Despite the title, the book is not quite a diary, although there is a good detail of day-to-day detail about life in Azerbaijan (he spent most of his time in Baku). The book's two main foci are the political history of Azerbaijan during this period, and the conflict with Armenia. The political history is done very well -- Goltz introduces a large cast, keeps them fairly distinct, and through his personal acquaintance with almost all of them brings them to life. It's clear that Goltz acquired a good deal of affection for the Azerbaijanis, and he is enraged by the corruption and indifference of many of the Azerbaijan political class. When, in the end, the old Soviet-era fox Heydar Aliyev wins power and actually gets the Caspian oil (and concomitant money) to flow via deals with international oil companies, Goltz is grudgingly respectful -- Aliyev may be lying about his democratic credentials, but he did achieve some benefit to Azerbaijan, which is more than most of his predecessors did.

As I said, Goltz is fond of the Azerbaijanis, and this does come through in his reporting of the war, which as a result feels a little less even-handed. There's no doubt about the accuracy of his central complaint, often-repeated: that the Armenians, apparently with Russian help, were directly involved in the Karabakh conflict, despite all their claims that it was mere "volunteerism"; and that the media has generally been much kinder to the Armenians than they deserve. He is also scathing about the Azerbaijan military's incompetence and corruption; and he finds the time to make positive comments about Armenia, though he spent relatively little time there. Still, he is pro-Azeri, and it occasionally shows.

The blurb urges you to read this for the adventure if you're not interested in the politics or history, and there are certainly some scary moments as Goltz barely makes it out of some of the more dangerous places alive. But I can't recommend it for that alone. If you like politics and history, this is a great source on Azerbaijan in the 90's; it's not great writing but it's interesting and has details you won't find anywhere else.

8 of 9 found the following review helpful:


adventures from the crumbing edges of the Soviet Empire  May 05, 2002 By Art
Gotlz was on the front line of a nasty little war that few in the West took much notice of. His time in Azerbaijan got him a front row seat to the crumbling edges of the Soviet empire. The author describes well how chaotic modern war can be. Since he was one of the few Americans in Azerbaijan at the time, since the oil boom had yet to begin, he stuck up relationships with many characters that go on to rule Azerbaijan. Ten years after the fact the combat writing holds up well, but the political chapters have not. The author does not seem to hide that he is pro-Azeri. You can sense his rage as he tries unsuccessfully to get anybody in the Western media to care about the war. A good editor could have chopped this book down by a third and made it a better read. Azeri's love the book, Armenians hate it, but what would you expect.

5 of 7 found the following review helpful:


Captivating, informative, disturbing.  May 25, 1999
There are few heroes in Thomas Goltz's story of Azerbaijan's difficult birthing process, and his in-your-face record of the history of the new republic reveals much of the darker side of the human soul including, occasionally, his own. By his own description, Goltz doesn't suffer fools and - in his passionate, near obsessive pursuit of a truth that no one else seems to either see nor to care about - is an 'equal opportunity offender', nipping at the heels ( and other parts of the anatomy ) of Azeris, Armenians, Turks, Iranians,Russians and Americans, oil men, fellow journalists and his own editors.

Azerbaijan Diary succeeds as history, as analysis, as adventure. It should be required reading for politicians and policy makers, academics, oil executives and any young would-be journalists who wonder whether there are still any fact-driven , swashbuckling hacks out there in this largely electronic media age of underinformed talking heads. Meanwhile, Goltz should go wherever journalistic pit bulls go for a break and let someone turn this excellent book into a film script.

7 of 10 found the following review helpful:


Few options when it comes to this subject  Jun 25, 2004 By Ahram al-Yardum
First the ad hominem: Goltz is the worst kind of journalist in that he pairs a vocal bias with zero understanding of history. A deadly combination where peoples' lives are at stake. He doesn't just report the facts (though he does indeed report some very valuable facts), he writes incomplete accounts of complex military events, and delivers emotionally inspirational keynote addresses to groups of Azerbaijanis, which you can find transcripts of on the web. Not the kind of guy you want feeding you information about an under-reported war in a distant place.

