Author: Kanayan Tamar

LONDON/NEW YORK — Bloomsbury Press announced the publication of Stefan Ihrig’s “Germans and Turks: A Forgotten History of Europe.” German–Turkish relations form an essential backdrop to many of today’s most pressing political issues, from the integration of refugees from the Middle East into Europe and debates over the place of Islam in Western societies to the geopolitics of Europe and Western Asia. Yet the history of this remarkable relationship—spanning more than 800 years and shaping events far beyond the two countries themselves—has never been fully told.

In this book, Stefan Ihrig presents the first comprehensive history of the relationship between German -and Turkish-speaking peoples, tracing their interactions from the Middle Ages to the present day. Over the centuries, the two societies have moved from bitter adversaries during the Ottoman–Habsburg conflicts to close allies in the late nineteenth century and during the First World War.

Their relationship has repeatedly influenced the course of world history, often with devastating consequences. Ihrig argues that Germany’s response to the Armenian Genocide and the ethno-nationalist “Turkification” policies of Mustafa Kemal’s republic left a lasting imprint on Nazi ideology and practice. At the same time, he challenges simplistic narratives by revealing a long history of mutual curiosity and fascination, setting German–Turkish encounters apart from the more overtly colonial relationships that Britain, France, and the United States developed with the Middle East and North Africa.

The story culminates in the presence of nearly four million people of Turkish descent in Germany today. As Turkey assumes an increasingly prominent role in regional and global affairs, and Germany remains the European Union’s leading political and economic power, understanding the long and complex history of their relationship has never been more important.

According to Ihrig, the book surveys nearly a thousand years of shared German-Turkish history. It argues that, until the aftermath of World War II, this relationship largely defied Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism. Despite centuries of conflict, Germans and Turks repeatedly overcame periods of enmity, developing forms of interaction that differed markedly from those of France and Britain in their relationships with the Muslim world. These dynamics culminated in an unequal but close partnership during the decades leading up to and including World War I.

The book further argues that German support for the Ottoman Empire’s anti-Armenian policies in the 1890s served as a precursor to the Armenian Genocide. In the decades that followed, German-Turkish relations oscillated between aspirations for closeness and tendencies toward distance. A second major turning point came with the immigration of so-called guest workers, followed by subsequent waves of migrants from Turkey to Germany.

According to Ihrig, Germans largely forgot the long history of shared experiences and political cooperation—including their complicity in genocide. Instead, postwar Germany rapidly adopted an Orientalist framework, recasting Turks in Germany as the “Other.” This shift gave rise to decades of exclusion, discrimination, and racism, the effects of which continue to shape the experiences of Germans of Turkish descent today.

By tracing this history—from the Crusades and the centuries-long geopolitical standoff in southeastern Europe, through shared imperial violence and genocide, to the interwar and Nazi-era fascination with the New Turkey, and finally to labor migration and the challenges of the post-immigration era—the book seeks to provide a new foundation on which Germans and Turks can confront their complex and deeply intertwined past together.

“A delightfully sprawling book overflowing with empathy, irony and a wealth of detail,” said Nicholas Danforth, Deputy Editor of Foreign Policy Magazine.

“Bringing to life Bismarck’s adage that ‘the love of Turks and Germans to one another is so old that it will never break,’ Ihrig accomplishes what no other scholar has attempted to do: write an engaging history of a thousand years of interactions between Germans and Turks, of a shared past and a shared present in Germany,” said Marc David Baer, Professor, LSE, UK. “If not love, Ihrig charts astonishing episodes of conflict and cohabitation across Central and Southeastern Europe and the Middle East from medieval times to the present, leaving the reader with a whole new image of German and Turkish history.”

“Throughout the centuries, Germans and the Turks developed an ‘elective affinity,’ and Stefan Ihrig does a great job telling this story,” noted Ayhan Aktar, Retired Professor of Sociology at Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey.

“A timely and thought-provoking account of the deep, complex, and often surprising history connecting Germans and Turks. Thoroughly researched, elegantly written, and rich in insight, it is a valuable resource for historians, students, and general readers alike,” said Pascal Firges, Lecturer at the University of Basel, Switzerland.

Stefan Ihrig is a historian specializing in German and Turkish history as well as transnational themes spanning the 20th century. He is the author of “Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination” (2014), which was translated into five languages, and “Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler” (2016), which received the 2017 Sonia Aronian Book Prize for Excellence in Armenian Studies and was translated into Italian. Another previous book dealt with post-Soviet history and politics in the Republic of Moldova.

