What do you think?
Rate this book
A Modern History of the Kurds
In this detailed history of the Kurds from the 19th century to the present day, McDowall examines the interplay of old and new aspects of the struggle, the importance of local rivalries within Kurdish society, the enduring authority of certain forms of leadership and the failure of modern states to respond to the challenge of Kurdish nationalism. Drawing extensively on primary sources McDowall's book is useful for all who want a better understanding of the underlying dynamics of the Kurdish question.
536 pages, Paperback
First published August 15, 1958
About the author
David McDowall
33 books26 followersDavid McDowall has lived and worked in various parts of the world: in Hong Kong, Iraq, the Lebanon and Austria, serving in HM Forces, the British Council and the United Nations. He has traveled widely in the Near East and has written extensively on both British and Middle Eastern history, in particular on the Palestine Question, the Lebanese conflict, and the Kurds of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. He now writes walkers' guides to some of Britain's historic landscapes. He is married to the writer Elizabeth Laird.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
September 23, 2017
This book might in fact merit five stars. I simply do not know the subject matter well enough to be sure.
In writing "The Modern History of the Kurds" David McDowall used material primarily from
British diplomatic and military archives. The result is a marvellous book on the political history of the Kurds and the diplomatic manoeuvring of the Western powers present in the region. McDowall explains how we got to where we are today whereby there is a de-facto Kurdistan state nominally within Iraq that borders Kurdish populations in Turkey and Iran where independence movements exist with fluctuating vigour. McDowell does not examine social, economic, cultural or literary trends. There is no reason to believe that the sources exist that would have allowed him to do so.
McDowell's basic task was very daunting. Prior to 21st Century in which the Kurds have in the words of Google a "proto-state", the kurds had never possessed their own national government. Up until the end of WWI, they lived primarily in several different provinces in the Ottoman empire with smaller groups scattered about the Russian Empire. After the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, the largest groups of Kurds lived in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. The Kurds thus prior to the last quarter of 20th Century had never had any institutions of their own nor performed any national projects such as constructing railways or building electrical grids. They were educated in the language of the state they resided in. To complicate things their language was in fact what McDowell refers to as a spectrum of dialects.
Prior to WWII, Kurds still viewed themselves as belonging to local tribes and did not feel any Kurdish national identity. The tribal leaders disputed with the various central governments to ensure that they retained as much control as possible in their peripheral regions. A true national "Kurdish" consciousness did not start to develop until the second half of the 20th century when Kurds in one state (e.g. Iraq) would start to assist Kurds in bordering territories in conflicts with their national state ((e.g. Turkey or Iraq). Radio greatly assisted in the creation of conscience of a national Kurdish consciousness that extended across multiple states.
"The Modern History of the Kurds" then is a very sold work by an historian who has chosen to work within his means. The depth of detail is outstanding. McDowall provides insight into the affairs of Iraq, Turkey and Iran for every decade from the 1800 to 2000. The one problem is that McDowall makes the assumption that the reader has a basic knowledge of the history of the region. According to my GR database, I have read a dozen books on the area and I still had difficulties following McDowall in many places. McDowall's book is clearly not intended for a reader who is new to the topic. For those with the right background, it is a superb book.
In writing "The Modern History of the Kurds" David McDowall used material primarily from
British diplomatic and military archives. The result is a marvellous book on the political history of the Kurds and the diplomatic manoeuvring of the Western powers present in the region. McDowall explains how we got to where we are today whereby there is a de-facto Kurdistan state nominally within Iraq that borders Kurdish populations in Turkey and Iran where independence movements exist with fluctuating vigour. McDowell does not examine social, economic, cultural or literary trends. There is no reason to believe that the sources exist that would have allowed him to do so.
McDowell's basic task was very daunting. Prior to 21st Century in which the Kurds have in the words of Google a "proto-state", the kurds had never possessed their own national government. Up until the end of WWI, they lived primarily in several different provinces in the Ottoman empire with smaller groups scattered about the Russian Empire. After the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, the largest groups of Kurds lived in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. The Kurds thus prior to the last quarter of 20th Century had never had any institutions of their own nor performed any national projects such as constructing railways or building electrical grids. They were educated in the language of the state they resided in. To complicate things their language was in fact what McDowell refers to as a spectrum of dialects.
Prior to WWII, Kurds still viewed themselves as belonging to local tribes and did not feel any Kurdish national identity. The tribal leaders disputed with the various central governments to ensure that they retained as much control as possible in their peripheral regions. A true national "Kurdish" consciousness did not start to develop until the second half of the 20th century when Kurds in one state (e.g. Iraq) would start to assist Kurds in bordering territories in conflicts with their national state ((e.g. Turkey or Iraq). Radio greatly assisted in the creation of conscience of a national Kurdish consciousness that extended across multiple states.
"The Modern History of the Kurds" then is a very sold work by an historian who has chosen to work within his means. The depth of detail is outstanding. McDowall provides insight into the affairs of Iraq, Turkey and Iran for every decade from the 1800 to 2000. The one problem is that McDowall makes the assumption that the reader has a basic knowledge of the history of the region. According to my GR database, I have read a dozen books on the area and I still had difficulties following McDowall in many places. McDowall's book is clearly not intended for a reader who is new to the topic. For those with the right background, it is a superb book.
May 10, 2019
تاريخ الاكراد الحديث ديفيد مكدول
عندما يكون كتاب ما مكتبة !
