Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds

by Stephen Kinzer

"A sharp, spirited appreciation of where Turkey stands now, and where it may head." ―Carlin Romano, The Philadelphia Inquirer

In the first edition of this widely praised book, Stephen Kinzer made the convincing claim that Turkey was the country to watch -- poised between Europe and Asia, between the glories of its Ottoman past and its hopes for a democratic future, between the dominance of its army and the needs of its civilian citizens, between its secular expectations and its Muslim traditions.

In this newly revised edition of Crescent and Star , he adds much important new information on the many exciting transformations in Turkey's government and politics that have kept it in the headlines, and also shows how recent developments in both American and European policies (and not only the war in Iraq) have affected this unique and perplexing nation.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Middle East, Travel, Islam, Asia

288 pages, Paperback

First published September 22, 2001

About the author

Stephen Kinzer is an award-winning foreign correspondent who has covered more than 50 countries on five continents. His articles and books have led the Washington Post to place him "among the best in popular foreign policy storytelling." (source)

Reviews

[Bob Newman · Rating 4 out of 5]

a Turkish testament

I don't know Stephen Kinzer from a bar of soap, but I could bet he's a very likeable guy. I used to read his articles in the New York Times with great pleasure, back in those years when he was covering Turkey and wrote many pieces on the new nations in the Caucasus and Central Asia too. For the first time, in Kinzer's articles, the subscribers got more than just election or disaster news---we got coverage of all kinds of cultural, social, and economic trends in Turkey. I always hoped Kinzer would write a book on the country. He did and I bought it. If I compare it to an academic tome like Caglar Keydar's "State and Class in Turkey", CRESCENT AND STAR reads as smooth as silk, even if the depth of the ideas is not so great. It is a highly informative, journalistic look at modern Turkey, a country at a political, historical crossroads. Turkey had managed to burst the economic straitjacket that bound it for decades; the Kurdish insurrection had been squelched, and relations with Greece improved beyond all belief. There was a strong possibility that the country would join the European Union in the next decade. [*Erdogan was not on the scene when Kinzer wrote.] Yet, a number of political problems remained. Kinzer points out again and again that the conservative, but secular military elite dominated the civilian politicians, who often were not the sharpest knives in the drawer. In turn, civil liberties were denied because the behind-the-scenes military class felt that Turkey "was not ready" for full freedom. The role of religion, i.e. Islam, in society had yet to be decided. There are a few hotheaded fundamentalists, many who want a stronger role for Islam under democracy, and many more who don't want Islam to play any role at all. Is it a good idea to push the whole issue into a corner ?

Kinzer liked Turkey. You can feel that on every page in the book. Liking the country, having friends there, he wanted to use his journalistic power to best advantage, to strike a blow for his friends, who like him, believed in freedom and democracy, and saw a bright future for Turkey if it went down that road. I too, from a great distance, sympathized with this picture. I like people who don't hide behind some abstract "objectivity". But I am afraid his desire to help turned the book into something of a polemic. As he discusses each of the main aspects of modern Turkish politics and society---Ataturk, the party politics, the military, the Kurds, Islam, censorship and repression, the great earthquake of 1999, and relations with Greece-we receive the same lecture a number of times. Encourage dissent, he cries, embrace ethnic and religious diversity, own up to the Armenian massacres of 1915 or at least discuss them, give religious people a voice in society, let Parliament have the ultimate power instead of the soldiers, decentralize, don't lose Ataturk's desire for change and modernization, and above all, trust your own citizens to be mature enough to choose what they want in government. If you don't mind this rather heavy-handed insistence on the same theme, then CRESCENT AND STAR is an excellent book for anyone wanting to know the main issues, trends, and political feelings in modern Turkey. The sections Kinzer refers to as "snacks" or meze are all very interesting. Another book on modern Turkish life and culture as seen by an American ? Please.

Postscript of 2021: I wrote this review in 2004. The last 17 years have changed a lot as we know. Erdogan got hold of the political process and everything that Kinzer hoped for was crushed. Not being a fan of religion in government or of strong men jailing thousands for personal power, I am very sad about what has happened.

[Annie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was equal parts enthralled and frustrated by this book. Kinzer clearly loves Turkey. He adores it. He sees how insanely fucked up it is, but loves it anyway. While he is not an apologist for for the essentially military-run government, he deftly puts it into a perspective in a way only a person who is both an insider and an outsider can, which as a whole makes certain events (like the military coups) much more understandable in post-Ataturk Turkey.
However, he on occasion comes off as the lecturing foreigner who wants to shake Turkey and ask why it is being so stupid. Kinzer goes on for paragraphs at a time sensibly outlining what Turkey needs to do to become a successful modern country but then backpedals a bit by saying he knows that it is not is simple as all that.
All told, this book works, not as a serious look at the complexities of a modern Turkey (although it indeed does a fine job at that), but rather as a letter of unconditional love to his former adopted home.

[Gordon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stephen Kinzer is an ex-New York Times correspondent who has written about many parts of the world, while based in locations as varied as Nicaragua, Berlin and Istanbul, the latter two as bureau chief. He has covered Central America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Turkey, Africa … -- in short, he's been around.

I picked up this book because I read one of his previous efforts, Blood of Brothers, while travelling through Nicaragua in 2008. Daniel Ortega had just been re-elected, and the book dealt with, yes, Daniel Ortega and the struggle of the Sandinistas against the US-funded contras in the 1980's. The book was the ideal travel companion, adding richness of detail and breadth of historical perspective to my travels through that country. Crescent and Star is almost as impressive.

This book concentrates on the modern era of Turkey, mainly the period from the 1980's onwards, although it quickly covers the Mustapha Kemal Ataturk era and the decades that followed it. Here is a summary...

Ataturk and the Creation of the Turkish Republic

The unusually prominent role of the military in modern Turkey has been dictated by the peculiar circumstances of the country's birth, in the wake of the disastrous implosion of World War I when the Ottoman Empire sided with the losing side. As the victorious Allies dismembered the Empire into its constituent ethnic pieces -- Arab, Greek, Armenian … -- and parceled out parts of it among themselves as colonies / protectorates, it looked as if little would survive of "Turkey" other than a few pieces of the Anatolian homeland. It was not even clear that Istanbul itself would remain part of Turkey. Into this power vacuum stepped Ataturk. A Turkish general who had been instrumental in the defeat of the British, Australians, New Zealanders and French at the Battle of Gallipoli in 1915, his reputation was strong. He was able to quickly assemble an army from the remnants of the Ottoman forces, and rout the Greek Army which had been trying to greatly enlarge the Greek holdings on the Anatolian coast. This victory ended in a mass expulsion of up to 2 million Greeks from lands that had been Greek-speaking for millennia, and effectively ensured that Turkey would retain borders essentially the same as those it has today. Turkey remains a multi-ethnic state however, mainly because of the presence of about 15 million Kurds (out of a current total population of about 80 million).

Turkey paid a heavy price for becoming more ethnically Turkish: it lost most of its Greek and Armenian population (a large percentage of the latter having been slaughtered in an earlier "ethnic cleansing" in 1915), and after World War II most of its Jewish population as well. These three ethnic groups had made up the great majority of the commercial class. Their loss took much of the energy out of the urban economy, and greatly delayed Turkey's transition from an agrarian economy.

From this foundation, Ataturk created the Republic of Turkey in 1923, sending the Sultan packing. The country he ruled until his death in the late 1930's was resolutely ethnically Turkish and secular in nature. Kurdish demands for more autonomy were met with military force. Demands by the Muslim hierarchy and by Islamic believers in general to play a role in the governing of Turkey were also turned back. Symbols of the old way of life -- from the script of the written language to the wearing of the fez and the veil -- were swept away. Turks were forced to take last names for the first time. The country was dragged, often kicking and screaming, into the modern era.

Ataturk was himself a non-religious man, who drank, smoked and had a long succession of lovers. Maybe more importantly, he wasn't willing to tolerate competing contenders for power, regardless of whether they were ethnic, religious or ideological in character. The form of governance he put in place to modernize Turkey and ensure his personal power was known as Kemalism, and was the dominant ideology of the ruling class in Turkey until at least the end of the 20th century. Its principles included ensuring the primacy of the ethnic Turkish nation, enforcing a strictly secular approach to government, and adopting a form of limited democracy that always left the ultimate veto power to the military.

The key power behind the Kemalist Turkish state was always the military, ready to depose any civilian leader who posed a threat to the military itself or to the secular and ethnically Turkish nature of the state. No compromise with Islamic fundamentalism or with other ethnic groups -- especially the Kurds -- was tolerated. When Prime Minister Menderes regime in the 1950's grew too accepting of Muslim practices, such as tolerating the creation of religious academies, he was overthrown by the army, tried for treason, and hanged along with two of his cabinet members.

The Post-1980 Era

The most recent of the military coups was in 1980, at a time of great Kurdish unrest as well as "left-wing" terrorism. The army's war against the Kurds lasted well into the 1990's, took tens of thousands of lives, and still flares up from time to time even today. However, the reins of government were soon turned back to a civilian government in 1983, under a man who proved to be a far more effective reformer and modernizer than anyone ever expected: Turgut Ozal.

After Ozal died in office in 1993, matters backslid once again, with the accession to power in 1996 of Prime Minister Erkaban of the Welfare party, whose power base was largely small town and rural Islamists. His moves to draw the country closer to Iran, along with other moves to strengthen Islamism, led to his being deposed by the army one year after coming to power. The most prominent of his followers was Tayyip Erdogan, the Mayor of Istanbul. When Erkaban's regime was deposed, the Welfare party he led was banned. Erkaban and Erdogan were both condemned to prison terms (though only Erdogan actually spent time in jail). Erkaban was finished -- he was elderly by this time -- but the much younger Erdogan emerged from jail to found a new Islamist party, the AKP.

Erdogan's release from jail coincided with the devastating earthquake of August, 1999, which struck the region about 50 miles away from Istanbul near the sea of Marmara. Twenty thousand people died, while the army and the government did … next to nothing. It was a catastrophe made worse by official incompetence. The main search and rescue efforts for survivors were mounted by the locals themselves as well as by foreign disaster relief workers, including significant numbers from Turkey's old enemy, Greece. For days, Turkish troops sat in their barracks while the government called press conferences to say that their its soldiers and workers couldn't reach the disaster zone. TV crews and foreign teams seemed to have no such difficulty, and the popularity and credibility of both the government and the army plummeted.

It is very plausible to argue that it was the discrediting of Turkey's old institutions, both civil and military, that laid the foundations for the AKP's election victory in 2002. The party won a majority and Erdogan became prime minister -- and remains so to this day.

Erdogan proceeded to loosen the controls on the expression of religious opinion. He largely did away with the practice of torture, which had been routine in police stations and prisons. He also loosened controls on the press, though the constitution of the country remained unchanged, with all its restrictive provisions regarding civil rights. For example, political parties that advocate on behalf of ethnic minorities are not allowed. Nor is any form of expression seen to insult the memory of Ataturk. Nor anything seen to attack the "historical and moral values of Turkishness." Not surprisingly, it's easy to still run afoul of such broadly worded provisions, and even such world renowned figures as Turkey's Nobel prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk have been indicted and tried under these laws.

One notable piece of progress was in acknowledging the role of Turks in the 1915 slaughter of the Armenians. The government even allowed a university conference on the subject in Istanbul itself in 2005, though not without government officials displaying a lot of huffing and puffing about insults to Turkishness. The conference was held successfully, and the issues it raised were debated for weeks in the Turkish press, which would have been unthinkable a few short years earlier.

A major force in helping Erdogan to drive liberalization was the hope and expectation of being admitted to the EU. The EU laid out a long list of conditions, and the Turkish government set to work to fulfill them. But after a courtship lasting several years, the EU suddenly announced in 2006 that the it was re-thinking admitting Turkey. The Turks felt dissed and duped. However, as the EU lurched from crisis to crisis from 2008 onwards, Turks had some reason to feel both vindicated and even grateful for not being embroiled in the mess.

Throughout his first term, Erdogan ruled as Prime Minister, but the President was the army's man. In 2007, Erdogan decided to place his own man, Abdullah Gul, in the presidency. All that was required to do so was for Parliament to elect him. At this point, the army pushed back hard, and tried to use the courts to ban the AKP for violations of the constitution. Erdogan fought back by calling an election, which he won with an increased majority, and in the process managed to both install a new president and humble the army. He remains firmly in control today.

Summary

It's impossible not to be impressed with this book. At times it seems somewhat rambling, as journalistic works often do, but the author knows the country about as intimately as any foreigner ever can -- and tells its story very well. He understands its history, its institutions, and the players that make the country what it is today. It's hard to escape that this man knows whereof he speaks. As well, he clearly loves most everything about it, from its people to its food to its landscapes to its music, and it shows. At times he displays a tolerance for prolonged repressiveness of the Turkish regime that seems surprising, until you begin to compare it to the bad neighborhood that surrounds it. For decades, its neighbors to the north were the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc satellites, which on its southern and eastern borders sat the dictatorial regimes of Syria, Iraq and Iran. By comparison, Turkey was a liberal paradise. Some parts of the neighborhood have improved -- notably with the disappearance of the Soviet Union -- but it's still not great. Turkey deserves much credit for being the most democratic regime in the Islamic world and one of the most economically dynamic. And Kinzer deserves great credit for this wonderful book.

[Fadillah · Rating 3 out of 5]

“In 1934 Atatürk learned that a ship carrying relatives of fallen Allied soldiers had docked near Gallipoli and that its passengers were mourning at the site. He sent them a moving message that is now chiseled, in English translation, into a memorial stone there. "Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives," he wrote, "you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us, where they lie side by side in this country of ours . .. You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well."
- Crescent and Star : Turkey - Between 2 worlds by Stephen Kinzer
.
.
I don’t really like reading a history of one’s country that was not written or narrated by their own people. This is because - for the most part - their perception and remarks as an outsider always ticked me off . What’s weird is i always found this problem more apparent among American and European writers. Call me close minded for all i care but that’s what i felt when i almost finished this book. This whole notion wanted another country (in this case Turkey) to be more westernised / liberated or modernised is so cringey. Imperialist much? Listen, I bought this book simply because i wanted to learn Turkey / Turkiye History. I have always been fascinated by this country and I have admired Mustafa Kemal Atatürk for his stance in ensuring secularism is being solidified in his country administration and at the same time, kept religion at bay. This admiration of mine unfortunately didn’t receive well by some of my friends and family members but it is what it is. Then, when i saw this book at the bargain box in a bookstore, i bought it right away. Unfortunately, i wish i read other ‘better’ book about Turkey instead of this one. Note : since this book is being published in 2001, and Turkey has changed its name to Turkiye recently, my review might be using Turkey as to accommodate the publication year. I have to admit that i learned a lot - history (From Ottoman empire even to the controversial of Armenian Genocide) to the love-hate dynamics between Turks and Greeks , political sect and affiliation (Kemalist versus Islamist) to the odd equation of power between military and bureaucrats and even local delicacies and nature (the beauty of Bosphorus) of this great country because Stephen Kinzer is after all, a former New York Times Correspondent. He knows how to write brilliantly, that i can admit but when it comes to his personal opinion or how his experience living in a Turkey, immersing himself in the culture or observing the common people, it has that condescending tone and somewhat rude. I am nowhere a big fan of religion but one can see how the author disdained Islam and his analysis on Islam and Autocratic in Turkey sometimes contradict each other (at one point Islam is said to be problematic in Turkey and Military did well to control it but on another military control should not exist in a true democratic government) which begged the question of authenticity in his writing. The book for the most part is not in chronological order and if this is the first history book that you read of Turkey, you will get confused like i did. It took about 50 pages to get used to the style. Some of the chapters can be jarring and remember, some of the analysis is outdated as Turkey has changed a lot over the years. Overall, i am not sure whether i wanted to recommend this book or not to others. I think it may works well for people who already know about Turkey and wanted to refresh their memory of this country or those who wanted to read about Turkey from the American Lens.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

So, finally, I am done. Please do not mistake the great length of time I took to complete this book to mean anything other than I am awful at managing time, this was a great book. As someone who visited Turkey and read a handful of literature about the great city of Istanbul and life under the Ottoman Empire this book wove together a bunch of missing facts and political details, I was otherwise unaware of.

It is obvious the author is passionately in love with this county, he can portray it for all its ill's and pride's as a country in constant flux, coming into its own after decades of twists and turns. There are numerous entries where he speaks of his first-hand experiences dictating tales as if out of his travel journals. With ease, the author weaves varying timelines and rich character profiles helping to illustrate the plethora of Turkish leaders, politicians, and countrymen. Pragmatic writing and research help a reader remember the pivotal moments and players.

With his extensive and seemily, impartial chapters on the "Kurdish puzzle" to explaining in the most vivid and delicious details the process and protocol of Turkish Meze & Raki, the author does great justice to a city and country that, so many visitors fall in love with.

From this reading I took with me these topics to follow up on:
1. Strategic Depth by Ahmet Davutoğlu
2. Nazim Hikmet: poet
3. Kim by Rudyard Kipling (about the "great game")
4. Man without a Gun by Giandomenico Picco
5. Mehmet's Book by Nadire Mater

[Selcuk dönmez · Rating 1 out of 5]

You insult turkish people all over the world, turk state, everything that made up my people. Stop this.
Stephen kinzer doesnt know anything about my country, and people. So who are you that saying about turkisness. According to you turk isnt etnic people. It is only common name that given by Atatürk.

"We are turk nomads. We are Yoruk, Turkmen, Turkic people. We have several state and the last one Turkey Repeblic will live forever. Atatürk says that "One day my mortal body will turn to dust, but the Turkish Republic will stand forever. "

You have never understand turkic people. So hide the shitty opinion yourselves. American and english imperialist go to hell. You never subjugate the turks.

[Ahsun · Rating 1 out of 5]

After reading "All the Shah's Men", I sought to read Kinzer's views on Turkey. However, it really fell short and was not the book I was looking for in order to get a better understanding of the history and current political situation of the country.

[Regina Lindsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crescent and Star by Stephen Kinzer
4.5 Stars Rounded to 5

I’ve always had a fascination with Turkey. It is at the crossroads of so much history. Geographically, it straddles two continents and it known as “the place where East meets West.” Its religious history is unique and it is one of the few countries in which democracy is evolving out of a former dictatorship. It is simply a country full of dichotomies. Yet, it is a country that hesitates to fully embrace its rich past in order to continue ignoring its ghosts. Stephen Kinzer is a journalist who lived in Turkey for four years. In just 267 pages he succinctly covers the history of modern-day Turkey touching on the salient pivotal points over the past seventy-five years as well as the important figures that have evolved since the days of its founder Ataturk.
I think the aspect I appreciated the most was Kinzer’s focus on showing how the country has successfully resisted falling into the same fate as some of its neighboring Middle Eastern countries, remaining secular. It is a strategy that has worked but is also responsible for not allowing Turkey to develop into a full-fledged democracy. The fear of moving away from secularism results in a great deal of civil rights oppression, particularly in the realm of religious freedom and freedom of speech. It has only been recently that even though female students are routinely turned away from university classes for wearing a head veil that an openly nationalistic Islamic politician has successfully ruled the country. It is ironic that Erdogan has been the one to implement many of the reforms in an effort to make Turkey’s entrance in the EU more palatable. “In Turkey, as elsewhere, it has long been a truism that Islamic-oriented politicians scorn democracy and deliciously subversive way. One candidate was an Islamic-oriented democrat; the others were secularists who feared democracy.” (pg 23)
As the country desperately wants to gain admission into the EU reforms have taken place, but it is in no means complete. But, it is also important to remember that the country is still young. One Turkish diplomat observed, “You in the West also had long periods of backwardness and intolerance. You had dictatorships, civil wars, religious fanaticism, the Inquisition, all kinds of horror. Then, over a period of centuries, you climbed out of that hole. You had the Enlightenment. You had philosophers who wrote books about democracy. Very slowly, people started to understand and accept these new ideas. You began to have governments based on democratic principles. Now, because you went through all of that, you can give your people complete freedom. Your societies are stable enough to handle it. But it’s not the same here. Our Enlightenment began only seventy – five years ago. It’s too soon to life every restriction. The risk is too great. We could lose everything.” I also really liked the way Kinzer ended the chapters. He switches to an italicized writing and focuses on items related to everyday. It makes for great recommendations on anyone planning to travel to the country.

I did take issue with a couple of the work’s aspects. First, if you read Kinzer work you know he cannot resist opining on his subject. This is no exception. Unfortunately, at times he comes across as an arrogant westerner preaching to the Turks about what they should do. Finally, he covers a lot of material in a short space. As a result he doesn’t always full flesh out topics. He references that Christians are subject to similar repressions as Muslims, but doesn’t share with the reader how that manifests. I understand that the focus is more about how these restrictions have sustained the secular government, but I was still left curious.
Finally, Kinzer leaves the reader with the question, “A new debate now dominates public discourse in Turkey. It is not about Kurds or democracy or the European Union, but rather about the nature of the regime dominated by Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul. Is this regime truly committed to democracy, or has it been using democracy to cover a hidden agenda that aims to wipe away the secular order and turn Turkey into an Islamic state?” (pg. 216). Ironically, Erdogan won the first direct presidential election yesterday and has publically stated he plans to expand the powers of the office. So, we may get the answer to this question sooner rather than later.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Turkey is an anomaly. For centuries, it was the dreaded foe of Christendom, twice pushing at the very gates of Vienna. After the Great War, when the victorious west disassembled the Ottoman Empire and reduced the Turks to mere Antaolia, it seemed a total defeat -- but shortly thereafter, a rare Turkish hero of the Great War led a revolution and established a new Turkish Republic, one that -- phoenix like -- drove away its exhausted enemies and even reclaimed a foothold into Europe. It was to Europe that the new lord looked: not as an object of conquest, but an object of emulation. Like Peter the Great, Mustafa Kemal would make his life's ambition to modernize and westernize the Turks whether they wanted it or not. Using the military to carry forth his will, he declared war on the past: out with fezzes and zithers, in with fedoras and Bach! While the other mideastern countries that emerged from the Ottoman disintegration drifted into tyranny -- religious in Afghanistan, secular in Iraq, both in Iran -- Turkey remained anomalous, discretely controlled by a military that had enforced liberalization, and counted itself the enemy of Taliban-style religious rule, but itself imposed limits on democracy and speech. But the forced liberalization of Turkey at the hands of an illiberal power, the military state, has long since showed its age. Turks today want more from their 'devlet', their state, than being patronized; they want genuine democracy, genuine freedom to talk about issues the military order would rather have stay buried.

Crescent and Star is the product of one man falling in love with Turkey while living there for years for the New York Times; It combines vignettes about life in Turkey with historical-political reporting, both heavily steeped in obvious affection for Turkey as a whole. It us romantic and at times naive -- Kinzer bubbles that Turkey could be a world power and admits that portraits of Kemal hang in his office, as they do around Turkey -- but to the total outsider like myself, informative. Kinzer's passion for Kemalism is never hidden: he wants Turkey to become not merely a member of the European Union, but a genuine European power. Again and again he asserts the cultural bonds that link Turkey and eastern Europe. Greece and Turkey are divided by political bickering over Aegean islands more than anything else, and towards the end he presents a heartwarming account of trans-Aegean brotherhood in the wake of a series of earthquakes. As one earthquake near Istanbul shattered belief in the devlet's competency and humanitarian interests, it also shattered belief in malevolent Greeks: the Greeks were first to come with aide, and when Greece had its own earthquake days later, the Turks responded to that charity in kind -- charity in the truest sense of the word, caritas, love in action. For Turkey to fulfill its destiny, Kinzer writes, the military must acknowledge that its paternalism has kept Turkish domestic politics immature. Its protective intervention in the past, removing incompetent officials whose blundering were pushing the country toward civil war, have served their purpose: for Turks to become truly European, they must be set free to create their own destinies.

Crescent and Star brims over with human interest, created by personal research. Kinzer lived in Turkey for at least four years during his tenure as bureau chief for the New York Times, and he cultivated a variety of friendships, even hosting a blues radio show in Istanbul. He interviewed Turks and Kurds extensively, and his obvious love for Turkey is not in the least dampened by the stories of Armenians and Kurds who have suffered at the hand of the state. The Turks have his affection, not the Turkish government. While the book's optimism -- stemming from a quiet Kurdish front and ongoing negotiations with the EU -- now dates it, given how the chaos in Iraq and Syria has turned Turkey's borders into a war zone, Kinzer's account nontheless illustrates how Turkey's history has given it a pecuilar stamp, a place able to bridge Europe and the middle east not only geographically. Turkey's close involvement with the Syrian war, its frequent brushes with the Russians and Iranians, make it a country worth knowing about. Considering that a faction within the military attempted to assert itself politically once again, there's no denying this kind of book's relevance.

[Doug · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the second Kinzer book I've read. He's a talented writer who brings his subject to life with a clear, direct, active style.

In both books I've read, Crescent and Star and All the Shah's Men (about the US/British overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran), Kinzer turns potentially dry subjects into page-turners.

Perhaps as a by-product of his accessible style, Kinzer arrives at simplistic solutions. In Crescent and Star, the overall thesis is that the founders of the Turkish Republic were correct to forcefully impose secularism and a Western-looking government. Kinzer argues that this imperative is no longer necessary, largely because their experiment was successful.

His argument is less than convincing. He presumes to know what Ataturk would have wanted in a modern day Turkey -- a relaxation of the militarily enforced secularism, for example. He provides virtually no evidence from Ataturk's speeches, writings, etc. Ataturk was profoundly aware of the tension between democracy and religiosity. There's as much evidence -- probably more -- that the founders of the Republic would have maintained their worldview in today's Turkey, given the wave of fundamentalism that is sweeping the Muslim world, especially in countries that share a border with Turkey.

[Diane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written in the very early 21st century, this book combines 20th century history with current politics to give the reader a history and contemporary view of Turkey. The author has spent many years in the country as a journalist, and he clearly has a great love of his subject. He serves as a major booster for the country. Since this book was written 10 years ago, much of the contemporary information is dated, but Kinzer has done a good job of predicting future trends. Many of the author's predictions have come true in the last decade. He appears to be perceptive of contemporary society. The book also provides enough history to give th reader a basic understanding of Turkey's history in the 20th century. It would be interesting to have him write an update, based on the changes that have occurred over the past 10 years.

The book's major flaw is the author's overly prescriptive style, combined with the fact that he tries to gloss over many of the problems. Although in some respects, he seems to appreciate Turkey's complexity, on other occasions, he expresses very simplistic views about Turkey's future.

[Henna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kinzer´s book is a wonderful read to understand Turkish 20th century history and politics and the challenges that the country has faced and faces in being in the crossroads of Europe and Middle East, with multiple ethnicities and religions. The book basically covers the period from Ataturk to Erdogan, discusses Kemalism, the Army, Religion, Kurdish problems, Armenian past, and the democratization challeges. Turkey´s strive for EU membership and the changing foreign policy of country are also covered by the author. Ahmet Davutoglu´s role as Erdogan´s personal adviser on foreign affairs was briefly described and it was interesting reading to see how he carved Turkey´s foreign policy strategy from 2000 onwards. Personally I missed the coverage of what happened in Northern Cyprys in a bit more detail, given that this was one of the official stoppers in Turkey´s EU membership negotiations, but otherwise the book was great and insightful reading!! Kinzer´s last "meze" chapter summarizing some of the book´s main themes and making a parallel on those to american "blues" was a very nice way to finish the book.

[Nosmo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been very impressed by everything by Kinzer that I've read, yet this book was somehow the one I objected to the most. Admittedly I view much of his political writing from a differing position so I'm in no way surprised that a heavily personal book didn't quite gel with me. But therein lies one of my favourite things about the book - Kinzer unashamedly injects personal experience, opinion and personality throughout the book and so I found that the italicised portions gave the following chapters incredible richness. I usually find Kinzer's style incredibly satisfying to read at the worst of times and this book's tone and level of personal engagement gives vibrancy to his otherwise usually somewhat detached prose.

Highlights: his interviews with ordinary Turks of polar opposite opinions, his interviews with Kurds and account of travelling in remote Kurdish areas.

Weak points: his occasionally patronising attitude when it comes to solutions for the Kurdish and Armenian problems, his somewhat wavering position on the European Union as regards Turkey (I am no fan but even I think his invective is a little misplaced)

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked this up based on the recommendations of Goodreads users. I was hoping for a good history of modern Turkey, and instead found a journalistic sketch of the country. I was not impressed. Bouncing around between history, contemporary politics (circa early 2001), and light observations of Turkish life, Kinzer spends a good deal of time scolding the Turks for failing to fully embrace democracy. The word "should" appears prominently in each chapter, and I found this to be both distasteful and naive. Kinzer only seems to have brushed the surface of his subject, despite many years of experience in and a professed love for the country. If he's going to be prescriptive, I'd like to see more depth to his analysis and a more nuanced recommendation for action.

I still want a good history of modern Turkey. Any recommendations out there?

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crescent and Star is probably a bit basic for anyone who's familiar with Turkish politics and 20th century history, but I found it a great sub-250 page introduction. It focuses almost exclusively on the Turkish Republic and its people, from Ataturk to the present, but not at all in chronological order. I don't know how objective this book is, as the author, a American journalist, spends plenty of words criticizing (berating?) the military and its omnipresent role in government. But you might, too, if the police interrogated you for 24 hours merely for driving around and asking questions about Kurds. Ultimately, this book helped me understand just how unique Turkey is. Geographically, politically, historically, etc., there's nowhere else like it.

[Will · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've read some of Kinzer's other books, and this was not my favorite. Kinzer lived in Turkey for an extended period and therefore one would expect a fairly solid outing in this book. The book explores broad themes, and therefore presents a non-linear narrative of Turkish history and society, which jumps back and forth between different time periods. For the beginner on Turkey, this presents a bit more of a confusing read, and one can't help but feel that the book would be better organized if presented more in chronological sequence. The final section left an especially bad taste in my mouth, in which Kinzer compares Turkish society to his favourite music, African-American blues. Didn't work for me.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

A reporter's affectionate but critical book on Turkey and its history. He shows how Turkey's repression of Kurdish culture and language has fostered extremism, as has its repression of Muslim religious expression. He shows how great Turkey has been, is, and how much greater it could be if it trusted its citizens and the democratic process. His section on the aftermath of the great earthquake when the Greek government and people rallied to Turkey's side, volunteering and donating in droves, is a poignant example of how things could be.

[Sanchari · Rating 4 out of 5]

You are my enslavement and my freedom

You are my flesh burning like a raw summer night

You are my country

You are the green silks in hazel eyes

You are big, beautiful and triumphant

And you are my sorrow that isn't felt

the more I feel it.

- Nâzım Hikmet


I've never (as yet) read a bad book by Kinzer. He writes about political landscapes and foreign policy choices of 'controversial' countries, and I'm sure he has his biases, but from a purely apolitical standpoint, Kinzer's way of crafting a story is pure gold. 


On top of that, this book not only offers a look at how Turkey evolved post 1923, but is also a memoir of sorts, each chapter ending with a cultural snapshot of Turkey, captured lovingly by Kinzer. We have him drinking raki, watching camel fights, running a "true blues" radio program, and swimming across the Bosphorus. These bits were easily my favorite, making we wish Kinzer would write a book solely about his own relationship with Turkey (so I could read it as a companion to Orhan Pamuk's Istanbul - one of my most favourite books of all time.) 


2023 marked the completion of a century of the founding of the Republic of Turkey, now Türkiye. While this book is very dated, considering how much things seem to have changed since this book's last edition of 2008, it offers a good understanding of why Turkey is the way it is, and how Kemal Atatürk, the founding father of Turkey, influenced the shaping of the country well past his death. Kinzer traces the tensions that emerged in modern Turkey as a result of Kemalist principles - secularism vs religious freedom, stability vs free speech, security vs true democracy. Turkey's history proves why balance in governance should be the ultimate goal - because too great a tilt in favor of any of these, like secularism or security, can effectively end up creating more problems than it solves. Kinzer elaborates in detail the role of army, and the way it exercised disproportionate control over the Republic, resulting in frequent coups - all done in the name of preserving the Kemalist order, which was seen as the ultimate goal. 


There are chapters on the turbulent relations between Turkey and the Kurds, and the Armenian genocide - both of which play an important role in the Turkish psyche. This book is strictly speaking not a good enough primer for understanding these issues, but Kinzer combines history, contemporary events, and his own on the ground reporting in a deft manner. 


Many personalities have been introduced here, but Turgut Özal stands out. Though Kinzer brings him up often, I would have liked a clearer profile, especially how he rose to power after a military coup, and what his ideas were - which were perhaps nearly as significant as that of Kemal Atatürk. But where this book lacks in case of Özal, it exceeds brilliantly in case of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - with good reason. Türkiye is today one of the foremost second order powers in the world, and understanding Erdoğan and his ideas for his country is crucial. It's a damn shame this book stops around 2008, because Kinzer's impressions of Erdoğan is from an era that is drastically different from today. What I wouldn't give for Kinzer to come out with a 3rd edition of this book, if only to chart the course of Erdoğan's politics, right upto his reelection as President in 2023. 


The more I read about Turkey, the more I'm fascinated by it. Turkey's geography is much talked about, and rightly so, and its history and culture are shaped by its geography. Kinzer does a great job of making us understand the way modern Turkey emerged from Ottoman sultanate, how Kemalist ideals gave way for a secular Muslim country, that turned around to embrace its religious identity despite the many attempts at preserving the old order. Kinzer talks a bit about the import of Turkey's relationship with religion, because it serves as an example for the rest of the Muslim world. I do wish Kinzer had elaborated a bit more on Turkey's influence on the other Muslim countries though. 

On the list of things that I wish was talked about more is Turkey's unique position as a NATO member that challenges US expectations quite a bit, including its relations with Russia, Iran and Palestine. This does get a small mention in the book, but it's not nearly enough. This book is domestically focused for the most part, but the foreign policy does creep in, and it's extremely interesting.

That's my main complaint overall - I wish this book was longer, and I wish he'd come up with an updated edition.

Adding some links that I looked up after finishing this - 

100 years of the Republic of Turkey – in pictures - this also helps to see the events of this book (from Atatürk to Erdoğan's election in 2003) in a chronological context, because the book itself groups events thematically, which can be a bit confusing. 

Why Turkey is Angry with America (YouTube)

Kinzer's May, 2023 piece on Erdogan being reelected President: "Erdogan, A 21st Century Sultan, Wins Again" - the change in Kinzer's tone from the one he uses for Erdoğan in this book is sufficient proof that we need a 3rd ed! 

[Alemina Kadribegic · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book was a good introduction to Turkeys very complicated history. The book did a good job of introducing some major conflicts but of course does not give a full detailed history of some of the tensions regarding Armenians or the Kurds. Kinzer will definitely pique anyone’s interest in wanting to read up more about Turkey.

[Caglar · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's been 15 years since this book was published. So it's pretty outdated for people who are trying to understand Turkey. I enjoyed the meze parts and some interpretations about social structure of Turkey. But that's all. When you look at today's Turkey and see what it became, you can understand how wrong was Mr. Stephen Kinzer.

[Faye · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stephen Kinzer was a journalist who lived in Turkey for a long time and his book has personal impressions as well as interesting political commentary and historical perspective. Great read in preparation for my trip to Turkey in a few months.

[Blue · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kinzer is a great writer and a good storyteller. He alternates cultural mini-chapters with more analytical writing in Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds. As a Turk who was heavily brainwashed with the "official history of the country during and post-Ataturk", there is much I can and should read, and this book is a good starting point. I can write a whole other book as a response to Kinzer's very insightful study, but for the most part I agree with the bulk of his criticisms and analyses. Kinzer may love Turkey, but he does not hold back in his criticism of blind Kemalism, the iron fist of the military over civilian rule, and the current national pains, such as the ethnic problems the government has with Kurds, with Armenians, with Greece, etc. For years I have resisted reading about recent Turkish history, because I find it hard to believe anyone that I read. There is certainly a good amount of anti-Turkish propaganda in the Western world (a la Midnight Express) and inside Turkey the restrictions on free speech make it hard to get an unbiased view. So Kinzer, as a foreigner who loves Turkey, is a good place to start.

One thing that I want to point out is that even though Kinzer portrays Turgut Ozal as a revolutionary leader who was one of the few modern leaders of Turkey to see its full potential in the 21st century, Ozal's highly capitalist [and nepotist] shift inoculated a deep and powerful corruption in the government that Turkey, to this day, suffers from. Related to Turgut Ozal, and many other leaders of modern Turkey, the baffling question I have always had and to this day cannot really understand, is how so many Kurds can serve in the government and parliament as elected officials, so many Kurds can become very rich business man, entertainers, actors, singers, writers, and Turkey still struggles to find a healthy ground for communication about the Kurdish-Turkish issues? To explain away this discrepancy by just blaming the oppression of free speech seems inadequate.

Overall, Crescent and Star was a pleasure to read. At times, Kinzer becomes a bit repetitive, but his anecdotal references to conversations with Turks from different walks of life and with foreign officials about Turkey are priceless. His obsession, like most Americans and Westerners, of democracy is a bit optimistic, idealistic, and something that I do not completely agree with.

I will try to read Kinzer's more recent books about Turkey and the Middle East. I would like to hear what he has to say about the current political rule in Turkey, as it seems to be what he was wishing for in Crescent and Star, but I am not sure that now that it is happening, he would still wish for it. He got his pro-EU, pro-ethnic dialogue, non-Kemalist, pro-religion government that is trying very hard to turn Turkey into the next EU member. Some things are radically different. For example, now that the ban on the Kursdish language is lifted, radios and TVs broadcasting in Kurdish have sprouted all over, and artists are clamoring to record Kurdish songs and establish collaborations (Aynur Dogan's Kece Kurdan is a good album to start. And of course, Ibrahim Tatlises is not only the most famous Kurdish singer but one of the most famous Turkish singers of all time) On the other hand, Europe is busy passing laws banning head scarves and mosques with minarets, things that Turkey was criticized for doing. Once again, the double standards are apparent, as Turkey is always blamed to be violating human rights (I am not saying that it isn't!) while European countries restrict religious and cultural freedoms as they see fit (and let's not forget the non-secularist stuff, like "In God We Trust" on American bills.) The truth of the matter is the Islamic Fundamentalism that the aptly-criticized Turkish military was always paranoid about has shown its ugly head and this time threatening the Western world, and so *now* it is OK to try to crush Islamic extremism by restricting civil rights... What happened to open dialogue, the communication that Turkish government was always urged to engage in with what it considered extremists? I can imagine some Turkish generals nodding with a shrug to the West: We told you so! Perhaps Kinzer is right in that Turkey is at a unique position to bring together the troubled sides and end the chaos that is currently taking place in the world. But I find that hard to believe, as any issue about Islam is bound to polarize Turks. In the end, I think the ethnic problems can be overcome, but the issues over religion are going to get worse before they get better.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stephen Kinzer's Crescent and Star is a work of journalism about Turkey, covering several different areas of the country's history and present, including the controversial ones. The book begins with the country's origins following the late Ottoman empire and on to Kemal Ataturk and the Young Turks. Kinzer seems to think that Ataturk's reformist efforts with Turkey were mostly a good idea but chock full of strange paradoxes.

Just as in France today, Turkey's earliest attempt to secularize meant the deep removal of religion and religious symbolism from political institutions. That is to say, just as in France, as opposed to the United States, say, the goal was not to protect religious freedoms but to protect secular freedom from religion. This was problematic for much of the population since most people were still deeply religious at the nation's founding.

As for other controversial topics, Kinzer also addresses the Armenian genocide, the so-called 'Kurdish problem,' and Erdogan and the AKP's role in politics today. Kinzer tries to be evenhanded in his presentation of his topics, or if he favors one direction or the other he tries to tell you why he thinks as much. But still, his position is bound to anger many. Regarding the Armenian genocide, he writes that certainly there were many Armenians killed to make the Turkish revolution possible, but whether it was a genocide is just a matter of definition: the killing of how many people constitutes a genocide? is the question. By the way, as a parallel concern, the Boston Tea Party Massacre is referred to as a massacre, where five American colonialists died. Whether the death of five constitutes a massacre is an open question.

Kinzer gives equal time to Turkey's concerns against the Kurds as well as the Kurdish and PKK case. He has obvious sympathies with the Kurdish cause. He did a lot of journalistic work moving through Kurdish towns that landed him in a Turkish prison for a night, where he was interrogated and scared out of his mind.

Kinzer also favors Erdogan, writing that either it is the case that his religious sentiment that he began with from back when he was Mayor of Istanbul has cooled, or it is the case that he is pragmatic enough not to want to alienate the large proportion of secular proponents. I don't know personally what to make of Ergodan and the AKP, and to know more I need more work.

Maybe it's best not to read this work uncritically, and more importantly to supplement it with other works to get a clearer picture of modern Turkey. That's what I am going to do. I will admit, though, that I think this was a great read, even if skewed, and I am happy to start with this book as an introduction.

[Justin Tapp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this in preparation for going to Turkey in August. Kinzer is a former NY Times correspondent who has written several books. Seems like he is a good journalist who learned the language and culture very well and was granted access to important figures.

One passage from his inter-chapter interludes got me particularly excited, Kinzer talks about the countless historically and archeologically significant sites that no one even knows about:

"Even the discovered sites are so remote and widely scattered that many are rarely visited. In Turkey I have followed routes taken by Julius Ceasar and Saint Peter, walked among weird monoliths carved by Hittite sculptors three thousand years ago, crawled into caves used as churches by early Christians and climbed rocky hills up to crusaders' castles. Once I took a drive through eastern Turkey that in the space of just four days took me to unforgettable ruins from half a dozen great cultures."

The book is a pretty quick read and focuses on some of the history and current events (up to last year) that have shaped Turkey profoundly. I learned a lot and highly recommend it. He does a good job of showing the conflicts and contradictions of the nation as well as its hopes.

One thing I gleaned from reading it is that Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's Prime Minister, reminds me a lot of Barack Obama. Erdogan was elected under deep suspicion from the old guard and has since tried to prove himself to be a more moderate-leaning democrat while trying to move Turkey forward toward the EU. In fact, I just found a recent Turkish news article off Kinzer's website that quotes Kinzer as saying "Turkey's new identity fits with Obama's view of the world."

[Guy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kinzer was a foreign correspondent for the NY Times who lived in Turkey for several years and who clearly has a deep and abiding affection for the country. For my money (and, after just one trip of two and a half weeks to Turkey, albeit intense, I am anything but an expert), he does a good job of deconstructing the puzzle that is the Turkish Republic: militantly secular and yet deeply Islamic, attached to its traditions but determined to modernize, unable to decide if it is a multi-ethnic state with a Turkish majority or a state whose citizens are by definition Turkish, proud inheritors of several thousand years of Anatolian civilization but alienated from much of that history because, depending upon who you talk to, it's either not Turkish, or not Islamic, or simply not modern.

So, why not five stars? Two reasons, really. First, there are some minor errors of fact that I noticed because I knew they were errors, such as locating the Lighthouse wonder of the ancient world in Turkey (it was in Egypt), which left me wondering how many other errors of fact there were that I didn't notice because I didn't recognize them as such. Second, there's the insistent refrain of WWAD (What Would Atatürk Do), which is an odd combination of going native while remaining an optimistic American.

Nevertheless, I found that after reading the book much that had been confusing or strange about Turkey made much more sense... and since that was exactly what I was hoping for, count me as a satisfied customer.

[Donald Hall · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book in preparation for my trip to Turkey. Very informative to learn about the birth of the modern Republic of Turkey and the life and career of Kamel Ataturk the country. I learned of the efforts form a secular county with many progressive ideas and rejecting Muslin fundamentalism. Interesting to see the relationship between the civilian government and the military, Greek relationship, Kurdish issues and ramifications of the 1999 earthquake. The book only covers the period up until 2000 so I’m next reading about the next 25 years.

[Claire Binkley · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the most informative book I have yet found of Turkish history/politics/et cetera. For this reason, I approve.
The two worlds here of the title are that west and east divide that much of world politics consists of: west being new-age and east being old-world. Uh oh, I'm not awake...

*shuts eyes, counts to thirty, returns*

OK, I am sick, so I must get to sleep now. (My illness probably is eating at my opinion of this book.) But, I want to promote it!
If this area and its people are included in my next world voyage, then their marvels as detailed in this book fascinate and excite me.

But Cyprus...! And Pakistan...! And Egypt...! And Brazil...! And Kazakhstan...! And New Zealand...! And the Philippines...! And France/Britain/Ireland...! And Germany...! And Switzerland...! And Belgium...! And Sweden...! And (maybe even especially) Russia...! (I'm forgetting many friends' homelands. I'm sorry to the Canadians, Japanese, Australians, and everyone else - I know there's someone I've been talking to lately whom I missed in this ramble. I may be running a fever. Maybe I'm missing my colleagues here in West Chester.)

Goodness gracious, there's so much of the world I'd love to visit but haven't gotten there yet. I might not even make it to everywhere I want, looking at this precarious level of health...
Oh well, if I have to make a choice, this is close to top, as I have a mission here.

Does my passport expire this year?
...
Yes, in August.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book provides a look at some of the struggles of modern Turkey and some of the history that preceded them. I'd give it one more star, but recent history (the book was published in 2008) shows that the book's hopeful tone is overdone, and left me wanting an update from Kinzer. Luckily, Kinzer is a journalist, and still writes commentary on Turkey, so I suppose I can just google some newer material.

Overall, this book provided good insights to the Republic's founding under Kemal Ataturk, and provided lots of more recent history about repressive military regimes, old-line politicians, and certain ethnic conundrums plaguing the modern state. The most intriguing bit is the speculation about how far Erdogan and the AKP will allow their populist Islamic leanings to erode the Kemalist ideal of secularism (a drama whose answer seems increasingly apparent every year. )

It's apparent that Kinzer loves Turkey, despite its treatment of him (as a 'subversive' journalist), and it shows through in the anecdotes that close every chapter. This book is recommended for anyone wanting an opinionated and experiential history of Turkey until about 2007, or is looking to understand the roots of some of the current issues. Just remember that some of the shine has tarnished since the book was published.

[Michael Fredslund · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interessent bog der giver et udmærket indblik i nyere Tyrkisk historie. Bogen har et lidt pudsigt format hvor hvert kapitel slutter med en længere artikel/rejsebeskrivelse, hvor læseren bliver præsenteret for Tyrkisk kultur på forskellig vis. De fleste af beskrivelserne er sådan set underholdende nok at læse om, men det kan også føles som et lidt underligt stilskifte at gå fra folkemord og militærkup til vandpibecaféer og bluesmusik.

Bogen bærer præg af at den har nogle år på bagen, særligt i beskrivelsen af Erdogan og forfatterens relativt positive forventninger til hans evner og vilje til at lede Tyrkiet i en mere demokratisk retning. Jeg er ikke sikker på forfatterens beskrivelser ville være ligeså forventningsfulde, hvis bogen blev skrevet i dag.

Tyrkiets turbulente historie og de mange militærkup gennemført af den stokkonservative militære ledelse, som siden Tyrkiets grundlæggelse har fungeret som en slags stat i staten, giver dog en vis forståelse for hvorfor opbakningen til Erdogan er så stor i den tyrkiske befolkning og hvorfor han til tider virker noget paranoid.

Generelt kunne jeg godt have ønsket mig at bogen gik lidt mere i dybden med flere af de historiske begivenheder og personligheder, da de 272 sider simpelthen ikke er nok til at komme ordentligt omkring Tyrkiets enormt begivenhedsrige og fascinerende historie.

[A. · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read if only because Kinzer is tending to approach Turkey from a Turkey-is-European (or at least proto-European) than a Turkey-is-fundamentally-different standpoint. I worry that Kinzer is eliding some important differences even though he does do a fine job of balancing his viewpoint.

As with any book written about a country by a non-native, I also worry about his pile of "reccomendations" for Turkey, and am concerned that his obvious pro-Europe slant is coloring his perceptions of the country. Unfortunately, I don't know that much about recent Turkey so I don't know how much of his view is accurate and how much is totally slant.

Having said all of that, it's obvious that Kinzer did his research, and it's obvious that he loves Turkey. He doesn't shy away from tackling the big subjects in Turkey and Turkish history (Armenians, Kurds, etc). It's nice to read a book by someone who cares so much about the subject he's writing about. I just worry about his conclusions.