Hopefully, a proper review will follow in the next few days. One of those special novels that drew me in from the first page and kept me riveted until the very last. The characters became people I really did care about. I will think about them for a long time to come.

My top quotes from the novel:

“Man is a bird without wings and a bird is a man without sorrow.”

“There comes a point in life where each one of us who survives begins to feel like a ghost that has forgotten to die at the right time, and certainly most of us were more amusing when we were young. It seems that age folds the heart in on itself. Some of us walk detached, dreaming on the past, and some of us realize that we have lost the trick of standing in the sun. For many of us the thought of the future is a cause for irritation rather than optimism, as if we have had enough of new things, and wish only for the long sleep that rounds the edges of our lives”.

The second quote sounds depressing but when spoken by the character Isklander the Potter, it is not. Rather you understand his assessment of life for him now, after the wars, after he has accidently maimed his son, after he has seen his village plundered and changed forever.

De Bernieres has that extra special gift in storytelling. A huge thank-you to Chrissie in the All About Books group for her fantastic review which lead me to read this unforgettable novel. Most Highly Recommended. 4.5★

This was the best book I've read this year. It was a very satisfying read for me, exactly what I have been searching for. Most of the first half of the book is about life in picturesque small village in south west Anatolia. The first event of note in the story happens in 1900-the birth of Philothei, the most beautiful Christian girl. This is a village that is home to Christians, Muslims, Armenians, Greeks, Turks, and Jews. They are all friends and each ask the other to pray for them. They respect the icons and religious leaders of the other faiths. Ibrahaim is betrothed to Philothei as children because they were "born married", it was understood that Philothei would convert to Islam when she married. It was a warm, engaging story of life in that area of the world, narrated by the main characters from the village. Alternate chapters followed the rise of Mustafa Kemal and then the horrors of the Balkan wars. This was an educational book for me because I had no idea how much I didn't know about the Balkan wars which resulted in the birth of modern Turkey. I gave Birds Without Wings a 4 because of the prose, the characters, the stories, and the pacing. The reason I did not give it a a 5 is I felt that towards the last fourth of story Berniers offered too much history of the wars. He started giving enough to inform the story and point the reader towards a deeper search outside the book, but then devoted whole chapters to the machinations of Kemal, the acts of each country involved and for me it bogged down the flow of the story. The passages narrated by the boys from the village were very interesting and heart wrenching, but the list of dates, names, battles was too much for this story. I would still highly recommend this book to lovers of Historical Fiction, stories of war and, those interested in the development of Turkey.

Tracing the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of the modern republic of Turkey, this novel alternates the first and third person narratives of a range of characters from the fictional town of Eskibahçe (meaning Garden of Eden) in southwest Turkey with an account of the life of Mustafa Kemal, later Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the first leader of modern Turkey.

At the turn of the 20th century, the inhabitants of Eskibahçe comprise Muslim Turks, Christians of Greek origin and Armenians. They live together in relative harmony, forming friendships and inter-marrying. Both Christians and Muslims hedge their bets somewhat, with Muslims asking their Christian friends to offer prayers of intercession and Christians having a profound respect for the local imam. The lives of the inhabitants of Eskibahçe are torn apart by World War I and Turkey’s subsequent war with Greece, together with the Armenian genocide and the forced exile of Turkish Christians to Greece and of Muslim Greeks to Turkey.

In beautiful and accessible prose, de Bernières creates a strong sense of time and place. I found the chapters dealing with the Gallipoli campaign particularly powerful. The story of this WWI campaign is well-known to Australians and New Zealanders, who commemorate the landing at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915 as a national day to honour those who have served their country in time of war. It was extremely moving to read an account of the campaign – including an account of the fellowship and respect which grew between the Turkish and the Australian and New Zealand soldiers – from a Turkish point of view. The account of the forced exodus of Armenians in 1915 (and the subsequent Armenian genocide, which in terms of the novel occurs “off-stage”) and that of the expulsion of Greeks from Turkey and of Muslims from Greece after the signing of the “Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations” in 1923 are also powerful and moving.

