Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey

Andrew Mango

4.10 · Rating details · 954 ratings · 118 reviews

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was virtually unknown until 1919, when he took the lead in thwarting the victorious Allies' plan to partition the Turkish core of the Ottoman Empire. He divided the Allies, defeated the last Sultan, and secured the territory of the Turkish national state, becoming the first president of the new republic in 1923, fast creating his own legend.

Andrew Man ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 666 pages

Published August 26th 2002 by Harry N. Abrams (first published 1999)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Atatürk, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Mustafa Kemal

100 books — 8 voters

An Intimate History of Humanity by Theodore Zeldin

How Many Friends Does One Person Need? by Robin I.M. Dunbar

Emrah Safa Gürkan Kitap Önerileri

70 books — 1 voter

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.10 ·

Rating details

· 954 ratings · 118 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey

Jun 09, 2014 Jonathan added it · review of another edition

Shelves: history

Ataturk is a hard man to sum up. A brilliant leader, a supporter of the Enlightenment and an enemy of religious obscurantism, he managed to drag Turkey by the scruff of its neck into the modern era and create the basis for a semi-European society there. He was more responsible than anyone for preserving Turkey's independence and territorial integrity after the First World War, and the Turks will never be allowed to forget it! While he believed in democracy, he was smart enough to know that the T ...more

flag 23 likes · Like · see review

Jul 28, 2013 Robert Morris rated it really liked it

A great book. At 500 pages, it still feels like a whirlwind tour through the life of the father of the Turkish Republic. The man got an incredible amount done in a sadly short life. Prior to reading the book I only had a broad stroke sense of it, but this book makes the sheer scale of his achievement clear. Ataturk, and the people surrounding him, managed to reverse 200 years of decline and place Turkey on an upswing. That they were able to do this while being besieged by the victors of World Wa ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Dec 01, 2011 Gordon rated it liked it

Andrew Mango is a professional historian who has written a book for other professional historians. Hailed as the "definitive biography" of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, it is marked by the strengths and weaknesses of that genre. On the one hand, it's very well-researched, very detailed and very exacting with respect to the likely truthfulness of the sources cited. On the other hand, it's overly detailed, it follows a rigid chronological form, keeps up an unvarying tempo, and is quite boring. Mango is Andrew Mango is a professional historian who has written a book for other professional historians. Hailed as the "definitive biography" of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, it is marked by the strengths and weaknesses of that genre. On the one hand, it's very well-researched, very detailed and very exacting with respect to the likely truthfulness of the sources cited. On the other hand, it's overly detailed, it follows a rigid chronological form, keeps up an unvarying tempo, and is quite boring. Mango is a historian who can't tell a story to save his life. Nor is the book generally very analytical about the man, his country, or his incredible times. For the most part, it's a dry recitation of facts and events. You should only read this book if you have a deep and abiding interest in modern Turkish history and want to know the gritty details.

Having said all that, here's the rough summary of the story:

Mustapha Kemal Ataturk is a revered figure in Turkey. His statues grace many city squares, his photo hangs on the wall of every government office. He is a sort of George Washington and Napoleon all rolled into one, and because he only died in 1938, he is still within the memory of elderly Turks still living.

His accomplishments lay in many fields. On the military front, he first came to national attention as one of the commanding generals in the Battle of Gallipolli in 1915, when the Turks defeated an invading force of British, French, Australians and New Zealanders, with very heavy casualties on both sides. Coming in the midst of World War I, a war where Turkish victories were few and far between, it helped salvage Turkish national pride.

In the wake of the loss of the war, the Ottoman Empire was largely dismembered by the victorious Allies, with pieces going to various Balkan countries, Greece, Armenia, and assorted newly created Middle Eastern states controlled by the French and British. The empire was reduced to a rump that was soon to be called simply "Turkey". Even that rump was endangered when the Greek Army invaded the Aegean coast and started pushing inland into Anatolia.

In the midst of this disastrous situation, Ataturk seized the initiative in organizing senior military leaders along with some civilian ones to put together a new regime, completely parallel to the still-functioning Ottoman administration under the Sultan in Istanbul, which was under the thumb of the occupying Allies. Setting up a de facto new capital inland in Ankara, Ataturk steadily eroded the credibility, authority and political power of the Ottoman regime. It was this new government that put together the army that eventually stopped the Greek advance in August 1921 at the Battle of Sakarya.

Biding his time, by one year later in 1922 Ataturk felt strong enough to attack the Greek forces and start pushing them out of Anatolia. In the two-day battle of Dumlupinar, he routed the Greek army, which retreated in disorder to the Aegean coast and was soon evacuated back to Greece. The Turkish army followed hot on its heels, and retook the main coastal city of Izmir (known as Smyrna to the Greeks). Allied warships then evacuated over 200,000 civilians, almost the entire Greek population of the city, as the city burned. Very soon, well over two millennia of Greek presence in Anatolia came to an end.

This spectacular and unexpected victory re-established Turkey as a serious power that the wartime Allies, who still occupied Istanbul and various other parts of the country, had to negotiate with. Within less than a year, the Turks negotiated a new treaty at Lausanne, which is the only major treaty of the immediate post World War I era to survive to this day. By its terms, the Allies withdrew their forces, renounced their special privileges, and recognized the borders of the new Turkey. The remaining Greek civilians from various parts of the country, especially Istanbul, the Sea of Marmara coast and the Black Sea coast, were expelled and in return Turks from the Balkans and Greece were sent to Turkey. The sultan was sent packing, the caliphate ended, and Ataturk was the (almost) unchallenged leader of the new Republic of Turkey.

