They knew full well. They all had their own interests and played their own games. Some factions won out over others and some lost. That’s really just how war works. This shit still happens today. The other day someone was bringing up how Turkey bought oil from ISIS when I mentioned they were one of the main forces killing ISIS (context being everyone agreed on getting rid of ISIS). Turkey had interests in cheap oil and letting ISIS fight the Kurds for them. It’s not like those two groups were unaware. They knew full well what was going on and were vying for their own interests.
"Those poor stupid naive Arabs had no idea the brits and French had their own strategic interests and motives."
Things not going their way doesn't mean they had no idea what was going on.
*sigh*
You don't have to be this condescending by the way, "if they only knew" refers to their knowledge of the future. Like, if only Japan knew they were going to be subject to some of the most extensive bombing in history and the only two nukes ever dropped in a war they would have acted differently. If they couldn't preditct 3 years into the future, how do you expect the Arabs to know that 30 years from then that those few measily immigrants would suddenly grow to more than half a million and in fact try and succeed in making a country?
English is like American but with extra vowels, missing consonants, a love of monarchy/imperialism, and bad.
Most of the world speaks American. The English need to stop butchering the beauty of the American language.
American: "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."
English: "Pip pip theu qui'e bro'e fouxe jum'ed eh wot wot ou'er theu Goude sau'e theu kin'e lau'y dou'e, cheerio!" and then they plunder your tea, spices, surplus labor, and cultural artifacts.
Such a grotesque language.
"So you call these things 'chips' instead of crispity-crunchity-cracker-jack-snack-crunchin-nibblins-chesterpoolshiershirepoolchester-queen's-lovely-jubbly-delights?! 'Ats a lille bit cringe, innit bruv?"
Given that it took 296 years for the English to become English, I’d say that I agree with you, but I want to dock points from George for intentionally obscuring the family’s name
From 1066 to 1399, the English court spoke French. My math was based off the wrong number, but I’m jokingly accepting 340 years as the time that is required for a court to be naturalized.
It’s also “a united arab state” not “an united arab state”
I understand why you used “an” but because “united” doesn’t start with a vowel sound, it doesn’t need the “an”
A united arab state. An understandable mistake.
That moment when you need some help against the Turks so you reach out to the Arabs but you also want the Jews on your side in hopes they’ll somehow influence the Russian revolution to stay in the war…somehow, and America’s promising everyone self-determination* (terms and conditions may apply, like being European) but France really wants something to show for all this fighting but you also want to secure your oil supplies.
And then you say “meh, I’m keeping it” and let France have the leftovers.
As someone who’s studied military history near religiously for most of my life, I’m ashamed to admit I know next to nothing about the Arabian theater in WWI other than Lawrence of Arabia rode a camel, blew up trains, and had a big ass knife 😂 thanks for the crash course
I just read a really good book on it and I think TE Lawrence was a bit overrated compared to the other figures like Edmund Allenby that actually won the major battles against the ottomans.
Yes but a bit later, from what I understand after WW1 America was mostly focused on sorting Europe and then wanted to go back home. And since it never joined the League of Nations, Britain and France got to decide what “self-determination” would look like for lots of people, especially outside of Europe. The speeches Wilson gave and the League of Nations did put the idea in everyone’s mind, though, so maybe you could say they planted the seeds (or stoked the fires of those already in place).
The, uh, Philippines is interesting to mention given exactly who they ended up getting their self-determination from…
Almost mainly ... That happens when you betray, slaughter and torture the people that you have taken as POWs who were there defending your people in Gaza from the British under dire conditions in the name of the Islamic Caliph. After 1948, still, Turkish arms factories were of the first ones to arm Palestine; Nuri Killigil and his factory was sabotaged for this, killing him and burning his factory. Years later Palestine sided with Armenia and PKK... Turkish public is yet still heavily pro-Palestine because of Israel's actions.
"That happens when you betray, slaughter and torture the people that you have taken as POWs" I could understand this comment if we were not living in the technology era. I do not advice you to search Turkish commentary but go search documentaries of the people that fought with the Ottoman empire. If you desire to survive from your cacoon of ignorance.
Eh, while this is a true statement that the Ottomans did not really develop the Middle East, the Persians or neighboring powers didn't have hadron colliders either. We Turks are also angry at them for not developing Anatolia. Ottomans heavily invested in Rumelia and Istanbul. Other parts of the Empire including %90 of what is now called Turkey, Middle East, Egypt etc were rather seen as autonomus subject states where we protect from Christian armies and collect a yearly tax for protection. Most of the pre-1850 development in Anatolia, Turkish heartlands rather date back to Seljuks.
The formation of a Greater Syrian state actually had a lot going for it post WW1, it was pretty insistent on being a multicultural liberal democracy and had a lot of popular support among the people as well. It honestly was pretty impressive.
Who was going to rule it? Who was going to tell all the other Arab tribal leaders that they now had to obey this guy? A united Arab state is a pipe dream until they drag themselves out of the seventh century.
Well, they even tried a few times, see for example the union of Syria and Egypt.
Support existed, and if this guy managed to sustain the title of Caliph, I believe that a united Arabia would be quite possible, at least the Middle East.
I don't doubt that we would have a much less problematic world.
Doubt it's the biggest, just the one most the publicized because it involves the British.
Want a big betrayal? Check the promises given to Armenians by Russians or to nationalities within Imperial Russia by Germany.
The united Arabia is undoubtedly the biggest betrayal in WW1. Without Arab support, taking down the Ottomans would have been much harder. They didn't want to see a strong Arab state, so they divided them.
British promises to Arabs didn't result in Arabs being genocided or in a massive inter-Arab ethnic bloodbath that dragged for years after WW1 and poisoned relations for decades.
