A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

Rating:
Summary: Birth of a Total Mess - A Hard Read But Worth It
Review: A Peace to End All Peace - The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (New York: Henry Holt and Co. 1989) by David Fromkin is the story of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire after its defeat at the end of World War I, and the birth of the countries we now know as Iraq, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. Fromkin, a history professor at Boston University, focuses on the formative years of 1914 to 1922, when even an alliance between Arab nationalism and Zionism seemed possible.

The book can be divided into two parts: before WWI and after WWI. Before WWI, the Allied countries shared the lands of the Ottoman Empire. After WWI, the colonial powers of Britain, France, Russia and Greece came to remake the geography and politics of the Modern Middle East. There were deceptions and betrayals, as politicians tried to integrate the Middle East into their colonial empires. There were also politicians of the Middle East who were underestimated by the Great Powers, but in fact were quite adept at playing one Power off another.

The book begins with the Ottoman Empire ruling over Central Asia. Britain was in control of a third of the world, and the European countries were competing to colonize the rest. The recurring theme in this portion of the book is that the Allied powers, through a lack of understanding of the political dynamics and capabilities of the weak Ottoman Empire, made a series of mistakes that pushed the Turks into an alliance with the Central Powers. In 1914 British leaders mistakenly thought that Turkey was finished. The Allied powers began planning for the division of the Ottoman Empire. Soon after Czarist Russia requested Constantinople, the czarist system itself crumbled. The colonial powers carved up and divided the Ottoman Empire between themselves. The Arab domains of the old Ottoman Empire were partitioned between Britain and France, while England created Jordan out of desert wilderness.

The reader learns that the countries were created virtually by whim. Mark Sykes, representing the English, and Francois Georges Picot, representing the French, essentially drew arbitrary boundaries to form countries for their respective nations. Disparate people were flung together without regard to their different ethnic, social or religious differences, sowing the seeds of future conflicts. According to Fromkin, the colonial powers were playing the "Great Game," where nations and people were merely strategic pieces and the Ottoman Empire was the chessboard. The colonial powers set up puppet regimes, drawing boundaries and imposing rulers while ignoring the wishes of the people. The result was Arab hatred and distrust of the West that persists to this d\day.

Fromkin believes the West and the Middle East have misunderstood each other for most of the 20th century, for reasons that can be traced back to the initiatives of Lord Kitchener, War Minister, during the early years of WWI. Kitchener mistakenly believed that religion was everything in the Moslem world and that Mohammedanism was a centralized, authoritarian structure.
Kitchener and his colleagues believed that Islam could be bought, manipulated, or captured by buying, manipulating, or capturing its religious leadership. They were intrigued by the notion that whoever controlled the person of the Caliph-Mohammed's successor-controlled Islam. At that time, Britain ruled over half of the world's Moslems, and the thought of a revolt by all these Moslems was a recurring nightmare.

The book is told primarily from the British viewpoint, which is logical as England held and dealt most of the cards in the endless game of building and maintaining empires among the European powers of Britain, France, Italy and Greece. Always in the foreground was Britain's fear of losing its land link to India.

The principal characters in the book are Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Lord Kitchener of Khartoun, T.E. Lawrence, George Curzon and George Clemeceau. There are also assorted emirs and pashas. Of the three who get the most attention in the book (Churchill, George and Kitchener), Fromkin appears to consider Churchill the central character, but his reasons are not apparent. From the British perspective, it was actually Mark Sykes who was central to the events described in the first half of the book, and Lloyd George in those discussed in the second half. The book accurately describes colonial administrators who were inept and clueless about the countries and the people that were the subjects of their decisions.

The book is based primarily on secondary sources and memoirs published in English. Fromkin's forte is an eye for detail and irony, of which much is provided in colorful terms. We learn about T.E. Lawrence, a larger-than-life character dressed in flowing Arab robes who fought alongside the Arabs and whose voice of reason the bureaucrats back in England routinely ignored. We see the duplicity of the Arab leaders. The British placed its reliance on the "diplomacy" of one Lt. Muhammad Sharif al-Faruqi, who claimed to represent the Emir Hussein, Sharif of Mecca. The book emphasizes politics and politicians.

Fromkin's manner of organization results in confusing historical sequencing. Character traits are traced individually throughout the time period, which results in jumps in the narrative and then repetition of information, as Fromkin often has to go backward in order to go forward with the story. For example, the book is very instructive on the turmoil in southern Russia. When the Ottoman Empire was defeated, the victorious Western powers permitted the Soviet Union to reassert control over parts of Central Asia -- a discussion that may be historically fitting, but is only tangentially relevant to the main story.

