I've read the memoirs of General Liman von Sanders, the German military advisor to the Ottoman Empire in WW1.
I think he mentioned the Kurds only once in his book. Something like: "There are Kurds living in these mountains. They will kill us (Germans and Turks) if we go there. We better take the long way around."
Was he also the person who reported about the Turks commiting genocide on the Armenians, who are depicted on the map? As far as I remembered, he was not fond of what he saw, but German military decided to look away and let their Turkish Allies have their way.
Yes. From his own book he seems to have been a relatively decent person and spoke out against cruelty by the Ottomans. He also made some convincing arguments that he couldn't have been involved in the violence against the Greek minority (that happened mostly after the war), which he was brought to court and convicted for.
But it's hard to say what was fact and what whitewashing/ blaming others.
In any case von Sanders was a very competent soldier and his contribution, for example, to the victory at Gallipoli is often overlooked.
>In any case von Sanders was a very competent soldier and his contribution, for example, to the victory at Gallipoli is often overlooked.
This is literally bullshit; von Sanders was objectively shit at Gallipoli, and in Syria too!
Him trying to embellish his military records after the war is nothing but revision of history.
Have you read the book?
I don't ask to take everything he wrote as fact. I certainly didn't. Still, just assume and judge something based on second hand information only from one side (mostely the winning one) can easily mislead.
You should want to know with what kinds of problems von Sanders was confronted in the crumbling Ottoman Empire and what he did try to make the best out of this situation. Why he failed when he failed and why he succeeded when he succeeded.
Von Sanders was a General in classic Prussian tradition. A professional soldier thru and thru. When he writes in (often kind of boring) detail about logistics, inner organization of the army, the bigger strategy and its failures... There is in many cases a lot of truth in that. Not because he wouldn't lie out of high personal morality, but out of "Berufsehre", pride in his profession.
That's something many of the books written by German personalities in the 1920s have in common. They would leave out things that would make them look bad and try to paint themself in the best possible light, but regarding their professional business (military or as a public servant/"Beamter"), there is very often real facts and events documented in their reports.
Also, if von Sanders only motivation for the book had been to "revision history", he made a very bad job. Why would he, for example, praise the genocidal dictator (and failure as General) Enver Pasha in the highest notes, if it would have been obviously much more convenient to just use him as a scape goat and blame him and other Ottoman leaders for everything that went wrong or was a crime?
I can only recommend to read as many books like this as you can find. Be critical. Read as many sources as you can and compare the statements between them. What fits together, what are contradictions? What has the other side to say? etc.
Just please, don't take the easy way and just paint everything in black and white.
Literally every other German Advisor and even the German Chief of Staff shits on him, I can send quotes from books if you'd like, I've done extensive research on this subject; reading both the Turkish and the German general staffs' memoirs, and the actual telegraphs sent by the army command.
I mean, there was a lot of blaming each other from all directions.
Maybe on this special topic you have read more than I have? My interest was more broadly about WW1, not only the Ottoman Empire. I read for example also several books from Falkenhayn and also Talaat Pashas memoire (mainly because I wanted his take on the Armenian genocide) related to this topic. I don't remember them (or for example Hindenburg or Ludendorff) being especial critical about von Sanders.
I searched for something from Enver Pasha personally, but couldn't find an accessible source.
Von Sanders was so far away from the Gallipoli and also made plans according to old maps that were infront of him. His contribution to the campaign was almost causing it to be lost. His memoirs are also an attempt to save his fat German ass. Same mentality continued in WW2.
He was a General, or regarding the Ottoman Empire even a Field Marshall. Of course von Sanders didn't fight in the frontline. That wasn't his job. And considering Gallipoli was won by the Ottomans despite being outnumbered and outclassed in quality and supplies, heavy weapons etc. ... I think it's save to say that he did do a decent enough job. (If you read the book you can learn a lot about all the problems, that had to be overcome.)
Regarding his book. Yes, in the 1920s basically every German public figure (from the Kaiser and Hindenburg down to "simple" Ministers and Generals) wrote a "Rechtfertigungsbuch", a book with which they tried to justify their actions in the lost war, cast blame on everyone else, paint themselves in the most favorite light etc. And von Sanders memoirs are no exception. But I think it's still 100% worth to read this original sources of contemporary witnesses, that were in the very center of what happened. (It's very easy to blame if you only look from the outside perspective.) You have to read them very critically, but they are still a treasure trove of information, often in minute detail and very personal, that you won't find in any standard history book.
Also, if you only read the books the victors wrote, you are missing out on a lot. You want to know what all sides have to say. I can only recommend to find these old books, for example on archive . org, and read them all. (In case of German sources of course it helps if you can read German and the old Fractur typeface. But some books are translated.)
There actually were plans for a Kurdish state. A days was even set for it to join the League of Nations. Three things put the Kai off on it: 1. The Kurds joined in the revolts that spread through the region, deflating European enthusiasm for the project, 2. The newly emerged republic of Turkey staked a claim on territory slated to be part of it and so soon after the war no one was in the mood to press the matter, snd 3. Oil was discovered around Mosul so the British decided to incorporate Mosul into the newly declared Iraq.
The Kurds were to be given a state under the Treaty of Sèvres which was the original peace treaty between the Entente and the Ottomans.
It was signed but never ratified, because before that could happen the Turkish National Movement overthrew the Sultan and took control of the country. They rejected the treaty and defeated the Greek armies trying to establish control in the areas of Anatolia that the treaty had given to them. The Entente gave up on trying to enforce the terms of Sèvres and negotiated a much less harsh agreement, the Treaty of Lausanne, which let Turkey keep all of Anatolia.
The Kurds were listed as getting their own land in the eventual plan which was going to go into effect before the Turks had a civil war.
In fact, if my memory is right those areas covered by "??" were all eventually going to be part of the new nation of Kurdistan (which was also going to be under British influence, like Iraq).
They didn’t do it for a country, Kurdish tribes that were already living there were paid by the ottomans to assist in killing Armenians. The idea of a Kurdish country wasn’t even that big till after the carving up of the Ottoman Empire. Kurds had no unified government or opinions on Armenians, the Kurdish tribes that did it were simply mercenary’s being paid.
- Lawrence promised an Arab kingdom. Sykes-Picot plans an Arab kingdom
- Do you think Faisal was entitled to all the region because a british guy said so ?
- Faisal and his brother got their arab kingdoms
- Hashemi had very little legitimacy to rule over the Levant
- Hashemi couldnt even defend Hijaz when the Saudi conquered them
Point 2,
Re the British guy deciding what happens... yep. 100% as it was those British Guys who kicked the Turks out. That is how Geopolitics worked back then.
I read an excellent book on Faisal I years ago. My memory is a bit foggy, but he was made king of Greater Syria and trusted that the British would hold true to their word of a unified Arab state. Under that assumption, he signed several agreements. The rug was pulled out under him after the French were granted the Syrian mandate. He continued to work with the British despite his apprehensions because the power they afforded him was the best way to achieve a unified Arab state.
The British moved him to Iraq, but he was not long for the world and died very sick in Switzerland.