تاريخ أكراد سوريا :
يقيم أكراد سوريا في أربع منطق رئيسية في كل من عفرين وكوباني ومنطقة الجزيرة وفي العاصمة دمشق في كل من حيي الأكراد والصالحية ولكن ما نسبته 40% منهم تعربوا كما يوجد أقلية ايزيدية في كل من جبل سمعان في شمال عفرين وجبل عبدالعزيز في الجزيرة
اعتباراً من العام 1900 أدى المشهد السياسي إلى خلق حالة من العداء بين الجالية الكردية وأغلبية السكان الذين تبنوا أفكار القومية العربية
في العاصمة دمشق سيطرت عائلتا اليوسف وشمدين اللذان كانا من ’غوات الكرد على حيي الصالحية وحي الاكراد
آل يوسف لم تدعم الحماس المتزايد للنخبة المدنية لأن القومية كانت تهدد بتآكل سلطتهم التقليدية المعتمدة أساساً على المحسوبية ونتيجة لذلك تعاطفوا وبشدة مع السلطة العثمانية في استانبول ولجنة الاتحاد والترقي في العام 1908 ضد تلك التجمعات القومية التي ارادت ان تجعل الامبراطورية العثمانية لا مركزية
وبناء على ذلك عارضوا الثورة السورية الكبرى عام 1916 ولا بوصول الأمير فيصل كحاكم جديد لسورية عام 1918 وعلاوة على ذلك قاموا بتقوية صلاتهم مع الفرنسيين للاطاحة بمملكة سورية في العام 1920 كما دعموا إقامة وطن قومي لليهود في فلسطين
وعندما حصلت فرنسا على حق الانتداب على سوريا من عصبة الامم المتحدة بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى تبنت سياسة تشجيع الهوية القومية للأقليات بغية إضعاف الغالبية العربية السنية وعندما قام القوميون العرب والدروز بالثورة الكبرى ضد فرنسا جندت فرنسا بالمقابل قوات من الاقليات لسحقها من أرمن وشركس وكرد وسمتهم قوات الشرق الخاصة
في العام 1927 تأسست جمعية خويبون على يد الأمير جلادت بدرخان وهو سليل عائلة أميرية كانت تحكم جزيرة بوطان , كما أنشأ صحيفة " هاوار " الناطقة باللغة الكرمانجية كما عمل على تطوير الأبجدية الكردية واستعمل الأحرف اللاتينية باعتبارها مناسبة أكثر للغات الهندو أوروبية
ولكن بسبب احتجاج تركيا ضغطت فرنسا على نشاطات خويبون منذ العام 1928 فقد وُجد الوعي القومي الكردي لأول مرة عندما سلمت عريضة للمجلس التأسيسي السوري الأول في العام 1928 مطالبة باستعمال اللغة الكردية وتعيين حكام كرد للمناطق الكردية الثلاث
منطقة الجزيرة : كان يسكنها قبائل عربية وكردية ولكن في اعقاب ثورة الشيخ سعيد عام 1925 عبر الكثير من اكراد تركيا لسوريا يمكن تقديرهم ب 25الف اضافة الى الهجرات المسحية اخاصة الأرمن و الآشوريين الذين استقروا غفي وادي الخابور في جنوب الجزيرة اثر عبورهم العراق
لقد حدث تحول اقتصادي كبير في الجزيرة فبعد ان كانت دياربكر والموصل المنفذان التجاريان لامداد الجزيرة اضطر الانتداب الفرنسي لبناء مدينتي القامشلي والحسكة بعد ترسيم حدود الدول
في الثلاثينيات بدأ الأكراد والمسيحيون بالمطالبة بالحكم الذاتي وفي العام 1938 عقد مؤتمر لمناشدة فرنسا لمنح الحكم الذاتي
في 1939 فصلت الجزيرة عن اراضي سوريا ذات الأغلبية العربية السنية
في العام 1946 انسحبت فرنسا من سوريا واستقلت فعلياً حيث ساند الأكراد الدمشقيين والحلبيين حكومة القوميين الجدد إلا أن عائلة البدرخانيين كانوا تواقين للاستقلال الكردي التام فمثلاً كان كاميران عالي بدرخان ممثلاً للحركة القومية الكردية في اوربا اضافة الى أنه كان يتقاضى راتبه من الاستخبارات الاسرائيلية كما أن جلادت بدرخان نفسه قتل في ظروف غامضة في مزرعته في الهيجانة في الجولان
حين تورطت سوريا في الحرب العربية الاسرائيلية عام 1948 ارسلت اسرائيل كاميران بدرخان لما وراء سوريا ولبنان لعرفة كيفية اعاقة الجهود الحربية للدول العربية
لقد اقترح كاميران تجنيد الدروز والشركس والكرد في هذه المخططات كما فعل دروز لبنان ومارونيي لبنان بعرض مساعدة اسرائيل مقابل الحاقهم بولاية شرق الاردن
منذ العام 1949 حملت سلسلة الانقلابات العسكرية ضباطاً ذو اصول كردية كحسني الزعيم وأديب الشيشكلي ولكن بعد الاطاحة بحكم الشيشكلي في العام 1954 بدأت الحكومة بتطهير الجيش من العسكريين الكرد ذوو الرتب العالية