If Ataturk had ended his career then and there, he would still be a revered figure. But he remained in power for another 15 years, during which time he remade Turkish society. He believed that Turkey would forever be dominated by the West unless it modernized and became "civilized". To this end, he implemented countless changes: he abolished the old Arabic script and created a new Turkish alphabet based on the Roman alphabet. Arabic and Persian words were banned from the new Turkish, to be replaced with Turkish terms or loan-words from Western languages. The Islamic calendar was replaced with the Western one. The fez was abolished and civil servants required to wear European hats. Islam was dis-established as the state religion. Religious schools were closed and replaced with secular ones. Foreign-owned enterprises were nationalized. The national railway network was vastly enlarged. Women were given legal rights for the first time, including the right to inherit, to vote and to serve as elected representatives. The capital was moved from Istanbul to Ankara. It must have been quite dizzying for Turks, especially those in the educated elite.

Meanwhile, Ataturk put in place the form of a political democracy without much of its substance. When the Kurds revolted (as they did more than once) against the suppression of their language, it was brutally put down, and their leaders executed in a mass hanging. The opposition party -- created at Ataturk's behest by his own allies -- was quickly banned a few months later. The independent press was shut down. Opponents were arrested and in some rare cases executed on trumped-up charges. Even Ataturk's own comrades in arms, if they became too powerful, soon found themselves shunted aside and even arrested.

Ataturk created and transformed modern Turkey, but by the time of his death of cirrhosis of the liver in 1938 -- he liked the good life a bit too much -- it remained a backward country. With a population comprised overwhelmingly of rural peasants, the illiteracy rate remained above 80%. The loss of the Greek and Armenian populations was crippling to the economy, since they had made up almost the whole of the commercial and craftsmen classes, and almost all of them had emigrated or been slaughtered in the Great War and the War of Independence. Their skills took a long time to replace. Still, the country was steadily modernized. Although it took the better part of three generations, long after Ataturk's death, by the end of the twentieth century Turkey had joined the ranks of the fast-growing developing nations, and was a regional super-power. It even has a genuine functioning democracy with an Islamist party in power. And even through Ataturk was himself a secular autocrat, modern Turkey is very much his legacy. ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Oct 17, 2012 Murtaza rated it really liked it

Mustafa Kemal was arguably the most important man to live in the 20th century. Not only did he save Turkey from being carved by the West into unrecognizable pieces like the Arab states (inaugurating a seemingly endless period of political dysfunction), he was the prototype for the secularizing military strongman. He has inspired countless imitators, right up to people like Pervez Musharraf and Abdulfattah Sisi, none of whom have ever been able to match his success either on the battlefield or in Mustafa Kemal was arguably the most important man to live in the 20th century. Not only did he save Turkey from being carved by the West into unrecognizable pieces like the Arab states (inaugurating a seemingly endless period of political dysfunction), he was the prototype for the secularizing military strongman. He has inspired countless imitators, right up to people like Pervez Musharraf and Abdulfattah Sisi, none of whom have ever been able to match his success either on the battlefield or in his effort at cultural revolution.

We are still feeling the effects of Ataturk's heroic efforts in the Turkish War on Independence, as well as his traumatic attempt at de-Islamizing of Turkish society, as well as the abolishment of the last historically legitimate Caliphate. His record is very mixed. He instituted a type of Mao Zedong-like cultural long march towards Westernization (a specific type of Westernization that even Westerners became disillusioned with), and that partly counts against him, but on balance, at the end of the day he kept Turkey alive. Although he created a form of authoritarian politics which survives, he gave his country a chance to become something it wants to be, however long that might take, by keeping it intact in the face of imperialist aggression.

It is also very notable that unlike many other rulers for whom there is vast a cultural and educational between them and their people, he didn't despite them. In fact, he clearly loved them. He wanted to create them in an image that resembled him (he said as much) but he did so because he thought that would be the only way they could survive in the ruthless world of modernity. Many of his shabby contemporary knockoffs on the other hand clearly hold their uneducated people in contempt, and use them instead as a vehicle for extracting wealth and power. Ataturk did not enrich himself vastly or create a hereditary dynasty, he truly did what he thought was best. Ultimately, although some of his decisions were misguided, even disastrous, he succeeded in creating something that has survived and even allowed his people to thrive; at a time when they had faced a future of absolute devastation.

The book itself is detailed, based on Turkish sources, and probably even necessary reading for people with an interest in this subject. Having said that it is for the most part a dry recitation of fact, and is by no means a gripping or accessible read. Nonetheless is still a herculean effort at telling this story in great detail (maybe even too much detail at times), so I can't detract too much from it. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Feb 16, 2009 Tyler Anderson rated it really liked it

Shelves: biography

This is a wildly apologetic and slanted biography of the founder of the State of Turkey. That said, any adult with an outline of 20th Century geopolitics will pretty easily read between the lines. Kemal Ataturk was an autocrat who skirted around the edges of a sort of National Socialism Lite. But, as these are the realities, this is the texture and the framework that makes Ataturk such an interesting figure—a sort of modernist benevolent dictator. Benevolent, I suppose, unless you are a politica ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Dec 25, 2010 Mohamed Montasser rated it liked it

I got this book for one reason, I wanted to know how one person succeeded in distancing Islam and people in a country that was once the heart of the Muslim Caliphate. I have heard stories from Muslim scholars about Mostafa Kemal, and to me most of what I heard sounded like a conspiracy theory, so I needed to get the story from an "unbiased" source so I got this book during my last trip to Istanbul.

The book itself is too detailed to my taste, sometimes it felt like reading chronicles, also too mu I got this book for one reason, I wanted to know how one person succeeded in distancing Islam and people in a country that was once the heart of the Muslim Caliphate. I have heard stories from Muslim scholars about Mostafa Kemal, and to me most of what I heard sounded like a conspiracy theory, so I needed to get the story from an "unbiased" source so I got this book during my last trip to Istanbul.

