Middle_Easr

Development of the Arab revolt- The Arab Revolt (1916–1918) was initiated by the Sherif Hussein ibn Ali with the aim of securing independence from the ruling Ottoman Turks and creating a single unified Arab state spanning from Aleppo in Syria to Aden in Yemen. The rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire goes back to 1821. Arab nationalism has its roots in the Mashreq (the Arabs lands east of Egypt), particularly in countries of Sham (the Levant). The political orientation of Arab nationalists in the years prior to the Great War was generally moderate. It is estimated that the Arab forces involved in the revolt numbered around 5,000 soldiers. This number however probably applies to the Arab Regulars who fought with Allenby's main army, and not the irregular forces under the direction of Lawrence and Feisal. On a few occasions, particularly during the final campaign into Syria, this number would grow significantly. Many Arabs joined the Revolt sporadically, often as a campaign was in progress or only when the fighting entered their home region. During the Aqaba raid, for instance, while the initial Arab force numbered only a few hundred, over a thousand more from local tribes joined them for the final assault on Aqaba. Estimates of Hussein's effective forces vary, but through most of 1918 at least, they may have numbered as high as 30,000 men. It should also be noted that in the early days of the Revolt, Hussein's forces were largely made up of Bedouin and other nomadic desert tribes, who were only loosely allied, loyal more to their respective tribes than the overall cause. Feisal had hoped that he could convince Arab troops serving in the Turkish army to mutiny and join his cause; but the Turkish government sent most of its Arab troops to the front-lines of the war, and thus only a handful of deserters actually joined the Arab forces until later in the campaign. The main contribution of the Arab Revolt to the war was to pin down tens of thousands of Turkish troops who otherwise might have been used to attack the Suez Canal, allowing the British to undertake offensive operations with a lower risk of counter-attack. This was indeed the British justification for starting the revolt, a textbook example of asymmetrical warfare which has been studied time and again by military leaders and historians alike. How the Sykes-Picot Treaty contradicted promises of Arab self-determination-The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 was a secret agreement between the governments of the UK and France, with the assent of Imperial Russia, defining their respective spheres of influence and control in Western Asia after the expected downfall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. It was largely a trade agreement with a large area set aside for indirect control through an Arab state or a confederation of Arab states. The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916. It did not contemplate the assignment of any League of Nations mandates, since the League and its mandates were developed during the post-war period. The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and Briton Sir Mark Sykes. Lord Curzon said the Great Powers were still committed to the Reglement Organique Agreement regarding the Lebanon Vilayet of June 1861 and September of 1864, and that the rights granted to France in the blue area under the Sykes-Picot Agreement were not compatible with that agreement.The Reglement was an international agreement regarding governance and non-intervention in the affairs of the Maronite, Orthodox, Druze, and Muslim communities. In May 1917 W. Ormsby-Gore wrote "French intentions in Syria are surely incompatible with the war aims of the Allies as defined to the Russian Government. If the self-determination of nationalities is to be the principle, the interference of France in the selection of advisers by the Arab Government and the suggestion by France of the Emirs to be selected by the Arabs in Mosul, Aleppo, and Damascus would seem utterly incompatible with our ideas of liberating the Arab nation and of establishing a free and independent Arab State. The British Government, in authorising the letters despatched to King-Hussein before the outbreak of the revolt by Sir Henry McMahon, would seem to raise a doubt as to whether our pledges to King Hussein as head of the Arab nation are consistent with French intentions to make not only Syria but Upper Mesopotamia another Tunis. If our support of King Hussein and the other Arabian leaders of less distinguished origin and prestige means anything it means that we are prepared to recognise the full sovereign independence of the Arabs of Arabia and Syria. It would seem time to acquaint the French Government with our detailed pledges to King Hussein, and to make it clear to the latter whether he or someone else is to be the ruler of Damascus, which is the one possible capital for an Arab State, which could command the obedience of the other Arabian Emirs." New states that emerged as a result of World War I- Only two completely new countries in Europe were formed after WW1 - Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. The former broke up amid much bloodshed in the 1990s, and latter peacefully in 1993. Poland, which had been wiped off the map in 1795, was revived. The Baltic republics - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania asserted their independence. Romania doubled in size How Turkey emerged in spite of the Treaty of Sevres- Following World War I, the Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920) had awarded to Greece practically all of Thrace outside Constantinople and, in the western part of Anatolia, a mandate over Smyrna (Izmir) and the territory around it. The Greek occupation of these parts of Anatolia led to Turkish protests, which further strengthened the Nationalist Party. The situation rapidly developed into war, of which the first phase in 1920 was favourable to the Greeks, but in 1921 the Turkish armies under Atatürk's command defeated the Greeks, turning back their advance on Ankara and forcing them into a retreat, until they were finally expelled from Izmir in 1922. Peace was concluded by the Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923; ratified by Britain on 15 April 1924), and Thrace as far as the River Maritsa was restored to Turkey. The treaty settled Turkey's international relations for some time following, territorial differences with the USSR having been previously settled by a treaty of 16 March 1921. By this latter treaty the districts of Kars, Ardahan, and Batum (excepting Batum port itself) were assigned to Turkey. How Ataturk modernized Turkey- Eighty-three years after he came to power and 68 years after his death, Ataturk's many social and cultural reforms are still intact, and his memory is strong among the Turks. Following World War I, in which Turkey's Ottoman leaders sided with Germany and Austria, Allied Powers occupied Turkey. Ataturk, a general who fought with distinction during the war, began a resistance movement in 1919 after the Treaty of Sevres reduced the Ottoman Empire to a minor state. Starting with Turkey's capital, then at Istanbul, Ataturk moved through eastern and central Turkey, building popular support for his campaign. He picked Ankara, a small rural town, as his capital and formed a new legislature. He led provisional forces to victory in a war of liberation, defeating the Greeks in a decisive battle at Dumlupinar Aug. 30, 1922. This day is known as Victory Day and is now an official holiday. In 1923, Turkey established peace with the Allies by signing the Treaty of Lausanne, which fixed the country's boundaries. Ataturk declared the nation the Republic of Turkey Oct. 29, 1923, known today as Republic Day. Turkey then elected its Grand National Assembly and drew up a constitution. Ataturk exercised an authoritarian power, which he used to create a modern, progressive state. He set forth to educate the people in liberal democratic ideas and thinking. Ataturk's decrees revamped the entire fabric of Turkish life. He eliminated the Sultanate and Caliphate, the joint political and religious arms of the Ottoman Empire. He declared Turkey a secular state and separated religious and state affairs. A European civil code, drawn from several countries, replaced the Moslem Koranic law. He gave women full political and social rights. He also abolished polygamy and harems. He prohibited wearing of the fez - a tasseled, cone shaped traditional hat, and ordered men to wear western headgear. He replaced Arabic script with the Latin-based alphabet. He decided all Turks should have surnames, not previously known in Turkey. Before, people were known by their occupation. He started a nationwide system of compulsory education, set up the beginnings of a modern industrial system, and built a modern European-style capital in Ankara. Most important to the United States, he established a foreign policy rooted with the West, a movement which culminated with Turkey's acceptance into NATO in 1952. Degree to which Reza Shah and his son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, succeeded as modernizers- Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. His White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things. However, the decline of the traditional power of the Shi'a clergy due to parts of the reforms increased opposition, eventually leading to his overthrow.