A "Peace to End All Peace" is the story of the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire after its defeat in WW 1. It traces the geographic origins of the "modern" Middle East. The author skillfully retells the dealings, double-dealings, betrayals, lies and shifting alliances in the key years of 1914-1922. Dont be deceived by the limited time span. It is amazing how much can happen in 8 very short years! The notes and bibliography encompass 51 pages! "PTEAP" is told primarily from a British viewpoint. The reason is logical enough: England and Prime Minister Lloyd George held and dealt most of the cards in the endless game of building or at least maintaining Empires among the European powers; Britain, France, Italy and Greece. The reader can decide just how well or poorly the PM played-or overplayed- his hand. This Irish American reviewer will keep his opinions to himself. The PM was no friend of the Irish cause. Fear of Russia, both before and after that nations Revolution lurks in the background. Also in the background is an uninvolved and newly isolationist United States. Britains fear of losing a land link to India is very much in the foreground. Britains obsession with India is unexplored. Readers learn how countries are created virtually by geographic whim. The modern nations of Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and (basically) Iran are born. Puppet pro-British heads of state appear in Arabia, Iraq, Persia/Iran, and Jordan/ Transjordan -with varying degrees of "success". PTEAP s time frame allows only for an excellent introduction but no resolution of a homeland for Jews in Palestine. The result is that PTEAP explores the bases for many of todays problems but does not explain or resolve them. This does not detract from the storys importance one bit. The foundations are laid in these pages. PTEAP is highly challenging and highly rewarding. Its sheer length and breadth demands patience on the part of the serious reader, but the patience will be rewarded! There are two caveats: One is that the mere casual reader should skip PTEAP and select a less formidable book. The other involves the absolute requirement (!) for a World Atlas to appreciate the geographical scope of the story. As with most historical/military publications, the maps provided are of near total inadequacy. Why do editors permit this? For those two points, I deducted a star. We graver types can add the 5th star back. I hope this review has done justice and encouraged serious history fans to buy "A Peace to End All Peace". Just remember the Atlas!
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-Mohammeds successor-controlled Islam. At that time, Britain ruled over half of the worlds 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 Britains 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. Fromkins 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. Fromkins 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.
This book perpetuates the myth that the present mess in the the Middle East was caused by a bunch of confused, incompetent European statemen who, after World War I, allowed those pesky Arabs to govern themselves. It completely ignores the obvious truth that the present mess in the Middle East was caused by confused and incompetent European and American statesmen after World War II who thought a Jewish state surrounded by displaced Arabs was a good idea. David Fromkin and others dedicate their lives to obscuring that self evident truth.