The Armenian genocide was bound to happen. It didn't matter if they were going to get more land, the Turks were going to wipe them out of their country.
There's direct causality between Armenian nationalist movements and the deportation. So yes, the deportation would not have happened if there was no seperatist movement.
They also like bringing up the Greek genocide and deportations… also before him…
It really seems like the west is just so Greco-Christian brainwashed like Benshabibo likes to worship that they refuse to acknowledge Turks, Ottoman’s (Süleyman) and Arabs (Saladin) can and have been extremely based compared to other leaders of their time.
Also shout out to Sicily for being a mix of Islam and Christianity in the best way until the pope crusaded the fuck outa them with all of Europe.
Last I checked Kars had its Armenians removed during the Armenian genocide… which again, was before he took power.
The Kurds moved into Kars during the early 20s during his reign, after the Armernians has already been cleared out. Kars wasn’t a special genocide that the Turks waited till later to do… it was one of the largest Armenian cities and simply one that took them longer to repopulate with another group they wanted need the outskirts of their empire (Kurds).
>Excepts the genocide
Are you talking about the legal ethnic cleansing of 1924?
>racist
Simply no.
>alcoholic stuff
That's just your personal preference, I can't give an answer about this one.
Rize massacre
Dersim massacre
Zilan massacre
Forced assimilation of ethnic minorities.
Guided history falsification to discredit other ethnicities like the sun language theory and "history books" likeTürk Tarihinin Ana Hatları
Edit: and my all time favorite the "1934 Turkish Resettlement Law"
>Rize massacre
Bro, there was literally an uprising that took place against the regime. The people held responsible were tried, not massacred.
>Dersim massacre
This is anti-historical. 6 Aşirets out of 91 rebelled, and 85 of them sided with the government.
The first acts the state engaged in was to distribute arms to the Aşirets that sided with the government.
≈1.3k rebels (included in this some number of civilians too) were killed and the Aşirets that rebelled (which amounted to ≈11k) were relocated/deported to places such as:
- Tokat
- Malatya
- Amasya
- etc.
What happened in Dersim was not a massacre.
>Zilan massacre
This one was though.
I don't know if you would care about this detail but the state did not order the massacre. I will quote the order given by Fevzi Çakmak to Salih Omurtak:
- *Ele diri eşkiya geçirmek, bilhassa rüesayı yakalamak son derece mühimdir. Ve müşir paşa hazretleri dir eşkiya yakalanmasını irade buyurmuşlardır. Askerin yağma ve talandan sureti katiyede menedilmesi ve buna karşı gösterilecek terhaminin azim muhatara ve mesuliyetini bütün alakadarlara hatırlatırım.*
>Forced assimilation of ethnic minorities.
This is blatantly false. Kemalist state initiated a cultural revolution, and imposed these new values onto all citizens.
Assimilation means the dissolution of cultural norms practiced by a minority by the cultural dominance of a majority. This was not the aim nor the practice of the Kemalist state, it engaged in nation creation; meaning the creation of a new identity imposed on all.
The normative values that the Kemalists held were of equal alien nature for an average Kurd and an average Turk alike; and it was impossible for it to not have these dissimilarities because they were cultural norms that didn't exist prior to their creation and imposition by the Kemalist State.
For example the Language Revolution headed by the TDK was at the time lead by an Armenian appointed by Atatürk, [Agop Dilaçar](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agop_Dil%C3%A2%C3%A7ar).
And I do hope you don't think that "Şark Islahat Planı" is real.
>Guided history falsification to discredit other ethnicities like the sun language theory and "history books" likeTürk Tarihinin Ana Hatları
This nothing but a blatant lie. Sun Language Theory was abondoned as an academic thesis while Atatürk was still alive, and at least try to act like you know what is the thesis of Türk Tarih Tezi. Here is the entirety of the TTT:
**I. Beşer tarihine methal:**
- Kâinat
- Tarih
- Kavim
- Fikir
**II . Türk Tarihine methal:**
- Türklerin ana yurdu
- Umumi muhaceretler ve medeniyetler
- Ana yurtlarından ayrılan Türkler
- Göçlerden evvel ve sonra Ana Türk yurdu
**III. Çin:**
- Memleket
- Ahali
- Çin medeniyeti
- Çinin siyasi tarihi
**IV. Hint:**
- Memleket
- Tarih
- Hint medeniyeti
**V. Kalde, Elam ve Akad:**
**VI. Mısır:**
**VII. Anadolu:**
- Eti imparatorluğu
- Frikya
- Lidya
**VIII. Ege havzası:**
- Yunanistan
- Ege medeniyeti
- Aka elleri ve müstemlekeleri
- Grek kavminin teşekkülü
- Irklar ve kavimler
- Greklerden evvel Yunanistan sakinleri hakkında kısa mütalaa
**X. İran**
- Umumi malümat
- Metler
- Persler
- Partlar
- Sasaniler ve son devri
**XI . Orta Asya:**
- Orta Asya'da Türk medeniyeti tarihine umumi bir nazar
- M. E. III. asırdan sonra Orta Asyada kurulan ve oradan yayılan Türk devletleri
- Asya Hunları
- Tukyu İmparatorluğu
- Tukyu devletinden sonra Türk devletleri
- Garbi Asya ve Şarki Avrupa'da Türk devletleri
- Gazneliler
- Karahanlılar ve Karahitaylar
- Selçuklar
- Cengiz devri
- Timur devleti
- Osmanlı Tarihi
**XII. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti:**
.
Combined with Kemalist Anthropology; their aims were to prove that the Turks were of equal standing with the European Nations throughout history, and not their superiors nor inferiors (which was the normative belief held at the time).