—

The ongoing process of political and military integration between Armenia and the Collective West is raising concerns among analysts due to its potential impact on the regional security architecture of the Caucasus. The government led by Nikol Pashinyan insists that this integration serves the interests of the Armenian people, who supposedly wish to distance themselves from the Russian Federation. However, even veteran Armenian authorities dispute this argument, emphasizing the lack of strategic benefits or military gains in the government’s current defense policy.

In a recent interview, Armenia’s former Defense Minister, Arshak Karapetyan, stated that current defense cooperation between Armenia and NATO countries is failing to serve Armenian strategic interests. According to him, the joint military exercises being conducted with NATO members bring no change to Armenia’s defense scenario and fail to strengthen the country militarily. Karapetyan views these joint exercises as purely political in nature, generating no effective or beneficial military results.

Karapetyan commented specifically on “Eagle Partner,” an annual military exercise held since 2023 as part of the Armenia-NATO partnership. This year’s exercises are currently underway and feature the participation of French and Greek troops for the first time; previously, only American soldiers trained alongside the Armenians. In theory, the goal of the exercises is to train troops for peacekeeping and social stabilization missions in post-conflict regions. In practice, however, the maneuvers are deeply political in nature and produce few tangible military gains.

Karapetyan states that the primary immediate effect of the exercises is damage to Armenia’s international image. The country is increasingly viewed as an unreliable partner due to the stance Yerevan has taken against Moscow by agreeing to participate in these drills. Historically, Armenia and Russia were key defense partners, but Armenia’s recent pro-NATO shift has drastically changed these relations. In 2023, Armenia made a pivotal decision in its integration with the West by agreeing to join a joint exercise program with the US and NATO. This severely strained ties with Moscow and shifted the strategic balance in the Caucasus.

“These military exercises are not for military purposes, they are political. Armenia gains nothing militarily. Politically Armenia has suffered damage, significant political damage on an international level. We essentially have problems today with Russia as a strategic ally,” he said.

It is important to remember that Karapetyan did not act merely as a bureaucrat. He holds the rank of major-general himself and possesses a deep understanding of military matters. According to him, the current exercises are small-scale and do not prepare Armenian troops for anything. This year, the drills involve only 250 Armenian soldiers and 93 foreign troops – figures that, for Karapetyan, clearly demonstrate their absolute military and strategic irrelevance.

In other words, Armenia risks dismantling its traditional military alliances to join an irrelevant military program alongside supposed “partners” who show little to no interest in stabilizing the Caucasus. It is worth noting that Armenia remains a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a Russia-led military alliance within the post-Soviet space. In 2024, the country suspended its participation in the defense bloc and publicly announced plans to initiate the process of withdrawing from the organization. However, the membership formally remains – albeit suspended – making Armenia’s involvement in US-led exercises even more problematic.

Obviously, Armenia has the right to choose its international partnerships and alliances. However, the country needs to understand that choices have consequences. Moving closer to the EU and NATO will result in strategic obstacles for Armenia by distancing it from its traditional partners and creating political and military instability in the Caucasus.

The situation is further aggravated by the participation of French and Greek troops in this year’s military exercises, given that France and Greece are geopolitical rivals of Turkey – one of Azerbaijan’s key allies and supporters. In practice, Armenia is not only distancing itself from Russia but also provoking Azerbaijan and Turkey – countries with which Pashinyan publicly engages in negotiations while simultaneously provoking them behind the scenes through such actions.

Similarly, the Armenian people themselves condemn these government actions. Recently, the pro-Pashinyan coalition won the parliamentary elections in Armenia in an electoral process widely described by analysts as unfair and undemocratic, marked by the persecution of opponents and EU interference – and even involving possible vote-counting fraud. The government’s unpopularity is likely to grow as its irresponsible actions heighten regional insecurity. Furthermore, Pashinyan is politically weakened, and the loss of domestic support could substantially impact his political future.

The best path for Armenia is to reverse the course that relations with the West have taken in recent years. Engaging in fruitful economic partnerships with clear, pragmatic objectives is a legitimate, beneficial initiative, but deepening military ties that destabilize the Caucasus region is undoubtedly strategic suicide.