It took me a while to become completely engaged with the characters and the narrative. This is a long novel and de Bernières introduces his characters and builds tension slowly. While there is plenty of humour – a lot of it sardonic - the work is a serious indictment of extreme nationalism, of religious dogma and of war and its atrocities. However, it also explores human resilience and the type of love and friendship which can survive even the horror of war and ethnic and religious conflict . In a sense, Eskibahçe represents a Turkey in which different religious and ethnic communities could live in harmony before the choice to do so was taken away from them. And the tragic love story of the Muslim boy Ibrahim and the Christian girl Philotei which forms part of the narrative represents the tragedy which befell Greek Christians expelled from Turkey to a land which was not their own. In the process of describing the devastation on which this novel centres, de Bernières does not spare himself in criticising those he considers responsible for what occurred.

Before I started reading the novel, I was reasonably familiar with the political situation in Turkey since the 1980s. By reading it I learned a lot about the beginnings of modern Turkey and was able to put what I already knew into historical context. This is not an easy novel to read. However, it made me both laugh and cry and for a patient reader with an interest in 20th century international relations, the novel is a rewarding literary experience. Thanks to my GR friend Chrissie for recommending it to me.

The story of how modern Turkey came to be, as told through the life of a village near Fethiye, Telmessos that was, on Turkey's Mediterranean coast. Turkey really is the crossroads of continents, which only means that it has been the marching ground of armies since civilization began. de Bernieres' description of the fighting and the atrocities before, during and after World War I leave you feeling that no matter how horrible was the forced relocation of Greek Turks to Greece and Turkish Greeks to Turkey, it might also have been in some awful way necessary. Levon the Armenian was always going to be "other" in Eskibahce, and, once the Ottoman empire fell, until the Turks either killed or expelled all the "others," there would be no peace there.

There are so many wonderful characters, and so many storylines unresolved. What happened to Drousoula's family? To Daskalos Leonidas Efendi? To Layla Hanim? To Mehmetcik? And then I realized. They were all Greeks. The Turks left behind never knew what happened to their friends. Why should I?

This is a long read but a worthwhile one, especially if you've traveled in Turkey or are going to.

An epic historical novel about a village in the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The author uses the experiences of the villagers - Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Armenians - to tell the wider story of the tragedies that accompanied the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of modern Turkey. There are also vivid scenes depicting the Ottoman experience at Gallipoli and the accidental death of King Alexander of Greece. The characters are described as though they are in a folktale - "Iksander the Potter" "Philothei the Beautiful" - and perhaps the most interesting figure is Leyla, who poses a Circassian concubine then seizes her chance for freedom and an unexpected homecoming. While the novel was absorbing and beautifully written, it was not a page turner and I found the multiple perspectives made it easy to put the down the book and pick it up again the next day. Well worth reading.

This book is fantastically written. At the same time, it took me a month to read, during which time I read several other books.

Birds Without Wings is a big, ambitious book, focusing mostly on the lives of people living in a small Ottoman village in the first decades of the 20th century. Rather than following a single protagonist, the book has an ensemble cast, with about a dozen characters playing equally important roles. De Bernières also devotes about 80 pages, out of 550, to an attempt to summarize all of Ottoman history over approximately a 20-year period and provide a biography of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, as well as sharing his own opinions on various events.

The majority of the book, focusing on the fictional characters and their village, is great. The characters ring true, with psychological complexity that’s entirely believable (except in the case of a couple of female characters who are "characterized" almost entirely by their physical appearances). The author does a great job of creating characters who act within their particular social roles and positions in the community. The setting comes vividly to life; the portrayal of the way people lived in that particular place and time and of the social currents within the small community is fantastic. And the writing is excellent. The book fits solidly within the realm of literary historical fiction.

But then there are the historical segments, which are especially concentrated in the third quarter of the book, dealing with WWI. I’m an avid historical fiction reader and love to learn from fiction, but I’d actually advise readers to skip these chapters entirely; the local events are comprehensible without them and the characters themselves have little understanding of the wider world. In any case, the "Mustafa Kemal" sections are as dry as a textbook but far less intelligible; they are packed with so much detail that the big picture is lost, and left me entirely nonplussed.

Overall, my feelings about the book are mixed. It has the makings of great literature, and I would recommend it to fans of literary historical fiction. But while the potential is there, it falls short of being a book I’d recommend to everyone.