في النصف الثاني من الخمسينيات اجتاحت القومية العربية العالم العربي أجمعه بعد صعود جمال عبد الناصر للحكم وتأميمه قناة السويس في العام 1956 والاطاحة بالسلالة الملكية الهاشمية في العام 1958 في العراق وهذا بدوره أجج الحقد القومي العربي تجاه الأقليات ونذكر هنا حادثة افتعال حريق متعمد في سينما تحوي 250 طفلاً كرديا في مدينة عامودا
في العام 1957 تأسس الحزب الديموقراطي الكردستاني السوري الذي دعا للاعتراف بالقومية الكردية وطالب بحقوقهم الثقافية ملفتاً الأنظار للوضع الاقتصادي المتدني كما وعارضوا بشدة قيام الجمهورية العربية المتحدة بين سوريا ومصر وهذا أدى إلى سجن أعضاء الحزب
في العام 1958 منع التداول بالمنشورات الكردية
في العام 1961 تم اطلاق الجمهورية العربية السورية على سوريا وهذا كان يعني اقصاء الأكراد كقومية اثنية ككا ترأس حزب البعث السلطة في العام 1963
لم تفسح القومية العربية المجال للهوية الكردية لذلك وجد الاكراد أ��فسهم في الحزب الشيوعي السوري الذي بات ينظر إليه لاحقاً على أنه حزب كردي
باشر حزب البعث باحتواء سكان الجزيرة ذات الأغلبية الكردية تحت شعار " أنقذوا الجزيرة لئلا تصبح اسرائيل ثانية " وطال السكان الأكراد دون غيرهم باظهار وثائق تثبت نسبهم لهذه الارض قبل العام 1945 ونظراً لصعوبة البرهان جُرّد اكثر من 300 ألف كردي من الجنسية السورية حيث زعمت الحكومة السورية أنهم قدموا من تركيا للحراثة والفلاحة في سوريا
في العام 1963 قدم مسؤول شعبة الأمن السياسي في الحسكة " محمد طلب هلال " تقريراً وصف فيه أن الجزيرة الكردية تدق ناقوس الخطر في قلب العروبة مقترحاً خطة تقضي بموجبها نقل عائلات عربية من حلب والرقة واسكانهم في مدن كردية بغية بناء حزام يفصل بين أكراد سوريا وإخوانهم في تركيا والعراق هذا وسمي الحزام بالحزام العربي لكن الأكراد رفضوا تهجيرهم من قراهم ومدنهم فباشرت الحكومة السورية ببناء مدن وقرى للمستوطنين العرب بين الأكراد وزودتهم بالسلاح للوقوف لجانب الحكومة
في بداية التسعينات وعقب استقلال الذاتي لأكراد العراق و نمو شعبية ال" pkk "حظرت الحكومة السورية اللغة الكردية وانشاء مدارس لتعليم اللغة الكردية مع انها سمحت للأرمن والسريان بفتح مدارس لتعلم لغتهم بالضافة الى تعريب المدن والبلدات الكرية كما منعت تسجيل المواليد الكرد باسماء كردية وامهلت الحكومة اصحاب الحلات التجارية مهلة تغيير اسماء محالهم لاسماء عربية والا اغلقت بالقوة
بالنسبة للأحزاب الكردية كان أول ما تم تأسيسه هو الحزب الديموقراطي الكردستاني وهو فرع سوريا الذي يقابله في كل من العراق وايران ترأس الحزب نور الدين ظاظا الذي نادى فقط بالحقوق الثقافية والاقتصادية للكرد مما اساء معارضة اصدقائه في الحزب الذين اصروا على الاستقلال التام لكردستان باربع اجزائها نتيجة لذلك انقسم الحزب لقسمين وكان القسم الثاني بزعامة الشاعر اوسمان صبري
اضافة للحزب الديموقراطي اعلن عن تأسيس الحزب الشيوعي والحزب التقدمي واليساري والشبابي ووصل إلى ما مجموعه 15 حزباً لكنهم اتفقوا بمجملهم على استبدال كلمة كردستاني بالكردي في اشارة الى رفض الانفصال عن سوريا ومطالبين فقط بالحقوق الثقافية والاجتماعية مما حذا بالحكومة السورية بغض الطرف عن نشاطاتهم
في العام 1990 انتخب ثلاث اعضاء من احزاب مختلفة لمجلس السعب ومنذ العام 1990 قامت سوريا برعاية حزب العمال الكردستاني وآوت زعيمه القائد عبدالله اوجلان ويرجع اباب دعم سوريا للمعاضة التركية الكردية بسبب استيلاء تركيا على لواء اسكندرونة واستحواذها على القسم الأكبر لمياه نهر الفرات كما أن تحالف تركيا مع اسرائيل أقلق سوريا فضغطت على تركيا بتبني حزب العمال الكردستاني حتى اضطرت تركيا لقطع علاقاتها مع اسرائيل مقابل التخلي عن دعم pkk
ملاحظة : الكتاب اكثر من 750 صفحة وقمت بتلخيص تاريخ كردستان سوريا فقط
عندما يكون كتاب ما مكتبة !
