Norman Stone on Turkish History

Turkey is rediscovering its Ottoman past, says the British professor living in Ankara. He tells us where to find compelling insights into Turkish history, and says he’d rather have medical treatment in Turkey than England

What is compelling about Turkey that would make someone read one book about the country, let alone five?

I must be quite autobiographical here, as I live in Turkey. I can remember the moment when I first arrived. I was met by five incredibly grim-looking policemen in black uniforms, black moustaches, grim expressions, standing curiously under a sign marked “Strictly No Smoking”. Serious country, I thought! But actually it’s rather nice living here. Once you arrive, you get rather fascinated by it. The newspapers and books are interesting, and it’s been around for a long time. I’d like to write a book about foreigners in Turkey, as that’s quite an interesting subject. Foreigners have always been enormously important here. There’s been some very good characters, and also of course some shysters. The list goes on and on.

How do you relate Turkey’s long and varied history to its present, to what you see around you?

That’s very interesting. When the republic was set up [in 1923] they decided they were going to start as if it was year one, and forget about all the Ottoman history. They thought it was just the old corruption. They dumped a lot of Ottoman documents and gave them to Bulgaria. They expelled the dynasty. Instead, they wrote a republican history which is just Turkish nationalism. They regarded religion, for instance, as something which is foreign and hostile. Then, as time went by, things changed. Now we have a Turkish government which is in sympathy with the Ottoman Empire. In fact, they talk about neo-Ottomanism all over the place. So Turkish history is very much alive. If you turn on the telly here, there are some very good serials about it.

When I look at the present government, which has been tremendously successful, it actually reminds me of Abdul Hamid II [one of the last Ottoman sultans] in the late 19th century. Before he went off the tracks, that was quite a successful regime. It was religious but it wasn’t particularly oppressive. What’s curious is that it made a bridge to the Kurds, which is an important division at the moment.

There’s a lovely long German compound noun, Vergangenheitsbewältigung, which means “coming to terms with the past”. Germany did a good job of it after the GDR. China is rubbish at it. How does Turkey fare?

They’re just rediscovering their history. It’s a wonderful thing to see it endlessly talked about. But they get terribly angry about the diaspora of Armenians, who jump up and down years later and try to compare what happened [during World War I] with Hitler and the Jews. That just doesn’t work.

What do you think people get wrong about the Armenian genocide?

The diaspora of Armenians seem to define themselves by their grievance. But they weren’t all just innocents. There were Armenian nationalists who were giving the Turks and the Kurds more or less as good as they got. They had troops in the Russian army, and the French were training more of them in Cyprus. I dare say it’s true that the Turks overreacted, but there is a degree of provocation on the Armenian side. You can’t really compare it to what Hitler did to the Jews. The situation is not the same.

And what do people get wrong about Turkey today, and its place in the world?

Turkey has very much been making a return. Even in 1995, when I came here, it counted as an exceedingly eccentric thing to jump from Oxford and come to Turkey. But it seems a lot less eccentric now. The country is in the news more, and you can tell you’re in the middle of an economic boom. They’re back. But they’re also held back, because the language is not Indo-European and it is quite a difficult language. So maybe they don’t get as many foreigners taking an interest in them as they might. English academe has not kept up with the Ottomans as it used to.

Let’s get stuck into the books, to better understand the country’s history and present. We’re beginning with Levant. Tell us about this book.

Philip Mansel’s book Levant is a comparison of Beirut, Alexandria and Smyrna in the modern age. He talks about how the Christians and non-Christians got on. Obviously he ends with the disaster of the Christians being squeezed out, and he feels that things went downhill after that. It’s an awfully good book.

His heart’s in Alexandria. He studies the history of the British there, and makes the place come alive. I’m sure some of these Greeks must have been insufferable. You come across them in Evelyn Waugh and Olivia Manning, these Levantine Greeks. On the other hand, they did good. He also discusses the Great Fire of Smyrna [in 1922]. A third of the population was Greek, a bit more was Armenian, and of course afterwards they mainly went. It’s a very sad business, the burning down of the Christian quarter. But Philip is very fair-minded about it. He recognises that you can’t just say that the Turks burnt down Smyrna without looking at the background.

How is the Levant different to Turkey, in feel?

I don’t know Alexandria or Beirut very well. But the Levant is very different. Turkey is miles ahead. I was in Aleppo [in northern Syria] in January, and when you go north from Aleppo over the Turkish border it’s almost like moving up a lock in a canal. That part of Turkey is not even that progressive, but you can sense that things work. There are hospitals and schools and a civil service which does its stuff. The difference with Aleppo is night and day.

http://thebrowser.com/interviews/norman-stone-on-turkish-history