ANARCHY - Fall of The Ottoman Empire
ANARCHY - Fall of The Ottoman Empire
ANARCHY - Fall of The Ottoman Empire
In ancient times, the region through which the heavenly twin tears of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers
flowed through, was known as Mesopotamia – The Land of the Two Rivers.
It was in Mesopotamia that the knowledge of literacy and numeracy were first documented. The cradle
of great civilizations, once inhabited by the Sumerians, ruled by the Akkadians, embraced by the
Assyrians and embellished by the Babylonians.
Many Biblical figures are reportedly from Mesopotamia. Prophets, Poets and powerful Patriarchs
commemorated their greatness in this land, amongst its legendary rulers were the likes of Sargon of
Akkad, Nimrod, Nebuchadnezzar, Hammurabi, Cyrus and Alexander the Great. Mesopotamia was also
the historic home of biblical cities such as Uruk, Ur, Nineveh and Babylon.
The inquisitive mind will undoubtedly seek to find out why Mesopotamia was re-named at the turn of the
twentieth century and what the motivating factors were for such machinations. In an endeavour to satisfy
such intellectual enquiries, one must first conduct a survey of the existing conditions in Mesopotamia at
the turn of the twentieth century.
THE MODERN MIDDLE EAST
Although there are no reliable resources officially enumerating the population of the Middle East at the
turn of the nineteenth century, historians have estimated that the total population was close to thirty five
million inhabitants with twenty four million living under direct Ottoman rule.
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Middle East was relatively underpopulated
in comparison to modern standards. The population was heavily suppressed by territorial conflicts and
wars that frequented the region in addition to great famines caused by droughts and the dreadful
plagues that extinguished hundreds of thousands of lives.
Today the Middle East is comprised of five main communities; the Turkic people of Turkey, the Shias in
Persia (now modern day Iran), Zionists Jews in Israel, The Kurds and the predominantly Sunni Arabs of
the Hijaz. Although most of the aforementioned religious communities residing in the modern Middle
East all subscribe to the basic tenets of the Abrahamic Creed, their divergent and conflicting ambitions
have resulted in a sequential series of wars, conquests and mutual transgression aided and abetted by
foreign agencies and nations.
Every story has its heroes and its villains, the victims and their oppressors. Yet in the Middle Eastern
arena, such dramatic terminology can seldom be evoked without infringing into political intrigue.
However, if we were pressed to describe the collective state of affairs and events that define the current
state of the Middle East – then ‘Tragedy’ or ‘Catastrophe’ would be somewhat benevolent if not even
charitable – considering the historical background and context that shall be presented to you in this
document.
In fact a more germane portrayal of the duplicitous designs that continue to deter the peace process in
the Middle East would be more appropriately surmised with a single word - Anarchy.
The Russian takeover of the Crimea was a deep wound to Ottoman morale as it was one of the
only occasions in history that they had lost governance of a Muslim population to a Christian
power, a reality that not only disturbed them but also sent waves of terror throughout the Muslim
inhabitants of the vanquished region, with several critics questioning whether or not the Ottoman
Empire was still capable of protecting its own subjects. Such doubts not only inspired fear amongst
citizens but it also emboldened critics of the Ottoman Empire to challenge the legitimacy of
Ottoman leadership now that the historic supremacy of Muslim might over Christian adversaries
had been shattered. Could it be said that the Ottomans had been punished by God for their
decadence and deviance from Islam? If so, was it not time to change the leadership once and for
all?
The Arab tribal leaders who had been permitted by the Ottoman Sultan Caliph to govern their
native regions as vassal states, had a particular grievance deeply rooted in a sense of alienation
that would for a long time be subdued, however the gradual weakening of the Ottoman Empire
only incensed and encouraged such Arab chiefs to formulate their own ambitious plans to one day
reclaim leadership of the Muslim world, though such ambition would be best concealed for now.
The ‘Eastern Question’ as it were, came to express European uncertainty and fears about the
state of the continent once the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. Britain, France, Russia and
the Austro-Hungarian Empire all stood to gain much in what could be expected to be an epic
land-grab, resulting in long and expensive wars between competing European forces.
Russia in particular, stood to gain a tremendous amount of new territory and resources from
the decline of the Ottoman Empire, as this would create a power vacuum in the region which
could enable the Tsar to seize strategic positions in the Black Sea and the Dardanelles
leading out to the Mediterranean and onto the European continent.
For the Russians, there was also the added incentive in its deeply rooted religious sentiments
towards reclaiming Constantinople which had once been the heartland of the Eastern
Orthodox Church and the former seat of the Byzantine Empire.
However, the other Western European empires who valued their existing investments on the
continent and were vigilant of regional instability, could simply not allow Russia to have her
way and jeopardize their investments. In safeguarding the integrity of the Ottoman Empire the
Western powers were preserving peace on the continent and almost using the Ottoman realm
as a territorial buffer between their domains and the Russian menace.
TOTAL TURKIFICATION
Now invested with more political influence and with the safeguard of military support, the Young
Turks began to effect change within the sultan’s administrative office. The group began by
replacing Arab bureaucrats with Turkish officers situated in key Arab provinces, thereby
strengthening the Ottoman Empire’s administrative control over their Arab subjects. The Young
Turks sought to reinforce a climate of Turkish dominance and supremacy by imposing the
Turkish language in key educational establishments in order to promote and cement a more
Turko-centric identity in society at large, but more so among the elite classes.
