the period showed him as a chosen man, almost a demigod, moved purely by the ancient spirits that moved his Turkish ancestors. From this perspective, his secular reforms were also celebrated as a return to their pagan roots, and tossing the forced Arabo-Perso-Islamic culture which they were under during the Ottoman rule.
All of these are important to understand Ataturk as a völkisch Führer, not merely as a progressive "Man of Enlightenment". The western liberal/radical framing of Ataturk can only see him under such light, but as a soldier and a leader, he was much more.
The book itself is a good historical effort with indisputable sources, but might be accused of cherry-picking in an effort of historical revision (the book clearly does have a biased ideological mission to frame Atatürk as a proto-fascist). I would argue that historians have mostly shown Ataturk under a single liberal/radical framing, as is the norm after WW2. This book is a good effort to see him under a different light.
May 21, 2019
Please give a helpful vote to my Amazon review - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
For me, reading this book was like climbing a tremendous mountain peak advertised as never climbed before only to find a picnic basket at the top of the peak. Based on a few offhand comments I had read in other texts, including several first hand reports that in 1919, Hitler regularly cited Kemal Pasha (in 1934, he would become "Ataturk," when Turks were required by law to adopt family names) in his speeches, I had been formulating the idea that Turkish nationalism and post WW I history was far more important to Hitler and the Nazis than is recognized by the conventional wisdom.
Turkey's function as a role model for Hitler makes sense. Turkey and Germany were allies during World War I. Germany had extensive ties with Turkey, particularly with respect to its military. The peace that the victorious Entente proposed to impose on Turkey was like that imposed on Germany, intended to carve up the country and reduce its power to second-tier status (or below that in the case of Turkey.) From a position of weakness, Turkey amazingly preserved its national integrity through military action and an ideology of national will and determination.
The author cites chapter and verse in German newspapers and Hitler's speeches that call Ataturk a model for Germany, particularly vis a vis nationalism and national will. My problem was that I couldn't conceptualize that Germany would be interested in Turkey as a model (based on current postures of these countries.)
Nothing succeeds like success. Turkey was successful. It preserved itself as a nation. It preserved is borders. It came out of its "war of independence" more united in that it eliminated Christian Greek and Christian Armenian ethnic communities that had lived in the country since prior to the birth of Christ. While moderns may claim that "our diversity is our strength" far more often diversity is a source of weakness in that it can promote fractures between those communities that can lead to strife and civil war.
Turkey overcame diversity by the tried and true practice of ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Greek population was traded for Muslims, while Armenians were slaughtered and sent into their diaspora.
The Germans knew about the Armenian Genocide. There were German military advisors in regions near to the Genocide who were informed about the Genocide. Some of these advisors were important in the German military. They did not express any qualms about the Genocide. In fact, it seems that they approved of the Genocide. (This kind of cold-blooded approach to resolving military-political problems was reflected in the German massacre of civilians in Belgian. See Rehearsals.)
Interestingly, Hitler and the Nazis viewed Armenians as worse than Jews in terms of their mercantilism. Nazis ranked Turks as a master race akin to the Germans, whereas the Indo-European Armenians were considered akin to the Jews as "parasites." The Nazis approved of Turkey's ethnic cleansing.
What that means to me is that while deportation was the first option they had in mind - modeled on the exchange of Greeks for Turks - mass murder was in the cards from the beginning.
On the other hand, the famous statement ascribed to Hitler about "who today remembers the Armenians?" seems to be more controversial than I thought:
"There is still an ongoing debate about the Armenian Genocide as well as about Hitler’s alleged exclamation, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”14 There is no point debating here whether an Armenian Genocide actually took place, but it is interesting to note that the Hitler quote is used in this context both to either affirm or deny that there had been a genocide.15 There is another quote from Hitler, referring to the “extermination of the Armenians,” yet both Hitler quotes stem from highly disputed sources.16 The provenance of these quotes has often been an obstruction to understanding the paramount influence this genocide must have exerted upon the Nazis. But in any case, one does not need either of them to show that the Nazis were influenced by the Armenian Genocide. Indeed, to ask whether the Nazis knew about the Armenian Genocide is altogether the wrong way to tackle this topic; there is no reason to assume that they did not know about it, much less that the Germans had forgotten about it by 1933 or 1939.17 Because as much as the Nazis grew up with Turkey and the Turkish War of Independence, they also grew up with the Armenian Genocide."
