WW I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire

[Whomp]

I recently read a book called A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin

It was a very interesting read regarding World War I and is something I'd like to garner more knowledge.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire is a large event in history that seems to be ignored in favor of the more recent history of the Middle East when, in fact, it provides the most insight about the politics of the region today.

Let's leave this broadly open but here's some things for discussion:

• "The Great Game" (imperialism) between Britain, Russia and France. It states "The Great Game" politics, allies morph into enemies and back again within the timespan of a scant decade from 1914-1922.
• Were the colonial re-adjustments made by England and France during World War I, in anticipation of the demise of the Ottoman Empire, ultimately responsible for the continuing mess that is the modern Middle East when these powers drew lines on the map making nation-states out of what had been sprawling provinces of the Ottoman Empire?
• The voyage of the German warships Goeben and Breslau drawing the Ottomans into the war.
• Lord Kitchener’s career in the Middle East influencing policy?
• The bungled attack on Gallipoli which according to the book could have been sharply reduced, if not eliminated, had the allies acted swiftly.
• Was T.E. Lawrence simply a self promoter
• Sykes-Picot Agreement
• The Balfour Declaration
• Specifically, President Woodrow Wilson’s twelfth point in his "Fourteen Points" speech which deals with the Ottoman empire. Does it seem wrong that the United States was never at war with the Ottoman empire but Wilson wrote about them in his "Fourteen Points" speech?
  The text of the "Twelfth point"
  
  Spoiler :

  
  The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees. The Fourteen Points [/quote]
  
• The beginning of the Zionist movement.
• Impact on modern day Middle East?

 

[Dachs]

Does it seem wrong that the United States was never at war with the Ottoman empire but Wilson wrote about them in his "Fourteen Points" speech?

Wilson, deciding never to do things only partway, either was too isolationist or too meddling. The man didn't know when to stop. It's also rather funny that in the Greco-Turkish War, all of that was thrown out the window because King Constantine decided to try to secure Greek lands - and anyone who was descended from Germany is bad!

 

[Antilogic]

I'll only post on the first subject here right now, but from what I understand, the "Great Game" lasted much longer than the time period you mentioned. As a matter of fact, it covered pretty much the entire 19th century (with the primary sides being Britain and Czarist Russia). I think the years you have mentioned above correspond more to the followup of the Great Game which featured the Bolsheviks building Soviets throughout Central Asia and the British working against them covertly.

One of the dynamics involved was the British relationship with the Ottomans--they hadn't been on the most friendly terms for the longest time, but the British ended up with territories in Egypt, especially the Suez Canal (after it was built) that was a vital trade route to India, a major British possession. The Russian expansion against the Turks for a warm-water port that wasn't frozen for half of the year ended up threatening British control over India (esp. when Russia invaded Afghanistan). If it wasn't for this, I doubt the British would have paid much attention to Russia...

 

[Whomp]

Thanks for posting Dachsmg and Antilogic.

You're correct Antilogic. I think what the author was stating is that the Middle East was a big part of the continuation of the "Great Game" being played.

 

[Antilogic]

True, I just think the effects of the Great Game need to be analyzed over the 19th century instead of just the 20th in that narrow range. In reality, the Great Game essentially was the Mideast covert ops war--I can't think of any other front that was more important.

 

[sydhe]

It's odd that the Ottoman Empire, which had just fought the two Balkan wars against Bulgaria, found itself in World War I on the same side as Bulgaria. Shows how swiftly things were moving in the Balkans.

 

[Dachs]

Given their druthers, the CUP probably wouldn't have wanted the Bulgar alliance if they could avoid it and stay on Germany and Austria-Hungary's good side.

 

[Rambuchan]

One should not discount the results of The Great Game in Central Asia.....namely........modern day Afghanistan.

 

[Rambuchan]

It's odd that the Ottoman Empire, which had just fought the two Balkan wars against Bulgaria, found itself in World War I on the same side as Bulgaria. Shows how swiftly things were moving in the Balkans.

Many might say that the break up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s was the most recent playings out of 'The Great Game'. Only with the new players who inherited the old players' roles. Basically, that was Britain handing over to USA, who inherited their imperial legacy, and the USA (along with NATO) playing out the Cold War political fall out with Russia (see Balkan bombings in the '90s and Washington Consensus policies). The Balkan break up can very much be interpretted in terms of a conflict between Socialism and Free Market Capitalism.