This Turkification policy was not entirely successful as the Young Turk’s ultra-nationalism
alienated their Arabs subjects who were seemingly provoked to form a resistance in the
Levantine and Mesopotamian regions where the Arab population felt neglected and began to
foster their own counter-movements for Arab Nationalism which had given rise to secret Arab
societies such as the Jam’iyat al-’Arabiya al-Fatat (‘the Young Arab Society’) and the Al-Ahd
Society (‘The Covenant Society’).
These groups were actively advocating for localized administration and autonomy, although it
must be noted that they were not calling for complete separation from central Ottoman rule as
the Turks were considered legitimate Muslim rulers by the overwhelming majority of their non-
Turkish subjects who resided from as far away as Eritrea right up to the Caucuses outposts.
Yet of all the non-Turkish groups who felt somewhat marginalized by the growing influence of the
Turkification reforms, it was the Arabs in the Hijaz region that felt more ostracized given their
historic place in Islam and the sanctity of Makkah and Madinah.
The al-Saud clan and the Hashemite tribes in particular would soon emerge as key protagonists
and contestants to Ottoman leadership.
THE AFTERMATH
However, ultimately speaking the counter-revolutionary uprising, despite its momentous and
critical role in Ottoman history - proved to be a complete failure. The constitution was restored for
the third time and Sultan Abdulhamid II was finally deposed on April 27th 1909, when four
emissaries of the Committee of Unity and Progress (Young Turks) were sent to the Sultan with the
following message:
‘The nation has deposed you’.
News of this, spread throughout the empire and provoked further consternation amongst Muslim
loyalists when it was revealed that in a calculated and deliberate political gesture - the Young
Turks sent an Armenian, a Jew and two Albanians to deliver this crushing message to the Turkish
Muslim Sultan.
Sultan Abdulhamid II was deposed to Salonica a day before being replaced by his brother Sultan
Mehmed Reshad V, on April 28th 1909.
Sultan Abdulhamid II later returned to Istanbul in 1912 following the Greek conquest of Salonica.
However he would spend the rest of his days confined to studies, carpentering and writing his
memoirs while held captive at the Beylerbeyi Palace. The Sultan eventually died on 10th of
February 1918. He was laid to rest in Istanbul.
THE CAPITULATIONS
The Ottoman Empire’s lack of technological and economic reforms in an age where its
neighbouring Christian nations were organizing and developing their industries at great speed did
not equip it to stand on its own in a new world of emerging alliances and super powers.
The French and British took advantage of the waning Ottoman economy by offering loans which
they would securitize by means of impositions and dictates that the Ottoman administration had to
abide by.
These external mandates came to be known as the ‘capitulations’ largely enabling French and
British citizens to do as they pleased without being subject to Ottoman laws. Under such foreign
mandates, European merchants were also able to set up banks, post offices, and commercial
houses on Turkish soil while being totally exempt from paying tax to the Ottoman administration,
this inevitably resulted in an unfair competitive advantage over local merchants and tax payers.
These capitulations led to the emergence of a privileged few who were almost immune and
exempt from local Ottoman jurisdiction. They were considered protégés of a foreign power and
were particularly useful as pawns in diplomatic intrigue.
At the time, the European powers were in control of eighty five percent of the world’s territory. The
Turks were truly alone and were soon coming to the realization that they might need a reliable ally
in order to survive this most hostile terrain – Britain and France were out of the question given their
very deliberate efforts to cripple the Ottomans with their ‘Capitulation’ clauses and other covert
sabotage efforts.
The Russians responded with an offer to overlook the damage caused by the Ottoman battleships
if they would agree to pay a settlement, not anticipating that the Ottomans would participate in the
Great War – in fact the Ottomans had even received peace proposals from the Russians in return
for Ottoman neutrality in the war. These Russian promises were far from honest as they had
planned on seizing Ottoman territory once the war was over, it was little more than a diversion
strategy to buy time and ensure that access to the Dardanelles remained clear until the war was
over and the Ottomans eliminated.
Although the Ottomans had joined the war effort, they did not expect it to last very long and their
main objective was to guarantee continued German protection and insulation from the British,
French and Russian threats. The Allied forces also entertained a similar belief in thinking that the
war would be brief and destruction of the Ottomans almost effortless. Both sides were
catastrophically mistaken as they had inadvertently ignited one of the greatest wars ever in history.
The Ottoman Empire’s participation in World War I was of tremendous historical importance as it
was the catalyst to many of the Muslim world’s current problems. A study of the Great War is
essential when seeking to comprehend the cause of today’s modern Middle Eastern realities –
from the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of the Modern Turkish republic to the
ongoing wars between Israel and its Arab neighbours and the French appointment of the Alawite
rulers in Syria.
The outcome of the Great War birthed a new order of catastrophes and conflict in places such as
Iraq and Lebanon. Causing territorial and political disputes that were initiated or intensified by the
newly created Arab dominions under Western controls. The plight of Kurdish and Armenian
communities was also exasperated once the Ottomans were defeated on the battlefield.
GERMAN PROPAGANDA
In fact, it could almost be stated that German intellectuals were the architects of a master scheme
to propagate the call for Jihad against the Western Allied Forces during the Great War. Military
strategists in Berlin as well as Academics, Diplomats and high ranking German officials saw this as
their most effective and immediate strategy against France and Britain. The religious authority of
the Ottoman Grand Mufti combined with the deteriorating state of the Ottoman Empire proved to
be a potent mix that could become explosive given the right timing and execution. The Germans
had hoped to incite gross mutiny and mass uprisings across the vast Muslim realm under French
and British administration.