Author Stefan Ihrig backs up all of his points in detail. He demonstrates that Turkey, its "war of independence" and the strategies it was employing were of interest to many Germans, particularly those on the Volkisch Right.
Ihrig offers a key insight into the strategy of the Beerhall Putsch. I had always assumed that the idea was to take power in Munich and then march to Berlin in the manner of Mussolini's March on Rome. Ihrig explains that the debate prior to the attempted coup focused on the "Ankara Strategy." This strategy referred to Ataturk's movement of the capitol from Constantinople to Ankara as a way of relocating and re-establishing a national power base. Similarly, according to Ihrig, the Volkisch Right's idea was to turn Munich into Germany's Ankara, moving the center of power out of Berlin. This, frankly, makes more sense of the putsch than the alternative.
All in all, this was a captivating, well-documented book on a topic of surprising interest.
After reading this book, I was put in mind of the effort by Turks at the close of the 20th Century to have Ataturk named the "Man of the Century." I thought that was silly at the time. Now, with a certain amount of tongue in cheek, I'm not so sure.
For me, reading this book was like climbing a tremendous mountain peak advertised as never climbed before only to find a picnic basket at the top of the peak. Based on a few offhand comments I had read in other texts, including several first hand reports that in 1919, Hitler regularly cited Kemal Pasha (in 1934, he would become "Ataturk," when Turks were required by law to adopt family names) in his speeches, I had been formulating the idea that Turkish nationalism and post WW I history was far more important to Hitler and the Nazis than is recognized by the conventional wisdom.
Turkey's function as a role model for Hitler makes sense. Turkey and Germany were allies during World War I. Germany had extensive ties with Turkey, particularly with respect to its military. The peace that the victorious Entente proposed to impose on Turkey was like that imposed on Germany, intended to carve up the country and reduce its power to second-tier status (or below that in the case of Turkey.) From a position of weakness, Turkey amazingly preserved its national integrity through military action and an ideology of national will and determination.
The author cites chapter and verse in German newspapers and Hitler's speeches that call Ataturk a model for Germany, particularly vis a vis nationalism and national will. My problem was that I couldn't conceptualize that Germany would be interested in Turkey as a model (based on current postures of these countries.)
Nothing succeeds like success. Turkey was successful. It preserved itself as a nation. It preserved is borders. It came out of its "war of independence" more united in that it eliminated Christian Greek and Christian Armenian ethnic communities that had lived in the country since prior to the birth of Christ. While moderns may claim that "our diversity is our strength" far more often diversity is a source of weakness in that it can promote fractures between those communities that can lead to strife and civil war.
Turkey overcame diversity by the tried and true practice of ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Greek population was traded for Muslims, while Armenians were slaughtered and sent into their diaspora.
The Germans knew about the Armenian Genocide. There were German military advisors in regions near to the Genocide who were informed about the Genocide. Some of these advisors were important in the German military. They did not express any qualms about the Genocide. In fact, it seems that they approved of the Genocide. (This kind of cold-blooded approach to resolving military-political problems was reflected in the German massacre of civilians in Belgian. See Rehearsals.)
Interestingly, Hitler and the Nazis viewed Armenians as worse than Jews in terms of their mercantilism. Nazis ranked Turks as a master race akin to the Germans, whereas the Indo-European Armenians were considered akin to the Jews as "parasites." The Nazis approved of Turkey's ethnic cleansing.
What that means to me is that while deportation was the first option they had in mind - modeled on the exchange of Greeks for Turks - mass murder was in the cards from the beginning.
On the other hand, the famous statement ascribed to Hitler about "who today remembers the Armenians?" seems to be more controversial than I thought:
"There is still an ongoing debate about the Armenian Genocide as well as about Hitler’s alleged exclamation, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”14 There is no point debating here whether an Armenian Genocide actually took place, but it is interesting to note that the Hitler quote is used in this context both to either affirm or deny that there had been a genocide.15 There is another quote from Hitler, referring to the “extermination of the Armenians,” yet both Hitler quotes stem from highly disputed sources.16 The provenance of these quotes has often been an obstruction to understanding the paramount influence this genocide must have exerted upon the Nazis. But in any case, one does not need either of them to show that the Nazis were influenced by the Armenian Genocide. Indeed, to ask whether the Nazis knew about the Armenian Genocide is altogether the wrong way to tackle this topic; there is no reason to assume that they did not know about it, much less that the Germans had forgotten about it by 1933 or 1939.17 Because as much as the Nazis grew up with Turkey and the Turkish War of Independence, they also grew up with the Armenian Genocide."