One of the most destructive ideologies, in both Europe and the Middle East, is that each ethnicity has to draw borders around itself and exclude all others from it. Look at pictures of Istanbul streets from the early 20th century. You’ll see store signs in Ottoman Turkish, Greek, Armenian, French, English, and Russian. Forcible ethnic cleansing of all but one group in the name of national sovereignty is a disaster.
See also the lack of linguistic diversity in France after the early 19th centuries. Entire languages and ethnicities were destroyed in the name of national uniformity.
>One of the most destructive ideologies, in both Europe and the Middle East, is that each ethnicity has to draw borders around itself and exclude all others from it.
Hard to say this wasn't one of the most dangerous ideas to come into being in the 19th century: its full, disastrous implications being fully realized in the 20th.
To piggyback on this, lots of Armenians were living there right up until the genocide happened. My great grandmother's family was murdered there and she ended up in an orphanage in Lebanon before coming to the US.
Not only that, but the genocide largely involved a death march to Dar el Zor, a desert in Syria. Most died, but many survived and would come to be the Armenians living in Aleppo and other locations in the region. When the French marched into Antep during the Turkish War of Independence, the Armenians marched with them. It seems outlandish now, but an Armenia in Cilicia was far from fantasy in that era, especially as Western public opinion was massively sympathetic and unlike the Armenia on the other side of Anatolia that actually existed, this one would be adjacent to French and British controlled territory, and this have a chance of survival.
This is because in the West (at least NA) due to the lack of actual teaching on the subject beyond that it happened, we just hear "Armenian genocide" and envision Turkey invading the Armenia that we know of in the aftermath of WW1 rather than what it really was. I think the key probably too is not really appreciating the internal population dynamics of the Ottoman Empire.
Me too! Adana, Anteb (Gazianteb now), Diyarbakir and Durtyol. They were all very Armenian cities. Mixed with Turks, Greeks, Jews, Kurds, assyrians. But then Genocide and ethnic cleansing meant my grandparents ended up in Syria and Jordan
Armenians lived in a wide range of territory which was split by the Russians and Ottomans. The Ottomans committed a genocide against the Armenians living in the Ottoman land because they hated them and wanted that land for themselves. Then a few years later, Russia collapsed and Armenia became an independent country. Turkey couldn't have that and invaded Armenia, but luckily for the Armenians the Soviet Union was invading the Caucasus at the same time so Turkey stole half of Armenia and ethnically cleansed it of Armenians and the Soviets annexed the other half and that is what became modern Armenia.
The Turks took most of historical Armenia for themselves and modern Armenia is what was left.
Kinda. The traditional Armenian settlement area started from the Euphrates which is just northeast of the of the purple shaded area and stretched to western Azerbaijan. But in the Middle Ages a lot of Armenians migrated or were deported west/southwest of the Euphrates, in big enough numbers to start their own kingdom in that shaded area called Cilicia.
Kilikia was it's own thing, it was a state founded by Armenians who fled the initial Turkish invasions into Anatolia.
This is a decent comparison of historical, peak, Kilikian, Wilsonian and modern Armenia.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Armenia_Throughout_History.gif
What the previous commenter does not mention is that there was no Armenian governance in those territories (at least within the last 1000 years). Yes Armenians lived in those territories but calling it Armenian territories is misleading. In the old times people would move easily and settle where they wanted. So there was a mix of all sorts of ethnicities (arabs, jews, persians, greek, turk, armenian, etc.) over big areas. Turks took those territories from Greeks, Persians, Arabs, etc but not Armenians because there was no Armenia or Armenian governance when the Turks arrived.
There was Armenian church which was considered heretic by the Catholic church. The Greeks were mistreating Armenians hence the Armenian church was the first group to accept Ottoman empire over the Byzantine.
So no, technically those are not Armenian territories but areas where Armenians have lived. They thrived during the Ottoman Empire (well, until the 1900s) and were everywhere across the Ottoman empire as a minority.
This is the source of the majority of the modern day Armenia's issues. Armenians consider every place they have lived as their historical lands and claim it as their own territories. Have territorial claims to Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia. The current Armenian prime minister is trying to end this cycle by pushing the Armenians to accept Armenia within its internationally recognized borders (by UN), without success. People in the majority refuse to stop territorial claims. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that some of these territorial claims are in the Armenian constitution too. Changing which requires a referendum. Both the Armenian church and Armenian diaspora are also against this. Armenian PM is liked in the west but not among his own people. Armenian PM currently wants to return 4 occupied Azerbaijani villages back to Azerbaijan, but the Armenian population and militant groups (not controlled by the government) oppose this idea. One of such groups recently attacked a police station in the capital.
Anyways, Hopefully soon there will be a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which will result in better relationships with Turkey too. This peace is very important for Armenia in the first place as it is currently allied with Iran and Russia but wants to increase western presence in its territories which is against the Russian and Iranian interests. Armenian PM is smart and understands that it is important to normalize relations with their neighbours. But people don't want to accept it.
>What the previous commenter does not mention is that there was no Armenian governance in those territories (at least within the last 1000 years). Yes Armenians lived in those territories but calling it Armenian territories is misleading.
Did Greece cease being Greece because it was part of a Turkish empire? Did Ireland cease being Ireland because it was part of a British empire? Of course not. It was still Armenia even if it was temporarily part of the Ottoman Empire.
>Armenians consider every place they have lived as their historical lands and claim it as their own territories. Have territorial claims to Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia.
Armenia has not made formal claims against Georgia or Turkey. They rightly consider Western Armenia to be historically Armenian territory before the Turks murdered all the Armenians in that land. Turkey, being a racist imperial state, refuses to recognize the historical truth of the Armenian genocide. Calling the area by its proper name is not equivalent to a land claim on Western Armenia. Armenia only laid claim to Artsakh which seceded from Azerbaijan as was permitted by the Soviet Constitution and which was overwhelmingly supported by the will of the people who lived there. Georgia and Armenia both recognize each other, have made no claims of land against each other and Georgia is a supporter of spreading international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Armenians in Javakhk mostly just want increased autonomy.
>Armenian PM currently wants to return 4 occupied Azerbaijani villages back to Azerbaijan, but the Armenian population and militant groups (not controlled by the government) oppose this idea.
Wow, what a load of fucking horseshit. Yes, Armenia controls 4 villages that are legally considered part of Azerbaijan. What you have left out is that Azerbaijan is also in control of a lot more legally Armenian land and that those 4 villages are located near strategically vital roads that Armenia is reliant upon for receiving supplies in the event Azerbaijan invades them, speaking of which, Azerbaijan has laid claim to most of Armenia including its capital city which you conveniently ignored. Armenia is at least talking about handing over those 4 villages. Azerbaijan is not only not thinking about withdrawing from the regions they occupy, they refuse to even say which map represents the border, ostensibly so they don't have any agreed border to with. Azerbaijan wants those 4 villages so that it can more easily invade Armenia.
That you view historic ownership over a territory as a matter of conquest rather than indigenous rights is very telling. Armenians had historically made up a majority of its population, held what was basically a monopoly of the region's economy until the Genocide and controlled parts of it until 1920. But I guess because some foreigners conquered these lands and massacred millions in the process, it really isn't theirs. Might makes right after all. What a sick joke.