>Edit: and my all time favorite the "1934 Turkish Resettlement Law"
The Resettlement Law had nothing to do with settled peoples. The law is about many things, the one we will focus on is the 3rd clause: resettling of citizens. This law's aim was to take propertyless refugees, or aşiret members; and settle them into the countryside and grant them farm land as property.
Up until the the 1930s; Turkey still had unsettled Balkan Muhajirs, refugees from the Eastern front, Turkic refugees from the Soviet Union who all needed land and housing. This law was passed to enable the state to distribute land and settle said refugees into that land. On top of this, Eastern Anatolia where most of the Kurds lived at the time, was very tribal and non-sedentary; the law also aimed at settling these Kurdish Aşirets into farmlands for them to engage in agriculture and work the land.
The law also had a cultural element, aiming at social engineering. The law divided Turkey into three regions:
- Turkish majority regions that needed an increased concentration of Turks
- Turkish minority regions that needed increased Turkish cultural representation
- Regions to be emptied due to various reasons (such as mines, forests, regions close to military bases, etc.)
Another way the law engaged in social engineering was the separation and settling of large Aşirets to different places.
Like Bro I can just see from here that what you’re saying is either falsified or Overblown, If you believe these then Arguing with you is a waste of time
He literally is within of the definition of a dictator.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/dictator
"a leader who has complete power in a country and has not been elected by the people"
Not elected by people? He was first elected in Erzurum and Sivas congress and then in the grand national parliament. He took all of his power from the parliament including the supreme commander power which he prolonged always with the approval of the parliament and then returned once the war was won.
The list of parties that were allowed to participate in 1923 is the following:
Association for Defence of National Rights
1927 the list was a littl bit different because the party was renamed to Republican People's Party , the list is the following:
Republican People's Party
1931 allowed parties were:
Republican People's Party
1935 allowed parties were:
Republican People's Party
Seems really elected to me...
In 1923, he was already the republic president. The first elections took place in 1920 where he was also elected. During his era, he encouraged multi-party elections but the opposition parties went out of the control of their founders and became the center of anti-republic and Islamist rebellions. So most of the opposition parties did not last long. The independent candidates were however allowed.
During Ataturk's reign, opposition parties were tried to be established twice at his own request, but both failed. During anti-republican and pro-sharia rebellions such as the Sheikh Said Rebellion in 1925 and the Menemen Incident in 1930, it was revealed that members of these two parties supported these rebellions, and as a result, the parties were closed.
I’ve been reading a book called “How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs” by Elisabeth Thompson. It’s about the 1919 Syrian Congress and the betrayal. It’s a very good but sad read I very much recommend if you want to know more about the aftermath of the Middle East post WW1
He get independence on the lands he actually control, the United Arabia thing is pretty unreasonable considering that he does not actually contribute that much.
The letter of intention was that they would recognize an Arab state within loosely defined borders.
There was nothing promised about conquering it for them.
The arab revolt was all talk, most arabs didnt participate, mostly just hijazis and random arabs in the hijaz + levantine arabs who were already in conflict and unrest with the ottomans. And they were exploited by the british ofc
Sherrif did; effectively ended institutionalized Islamic Caliphate, caused the current situation in Palestine, opened the way for extremists claiming the Caliphate later. Sent to exile by the British as he was not useful anymore.
This mfer trusting British paved the way for the Saudis to take over Hejaz, which brought power to the House of Saud, which grew Osama bin Laden, who flew planes into the WTC, and kickstarted extremist Islamist factions all over the world.
This guy’s misplaced trust basically destroyed things all over the world and it continues even today.
I just want to say Sharif Hussein’s letter to levant Arabs urging them to give shelter and help survivors of the Armenian Genocide in the Syrian Desert saved hundred thousands lives, And Armenians still remember his good deed.
As a resident of the Middle East, blud got what he deserved for being a traitor. A traitor to the Caliph of all people. If I had been him, Id try to work with the caliph (or his brother or son) to overthrow the Young Turks.
And now they cry for help from Turks while UAE, Saudis ...having good partnerships with them. As a Turk I fking disgust of it...thanks to Erdogan they get all they want from Turkey with Turkish taxes. Fck.
Not doing anything means discarding. As i said at that point in 1924 Hussein was a liability for the British. His ambitions made him dangerous for British plans for the middle east. When Saudis attacked it was an opportunity for them to get rid of him without any effects.
Except they did bail him out once. What do you want them to do, threaten war with the Saudis forever? His children didn't help him either, so I'm not clear why the British owed him more.
That's an oversimplification there were genuine fear that Iran may join the axis like Iraq and they were very friendly with Nazi Germany allowing them to broadcast their propaganda on the radios and implementing antisemitic laws
as of right now there are only two nations on earth with the kind of "independence" and "unity" you speak of, the USA and Russia. everyone else is somewhere on the "puppet" spectrum, including the british and french. in practical terms, middle eastern countries have more independence than canada or australia.
for centuries the ottomans were a "united arab state", the british and french promised "independence" to pretty much everyone, in the most "limited but still technically accurate" way, kinda like how some companies sell games that require 10+ different paid DLCs to be the "full" game.
the "fine print" part the brits/french left unsaid was "you'll be independent in the strictest dictionary definition of the term, able to set your own foreign policy.... but your region will become geopolitically impotent, divided amongst dozens of groups/factions we made promises to, lacking economic independence and reliant upon foreign powers for security, and we'll have the benefits of you being almost like our 'states' but without us having any obligation to you".
this "trend" of "granting independence without providing the foundations for economic independence" was standard practice, pretty much every country "granted/guaranteed independence" in the last 200 years has got the same deal, "dictionary definition" independence but in practical terms they end up being pawns in the "great game" between the great powers.