Author Stefan Ihrig backs up all of his points in detail. He demonstrates that Turkey, its "war of independence" and the strategies it was employing were of interest to many Germans, particularly those on the Volkisch Right.
Ihrig offers a key insight into the strategy of the Beerhall Putsch. I had always assumed that the idea was to take power in Munich and then march to Berlin in the manner of Mussolini's March on Rome. Ihrig explains that the debate prior to the attempted coup focused on the "Ankara Strategy." This strategy referred to Ataturk's movement of the capitol from Constantinople to Ankara as a way of relocating and re-establishing a national power base. Similarly, according to Ihrig, the Volkisch Right's idea was to turn Munich into Germany's Ankara, moving the center of power out of Berlin. This, frankly, makes more sense of the putsch than the alternative.
All in all, this was a captivating, well-documented book on a topic of surprising interest.
After reading this book, I was put in mind of the effort by Turks at the close of the 20th Century to have Ataturk named the "Man of the Century." I thought that was silly at the time. Now, with a certain amount of tongue in cheek, I'm not so sure.
July 21, 2017
Very important and rare facts
Even as a well read history buff Turk reading this book thought me some crucial details about our own history especially the unspoken WW2 years
Even as a well read history buff Turk reading this book thought me some crucial details about our own history especially the unspoken WW2 years
December 11, 2025
Rigorous, deeply researched, and refreshingly unsentimental.
This book dismantles the lazy assumption that Fascism or National Socialism were closed, monolithic ideologies bound to a single ethnic or cultural lineage. The archival work here is massive. The sources are not merely abundant; they are used with discipline and restraint, allowing the historical actors to indict themselves in their own words.
The most striking revelation is the obsessive and sustained fascination the Nazi leadership had with Atatürk. From 1922 through to 1945, figures such as Goebbels and Hitler himself returned again and again to the Turkish example. This was not casual admiration. It was studied, debated, and internalised. Hitler did not see himself merely as another Mussolini; rather, he consciously positioned himself as a student of Atatürk, of his revolution, his ruthlessness, and his ability to refashion a defeated nation into a disciplined modern state. After all, the Germans and Turks were comrades-in-arms in WW1. The National Socialist movement used Kemalism as a mirror to fashion itself, and as Hitler said of Atatürk, he was the 'shining star'
What emerges is an intellectually honest picture: the circulation of authoritarian ideas across borders, cultures, and ethnic lines, driven not by race alone but by a shared fixation on power, rebirth, and historical destiny.
This book shows that Turkey and Atatürk were always in Hitler's mind, even during the latter parts of the war, and Kemalist Turkey would always have a part to play in the imagined Post-war Nazi Europe.
The last chapter shows that even when Turkey declared war on Germany in the latter part of WW2, the German press never criticised Turkey for it, but understood the diplomatic dilemma Turkey was in.
This book dismantles the lazy assumption that Fascism or National Socialism were closed, monolithic ideologies bound to a single ethnic or cultural lineage. The archival work here is massive. The sources are not merely abundant; they are used with discipline and restraint, allowing the historical actors to indict themselves in their own words.
The most striking revelation is the obsessive and sustained fascination the Nazi leadership had with Atatürk. From 1922 through to 1945, figures such as Goebbels and Hitler himself returned again and again to the Turkish example. This was not casual admiration. It was studied, debated, and internalised. Hitler did not see himself merely as another Mussolini; rather, he consciously positioned himself as a student of Atatürk, of his revolution, his ruthlessness, and his ability to refashion a defeated nation into a disciplined modern state. After all, the Germans and Turks were comrades-in-arms in WW1. The National Socialist movement used Kemalism as a mirror to fashion itself, and as Hitler said of Atatürk, he was the 'shining star'
What emerges is an intellectually honest picture: the circulation of authoritarian ideas across borders, cultures, and ethnic lines, driven not by race alone but by a shared fixation on power, rebirth, and historical destiny.
This book shows that Turkey and Atatürk were always in Hitler's mind, even during the latter parts of the war, and Kemalist Turkey would always have a part to play in the imagined Post-war Nazi Europe.