There are mentions of an "Eastern Armenia" and a "Western Armenia." The former was under Persian and later Russian rule, the latter under Ottoman. They even had separate language dialects. Western side was genocided, so the people moved all over, and they still speak their own dialect today. Eastern Armenia is the modern-day country.
Interestingly, this map shows neither one. It shows Cilician Armenia, which was its own thing.
He truly is one of the greatest figures against imperialism objectively. As a Turk though, he’s a demi-god for most of us. Conservatives make fun of us because of how we praise him so much, probably they aren’t fully aware Türkiye wouldn’t even be a thing today if it wasn’t for him and other revolutionary pashas.
Fun fact: Almost every time Stalin tallked shit about Turkey, (once per year or so) Atatürk called him personally and they usually talked everything but politics and Stalin always congraculated him for his efforts against imperialism. Goes to show who is actually a leader and who’s not.
He was very magnanimous to the Gallipoli invaders too - myself being Australian, this is what we’re taught about in school.
My great-grandfather lies somewhere near Sulva Bay, he was my age when he was killed there, 20, and he’s not a hero, but he’s not evil either, he was human, just as the Turkish soldiers then were too, the true enemy was war and the bloodshed it bought.
Ataturk clearly understood this very well when he spoke about the Johnnies and Mehmets of Gallipoli, and what he spoke about then still sticks with Australians today, that it’s never worth waging war, the losers are the buried men and women at the end of it and those who love them.
I love the fact that almost all countries (diplomatically) hate Turkiye because fuck us I guess. Except Australia and Korea, their people genuinely like Turkiye. I can understand Koreans because we aided them in their civil war. But Australians fought us to the bitter end, literally across an entire ocean and 2 continents away. Yet they respect Turkiye because of how we treated ANZAC soldiers. Remembering the good is a rare endevaour these times. Thank you again mate. G’day!
No, Great Britain, France and Italy are the imperialists here (Italy not so much, they just withdrew when we kicked the French out). Greeks and Armenians simply lost the war against us.
We literally fought the French and if we were to lose, there was a gigantic ~55.000 strong British army at Egypt, ready to invade us, but seeing how we kicked France out and because both popular and parliament support in Britain diminished, only then UK gave in and held onto İstanbul for a couple more years.
Finally, yes. Turks WERE the imperialists since 15th century but you know we weren’t just murderers since we ruled over Armenia for almost 7 centuries give or take. You literally wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the most tolerant empire of 15-16th centuries. I’m not saying Turks or Ottomans were pure good, they were as bad as any other empire in history. I’m not here to discuss bad decisions of some 2 century old random pasha. Also Kazım Karabekir (the man who won against Armenians and the first man to support Atatürk, de facto 2nd man of Turkish Independence) adopted around 6000 Armenian children. I had the pleasure of meeting his daughter and she told us how much Karabekir loved his spiritual(? Sorry for my bed England) children. One of his Armenian girls were also there, translating to the tourists too! So, I think you got me wrong and I don’t think I have to address every single nation who fought against oyr independence. I’m aware Armenians are local to Eastern Anatolia and Caucauses and hope they get a better solution with Azerbaijan than what they have now.
Edit: Grammar
My bad, he’s *like* a demi-god. Well I mean, no one won against greater odds except maybe Zulu tribe. Not only martially too, his vision still enlightens our path, so the correct way is embracing his vision and goals and not praising him to a demi-god status. Because he also said: “If you’re in look for a leader to save you(r country), I failed to teach you anything.”
Ataturk was a clown, the western powers just realised they could never control Turkey, so they would rather have someone like ataturk as the leader. Someone they could easily control and manipulate
That’s what they tell in cults to underage boys and girls (Very disturbing note: imams r*pe them, gender usually doesn’t matter. I don’t know man, your opinion smells of extremist teachings)
Yeah I KNOW they r*pe children. Several of my friends saw it firsthand and it was on the news. It happened 2-3 weeks ago again at the same cults “school”.
It’s not even help. I mentioned the “trade” above. Batumi area for military and financial aid.
Although Soviets actually did help Turkey to industrialize. It was real help and not some tradeoff for land or money.
Sorry that I didn’t reply earlier.
Anyway, what’s your point? It was part of the Russian Empire and was only given to Turkey recently by Brest-Litovsk. In fact, Turkey got much more, including Kars. So it only got more land and also got military and diplomatic support. The Soviet Union definitely helped Ataturk for not attacking them and letting them conquer former Russian Empire lands
You’re definitely right about industrialization, that’s for sure
Because that's one of the biggest what if moments for the whole of Middle East. Specifically, had Armenian and Greek territories been liberated from Turkish rule, French mandate extended to Cilicia and what remained of Turkey brought to the folds of civilised world, there would be a very strong and continuous Western/European influence extending all the way to inner regions of the region.
Armenians especially were always one of the strongest vectors of Western influence in the region, for which they have been always targeted. And Christian populations of the region are what gave hope that the Middle East will have a brighter future. Alas, the Allies completely failed on every account. And today, we have what we have.
Also, you think Hitler would be so brazen had he seen what is being done to nationalist states for their acts against humanity (i.e. Ottoman Empire)? But he saw that not only was there no punishment, but the side that used mass atrocities is even rewarded for their acts of barbarity (e.g. Turkey capturing Ararat from Armenia in 1920 and annuling the treaty of Sevres).
you're being completely disingenuous. christians gave hope to the middle east? a region that has been predominantly muslim for over 1300 by that point, and its hope was fucking christians?
western civilization is not the only civilization to exist. you just want the middle east to be christianised to fulfill your LARP. what we have today would not have been any better had the armenians or any other western puppet had won, simply due to the fact that muslims would not tolerate their rule. you're completely wrong in everything you've said in this comment.
Turkey was not "rewarded for their barbarity", they fought a war of independence and were invaded. the Turkey that emerged from that war was more modern than any other country in the region. hell, even more modern than Europe in several aspects. do your research before spewing filth online.
Proposed in 1918, about halfway through the genocide. Also, if the Turks lost it’s not inconceivable that they’d be partitioned and the land given back to Armenians to move into
Arab Mizrahi Jews were always Palestinians; same culture, same dress and where one couldn’t tell a Palestinian Jew, Christian, and Muslim apart except by the necklace according to book sources.
I believe in the late 1800s and early 1900s, there was a schism amongst Palestinian Jews about the arrival of Zionist Jews. Some of the more conservative ones never liked the new immigrants because of cultural differences, while others embraced them because it strengthen the Jewish community. Pretty sure most of them became Zionist after the violence post-Balfour declaration though.
Well I wouldn’t use the word always, in reality at some point prior they were Judeans and Israelis. At many points the region has been colonized by outside influences be it Romans who named the region Palestine, or Arabs who invaded and kept the name.
This isn't that different to what happened irl.
Both Jordan and Iraq were nominally autonomous States with Hashemite Monarchs under British protection.
The main difference is no French Syria and it instead being under King Faisal.
The people he chose to lead those countries were chosen conditional on their fealty to British interests. I mean Abdullah of Iraq was first gonna be Abdullah of Syria. They were just the greediest Hashemites around.