Here's a write up for more: http://www.serbnews.com/truth1.html

This inheritance of geo-political legacies (Brits > USA & Soviet dissolution of power > Islamic peoples in the new 'Stans' like Kirghistan/Uzbekistan etc) is also relevant in Afghanistan.


edit:

I'll only post on the first subject here right now, but from what I understand, the "Great Game" lasted much longer than the time period you mentioned. As a matter of fact, it covered pretty much the entire 19th century (with the primary sides being Britain and Czarist Russia). I think the years you have mentioned above correspond more to the followup of the Great Game which featured the Bolsheviks building Soviets throughout Central Asia and the British working against them covertly.

Agreed. The time span is quite limited in my opinion. Not only did it reach further back into time, but it continues today, as I indicated directly above.

One of the dynamics involved was the British relationship with the Ottomans--they hadn't been on the most friendly terms for the longest time, but the British ended up with territories in Egypt, especially the Suez Canal (after it was built) that was a vital trade route to India, a major British possession. The Russian expansion against the Turks for a warm-water port that wasn't frozen for half of the year ended up threatening British control over India (esp. when Russia invaded Afghanistan). If it wasn't for this, I doubt the British would have paid much attention to Russia...

You're talking about the Crimean War right?

 

[Antilogic]

Agreed. The time span is quite limited in my opinion. Not only did it reach further back into time, but it continues today, as I indicated directly above.

You're talking about the Crimean War right?

Not only the Crimean War--that entire era was characterized by back and forth politics. I'm thinking also of the "less than respectful" treatment the Armenian Christians received at the hands of the Ottomans. And the slaughter of the Bulgarian Christians in the 1870s...that's not good for PR with Christian countries. The result was Gladstone lashing out on foreign policy against Disraeli for supporting the Ottoman Empire despite its repeated attacks on Christians in the Middle East, and by the 1880 election he managed to sway enough support to oust Disraeli.

Officially, Britain allied along with France on the Ottoman Empire's side during the Crimean War, but as to what I understand, it wasn't truly an alliance of friendship. It was an alliance forged out of greater hatred for the opposing side and political reasons. I don't have direct sources for this, it's just my inference from reading about politics of the time.


One way of interpreting Israel and the Zionist movement is looking at it as going against the trend of the 20th century. In general, the 20th century is a period of decolonization, where the great empires of the 19th century began to break apart and form independent nation states. The creation of the Israeli state is essentially thousands of Jews immigrating to (and thus "colonizing") a territory of the dismembered former Ottoman Empire. It's an interesting perspective...

 

[Whomp]

One way of interpreting Israel and the Zionist movement is looking at it as going against the trend of the 20th century. In general, the 20th century is a period of decolonization, where the great empires of the 19th century began to break apart and form independent nation states. The creation of the Israeli state is essentially thousands of Jews immigrating to (and thus "colonizing") a territory of the dismembered former Ottoman Empire. It's an interesting perspective...

From what I've read the Sykes-Picot agreement was in conflict with the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence. As the war progressed the agreements were switched from needing Arab help to subsequently trying to enlist the help of Jews in the United States in getting the US to join WW I, in conjunction with the Balfour Declaration, 1917. It would seem there was quite a bit of agreement without consultation inside and out of each country.

Another agreement that I'm interesting in hearing about is how the Ottomans came into the war. The author explains the Ottomans were supposed to get dreadnoughts from Britain but Churchill wouldn't deliver as the war began against Germany. Because the Young Turks felt slighted they agreed to accept Goeben and Breslau which were steaming towards Constantinople, with British ships following, in exchange for war against Russia, Britain and France. This may explain why they fought against Bulgaria.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I recently read a book called A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin.

I've seen this book on the shelf before. Perhaps now I will pick it up and read it!

It was a very interesting read regarding World War I and is something I'd like to garner more knowledge.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire is a large event in history that seems to be ignored in favor of the more recent history of the Middle East when, in fact, it provides the most insight about the politics of the region today.

Even more important is the decline of the Ottoman Empire, beginning really with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt and Palestine, but including Muhommad Ali's actions, and the French invasion of Algeria in 1834.

