Devin E. Naar. Jewish Salonica: Between the Ottoman Empire and Modern Greece. Stanford Studies in Jewish History and Culture Series. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2016. 400 pp. $85.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8047-9887-7. Reviewed by Sakis Gekas Published on H-Nationalism (June, 2018) Commissioned by Cristian Cercel (Ruhr University Bochum) Jewish Salonica by Devin E. Naar, Isaac Al‐ shows how the strategies of the Jewish communi‐ hadeff Professor in Sephardic Studies at the Uni‐ ty complemented the state’s policies to induce al‐ versity of Washington, is a very important new legiance from a supposedly “suspect” community addition to the history of Sephardic Jews and the toward the project of Hellenization. The second transition of Salonica from the Ottoman Empire to chapter narrates the debates and efforts to fnd a the Greek state, a history of “Jewish Salonica” as suitable religious and political leader, a chief rab‐ the title suggests. Winner of the 2016 National bi. The search revealed the tensions among the Jewish Book Award in the category of Writing three main groups among the Salonica Jewish Based on Archival Material, sponsored by the Jew‐ elite—Zionists, assimilationists, and socialists—as ish Book Council, and more recently winner of the they disagreed about the qualifications and char‐ 2017 Edmund Keeley Book Prize, sponsored by acteristics of the candidates for the position and the Modern Greek Studies Association (MGSA), the the image of Jewish Salonica each would repre‐ book is already a hit. Navigating the choppy wa‐ sent. The third chapter focuses on the schools for ters of Greek nationalism and Jewish identities, Jewish children, both Jewish and Greek-state the book is divided into fve distinct chapters (one schools, that became the sites that transformed published as an article in the past) that altogether “the children of the last generation of Ottoman and each one individually demonstrate the transi‐ Jews into thefrst generation of Hellenic Jews” (p. tion from a religious, self-governed community in 33); the chapter supports most convincingly the the late Ottoman Empire to the status of religious author’s argument about the Hellenization of Sa‐ minority that the Salonica Jews acquired from the lonica Jews, a process that many of them en‐ 1920 onward. It is a significant book that will dorsed and one that has not been acknowledged make a lasting contribution to the history of Jews by the growing historiography on Greek Jewish in Salonica/Thessaloniki. history. The chapter hints on the possibilities of The individual chapters “trace key dilemmas these groups to have participated in the profes‐ confronted by Salonica’s Jews that reflect their at‐ sional and civic life of their city and their country tempts to navigate the transition from the Ot‐ had the catastrophic Nazi occupation not oc‐ toman Empire to modern Greece, from the 1880s curred. The fourth chapter shows clearly how Sa‐ until World War II” (p. 33). The frst chapter lonican Jewish intellectuals produced histories of H-Net Reviews their community, seeking to define their history “between the Ottoman Empire and modern and image in the turbulent world of the 1930s; Greece,” as the subtitle suggests. The community, their contribution did indeed shape the image of the rabbis, the schools, and the historians are the Salonica as “Jerusalem of the Balkans” (p. 282), as main focus of each of the four chapters; even in the author convincingly argues. Lastly, the ffth the last chapter, which deals with the centuries- chapter retells, but in its own original way, the old cemetery and its fate, Naar hardly mentions fairly well known by now history of the construc‐ the lower classes, the everyday life of Jewish Sa‐ tion of the University of Thessaloniki that was lonicans, and their interactions with non-Jews. built on the vast Jewish cemetery, the largest Jew‐ This, in a way, is the distinct characteristic of the ish burial ground in Europe. The chapter delves book, because it differs significantly from the sev‐ into the murky history of the burial ground that eral works about late Ottoman cities that came after decades of silence has been acknowledged out in the two previous decades and stressed—al‐ with a plaque since 2014. Naar argues that the most naively sometimes—a perceived conviviality plaque text seems to be “exculpating the local au‐ between different religious and ethnic groups un‐ thorities” by placing responsibility solely on the der the watchful supervision of the sultan’s court, German occupation, ignoring the role of Greek as the Ottoman Empire went through the Young government at the time (p. 240). The issue is not Turk revolution and eventually its Turkification simply one of whitewashing however; there are during the First World War with dire conse‐ many other reasons why the collaborationist gov‐ quences for the Armenians and Greeks in the em‐ ernments of 1941-44 have been—rightly so—dis‐ pire. Thessaloniki was spared from the carnage of credited by official discourse, and it is under‐ the First World War but experienced a massive standable that the Greek-state authorities would transformation because it formed the base of the prefer to distance themselves from any acts of Army of the Orient of the French and British those governments that have stained national his‐ troops battling the Central powers in the Balkans. tory. What is interesting is how the author tells The city also served as the temporary capital of the story of the destruction that started well be‐ the Venizelos camp during the national schism, in fore the arrival of the Nazi occupiers. The Jewish 1916-17, when the country was divided and found community fended off attempts to expropriate itself on the brink of civil war; such a calamity part of the burial ground when the city’s topogra‐ was averted only when the British and French phy changed dramatically, frst following the cata‐ governments forced the Germanophile King Kon‐ strophic fre of 1917 and then following the ar‐ stantine to leave the country and Greece entered rival of hundreds of thousands of destitute Greek the war on the side of the Entente, with irre‐ Orthodox refugees in 1923-24 after the population versible consequences, not least for Thessaloniki. exchange with Turkey. It is telling that the inten‐ When Greece was defeated in the war with Kemal tions and arguments for preserving the cemetery Atatürk’s Turkish independence army in 1922, the were successful until the 1940s, revealing the ne‐ Lausanne Treaty arranged the exchange of Mus‐ gotiating power that the Jewish community held. lim with Christian populations, which resulted in Historians and those among the general pub‐ the uprooting of almost a million Christians from lic looking for a social/urban history of the city Asia Minor. Many of them arrived in Thessaloniki, and its Jewish past in Salonica, however, will not changing the city’s history forever; the event had find much. The author makes it clear from the or‐ a direct impact on the history of Jewish Salonica ganization of the chapters and their content that nonetheless, as tensions between the thousands of the book is mainly about the history of elite insti‐ refugees and the Jewish population emerged. tutions in the city as they navigated their course Scholars of modern Greece will have no difficulty 2 H-Net Reviews relating Naar’s account to these events, but non- have offered (pp. 24-25). Several similar argu‐ Greek history specialists will probably encounter ments regarding the Greek nationalist project are some difficulties. Key points in the chronology of also exaggerated; few Greek historians believe, those events are not mentioned nor discussed in for example, that the Great Idea project “aspired any meaningful detail or depth to situate the his‐ to transform Greece into a new empire” and tory of Jewish Salonica in a broader—Greek na‐ therefore Salonica Jews stood in the way of such a tional—context after 1912. project (p. 27). Hence the Salonica Jews emerged The impact of the period 1912-23 is generally as a “neo-millet,” a neologism offered by the au‐ absent from the book and it could have served as thor to depict the status of Jews in Greece after a transition for the period from the late Ottoman 1920. This argument is the most convincing of the era to the incorporation of Thessaloniki to the book: the Jewish communal authorities adjusted Greek state, as it was in fact crucial for the history their status from a religious community to a reli‐ of the city. Other parts of the history of Jewish Sa‐ gious minority following the Lausanne Treaty. lonica and the city in general deserve more atten‐ Equally important for the history of the city tion. The 1917 fre and its consequences are men‐ in the interwar period are the so-called Campbell tioned a few times but only insofar as the reloca‐ riots. It would have been helpful if the author had tion of the thousands of Jews who lost their offered an interpretation for the reasons of the homes, businesses, and synagogues is discussed. outbreak of riots in the Campbell district. There is How did the rebuilding of the city center take only one brief mention in the chapter on the place and how did the Jewish elite and subaltern cemetery, a hint that some university professors groups promote their interests? What were the and students stirred or even started the riots, but conflicts over properties? How did the devastating surely a history of Jewish Salonica deserves a fire shape power relations and the balance of more extensive discussion of the only incident class relations among the Jewish population and that tested Greek Orthodox-Greek Jewish rela‐ with city and state authorities? We learn in the tions.