Ναι, ναι ναι το τελειωσα. Χειροκροτήστε με. Πραγματικά μετά το πιο άκυρο αναγνωστικό μου καλοκαίρι που για λόγους δουλειάς το διάβασμα πήγε πίσω το να ολοκληρώσω πλέον καποιο βιβλίο και πόσο μάλλον δύσκολο και ογκώδες καταγράφεται ως κοσμοϊστορικό γεγονός.
Αρα ένας εξτρα πόντος στο Λουι ντε Μπερνιέρ
«Για τα πουλιά που έχουν φτερά, τίποτε δεν αλλάζει. Πετάνε όπου θέλουν και δεν ξέρουν απόσύνορα και οι τσακωμοί τους δεν κρατάνε. Εμείς όμως είμαστε δεμένοι στη γη, όσο και αν σκαρφαλώνουμε ψηλότερα, όσο και αν πασχίζουμε να φτερουγίσουμε με τα χέρια μας. Δε μπορούμε να πετάξουμε και είμαστε καταδικασμένοι να κάνουμε πράγματα που δε μας ταιριάζουν. Δεν έχουμε φτερά και αναγκαζόμαστε να πάρουμε μέρος σε πράξεις βίας και αγριότητας που δεν τις θελήσαμε. Και ύστερα, απ’ όλα αυτά, τα χρόνια περνούν, τα βουνά ισοπεδώνονται, οι κοιλάδες ψηλώνουν, τα ποτάμια στερεύουν και οι ξέρες βυθίζονται στη θάλασσα »
Ένα βιβλίο σκληρό και συνάμα ειλικρινές, ένα μήνυμα απέναντι σε κάθε ειδους φανατισμό. Δεν συνίσταται για τους «Ελληνάρες» αναγνώστες.

Goed verhaal/vertekende geschiedenisles

Dit boek illustreert de tendens van veel intellectuelen om de geschiedenis te vervormen. De Bernières vaardigheden als schrijver overtuigen, maar hij gaat ervan uit dat de lezer geen enkele historische achtergrond heeft en laat het verhaal primeren op de historische feiten.

In ‘Birds without Wings’ worden we vergast op een idyllische dorpsgemeenschap in Anatolië in het begin van de 20ste eeuw waar Grieken, Turken en Armeniërs vreedzaam samenleven. Maar de harmonie hiervan wordt ongedaan gemaakt, althans volgens de Bernières, door de barbaarse en ontaarde (vooral Griekse) nationalistische bewegingen van het eerste decennium van de 20ste eeuw. Nergens schenkt de Bernières ook maar enige aandacht aan de brutaliteiten van de Ottomaanse overheersing en het gerechtvaardigde verlangen naar nationale zelfbeschikking van de volkeren die eraan onderworpen waren. Om nog maar te zwijgen van het voorbijgaan aan de manipulaties van de ‘geallieerde strijdmachten’ na Wereldoorlog I, die de echte oorzaak vormden van het drama dat zich in 1923 zou afspelen.

Helemaal schokkend wordt het als De Bernières ook nog eens de Armeense genocide van 1915 wil witwassen. Vastbesloten om de Ottomaanse staat in ere te herstellen, stelt hij ‘that the government didn't intend to massacre the Armenians at all. It only wanted to "relocate" them, and was prepared to guarantee their safety and property!’ Het was dus allemaal de fout van Koerdische onbetrouwbare elementen in het nationale veiligheidsapparaat die de Armeniërs haatten, en daarom verder gingen dan hun orders hen toelieten. Zo zie je maar … en trouwens, de Armeniërs vroegen erom omdat sommigen van hen overliepen naar de Russen tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog.

Verfoeilijke nonsens betreft het hier, in diskrediet gebracht door goed gedocumenteerd historisch bewijsmateriaal, en lezers van dit boek mogen niet in de verleiding komen om de historische feiten te negeren omdat ze in de ban zijn van De Bernières niet te ontkennen literaire kwaliteiten.

Veel beter om Nobelprijswinnaar Orhan Pamuk te lezen die de echte geschiedenis en de waarheid verdedigt dan ondergedompeld te worden in De Bernières reactionaire fantasieën.

English brief overview, на български е по-долу:
Is the freedom of speech a proper and sufficient justification for manipulation, post truth (my grandparents called this recent phenomenon in a different way) and invented history background and history lessons that never existed in the reality? Good question thanks to the creative approach to some events surrounding the final fall of the Ottoman Empire in this book. Exotic plots are always sexy. But not always truthful.