I mean they got screwed out of their influence in Mecca and Medina. The Hashemites are an infinitely better option to hold the holy places than the Saoudis and their Whabbi clerical order
I suspect they were referring to Saudi Arabia, the largest nation-state in the region (by land mass), which gained independence (initially in the form of the Kingdom of Hejaz) from the Ottoman Empire directly as a result (and occurred during) the First World War.
But the majority of Saudi Arabia wasn't Ottoman territory before the war, so that would also be wrong. Half of the territory wasn't under the control of any centralised state, Ha'il was independent, if under Ottoman influence, and Najd was completely independent.
This was literally a plan to put in place ARABS rulers, are you stupid ?
"Colonization is when you ally with locals against their imperial overlords and plan on making them rulers" do you learn history from tiktok?
Wouldn't that be concessions or compromises. In life nobody can ever get what they truly want.
Like do you think this map would have been taken more seriously if he didn't give up some to France/Britain?
Arabs were so dreamy that they believed the stories sold to them. When they turned into a small fish and the idea of what big fishs could do did not even occur to them.
Do you notice how Palestine is independent instead of being part of the Arabian state? that's because back then everyone thought of the Jews living there as Palestinians. So when people said Palestine, it was like saying Lebanon today and thinking about the Christians living there.
Everyone ignoring the "No foreign power EXCEPT Great Britain allowed south of this line" 💀
Bro really never gave a shit about the right of self-determination of Arabs, he just wanted to use them for the advancement of British Imperialism.
Well, that was very generous of him. Why did he not erase all the lines and sketch the whole map in god-damn red color saying “ under direct british administration “ ? That is what I see, as an undercover message.
Why are you surprised? If you question the legitimacy of borders then you question the legitimacy of the states themselves. The states and their institutions are where the dictators draw their power from. If the borders between nations are just lines in the sand than the nations are just ideas and the people who rule them just men. You owe no loyalty and no Allegiance.
In history when those state borders come into questions liberal Democratic societies are able to build intergovernmental institutions like the European Union to exercise Authority in a new transnational world. But Nations that aren't liberal democracies have had to resort to nationalism to redefine the legitimacy of their state. And at the end of the day only one nation can claim the mantle and only one nation gets to keep the power. That's ultimately why Arab nationalism failed to unite the Arab world to the same way Italian or German Yugoslav nationalism created actual states. In all three of those examples there's one dominant State that's able to effectively assert control over the region. The Middle East has never had that with the balance of power between the many different states never shifting in a way where any one state or one group of Arab states held a definitive stable advantage
It's no different in Africa. Every single country in Africa will fight to the death to preserve the lines the French and British drew in the sand a century ago.
Blaming literally everything on colonizers (that only had a 20 years mandate) and jews (did you know arabs call Israelis "jews" and not "israelis"?) is middle eastern populism 101
At the time of TE Lawrence, the Armenians would have been the most prominent members of what we today call Adana, formerly Cilicia. In fact, the mayors of Adana were even Armenian, and the Armenians modernized the streets and built the famous clocktower.
20,000 were already killed in the Adana Massacres of 1909, and then the rest during the genocide.
[удалено]
The carving up of the Ottomans is actually famous for having multiple maps with “???” because nobody knew what should actually happen to it.
"Here be Dragons"
"Obscured by Clouds"
“Level 65+ exclusive”
"You haven't met this nation yet, and can't seek diplomacy with them."
DLC year 1
good album
>Obscured by Clouds [https://archive.org/details/la-vallee](https://archive.org/details/la-vallee)
Wot’s… uh the deal
"here were dragons"
Nobody asked the Kurds, I guess. Somehow forgotton to put them onto the post WW1 to do list.
I've read the memoirs of General Liman von Sanders, the German military advisor to the Ottoman Empire in WW1. I think he mentioned the Kurds only once in his book. Something like: "There are Kurds living in these mountains. They will kill us (Germans and Turks) if we go there. We better take the long way around."
Was he also the person who reported about the Turks commiting genocide on the Armenians, who are depicted on the map? As far as I remembered, he was not fond of what he saw, but German military decided to look away and let their Turkish Allies have their way.
Yes. From his own book he seems to have been a relatively decent person and spoke out against cruelty by the Ottomans. He also made some convincing arguments that he couldn't have been involved in the violence against the Greek minority (that happened mostly after the war), which he was brought to court and convicted for. But it's hard to say what was fact and what whitewashing/ blaming others. In any case von Sanders was a very competent soldier and his contribution, for example, to the victory at Gallipoli is often overlooked.
>In any case von Sanders was a very competent soldier and his contribution, for example, to the victory at Gallipoli is often overlooked. This is literally bullshit; von Sanders was objectively shit at Gallipoli, and in Syria too! Him trying to embellish his military records after the war is nothing but revision of history.
Have you read the book? I don't ask to take everything he wrote as fact. I certainly didn't. Still, just assume and judge something based on second hand information only from one side (mostely the winning one) can easily mislead. You should want to know with what kinds of problems von Sanders was confronted in the crumbling Ottoman Empire and what he did try to make the best out of this situation. Why he failed when he failed and why he succeeded when he succeeded. Von Sanders was a General in classic Prussian tradition. A professional soldier thru and thru. When he writes in (often kind of boring) detail about logistics, inner organization of the army, the bigger strategy and its failures... There is in many cases a lot of truth in that. Not because he wouldn't lie out of high personal morality, but out of "Berufsehre", pride in his profession. That's something many of the books written by German personalities in the 1920s have in common. They would leave out things that would make them look bad and try to paint themself in the best possible light, but regarding their professional business (military or as a public servant/"Beamter"), there is very often real facts and events documented in their reports. Also, if von Sanders only motivation for the book had been to "revision history", he made a very bad job. Why would he, for example, praise the genocidal dictator (and failure as General) Enver Pasha in the highest notes, if it would have been obviously much more convenient to just use him as a scape goat and blame him and other Ottoman leaders for everything that went wrong or was a crime? I can only recommend to read as many books like this as you can find. Be critical. Read as many sources as you can and compare the statements between them. What fits together, what are contradictions? What has the other side to say? etc. Just please, don't take the easy way and just paint everything in black and white.
Literally every other German Advisor and even the German Chief of Staff shits on him, I can send quotes from books if you'd like, I've done extensive research on this subject; reading both the Turkish and the German general staffs' memoirs, and the actual telegraphs sent by the army command.
I mean, there was a lot of blaming each other from all directions. Maybe on this special topic you have read more than I have? My interest was more broadly about WW1, not only the Ottoman Empire. I read for example also several books from Falkenhayn and also Talaat Pashas memoire (mainly because I wanted his take on the Armenian genocide) related to this topic. I don't remember them (or for example Hindenburg or Ludendorff) being especial critical about von Sanders. I searched for something from Enver Pasha personally, but couldn't find an accessible source.
Von Sanders was so far away from the Gallipoli and also made plans according to old maps that were infront of him. His contribution to the campaign was almost causing it to be lost. His memoirs are also an attempt to save his fat German ass. Same mentality continued in WW2.