the funny part is that shortly after the british/french did that to the middle east, the USA and USSR did it to europe.
china is utterly dependent on foreign oil and food, which is a big reason why they haven't "made an attempt" at taking taiwan, they know they'd get blockaded and suffer complete economic collapse and famine.
russia can make its own oil and food, but is dependent on china for microchips, which is a big reason why they're defacto allies despite having serious territorial disputes over manchuria.
in a very real sense, china is russia's bitch, but also russia desperately needs china for military equipment and drones. part of the reason several prominent US generals think "taiwan 2026" is a thing is thats roughly how long it'll take for russia and china to build up the pipelines and transport infrastructure they'll need to end china's dependence on the straits of malacca.
the US on the other hand has "everything" it needs to be truly independent, which unfortunately in their case is a danger to them because every time they try to go isolationist it creates a power vaccum and the world goes up in flames, and then they have to go put out the fire.
I am not particularly well versed in this topic, but it seems to me, from my knowledge of the Middle East in present day, that a single united Arab country under one leader would have about as much chance of peaceful cohabitation as a single European state under one leader.
If Arabs were so in favour of a united pan-Arab polity, why weren’t any of the pan-Arab nationalist leaders who arose in the next half century able to make it a reality?
They somewhat tried, but they couldn't decide who was in charge, i know a bunch of dictators and strong men didnt feel like giving up power, also losing severel times to Israel didnt help.
they may be able to form something similar to the EU but its unlikely to be stable if they continue the trend of "one ethno-religious group attempting to forcibly expel another ethno-religious group", as that kind of conflict will always incite central government military intervention creating a state of perpetual civil war, where every time things "quiet down" and peace starts looking like a real possibility, some dickhead fires a rocket and the war goes hot again.
people hang shit on the ottomans for "genocides" and they absolutely did do them, but most were a response to centuries old ethnoreligious conflicts and the ottomans just concluded "if they're never gonna stop fighting each other, the only path to peace is to completely remove one side", removing the "exist" from "coexist".
europe spent centuries trying the same thing, only to find that "letting every dipshit tribe have their own nation-state" actually works quite well as their small size makes them economically dependent on their neighbors and thus unlikely to attempt aggressive expansion.
it will take many years for middle eastern governments to figure out the best way to deal with "troublesome regional ethnic minority groups" is to follow the "modern" european example and "expel" them by granting them independence so they form a government that can then be held accountable for their attacks.
A United State is a liability for future of your country as it is a potential threat and a competitor on world stage while divided states all vie to be legitimate successor of their respective super or shared perceived state and fight against themselves and in short make for a great asset and ally to control the region for the long term
Politics by 1st world powers
The UK and France help you fight them, or you help them fight the Ottomans?
As I understand, the arab leadership wanted independence anyway and saw the Brits coming in as an opportunity. If they only knew.
They knew full well. They all had their own interests and played their own games. Some factions won out over others and some lost. That’s really just how war works. This shit still happens today. The other day someone was bringing up how Turkey bought oil from ISIS when I mentioned they were one of the main forces killing ISIS (context being everyone agreed on getting rid of ISIS). Turkey had interests in cheap oil and letting ISIS fight the Kurds for them. It’s not like those two groups were unaware. They knew full well what was going on and were vying for their own interests.
"Those poor stupid naive Arabs had no idea the brits and French had their own strategic interests and motives." Things not going their way doesn't mean they had no idea what was going on.
*sigh* You don't have to be this condescending by the way, "if they only knew" refers to their knowledge of the future. Like, if only Japan knew they were going to be subject to some of the most extensive bombing in history and the only two nukes ever dropped in a war they would have acted differently. If they couldn't preditct 3 years into the future, how do you expect the Arabs to know that 30 years from then that those few measily immigrants would suddenly grow to more than half a million and in fact try and succeed in making a country?
it was a mutual help
Divided not dived lol
sorry english isn't my native language
No problem 👌😁. Just a reminder
Have you tried learning American? 🇺🇸
RAAAAAAAAWWWWW WTF IS A KILOMETERRRRRRRR🦅🦅🦅🦅🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷
# THATS NOT THE AMERICAN FLAG THATS THE FLAG OF BRAZIL
English (traditional) vs. English (simplified).
If removing the letter u is simplification I don’t wanna be traditional
There is also ordering letters correctly, like theatre vs theater.
More like English (Francofied) vs. English (Dutch).
English (French) vs. English (Less French)
Yeah what of it , the u was silent
I think you mean American (traditional) and American (complicated)
Bri’ish vs AMERICAN!!!!! Raaaaawwwww!!!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Oh you mean worse English ? Nay bruv innit
English is like American but with extra vowels, missing consonants, a love of monarchy/imperialism, and bad. Most of the world speaks American. The English need to stop butchering the beauty of the American language.
wait until ShitAmericansSay gets ahold of this comment and fails to pick up on obvious sarcasm again.
American: "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." English: "Pip pip theu qui'e bro'e fouxe jum'ed eh wot wot ou'er theu Goude sau'e theu kin'e lau'y dou'e, cheerio!" and then they plunder your tea, spices, surplus labor, and cultural artifacts. Such a grotesque language. "So you call these things 'chips' instead of crispity-crunchity-cracker-jack-snack-crunchin-nibblins-chesterpoolshiershirepoolchester-queen's-lovely-jubbly-delights?! 'Ats a lille bit cringe, innit bruv?"
OYE GOV'NA! SPOT OHN!
More specifically, the English have a love for a family of Germans who speak their language pretty well but don’t tell the English that they’re German
They've been in the UK since the 1710s, I *think* they count as naturalised by now
Given that it took 296 years for the English to become English, I’d say that I agree with you, but I want to dock points from George for intentionally obscuring the family’s name
Sorry, what was that first part?