Unfortunately, it's all we have in English (and, to be fair, what we have not in English is even more biased and emotional.) Hence two stars instead of one. And Goltz is not only up front about his pro-Turkic bias (his wife is Turkish), he is honest about the failings of the Azerbaijani government's policies, and reasons for loss of this war. He does say that the Azeris didn't need the Armenians as enemies when they had their own government... and that is the painful truth. There are also a lot of interesting anecdotes here, in spite of what the more vituperative reviewers claim.

The real value of the book, however, is as study in the psychology of the mind of a megamaniacal dilettant (i.e., Goltz) who, like many of journalists, believe they are participants in, not just the scribes of, history. Witness lines from this book such as "It was my own little gesture at stopping World War III". Is that supposed to be humorous?

Taken as a piece of literature, subject matter aside, the problem with the book is Goltz's unbearable self-importance and flat tone of voice (the sections on Kelbajar and Khojali excepted). Goltz published an earlier book called "Requiem for a Would-be Republic" from which most of this book is extracted. "Requiem" has a very rushed (and amateurish) feel and in "AZ Diary" he didn't even bother to correct that. I think Goltz has read a little too much Hunter S. Thompson. Or maybe he's rushing to meet some deadline? If Mr. Goltz is reading this, I would recommend he read Michael Herr's "Dispatches" before writing another book.

Goltz also, the reader will notice, behaves like he knows the history of the region, when clearly he doesn't know anything but what he was told on the ground.

If you can overlook pretentiousness, absence of historical context and flatness of tone, there is some value in this book. If only a better and more imaginative writer had Goltz's courage to be in Azerbaijan at the time of the conflict.

I agree with other reviewers that Mr. Goltz is probably not a paid propagandist. There is no evidence of this; To me he comes off as just a sucker who got taken in by a cause not rightly his, and who wants, for personal reasons, to be the champion of a people he sees, rightly or wrongly, as victims of injustice.



11 of 16 found the following review helpful:


Solid and useful  Jan 28, 2001 By Daniel H. Bigelow
Azerbaijan Diary details in microcosm the difficulties of building a functioning modern nation. The author was a reporter in Azerbaijan during its difficult first years of statehood in the early Nineties and had enough high-level access to give us a personal view of the significant events of its political development, describing the forces at work and the people upon whom they worked. We get vivid descriptions of the problems of pandemic corruption, the temptations of totalitarianism, the difficulties of remaining independent as the nation is wooed by nation after nation with varying interests in Azerbaijan (particularly its rich oilfields), and the poison of ethnic and nationalist strife which leads to a grueling war that could doom the nascent state in its infancy. These pressures make nation-building different everywhere, but Azerbaijan had and advantage over, say, Haiti, in that Azerbaijan has a wealth of natural resources, which gives other nations, potential trading partners, a reason to support it in its quest for stability. This one chance, however, is not necessarily enough to save it from its self-imposed problems, much less the ones visited upon it from without.

Much has been made of the author's pro-Azerbaijan stance on that proto-nation's war with Armenia over the Nagorno Karabakh region. Speaking as someone with no stake in the region, I think Goltz revealed his bias clearly enough to allow us to read his work critically, and I don't know how one might expect someone who lived in Baku, Azerbaijan's capitol, for years not to become partial to his friends. However, accusations that Goltz is a liar, paid spy, collaborator, and propagandist seem unfounded, and the outlandish venom with which they are expressed make it hard for me to take them seriously. Even more disturbing, however, are those who claim that Goltz is doing us a disservice by not engaging in one of those debates about whose ethnic group got to a certain region first and therefore deserves to occupy it for all time. Goltz takes the area as he finds it, explicitly refusing to play the "I got here first" game, which always seems to end up being an exercise in creative history writing and ethnic cleansing. For this I commend him. If more people took this view, problems like Azerbaijan's would be more easily solved - heck, the whole human condition would improve.

Regardless of Goltz's views on Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, he is certainly able to view the heart of the book, Azerbaijan's political development from colony to state, with a detached, even cynical realism. Azerbaijan Diary is a valuable work in itself as a primer on post-Soviet problems and the difficulty of creating order from chaos in the modern world.

See all 48 customer reviews on Amazon.com