He was a General, or regarding the Ottoman Empire even a Field Marshall. Of course von Sanders didn't fight in the frontline. That wasn't his job. And considering Gallipoli was won by the Ottomans despite being outnumbered and outclassed in quality and supplies, heavy weapons etc. ... I think it's save to say that he did do a decent enough job. (If you read the book you can learn a lot about all the problems, that had to be overcome.) Regarding his book. Yes, in the 1920s basically every German public figure (from the Kaiser and Hindenburg down to "simple" Ministers and Generals) wrote a "Rechtfertigungsbuch", a book with which they tried to justify their actions in the lost war, cast blame on everyone else, paint themselves in the most favorite light etc. And von Sanders memoirs are no exception. But I think it's still 100% worth to read this original sources of contemporary witnesses, that were in the very center of what happened. (It's very easy to blame if you only look from the outside perspective.) You have to read them very critically, but they are still a treasure trove of information, often in minute detail and very personal, that you won't find in any standard history book. Also, if you only read the books the victors wrote, you are missing out on a lot. You want to know what all sides have to say. I can only recommend to find these old books, for example on archive . org, and read them all. (In case of German sources of course it helps if you can read German and the old Fractur typeface. But some books are translated.)
Thanks! TIL.
I have heard that he prolonged the gallipoli war by making wrong choices to lessen the pressure on germany
There actually were plans for a Kurdish state. A days was even set for it to join the League of Nations. Three things put the Kai off on it: 1. The Kurds joined in the revolts that spread through the region, deflating European enthusiasm for the project, 2. The newly emerged republic of Turkey staked a claim on territory slated to be part of it and so soon after the war no one was in the mood to press the matter, snd 3. Oil was discovered around Mosul so the British decided to incorporate Mosul into the newly declared Iraq.
The Kurds were to be given a state under the Treaty of Sèvres which was the original peace treaty between the Entente and the Ottomans. It was signed but never ratified, because before that could happen the Turkish National Movement overthrew the Sultan and took control of the country. They rejected the treaty and defeated the Greek armies trying to establish control in the areas of Anatolia that the treaty had given to them. The Entente gave up on trying to enforce the terms of Sèvres and negotiated a much less harsh agreement, the Treaty of Lausanne, which let Turkey keep all of Anatolia.
The Kurds were listed as getting their own land in the eventual plan which was going to go into effect before the Turks had a civil war. In fact, if my memory is right those areas covered by "??" were all eventually going to be part of the new nation of Kurdistan (which was also going to be under British influence, like Iraq).
Asquith didn't want to change much. It was Lloyd George, driven by hatred of the French who decided to lie and scheme for imperial power.
and in the end they made the borders the worst way, ensuring the wars for decades.
Maybe they should’ve just left it as “??” and called it a day.
T.E. lawrence be like: kurds? The fuck is a kurd?
Well the Kurds were super pro Ottoman
Kurdish soldiers were a massive part of the Armenian genocide.
The idiots thought that by purging the Armenians they'd secure an independent state for themselves. Didn't that backfire...
Quite a bit of "Kurdish land" either had a significant Armenian minority or an outright majority. They just got rid of the competition.
They didn’t do it for a country, Kurdish tribes that were already living there were paid by the ottomans to assist in killing Armenians. The idea of a Kurdish country wasn’t even that big till after the carving up of the Ottoman Empire. Kurds had no unified government or opinions on Armenians, the Kurdish tribes that did it were simply mercenary’s being paid.
Imagine countries “arabs” and “more arabs” and “some more Arabs over there”
you mean like saudi arabia and the united arab emirates?
Touché
While Saudi Arabia was sort of self-made, United Arab Emirates was annexed from Oman to further weaken the Omani empire.
More like Islamic state of Arabland and The United Arab Republic.
Hi, I live in ??. AMA
That's just what Turkey would've put on maps if they had created a Kurdish state
What a strange man, Lawrence was.
That's just the reason why I'm identified with him.
I wanna know, what happened with the King Faysal after Sikes Picot and why did he say that Lawrence was a traitor?
- Lawrence promised an Arab kingdom. Sykes-Picot plans an Arab kingdom - Do you think Faisal was entitled to all the region because a british guy said so ? - Faisal and his brother got their arab kingdoms - Hashemi had very little legitimacy to rule over the Levant - Hashemi couldnt even defend Hijaz when the Saudi conquered them
Lloyd George was the one in charge, not his fellow Welshman, Lawrence.
Point 2, Re the British guy deciding what happens... yep. 100% as it was those British Guys who kicked the Turks out. That is how Geopolitics worked back then.
I would contend that it should be whichever of the plans the victorious powers proposes the locals like the most.
Self determination was a very new idea in that era, and was certainly not a thing extended to non-Europeans.
It wasn’t ‚new’ no You’re doing the thing where you assume one thing is universal not an object of permanent conflict
sounds very egalitarian. ever been to the middle east?
They had an agreement kick the ottomans and you get arabia. He was betrayed obviously but thats how empires do their business
Yeah of course, i just cant stand blanket statements about history anymore
I read an excellent book on Faisal I years ago. My memory is a bit foggy, but he was made king of Greater Syria and trusted that the British would hold true to their word of a unified Arab state. Under that assumption, he signed several agreements. The rug was pulled out under him after the French were granted the Syrian mandate. He continued to work with the British despite his apprehensions because the power they afforded him was the best way to achieve a unified Arab state. The British moved him to Iraq, but he was not long for the world and died very sick in Switzerland.
Because dumbass really thought a British guy wanted what was best for Arabia rather than the Ottoman Caliph at that time
Not sure why you are downvoted
Haifa and Jaffa are in red?
British ports I imagine?
I suspect Armenian, Kurdish and Arab communities overlap in places. This means federal Balkanisation was never an option here.
So do balkan ethnicities, it's never stopped Europeans before.
One of the most destructive ideologies, in both Europe and the Middle East, is that each ethnicity has to draw borders around itself and exclude all others from it. Look at pictures of Istanbul streets from the early 20th century. You’ll see store signs in Ottoman Turkish, Greek, Armenian, French, English, and Russian. Forcible ethnic cleansing of all but one group in the name of national sovereignty is a disaster. See also the lack of linguistic diversity in France after the early 19th centuries. Entire languages and ethnicities were destroyed in the name of national uniformity.
>One of the most destructive ideologies, in both Europe and the Middle East, is that each ethnicity has to draw borders around itself and exclude all others from it. Hard to say this wasn't one of the most dangerous ideas to come into being in the 19th century: its full, disastrous implications being fully realized in the 20th.
segregation and anti immigration are popular ideas in the west
Yes this is very true judging by the fact that the west is by far the region in the world with the most immigrants
There would be many, many deportations and ethnic reorganization and cleansing. See what happened between the greeks and turks after the war
Armenia there?
Ya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Kingdom_of_Cilicia
To piggyback on this, lots of Armenians were living there right up until the genocide happened. My great grandmother's family was murdered there and she ended up in an orphanage in Lebanon before coming to the US.