The book itself is too detailed to my taste, sometimes it felt like reading chronicles, also too much military details were given, probably I have felt this way because I was only interested in one aspect of the man's life, his religious views and beliefs.

The author made it clear that Mostafa Kemal didn't really believe in religion, as he related it many times to superstitions, but according to the author, Kemal's reasons to drop Islam were mainly because he felt that for Turkey to advance and become a civilized country of this world, they have to follow the western model of civilization, in which secularism is cornerstone, this went to the extreme of changing the Turkish language to use the Latin alphabet instead of the Arabic one. The author seemed to fully accept that Islam was responsible for the backwardness of Turkey in the beginning of the 20th century, and that giving it up was the right thing to do.

The other thing, is that Mostafa Kemal was a nationalist, so he believed in Turkey for the Turkish people instead of a Muslim nation that combines all races, he was also a firm believer of the superiority and the nobility of the Turkish race, this led him to the "Turkization" of Turkey which hosted back then a mixture of all the nations that comprised the Muslim world, this obsession with Turkization led to the creation of an almost new language in which all words with non-Turkish roots were eliminated and replaced with a new Turkish vocabulary, he also insisted that the call for prayer (Azan) to be recited in Turkish which remained that way until the 50's, he also tried to make the prayers themselves to be in Turkish, which wasn't really possible.

So, with regards to the conspiracy theory, the author makes it clear that the choices of Mostafa Kemal were coming form his beliefs that Westernization and Nationalism were the only way for Turkey to progress, I have no way to judge, as I didn't see what's inside his heart, but when I was searching for the word "Donmeh" which describes the ethnicity of Mostafa Kemal, I found this definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donmeh) which leaves all possibilities open. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Oct 13, 2013 Paul Sharpe rated it it was amazing

Shelves: biography, history, turkey

Mango's Ataturk must certainly be the most authoritative and accessible English biography of Ataturk available. Mango's detailed biography is a chronological narrative that starts with a clear account of Mustafa Kemal's family, place of birth and origins and ends with the death of the great leader and the fall out thereof. This sweeping biography is placed in the context of late Ottoman decline and early 20th century European strife and conflict and seeks to understand the nationalistic ideals t Mango's Ataturk must certainly be the most authoritative and accessible English biography of Ataturk available. Mango's detailed biography is a chronological narrative that starts with a clear account of Mustafa Kemal's family, place of birth and origins and ends with the death of the great leader and the fall out thereof. This sweeping biography is placed in the context of late Ottoman decline and early 20th century European strife and conflict and seeks to understand the nationalistic ideals that motivated and informed Kemal from the beginning to the end of his career. Mango has tried to capture the full picture of Kemal and searches to separate fact from legend (not always easy) and present a full picture of the man: his strengths, weaknesses and insecurities. Kemal's life is certainly an interesting one and the rich color that infuses this book from beginning to end makes it an enjoyable and stunning biography that anyone with the slightest interest in modern Turkey's origins and the development of Turkey as the nation state it is today should read.

As noted above, Ataturk's life and legacy is inextricably linked to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of Turkish nationalism and the modern state of Turkey. It is on this canvas which Mango carefully crafts a lucid and clear narrative that helps to develop as complete an understanding of the many faces of Ataturk as is possible. This canvas is filled with an extraordinary number of other characters and events that were pivotal in the formation of Ataturk the man. The events covered include the first Balkan's war, the rise of the CUP or Young Turks, World War I and the Gallipoli Campaign, the Turkish War of Independence against the Greeks and the allies and the negotiations and treaties signed by Turkey to ensure Turkey's claim to nationhood and to become a part of the global constellation of independent countries. As for people, the last Caliphs and Sultans are included as are the young Turks (Talat and Enver) and some other brutal character such as the ruthless and cruel Bearded Nurettin and Ali Faut and Ismet Ionu.

Manogo shows that from a young age Ataturk understood the needs of the Ottoman state, understood the weaknesses that threatened it and as he grew and matured seemed to grasp the remedies required to fix the then Ottoman State. Among Ataturk's main gripes were the influence of religion amongst the Turks and how they viewed menial tasks as being beneath them and how religious education took precedent over the acquisition of practical skills that were required to shift the state forward. Indeed, at the end of the Turkish War of Independence and after all the great dislocations of people in Anatolia, basic skill sets for simple jobs were in great need. Ataturk's complete deconstruction of the religious structures, his dislike of the religious schools and of the Hoca are evident throughout his adult life. Ataturk from a young age, deeply influenced by the French revolution and ideals, had a clear desire for the separation of Religion and State. Additionally, he also encouraged the military and the state to be separate entities and understood clearly the need for a polity separated from the military.

One of the most interesting parts of this book is the creating of the Turkish state: from Mustafa Kemal's exile in Anatolia in the early 1920's to the development of parliament in Ankara and the influence he had without the support of a military shows the tremendous tact, political nous and incredible influence he had among the people he would lead. The development of the Turkish state from 1923 through to his death in the late 1930s is an interesting period of his life and one that is worth spending time on.

There is no getting around the fact that Kemal was a dictator. Apparently he didn't like to be called that and Mango argues that perhaps Kemal should be viewed as a latter day king. However, the fact is he did rule over a one party state for much of his presidency and although the trappings of democracy were being developed under his guidance, he was loathe to cede power. I have heard it said elsewhere that Hitler called him a communist, Stalin a Fascist and the western powers a dictator: whatever the case may be, the Turks today call him The Father of he Turks (Ataturk). His legacy was one of independence, freedom, emancipation from the yoke of religion, emancipation from the trappings of an old sick empire and ultimately, the greatest gift he gave to the Turks was a stable state that had the political structures to grow into a modern, independent state at peace with its neighbors.