The last chapter shows that even when Turkey declared war on Germany in the latter part of WW2, the German press never criticised Turkey for it, but understood the diplomatic dilemma Turkey was in.
January 5, 2022
A very disoriented and agent-provocateur book indeed. It is Okay that the author made great job as collecting data from that period’s german press on Turkey politics. But the interpretation of this data is illogical.
First the independence war of turkey is some kinda matter of to be or not be. But the Nazi’s attempts are generally concentrated on being able to take more share of modern imperialism. It is sure that The Versailles Treaty was a very hard act to follow as a nation who aspires to gain more and more power to rule its hinterland. But at the end Germany was still alive after WWI, but Turkey was dead.
Second, Ottoman Empire was divided many parts in 19th and 20th century and tried to find a way to create a new identity due to the mainstream ideology, nationalism. That was just the only way to generate a mortar to be able to collect too many differentiated social components. But germany had gathered into one 1870s. The problem for germany was not about unity but how to reinforce this structure as a global force albeit the disadvantages of its geograpic location and surrounded situation.
Especially the effort of the author to bridge the armenian relocation and the holocaust is desperate at all, because armenian relocation is a politics of German-Ottoman general staff which is totally irrelevant of Atatürk’s tenure as a ‘führer’. And armenians relations with russian empire and movements on taking-over the population dominance over the Turk-kurd presence were very well known stuffs. But Nazi’s final solution is something about the economic and social disturbance from Jews coming from 1840s.
As a result, for me, Nazis had taken the useful cornerstones from the resurrection of Turkey which they could use during they were paving the roads going through their fatal fascism, yet turkish revolution is more than the content of this book including.
However it is very important to learn that some countries were deeply interested in Turkey in 1930s in a favorable way even they are Nazi or facist, because i had a general perception on that days’ Turkey was a closed and lonely country. Unfortunately, even Turkish society can not truly evaluate the exact value of the achievements during this period, but in fact, it is a real happened story of the phoenix in modern world history.
First the independence war of turkey is some kinda matter of to be or not be. But the Nazi’s attempts are generally concentrated on being able to take more share of modern imperialism. It is sure that The Versailles Treaty was a very hard act to follow as a nation who aspires to gain more and more power to rule its hinterland. But at the end Germany was still alive after WWI, but Turkey was dead.
Second, Ottoman Empire was divided many parts in 19th and 20th century and tried to find a way to create a new identity due to the mainstream ideology, nationalism. That was just the only way to generate a mortar to be able to collect too many differentiated social components. But germany had gathered into one 1870s. The problem for germany was not about unity but how to reinforce this structure as a global force albeit the disadvantages of its geograpic location and surrounded situation.
Especially the effort of the author to bridge the armenian relocation and the holocaust is desperate at all, because armenian relocation is a politics of German-Ottoman general staff which is totally irrelevant of Atatürk’s tenure as a ‘führer’. And armenians relations with russian empire and movements on taking-over the population dominance over the Turk-kurd presence were very well known stuffs. But Nazi’s final solution is something about the economic and social disturbance from Jews coming from 1840s.
As a result, for me, Nazis had taken the useful cornerstones from the resurrection of Turkey which they could use during they were paving the roads going through their fatal fascism, yet turkish revolution is more than the content of this book including.
However it is very important to learn that some countries were deeply interested in Turkey in 1930s in a favorable way even they are Nazi or facist, because i had a general perception on that days’ Turkey was a closed and lonely country. Unfortunately, even Turkish society can not truly evaluate the exact value of the achievements during this period, but in fact, it is a real happened story of the phoenix in modern world history.
Read
June 22, 2018Kitabin Turkce bir degerlendirmesi -
https://wanderlustpress.net/2018/06/2...
https://wanderlustpress.net/2018/06/2...
August 30, 2020
Πολύ ωραιο βιβλίο!Θα μπορούσα να πω ότι μας αποκαλύπτει άγνωστες πτυχές των σχέσεων της Τουρκίας με τη Γερμανία!
Διαβάζεται εύκολα από τον αναγνώστη και κυρίως αυτό που λέμε <<βγαίνει>> εύκολα χωρίς να κουράζει.
Διαβάζεται εύκολα από τον αναγνώστη και κυρίως αυτό που λέμε <<βγαίνει>> εύκολα χωρίς να κουράζει.
April 12, 2015
Interesting analysis based on extensive review of contemporary German newspapers and speeches.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews