Fine work - could be more severe on the Turks
352349
A good history of a critical stage in middle sea history. Malta was of more importance in the long term. If it had fallen to the Ottomans the west mediterranean coastlines would have become nothing more than a great slave hunting littoral for a monstrous,despotic and cruel empire. Pity the Christian powers could not get their act together after Lepanto. Getting Cyprus back should have been an A-1 priority.
2136552
We found this book to be excellent, but a little dry. That is only because it about the politics and history of Turkey in a depth that we had not seen before. This is not a tourist book, like, "Go see the Blue Mosque." This is excellent at letting you understand the real Turkey and Turks. BTW, as Americans, we really enjoyed Turkey and especially Turks. They are usually very gracious and friendly. The amount of history and remains of 3,000+ years is amazing. And some say the perhaps 13,000 year old 'Gobekli Tepe is the most important archaeological site in the world.' Great food, too.
318777
A great "short history" of modern Turkey. The Popes cover a very large ground with brio. They provide a clear and coherent  narrative of Turkey's recent history. The only downside: The focus is on political history and cultural/social history is neglected a bit. The book is meant to inform general readers. The tone is thus very light and informal. That makes Turkey Unveiled a very enjoyable read. The fact that both Turkish and Armenian nationalists had problems with the book seems like a good indicator of a truly objective piece of work...
259575
The history of the fall of the Ottoman empire underscores the troubles Turkey adds to the Mideast situation today. Rogan provides considerable detail on the political and military conflicts of Ottoman leaders with those of greater Europe. He focused on three of the Young Turks who attempted to gain greater power in the Mideast by forging alliances with France and Britain as WWI seemed inevitable, finally turning to Germany, much to their regret. The several campaigns the Ottoman army units fought are discussed in terms of strategy and tactics. Some details are revisited more often than needed, but do not take away from interest in history as relevant to Turkey's current dilemma with Syria, the Kurds and Russia. Rogan's contribution to understanding of current issues in the Mideast is a worthy effort for history buffs to pursue and geopolitical citizens to digest.
756942
Bogosian has written an honest, well-balanced account of the genocide inflicted upon the Armenian people during the First World War and the retribution meted out by individual Armenians upon a small number of Turkish leaders behind it. He also gave a fair account of the events leading up to it and the aftermath extending well into the late 20th Century. Since I had studied the history of the Middle East, his extensive ancient historical background of the Turks was tedious to me, but, perhaps, not to others. However, I had to chuckle at the comment of a friend that the arrogance of some American politicians of Armenian descent made it easier to see the Turkish view. LOL. But, of course, this is a real horror story which needs similar exposure to the "Holocaust" inflicted upon Jews by the Nazis.
418854
A terrific satire, with memorable characters and a wry account of early Republican Turkey. A book for the ages: bureaucracy will be with us forever.

Sadly, the novel reads unevenly and is poorly edited. Maybe this is because retailer firstclassbooks sent a prepublication review copy complete with typos and - possibly- editing errors.
3873754
Many students of Ottoman history choose to ignore the late 1700s and early 1800s because they are viewed as a period of decline.
This is the period in which the Ottomans began their remarkable effort to meet the challenge of the West and deserves our interest. This is the Turkey in which the grand parents( Ok maybe the great grandparents) of Kemal Ataturk grew up and to know thisTurkey is to also understand where Ata turk and before him the Young Turks came from.
The weaknesses of the book are the typical ones of all Osprey books - too brief, trying to cover too much in too short a space, an emphasis on military minutia - I ender how many Osprey purchasers really are modelers who are interested in minor clothing details?
1545843
I am giving this book five stars, notwithstanding a factual error that should have been caught by the editor. On page 3 there is a reference to the Jewish Diaspora since "they had been defeated by the Romans in 70 B.C." Problematically, the actual year is 140 years later -- 70 C.E. (a/k/a A.D.). Having said this, the book is a fine work of scholarship and did enlighten me both with respect to the complexity of the issue, as faced both by FDR and Truman. FDR did vacillate, and clearly was more focused on the effort to win World War II, naively thinking that somehow the issue of Jewish slaughter and refugees would solve itself. He clearly had hopes of convincing Saudi King Ibn Saud of the wisdom of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine when he met him just after the Yalta conference. However, by then he was too ill to focus his true attention, and he clearly regretted that he did not challenge Saud on his fallacious historical claims.

Truman, a true hero in this drama, was beyond frustrated by the lack of progress by the British and the perceived lack of appreciation by certain Zionist leaders, particularly, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver.

There are several references in the book to the great playwright Ben Hecht, who as many may know wrote works as diverse at "The Front Page" and "Perfidy." In his autobiography, "A Child of the Century", Hecht opined that "in the warmest Christian heart, there is a cold spot for the Jew." While I do not believe the statement is universally true, it nonetheless represents a mindset that still prevails.  Further, while the authors do not quote this statement, they demonstrate it in some of the more vitriolic comments by President Truman.

What ultimately comes through is that President Truman, as much as he was a politician wished to do what was just, and rose to the occasion, extending de facto recognition to the new State of Israel, when almost everyone in his cabinet was against doing so. He risked wholesale resignations both by the U.S. delegation to the U.N. and in the State Department itself. His courage was in taking the leap of faith necessary and damning the consequences if he proved wrong.

The book is an excellent, absorbing and engrossing telling of a fascinating series of events in world history. This is all the more important now, when the World at large seems to have forgotten its own complicity in the slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews.

Moreover, when one reads the way the Arabs reacted to the possibility of even one more Jew emegrating to Palestine, one cannot help but conclude that the Arab Muslim mindset has not evolved at all in over sixty years.  When the UNSCOP committee went to Palestine to interview both Jews and Arabs, the Arabs refused to meet with them and only the Marionite Christians in Lebanon expressed support for the idea of a Jewish State in Palestine, with which they could find common ground.

I must confess, that as an Orthodox Jew, I was exceedingly impressed by the leadership manifested both by Reform Rabbis Abba Hillel Silver and Stephen Wise. This was at a time when Reform Judaism took an egalitarian and anti-Zionist view of the world. Yet, these two men were moved by the passion to save the remnant of European Jewery. For this leadership and kinship they have earned both my thanks and admiration, and remind me that just as Hitler did view Jews based upon their level of observance, so too should we not do so.
2130561
This story offers an interesting historical perspective of Turkey's response to Hitler and the treatment of Jews. There is a decent amount of character development, though some get cast aside. I would have liked to experience greater description about the arrival of the train and how the people managed to get to it. There were some areas that flowed somewhat awkwardly; I imagine this has to do with phrases that do not translate directly from Turkish to English. Overall, Last Train to Istanbul is a very worthwhile read.
2083035
I'd like to say that I liked this book very much. However, I disagree with the commentaries that highlight the significance of the historic component of this undoubtedly dramatic work. The form chosen by the author is perfectly set off by the historical background. To tell you the truth, this book is instructive in many aspects, and it reminds us of dramatic pages of Jewish history that sank into oblivion. While reflecting on this topic and that period, I have to say that the author omits some details advisedly, and, to be exact, the one that states that not all the Jews refused to adopt imposed on them Christianity, but many of them stayed in Spain till nowadays. Anyway these are some details, the main idea is that the novel is very dynamic, its plot is very exciting  and it is interesting to read about the complex network of different fates at critical moments of the world history. The main drawbacks are the simplified style and superficiality of some characters. But i believe that these are the drawbacks of translation, and the author is either  Turk or Jew, hence English is not his native language. It would be interesting to have a look at the original work, and it is very interesting to know who the author is and whether he has any other books.
4829572
This is my first reading on the subject of the battles between the Ottomans and the HRE since my high school survey history class.  It was a good re-entry.  I learned quite a lot and I never felt that the text dragged as some others have said.

I wholeheartedly concur that the book desperately requires maps or diagrams or something to assist the reader - especially one new to the subject - in getting the bearings set.

In all, I would recommend the book.  I enjoyed it as a vacation read, and I would enjoy it as nightly entertainment.

I am less enthused about the stated goal to explain why the west distrusts the Turks to this day.  The scope of the book was not sufficient for such an analysis and the conclusory portion did not help.
2335686
Its truly telling that Turks are trying to enter the European Union and be part of the West and not finally sit down like an adult nation and admit to the horrorific acts that were committed during the Ottoman times against the Armenians, the Kurds, the Greeks, the Cypriots and most of their Arab neighbors (even though they were muslim).

It is unfortunate to still see misguided defenders of the Turkish points refuting the Genocides of the Pontus people, Assyrians, Kurds, and Armenians by reviewers obviously educated and grown up in Turkey and subjected to the overt propaganda of a regime that is still not truly democratic, overtly nationalistic through history, where the press is still not free, and where abuses of basic human rights still make their entry into the European Union being questioned by 20+ members of the Union.

Oh yeah, its not the Ottoman Empires' fault, it is not modern Turkey's fault, the Armenian Genocide was a lie, the Greek massacres in Izmir (Smyrna) were a lie despite live news footage of the atrocities, the systematic aggression against the Kurds still going on a lie, the Turkish aggression and invasion of Cyprus a fictitious "wag the dog" event...This is an example of a backwards mentality and approach to issues that Turks will have to accept responsibilty for if they are to ever truly be part of the European Union, or part of the Arab world that they alianated also by ill-treating them during the Ottoman times. One word for our Turkish brethren, accountability is often liberating...

This book is powerful. It is obvious that some of its detractors haven't even read it. They were sent here to Amazon to debunk it with the same deniability that has gone on for years. As I said elsewhere, the world has numbers, we have documentation, we have pictures, we have stories and books written about these attrocities, and campaigns of missinformation cannot alter the truth. Whatever the Christians may have "done" to the Turks in the Ottoman empire, the Christians were still the Turkish-subjects and second class citizens in Turkey...Even if they did try to revolt (which they didn't really), just like the Americans and the French did during those times, killing 3/4 of the Christian rebells would be inexcusable, and it is.

Different times, yes.  Moving populations, yes.  Different cultures, yes.  Different religions, yes.  Slaughter on the Greeks of Smyrna, yes.  Genocide of the Pontus people, yes.  Genocide on the Assyrians, yes.  Genocide of the Armenians, yes. Invasion of the tiny Island on Cyprus and mass-forced exodus of its populations barely 30 years ago, yes.  Continued and organized persecutions of Kurds and systemic efforts against any efforts of  Kurdish state, yes.  Continued Human Rights abuses, yes.  YOU JUST CAN'T HIDE AND OBFUSCATE THESE MANY INFRACTIONS...PERIOD! However, I do believe that accountability will lead to acceptance and reconcilliation for Turkey with all its neighbors.

God Bless Everyone in the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor...
1358121
I begin this review with reservations.  I have looked at the other reviews and know that those extremists on either side will vote "no" when asked if it were helpful.

I have read greatly on this subject, and have spent many months traversing back and forth through Turkey, staying in small villages and crawling through the brush.  I specifically went to one small town to see an Armenian church, only to find that it had been blown up with dynamite two years before.  My wife found the ruins of another, buried in the brambles in a draw well off a side road.  I suppose it will eventually be obliterated as well.

We  have found exhibits in museums that are entitled "The Armenian Genocide", but which contain only exhibits explaining that it was the Turks who were victims and the Armenians the perpetrators.  All reference to Armenia has been erased; Even the ruin of the Armenian church in Ani is called merely a "Christian church".  This has happened all over Turkey.

With this (and all pseudo "history" taught in Turkish schools), it is no wonder that the so-called "Turkish side" objects to this book.  It certainly does not show the Ottomans in a good light, nor does it downplay the scope of the inhumanity that occurred.  It is no wonder that a modern day Turk might find this book offensive.

On the other hand, conversations from the Armenian side seem to be dominated by extremists who will be satisfied by nothing less than full acceptance of all responsibility for a holocaust-like attempt at extermination, as well as the return of most of modern Turkey to Armenia (although the Armenians were not a majority in those regions), the forced deportation of modern Kurdish and Turkish occupants, and fantastic monetary awards.  These people will also find this book offensive.

I believe that Mr. Lewy has made the best and fairest analysis of the situation that is possible, with the current state of knowledge.  He has not tried to satisfy either side, but to be objective.  Could things be other than he has presented them?  I suppose so, but only if other evidence is discovered.