Let's leave this broadly open but here's some things for discussion:

• "The Great Game" (imperialism) between Britain, Russia and France. It states "The Great Game" politics, allies morph into enemies and back again within the timespan of a scant decade from 1914-1922.

• 
  
  I think you mean Russia during the Civil War? This isn't quite clear.
  
  The Great Powers were always rivals, but I'm not aware of quickly changing alliegances during the time you chose, 1914-22. During the 1890s-1900s, alliegances switched around a lot, but they were pretty well solidified by the time 1914 rolled around.
  
  

  [*]Were the colonial re-adjustments made by England and France during World War I, in anticipation of the demise of the Ottoman Empire, ultimately responsible for the continuing mess that is the modern Middle East when these powers drew lines on the map making nation-states out of what had been sprawling provinces of the Ottoman Empire?

  
  Absolutely they are. As with Africa, completely arbirtrary lines determined the extent of nations in the Middle East today. Lebanon and Transjordan are two examples of this; Iraq is the obvious third. As I'm sure you're aware, Jordan and Lebanon simply didn't exist as seperate entities from Syria and Palestine, respecively. Lebanon was split from Syria as part of the deal with the Russians in the Treaty of Sevres, and the British split Trans-Jordan from Palestine to better administer the rough time they were getting in Palestine. Iraq was an artificial entity (though Iraq was the name of the geographic region itself) fashioned from three Ottoman provinces; a northern, Sunni Kurdish one, a middle one around Baghdad, mixed with Shia and Sunni, and a largely Shia southern one around the Shia holy city of Karbala, and the buslting port of Basra. The Gulf states' boundaries were largely determined by alliegence of sheikhs' clans to colonial powers, mostly the British, who really got into the area after the fiasco with Napoleon and his "march on India" which never got past Jaffa.
  
  

  [*]The voyage of the German warships Goeben and Breslau drawing the Ottomans into the war.

  
  It was certain the Ottomans would enter the war eventually, it was simply a matter of whose side it would be on. Given that the Entente contained Russia and supported Serbia, it was really unlikely that they would enter on their side anyway; the Ottoman Empire was closer diplomatically to Germany and Austria-Hungary at this time, too.
  
  

  [*]The bungled attack on Gallipoli which according to the book could have been sharply reduced, if not eliminated, had the allies acted swiftly.

  
  The failure at Gallipoli is often blamed on Royal Navy skittishness to commit their capital ships to combat. I'm afraid I'm not intimately familiar with the Gallipoli campaign.
  
  

  [*]Was T.E. Lawrence simply a self promoter

  
  I don't know why anyone would think that. I got the impression he was a man who had "spent too much time In Country;" that is, he was becoming Arabized, and more genuined concerned with the plight of the natives, rather than to his mission as assigned by the British Army.
  
  

  [*]Sykes-Picot Agreement

  
  

  [*]The Balfour Declaration

  
  The problem with these two, plus the Treaty of Sevres and the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence (which I'm sure the book mentioned) is that they all told a different story. McMahon promised the Sharif of Mecca, and, though him, the al-Saud clan, control of Arabia all the way to Damascus. The Sykes Picot Agreement and Treaty of Sevres contained overlapping areas of colonial control. Sevres also provided for the creation of Armenia and an independent Kurdistan, but the treaty was rendered invalid by Mustafa Kemal's revolt and displacement of the Ottoman government.
  
  This is to say nothing of the Balfour Declaration and its questionable language concerning a Jewish state, something the Sauds were nothing too fond of.
  
  

  [*]Specifically, President Woodrow Wilson’s twelfth point in his "Fourteen Points" speech which deals with the Ottoman empire. Does it seem wrong that the United States was never at war with the Ottoman empire but Wilson wrote about them in his "Fourteen Points" speech?
  The text of the "Twelfth point"
  

  Spoiler :

  
  The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees. The Fourteen Points

  Spoiler :

  
  
  [/QUOTE]
  
  The passage about the Dardanelles goes along with Wilson's Freedom of the Seas and Waterways idea, that nations should not control such entities. The rest fits in with his ideas about self-determination, though it's worth mentioning that he more or less sacrificed all of his points to get Britain and France to agree to his League of Nations. I don't see it as wrong that the US should have a say in the area, after all, it was the opinion of many of these territories that, should they be administered as colonies by a Great Power, it should be the United States, not Britain or France. This was mostly because of Wilson's Fourteen Points, and because were were neither Britain nor France, both of which were worthy of loathing in that part of the world.
  