German emissaries accompanied their Ottoman counterparts in order to travel across Arabia,
Africa and Asia to fuel the flames of revolution by printing and distributing pamphlets and books
propagating Jihad, its virtues and the rewards for those who died as Martyrs. These German
agents and emissaries received their instructed from a manuscript written by a German Lawyer,
Historian, Archaeologist and Diplomat by the name of Max Von Oppenheim. The book was called
“Memorandum concerning the fomenting of revolutions in the Islamic territories of our enemies”
As part of this calculated and well-orchestrated strategy, the Germans even turned their attention
to prisoner camps - most notably the Half-Moon camp situated on the outskirts of Berlin, where
Muslim prisoners who had been captured by the Germans during battles against France and
Britain were being programmed to wage Jihad against their colonial masters. Upon completing the
Jihad orientation program, these recruits would be liberated and sent as far off as Afghanistan to
carry out military missions. The Germans had even built a wooden mosque at the centre of this
camp to demonstrate their supposed affinity with the Muslim cause.
As information was revealed concerning the German Jihad initiative, the French and British were
absolutely terrified by the prospect of a full blown Jihadi insurrection reaching their Muslim
territories in Egypt, Algeria and India, to name but a few.
“When I contemplate all that Russia has done for centuries to bring about
our destruction and all that Britain has done in these last few years, then I
consider the new crisis which has emerged to be a blessing. I believe it is
the Turk’s ultimate duty, either to live like an honourable nation or to
exit the stage of history gloriously”.
- Jamal Pasha, November 2nd 1914
When contemporary generations look back to the first world war, it is reasonable that one would
question the motives that animated the Ottomans to even participate in such a destructive conflict
while its own internal affairs were in disarray and the economic situation was fast deteriorating.
Why would the Turks join in what was clearly a European all-out war? Surely this would be the
opportunity to take advantage of the chaos between the Empire’s closest adversaries? Why didn’t
the Ottoman Empire remain neutral during the Great War? What could they have lost by not
participating and what was so important that they had to get involved at all?
In actuality, there is no single definitive answer to these poignant questions regarding the Ottoman
Empire’s decision to enter the war and its alliance with the Germans. However, the repercussion of
this decision are by no means peripheral in an historic context, in fact it was to be the single most
important decision in the history of the Empire since it’s magnificent conquest of Constantinople.
Upon entering the Great War on the side of the Germans, thereafter suffering some early losses on the
battlefield, the Ottomans began a series of inquisitive programs where potential spies were outed and
apprehended. This was upheld in Palestine where Zionist settlers with Russian passports were rounded
up and expelled from the holy land, while in Syria - Jamal Pasha ordered the execution of thirty two
members of Arab secret societies, similar events were also reported in Lebanon.
Following Turkey’s entry into the Great War the Ottomans mounted an attack against British occupied
Egypt, followed by an offensive in the Caucasus region in December of 1914. Ottoman Minister of War
Enver Pasha launched his army against the Russians in the highland border region separating Tsarists
territory from Ottoman borders.
His intention was to pierce into the Caucasus region and incite the native Turkic Khans of Central Asia to
rise up in rebellion against their Russian masters. This bold and daring military mission was perilous as
the Ottoman army got stuck in the snowy mountain passes of Allahu-Ekber. Inadequately equipped for
the freezing conditions - up to 80,000 Ottoman soldiers succumbed to the icy landscape and perished.
Enver Pasha’s army was facing near destruction in the failed attempt against the Russians and the
expedition itself was one of the most devastating losses inflicted on the Ottomans during WWI.
On the 9th of January 1915, Enver Pasha returned to Istanbul with his troops.
Not content with the regrettable events up in the mountains - the Young Turks were quick to blame their
failure on the Armenian population of Eastern Anatolia. Claiming that this Christian community had been
colluding with the Russians all along and were a fifth column within the Ottoman Empire.
Bent on promoting loyalty among their Empire’s diverse ethnicities as they faced an invasion on three
fronts, the Ottomans turned against the Armenians, whom they suspected of making common cause
with the Entente Powers. A law passed in May 1915 authorizing the Ottoman government to deport
anyone deemed a threat to national security, the law was particularly was aimed at the Armenians. The
Young Turks declared the Armenian population a dangerous social element and enlisted the support of
citizens in assisting with their persecution.
Throughout the summer and autumn of 1915, Armenians were rounded up and slaughtered. Some were
pushed over cliffs or drowned in rivers, while others were burned alive, crucified or taken outside their
towns and shot. Most were sent on death marches through the desert without food or water, often forced
to walk under the scorching sun until they dropped dead from exhaustion and dehydration.
The Armenians were removed from several strategic geographic outposts – such as Eastern Anatolia.
These tremendous events did not come to pass without genocidal consequences as between eight
hundred thousand to one point five million Armenians have been estimated to have been massacred by
the Young Turks, a claim that is often contested statistically but never denied historically.
While their brutal response was in no way justifiable, the Young Turks were not entirely without reason
for their suspicion of certain factions within the Armenian community whose members were known to
operate under the veil of secrecy. Groups such as the Hunchaks had been campaigning for decades,
calling for their independence from the Turks following similar efforts by the Greeks and Slavic Christian
communities in the Balkans.
GALLIPOLI
The British and French launched a joint operation against the Ottomans with the express purpose
of conquering Istanbul. Their aim was to control the Dardanelle Straits in order to have a firm grip
on the naval pathways in and out of Russia via the Seas of Marmara and the Black Sea.
April the 25th 1915 marks the day when Britain and her allies landed in Cape Helles (Seddülbahir)
beginning the Amphibious invasion in Gallipoli. They were joined by the ANZAC forces, a
combined military ensemble comprised of Australian and New Zealand Corps landing in Kabatepe
and the French military who made a diversionary landing at Kumkale, on the Asian shore.
Fighting ensued and four weeks later, on the 24th of May 1915 – the warring factions agree to
suspend all hostilities for a nine hour period beginning at 7.30am – enabling both camps to bury
their dead. Fighting would resume from 4:30pm and intensify day by day until mid-August when
Turkish forces achieved a victory in the Battle of Chunuk Bair (Conkbayırı).
MUSTAFA KAMAL
He entered the Ottoman military ranks in 1893 marking the beginning of a thirty year military career
in service of the Ottomans and Turkey. Between 1907 and 1910 he joined a new political group
known as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) where he met the likes of Enver Pasha.
In 1910, Mustafa Kamal was elected to undertake various overseas assignments in mainland
Europe where he would witness and experience the rapid technological and intellectual
developments outside the Ottoman realm. In 1911 Mustafa Kamal rushed towards Tripoli in Libya
alongside other notable members of the CUP in order to raise local military support against the
invading Italian forces. Following the Italian takeover of Tripoli, Mustafa Kamal rushed towards the
Balkan front where he participated in the battle against the Bulgarians– the nursing ground for
what would eventually become his making.
In Gallipoli at least, the Ottoman Empire had won the battle, but the war was still unfinished.
Whilst the Arab chief had high hopes in the British promise to deliver him the dominion of Arabia, to the
British themselves - these correspondences were nothing more than that. They did not consider it a
binding contract – not even an agreement, but just pronouncements that may or may not be delivered to
the Arabs.
In fact, even if the British were earnest in their promises, the terms of negotiations between McMahon
and the Sharif of Makkah were somewhat limited in scope. While the British were promising the make
the Sharif the next Arab Caliph, such terms were already being inhibited by the following clauses:
Firstly, the British made it clear that their promise to the Sharif would exclude any Middle Eastern
territory that was not considered purely Arab. This automatically excluded Egypt, the entire North African
region of the Maghreb and portions of Syria lying to the western districts of Damascus, Hama, Homs and
Aleppo.
Secondly, the British promise only applied to ‘those portions of the territories wherein Great Britain is
free to act without detriment from her Ally, France’ this ruled out the possibility of giving Palestine to the
Arab rebels as the territory was jointly governed by Britain and France.
Even though the British proposal was severely limiting for the Sharif, effectively leaving him with the
areas that were not of any special interest to the French and British allies. He nevertheless agreed to the
terms that were presented, with hopes of being able to advance and develop the terms of these
negotiation once the war was over and the Ottomans eliminated. Britain however, had other plans.
Ultimately, the Hashemite Arab rebellion was not a great one as the majority of Arabs did not
participate and saw it for what it truly was - a betrayal of the Ottomans and of Islam. Even the
British eventually realized the futility of this pursuit, with T.E Lawrence later describing the
Hashemite Arab rebellion as “a sideshow of a sideshow”.
Although Lawrence was not making the final decisions, his indirect influence on British policy in the
Hijaz was significant enough to gain the confidence of Winston Churchill, who lacked personal
knowledge of the matter.
Despite his heavy involvement in the Arab struggle against the Ottomans, Lawrence was fully
aware of his government’s deceitful motives, yet he fought and accompanied the rebels through
the desert as they sacrificed their lives and participated in the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire
for a cause that did not have their best interest at heart.
Between them, they divided the Middle East into three distinct zone. What remained was a joint
territory that would be shared by the British and the French, this was Palestine. This secret pact
came to be known as the ‘Sykes-Picot agreement’ , it was signed secretly in 1916 between British
Mark Sykes and French Francois Georges-Picot.
Perhaps rather revealingly, in 1916, Sykes began to deliver public lectures during which he would
repeatedly cite a new descriptive term for what was commonly known as Mesopotamia, he
increasingly began to refer to 'the Middle East,' which as we now know was a term invented by the
American naval officer and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan in 1902, which became the primary
object of the Sykes-Picot pact.
Though a secular Jew himself, Theodor lobbied and campaigned tirelessly for the creation of a
Jewish state that would accommodate Jewish immigration from all over the world and serve as a
homeland. Theodor and his patrons had designs to make Palestine and Jordan their designated
homeland.
In February 1896, Theodor Herzl published his famous book entitled Der Judenstaat (The State of
the Jews). In it, the Father of Zionism proclaimed his vision for the creation a Jewish State in
Argentina or Palestine – a land in which he had not set foot before. The dream of a Jewish State
was to provide somewhere for Jews to migrate towards in pursuit of freedom to practice their
religion and culture freely and without fear of persecution. His ideology garnered mounting support
from several prominent Jews, however - not everyone was sympathetic.
Theodor Herzl’s proposed Jewish State in Palestine was criticized by the Orthodox Jewish
community and those who had already settled in America, his Jewish opponents considered him a
deviant and saw his attempts to create a new Jewish homeland as disruptive to their integration in
places such as America, Britain and Russia.
Yet, notwithstanding the opposition from some Jewish factions – Theodor Herzl exhorted himself to
great lengths in an attempt to spread his vision amongst people of rank and influence across
Europe. His most ambitious objective was to secure a meeting with the leader of the Ottoman
Empire himself, Sultan Abdulhamid II. It must be noted that historically speaking, anti-Semitism
was uncommon within the Muslim world, Jews all over the Christian world had been granted
asylum and peace under the rule of successive Muslim Empires, the Ottomans were no exception
to this. The fact that Zionism’s founding ideologue felt it appropriate to seek the audience of an
Ottoman Sultan for the purpose of purchasing land in Palestine on behalf of the Jewish people is in
itself a testament to the trust and respect that Jews reserved for Muslim authority and rule.
However, there are alternative explanations and theories for Britain’s active participation and
facilitation of the Zionist objective. Amongst these theories is that Britain in 1917 was under the
economic and military strains of war and decided to support the Zionist aspirations in a political
gesture aimed at winning over public approval from America and Russia, the former had remained
neutral up until that point and Britain had hoped to get their involvement and support while Russia
was dealing with its own internal revolutions and was likely to fall out of the coalition – according to
this theory the British almost offered Palestine to the Zionist Jews as an incentive to gain the
support and approval of powerful Jewish voices present in American and in Russia.
Perhaps a more realistic and likely explanation for Britain’s negotiations with the Zionists was that
of the financial influence that the Jewish community in Britain had over the political establishment.
This is of course always a powerful lobbying tool. Yet despite all of these divergent theories as to
why the British even engaged in such negotiations with the Zionists over a Jewish homeland, the
undeniable fact is that such negotiations did in fact take place.
However, the fact that The Zionists had engaged with the British government in an effort to seize
Palestine as their homeland did not necessarily mean that all Jews were of the same persuasion,
in fact – during the negotiations, the only Jewish member of the British Parliament was Edwin
Samuel Montagu. He was vehemently opposed to the idea that Palestine should be awarded to
the Zionists, when the motion was elected for votes in August 1917. Unlike his parliamentary
colleagues, Edwin Samuel Montagu could foresee conflict and tensions between the Arab Muslims
of Palestine and the Zionist Jews who were going to be planted in their midst.
Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His
Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist
aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet: His Majesty's
Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the
Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this
object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the
civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights
and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. I should be grateful if you
would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation
(Sir Arthur Balfour, 2 November 1917)
This historic correspondence came to be known as the Balfour Declaration and it encouraged the
immigration of over 18,500 Jews towards Palestinian shores between 1919 and 1921 alone.
Although in legalistic terms the document promised virtually nothing to the Zionists and Britain was
yet again not bound by any obligation to deliver what they had promised, the document was still
instrumental in helping them officiate a claim for Palestine by royal British decree – this became
vital after the Great War ended and the Middle East was being prepared for division between the
European Allies.
Despite the duplicitous and deceptive double-dealings of the British towards the Arab rebels and
the Jewish Zionists, in actuality – such promises and negotiations were ambiguous and opaque in
their terms and timelines. It could even be said that Britain never truly intended to fulfil any of its
promises to begin with.
Excerpt from the Manchester Guardian. Monday, 26 November 1917. This was the first English-
language reference to what became known as the Sykes Picot Agreement.
Sharif Hussein bin ‘Ali al-Hashemi of Makkah and his three sons, especially Faisal bin Hussein al-
Hashemi, the field commander – were devastated by the crushing realisation of Britain’s true
agenda. Although the Hashemite clan was previously alert to the fact that the French had their
eyes on claiming Syria after the war, they were not prepared for Britain’s betrayal at all, in fact –
Sharif Hussein was under the impression that Britain was protecting the Arabs against French
interests in the region, not secretly colluding with the French the entire time.
Yet despite the startling reality, it was perhaps too late for the Hashemites to desist from their
mission and the only plausible option for them was to continue with the rebellion against the
Ottomans. They still had enough faith and hope in the British to hold on for some potential change
in the plans, perhaps once the war was over they would be able to appease the British.
‘We Great Russian workers must demand that our government should get out of Mongolia,
Turkestan, and Persia’.
The treaty confirmed the terms of agreement in which the new Russian government would no
longer honor the agreements made by the Tsarist Russian Empire with her Allied partners,
meaning that eleven nations including Ukraine - would be granted their independence from
Russian governance both in Eastern Europe and western Asia.
From this moment onwards, Imperial Russia ceased to exist and Soviet Russia emerged. The
Ottomans took advantage of this situation in order to capture new territories in series of successive
military victories against Russia in key cities such as Trabzon (on February 25th), Malazgirt (on
March 23rd), Sarıkamış (April 5th), Van (April 6th), Doğubeyazıt (April 14th) and Kars (April 26th).
Yet despite vanquishing the Russians and dividing their territory, Enver Pasha felt a growing
unease with his German counterparts, somehow he was no longer convinced that the Germans
were seeking the same goals he was. In fact, it appeared that the Germans were beginning to
overlook the interests of the Ottomans altogether, now that Russia was no longer a problem to
them.
It was now becoming evident that Germany’s interest in the Ottoman Empire was predicated on its
own interests in the Eastern front, which is why when Enver Pasha decided to consult the
Germans about the possibility of sending Turkish troops over to southern Russia, the Germans
rejected his proposal and instructed him to mind his own business.
Defeated but not deterred, the Sharif and his three sons, Faisal, ‘Abdullah and ‘Ali began to
strategize and plan on how they would capture Madinah.
In a calculated and determined effort, the Hashemite Arab rebels developed training camps in
Makkah which enlisted Bedouin clans and Arab deserters from the Ottoman army. The recruits
numbering approximately thirty thousand, were assigned to one of three military units. The
Northern unit was under the command of Faisal ibn Hussein and was charged with blocking
Madinah from the Northern frontier, while the Southern region of Madinah was to be blocked by
the military unit commanded by ‘Ali ibn Hussein and the Eastern region was to be blocked by the
army of ‘Abdullah ibn Hussein.
The military operation was very carefully planned, with the assistance of British and French
strategists including Faisal ibn Hussein’s close friend and confident, T.E Lawrence.
