Thessaloniki: A City in Transition, 1912–2012 ed. by Dimitris Keridis and John Brady Kiesling

Abstract

Reviewed by: Thessaloniki: A City in Transition, 1912–2012 ed. by Dimitris Keridis and John Brady Kiesling Iakovos D. Michailidis (bio) Dimitris Keridis and John Brady Kiesling, eds., Thessaloniki: A City in Transition, 1912–2012. London and New York: Routledge, 2021. Pp. xvii + 390. 54 illustrations. Paper £29.59. The history of Thessaloniki attracts many researchers from various countries, not only Greeks—and not without good reason. Thessaloniki has some features [End Page 145] which set it apart from most other cities of the Balkans and the southeastern Mediterranean. Among recent synthetic studies, Mark Mazower’s Salonica, City of Ghosts (2004) undoubtedly stands out, because Mazower introduced Thessaloniki to international historiography in an inspired and narratively unique way. Now, a new edited volume includes contributions delivered at an international conference held in Thessaloniki in October 2012 on the occasion of the centennial of the city’s liberation from Ottoman rule and its incorporation in the modern Greek state. The volume contains twenty-three articles and an extensive introduction written by the editors. It may be pointed out that a corresponding Greek version of this volume includes more articles than the English one—yet nowhere is it explained by what criteria some articles have been included here while others have been left out. According to the editors, the involvement of the then-mayor of Thessaloniki, Giannis Boutaris, was decisive in the organization/direction of the conference. For example, the original plan to focus on the Greek presence in the city was revised and replaced by an attempt to enrich its history with new perspectives and to confirm its position in international literature (2–3). The twenty-three articles in this volume are organized into three sections: “Searching for Identity,” “A City in Transition,” and “Mapping the Future of Thessaloniki.” The editors have tried to summarize and evaluate the city's centenary history through these three general themes, and the volume features contributions by renowned historians, including, among others, Mark Mazower, Paschalis M. Kitromilides, Philip Mansel, Eyal Ginio, Evangelos Hekimoglou, and Basil Gounaris. Still, the list of renowned researchers, whose papers are undoubtedly of high quality, does not automatically imply a thematic completeness and balance that would justify the ambitious title of the international conference and the corresponding volume. This is why both the introduction and the conclusions to the volume are often disconnected from the other articles. The editors correctly declare that their purpose was not to record the entirety of Thessaloniki's historical past. The first main axis of their approach is to “search for identity” in the city and to understand “the debates over the identity before and immediately after 1912” (7). The second axis relates to “the transition from an imperial to a national system and how that affected the city and its residents,” while the third involves discussion of how to “foster debate on what future the city deserves” (6–7). Properly studying all three axes—and especially the first two—requires a tightly structured theoretical approach. However, the topic of “identities” has been largely limited here to the study of national and religious minorities, with an emphasis on Jews, Muslims, and Bulgarians. Other identities—e.g., the Greeks—seem to be absent or are featured [End Page 146] only in a rather distorted manner (for instance through the arrival of Greek refugees) and mainly as a result of the Greco-Turkish War. In their introduction the editors focus, very aptly, on the Young Turk movement of 1908 as a pivotal point not only for the Muslim community of Thessaloniki but also for the whole region and for the personality of Mustafa Kemal, who was born in the city. With regard to Kemal, the editors note that he was “raised in a multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan imperial city gradually encircled by the hostile nationalisms of the bordering Christian states,” and they admit that he “distilled the ideas but also the contradictions of Young Turk nationalism” (3–4). But what are the contradictions of Young Turk nationalism? The reader will never know. And this might not have been of great importance if not for the connection to two other seminal events Thessaloniki’s history. The first of these...