Key points from the historical context stated in rich details in the book:
1. There was no such a thing as Armenian genocide
What there was, was a just some unfortunate lack of organisational skills demonstrated by the poor, goody, naive and warm hearted Ottoman government. And the low level of the communication networks in less populated or desert areas. All the inquiries about the number of the killed Armenians is an awful lack of good taste and nice manners. Don’t be be misled by the numbers, good friends!
Were there any perpetrators? Of course - the Armenians themselves! They were in a cunning conspiracy with the evil Russians against their glorious Ottomans brothers.

2. The Ottoman Empire - cradle of tolerance
Well, this is correct in some aspects. Islam recognises People of the Book (Jews, Christians) and theoretically they just needed to pay special religious tax to the Muslim rulers.
Practically it was more complicated, bloody complicated! Especially during 18th and 19th centuries. In the 18th century the Ottoman state was in a process of multidimensional decay - Istanbul and the Sultan were no longer able to control the provinces, the army was in process of never ending reorganisation from the old feudal rules towards…it took more than 50 years for any direction to become visible. In the meantime the glorious Turkish bandits (ex-soldiers with unpaid salaries) plundered, killed and the smartest and most resilient gained political influence. Who were the victims? Well, guess what! Not the Turks. Count to three and try to guess the correct answer.
19th century, the French Revolution and Paris from 1848 brought new realities for the Ottoman Empire. Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians remembered with some surprise that they…well, they are 1/not Turks 2/they had own states once and now want them back. Inconceivable! Poor Ottoman Empire, what is to be done!
Well, if I quote de Bernieres from this book, following atrocity happened: ”In 1876, Bulgarian Christians massacred an unknown number of peasants of Turkish origin.”
Good. Well, it is not good. Such beasts, aren’t they? Savages! Who, you will ask?
The British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, quoted by Januarius MacGahan, American journalist on the Balkans in 1876, will reply gladly:
https://attackingthedevil.co.uk/relat...
”Mr. Disraeli was right when he wittily remarked that the Turks usually terminated their connection with people who fell into their hands in a more expeditious manner than by imprisoning them. And so they do. Mr. Disraeli was right”.
The quote from the book (one of very long list indeed) is correct - if the reader replaces “Bulgarian Christians” with “Turks” and “peasants of Turkish origin” with “Bulgarians”. The year remains 1876.
William Gladstone also had an opinion on the matter, but why should I repeat it, when it is the same as Disraeli?
History books? Dear reader, this one is not one of them. It is not even a historical fiction. It even not a fiction. It is a bias.

All this said, I do not deny the tolerance between Muslims and Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Not at all! It existed in many places! Just…well, just not in the form of victimisation presented in all the statements about the historical context and background in the book. Reality and delusion often share the same basis, you know. Just the presentation is very different…

3. Women characters - stupidity as factory settings
I hate, hate, hate to discuss heroines in novels. I just expect them to be believable. Evil, ignorant, superstitious, adulterers - we live sometimes in the worst of all possible worlds. The imperfection is the rule. But guess what? In this book the adulteress 1/accepts her fate to be stoned to death as well deserved 2/ the good, tolerant villagers find it perfectly acceptable to make her a whore (and request her services many times, only the men, of course) and 3/when the poor, angelic husband visits her (in the brothel) and shed some nostalgic tears she…would like very much to bed him (but she was sick, what a wasted opportunity for reunion) and called him melancholically “my lion”. Have I mentioned that this righteous man ordered and attended the public stoning?
Don’t get me wrong. The ignorance is one of the major forces that have shaped (and continue shaping) our world. It is called “morals”. De Bernieres’s message in the long retelling of this episode is to accept it as wise and eternal. Well, in some countries they do it. Look at Saudi Arabia and Iran. Some male readers there will be really profoundly moved.

Each work of fiction is responsibility to shed a light. To shed knowledge and to enrich our naturally or deliberately narrow perception of the world. It is a noble and sometimes even profitable task. With hint of old fashioned and scorned honour, The alternative - our whole 20th century is a good lesson learned (or not learned) about the different outcomes of this alternative. I am deeply saddened that exactly this alternative has been chosen as narrative here. And the actual facts, the pain, the blood in the pages are just delusional smoke instead of a harsh lesson.

De Bernieres forced me to write my first review in English. It is inevitable, as he does not speak any foreign language - I mean the languages of his fiction characters, he cannot even imagine what is it to be them, any of them.

————
Bulgarian review:
Въпрос към автора за този негов цитат: ”In 1876, Bulgarian Christians massacred an unknown number of peasants of Turkish origin.” Интересно ми е какъв исторически контекст сте използвали за това свое твърдение и какви официални исторически източници? Изобщо имате ли такива, защото официалната историография, включително англоезичната, доколкото знам, излага точно обратното твърдение. Или (не)волно сте разменили местата на жертви и убийци, “християни” с “османци”/ “турци” в събитията от българското въстание от април 1876 г, широко отразено в тогавашната британска и американска преса (англоезични са, все пак), довело до кланетата на българи от страна на обичната ви османска империя?

Малък пример:
https://attackingthedevil.co.uk/relat...
"Mr. Disraeli was right when he wittily remarked that the Turks usually terminated their connection with people who fell into their hands in a more expeditious manner than by imprisoning them. And so they do. Mr. Disraeli was right. "
Вероятно сте чували все нещичко за своя сънародник Дизраели?

Ако не сте, както изглежда, самите турци имат изследвания по въпроса и отделят доста пасажи да се оправдават, и дори споменават друг ваш явно непознат сънародник от епохата - Гладстон, но едва ли сте чували и за него, очевидно е твърде неизвестен:
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/...
"With the Pomak Ahmed Ağa Barutanli lies the responsibility for the ensuing massacre. Killing and plundering continued for several days. The Muslim perpetrators slew large numbers of Christians, including many women and children. They burnt houses and buildings, in some cases with people inside them."

Не обичате никак историята в качеството и на наука, нали? Тя обаче в някои отношения е сходна точно с балистиката. И чистосърдечно мразите детайлите от нея, които не Ви харесват? Благодаря, въпросите са риторични!

А относно птиците - те понякога са без криле, защото им ги режат с много тъп нож, и после същите тези любители-орнитолози учудено питат: “А защо тази птица не лети? Вижте я колко е неумела и непригодна!”

———
Носталгията е много човешко качество. Лошото е, когато е избирателна, пристрастна и заобикаля и избягва неприятните факти, или направо ги отрича или наглася, за сметка на една желана, но никога несъществувала действителност. Тогава всъщност се заражда пропагандата, която уврежда без оглед на граници и епохи. Особено, когато се повтаря отново и отново. Ако единствено красивата, но удобно сляпа където трябва сантименталност налагаше дневния ред, както е в този роман, човечеството нямаше да е постигнало особен духовен и технически прогрес.

Погледът към Османската империя от нейните последни години (1900 - 1918 г.) тук е съсредоточен върху малкото анадолско градче Ескибахче, в Ликия, в което от векове съжителстват мюсюлмани и християни. Особеното в случая е, че християните също говорят турски. В други ревюта се твърди, че такива случаи са типични за Кападокия, не за Ликия, където се е говорел някакъв вид гръцки. Не се наемам да преценявам, просто не знам, но често - както например в Ливан или Сирия - религията и езикът не са непременно свързани. Така е и с помаците у нас. Такива случаи има доста.

В Ескибахче животът тече непроменен и застинал във времето от незапомнени времена, с добрите и лошите си страни. Добрите са толерантността и връзката със земята, хората си общуват почти свободно независимо от религията, отдадени на простичките си радости. Лошите са свързани с тоталната изолация от останалия свят и царуващото средновековно по жестокостта и обема си невежество. И християни, и мюсюлмани с еднаква праведна наслада хвърлят камъни по прелюбодейка, и тъй като тя оцелява, жените (!) я закарват в местния бордей, където мъжете им (!) щастливо и се нареждат на опашка. Носталгичният тон на автора не секва нито за миг - от читателя почти се очаква да се умили от чистосърдечието на тези толерантни деца на природата. А за прелпбодейката - когато след години праведният и съпруг, поискал тълпата да в убие и гледал през цялото време, иска да спи с нея в бордея, тя само дето не се разплаква от признателност за великидушието му и дори го нарича “лъв мой”. Какъв героичен, героичен герой от старите времена, нали? А камъните са си нормално наказание, какво толкова… Жалко, че не са по него, но мога поне да си помечтая.

Умиленият поглед към Османската империя се засилва с всяка страница и започва да прелива. Тя е средоточие на толерантност, всички поданици са се омесили с вековете, и е направо противоестествено и оскърбително, че гърци, сърби и българи смеят да не са коленопреклонно признателни за тази висша благодат и имат наглостта да искат собствени мънички държавици. А пък арменците са предатели. Как не ги е срам! Тази ужасна Русия пък върши геноцид срещу беззащитните мюсюлмани и нагло използва арменците срещу клетите им, невинни османски братя, и - следователно и съвсем логично - какво му остава на един истински османец, освен да ги изколи?

Далеч съм от мисълта, че Русия е “добрата”, а Турция е “лошата”. Изобщо, изцяло добри и лоши на световната сцена няма. И двете империи имат много за какво да се каят, както и някои постижения. И двете са включили в границите си куп народи със сила, но пък не винаги са били зверове, културните влияния са безспорни и често са били от полза (ако си оцелял първата вълна на насилието, разбира се). Днес те са неразривна част от наследството ни, и когато миналото се е оттекло, красотата и пластовете могат да се видят и оценят на спокойствие - когато обаче си вече свободен и в собствения си дом. Не може някой просто да дойде да каже на читателя, че той е престъпник да иска свой дом, защото в имперското общежитие ще му е по-идилично.

Едностранчивият поглед, оправдателният тон и пълната пристрастност към империята е повече, отколкото читателското и човешкото ми търпение може да понесе.

Сюжетът е поредица от скици, посветени на различни герои от Ескибахче. Стилът е равномерен и богат, чете се леко. Много съжалявам, че няма да дочета винетките с Мустафа Кемал, който за мен е един от героите на 20 век, макар, естествено, той да си има своите собствени скелети в гардероба. За останалите персонажи обаче не съжалявам - тяхното суеверие е издигнато в добродетел от автора, и е приравнени на толерантност. Женските образи са абсолютно еднотипни - невежи, суеверни, природно ограничени и доста жестоки, без изключение. Как пък не успя да намери поне една нормална жена? Доколкото разбирам, всички герои ще пострадат при кървавите и брутални гръцко-турски взаимни етнически прочиствания след първата световна война. Тъжно, но с начина си на поднасяне на историята, се постига обратния ефект - съдбата им ми е безразлична. Което е най-страшното, което един човек може да каже за друг, добре че това тук е само книга. Което означава единствено некомпетентно и пристрастно свършена писателска работа по действително важни теми и събития.

Отвратена съм и съм дълбоко разочарована!

———
Още малко “прозрения” на автора, които ме възмутиха с манипулативността си:

“Unsurprisingly, but unfortunately for themselves, orthodox Armenians were often seduced by their own religious affiliations into supporting the Russians against their fellow Ottomans, and many joined the Russian armies.”
Сега всеки вече е подготвен, че добрият арменец е мъртвият арменец… Да няма учудени после.

”The deputies in the new parliament, Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Albanians, Jews, Serbs, Armenians, Bulgarians and a Vlach, prove themselves incapable of any ideal higher than ethnic self-interest.”
Интересно в какво свое качество, по дяволите, са били тези гърци, сърби, българи и власи в османски парламент около 1905 г., при условие, че от около 30 години са си имали собствени парламенти и независими държави? Или от държавната столица София сме командировали наши депутати в чужда столица, дали сме ги под наем на османския парламент?

“Cossacks assisted by Bulgarian revolutionaries and peasants seized all the property of Muslims. Cossacks would surround the villages to prevent any escape, disarm the inhabitants and send the Bulgarians in to slaughter them. ”
Тук го оставям без коментар. Безмислено е. За първи път - в книга от 21 век - виждам подобно не просто невежество, не и пристрастност, а нещо толкова дълбоко фундаментално, че даже го има забранено в една от десетте божи заповеди.

“On 2 May 1915, Enver Pasha sent a fatal telegram to Tâlat Bey, the Minister for the Interior, proposing that the only way to deal with an intolerable situation was to remove all Armenians from behind Ottoman lines, and replace them with Muslim refugees from elsewhere. Over the next few months this policy began to be implemented, with many directives coming out of Istanbul that there should be no ill treatment. The plan was to auction the possessions of each family and give them the money when they arrived at their destinations, so that they could start life afresh.”
“the government could not control what actually happened at such great distances in places where there were virtually no systems of communication or of command and control. ”
“escorted them and considered them to be traitors. These troops were often not proper soldiers, since those were at the fronts, but Kurdish irregulars, recruited from wild and ignorant tribesmen ”
Така, ако есе още има неразбрали: диваците, т. е. кюрдите са виновни. Както и независещи от османските власти обстоятелства. Османците? Те са невинни, old chap!