I recommend the book to anyone who has a serious desire to understand Iraq and its neighbors today. But those with only casual interest may find that it takes too much patience to get through.

Rating:
Summary: A Dense History of a Critical Time in World History
Review: Of course I know the importance of the Middle East in our present times, but I had little idea that the era of its formation was also a critical time for the formation of the ENTIRE modern world. The same events which created the Modern Middle East also caused both World Wars, and hints at the eternal conflict in Bosnia and Yugoslavia as well. And yet, the world of 1914 is so utterly different from our modern times. The start of this book finds the Ottaman Empire "ruling" over Central Asia, Britian in control of 1/3rd of the globe, and European countries still on an Imperial drive to conquer the world as fast as they can. The US was hardly a superpower during these times, and Civil and Womens' Rights are just a glimmer in History's Eye.

The premere draw for this book is the author's use of de-classified materials, which can finally tell us what really happened in the region, and how European powers formed it. Beware, though, as this book is VERY dense with detail; so dense that I often take an hour to read a 5-6 page chapter. It has some flavors of a novel, but the book is certainly not an "easy read." If you soak in all the knowledge, names, locations, and dates of this volume, you will become a relative expert on the Middle East!

And yet, don't expect a complete understanding of the Modern Arab nations and the Islamic groups which reside in them. The Middle Eastern nations of the book's time period, 1914-1922, are about as different from their current condition and conflicts as the Civil War United States is from our modern country. The major wars between Israel and the Arab nations, or the importance of oil in the region, would not come into play for at least another 25 years, and you would need to read yet another book to understand the history of places like Saudi Arabia or Israel. Separate still is the roots of religious conflict in the Middle East and Southeastern Europe, which dates back thousands of years. Still, this book points to the true origins of the region as we know it today, and is critical for understanding modern Israel and its conflict with its neighbors. A recommended read for anyone with the patience to sift through it.

Rating:
Summary: Not much change in just a century...
Review: This book is very entertaining to read, spanning a period of eight crucial years for the Middle East but mainly focused on the tug-of-war between the various factions inside the government of the then dominant power, Britain. Readers who thought that the nation who ran the biggest empire the world has ever seen had a plan for its policy regarding the fate of the Ottoman Empire will be in for a surprise.

There were in fact several factions within the then government of Britain driven by their respective narrower interests and prejudices and no overall policy at all. Sounding familiar? As a gesture towards an ally in distress Britain then discards its century-old policy of sustaining the Ottoman Empire but soon finds itself quarreling with all allies about their share of the pie.

The locals try to get most out of all the players and are not willing to play by anybody else's rules. The new government wants to cut out all the allies to get all for Britain. A lot of amateurs think they are experts and confuse everybody and in the end there is a war after the war with everyone for himself and all against Britain.

Now if this book were not written in 1989 I would suspect that the author really wants to make a point about US policy towards Iraq following the wars of 1991 and 2003. Alas and unfortunately it is not a case of prescience either but the sad fact that in the area of the world known as the Middle East things do not change so much in just a century.

While the book makes a gripping read it also has several weaknesses. For instance it is very much focused on the people involved, constantly introducing new characters and telling bits and pieces about their biography and then suddenly losing them. Mark Sykes becomes a center of attention, gets lost and then we learn that he died of flu in 1919. With others it is just assumed that the reader knows their biographies anyway. Maybe a warning on the cover "Read Churchill first" would be called for.

Considering that there is quite an emphasis on German policy towards its ally Turkey we never learn anything about this policy. The same could be said for France. The policy of the Young Turks also is just used as a background for actions taken by some British second-rate-officials but never explained.

Overall his is a very interesting and entertaining book, but not a really great one.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Journalistic Summary of the "Settlement of 1922"
Review: A Peace to End All Peace covers the events leading up to what Fromkin calls the "Settlement of 1922," when the political boundaries and institutions that were to predominate in the Middle East for most of the next century took shape. The book details the many factors involved, such as the rise of Zionism, the exaggerated sense of importance to the war effort of both Jews and Arabs that predominated in Europe, and the personal ambitions of the many actors on the stage, from Winston Churchill to Sherif Hussein, that led to these fateful outcomes.