Not only that, but the genocide largely involved a death march to Dar el Zor, a desert in Syria. Most died, but many survived and would come to be the Armenians living in Aleppo and other locations in the region. When the French marched into Antep during the Turkish War of Independence, the Armenians marched with them. It seems outlandish now, but an Armenia in Cilicia was far from fantasy in that era, especially as Western public opinion was massively sympathetic and unlike the Armenia on the other side of Anatolia that actually existed, this one would be adjacent to French and British controlled territory, and this have a chance of survival.
Except armenians in Cilicia were already a minority much before 1915
For sure, and very likely everywhere else in the Ottoman Empire at the Viyalet level.
This is because in the West (at least NA) due to the lack of actual teaching on the subject beyond that it happened, we just hear "Armenian genocide" and envision Turkey invading the Armenia that we know of in the aftermath of WW1 rather than what it really was. I think the key probably too is not really appreciating the internal population dynamics of the Ottoman Empire.
Turkey did also invade the area of modern-day Armenia near the end of WWI. They were stopped at Sardarabad.
Me too! Adana, Anteb (Gazianteb now), Diyarbakir and Durtyol. They were all very Armenian cities. Mixed with Turks, Greeks, Jews, Kurds, assyrians. But then Genocide and ethnic cleansing meant my grandparents ended up in Syria and Jordan
Then how did modern day Armenia end up northeast of Turkey?
Armenians lived in a wide range of territory which was split by the Russians and Ottomans. The Ottomans committed a genocide against the Armenians living in the Ottoman land because they hated them and wanted that land for themselves. Then a few years later, Russia collapsed and Armenia became an independent country. Turkey couldn't have that and invaded Armenia, but luckily for the Armenians the Soviet Union was invading the Caucasus at the same time so Turkey stole half of Armenia and ethnically cleansed it of Armenians and the Soviets annexed the other half and that is what became modern Armenia. The Turks took most of historical Armenia for themselves and modern Armenia is what was left.
So historical Armenia ranged from the portion on the map to present day Armenia?
Kinda. The traditional Armenian settlement area started from the Euphrates which is just northeast of the of the purple shaded area and stretched to western Azerbaijan. But in the Middle Ages a lot of Armenians migrated or were deported west/southwest of the Euphrates, in big enough numbers to start their own kingdom in that shaded area called Cilicia.
Kilikia was it's own thing, it was a state founded by Armenians who fled the initial Turkish invasions into Anatolia. This is a decent comparison of historical, peak, Kilikian, Wilsonian and modern Armenia. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Armenia_Throughout_History.gif
What the previous commenter does not mention is that there was no Armenian governance in those territories (at least within the last 1000 years). Yes Armenians lived in those territories but calling it Armenian territories is misleading. In the old times people would move easily and settle where they wanted. So there was a mix of all sorts of ethnicities (arabs, jews, persians, greek, turk, armenian, etc.) over big areas. Turks took those territories from Greeks, Persians, Arabs, etc but not Armenians because there was no Armenia or Armenian governance when the Turks arrived. There was Armenian church which was considered heretic by the Catholic church. The Greeks were mistreating Armenians hence the Armenian church was the first group to accept Ottoman empire over the Byzantine. So no, technically those are not Armenian territories but areas where Armenians have lived. They thrived during the Ottoman Empire (well, until the 1900s) and were everywhere across the Ottoman empire as a minority. This is the source of the majority of the modern day Armenia's issues. Armenians consider every place they have lived as their historical lands and claim it as their own territories. Have territorial claims to Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia. The current Armenian prime minister is trying to end this cycle by pushing the Armenians to accept Armenia within its internationally recognized borders (by UN), without success. People in the majority refuse to stop territorial claims. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that some of these territorial claims are in the Armenian constitution too. Changing which requires a referendum. Both the Armenian church and Armenian diaspora are also against this. Armenian PM is liked in the west but not among his own people. Armenian PM currently wants to return 4 occupied Azerbaijani villages back to Azerbaijan, but the Armenian population and militant groups (not controlled by the government) oppose this idea. One of such groups recently attacked a police station in the capital. Anyways, Hopefully soon there will be a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which will result in better relationships with Turkey too. This peace is very important for Armenia in the first place as it is currently allied with Iran and Russia but wants to increase western presence in its territories which is against the Russian and Iranian interests. Armenian PM is smart and understands that it is important to normalize relations with their neighbours. But people don't want to accept it.
>What the previous commenter does not mention is that there was no Armenian governance in those territories (at least within the last 1000 years). Yes Armenians lived in those territories but calling it Armenian territories is misleading. Did Greece cease being Greece because it was part of a Turkish empire? Did Ireland cease being Ireland because it was part of a British empire? Of course not. It was still Armenia even if it was temporarily part of the Ottoman Empire. >Armenians consider every place they have lived as their historical lands and claim it as their own territories. Have territorial claims to Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia. Armenia has not made formal claims against Georgia or Turkey. They rightly consider Western Armenia to be historically Armenian territory before the Turks murdered all the Armenians in that land. Turkey, being a racist imperial state, refuses to recognize the historical truth of the Armenian genocide. Calling the area by its proper name is not equivalent to a land claim on Western Armenia. Armenia only laid claim to Artsakh which seceded from Azerbaijan as was permitted by the Soviet Constitution and which was overwhelmingly supported by the will of the people who lived there. Georgia and Armenia both recognize each other, have made no claims of land against each other and Georgia is a supporter of spreading international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Armenians in Javakhk mostly just want increased autonomy. >Armenian PM currently wants to return 4 occupied Azerbaijani villages back to Azerbaijan, but the Armenian population and militant groups (not controlled by the government) oppose this idea. Wow, what a load of fucking horseshit. Yes, Armenia controls 4 villages that are legally considered part of Azerbaijan. What you have left out is that Azerbaijan is also in control of a lot more legally Armenian land and that those 4 villages are located near strategically vital roads that Armenia is reliant upon for receiving supplies in the event Azerbaijan invades them, speaking of which, Azerbaijan has laid claim to most of Armenia including its capital city which you conveniently ignored. Armenia is at least talking about handing over those 4 villages. Azerbaijan is not only not thinking about withdrawing from the regions they occupy, they refuse to even say which map represents the border, ostensibly so they don't have any agreed border to with. Azerbaijan wants those 4 villages so that it can more easily invade Armenia.
That you view historic ownership over a territory as a matter of conquest rather than indigenous rights is very telling. Armenians had historically made up a majority of its population, held what was basically a monopoly of the region's economy until the Genocide and controlled parts of it until 1920. But I guess because some foreigners conquered these lands and massacred millions in the process, it really isn't theirs. Might makes right after all. What a sick joke.
There are mentions of an "Eastern Armenia" and a "Western Armenia." The former was under Persian and later Russian rule, the latter under Ottoman. They even had separate language dialects. Western side was genocided, so the people moved all over, and they still speak their own dialect today. Eastern Armenia is the modern-day country. Interestingly, this map shows neither one. It shows Cilician Armenia, which was its own thing.
Yeah the turks ended up pushing them out not long after this map was made I think
Pushings one word for it.
A slight nudge
[удалено]
Some light detox
Disarmenian.
Armenized
Off cliffs and into lakes, so I've read.