“It is not possible to calculate how many Armenians died on the forced marches. In 1915 the number was thought to be 300,000, a figure which has been progressively increased ever since, thanks to the efforts of angry propagandists. To argue about whether it was 300,000 or 2,000,000 is in a sense irrelevant and distasteful, ”
Относно липсата на вкус - ще си позволя да предложа да бъдем зле възпитани и с очевидна липса на вкус да потърсим фактите с помощта и на цифри, защото логиката, която е безвкусна, е за сметка на това проста: повече жертви водят до наличие на повече умисъл, на по-добра османска организация с цел геноцид. Или на други фактори - дяволът е тъкмо в грозните детайли.

Really enjoyed it, although not quite as good as "Mandolin"

This book was recommended by my friend Chris. The story is set in a small, poor town in the Anatolia part of Turkey, before, during and after WWI and including the Turkish war for independence. I do not know much about the time or region. The author provided a lot of historical narrative, which was both annoying and helpful. Basically, there were chapters that consisted of descriptions of government actions, troop movements, wars, death-marches, etc that were occuring all around the region during the time. Meanwhile the story was about the inhabitants of this community... what they did,... how they interacted,.. describing their aspirations... and showing the catastrophe that occured when the Ottoman Empire disappeared. The book is about labels that people apply for personal life and their consequences...... A man was asked what would happen to his Christian daughter when she married a muslim.... answer: she will become a Christian-Muslim. At the same time they were aware and wary of the differences among them. The differences were long standing. The Christians were descendents of Greeks who had settled there. They no longer knew Greek but spoke Turkish. The curious aspect of this town was that the people who could write, did so using Greek letters but they wrote in Turkish. People in other areas were perplexed by this contradiction.

But the differences had grave consequences outside the town --- the story described children as they grew up then followed their duty as citizens of the Ottoman empire to join the holy war that was WWI. Numerous contradictions appeared..... The loyal Chrisian Ottomans wanted to fight but were rejected because it was a holy war against Christians. The Muslim boys who joined this Muslim fatwa discovered their major ally was Germany... Christian. --- Meanwhile, the Christian boys who were turned down as soldiers were taken into labor battalions to support the troops. But it turned out that these were slave labor camps. ---- Basically, these were the horrors that preceeded the horror of WWII. When Hitler justified his treatment of Jews, Gypsys and Slavs, he did so by pointing out that no one remembered the holocausts of WWI.... Turks on Armenians, Greeks on Turks, Turks on Greek Christians. People were uprooted and sent to new villages based on their religions. Communities lost their skilled people. Christians speaking Turkish were taken to Greece. Muslims speaking Greek were taken to Turkey. Walking. Some of them made it.

I know this is rattling. I liked the writing. I liked the descriptions of the people. I know Australians who have told me about Gllipoli and this book tells the other side. If anything, this telling is worse because this describes the insanity of trench warfare on the penninsula. It was much more than idiotic charges, ordered by British officers to ANZAC troops, into machine guns.

I am still thinking about the book. The story is sad and profound. A side story is told about Mustafa, the creator of the Turkish State. He came up through the military. He wanted to create a secular Turkish/Muslim state. The Ottoman Empire was fading. To replace it he used nationalism and religion. Those seemed the most effective tools. --- And the counterpoint is this village that was in the process of evolving away from those narrow views. Couldn't it have been done some other way? Maybe not. The last chapter of the book describes a modern village in Anatolia... very civil. But there are no Greek descendents... just as there are no Muslim descendents in Greece. People are happy. But.... It is not really restoration... it is loss.

In the beginning of the book, one of the villagers makes up... or remembers a proverb.... "A man without a soul is like a bird without wings". Birds come up throughout the book in various uses. But at the end of the book, one of the characters ponders the birds... as he had done as a child with his pals..... how nice it would be to be a bird and fly. To be free, to soar, to see everything from the sky. He thinks that birds without wings would be sorry creatures.. colorful but hopping on the ground, going nowhere, vulnerable.