تاريخ أكراد سوريا :
يقيم أكراد سوريا في أربع منطق رئيسية في كل من عفرين وكوباني ومنطقة الجزيرة وفي العاصمة دمشق في كل من حيي الأكراد والصالحية ولكن ما نسبته 40% منهم تعربوا كما يوجد أقلية ايزيدية في كل من جبل سمعان في شمال عفرين وجبل عبدالعزيز في الجزيرة
اعتباراً من العام 1900 أدى المشهد السياسي إلى خلق حالة من العداء بين الجالية الكردية وأغلبية السكان الذين تبنوا أفكار القومية العربية
في العاصمة دمشق سيطرت عائلتا اليوسف وشمدين اللذان كانا من ’غوات الكرد على حيي الصالحية وحي الاكراد
آل يوسف لم تدعم الحماس المتزايد للنخبة المدنية لأن القومية كانت تهدد بتآكل سلطتهم التقليدية المعتمدة أساساً على المحسوبية ونتيجة لذلك تعاطفوا وبشدة مع السلطة العثمانية في استانبول ولجنة الاتحاد والترقي في العام 1908 ضد تلك التجمعات القومية التي ارادت ان تجعل الامبراطورية العثمانية لا مركزية
وبناء على ذلك عارضوا الثورة السورية الكبرى عام 1916 ولا بوصول الأمير فيصل كحاكم جديد لسورية عام 1918 وعلاوة على ذلك قاموا بتقوية صلاتهم مع الفرنسيين للاطاحة بمملكة سورية في العام 1920 كما دعموا إقامة وطن قومي لليهود في فلسطين
وعندما حصلت فرنسا على حق الانتداب على سوريا من عصبة الامم المتحدة بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى تبنت سياسة تشجيع الهوية القومية للأقليات بغية إضعاف الغالبية العربية السنية وعندما قام القوميون العرب والدروز بالثورة الكبرى ضد فرنسا جندت فرنسا بالمقابل قوات من الاقليات لسحقها من أرمن وشركس وكرد وسمتهم قوات الشرق الخاصة
في العام 1927 تأسست جمعية خويبون على يد الأمير جلادت بدرخان وهو سليل عائلة أميرية كانت تحكم جزيرة بوطان , كما أنشأ صحيفة " هاوار " الناطقة باللغة الكرمانجية كما عمل على تطوير الأبجدية الكردية واستعمل الأحرف اللاتينية باعتبارها مناسبة أكثر للغات الهندو أوروبية
ولكن بسبب احتجاج تركيا ضغطت فرنسا على نشاطات خويبون منذ العام 1928 فقد وُجد الوعي القومي الكردي لأول مرة عندما سلمت عريضة للمجلس التأسيسي السوري الأول في العام 1928 مطالبة باستعمال اللغة الكردية وتعيين حكام كرد للمناطق الكردية الثلاث
منطقة الجزيرة : كان يسكنها قبائل عربية وكردية ولكن في اعقاب ثورة الشيخ سعيد عام 1925 عبر الكثير من اكراد تركيا لسوريا يمكن تقديرهم ب 25الف اضافة الى الهجرات المسحية اخاصة الأرمن و الآشوريين الذين استقروا غفي وادي الخابور في جنوب الجزيرة اثر عبورهم العراق
لقد حدث تحول اقتصادي كبير في الجزيرة فبعد ان كانت دياربكر والموصل المنفذان التجاريان لامداد الجزيرة اضطر الانتداب الفرنسي لبناء مدينتي القامشلي والحسكة بعد ترسيم حدود الدول
في الثلاثينيات بدأ الأكراد والمسيحيون بالمطالبة بالحكم الذاتي وفي العام 1938 عقد مؤتمر لمناشدة فرنسا لمنح الحكم الذاتي
في 1939 فصلت الجزيرة عن اراضي سوريا ذات الأغلبية العربية السنية
في العام 1946 انسحبت فرنسا من سوريا واستقلت فعلياً حيث ساند الأكراد الدمشقيين والحلبيين حكومة القوميين الجدد إلا أن عائلة البدرخانيين كانوا تواقين للاستقلال الكردي التام فمثلاً كان كاميران عالي بدرخان ممثلاً للحركة القومية الكردية في اوربا اضافة الى أنه كان يتقاضى راتبه من الاستخبارات الاسرائيلية كما أن جلادت بدرخان نفسه قتل في ظروف غامضة في مزرعته في الهيجانة في الجولان
حين تورطت سوريا في الحرب العربية الاسرائيلية عام 1948 ارسلت اسرائيل كاميران بدرخان لما وراء سوريا ولبنان لعرفة كيفية اعاقة الجهود الحربية للدول العربية
لقد اقترح كاميران تجنيد الدروز والشركس والكرد في هذه المخططات كما فعل دروز لبنان ومارونيي لبنان بعرض مساعدة اسرائيل مقابل الحاقهم بولاية شرق الاردن
منذ العام 1949 حملت سلسلة الانقلابات العسكرية ضباطاً ذو اصول كردية كحسني الزعيم وأديب الشيشكلي ولكن بعد الاطاحة بحكم الشيشكلي في العام 1954 بدأت الحكومة بتطهير الجيش من العسكريين الكرد ذوو الرتب العالية
في النصف الثاني من الخمسينيات اجتاحت القومية العربية العالم العربي أجمعه بعد صعود جمال عبد الناصر للحكم وتأميمه قناة السويس في العام 1956 والاطاحة بالسلالة الملكية الهاشمية في العام 1958 في العراق وهذا بدوره أجج الحقد القومي العربي تجاه الأقليات ونذكر هنا حادثة افتعال حريق متعمد في سينما تحوي 250 طفلاً كرديا في مدينة عامودا
في العام 1957 تأسس الحزب الديموقراطي الكردستاني السوري الذي دعا للاعتراف بالقومية الكردية وطالب بحقوقهم الثقافية ملفتاً الأنظار للوضع الاقتصادي المتدني كما وعارضوا بشدة قيام الجمهورية العربية المتحدة بين سوريا ومصر وهذا أدى إلى سجن أعضاء الحزب
في العام 1958 منع التداول بالمنشورات الكردية
في العام 1961 تم اطلاق الجمهورية العربية السورية على سوريا وهذا كان يعني اقصاء الأكراد كقومية اثنية ككا ترأس حزب البعث السلطة في العام 1963
لم تفسح القومية العربية المجال للهوية الكردية لذلك وجد الاكراد أ��فسهم في الحزب الشيوعي السوري الذي بات ينظر إليه لاحقاً على أنه حزب كردي
باشر حزب البعث باحتواء سكان الجزيرة ذات الأغلبية الكردية تحت شعار " أنقذوا الجزيرة لئلا تصبح اسرائيل ثانية " وطال السكان الأكراد دون غيرهم باظهار وثائق تثبت نسبهم لهذه الارض قبل العام 1945 ونظراً لصعوبة البرهان جُرّد اكثر من 300 ألف كردي من الجنسية السورية حيث زعمت الحكومة السورية أنهم قدموا من تركيا للحراثة والفلاحة في سوريا
في العام 1963 قدم مسؤول شعبة الأمن السياسي في الحسكة " محمد طلب هلال " تقريراً وصف فيه أن الجزيرة الكردية تدق ناقوس الخطر في قلب العروبة مقترحاً خطة تقضي بموجبها نقل عائلات عربية من حلب والرقة واسكانهم في مدن كردية بغية بناء حزام يفصل بين أكراد سوريا وإخوانهم في تركيا والعراق هذا وسمي الحزام بالحزام العربي لكن الأكراد رفضوا تهجيرهم من قراهم ومدنهم فباشرت الحكومة السورية ببناء مدن وقرى للمستوطنين العرب بين الأكراد وزودتهم بالسلاح للوقوف لجانب الحكومة