Mango's comprehensive biography of this amazing and incredible life is worth the read. His writing is clear and lucid, his narrative colorful and eventful. This is the perfect biography of Ataturk for those with a passing interest in the man and his life and times. A tremendous introduction to late Ottoman decline, the creation of the Turkish state and the development of the structures needed to ensure the longevity of the state. Ataturk was born an Ottoman and died a Turk and his life and times were certainly interesting. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 08, 2014 Omar Taufik rated it it was amazing

This book was simply wonderful, well written and full of useful information.
The author Andrew Mango a British national born in early three year old republican Istanbul 1926 depended on Turkish sources to write this great autobiography on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk the founder of the modern republic of Turkey.
The author takes us from early bringing up in late Ottoman Salonica to military education in Macedonia and Istanbul bringing Mustafa Kemal into the world of politics and revolutionaries. He then This book was simply wonderful, well written and full of useful information.
The author Andrew Mango a British national born in early three year old republican Istanbul 1926 depended on Turkish sources to write this great autobiography on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk the founder of the modern republic of Turkey.
The author takes us from early bringing up in late Ottoman Salonica to military education in Macedonia and Istanbul bringing Mustafa Kemal into the world of politics and revolutionaries. He then introduces us to Mustafa Kemal the successful military leader in both the great war and war of independence to then reach the final stage of Mustafa Kemal the founder then president the Republic of Turkey.
Within this book the reader will be exposed to a great number of subjects which include :
Politics, a great deal of complicated politics from the opposition to Sultan Abdülhamit II to the Young Turks period to the great war and the struggle against the allies ending with the establishment of the Republic in 1923. The complicated political scene continues with internal struggles for power between senior names in the history of the Republic which eventually cools down by 1927 but to still have the scene continue with the political performance of Atatürk along with his special right hand İsmet İnönü.
Idealogy and human thought was displayed and discussed with great talent by the author.
Atatürk personal side was also discussed including family history and his own personal life at it's different stages.
Late Ottoman History was brilliantly accounted for and displayed to the reader.
The famous Kemalist reforms were discussed along with the various reactions with or against it.
Interrelations between various ethnic and religious groups especially in the middle east.

I believe the author did give us a reasonable objective and fair account on Mustafa Kemal Paşa where he did actually give his criticism on some of the events and information on various debatable subjects.

I highly recommend this book for a reader wishing to gain a comprehensive picture on the subject of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk but strongly believe that having a basic idea on Ottoman and Middle East history along with early 20 century history will help in understanding the book and it's rich material and content.

I will definitely depend on this book whenever I need a reference on this subject and other related subjects mentioned in the book being a great piece of work by the late author may he rest in peace. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jan 09, 2015 Rob rated it liked it

Shelves: history, biography, politics, militaria

Too much detail with not enough analysis. The writing style is clumsy and often obscures rather than illuminates. And most of all for a political biography, well for any biography at all actually, the reader does not get a feel for the subject.

The author sometimes hints and sometimes says quite bluntly that Ataturk hid his tracks rather well. There is an Ataturk history industry that has been assiduously building, renovating and burying this mans life since the early twenties. One small example Too much detail with not enough analysis. The writing style is clumsy and often obscures rather than illuminates. And most of all for a political biography, well for any biography at all actually, the reader does not get a feel for the subject.

The author sometimes hints and sometimes says quite bluntly that Ataturk hid his tracks rather well. There is an Ataturk history industry that has been assiduously building, renovating and burying this mans life since the early twenties. One small example. He was not racially purely Turkish. But it seems this has been covered up. There is conjecture that his family's origins are at least, in part, Jewish converts from Salonika, Slav and Albanian. It can only be conjecture as there is no proof. Generally, Turks do not have the blue eyes and light hair of Ataturk.

This assiduous "history-making" on the part of Ataturk and later of the state, undoubtedly would make it impossible to get to the development of Ataturk's ideas. He seemingly had the same ideas from 17 until his death. For an astute, pragmatic, intelligent man, this is highly unlikely.

His revolution was from the top. There was not enough native-born Turks in that class loosely called the intelligentsia that makes revolutions or thinks about them. His particular vision was a society based upon the enlightenment, that while democratic in many ways, was not going to broach opposition particularly from reactionary religion.

Much of this history was new to me. I did not know that the European imperial powers wanted present-day Turkey split into small backward states dependent on great powers to survive. Greece was to have almost half of Turkey. There would be an Armenian state which would have had the same relationship that Syria had to France before World War Two, namely a virtual dependency. There would have also been spheres of influence for Italy and Britain. In other words, it was an unstable, brittle territorial settlement continually teetering on the edge of disaster.

Unlike many of the authoritarian leaders of the '20s and '30s, he was not a bloodthirsty psychotic. He was undoubtedly ruthless, but he was careful and practical. And by the end of this biography, this is as much as I knew about the man. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Mar 03, 2019 Mahmoud Ashour rated it really liked it

Shelves: politics, biography, history

"Ataturk was a competent commander, a shrewd politician, a statesman of supreme realism, But above all, he was a man of the enlightenment. And the enlightenment was not made by saints."-Andrew Mango.