At the same time the birds in the book have sorry fates. They are admired but in admiration they are caged, tamed, hunted, copied imperfectly through whistles or airplanes.

Clearly, I am not done thinking about the book. It is a time and place I do not know. Unfortunately the story is a familiar one in history. But the charming description of the people and town will stay in my memory a long time. I recommend the book. The people are charming. There are friendships. Romances. Quirky people. A fair amount of historical fiction. But it is not a light read.

I have read a number of books by de Bernieres the first being Captain Corelli's Mandolin, (I enjoyed both the book and the film) I then went on read The War of Don Emmanuel's Nether Parts, then The Troublesome Offspring of Cardinal Guzman (two of his Colombian trilogy) which I didn’t particularly enjoy as they were in the magical mystery genre of Gabriel García Márquez, whom Bernières greatly admires. However I thoroughly enjoyed ‘Birds without Wings’ and was blown away by the vast amount of historical research he had undertaken in the writing of the book, which opens in 1900 and ends in the early 1920's.
The book's title is taken from a saying by one of the characters, Iskander the Potter, "Man is a bird without wings, and a bird is a man without sorrows."
"Birds without Wings" is set during the declining period of the Ottoman Empire, in the small Anatolian town of Eskibahce. Despite all the criticisms of the Ottoman Empire, the degree of tolerance between ethnic groups and different religions was quite remarkable. In the small town the mix of Turks, Armenians, and Greeks, both Muslims and Christians, live side-by-side in a comfortable and relatively peaceful existence, often inter-marrying. When the Franks, as the Ottomans called the Western Europeans, and a throw-back to the name given to the Crusaders by Mediterranean Muslims, and then the Greeks invade their country, the harmonious existence of the residents of Eskibahce is torn apart by external events. The Sultan declares a holy war against the invaders. The Muslim Turks are conscripted as soldiers and the Christian Turks are sent into labour battalions. The Armenians are evacuated from the region in a death march, in response to the Armenians helping the Russians to slaughter thousands of Turkish Muslims in other parts of the empire.

We are again reminded of this by the news that the French Senate on 24th January 2012 approved a bill which will make it illegal to deny that the mass killing of Armenians in 1915 in the Ottoman Empire was genocide. Cynical French politicians see this move as a way by Sarkozy to gain votes from the 500,000 ethnic Armenian French voters in April’s Presidential elections. This has infuriated the Turkish government, which has threatened France with permanent sanctions. So the events depicted in the book are still having their impact even today.
Going back to the book, during the Balkan wars when the western powers were competing with each other to seize territories formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, the Italians occupy Eskibahce. Then the Christians are forced to relocate to Greece. Throughout it all, the residents struggle to survive amidst the turmoil.
There are some beautifully drawn characters in the book the childhood friends Karatavuk (Turkish for 'Blackbird') and Mehmetcik (Turkish for 'Red Robin'), who are inseparable until war breaks out. Karatavuk becomes a soldier who participates in the battle of Gallipoli, and Mehmetcik, who is forced into a labour battalion. He later defects and becomes a notorious bandit. There is the beautiful Christian girl Philothei, who is engaged to Ibrahim the goatherd and whose death is foreshadowed at the start of the story. There is the landlord and town protector Rustem Bey, who casts out his adulterous wife and takes a mistress. There are Abdulhamid Hodja and Father Kristoforos, holy men who call each other infidels yet are good friends. I found the chapters depicting the life and career of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, fascinating as he moves up the military ranks to win the fight for an independent Turkey.
Reverting again to the book’s title I found it interesting that ‘Birds’ are present throughout the story. They sing throughout the night, carry letters to the dead, have their voices captured in clay whistles, and live in cages outside the entrance to many homes. The town residents are portrayed as wingless birds that are grounded in the reality of war and unable to flee the turmoil.

In some ways ''Birds Without Wings'' is quite a challenge for readers having 95 chapters, and a six-part epilogue it's not surprising that de Bernières has cited ''War and Peace'' as a model for his work. In the end, this is a book about mourning, about grief at the loss of a community where Muslims and Christians were more than neighbors, where the imam went out of his way to bless a Christian child and Christians prayed to the Virgin Mary for their Muslim brothers.