في بداية التسعينات وعقب استقلال الذاتي لأكراد العراق و نمو شعبية ال" pkk "حظرت الحكومة السورية اللغة الكردية وانشاء مدارس لتعليم اللغة الكردية مع انها سمحت للأرمن والسريان بفتح مدارس لتعلم لغتهم بالضافة الى تعريب المدن والبلدات الكرية كما منعت تسجيل المواليد الكرد باسماء كردية وامهلت الحكومة اصحاب الحلات التجارية مهلة تغيير اسماء محالهم لاسماء عربية والا اغلقت بالقوة
بالنسبة للأحزاب الكردية كان أول ما تم تأسيسه هو الحزب الديموقراطي الكردستاني وهو فرع سوريا الذي يقابله في كل من العراق وايران ترأس الحزب نور الدين ظاظا الذي نادى فقط بالحقوق الثقافية والاقتصادية للكرد مما اساء معارضة اصدقائه في الحزب الذين اصروا على الاستقلال التام لكردستان باربع اجزائها نتيجة لذلك انقسم الحزب لقسمين وكان القسم الثاني بزعامة الشاعر اوسمان صبري
اضافة للحزب الديموقراطي اعلن عن تأسيس الحزب الشيوعي والحزب التقدمي واليساري والشبابي ووصل إلى ما مجموعه 15 حزباً لكنهم اتفقوا بمجملهم على استبدال كلمة كردستاني بالكردي في اشارة الى رفض الانفصال عن سوريا ومطالبين فقط بالحقوق الثقافية والاجتماعية مما حذا بالحكومة السورية بغض الطرف عن نشاطاتهم
في العام 1990 انتخب ثلاث اعضاء من احزاب مختلفة لمجلس السعب ومنذ العام 1990 قامت سوريا برعاية حزب العمال الكردستاني وآوت زعيمه القائد عبدالله اوجلان ويرجع اباب دعم سوريا للمعاضة التركية الكردية بسبب استيلاء تركيا على لواء اسكندرونة واستحواذها على القسم الأكبر لمياه نهر الفرات كما أن تحالف تركيا مع اسرائيل أقلق سوريا فضغطت على تركيا بتبني حزب العمال الكردستاني حتى اضطرت تركيا لقطع علاقاتها مع اسرائيل مقابل التخلي عن دعم pkk
ملاحظة : الكتاب اكثر من 750 صفحة وقمت بتلخيص تاريخ كردستان سوريا فقط
February 5, 2014
An interesting discussion of the recent history of the Kurds, generally speaking from the end of the 19th century on that charts the role they have played in the wider region and the space they filled in the states of Iran prior to the First World War and the newly formed nation states of Turkey and Iraq after WW1. The main focus of the book I would say is the slow development of the concept of a Kurdish identity separate and distinct to either Turkish, Arabic or Iranian and the struggles that the development of this identity has encountered in the form of repression and inter tribal rivalries. This was an enjoyable read and has left me with a greater understanding of the pressing need in my opinion for the international community to fully support Kurdish rights in the same way that it does Palestinian rights but I would add as a caveat that this is a very in-depth account and not something to pick up lightly.
February 3, 2020
Bir çok eksiğimi tamamlamış oldum, bir çok yanlış bilgimi düzenlemeye katkıda bulunan bir kitap oldu diyebilirim.
February 2, 2014
I cannot imagine an author setting out to make a more complete history of the Kurds. It is truly an epic overview of the Kurds spanning from 600 to about the year 2000 (in the 3rd edition).
The book is meticulously sourced and cites evidence from almost every side of the story. Notably, the touchier subjects (especially the PKK and state formation) are recounted objectively.
There have been quite a few developments since 2000 in the Kurdish autonomy movement, and I do hope that the book is updated to a 4th edition to account for that.
All in all, it's a thick read but incredibly helpful in understanding the Kurds.
The book is meticulously sourced and cites evidence from almost every side of the story. Notably, the touchier subjects (especially the PKK and state formation) are recounted objectively.
There have been quite a few developments since 2000 in the Kurdish autonomy movement, and I do hope that the book is updated to a 4th edition to account for that.
All in all, it's a thick read but incredibly helpful in understanding the Kurds.
January 21, 2013
The author David McDowall traces the roots of Kurdish nationalism from the collapse of the Kurdish emirates which were part of the Ottoman (Turkey and Iraq) and Qajar (Iran) empires until the start of the twentieth century. The Kurds, a people divided by nationality, religion, language and tribe, still share a common identity throughout the countries of the Middle East. This book focuses on their recent history in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, where they live as large and important minorities. The post World War I peace settlements had even planned for the creation of one or several Kurdish nations for which the Kurds themselves were unprepared, lacking an educated non-tribal social class until several decades later. But the newly established regimes in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran also tended to regard their own modernization with state nationalism, subordination of ethnic identities, and centralized control. The Kurds themselves had to transform their own societies from one based on divisive tribal patronage to one of a unified national ethnic identity.