  

  [*]The beginning of the Zionist movement.

  
  The Zionist movement began long before World War I.
  
  

  [*]Impact on modern day Middle East?

Given the above, does this need to be elaborated on?

 

[Whomp]

That's quite a bump but what's funny is this was a discussion I had with a friend over dinner tonight who was just in Istanbul a few months ago. He's going to read the same book so I'd be interested to hear further thoughts on the topic. I'm not prepared to talk about this tonight but hope to revisit in the next couple of days. I'm going to try and get him to post too.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I was actually looking for your "Top 5" thread from what back when, so I could link silly OT noobies to it, but I found this in the process, and decided to respond!

 

[scy12]

Finally a history thread about the power plays in the Balcans.

Actually it never ended. Of today's situation and why i am so supportive of an antagonist of the US , EU is deeply related to the balcan and other issues.

In regard of the balcans the situation was also always the same . Great powers like a mess of countries and only prefer one big country there when it appears as extremely friendly to them but they may choose otherwise in a pinch. So we have a bunch of weak states where nationalism is encouraged allying them selfs being encouraged with more powerful ones into war.

Now in regard of the Ottoman empire you must relize that al people in the balcans where people with different national identity that felt and where treated as second category civilians. This is another reason for wars against them.

Other reasons include The Ottomans as much more powerful , harder to control than the balcans small states and more politics having to do with antagonism with the great powers , for example Russia which wanted a passage to the sea.

The Balcan issues continued to 1922 . The Turks created a nationalist movement that was bent on exterminating every other nationality. There the Greek areas of Turkey would vote in a referendum if they wanted to go to Greece or remain to Turkey and so the Greek army arrived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_of_St.-Jean-de-Maurienne

As there was hardly a goverment that time in Turkey the army moved onwards to it's destruction.

While one would expect the great powers to help those who fought beside them at WW1 again it was just not the case. As in Navarino they sank the Egyptian and Turkish fleets to signal Turkish defeat , at 22 they helped the newlly created genocidal state of Turkey and most specifically Kemal's army. Other than strategic deals they wouldn't have that area under greek control as they would have an even bigger fish to worry about on which they wouldn't control. It is no coicidence that the genocides that followed and happened previously where forgotten.

Now apply this divide and conquer scenarios to all happenings in such areas , in the middle east and in the world.

I will ignore Giougoslavia (Wait did iit was divided in smaller states , oh yes it was ...) and see the latest events of the Balcan division.

And it is pretty much simple

Serbia believed as enemy as weakened even further by losing montenegro. And the reward to a friendly backwards state of Albania Kosovo is everything but unrelated to the will Albania shows to follow US interests. So Serbia has now US friendly Albania on it's feet. How about Bulgaria then ? What happened to them ? Fast forward several wars (Wars in the Balcans , hmm) and you find there a new "national identity". Bulgarians that hate other Bulgarians and want to be independent. But they don't know how they will be called. Tito said "Macedonians" and so the fake identity was made. What is this new nation role ? Well just look at where it is and search to "Biggest US military base on earth".

I wonder what new states we will see there.

And then there is the attempt by the Turkish and Albanian goverment to create minority issues in Greece , Ironically because Greece did to exterminate any Turk in responce to what Turkey did at 1955.

I am wondering if there efforts would have support. From a first glance it seems it would. Greece deemed it self independedt enough to cut a deal with the Russians on one of the most important Energy routes of the area supplying with energy the south Europe and in turn all Europe. Quite profitable and a nice deal. However it hasn't been finished yet. It is interesting to note that the area it is mosly located is the northern parts where such claims about minority issues are made. I think that it is simply an issue where another smaller state there would have no option than to become a US protectorate and unable to make such deals which where deeply protested in that area by the US.

Balcan divide and conquer games will continue to be played but the EU might finally make the process slow down.

On the other hand they did almost recognize Kosovo if it was not for Cyprus...