Fromkin argues in this book that the modern Middle East was created in large part by the actions of a few European countries during the crucial years of 1914 to 1922. Although the book's account ends in 1922 and Fromkin does not even mention the current problems in the Middle East, the implication is that the establishment of arbitrary boundaries for Arab states, the creation of the state of Israel, and the aggravation of hostile sentiments that resulted from cynical political maneuvers on the part of European states to a great degree precipitated the current crises. Indeed, the book jacket declares that "Fromkin shows how the choices narrowed and the Middle East began along a road that led to the endless wars and the escalating acts of terrorism that continue to this day."

The main text of A Peace to End All Peace is over 500 pages long, dealing in painstaking detail with the events that led up to the treaties that ended the First World War. It is in some senses a work of journalism, offering a sort of objective play-by-play of events without a great deal of analysis. The benefit of this approach is that the author's biases do not often come through, and the reader is left to draw his or her own conclusions regarding the causes of events. The drawback is that the reader cannot easily draw any general inferences which are necessary for understanding the topic as a whole. In addition, by concentrating so much on details to the exclusion of general trends, Fromkin does not always make it clear whether a certain event was merely the result of a series of accidents, or whether it was bound to occur in any case. Again, this is partly a result of his predilection for a character-driven narrative.

The narrative is very well-written, engaging and easy to follow. It is accessible, not assuming a great deal of familiarity of the subject material (the maps at the beginning of the book are invaluable), and logically organized, following events chronologically within a larger thematic structure. Particularly helpful is the way Fromkin will parenthetically re-introduce a person that we have met earlier, rather than expecting the reader to remember the dozens of characters that weave in and out of the narrative. The characters are given depth and motivation, without erring into presumptive amateur psychoanalysis or pseudo-historical "reconstructed" dialogue.

Events are related primarily from the British (and particularly Churchill's) perspective, which is somewhat puzzling given the fact that most of the important events actually occurred in the Middle East, and that the roles in these events of Russia and France were nearly as important as Britain's. The book is well-researched and copiously documented, relying on a balance of primary and secondary sources, but most of the these are British in origin and outlook. As mentioned earlier, the book also relies strongly on accounts of the actions and beliefs of certain key individuals (again, mostly British), as opposed to broader movements.

As there is little analysis in the book, there is not much room for controversy. Occasionally Fromkin will mention alternative versions of events, but the variances are generally tangential to the main narrative. He is painstakingly objective for the most part (although one can sense some sympathy in his viewpoint for the objectives of Zionism). I suspect that this book will hold up well over time, in part because Fromkin focuses so closely on the individuals in the story whose experiences resonate universally, rather than adopting a broader outlook that would reveal more of the prejudices of our time.

This is overall an excellent book, and certainly invaluable for understanding current events in the Middle East. Upon finishing it, one is left wishing for a broader account of the background of some of the movements and forces that are presented fully formed in Fromkin's narrative, but that is as much an endorsement as a criticism: A 500 page book that leaves one wanting more is a rarity.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent perspective on this period- Highly recommended!
Review: For those that are interested in the events surrounding WWI and its aftermath, this book is an incredible resource for gaining a wider understanding the events that led to the sometimes coincidental developments that continue to have repurcussions today. Particulary interesting is the developments leading up to the Sykes-Picot agreement that pretty much arbitrarily divided up the Middle East between France and Britain; the Balfour Declaration and the conflicting ideas many leaders at the world stage at that time had about their intentions therein; placement of the different regimes in artificially created states in the Middle East; and the often conflicting views and actions of officials on the ground and politicians back home, most of whom did not have an accurate grasp of the real situation.

Particularly interesting is the section on Iraq, where some note the difficulties of forcing together a country of Shiis, Sunnis and Kurds, and to be ruled by a Christian, hasn't anyone in a decision making position today read their history?! I recommend this book to leaders dealing today with the Middle East.

Also very impressive is the strength of Mustapha Kemal and the Turks in saving their country from total occupation, an endless array of fights going on for many years, while at the same time fighting internally with the small groups loyal to the corrupt, west-loving sultan. His accomplishment, when viewed within the wider context of how hopeless their situation seemed at the outset, their success in creating a new country out of the remains of a partitioned, ruined, exhausted empire is incredibly impressive, he is a rare leader in world history who has accomplished true greatness, and the Turks are right in revering him so.