"He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; It is as if he would catch his people in a trap."- Ataturk

"He wanted to persuade his people that modern civilization and Islam were compatible. Then he lost interest in the argument, not because he had been denied the caliphate but beca ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 26, 2011 K rated it liked it

If an expatriate is going to live in Turkey, this book is almost required reading because it is about the person most beloved throughout the nation: Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. I enjoyed this book because it was interesting to see how one person with vision saw enormous opportunity in the decline of the Ottoman Empire and created something completely new. The average leader could get get bogged down in mourning the loss of territory, wealth, and power the Ottoman Empire was exp If an expatriate is going to live in Turkey, this book is almost required reading because it is about the person most beloved throughout the nation: Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. I enjoyed this book because it was interesting to see how one person with vision saw enormous opportunity in the decline of the Ottoman Empire and created something completely new. The average leader could get get bogged down in mourning the loss of territory, wealth, and power the Ottoman Empire was experiencing. Ataturk shrewdly knew what was defensible and what was not. He literally "rebranded" an entire nation, calling it "Turkey" and defended it against the Allied Powers. Today, the Turks are proud to be the only Islamic country that has never been colonized. Coming from America, which now celebrates multi-culturalism, this book helped me understand why Turkish people find multi-culturalism so threatening. At the time of the War of Independence, Turkey was threatened with being "nibbled away" by various ethnic groups claiming "Turkish" land for "their people." With Ataturk's leadership, the land mass known as "Turkey" is one piece and one nation. The Turks have begun updating their dated thinking on multiculturalism with the beginnings of a more liberalized attitude toward the Kurds, but there is a long way to go yet. Turkish attitudes towards ethnically-diverse groups within Turkey are similar to where mainstream white America was on the subject in the 1950s: "Aren't we all Americans? Aren't we all Turks?" Turks are coming around very slowly, like we did, to the idea of "Yes, but....there is nothing wrong with celebrating our varied heritages."

There are a couple things that totally impressed me about Ataturk. He excelled at all martial and diplomatic strategic activity. He had the forgiveness and detachment one sees within great leaders like Mandela toward his former foes. For example, when given the opportunity to walk on a Greek Flag to celebrate a Turkish victory, he refused. His neighboring examples of how to run a country were Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Mussolini's Italy, yet when other party members wanted him to put his party above the nation, he refused. He was superb at cutting losses at what wasn't working, such as the Turkish Arabic-style alphabet and Ottoman-era Turkish language infused with many foreign words, simplifying the whole language with a Latin alphabet. He made government secular within a land that was almost 100% Muslim. Rather than be cowed by worries of offending religious sensibilities, he pursued Western-style education and knowledge for his people. He constantly communicated to them his belief that they could make their own destiny. To this day, Turks carry that feeling within them. Mango's book is considered the definitive source for English-language speakers. It's a little scary how completely Mango dominates the reading list for English-language readers on all things Turkish. He have been enormously productive and his output is extensive. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 16, 2013 Ben rated it liked it

When I was looking for a biography of Ataturk, I wasn't able to decide between this volume and a similar one by Kinoross that predates it, so I decided to read both. My thinking was that this one appeared to do a better job at providing the broader context of what was going on, but was also drier and less likely to get more into the mind of the Turkish leader.

But both actually end up sharing similar flaws. Mango's work does a much better job of setting the scene for Ataturk's rise, explaining t When I was looking for a biography of Ataturk, I wasn't able to decide between this volume and a similar one by Kinoross that predates it, so I decided to read both. My thinking was that this one appeared to do a better job at providing the broader context of what was going on, but was also drier and less likely to get more into the mind of the Turkish leader.

But both actually end up sharing similar flaws. Mango's work does a much better job of setting the scene for Ataturk's rise, explaining the state of the Ottoman Empire leading up to the First World War and more background for what was to come. But despite this grander initial view (Kinoross just kind of launches into Ataturk) it ends up getting pretty bogged down in some rather uninteresting minutiae around Ataturk's fighting in World War I and then the War for Independence.

That's fine, but it feels like it comes at the expense of later, arguably more interesting things such as the cultural effect of largely eliminating religion from the state, shifting the Turkish alphabet, and making the country more women friendly, including taking on the headscarf. Those all get some attention, but really only in the last 100 or so pages of the book. And so you get left with an odd impression where you know a lot about what happened until about 1925 or so, but then the remaining decade of Ataturk's time in power feels almost glossed over.

Reading a bit between the lines, the impression given is that Ataturk stopped mattering quite as much as prime minister and got stuck in some weird things (his attempt to show that the root of all language comes from Turkish via people's reaction to the sun is amusing and sad), but it still feels like more attention to the cultural changes would have been welcome.

One other possible explanation for this short shrift is that the reforms made by Ataturk actually weren't as revolutionary as one thinks and that instead were only part of a process that had begun before and after his time in office. That's sort of implied by Mango at the beginning and the end, but never really explained in much detail.

In some ways, the most interesting value of this work is its comparison to Kinoross' book. Mango's chronology almost directly follows Kinoross and frequently points out stories presented in the earlier volume as fact and pokes a hole in it. That makes for an interesting dialogue and probably says something a smart History PhD would say about how those closer to actual events can get twisted in their presentation (my understanding is that Kinoross presented as fact a lot of what Ataturk said), but not necessarily worth reading two volumes of 500+ pages to see that play out.

All that said, I do think that between Kinoross and Mango, the latter is the better work. It challenges more of the myth or legend around Ataturk, does a better job scene-setting, and lacks some of the more annoying great man of history touches that Kinoross presents (things like Ataturk was clairvoyant about the future course of history, for example). ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 08, 2018 Tolga Turan rated it it was amazing

As a Turkish reader who spent most of teenage and early adulthood in Turkey, I have been in a medium of differing opinions about Ataturk. In Turkey, some worships him and gives him a status nothing less than prophethood. Others fail to give him the least status of a patriot who loved his country and people. There are also those who dare, albeit covertly, to call him anti- islam infidel. Therefore I wanted to read an unbiased biography of the man who saved a country a nation from the depths of po ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 13, 2014 Jimgoodall rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Ataturk was a competent commander, a shrewd politician, a statesman of supreme realism. But above all he was a man of the Enlightenment. And the Enlightenment was not made by saints.
That last paragraph on page 528 sums it up beautifully.
An excellent book, well researched and extremely fair.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 23, 2013 Houssam El okda rated it really liked it

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. Impressions on Ataturk:

I write this as I read the book Ataturk, by Andrew Mango. This book is a massive 800 page historical account by a non-Turkish, well respected historian, who is knowledgable in both the Turkish language and culture. It is both finely detailed and exciting.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was by all means a patriot. He had immense love for his country and a clear vision for its progress. He never sought financial gain from his position, and corruption was not a factor in his tenure.

My ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 25, 2020 Nedret Efe rated it it was amazing

As the founder of the Turkish Republic and the chief architect of the cultural revolution and westernisation of Turkish society that began in the 1920s, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk will be remembered for his incredible contribution to history. His passion for the participation in a universalist, humanist “one civilisation” (reflected in his famous expression “Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh”, or “Peace at home, peace in the world”, the basis of the foreign policy of the early Turkish Republic) underpinned h ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 06, 2017 Irka rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Nie wiem, jak z polskim tłumaczeniem, ale wersja angielska to mnóstwo zmarnowanego potencjału (zwłaszcza Galipoli), a szkoda.

----------------

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap."

Things I've learnt about Ataturk from this book:
- he mixed with his birth date
- he had a lover (not sure if it is correct word, but it seems so from reading)
- he wa ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 08, 2019 Mustafa Moiz rated it it was amazing

A very interesting book. It was very easy to read and it didn’t feel like 500 pages. This is probably the definitive biography of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and, more importantly, it portrays the conditions in the late Ottoman Empire and early modern Turkey very well. It manages to show the conditions into which Atatürk and his contemporaries grew up in and how their present reality affected them and their decisions. It really made me feel as though these were not just historical figures who died a l ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 05, 2018 Socraticgadfly rated it really liked it

Shelves: biography

Good overall.

An English-background author who was born in Turkey and who reads and speaks the language makes for a solid historic background for this book

Mango doesn't whitewash Ataturk, but doesn't throw him under any buses, either.

That said, while Ataturk himself was not involved with the Armenian genocide, tho some battles he led in the War for Independence certainly affected Armenians, as did his Turkization of place names, surnames, etc., it did happen. And Mango never really talks about i ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 27, 2018 Ahmet rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Took me some time to finish, but surely worth it!

Inevitably, it has its flaws here and there, particularly some not very solid conclusions on the Armenian events of 1915(and before, on which he-understandibly- barely touched on). Overall though, as far as the purpose and main subject of the biography and the technique are concerned, it really is definitive.

It is, before all, an immensely meticulous work, doing justice to the term biography. The sources used by the author and persons whom he spo ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 11, 2011 Ali rated it liked it

A Great book on a very controversial leader. As the 21st century began one has to remember Ataturk's is the only country still loyal to ideals of its leader and founder. Iran, Iraq, Egypt and even Tunis have changed drastically and are not anything like what their leaders in early 20th century envisioned. Turkey survived and is ready to take on its place under the sun...It has already taken its place.
I am adding my review in Persian as well:

http://adadpay.com/2010/07/07/111-158/

در دنیای پس از ج A Great book on a very controversial leader. As the 21st century began one has to remember Ataturk's is the only country still loyal to ideals of its leader and founder. Iran, Iraq, Egypt and even Tunis have changed drastically and are not anything like what their leaders in early 20th century envisioned. Turkey survived and is ready to take on its place under the sun...It has already taken its place.
I am adding my review in Persian as well:

http://adadpay.com/2010/07/07/111-158/

در دنیای پس از جنگ جهانی اول خاورمیانه به تحت الحمایه ها و دو کشور مستقل تقسیم می شد: ایران و ترکیه. در هر دو دو نظامی که تا پس از جنگ اول گمنام مانده بودند به قدرت رسیدند. حکومتهای هر دو در پی تاسیس نظمی نوین و مدرن بود و در این راه به اروپا و غرب را الگوی خود قرار دادند.
یکی رضاخان میرپنج بود و دیگر کمال مصطفی پاشا. هر دو نام خانوادگی و صدور شناسنامه را در کشورهایشان اجباری کردند و نامهای جدیدی برگزیدند. رضاخان خود را پهلوی نامید و مصطفی کمال پاشا نام آتاتورک را برگزید. رضاخان رضاشاه شد و موسس سلسله ای جدید شد که پس از خودش سی و هفت سال بیشتر دوام نیاورد. آتاتورک موسس و رئیس جمهور جمهوری ترکیه شد. علیرغم کودتاها و اغتشاشات فراوان آن جمهوری و نظام حکومتی هنوز پابرجاست.
هر دو رویای کشورهایی مستقل را در سر داشتند که سرشکستگی دخالت بیگانگان را تحمل نکنند. یکی بعنوان رئیس جمهور درگذشت و با احترامات شایسته مقامش به خاک سپرده شد. در حالیکه خودش و جانشینانش کشورش را از آتش جنگ جهانی دوم دور نگه داشتند. اما آن دیگری اشغال دوباره کشورش را دید و با خواری به تبعید در جزیره ای دور افتاده رفت. چرا یکی موفق شد و دیگری شکست خورد؟
جالب است که گرچه بسیاری از مورخین ایرانی و وقایعنگاران دوران پهلوی اول به تاثیر آتاتورک بر رضاخان اشاره می کنند، اما هنوز کتاب خوبی درباره زندگی آتاتورک به فارسی منتشر نشده است. آندرو مانگو خلاء چنین کتابی را به زبان انگلیسی جبران کرده است. کتاب او بر اساس اسناد ترکی و متفقین درباره آتاتورک نوشته شده است و از تولد تا مرگ او را در بر می گیرد. کتاب شامل فصلهای کاملی درباره تاسیس جمهوری ترکیه و جنگهای استقلال آن است . در این فصلها خواننده اطلاعات مفیدی درباره آتاتورک و چگونگی شکل گیری طرز تفکر او و ایده هایش درباره جمهوری کسب می کند. اگر خواننده بدنبال پیدا کردن تفاوتهای کمال مصطفی و رضاخان است، این تفاوتها از همان ابتداء آشکارند.
کمال مصطفی پاشا علاوه بر تحصیل در مدرسه نظام به اروپا سفر کرده بود و به زبان آلمانی مسلط بود. گرچه نمی توان او را عضو فعالی در حلقه های روشنفکران ملی گرای ترک قبل از جنگ جهانی اول دانست، ولی او در جریان تحولات و بحثهای فکری جامعه قرار داشت. نامه های بجای مانده از او شاهد ذهن تحلیلگر و در عین حال جاه طلب اوست. از سوی دیگر مطالعات کمال مصطفی وسیع و گسترده بود و شامل آثار کلاسیک عصر روشنگری اروپا می شد. او درباره قانون برداشتی واقع بینانه داشت و کتابهای مونتسکیو را بدقت مطالعه کرده بود. شیوه فرماندهی او محکم ولی بدون جاروجنجال و فحاشیهای رضاخانی بود. و در پایان کمال مصطفی می دانست اگر قانونی وضع می شود شخص او حداقل در ظاهر باید مطیع آن بنظر برسد.
درست است که آتاتورک یک مستبد مردسالار سنتی بود و بهیچوجه شیوه حکومتش شباهتی به یک دمکراسی تکثرگرا نداشت. اما ساز و کارهای حکومتی همواره از مجاری قانونی طی می شدند. او برخلاف رضاخان دلیلی نمی دید که پنهانی به کسب ثروت بپردازد و یا بکوشد شخصا در هر کاری مداخله کند. این شیوه رفتار باعث تثبیت قواعد حکومتی در جامعه ترکیه و ایجاد یک نوع فضای شفاف شد که در نهایت اطمینان مردم و پذیرش برخی از اصلاحات او را در بر داشت. درست است که هم رضاخان و هم کمال مصطفی هر دو مستبد بودند، اما یکی می دانست که در دنیای پس از مرگش تنها پذیرش عمومی می تواند دستاوردهایش را دائمی کند. اما دیگری به ایران پس از خودش فکر نکرده بود. یکی هنوز مورد احترام است و از دیگری حتی سنگ قبری به جای نمانده. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 08, 2014 Ari rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: biography

Ataturk was one of the great statesman of the 20th century -- unquestionably the man who made modern Turkey. With accomplishments like that, it's no surprise he was an interesting person. Not necessarily a nice person, but a striking one.

This biography concentrates mostly on his political life. The political maneuvering is front and center, with military aspects secondary. There are a few revealing details about Ataturk's personal life. We hear a bit about his unhappy marriage -- he had his wife Ataturk was one of the great statesman of the 20th century -- unquestionably the man who made modern Turkey. With accomplishments like that, it's no surprise he was an interesting person. Not necessarily a nice person, but a striking one.

This biography concentrates mostly on his political life. The political maneuvering is front and center, with military aspects secondary. There are a few revealing details about Ataturk's personal life. We hear a bit about his unhappy marriage -- he had his wife sent away when she started complaining about his habits -- and just a bit about his flirtations with other women. But mostly Mango author is interested in chronicling his career as statesman.

The big thing I hadn't understood is that Ataturk was basically a nobody in 1918; he was a moderately successful general in an obscure staff position, with no troops at his command and no following. And he managed by intrigue and bluff and adroit maneuver to create a new government around himself, and then to acquire absolute power.

I had never realized this, but it took a long time before his government in Ankara was recognized internationally -- he had to win the war with Greece and then cajole and intimidate the occupation armies out of Turkey before the western powers recognized him, and not the Sultan, as the head of state.

A comparison Mango doesn't explicitly draw, but that I can't help thinking of, is his contemporary, Stalin. Both of them were relatively obscure leaders who were successful in the war, rose to power as part of a coalition, and then gradually forced out his rivals and every other independent figure in the government, leaving only devoted supporters.

Like Stalin, he pushed through radical national reform in the name of progress and modernity. And like Stalin, he had a cult of personality in his lifetime -- complete with statues, monuments, a national anthem about him personally, and culminating in calling himself "father of the Turks."

The difference of course is that Ataturk was more or less responsible and decent with the power he acquired. Ataturk's political opponents were mostly just forced out of politics or into European exile -- hardly anybody was arrested, let alone killed. And his reforms were largely successful.
...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 16, 2016 Ameer Kana'an rated it really liked it

I'm certainly surprised that I bought this book from a Turkish library, where in it Ataturk is politely called a "dictator". My first urge to buy it was to understand the transformation from a Caliphate to this kind of Laïcismic secularism. The biggest faction -geographically- and maybe the most powerful that is fighting in Syria, my country, is ISIS, a faction that is molded on the principle, and maybe the only principle "to revive the caliphate". Not to mention other Caliphist movements, like ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 23, 2015 Keith W rated it it was amazing

This is the best political biography I've ever read. It started slowly, with the author spending several pages analyzing differing views on the date of Ataturk's birth and the identity of the house in which he was born. That part was so slow that I almost gave up and put the book down but I'm glad I didn't. Mango has written what will surely stand as the definitive life of Mustapha Kemal. His research was clearly exhaustive, as reflected in the voluminous and detailed endnotes. (Mango has writte ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 14, 2016 Ngoc Nam rated it it was amazing

There are a lot of interesting coincidences between Atatürk and Ho Chi Minh's life. Both chose the date 19th May for their birthday. Both died right after the anniversary of their own republic. Both were great nationalists with tremendous vision for their nation. Both believed in education and in a peaceful, fruitful future of Western civilization inside an Eastern society. None of them had a normal personal life with a wife, sons, daughters... though they deserved much more than that. Vietnames ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 12, 2014 Czarny Pies rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: Anyone living in the EU

Recommended to Czarny by: Orhan Pamuk

Shelves: european-history

This is the definitive English Language biography of the man who created the Modern Turkey as a state and as a cultural entity. Ataturk rallied the Turkish Army when the diplomats of Western European decided to give away large sections of his country to Greece and seized the Territory that constitutes the modern state of today.

Ataturk was also a ferocious modernizer. He banned the traditional Turkish alphabet and imposed the Latin Alphabet on his country. He also required all Turkish men to wear ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 19, 2011 Mandy rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: pending

Who am I kidding, I am never going to get back to this book to finish it. Probably doing Ataturk and Mango a great injustice but I am sick of looking at it on my list.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 21, 2013 Ghena rated it really liked it

Shelves: turkey

Amazing insight on the life of a man who change a country.... or created it depends how you see it!

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 24, 2017 Rajiv Agarwal rated it it was amazing

Very well written. The author takes trouble to keep his views unbiased. Attaturk was a very divisive figure but never the less founder of modern Turkey

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 30, 2018 Grof J. Kešetović rated it really liked it

I'm actually surprised that this book was allowed to be translated into Turkish. Firstly, this book sheds a very interesting light on the life and work of Mustafa Kemal; from the beginnings in the military to the great national leader. However, the author uses the opportunity to add his own criticism on Mustafa Kemal which I found more interesting than the biography.

The ones who are not aware of the personality cult that was instated with the Democrat Party in the 1950s would find that it's a c I'm actually surprised that this book was allowed to be translated into Turkish. Firstly, this book sheds a very interesting light on the life and work of Mustafa Kemal; from the beginnings in the military to the great national leader. However, the author uses the opportunity to add his own criticism on Mustafa Kemal which I found more interesting than the biography.

The ones who are not aware of the personality cult that was instated with the Democrat Party in the 1950s would find that it's a criminal act to insult the memory of the first President of the Turkish Republic (instated in 1951 I think). Therefore, this book adds criticism on the overly lavish lifestyle Atatürk led and was ultimately his demise. That's why this book was translated in 2016 into Turkish (17 years after the original's publication).

However, the reforms themselves had their positive and negative downsides. An interesting fact would be that Mustafa Kemal banned the sharia law right for men to divorce from their women with their own personal consent in 1925, what most don't know is that he used the same sharia law to get divorced just 6 months earlier. The crackdown of the opposition he instated himself was a forgotten part of the early Republic. People like Rauf Orbay of Kazım Karabekir, early companions of Atatürk, were staunch opponents of his policies and were banned from politics for being in the opposition party that was founded on Atatürk's desire to create a political plurality in the country. Karabekir's memoirs were not published until 1939 and the newspaper "Tan" that published them was stoned by angry Atatürk youth clubs that disapproved any negative remarks on their Republic's founder. It reflected the things that were to come and it's still present in today's Turkey.

As a last remark on the book, I'd criticise the author for not using more primary sources for the book. Sadly I also understand him because many of the files and documents are still of limits to the general public and will not be available in the near future (We are talking about possible negative writing against Mustafa Kemal, which would be a criminal offense to do). ...more

flag Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

History

80 users

Biography

76 users

Nonfiction

35 users

Politics

16 users

Biography Memoir

7 users

History > European History

6 users

History > World History

4 users

Autobiography > Memoir

2 users

Unfinished

2 users

See top shelves…

About Andrew Mango

Andrew Mango

33 followers

Andrew James Alexander Mango is a British author who was born in Turkey as one of three sons of a prosperous Anglo-Russian family. He is the brother of the distinguished Oxford historian and Byzantinist Professor Cyril Mango. Mango's early years were passed in Istanbul but in the mid-1940s he left for Ankara and obtained a job as a press officer in the British Embassy. He moved to the United Kingd ...more

Books by Andrew Mango

Turkey and the War on Terror: 'for Forty Years We Fought Alone'

More…

Power, Sister! 20 New Books on Women’s History

Happy Women's History Month! One of the undisputedly good things about modern scholarship is that women’s history is finally getting its due....

Trivia About Atatürk: The Biog...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Atatürk: The Biog...

“I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap.” — 1 likes

“Sovereignty and kingship are never decided by academic debate. They are seized by force. The Ottoman dynasty appropriated by force the government of the Turks, and reigned over them for six centuries. Now the Turkish nation has effectively gained possession of its sovereignty… This is an accomplished fact… If those assembled here … see the matter in its natural light, we shall all agree. Otherwise, facts will still prevail, but some heads may roll.” — 1 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — Atatürk by Andrew Mango

Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Andrew Mango

Books by Andrew Mango

Related Articles

Trivia About Atatürk: The Biog...

Quotes from Atatürk: The Biog...

See a Problem?

Preview — Atatürk by Andrew Mango

Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Andrew Mango

Books by Andrew Mango

Related Articles

Trivia About Atatürk: The Biog...

Quotes from Atatürk: The Biog...

new topic
Discuss This Book