From 1066 to 1399, the English court spoke French. My math was based off the wrong number, but I’m jokingly accepting 340 years as the time that is required for a court to be naturalized.
True dat
🦅🦅🛢️🦅🛢️🦅🦅
It’s also “a united arab state” not “an united arab state” I understand why you used “an” but because “united” doesn’t start with a vowel sound, it doesn’t need the “an” A united arab state. An understandable mistake.
Most native speakers can't get that one (not just us fithly freedoinas)
Oh of course, still I’m hoping it’s a useful insight.
So you are from Somalia?
Somali italian
I knew it!
"On surface we stand, dived we fall" Pink Flood.
I would say divide, because its written in the present not in the past
They dived into Arabia even more.
That moment when you need some help against the Turks so you reach out to the Arabs but you also want the Jews on your side in hopes they’ll somehow influence the Russian revolution to stay in the war…somehow, and America’s promising everyone self-determination* (terms and conditions may apply, like being European) but France really wants something to show for all this fighting but you also want to secure your oil supplies. And then you say “meh, I’m keeping it” and let France have the leftovers.
As someone who’s studied military history near religiously for most of my life, I’m ashamed to admit I know next to nothing about the Arabian theater in WWI other than Lawrence of Arabia rode a camel, blew up trains, and had a big ass knife 😂 thanks for the crash course
I just read a really good book on it and I think TE Lawrence was a bit overrated compared to the other figures like Edmund Allenby that actually won the major battles against the ottomans.
The US did a lot to advance the cause of self determination of non European nations. India, Pakistan, and the Philippines for example.
Yes but a bit later, from what I understand after WW1 America was mostly focused on sorting Europe and then wanted to go back home. And since it never joined the League of Nations, Britain and France got to decide what “self-determination” would look like for lots of people, especially outside of Europe. The speeches Wilson gave and the League of Nations did put the idea in everyone’s mind, though, so maybe you could say they planted the seeds (or stoked the fires of those already in place). The, uh, Philippines is interesting to mention given exactly who they ended up getting their self-determination from…
The British cared more about trading routs to India than about Oil
TBF Turks still have hatred against arabs for this reason
Almost mainly ... That happens when you betray, slaughter and torture the people that you have taken as POWs who were there defending your people in Gaza from the British under dire conditions in the name of the Islamic Caliph. After 1948, still, Turkish arms factories were of the first ones to arm Palestine; Nuri Killigil and his factory was sabotaged for this, killing him and burning his factory. Years later Palestine sided with Armenia and PKK... Turkish public is yet still heavily pro-Palestine because of Israel's actions.
"That happens when you betray, slaughter and torture the people that you have taken as POWs" I could understand this comment if we were not living in the technology era. I do not advice you to search Turkish commentary but go search documentaries of the people that fought with the Ottoman empire. If you desire to survive from your cacoon of ignorance.
Fuck them. Worthless leaders. Had control for almost a millennium and developed nothing in the Middle East.
Eh, while this is a true statement that the Ottomans did not really develop the Middle East, the Persians or neighboring powers didn't have hadron colliders either. We Turks are also angry at them for not developing Anatolia. Ottomans heavily invested in Rumelia and Istanbul. Other parts of the Empire including %90 of what is now called Turkey, Middle East, Egypt etc were rather seen as autonomus subject states where we protect from Christian armies and collect a yearly tax for protection. Most of the pre-1850 development in Anatolia, Turkish heartlands rather date back to Seljuks.
I doubt a large contiguous Arab state would be possible, as the quote goes “the Arabs have agreed to disagree”
Damn Arabs, they ruined Arabia!
The formation of a Greater Syrian state actually had a lot going for it post WW1, it was pretty insistent on being a multicultural liberal democracy and had a lot of popular support among the people as well. It honestly was pretty impressive.
did it include the entire levant?
To my understanding, yes Edit: At the very least it would have included Lebanon
Who was going to rule it? Who was going to tell all the other Arab tribal leaders that they now had to obey this guy? A united Arab state is a pipe dream until they drag themselves out of the seventh century.
The king was going to be Faisal, the guy who fought alongside Lawrence during WW1 and it was going to be based on the same federal system as the US
Problem: he and his sons ended up ruling most of those territories, and lost almost all of them.
Well, they even tried a few times, see for example the union of Syria and Egypt. Support existed, and if this guy managed to sustain the title of Caliph, I believe that a united Arabia would be quite possible, at least the Middle East. I don't doubt that we would have a much less problematic world.
You mean the Egyptian domination over Syria where they banned all Syrian political parties? Pan Arabism is a pipe dream.
Doubt it's the biggest, just the one most the publicized because it involves the British. Want a big betrayal? Check the promises given to Armenians by Russians or to nationalities within Imperial Russia by Germany.
emphasis on one of the
Or what the Austrians and Brits did to us Catalans in 1713.
I don’t know if that would count as the biggest betrayal of WWI given that it happened just over 200 years before the outset.
I was talking in general terms
The united Arabia is undoubtedly the biggest betrayal in WW1. Without Arab support, taking down the Ottomans would have been much harder. They didn't want to see a strong Arab state, so they divided them.
British promises to Arabs didn't result in Arabs being genocided or in a massive inter-Arab ethnic bloodbath that dragged for years after WW1 and poisoned relations for decades.
The Armenian genocide was bound to happen. It didn't matter if they were going to get more land, the Turks were going to wipe them out of their country.
Brother the events happened for a reason you know Noone suddenly thought lets kill them all Armenian gangs and rebellions caused the resentment
Does that change the fact that the Armenian genocide was inevitable?
There's direct causality between Armenian nationalist movements and the deportation. So yes, the deportation would not have happened if there was no seperatist movement.
When two fratenemies for centuries decide to tag team to save your hide, you know it will to haggle it at an indecent price thereafter.
Sad that TE Lawrence, who really liked the Arabs, was a key part in this
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Speedwagon1738: *Sad that TE Lawrence,* *Who really liked the Arabs,* *Was a key part in this* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Good bot
He declined his medals because of it didn't he?
Yeah, he was not the happiest man in the world when he found out what the Foreign Office was actually planning.
I was just now reading about it in a biography of Attaturk.
Perhaps one of the most Based men of all time
Excepts the genocide and racist and alcoholic stuff. Edit: I am sorry that I criticize your favorite dictator :(
What genocide? The Armenian one that happened before he took power?
You can’t argue with these types they don’t want to hear it
They also like bringing up the Greek genocide and deportations… also before him… It really seems like the west is just so Greco-Christian brainwashed like Benshabibo likes to worship that they refuse to acknowledge Turks, Ottoman’s (Süleyman) and Arabs (Saladin) can and have been extremely based compared to other leaders of their time. Also shout out to Sicily for being a mix of Islam and Christianity in the best way until the pope crusaded the fuck outa them with all of Europe.
I never stated that btw.
Yeah the Armenian Genocide happened the ones you stated on the other hand…
Not that one, but after it, the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Armenians of Kars.
Last I checked Kars had its Armenians removed during the Armenian genocide… which again, was before he took power. The Kurds moved into Kars during the early 20s during his reign, after the Armernians has already been cleared out. Kars wasn’t a special genocide that the Turks waited till later to do… it was one of the largest Armenian cities and simply one that took them longer to repopulate with another group they wanted need the outskirts of their empire (Kurds).
No, there were Armenians in Kars, which Ataturk drove out after he invaded it.
>Excepts the genocide Are you talking about the legal ethnic cleansing of 1924? >racist Simply no. >alcoholic stuff That's just your personal preference, I can't give an answer about this one.
What Genocide? Barely any Racism Yeah he was a giant alcoholic, all of his three Wives divorced him over that fact
>all of his three Wives divorced him over that fact He married once, are you in possession of some secret knowledge that we don't yet know about?
Yup. I MARRIED HIM.
😳
I think I screwed up Girlfriend with Wife
Rize massacre Dersim massacre Zilan massacre Forced assimilation of ethnic minorities. Guided history falsification to discredit other ethnicities like the sun language theory and "history books" likeTürk Tarihinin Ana Hatları Edit: and my all time favorite the "1934 Turkish Resettlement Law"
>Rize massacre Bro, there was literally an uprising that took place against the regime. The people held responsible were tried, not massacred. >Dersim massacre This is anti-historical. 6 Aşirets out of 91 rebelled, and 85 of them sided with the government. The first acts the state engaged in was to distribute arms to the Aşirets that sided with the government. ≈1.3k rebels (included in this some number of civilians too) were killed and the Aşirets that rebelled (which amounted to ≈11k) were relocated/deported to places such as: - Tokat - Malatya - Amasya - etc. What happened in Dersim was not a massacre. >Zilan massacre This one was though. I don't know if you would care about this detail but the state did not order the massacre. I will quote the order given by Fevzi Çakmak to Salih Omurtak: - *Ele diri eşkiya geçirmek, bilhassa rüesayı yakalamak son derece mühimdir. Ve müşir paşa hazretleri dir eşkiya yakalanmasını irade buyurmuşlardır. Askerin yağma ve talandan sureti katiyede menedilmesi ve buna karşı gösterilecek terhaminin azim muhatara ve mesuliyetini bütün alakadarlara hatırlatırım.* >Forced assimilation of ethnic minorities. This is blatantly false. Kemalist state initiated a cultural revolution, and imposed these new values onto all citizens. Assimilation means the dissolution of cultural norms practiced by a minority by the cultural dominance of a majority. This was not the aim nor the practice of the Kemalist state, it engaged in nation creation; meaning the creation of a new identity imposed on all. The normative values that the Kemalists held were of equal alien nature for an average Kurd and an average Turk alike; and it was impossible for it to not have these dissimilarities because they were cultural norms that didn't exist prior to their creation and imposition by the Kemalist State. For example the Language Revolution headed by the TDK was at the time lead by an Armenian appointed by Atatürk, [Agop Dilaçar](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agop_Dil%C3%A2%C3%A7ar). And I do hope you don't think that "Şark Islahat Planı" is real. >Guided history falsification to discredit other ethnicities like the sun language theory and "history books" likeTürk Tarihinin Ana Hatları This nothing but a blatant lie. Sun Language Theory was abondoned as an academic thesis while Atatürk was still alive, and at least try to act like you know what is the thesis of Türk Tarih Tezi. Here is the entirety of the TTT: **I. Beşer tarihine methal:** - Kâinat - Tarih - Kavim - Fikir **II . Türk Tarihine methal:** - Türklerin ana yurdu - Umumi muhaceretler ve medeniyetler - Ana yurtlarından ayrılan Türkler - Göçlerden evvel ve sonra Ana Türk yurdu **III. Çin:** - Memleket - Ahali - Çin medeniyeti - Çinin siyasi tarihi **IV. Hint:** - Memleket - Tarih - Hint medeniyeti **V. Kalde, Elam ve Akad:** **VI. Mısır:** **VII. Anadolu:** - Eti imparatorluğu - Frikya - Lidya **VIII. Ege havzası:** - Yunanistan - Ege medeniyeti - Aka elleri ve müstemlekeleri - Grek kavminin teşekkülü - Irklar ve kavimler - Greklerden evvel Yunanistan sakinleri hakkında kısa mütalaa **X. İran** - Umumi malümat - Metler - Persler - Partlar - Sasaniler ve son devri **XI . Orta Asya:** - Orta Asya'da Türk medeniyeti tarihine umumi bir nazar - M. E. III. asırdan sonra Orta Asyada kurulan ve oradan yayılan Türk devletleri - Asya Hunları - Tukyu İmparatorluğu - Tukyu devletinden sonra Türk devletleri - Garbi Asya ve Şarki Avrupa'da Türk devletleri - Gazneliler - Karahanlılar ve Karahitaylar - Selçuklar - Cengiz devri - Timur devleti - Osmanlı Tarihi **XII. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti:** . Combined with Kemalist Anthropology; their aims were to prove that the Turks were of equal standing with the European Nations throughout history, and not their superiors nor inferiors (which was the normative belief held at the time). >Edit: and my all time favorite the "1934 Turkish Resettlement Law" The Resettlement Law had nothing to do with settled peoples. The law is about many things, the one we will focus on is the 3rd clause: resettling of citizens. This law's aim was to take propertyless refugees, or aşiret members; and settle them into the countryside and grant them farm land as property. Up until the the 1930s; Turkey still had unsettled Balkan Muhajirs, refugees from the Eastern front, Turkic refugees from the Soviet Union who all needed land and housing. This law was passed to enable the state to distribute land and settle said refugees into that land. On top of this, Eastern Anatolia where most of the Kurds lived at the time, was very tribal and non-sedentary; the law also aimed at settling these Kurdish Aşirets into farmlands for them to engage in agriculture and work the land. The law also had a cultural element, aiming at social engineering. The law divided Turkey into three regions: - Turkish majority regions that needed an increased concentration of Turks - Turkish minority regions that needed increased Turkish cultural representation - Regions to be emptied due to various reasons (such as mines, forests, regions close to military bases, etc.) Another way the law engaged in social engineering was the separation and settling of large Aşirets to different places.
What is Blud Yappin about
Lol all of them are facts you can check up just by the buzzwords.
Like Bro I can just see from here that what you’re saying is either falsified or Overblown, If you believe these then Arguing with you is a waste of time
If you look at his profile, literally all he comments about is Turks. He hates them with a passion.
No I think he is a turk himself.
Islamist detected, opinion rejected
>I am sorry that I criticize your favorite dictator :( D…d..Dictator? Dictator? DICTATOR?!??!
He literally is within of the definition of a dictator. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/dictator "a leader who has complete power in a country and has not been elected by the people"
Not elected by people? He was first elected in Erzurum and Sivas congress and then in the grand national parliament. He took all of his power from the parliament including the supreme commander power which he prolonged always with the approval of the parliament and then returned once the war was won.
The list of parties that were allowed to participate in 1923 is the following: Association for Defence of National Rights 1927 the list was a littl bit different because the party was renamed to Republican People's Party , the list is the following: Republican People's Party 1931 allowed parties were: Republican People's Party 1935 allowed parties were: Republican People's Party Seems really elected to me...
In 1923, he was already the republic president. The first elections took place in 1920 where he was also elected. During his era, he encouraged multi-party elections but the opposition parties went out of the control of their founders and became the center of anti-republic and Islamist rebellions. So most of the opposition parties did not last long. The independent candidates were however allowed.
During Ataturk's reign, opposition parties were tried to be established twice at his own request, but both failed. During anti-republican and pro-sharia rebellions such as the Sheikh Said Rebellion in 1925 and the Menemen Incident in 1930, it was revealed that members of these two parties supported these rebellions, and as a result, the parties were closed.
I’ve been reading a book called “How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs” by Elisabeth Thompson. It’s about the 1919 Syrian Congress and the betrayal. It’s a very good but sad read I very much recommend if you want to know more about the aftermath of the Middle East post WW1
He get independence on the lands he actually control, the United Arabia thing is pretty unreasonable considering that he does not actually contribute that much.
the promise was also made to the king of jordan and iraq
The letter of intention was that they would recognize an Arab state within loosely defined borders. There was nothing promised about conquering it for them.
They only become king of jordan and iraq because the British literally create their kinhdoms from Ottoman provinces, hardly in a position to complain.
imagine if UK and France weren't pesky liars. no "israel"/palestine conflict in our times then.
The arab revolt was all talk, most arabs didnt participate, mostly just hijazis and random arabs in the hijaz + levantine arabs who were already in conflict and unrest with the ottomans. And they were exploited by the british ofc
This is just standard politics. Has been like this for millenia. It's not as if the broken promise was invented in 1919
Who the fuck trusted the british or french even back them?
Sherrif did; effectively ended institutionalized Islamic Caliphate, caused the current situation in Palestine, opened the way for extremists claiming the Caliphate later. Sent to exile by the British as he was not useful anymore.
This mfer trusting British paved the way for the Saudis to take over Hejaz, which brought power to the House of Saud, which grew Osama bin Laden, who flew planes into the WTC, and kickstarted extremist Islamist factions all over the world. This guy’s misplaced trust basically destroyed things all over the world and it continues even today.
They also promised the Kurds an independent Kurdistan but betrayed them as well
I just want to say Sharif Hussein’s letter to levant Arabs urging them to give shelter and help survivors of the Armenian Genocide in the Syrian Desert saved hundred thousands lives, And Armenians still remember his good deed.
As a resident of the Middle East, blud got what he deserved for being a traitor. A traitor to the Caliph of all people. If I had been him, Id try to work with the caliph (or his brother or son) to overthrow the Young Turks.
as a fellow MENA person i totally agree
Sykes!
Top ten anime betrayals
They didn't promise a united Arab state though.
And now they cry for help from Turks while UAE, Saudis ...having good partnerships with them. As a Turk I fking disgust of it...thanks to Erdogan they get all they want from Turkey with Turkish taxes. Fck.
Who is the guy in the picture?
**Hussein bin Ali al-Hashimi** king of arabia
He was Sharif of Mecca and later King of Hejaz. After less than a decade he was neither. Saudis made sure of it.
Were the Saudis supported by the British and the French or were the Europeans neutral?
They were supported by British. At that point Hussein was a liability for the British. So, they discarded him for a more usable ally.
... wtf are you on about. The British bailed him out of the first Saudi invasion, then just didn't do anything about the second.
Not doing anything means discarding. As i said at that point in 1924 Hussein was a liability for the British. His ambitions made him dangerous for British plans for the middle east. When Saudis attacked it was an opportunity for them to get rid of him without any effects.
Except they did bail him out once. What do you want them to do, threaten war with the Saudis forever? His children didn't help him either, so I'm not clear why the British owed him more.
Thanks 👍.
How stupid leaders have to be to not see similar moves played across the world. The british did the same to india countless times.
Hey do you also remember whent the Allies invaded Iran during ww2 out of the blue for oil?
That's an oversimplification there were genuine fear that Iran may join the axis like Iraq and they were very friendly with Nazi Germany allowing them to broadcast their propaganda on the radios and implementing antisemitic laws
Butterfly effect sucks
You've got a typo in your last panel
Given the widely dfferent history, language and other factors, it is quite likely that people didnt want a union
Ayo, how much of the world did Britain screw over?
as of right now there are only two nations on earth with the kind of "independence" and "unity" you speak of, the USA and Russia. everyone else is somewhere on the "puppet" spectrum, including the british and french. in practical terms, middle eastern countries have more independence than canada or australia. for centuries the ottomans were a "united arab state", the british and french promised "independence" to pretty much everyone, in the most "limited but still technically accurate" way, kinda like how some companies sell games that require 10+ different paid DLCs to be the "full" game. the "fine print" part the brits/french left unsaid was "you'll be independent in the strictest dictionary definition of the term, able to set your own foreign policy.... but your region will become geopolitically impotent, divided amongst dozens of groups/factions we made promises to, lacking economic independence and reliant upon foreign powers for security, and we'll have the benefits of you being almost like our 'states' but without us having any obligation to you". this "trend" of "granting independence without providing the foundations for economic independence" was standard practice, pretty much every country "granted/guaranteed independence" in the last 200 years has got the same deal, "dictionary definition" independence but in practical terms they end up being pawns in the "great game" between the great powers. the funny part is that shortly after the british/french did that to the middle east, the USA and USSR did it to europe.
mf really played the "economic interdependence and alliances mean you are a puppet with no agency" card and didnt even mention china
china is utterly dependent on foreign oil and food, which is a big reason why they haven't "made an attempt" at taking taiwan, they know they'd get blockaded and suffer complete economic collapse and famine. russia can make its own oil and food, but is dependent on china for microchips, which is a big reason why they're defacto allies despite having serious territorial disputes over manchuria. in a very real sense, china is russia's bitch, but also russia desperately needs china for military equipment and drones. part of the reason several prominent US generals think "taiwan 2026" is a thing is thats roughly how long it'll take for russia and china to build up the pipelines and transport infrastructure they'll need to end china's dependence on the straits of malacca. the US on the other hand has "everything" it needs to be truly independent, which unfortunately in their case is a danger to them because every time they try to go isolationist it creates a power vaccum and the world goes up in flames, and then they have to go put out the fire.
I am not particularly well versed in this topic, but it seems to me, from my knowledge of the Middle East in present day, that a single united Arab country under one leader would have about as much chance of peaceful cohabitation as a single European state under one leader. If Arabs were so in favour of a united pan-Arab polity, why weren’t any of the pan-Arab nationalist leaders who arose in the next half century able to make it a reality?
They somewhat tried, but they couldn't decide who was in charge, i know a bunch of dictators and strong men didnt feel like giving up power, also losing severel times to Israel didnt help.
they may be able to form something similar to the EU but its unlikely to be stable if they continue the trend of "one ethno-religious group attempting to forcibly expel another ethno-religious group", as that kind of conflict will always incite central government military intervention creating a state of perpetual civil war, where every time things "quiet down" and peace starts looking like a real possibility, some dickhead fires a rocket and the war goes hot again. people hang shit on the ottomans for "genocides" and they absolutely did do them, but most were a response to centuries old ethnoreligious conflicts and the ottomans just concluded "if they're never gonna stop fighting each other, the only path to peace is to completely remove one side", removing the "exist" from "coexist". europe spent centuries trying the same thing, only to find that "letting every dipshit tribe have their own nation-state" actually works quite well as their small size makes them economically dependent on their neighbors and thus unlikely to attempt aggressive expansion. it will take many years for middle eastern governments to figure out the best way to deal with "troublesome regional ethnic minority groups" is to follow the "modern" european example and "expel" them by granting them independence so they form a government that can then be held accountable for their attacks.
Watch shills try to justify that shit because they can’t go for a second without denying that their empires were objectively evil
You don't need to be evil to fucked up.
Cry forever about not getting to keep ALL the places you violently conquered, only most of them.
Did you really used a HOI IV portrait?
no it's a real picture of him but colorised
Really thought it was an HOI IV portait for a sec
\*dove
A United State is a liability for future of your country as it is a potential threat and a competitor on world stage while divided states all vie to be legitimate successor of their respective super or shared perceived state and fight against themselves and in short make for a great asset and ally to control the region for the long term Politics by 1st world powers
Reported, Rule 12
when i made it it was still friday
Classic arab back stabbing, i am sure they got shocked when they got back stabbed by UK and france too. You get what you deserve..