Overall, though the details can get to be so many that one can lose focus of the main events (they are very interesting nonetheless), this is an excellent source for understanding the interaction between the Allies during a very turbulent period, and many mistaken beliefs that led to wrong policies, repurcussions of which are still held today. It's a fascinating read given the current situation in Iraq, Israel and Palestine today. Fromkin has researched the period thoroughly, refutes commonly held beliefs about the period, and leaves the reader with a sense of awe at the fascinating interactions between the various actors on the stage. I would recommend it to those who have some basic knowledge of the period, this is not a textbook of learning the basics, but an excellent source of enriching one's knowledge that helps to understand similar intricacies in international relations that go on today.

Rating:
Summary: An Illuminating piece of work
Review: Fromkin's work draws from a wide variety of sources, approaching the issues from different perspectives. It clearly exhibits the fact that, on the contrary to the ex-post official histories, the policies for greater Middle East had developed almost haphazardly. Much of his comments regarding T.E. Lawrance refers to Desmond Stewart's biography of the latter, thus should be taken with some reservation. An absolute must for individuals interested in comtemporary world politics.

Rating:
Summary: Propaganda disguised as "fair and balanced"
Review: Fromkin doesn't like Arabs. He tries to hide this behind poses that are just as phony as those he accuses T.E. Lawrence of assuming. But the simple truth is he just doesn't like Arabs. At this point in our history he'll find many people who share his point of view. But the fact that this book is a successful piece of propaganda does not make it a good piece of history. By the way, his research is very shallow. Look at his footnotes concerning Lawrence. Virtually every reference is taken from Desmond Stewart's highly controversial and very discredited 1978 biography. Fromkin evidently did no original research of his own or even consulted seriously any of the dozens of Lawrence biographies that give a very different picture of Lawrence than that painted by Stewart. Fromkin found the version of Lawrence that confirmed his prejudices and supported his agenda and used that exclusively. I would hope the American publishing world would see now how important a real balanced view of Middle East history is and commission a truly well researched and fair version soon. That a transparently slanted book like Fromkin's is quoted so often as the last word in this area is very disturbing.

Rating:
Summary: Bias hidden but extreme
Review: When you title your work as Fromkin does there must be a moral and a villain.This presents a problem for the author because historians who wish to be taken seriously can't wear their prejudices on their sleeves.To solve this problem Fromkin presents his story as a long, confusing trek through the minds of various British bureaucrats and politicians.As the reader's critical facilities are weakened by this ruse and swamped by spates of poorly assimilated details, Fromkin introduces his biases and his significant omissions are not missed.

Fromkin affects sympathy for all of the groups involved, be they Turks, Kurds, Russians,Greeks, French, Italians,Muslims or even most of the supposedly muddled British.Nearly all of their excesses and errors are chalked up to factors of existential necessity and historical inevitability.It is only the actions of the British Arab Bureau and their Arab allies whose mistakes are made to seem unnecessary and avoidable.

A great deal of unecessary dust is thrown in the air regarding al Faruki's intrigue and presented as if it is a Fromkin scoop.The promises to the Arabs are made to seem extremely complex and byzantine, but significantly, although the documents in question are relatively brief and could have been presented as an appendix, they are not included or even quoted accurately.The Wilsonian/Internationalist aspects of the Peace Conference and the League are largely ignored.The King-Crane Commission is dismissed in one brief paragraph.The timeline of who entered Damascus and when is deliberately confused by a resolutely blinkered and backtracking presentation.The capture of the rest of Syria and beyond by the Arabs is not dealt with at all.The obvious "divide and rule" explanation of why Sir Herbert Samuel and Norman Bentwich chose Hajj Amin al-Husseini as "Grand" Mufti of Jerusalem is ignored, and instead a Kedouri conspiracy theory is repeated which blames a junior British bureaucrat who is derogated as "violently opposed to Zionism".

Far from exposing T E Lawrence's lies, Fromkin simply smooths over the layer of lies about Lawrence left many decades ago by Aldington, Meinertzhagen, the French and the Zionists.There is no doubt that Lawrence lied.He lied to the Arabs on the British behalf and he lied to the British on the Arabs' behalf.He lied out of vainglory and he lied out of modesty.He lied to protect himself, but he did not lie to hurt his enemies.He hurt his enemies with the truth.T E Lawrence is one of the most extensively researched biographical subjects there is.His most recent and authoritative biography by Wilson inludes a great deal of information which was released after Fromkin's work.This information actually confirms some of the stories about Lawrence which even his adherents entertained doubts about, such as his secret expeditions to keep the lid on the Revolt leaders in Syria.At any rate, there are far better sources for exposing the truth about Lawrence and the Arab Revolt than Fromkin.