This is a very detailed work, probably the most comprehensive treatment of modern Kurdish history, which is sometimes difficult to digest since so many of the facts presented are not part of more well-known narrative of Middle Eastern history. For instance, the Armenian Holocaust has been recognized as part of the history of the demise of the Ottoman Empire; some million and a half Armenians may have perished, many of them massacred by Kurdish forces, but the Kurds suffered their own losses, perhaps as many as a million deaths. As moslems, They tended to regard themselves as loyal Ottoman subjects who defended the the Caliph, the Sultan in Istanbul. After abolition of the Caliphate, Ataturk was at first supportive of their cultural rights, but later as his interests shifted to Turkish nationalism, he suppressed any hints of a Kurdish national identity. The Kurds later even became victims of genocidal policies in Turkey and Iraq where any attempts to establish autonomous Kurdish regions were brutally put down with huge death tolls of whole communities. Iran has not treated its Kurds much better with the bloody abolition of the Soviet sponsored Mahabad Republic and the widespread execution of separatists after the Islamic Revolution. Political developments in the Kurdish aspirations for self-determinism are still being played out; as this was actually an older edition of the book, a new one is being written.
This is a very detailed work, probably the most comprehensive treatment of modern Kurdish history, which is sometimes difficult to digest since so many of the facts presented are not part of more well-known narrative of Middle Eastern history. For instance, the Armenian Holocaust has been recognized as part of the history of the demise of the Ottoman Empire; some million and a half Armenians may have perished, many of them massacred by Kurdish forces, but the Kurds suffered their own losses, perhaps as many as a million deaths. As moslems, They tended to regard themselves as loyal Ottoman subjects who defended the the Caliph, the Sultan in Istanbul. After abolition of the Caliphate, Ataturk was at first supportive of their cultural rights, but later as his interests shifted to Turkish nationalism, he suppressed any hints of a Kurdish national identity. The Kurds later even became victims of genocidal policies in Turkey and Iraq where any attempts to establish autonomous Kurdish regions were brutally put down with huge death tolls of whole communities. Iran has not treated its Kurds much better with the bloody abolition of the Soviet sponsored Mahabad Republic and the widespread execution of separatists after the Islamic Revolution. Political developments in the Kurdish aspirations for self-determinism are still being played out; as this was actually an older edition of the book, a new one is being written.
December 20, 2017
I haven't finished the book but I'm done with it
Seriously all it talks about is Turks and Arabs,ok I understand that we have so many things in common we've been living together but it's not talking about Kurdish History as it claims
Such a nonsense.
Seriously all it talks about is Turks and Arabs,ok I understand that we have so many things in common we've been living together but it's not talking about Kurdish History as it claims
Such a nonsense.
January 12, 2022
Super read on this very resilient people! Very dense and heavy at times that covers the early beginnings of the Kurdish people until the mid 1990's and their fight to establish their homeland.
A plucky hardy people that are just about impossible to defeat.....
A plucky hardy people that are just about impossible to defeat.....
August 10, 2023
A heavy classic
June 6, 2014
Having lived in Iranian Kurdestan (Salmas environs) and worked and became friends with Kurdish people, I was very happy to see a thorough history of this hearty race of people whom I grew to admire. There were many tales of brigands such as Ismail Simqu who resisted domination by Reza Shah Pahlevi and others. Anyone majoring or studying the Middle East must read this book.
September 3, 2015
A modern History of Kurds should not omit Kurdish role in Armenian massacre. Mr. McDowall gives two paragraph to this topic in a 500 page book. This is omitting. Other than that, this is a fair book i'd say.
November 13, 2019
This was a very informative, well researched book, and even though the history ends quite a few years before the time of this review, the parallels to 2019 world news are inevitable. The Kurdish question may have its ups and downs, but it doesn't seem it'll go away anytime soon, and this book is a great explainer on an important topic.
I'm not sure if I'd call the book enjoyable, and this isn't just because of the subject matter. For someone with limited knowledge, many specifics (dates, locations, names, movements/parties, etc) can become confusing, especially as history repeats itself. Not first as tragedy and then as farce, as the saying goes, but in this case, first as tragedy and then as tragedy again. Will I remember something from the book that I could explain or name-drop in a (hypothetical) conversation? Probably not. But you get a lot from it, even if the insight is intangible, a sense of history as it meanders capriciously and without mercy through myriad alleyways, byways, crossroads and toll roads.
As always, there's the question of bias in politically divisive topics. I thought the book was neutral, as serious books should be, simultaneously sympathetic and critical. The Kurds come across sometimes as disorganized opportunists, other times as hypocritical sell-outs, occasionally as bloodthirsty pillagers, usually as amateur political operators. But the countries that the Kurds are up against come across ten times worse. Anyway, many nations had a similar tribal or feudal culture that they overcame, it's a great injustice that the Kurds were dealt with an especially difficult hand and couldn't do the same.
Speaking of which sides come off worse, some general thoughts, which perhaps pertain a bit to the so-called current culture wars between universalists/globalists and nationalists/localists... Is it such an obvious truth that reading history broadens the mind? Normally, I'd say yes, but then again, there are some books that have the potential for the opposite effect, especially when they examine topics which directly or indirectly allow for the question to be considered: are history's countless ignoble (or noble) episodes spread in a reasonably even distribution among cultures or countries? It's perhaps inevitable that as one reads more history, book after book, no matter (or perhaps especially) if the information is neutral, concrete and well researched, the more rigorously this question is tested. You go from being a tourist/traveller (superficially observing behaviours, habits and mannerisms) to being a distant semi local (understanding how the charming/quaint/ethnic appearances interconnect and how they're tied to deeper attitudes and non-public behaviours). And if you think you've got a bit of the essence of a culture/country, you may consider its positives (offerings to the world, science, culture, art, etc) and its negatives (the wrong, shameful or immoral episodes), and perhaps also the opportunities it had for either of the two. And if it happens that you believe that the former are meagre and the latter are recurrent, compared to your own (or others') culture or history, well... A bias is born. Familiarity can bring contempt, not just in one-to-one situations, perhaps.