ILM FILM STUDIOS 44
During the long and difficult years in which Madinah was held captive by the Arab rebels, the Hijaz
Railway was targeted for hundreds of bomb attacks and sabotage attempts. The Ottoman
defenders of Madinah were under the command of Fahreddin Pasha – a man who fought and
urged his soldiers to preserve the integrity of the holy city even unto death. Forced to retreat for
cover following the intense pressure from British and Arab troops, Fahreddin had arrived in the city
of Madinah just a week ahead of the Arab rebels, his Hijaz Expeditionary Force was comprised of
fourteen thousand men, just under half the size of the Arab rebel forces.
Yet despite their support from the British and the intense struggle that accompanied the Arab siege
of Madinah, Sharif Hussein bin ‘Ali was unable to win the loyalty and reverence of the Arab tribes
whom he had ambitions to govern, furthermore some chieftains were likely to betray him or even
turn against him when he least expected it. But most concerning for the Sharif was the fact that
Britain had been colluding with yet another aspiring Arab clan from the Eastern region of Najd. A
direct and bitter rival to the Hashemites – the Al-Saud were led by a young and charismatic Abdul
‘Aziz al-Saud. The British administration was working with the al-Saud to achieve similar goals of
dismantling Ottoman rule in the region in return for the promise of Saudi dominion of the Hijaz,
once the Turks were vanquished from Arabia. Details of these deals and promises were kept
hidden from the Sharif and his rebels.
ILM FILM STUDIOS 45
Meanwhile, the Ottoman administration grew more distant and detached from the actions of Sharif
Hussein in Madinah. In an attempt to subvert his destructive actions in the holy city, the Ottomans had
appointed ‘Ali Haydar, the Sharif’s own cousin and a leading figure of a sub-clan. ‘Ali Haydar’s post was
short lived and he soon relinquished it, however upon his departure he imparted the following words of
advice towards Fahreddin Pasha:
”The protection of this Tomb [of the Prophet] is in the hands of Allāh, but you are
His instrument. I leave it in your care. Be worthy of the trust”
Preoccupied by the Arab rebels’ siege of Madinah, Fahreddin Pasha and his soldiers were in no position to
offer reinforcement and help in the Palestinian front as the British proceeded to capture Jerusalem in
December of 1917 and then went on to capture Damascus in October of 1918. Britain had successfully
managed to divert the Ottomans and secured its ultimate prize.
Back in Madinah, the Arab rebels were growing frustrated with the resistance and fortitude of the Ottoman
defence commanded by Fahreddin Pasha. In a move to dissuade the Turks from continuing their struggle,
Sharif Hussein sent a letter to Fahreddin Pasha suggesting that he surrender once and for all. In his
response, Fahreddin Pasha wrote the following words to Sharif Hussein:
“To Him who broke the power of Islam. I am now under the protection of the
Prophet ( )ﷺand Most High commander, I am busying myself with
strengthening the defences and the building of roads and squares in Madinah.
Please do not preoccupy me with useless requests.”
Fahreddin Pasha also informed Sharif Hussein about of a dream he had seen wherein the Prophet
Muhammad ( )ﷺhad appeared to the pasha and instructed him to walk in his blessed footsteps.
Sadly, not even the most dedicated of efforts were sufficient from holding off the rebels indefinitely
and on the morning of October 30th 1918, the military resistance of the Ottomans and their
German ally had collapsed, an armistice agreement was signed in Mudros which brought the
Middle Eastern theatre between the Ottomans and the Allies to an end. The Ottoman garrisons in
the Hijaz, Asir and Yemen were to yield to the next Allied commander, there was no more hope for
the Turks in Arabia, it truly was the end.
On the morning of January the 9th 1919, a delegation of Ottoman envoys from Istanbul visited
Madinah to persuade Fahreddin to accept the terms of surrender. Fahreddin had, however, retired
to the Prophet’s tomb. There, he was finally arrested by his own men and the siege was thus
brought to an end. The following day on January the 10th 1919 – Fahreddin Pasha and around
eight thousand Turkish soldiers surrendered and were expelled to Egypt where he was imprisoned
before being exiled to Malta and held captive for two years.
The Arab rebels under the command of ‘Abdullah ibn Hussein entered Madinah on the 13th of
January 1919 and went on to ravage the holy city for at least twelve consecutive days, looting and
wreaking havoc throughout Madinah. Accounts of the atrocities were documented by an Egyptian
colonel - Sadiq Yahya, who was an eye witness to the conquest of Madinah by the Arab rebels.
Portrait of the King-Crane Commission at the Hotel Royal, Beirut, July 1919
Demonstrating clearly that Arabs had long been aware of Zionist ambitions in Palestine and
opposed its designs from the very beginning.
Based on their research and findings, King and Crane thus made recommendations to scrap the
project altogether. Yet despite the very powerful and detailed report from King and Crane, the drive
to deliver Palestine to the Zionists was still popular, and the following year in 1920, the French and
British began to carve out the Middle East in accordance to the plans agreed in the document
signed by Sykes and Picot – this process is now historically referred to as the Treaty of Versailles.
OPERATION NEMESIS
The Muslim residents of Istanbul were overwhelmed by despair and humiliation while the Young
Turk leadership had boarded a German vessel secretly on the night of November the 1st 1919
heading for Odesa from where they completed their journey overland to Berlin and were granted
asylum by the German administration. Meanwhile, the Ottoman government in Istanbul was being
chastised by the Allied forces for its part in the Armenian genocide, despite attempts by the
Ottoman government to shift the blame towards the Young Turk administration who had passed
the laws sanctifying the persecution and massacre of Armenians.
The CUP leadership was found culpable for the atrocities and several low ranking officers were
executed for their involvement in the Armenian genocide. The leading members of the CUP were
sentenced in absentia as they had been living in exile in Berlin under the protection of their
German patrons.
Though they were out of Turkey, the leading Young Turk officers were not completely out of sight.
Soon therefaster an Armenian vigilante group had arisen. The Dashnak were militants who sought
to avenge the murder of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by ordering and executing scores of
assassinations on leading Young Turks, at home and abroad. ‘Operation Nemesis’ was launched
thereafter and between March 1921 and July 1922, several leading members of the defunct CUP
were assassinated abroad. Talaat Pasha who was assassinated in Berlin, Ismail Enver Pasha
assassinated in Central Asia and Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha assassinated in Rome.
And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him
had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth
conquering, and to conquer.
Revelations 6:2, King James Version
But if the French were the Conquerors then the Greeks were comparable to Thanatos the
Destroyer of Empires who rode on a pale horse. Unlike the French who arrived in Istanbul as
foreign conquerors, the Greek community represented a native component of the Ottoman Empire
that had long struggled and sacrificed itself for sovereignty and liberation. The Greeks had a
historic vendetta against the Turks, it was deeply rooted in religious, ethnic and political grounds.
So when the Ottomans had finally surrendered on their knees, Greek Prime Minister - Eleftherios
Venizelos demanded control of East Thrace as well as the Aegean shores of Anatolia, including
Izmir. He demanded that these territories be annexed to the Greeks, it was time for reparations.
In April 1919, British Foreign Minister, Lord Balfour – put forth a recommendation to classify
Istanbul a neutral zone under the administration of the League of Nations. This was a
precautionary and preventative policy designed to prevent in-fighting between the various nations
that were now arriving in Istanbul and preparing to receive their own slice of the Ottoman cake.
The Italians arrived on their warship (Caio Duilio) and anchored at Izmir on the 29th of April 1919,
just a few weeks before the Allied nations sanctioned the Greek occupation of Izmir on the 6th of
May 1919. The Greek army occupied Izmir a week later and Journalist Hasan Tahsin would go on
to ignite the beginning of Turkish resistance by shooting a Greek flag bearer.
He was able to instill pride and passion in the hearts and minds of the Turkish masses due to his
hero status following the magnificent victory in Gallipoli wherein he came to be known as the ‘Hero
of Anafartalar” and the “Honorary Aide-de-camp to His Majesty Sultan”. However, Mustafa Kamal
was also attentive to the fact that not all factions within Turkish society could be so easily swayed
to support his movement, so he began to initiate contact with army units in Anatolia and developed
a wide and unified network of Turkish nationalist groups working and collaborating together for the
purpose of attaining Turkish independence and sovereignty.
In fact, Mustafa Kamal even began discussions with Colonel Semyon Budyonny, the head of a
Bolshevik delegation who had met with the Turkish Nationalists following the collapse of Tsarist
Russia. The Bolsheviks would later supply Turkish Nationalists with weapons in their struggle
against the Allied forces while simultaneously instilling communist ideology within their ranks.
Following his first week in Samsun, Mustafa Kemal relocated some 85km away to Havza from
where he continued to organize and mobilize his supporters culminating in the pronouncement of
his famous Amasya Declaration on June the 22nd 1920, wherein Mustafa Kamal declared Turkey’s
indomitable struggle to attain independence by virtue of the Turkish people’s determination.
Şeyhülislam Dürrizade Abdullah Efendi In Ankara, Müftüsü Rifat Efendi and Mustafa Kamal
GREEK CONQUESTS
While the Turks deliberated over whether or not it was Islamically allowed to defend their territory on
the basis of Nationalism, the Greeks were united in their military campaign on Ottoman territory. By
June the 22nd 1920, the Greek military had started mounting attacks in Anatolia and proceeded to
move towards Bursa – the ancient capital city of the Ottoman Empire, which came under Greek
occupation on the 8th of July 1920 followed by Greek occupation a week later in Edirne and the entire
region of East Thrace on July the 15th 1920.
ILM FILM STUDIOS 54
SAN REMO
In April 1920, British Prime minister Lloyd George and his French, Italian and Japanese
counterparts congregated in San Remo where they were to discuss the implications of the three
sets of negotiations they had brokered with the Arabs, the Zionists and amongst themselves during
the course of the Great War. How were they to treat the terms of the Balfour Declaration, the
McMahon-Hussein correspondence and the Sykes-Picot agreements?
Following six consecutive days of negotiations and discussions, the participants of this meeting
had come to certain agreements about how they were to divide the conquered territories amongst
themselves and what the Arabs and Jews were going to be receiving after that.
Delegates to the Conference standing outside Villa Devachan, from left to right:
In Turkey
• The Kurds were granted their own independent state as were the Armenians.
• Four key North Eastern Anatolian provinces including Trabzon, Erzurum, Bitlis and Van were to
be under Armenian sovereignty, they would be a part of the new Armenian Republic in the
Caucasus.
• The Kurds were given Diyar Bakir, which was situated towards the southern border of the
Armenian territory.
• Eastern Anatolia was to be divided between the Armenians and Kurds.
• Thrace and Western Anatolia, Edirne and the port city of Izmir were assigned to the Greeks.
• The Italians received rights to The Dodecanese and Rhodes with portions of southern Anatolia
including Konya. The French got everything from the Cilician coast to Sivas.
• Naval routes linking the Black Sea and the Mediterranean were confiscated from the Ottomans
with the Bosporus, Dardanelles and Sea of Marmara becoming demilitarized and governed by
the European states to the exclusion of the Turks.
• The Ottoman army was not permitted to exceed 50,000 soldiers, rendering it incapable of
posing any real threat to foreign armies.
The terms of this draft-treaty left nothing to the Turks other then the regions that were not
considered important such as Bursa, Ankara, Samsun and Istanbul. The terms were categorically
rejected by the Turkish Nationalist movement headed by Mustafa Kamal and his associates. They
continued to campaign against the British take-over of Turkey by establishing their own
independent Turkish republic in Ankara.
The Treaty of Sèvres was never enacted as intended, however Britain and her allies insisted that
Turkish Nationalists should comply with a set of modified and amended terms during what came to
be known as the ‘Conference of London’. The negotiations were hosted in London and gained the
attendance of both opposing political Turkish representatives, from Istanbul and Ankara.
These further negotiation attempts were also rejected by Turkish Nationalists, resulting in a further
diluted version of the Treaty of Sèvres, one which was more compatible with the terms outlined in
the Turkish Nationalist’s famous ‘National Oath’, publicized on the 12th of February 1920.
His political influence characterizes and continues to color the agenda of Turkish parliamentary
procedure to this very day. His implementation of radical secularizing reforms within the new
republic, included religious, social and political transformations, but perhaps his most radical and
polarizing legacy was his active participation in the abolishment of the Ottoman Caliphate on the
3rd of March 1924. A day in which the Muslim world lost its last Caliphate and the final Ottoman
Caliph, Sultan Abdul Majid II was exiled to Paris where he died on the 23rd of August 1944.
Elsewhere, Faisal bin Hussein’s governorship of Damascus had already been usurped by the
French when British troops evacuated Syria in accordance to the Sykes-Picot settlement. Now no
longer under British protection and left to face the French on his own, Faisal and his supporters
declared an independent Arab Kingdom in Syria on the 8th of March 1920, it would not be very
long before French soldiers from Lebanon were dispatched to crush Faisal’s dreams once and for
all.
This mostly Arab territory was carved out and renamed Transjordan and later drifted into an
independent and separate state which was politically detached from Palestine. Nevertheless, the
rule of King ‘Abdullah in Jordan was successful and the country remained stable despite its
unlikely prospects given the vastly under-developed landscape and its very small population of two
hundred and fifty thousand desert inhabitants at the time.
As for Sharif Hussein and his eldest son ‘Ali bin Hussein. The Sharif rejected Britain’s post war
settlement thereby forfeiting British protection. ‘Ali bin Hussein was thereafter granted control of
the region. He assumed the title of King of Hijaz in a rule that lasted from October 1924 to
December 1925 when another British funded Arab tribe was allowed to sweep in and conquer.
The new contestant to the throne of the Hijaz was a certain ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Saud, a man who had
the support and complicity of the British government who endorsed his conquest in 1925. The
Saudi clan, led by ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Saud expelled the Hashemites and consolidated their territorial
dominion by unifying the Hijaz shortly before renaming it the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
If we commenced this literary journey by describing the turn of the twentieth century as Anarchy,
then that which follows this epoch can only be described as - Pandemonium.
BOOKS
• A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the
Modern Middle East
David Fromkin, Owl Books (NY); Reprint edition (1 Oct. 2001)
• The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East, 1914-1920
Eugene Rogan, Penguin; 01 edition (28 Jan. 2016)
• The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East
Robert Fisk, Harper Perennial; UK ed. edition (2 Oct. 2006)
• A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the struggle that shaped the Middle East
James Barr, Simon & Schuster UK; UK ed. edition (26 April 2012)
• Setting the Desert on Fire: T.E.Lawrence and Britain's Secret War in Arabia, 1916-
1918
James Barr, W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition (28 July 2009)
LECTURES
• T.E. Lawrence, the Arab Revolt and WWI in the Middle East,
Dr. John Calvert National WWI Museum and Memorial, Published on 16 May 2016
• Ottoman Entry into WWI: Politics, Nationalism and Diplomacy,
Dr. Lisa Adeli, National WWI Museum and Memorial, Published on 26 November 2014
• From Wars Toward the Great War: The Ottomans and the Vortex of WWI,
Dr. Michael Reynolds National WWI Museum and Memorial, Published on 13 July 2015
• A Century of Revolution: The Rise and Fall of the Arab State: 1915-2015
Prof. Asher Susser, Judaic Studies University of Arizona, Published December 3rd 2015
• Israel, Jordan and Palestine: What is their Place in the New Middle East?
Prof. Asher Susser, Judaic Studies University of Arizona, Published April 25th 2017
• Fifty Years since the Six day War: How the Middle East has changed
Prof. Asher Susser, Judaic Studies University of Arizona, Published September 14th 201
• Iran and the Arabs: the Changing Balance of Power
Asher Susser, Judaic Studies University of Arizona, Published September 25th 2015
• 1914: The Shaping of the Modern Muslim World - Part 1
Dr. Yasir Qadhi Published 15th January 2014.
• Why the Ottoman Empire failed
Author Eugene Rogan, Published March 16th 2015
ONLINE RESOURCES
• 1914-1918 Online: International Encyclopedia of WWI
http://www.1914-1918-online.net
• The Drama of the Dardanelles, Imperial War Museum
http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/gallipoli
• Ottoman History Podcast
http://www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com
• Turkey in the First Wold War
http://www.turkeyswar.com/index.html
• The Ottoman Empire
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire
ILM FILM STUDIOS