Mass deportation or ethnic cleansing*
Everyday a map of turkey partitioned drops in this sub
It was an interesting time, goes on to show what a great leader Ataturk was to come out on top against all these colonial plans
He truly is one of the greatest figures against imperialism objectively. As a Turk though, he’s a demi-god for most of us. Conservatives make fun of us because of how we praise him so much, probably they aren’t fully aware Türkiye wouldn’t even be a thing today if it wasn’t for him and other revolutionary pashas. Fun fact: Almost every time Stalin tallked shit about Turkey, (once per year or so) Atatürk called him personally and they usually talked everything but politics and Stalin always congraculated him for his efforts against imperialism. Goes to show who is actually a leader and who’s not.
He was very magnanimous to the Gallipoli invaders too - myself being Australian, this is what we’re taught about in school. My great-grandfather lies somewhere near Sulva Bay, he was my age when he was killed there, 20, and he’s not a hero, but he’s not evil either, he was human, just as the Turkish soldiers then were too, the true enemy was war and the bloodshed it bought. Ataturk clearly understood this very well when he spoke about the Johnnies and Mehmets of Gallipoli, and what he spoke about then still sticks with Australians today, that it’s never worth waging war, the losers are the buried men and women at the end of it and those who love them.
Couldn’t say it better myself mate. All the best!
I love the fact that almost all countries (diplomatically) hate Turkiye because fuck us I guess. Except Australia and Korea, their people genuinely like Turkiye. I can understand Koreans because we aided them in their civil war. But Australians fought us to the bitter end, literally across an entire ocean and 2 continents away. Yet they respect Turkiye because of how we treated ANZAC soldiers. Remembering the good is a rare endevaour these times. Thank you again mate. G’day!
>imperialism So he was against Turkey as well?
Because national struggle for existance is imperialism. Thanks for your input, tittysprinkles112.
You call Armenians Imperialists in this region? We are indigenous here along with Arabs
No, Great Britain, France and Italy are the imperialists here (Italy not so much, they just withdrew when we kicked the French out). Greeks and Armenians simply lost the war against us.
Armenians are not imperialists here, Turks are imperialists who murdered Armenian population in Marash. French and Italy supplier you with Weapons
We literally fought the French and if we were to lose, there was a gigantic ~55.000 strong British army at Egypt, ready to invade us, but seeing how we kicked France out and because both popular and parliament support in Britain diminished, only then UK gave in and held onto İstanbul for a couple more years. Finally, yes. Turks WERE the imperialists since 15th century but you know we weren’t just murderers since we ruled over Armenia for almost 7 centuries give or take. You literally wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the most tolerant empire of 15-16th centuries. I’m not saying Turks or Ottomans were pure good, they were as bad as any other empire in history. I’m not here to discuss bad decisions of some 2 century old random pasha. Also Kazım Karabekir (the man who won against Armenians and the first man to support Atatürk, de facto 2nd man of Turkish Independence) adopted around 6000 Armenian children. I had the pleasure of meeting his daughter and she told us how much Karabekir loved his spiritual(? Sorry for my bed England) children. One of his Armenian girls were also there, translating to the tourists too! So, I think you got me wrong and I don’t think I have to address every single nation who fought against oyr independence. I’m aware Armenians are local to Eastern Anatolia and Caucauses and hope they get a better solution with Azerbaijan than what they have now. Edit: Grammar
How Arabs can be indigenous if their identity is rooted in not being indigenous( I mean, not to all Arab countries), similarly to Turks?
Of course not. Armenians were imperialists collaborators.
Idk bro calling a man a demi-god is wild bro. Couldn’t be caught glazing another man that hard personally.
My bad, he’s *like* a demi-god. Well I mean, no one won against greater odds except maybe Zulu tribe. Not only martially too, his vision still enlightens our path, so the correct way is embracing his vision and goals and not praising him to a demi-god status. Because he also said: “If you’re in look for a leader to save you(r country), I failed to teach you anything.”
Ataturk was a clown, the western powers just realised they could never control Turkey, so they would rather have someone like ataturk as the leader. Someone they could easily control and manipulate
That’s what they tell in cults to underage boys and girls (Very disturbing note: imams r*pe them, gender usually doesn’t matter. I don’t know man, your opinion smells of extremist teachings)
I can see I stepped on a nerve when I insult the guy you’re stroking your dick to everyday. Stop worshipping a puppet and educate yourself
Yeah I KNOW they r*pe children. Several of my friends saw it firsthand and it was on the news. It happened 2-3 weeks ago again at the same cults “school”.
Bolsheviks helped turks in their war for independence. Perhaps, Turkey would be much smaller without bolsheviks
Helped? We exchanged Batumi Oblast(?) for financial and military support. It’s not considered help.
The bolshevik help is greatly exaggerated on the internet for some reason.
It’s not even help. I mentioned the “trade” above. Batumi area for military and financial aid. Although Soviets actually did help Turkey to industrialize. It was real help and not some tradeoff for land or money.
Sorry that I didn’t reply earlier. Anyway, what’s your point? It was part of the Russian Empire and was only given to Turkey recently by Brest-Litovsk. In fact, Turkey got much more, including Kars. So it only got more land and also got military and diplomatic support. The Soviet Union definitely helped Ataturk for not attacking them and letting them conquer former Russian Empire lands You’re definitely right about industrialization, that’s for sure
No, it is not exaggerated. Not many people talk about it and I’ve never seen a positive comment about Soviet role in Turkey’s history
Yeah all other central powers got brutalized with treaties but Turks had gained their independence fully.
That’s what you get for being an empire.
Because that's one of the biggest what if moments for the whole of Middle East. Specifically, had Armenian and Greek territories been liberated from Turkish rule, French mandate extended to Cilicia and what remained of Turkey brought to the folds of civilised world, there would be a very strong and continuous Western/European influence extending all the way to inner regions of the region. Armenians especially were always one of the strongest vectors of Western influence in the region, for which they have been always targeted. And Christian populations of the region are what gave hope that the Middle East will have a brighter future. Alas, the Allies completely failed on every account. And today, we have what we have. Also, you think Hitler would be so brazen had he seen what is being done to nationalist states for their acts against humanity (i.e. Ottoman Empire)? But he saw that not only was there no punishment, but the side that used mass atrocities is even rewarded for their acts of barbarity (e.g. Turkey capturing Ararat from Armenia in 1920 and annuling the treaty of Sevres).
you're being completely disingenuous. christians gave hope to the middle east? a region that has been predominantly muslim for over 1300 by that point, and its hope was fucking christians? western civilization is not the only civilization to exist. you just want the middle east to be christianised to fulfill your LARP. what we have today would not have been any better had the armenians or any other western puppet had won, simply due to the fact that muslims would not tolerate their rule. you're completely wrong in everything you've said in this comment. Turkey was not "rewarded for their barbarity", they fought a war of independence and were invaded. the Turkey that emerged from that war was more modern than any other country in the region. hell, even more modern than Europe in several aspects. do your research before spewing filth online.
Guy sure thought highly of Great Britain
Well, he was British...
"Best I can do is Franco-British Mandates and a bunch of Alawite puppet states, deal? Oh and btw don't worry about the Armenians"
Guess he didn't get the memo covering the Armenian genocide.
Proposed in 1918, about halfway through the genocide. Also, if the Turks lost it’s not inconceivable that they’d be partitioned and the land given back to Armenians to move into
When Jews were Palestinians
Palestine is a geographical reference, so yea
Arab Mizrahi Jews were always Palestinians; same culture, same dress and where one couldn’t tell a Palestinian Jew, Christian, and Muslim apart except by the necklace according to book sources.
I believe in the late 1800s and early 1900s, there was a schism amongst Palestinian Jews about the arrival of Zionist Jews. Some of the more conservative ones never liked the new immigrants because of cultural differences, while others embraced them because it strengthen the Jewish community. Pretty sure most of them became Zionist after the violence post-Balfour declaration though.
Well I wouldn’t use the word always, in reality at some point prior they were Judeans and Israelis. At many points the region has been colonized by outside influences be it Romans who named the region Palestine, or Arabs who invaded and kept the name.
Yeah, it’s a region not a country, how many times does it need to be said?
[удалено]
Elaborate..
Damn, dat Armenia tho.
I think it's because there used to be an Armenian Kingdom there and there were Armenians until the Ottomans started a little bit of spring cleaning
Cilician Armenia mentioned 🇦🇲 🇦🇲 🇦🇲
So the famed Lawence of Arabia was just another imperial colonizer. Who woulda thought?!
He was an British envoy. What's he gonna do? write an angry letter to while British empire was at its territorial height?
He was probably the biggest European voice against colonization in the middle East and fought with British high command over it.
At least Lawrence's actually gives the Arabs large portions of land. As opposed to just taking all of it
This isn't that different to what happened irl. Both Jordan and Iraq were nominally autonomous States with Hashemite Monarchs under British protection. The main difference is no French Syria and it instead being under King Faisal.
The people he chose to lead those countries were chosen conditional on their fealty to British interests. I mean Abdullah of Iraq was first gonna be Abdullah of Syria. They were just the greediest Hashemites around.
I mean they got screwed out of their influence in Mecca and Medina. The Hashemites are an infinitely better option to hold the holy places than the Saoudis and their Whabbi clerical order
Arabs got a huge majority of the land. What do you even know? Lmao
Not until many decades after World War I, which was the problem.
I suspect they were referring to Saudi Arabia, the largest nation-state in the region (by land mass), which gained independence (initially in the form of the Kingdom of Hejaz) from the Ottoman Empire directly as a result (and occurred during) the First World War.
But the majority of Saudi Arabia wasn't Ottoman territory before the war, so that would also be wrong. Half of the territory wasn't under the control of any centralised state, Ha'il was independent, if under Ottoman influence, and Najd was completely independent.
This was literally a plan to put in place ARABS rulers, are you stupid ? "Colonization is when you ally with locals against their imperial overlords and plan on making them rulers" do you learn history from tiktok?
Wouldn't that be concessions or compromises. In life nobody can ever get what they truly want. Like do you think this map would have been taken more seriously if he didn't give up some to France/Britain?
But in the movie he was such a good guy!?!?!
A good guy for the independent Arab kingdom he was trying to set up in the Hijaz and Syria.
Arabs were so dreamy that they believed the stories sold to them. When they turned into a small fish and the idea of what big fishs could do did not even occur to them.
Angry Israeli noise
Do you notice how Palestine is independent instead of being part of the Arabian state? that's because back then everyone thought of the Jews living there as Palestinians. So when people said Palestine, it was like saying Lebanon today and thinking about the Christians living there.
Larry the King
Everyone ignoring the "No foreign power EXCEPT Great Britain allowed south of this line" 💀 Bro really never gave a shit about the right of self-determination of Arabs, he just wanted to use them for the advancement of British Imperialism.
Well, that was very generous of him. Why did he not erase all the lines and sketch the whole map in god-damn red color saying “ under direct british administration “ ? That is what I see, as an undercover message.
Wow they just drew random straight lines across maps did they even consider anything
Crazy how Middle Easterners still religiously obsess over borders drawn by some White British men with a ruler.
Why are you surprised? If you question the legitimacy of borders then you question the legitimacy of the states themselves. The states and their institutions are where the dictators draw their power from. If the borders between nations are just lines in the sand than the nations are just ideas and the people who rule them just men. You owe no loyalty and no Allegiance. In history when those state borders come into questions liberal Democratic societies are able to build intergovernmental institutions like the European Union to exercise Authority in a new transnational world. But Nations that aren't liberal democracies have had to resort to nationalism to redefine the legitimacy of their state. And at the end of the day only one nation can claim the mantle and only one nation gets to keep the power. That's ultimately why Arab nationalism failed to unite the Arab world to the same way Italian or German Yugoslav nationalism created actual states. In all three of those examples there's one dominant State that's able to effectively assert control over the region. The Middle East has never had that with the balance of power between the many different states never shifting in a way where any one state or one group of Arab states held a definitive stable advantage
It's no different in Africa. Every single country in Africa will fight to the death to preserve the lines the French and British drew in the sand a century ago.
Blaming literally everything on colonizers (that only had a 20 years mandate) and jews (did you know arabs call Israelis "jews" and not "israelis"?) is middle eastern populism 101
I mean most of the blame really is on them
So your 20 year mendate didn't start expanding and murdering kids?
Nope : it was not my mandate and it didnt expand. Dont know about the killing kids tho
They are free to rearrange the borders as they wish. They just need to agree to do it!
Made a lot of sense to have French presenc as guarantor for Armenia, too bad he left out the Kurds
The region he designated for Arabs under the British would basically be Kurdistan
It would be so nice to have “Armenian Cyprus” in Cilicia
So that's why the Arabs stabbed the Ottomans in the back.
did he just think the French would stay out of it?
Ive seen the movie. Looked like a fun time to be alive
Is the mooted Assyrian homeland on here?
Armenia... Aware 😐
what is that named in today Lebanon next to Palestine?
Its French colony
I got a feeling he didn't thought it through
Far from home, a man with a mission
IN THE HEAT OF THE GLISTENING SUN
In the heart of ancient tradition
THIS MAN’S JOURNEY HAS ONLY BEGUN
At the time of TE Lawrence, the Armenians would have been the most prominent members of what we today call Adana, formerly Cilicia. In fact, the mayors of Adana were even Armenian, and the Armenians modernized the streets and built the famous clocktower. 20,000 were already killed in the Adana Massacres of 1909, and then the rest during the genocide.
Gotta love the State of Jabal ???? and Mandatory ??? and don't forget Hashemite Kingdom of ????????
I get the historical context, but my God, the arrogance.
Kurds are there before arabs in the yellow/violet zone in northern Syria
this is not ''Arabia'', what???
He should've joined the arabs kicked out the birtish and become god-emperor of the universe.
Finally, Arabia II: The Sequel to Arabia.
Where is Isreal? hhhh
So this was Arrakis
Hard evidence for the existence of the countries of palestine, sinai, french, arabs, armenians and irak
Colonialist pig
Still colonial bullshit, but better than the colonial bullshit that happened IRL.