Meanwhile, if you are in the majority who wants to truly understand the horrible events of 1915-16, this is an outstanding, well-written book.
2622006
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I was looking for a quick introduction to the Ottoman empire to expand upon later and this worked quite well. The good: Easy writing style. A broad view then consolidation of the multitude of tribes that were the Turks. The bad: So many different geographical names... would it hurt to toss in a map or three? The ugly: Not any ugly. Some jumping back and forth of the time line, which can get confusing, but often a necessary and unavoidable evil in any history book. Conclusion: Go ahead and read it.
2741452
Duderija has done a impressive job in identifying and comparing the interpretive methodologies of the groups at opposite ends of the spectrum of contemporary Muslim thought, and at the same time situating them in relation to each other and to the long-established  methodologies of the surviving Sunni madhahib.  There is much in this incredibly dense work that deserves attention from and suggests further avenues of research for other scholars in the field.  I gave the book four rather than five stars because it reads too much like a doctoral dissertation to be easily accessible to the non-academic reader.  It would have benefited from more careful editing and revision.  I hope the author will consider reworking his excellent content for the benefit of a more general readership.
4872184
This is a rebutal to Edward Said's beselling diatribe against Western based scholarship on the Near East. It is also a balanced and careful history of Western (mainly European)study of Near Eastern languages, history and customs. Where Said grouped together almost every specialization in Middle Eastern studies under the same umbrella, Robert Irwin is careful to give each its proper attention.

He points out Said's typical use of over generalization and lack of attention to accuracy and is careful to say that it is not Said's stand on the Arab-Israelie conflict that he has fault with, just his somewhat distorted view of Western scholarship.
343159
Human beings do not understand history as a mere collection of facts, but through the structure of a narrative. Understanding history, then, in part involves understanding the narrative. The trouble is, there's more than one narrative, and that is all too easy to forget. Tamim Ansary's aim of Destiny Interrupted, as I understand it, is to present Westerners with the Islamic narrative.

Destiny Interrupted is not a perfect book, but it has enough virtues that I am willing to overlook its shortcomings. First, the book contains a lot of information about history, and it covers some new areas for me. For instance, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, the beginning of the Czars in Russia and the beginning of the Ottoman Empire are all very tightly related. Anyone who is looking for a primer for understanding the broad goings-on of the near Eastern world over the last 1,500 years will have a hard time doing better than this. And it's all presented in a very engaging manner.

A second plus about the book is that it has helped me understand how hard the Industrial Revolution has hit Muslim societies, and why they are not all rushing to greet the Enlightenment with open arms. Whereas in Europe, individualism evolved over a period of several hundred years as feudalism decayed, Islam was thrown into cold water. The culture shock continues to this day. As much as I am a cheerleader for Western values, I can understand how galling it must be to have them imposed from the top down. Some of it was just plain gratuitous, like Ataturk's getting rid of the Arabic script and changing the day of rest from the traditional Friday to Sunday, the Christian day of prayer, for crying out loud! That does nothing to make people free and equal, it just wrenches them from their cultural underpinnings!

I would very much like to give this book five stars, but I am disturbed by some of the white washing that takes place. Some much harsher reviewers have mentioned the Ansary's handling of the Banu Qurayza tribe incident, and they are right to complain. This is the story of the execution by Muslims of as many as 900 men of a Jewish tribe in Medina (formerly Yathrib) for betraying Muhammad at the Battle of the Ditch, where Muslims won their final military victory over their pagan foes.

The early sources such as Ibn Ishaq explicitly mention that the surviving women and children were taken as slaves. Even the Qu'ran contains a brief reference to  this, though it doesn't give the numbers or specify women and children. But according to Ansary, they were exiled and allowed to live out the rest of their lives with Jewish tribes. He provides no source for this claim, nor does he acknowledge that some sources (all that I am aware of!) say that they were enslaved. I have read at least one article challenging Ibn Ishaq's account, but what could be the justification for cherry picking it in this way believing the deaths but not the enslavement part?

Ansary does not pay much attention to the jihads that killed tens of millions of Hindus over the centuries. He doesn't ignore them, but you wouldn't guess their scale by this book. He also describes the Muslim Brotherhood as starting out as "a kind of Boy Scouts for Muslims." Only in a very superficial way: being composed of young people, being organized into military units and the like. But Robert Mitchell's book "Society of Muslim Brothers" makes clear that it was totalitarian and supremacist from its inception in the mind of Hasan al-Bana.

In other regards, Ansary is at pains to give both views, as when he takes up the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

I recommend you read this book to understand the Muslim world. Just don't let it be the last book on the topic you read!