Of course, the counter argument is that patterns form by statistical flukes when you've got a large sample. Take a few hundred regions/nations/cultures, inevitably some histories will appear more ignoble/noble, only due to pure luck. The wheel's still in spin, give it a few hundred years, and there's no telling what it'll be naming (to paraphrase). But will the first one now later be last or the loser now later to win? Perhaps. One could argue that even with the well meaning, open-minded assumption, that there's no inherent root cause behind some things, it's still logical to claim that once certain patterns form, they sometimes tend to be self-perpetuating. At any rate, even this mild, moderate determinism, no matter its veracity, doesn't exactly lead to a more open mind.
I'm not sure if I'd call the book enjoyable, and this isn't just because of the subject matter. For someone with limited knowledge, many specifics (dates, locations, names, movements/parties, etc) can become confusing, especially as history repeats itself. Not first as tragedy and then as farce, as the saying goes, but in this case, first as tragedy and then as tragedy again. Will I remember something from the book that I could explain or name-drop in a (hypothetical) conversation? Probably not. But you get a lot from it, even if the insight is intangible, a sense of history as it meanders capriciously and without mercy through myriad alleyways, byways, crossroads and toll roads.
As always, there's the question of bias in politically divisive topics. I thought the book was neutral, as serious books should be, simultaneously sympathetic and critical. The Kurds come across sometimes as disorganized opportunists, other times as hypocritical sell-outs, occasionally as bloodthirsty pillagers, usually as amateur political operators. But the countries that the Kurds are up against come across ten times worse. Anyway, many nations had a similar tribal or feudal culture that they overcame, it's a great injustice that the Kurds were dealt with an especially difficult hand and couldn't do the same.
Speaking of which sides come off worse, some general thoughts, which perhaps pertain a bit to the so-called current culture wars between universalists/globalists and nationalists/localists... Is it such an obvious truth that reading history broadens the mind? Normally, I'd say yes, but then again, there are some books that have the potential for the opposite effect, especially when they examine topics which directly or indirectly allow for the question to be considered: are history's countless ignoble (or noble) episodes spread in a reasonably even distribution among cultures or countries? It's perhaps inevitable that as one reads more history, book after book, no matter (or perhaps especially) if the information is neutral, concrete and well researched, the more rigorously this question is tested. You go from being a tourist/traveller (superficially observing behaviours, habits and mannerisms) to being a distant semi local (understanding how the charming/quaint/ethnic appearances interconnect and how they're tied to deeper attitudes and non-public behaviours). And if you think you've got a bit of the essence of a culture/country, you may consider its positives (offerings to the world, science, culture, art, etc) and its negatives (the wrong, shameful or immoral episodes), and perhaps also the opportunities it had for either of the two. And if it happens that you believe that the former are meagre and the latter are recurrent, compared to your own (or others') culture or history, well... A bias is born. Familiarity can bring contempt, not just in one-to-one situations, perhaps.
Of course, the counter argument is that patterns form by statistical flukes when you've got a large sample. Take a few hundred regions/nations/cultures, inevitably some histories will appear more ignoble/noble, only due to pure luck. The wheel's still in spin, give it a few hundred years, and there's no telling what it'll be naming (to paraphrase). But will the first one now later be last or the loser now later to win? Perhaps. One could argue that even with the well meaning, open-minded assumption, that there's no inherent root cause behind some things, it's still logical to claim that once certain patterns form, they sometimes tend to be self-perpetuating. At any rate, even this mild, moderate determinism, no matter its veracity, doesn't exactly lead to a more open mind.
November 25, 2022
It is a comprehensive book and describing the history of Kurds however the history of Kurdish people goes back longs before than of what the author mentioned! The other part about the book that I found it extremely unfair is the author is showing a really terrible image of Kurds by labeling them as troubles during the time! Author is not describing the situation in Qadjars or Ottomans emperors era and blames kurds for what happened in their lands! The other part that really sound unfair was the Kurdish role in Armenian massacre! It quite clear author blaming kurds for this massacare and genocide by cleaning Turks hands from the crime! There is no doubt some kurdish tribes and due to influence of Ottomans have committed this crimes though still some other tribes have helped to save armenian lives! The Hamidiyes were composed of kurdish and non-kurdish fighters that involved in attack armenians! But authors claims they all were kurds! He is truly ignoring the fact that Ottomans were influencing these tribes and forcing or seducing them to do such crimes though its still not an excuse for what happened but its better to explain the why and the how than just the cause! Even after reading some armenian sources I couldn't find what the author has claimed in this book about the Kurdish role in armenian genocide there is a fact that some kurds assisted in this but even armenians are agreed that kurds were only a tool in this crime! After reading about 150 pages of this book I felt there were many claims in this book which definitely doesn't reflect the history of this area! The author claims everything was in kurds favour during the history and just for no reason they decided to have own country! That is a really superficial claim and doesnt explain what is the real motivation for all these movements during the time! You might call me an ignorant or a Kurdish person who has offended while reading this book but I feel this book has many claims without actual facts and I gave up finishing it. What thing that I 100% agree with the author is the lack of knowledge and education in kurdish regions during the time which caused this situation until now but if there were more kurdish nobles and educated people we definitely could have a different version of story! I finish with this quote that says winners write the history
April 28, 2021
This is a very long history, perhaps too long for the casual reader. However, as one of the few documents in English on Kurdish history, the detail, which is rarely repetitive and overflows into the footnotes, is necessary. The trajectory begins with the Kurds as a federation of tribes, not really a nation, and ends with disappearance of the tribes and the fragmentation of the Kurds across the four nations that have divided up their homeland. There are times where Kurdish unity seems possible, only for those hopes to be dashed by external betrayal, internal squabbling, and the cynical manipulation of Iranian, Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi, and, of course, British, French, and American politics.
August 18, 2019
Even though the writer does not have the hearts to name PKK as terrorist organization and have totally biased and one sided aproach against Turkey, this book still the most comprehensive and detailed work on Kurds.
It is also good to understand the approach of the "west" to the Kurds, how they despise this people.