The wealth and variety of end notes and the breadth of the bibliography create an impression of the author as a conscientious historian.But whenever you come to a passage which presents the Arab cause in a bad light you will find one the same 3 sources: Bernard Lewis, Elie Kedouri and Howard Sachar.Each of these men have done valuable research, but they share the same mission; to rewrite the history of the Middle East in a way which provides a place and a rationale for Israel.His other favorite source is Martin Gilbert, also an ardent Zionist, but more notably the high priest of the Churchill cult.

This book is not a product of original research so much as it is an example of a younger establishment historian critically reexamining the work of his predecessors and mentors.If Fromkin had been more honest about his point of view he could have created a far more original and readable work.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent...An Insightful Look into the Modern Middle East.
Review: "A Peace to End All Peace" is a must read for anyone trying to understand the complexities of the modern Middle East from the turbulent perpetual violence, religious and tribal factions, various ideologies and cultural divide. Initially, I wanted to read this book to learn about the history of the Ottoman Empire, but I learned how Allied forces reshaped the geographical as well as the political landscape of this ancient area of the world. This book provides a detailed history of the so-called "development" of the Middle East beginning in 1914. By 1922 France and Russia as well as Britain had drawn dividing lines separating frontiers, established states and appointed leaders of their own choosing to govern. Today the Middle East is still conflicted from this inherited time.

By 1914 a quarter of the globe was under the British Empire's (King George V) control while a sixth was held under the Russian Empire (Tsar Nicholas II). The western hemisphere fell to the United States (President Wilson). After the European nations had divided the continent of Africa, it was looking for a new frontier to conquer and the only one remaining (other than Asia) fell to the Ottoman Empire. In the mists of World War I the Ottoman Empire led by a Sultan and the Young Turks Party aligned itself with the German Empire against the Allied Forces of Britain, Russia, France, Italy and eventually the United States. Ultimate defeat of the Germans led to the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by the Allied Forces with Britain imposing its imperialist designs over all.

Britain especially believed that the people of this area not only wanted, but needed to be governed by them. They would become Protectorates of Britain. Their occupation had destroyed the indigenous political structure. Instead Britain proposed a leadership under European design such as the use of Kings. However, the annexation of the Middle East brought forth a foe that European leaders could not foresee or comprehended. Islam. The hold Islam had over Arabic and Turkish speaking people was beyond measure. Uprisings were quelled by European armored vehicles and airplanes. Forces unknown to dessert people who still fought hand-to-hand combat and traveled by horse or camel.

Winston Churchill who understood that modern war toys required oil to function was the first to realize the importance of this region for its valuable oil reserves. Now, this region was more important than ever.

Colonialist Britain faced many revolts for independence in the Middle East starting with Egypt in 1918, Afghanistan in 1919, Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Eastern Palestine (Transjordan), Mesopotamia (Iraq), and Persia (Iran) in 1920.

This book also addresses the ideology behind Zionism and Palestine.

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: "A Peace to End All Peace" is a book to end all books on the middle east.

The book studies the formation of the modern middle east-and the crumbling of the former Ottoman Empire-from the period 1914-1922. At the onset of this time, Britain ruled the world, the Czar ran Russia, and the US was just an up and comer. At the end of this period, Britain's imperial ambitions were waning, Russia was now the Soviet Union, and the US had demonstrated its power through its presence in WW I.

Through the careful research and well thought-out text, the reader can see how the modern day nations of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey were formed. You can see also see how their modern day troubles were created. It's all here: the beginning of Jewish-Arab troubles in Palestine, the shaky start to Iraq, the careless partioning of Lebanon and so on.

Many thing impressed me about this book but perhaps none more than the role that bad intelligence played in the formation of Britain's foreign policy. I know: it's unbelievably relevant in the world of 2004 also! However, Britain made a number of decisions throughout World WAr I and after based on information and analyses that were simply untrue. While much has changed since then in terms of the transmitting of information, still the problems of the gathering of critical intelligence one-to-one remains.

I would recommend this book to just about anyone who cares (or who should care) about Middle East politics. Before you voice your next opinion on American intervention in Iraq, you might want to read this book to sharpen your insights and arguments.