This volume hit the bookstore shelves when the film Salkım Hanım's Necklace sparked a great deal of controversy in the Turkish press and drew criticism from ultra-nationalist circles. The film was about the tragedy of the Capital Levy, the most drastic Turkification policy implemented during World War II. It was thanks to the film that younger generations of Turks learned about these events. The debate was further inflamed when the film was shown on state television.

The Capital Levy was enacted in the Turkish Parliament in November 1942. Its declared purpose was to tax huge profits made through war-time profiteering, as well as to combat inflation. However, the Capital Levy also turned out to be an excellent measure for expropriating the non–Muslim minorities and weakening their hold on the economic life of the country. Aktar's work brings together a series of essays previously published in Turkish journals. It offers the most detailed and by far the best documented history available on the Turkification policies of Republican Turkey and the discriminatory policies directed against minorities in all spheres of life.

Turkification did not occur in a void. The main motive was the wish to create a new economic class assisted by the state. In this context, an important stage in the establishment of the national economy was the exchange of minority populations between Turkey and Greece. The first chapter of the book is devoted to the causes and consequences of this policy, which, in Aktar's view, prepared the ground for the emergence of a xenophobic milieu in which the Ankara government adopted an inward-looking autarchic economic model in the 1930s.

The second chapter, titled “The Jewish Events in [Eastern] Thrace and Turkish Nationalism—1934,” demonstrates conclusively the role of the Republican People's Party in the relocation of the Jewish population from eastern Thrace to Istanbul. Jews were seen as an “undesirable element” by the government (p. 83). The extent of the government's involvement and the backing it provided has not been adequately addressed in prior studies. Aktar's interpretation leaves no room for doubt that the government played an important role behind the scenes. However, he also argues that Kemalists were not fascists, since they lacked the means of a legal-rational state to mobilize the masses.

In its attempts to Turkify the minorities, the Ankara government resorted to many tactics. A number of Turkification policies implemented in the early years of the republic are considered in the third chapter. Aktar convincingly demonstrates the evolution of de facto policies to de jure procedures. As with all nationalisms, the Turkish case tended to view minorities through the lens of us-and-them categories, and non–Muslim groups were regarded as half-citizens.

The fourth chapter treats in detail the implementation of the Capital Levy. Contesting the common view that the Turkish state was under the spell of Nazism in line with the spirit of the times, Aktar argues that it would be wrong to attribute the implementation of the Capital Levy solely to the winds of Nazism. He cites Faik Ökte, then the director of finance in Istanbul, as evidence of the true underlying motives and touches on debates in secret cabinet meetings. As might be expected, the implementation of such a discriminatory policy also drew rebukes from the outside world. It is to his credit that Aktar extensively uses U.S. and British archives, which enable him to assess the attitude of the international community vis-à-vis Turkey.

The book concludes with a chapter on the transfer of immovables during implementation of the Capital Levy. The author's research is based on primary documents from six land registries in Istanbul. Aktar reveals that tax assessments were made in an arbitrary fashion. Taxpayers were designated Muslim, non–Muslim, and converts (Turkish citizens whose ancestry could be traced to Salonica). Contrary to what is commonly assumed, not only were rich minority merchants forced to pay the Capital Levy, so were taxi drivers, secretaries, wage earners, peddlers, self-employed small producers, and so on. The tax had to be paid within a month of the date of posting. For that reason, many were compelled to sell their property at ridiculously low prices. Those who could not pay were forced to go to work in a labor camp in eastern Anatolia. It is noteworthy that among the 1,229 persons deported to Aşkale labor camp there was not a single Turkish Muslim defaulter.

Aktar's book is a mine of information filled with fascinating anecdotes. Numerous interviews, published memoirs, and press accounts supplement his archival research. As with any work, this book suffers from a few shortcomings. Aktar terminates his study prior to the multi-party period. One recounts similar events in the past fifty years, such as those of September 1955, when Turkish nationalists targeted the Greek community in Istanbul and exposed them to violence. It is an open secret that the Democratic Party threw its weight behind this provocation. Had Aktar expanded his book to encompass this tragic event, his account might have been even more illuminating. It is a pity that this important book does not have an index of proper names and key words.

Nevertheless, given the unavailability of state archives to scholars, Aktar's study is an achievement of the first order. This book is an important challenge to official Turkish historiography and an honest attempt to confront the darker sides of the single-party period. A welcome step in this regard might be its translation into English, for it deserves the attention of a broader audience. It is hoped that such scholarly contributions will continue to add to the development of modern Turkish historiography.