I think the writer has some personal issues with Turkey :)
It is also good to understand the approach of the "west" to the Kurds, how they despise this people.
I think the writer has some personal issues with Turkey :)
June 17, 2021
What an astounding account. It's not for the faint-hearted, though. The Kurds have suffered so much but what resilience! How, oh how can we treat each other so badly? How can we let nations continue to commit such atrocities? It was very readable though packed with dates, events, people, parties, and factions.
Read
February 9, 2022The Kurds do not have any historical, cultural or civil roots in northern Iraq or northern Syria. The coming of the Kurds to Iraq and Syria is new. Rather, they are the last people to migrate to Iraq and Syria. Their displacement continued from the edge of the Iranian borders and mountains towards the villages of Christians, Turkmen and even Arabs, and they killed the population.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 5, 2022
Great book. Lots of detail and footnotes are another companion book. I was a little disappointed in the degree of analysis of USA/European interference in the areas which include Kurdish regions,particularly post 1990s.
Read
September 1, 2018Sarya
April 19, 2021
An in-depth analysis of the history of the Kurds divided into 4 sub-sections in: 1. Iraq 2. Iran 3. Syria and 4. Turkey.
April 6, 2023
As a Kurd, I really enjoy reading this book—it is so informative about the largest stateless ethnicities in the world.
April 23, 2018
"Furthermore, in each zone there were the divides between nomad and peasant, between neighbouring tribes, or between factions within tribes. Kurdish national feeling, the commission believed, expressed itself only in opposition to external political interference, or in the activities of persons of Kurdish origin in places like Istanbul, who had largely lost touch with their kinsmen. There was only one exception to this general view, the Sulaymaniya Division, where we found a Kurdish national feeling which, though yet young, was reasonable enough; for, though the people stated that their supreme desire was for complete independence, they recognized the advantages of an enlightened and intelligent trusteeship."
A detailed history and more of a guide to Arab + Turk + various peoples and states when it comes to the Kurdish people and their struggles for autonomy/co-existence.
Overall, an interesting book but more emphasis on the political narrative between Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria and how the other factors of nationalism played an effectual part in ongoing interactions. (I was hoping for more information on history and Kurdish traditions so will be on the lookout for more Kurdish books...)
Interesting to find a people who have a rich and diverse history/cultural heritage still struggling as well for independence and a homeland.
A detailed history and more of a guide to Arab + Turk + various peoples and states when it comes to the Kurdish people and their struggles for autonomy/co-existence.
Overall, an interesting book but more emphasis on the political narrative between Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria and how the other factors of nationalism played an effectual part in ongoing interactions. (I was hoping for more information on history and Kurdish traditions so will be on the lookout for more Kurdish books...)
Interesting to find a people who have a rich and diverse history/cultural heritage still struggling as well for independence and a homeland.
June 2, 2016
This is a great book for anyone looking to learn more about the Kurdish people and their history. It is a large book (roughly 530 pages), however, the chapters are arranged in such a way that if you're looking for something specific, all you need to do is check the table of contents and choose a relevant chapter (the chapters can be read individually and all have their own set of footnotes and list of resources). In the preface the author gives a brief account of the vast amount of work and research that was put into the book and I for one, believe him - the book shows it.
On a personal level, I was shocked at how little I knew about the Kurdish people's lives and history in different countries. What was unfortunately less shocking however, was the despicable (and infuriating) attitude that the international community (specifically the US and UK governments, and later the UN and EU) demonstrated time and time again when it came to the Kurds, as well as their apparent unwillingness to take real, meaningful actions to protect a group of people who were in such desperate need of support. Having said that, this is not by any means an underdog hagiography; the book also goes into great detail about the shortcomings and missed opportunities of the Kurdish leadership (and people) throughout the years.
It was interesting to read this book in light of the current situation in the region. It's unfortunate to see just how much history repeats itself. I would highly recommend this book for anyone trying to gain a meaningful understanding of some of the dynamics within the region today.
On a side note, one reviewer here mentioned that the author didn't get into enough detail about the Kurdish role in the Armenian genocide – I beg to differ. The author had to cover a vast history within the book's 530 pages; many events were mentioned in a paragraph or two – had the author gone into detail on every single event, the book would have been much longer and more tedious to read. In my opinion, the author's choice of language, as well as the facts and figures stated, were enough to convey the significance of the Kurdish role in the Armenian genocide, as well as the scale of the atrocities committed.
On a personal level, I was shocked at how little I knew about the Kurdish people's lives and history in different countries. What was unfortunately less shocking however, was the despicable (and infuriating) attitude that the international community (specifically the US and UK governments, and later the UN and EU) demonstrated time and time again when it came to the Kurds, as well as their apparent unwillingness to take real, meaningful actions to protect a group of people who were in such desperate need of support. Having said that, this is not by any means an underdog hagiography; the book also goes into great detail about the shortcomings and missed opportunities of the Kurdish leadership (and people) throughout the years.
It was interesting to read this book in light of the current situation in the region. It's unfortunate to see just how much history repeats itself. I would highly recommend this book for anyone trying to gain a meaningful understanding of some of the dynamics within the region today.
On a side note, one reviewer here mentioned that the author didn't get into enough detail about the Kurdish role in the Armenian genocide – I beg to differ. The author had to cover a vast history within the book's 530 pages; many events were mentioned in a paragraph or two – had the author gone into detail on every single event, the book would have been much longer and more tedious to read. In my opinion, the author's choice of language, as well as the facts and figures stated, were enough to convey the significance of the Kurdish role in the Armenian genocide, as well as the scale of the atrocities committed.
November 30, 2007
كتاب نسبتا كاملي در مورد وضعيت سياسي و اجتماعي كردستان 100 سال پيش با نگاهي فرادستانه يك مستشار!
May 18, 2015
Good history of the Kurds, an occasionally overlooked people that are central to many current geopolitical issues.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews