Sykes-Picot Agreement

[neyzen]

Despite the fact that the vanqished Ottoman empire was unfairly partitioned
by the victorious Allieas, it has tasted the victory against the Greek
invasion of 1919and that on the 30th of July

Turks acquired every right to celebrate their tremendous victory.
Nevertheless, the incredibly

compounded difficulties observed in the Middle East began with this
unexpected partition done in 1916 at the Sykes-Picot agreement between the
British empire and the French Republic.



THE SIKES-PICOT AGREEMENT OF 1916





IT IS ACCORDINGLY UNDERSTOOD BETWEEN

THE FRENCH AND THE BRITISH GOVERNMENTS:


That France and great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an
independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b)
marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in
area
(a) France, and in area (b) great Britain, shall have priority of right of
enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) great
Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the
request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

That in the blue area France, and in the red area great Britain, shall be
allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as
they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or
confederation of Arab states.

That in the brown area there shall be established an international
administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation
with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and
the representatives of the sheriff of Mecca.

That great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and acre, (2)
guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigris and Euphrates in area
(a) for area (b). His majesty's government, on their part, undertake that
they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to
any third power without the previous consent of the French government.

That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British
empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or
facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall
be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by
railway through the blue area, or (b) area, or area (a); and there shall be
no
discrimination, direct or indirect, against British goods on any railway
or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her
dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port
charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There
shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the
British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended
for originate in the blue area, area (a), or area (b), and there shall be
no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway,
or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.
that in area (a) the Baghdad railway shall not be extended southwards
beyond Mosul, and in area (b) northwards beyond Samara, until a railway
connecting Baghdad and Aleppo via the Euphrates valley has been completed,

and thenonly with the concurrence of the two governments. That great

Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway

connecting Haifa with area (b), and shall have a perpetual right
to transport troops along such a line at all times. It is to be understood
by both governments that this railway is to facilitate the connection of
Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the

engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting
line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French
government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may
also traverse the Polgon Banias Keis Marib Salkhad tell Otsda Mesmie

before reaching area (b).

For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall
remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as
in areas (a) and (b), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversions
from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement
between the two powers.

There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above
mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for the
interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the
administration of the area of destination.

It shall be agreed that the French government will at no time enter into
any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such
rights
in the blue area to any third power, except the Arab state or
confederation of Arab states, without the previous agreement of his
majesty's
government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the
french
government regarding the red area.

The British and French government, as the protectors of the Arab state,
shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to
a third power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula,
nor consent to a third power installing a naval base either on the east
coast,
or on the islands, of the red sea. This, however, shall not prevent such
adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of
recent Turkish aggression.

The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab states
shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the
two powers.

It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the
Arab territories will be considered by the two governments.

I have further the honor to state that, in order to make the agreement
complete, his majesty's government are proposing to the Russian government
to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your
excellency's government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will
be communicated to your excellency as soon as exchanged would also
venture to remind your excellency that the conclusion of the present
agreement
raises, for practical consideration, the question of claims of Italy to a
share in any partition or rearrangement of turkey in Asia, as formulated
in article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the
allies.

His majesty's government further consider that the Japanese government
should be informed of the arrangements now concluded.

ANOTHER COPY OF THE AGREEMENT

15 & 16 May, 1916:
The Sykes-Picot Agreement

1. Sir Edward Grey to Paul Cambon, 15 May 1916

I shall have the honor to reply fully in a further note to your
Excellency's note of the 9th instant, relative to the creation of an Arab
State, but I should meanwhile be grateful if your Excellency could assure
me that in those regions which, under the conditions recorded in that
communication, become entirely French, or in which French interests are
recognized as predominant, any existing British concessions, rights of
navigation or development, and the rights and privileges of any British
religious, scholastic, or medical institutions will be maintained.

His Majesty's Government are, of course, ready to give a reciprocal
assurance in regard to the British area.

2. Sir Edward Grey to Paul Cambon, 16 May 1916

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of
the 9th instant, stating that the French Government accept the limits of a
future Arab State, or Confederation of States, and of those parts of Syria
where French interests predominate, together with certain conditions
attached thereto, such as they result from recent discussions in London
and Petrograd on the subject.

I have the honour to inform your Excellency in reply that the acceptance
of the whole project, as it now stands, will involve the abdication of
considerable British interests, but, since His Majesty's Government
recognize the advantage to the general cause of the Allies entailed in
producing a more favorable internal political situation in Turkey, they
are ready to accept the arrangement now arrived at, provided that the
co-operation of the Arabs is secured, and that the Arabs fulfil the
conditions and obtain the towns of Homs, Hama, Damascus, and Aleppo.

It is accordingly understood between the French and British Governments:

1. That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an
independent Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States in the areas (A)
and (B) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.
That in area (A) France, and in area (B) Great Britain, shall have
priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (A) France,
and in
area (B) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries
at
the request of the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States.

2. That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall
be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as
they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or
Confederation of Arab States. 3. That in the brown area there shall be
established an international administration, the form of which is to be
decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in
consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of the Shereef
of Mecca.

4. That Great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and Acre, (2)
guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigris and Euphrates in area
(A) for area (B). His Majesty's Government, on their part, undertake that
they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to
any third Power without the previous consent of the French Government.

5. That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the
British Empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges
or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there
shall
be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by
railway through the blue area, whether those goods are intended for or
originate
in the red area, or (B) area, or area (A); and there shall be no
discrimination,

direct or indirect against British goods on any railway or against British

goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her
dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port
charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There
shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the
British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended
for or originate in the blue area, area (A), or area (B), and there shall be
no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway,
or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

6. That in area (A) the Baghdad Railway shall not be extended southwards
beyond Mosul, and in area (B) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway
connecting Baghdad with Aleppo via the Euphrates Valley has been
completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two Governments.

7. That Great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole
owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (B), and shall have a
perpetual
right to transport troops along such a line at all times.

It is to be understood by both Governments that this railway is to
facilitate the connection of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further
understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by
keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project
unfeasible, that the French Government shall be prepared to consider that
the line in question may also traverse the polygon Banias-Keis
Marib-Salkhab

8. For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall
remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as
in areas (A) and (B), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversion
from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement
between the two Powers.

There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the
above-mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for
the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the
administration of the area of destination.

9. It shall be agreed that the French Government will at no time enter
into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such
rights in the blue area to any third Power, except the Arab State or
Confederation of Arab States without the previous agreement of His
Majesty's Government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to
the
French Government regarding the red area.

10. The British and French Governments, as the protectors of the Arab
State, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not
consent to
a third Power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula,
nor consent to a third Power installing a naval base either on the east
coast,
or on the islands, of the Red Sea. This, however, shall not prevent such
adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of
recent Turkish aggression.

11. The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab State
or Confederation of Arab States shall be continued through the same
channel as heretofore on behalf of the two Powers.

12. It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the
Arab territories will be considered by the two Governments.

I have further the honour to state that, in order to make the agreement
complete, His Majesty's Government are proposing to the Russian Government
to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your
Excellency's Government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will
be communicated to your Excellency as soon as exchanged.

I would also venture to remind your Excellency that the conclusion of the
present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of the
claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of Turkey in
Asia, as formulated in article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915,
between Italy and the Allies.

His Majesty's Government further consider that the Japanese Government
should be informed of the arrangement now concluded.

----------------

Now it is clear to understand why and how the Sikes-Picot agreement which
partitioned unfairly during the last days of the once mighty Ottoman
Empire,created many problems we have been witnessing today.

[deadkenny]

The Turks had no more 'right' to rule those lands than did France or Britain. Did they want to cynically 'profit' from their victory? No doubt. However, at least they felt 'compelled' to take a step away from 'outright ownership' of foreign lands and dress it up in a League of Nations 'mandate' of theoretically finite duration. There was at least some recognition of the rights of the Arab peoples, which was more than they had under the Turks.

[neyzen]

There was at least some recognition of the rights of the Arab peoples, which was more than they had under the Turks.

Such as?


And I think "under the Turks" shouldn't be the right word for their situation.

[snc128]

The Turks had no more 'right' to rule those lands than did France or Britain. Did they want to cynically 'profit' from their victory? No doubt. However, at least they felt 'compelled' to take a step away from 'outright ownership' of foreign lands and dress it up in a League of Nations 'mandate' of theoretically finite duration. There was at least some recognition of the rights of the Arab peoples, which was more than they had under the Turks.

can u reflect ur ideas with their supports

[deadkenny]

1. Read the agreement posted.

2. I acknowledged that it was a cynical attempt by France and Britain to 'profit' from their victory - do you disagree?

3. France and Britain were at least forced to accept League of Nations 'mandates'; theoretically of limited duration - rather than outright 'ownership' in perpetuity.

4. The peoples of the mandated areas did eventually gain their independance, although admittedly with some arbitrary borders.

5. I've already put far more effort into this thread than copy / pasting in text from another source, or asking other posters to elaborate / support their positions further. Care to give it a shot yourself?

[Sir Victor]

The French in Cilicia 1919-1921

The French in Cilicia 1919-1921

After the Armistace of Mudros on Oct. 30th, 1918 the British left Syrian to the control of French. French began immediately to occupy Syria and then advanced into Turkish main land. They occupied Adana. The Commander of Syrian Occupation Army General Hamlin entered Adana on December 18th with great ceromony. French occupied pure Turkish lands such as Mersin, Tarsus, Yenice, Pozantı, Ceyhan, Toprakkale, Bahçe and Islahiye. Iskenderun and Kilis were already on French occupation. On December 1918 a 150 men French force reinforced with some Armenians landed on the port of Mersin. After this unit, 2 cavalry companies from the African Hunter Regiment and the 412th Infantry Regiment was forwarded to Adana. later the Region was given under the command of General Diffieux, the commander of First East Division. The Staff officer of the Division was Major Hassler. The 17th and 18th Regiments of this Divisin was stationed in Adana. later 1st East Divisin reinforced with other units and materials which became a modern Divizion.
Situation of French Troops.
1st East Division in Adana with 21st, 22nd Infantry Regiments 442th Artillar Regiment, Heavy artillary Company and a cavalry Company
7th Cavalry Regiment in Adana
17th Infantry Regiment in Tarsus
18th Infantry Regiment in Mersin
Reinforced battalions je in İslahiye, Bahçe, Ceyhan Pozantı
Engeneers Battalion, Signal Company, tank company, air company, musical company were all in Adana
An Armenian Regiment was also with French in Adana. This regiment was called Region D'orient and was founded by French in Egypt. They were wearing French uniforms. Number of Armenian soldiers under French service:
In Antep/Ayintap/Ghazi Antep 2500
Maraş/Kahraman Maraş 2000
Saimbeyli 1500
Urfa/Şanlı Urfa 1000
Zeytin/Zeytun 500
Şar 350
Kozan 300
Adana and Mersin 1000
Osmaniye, Haruniye, Bahçe,
İslahiye 1000
TOTAL 10150
The area which was under the control of 1st East Division was large. For that reason the Chief Represantative of Syria-Adana Region and Commander of French Eastern Army General Goureau ordered on February 1920 to reinforce 1st East Division with 2nd Division under the command of General Lamoht. Those 2 Divisons remained in Adana Region until the end of the Turkish-French Conflict.
The Antep or Ayintap or we Turks now say Ghazi Antep was occupied by 4th French Division at the beginning of November 1920. After a short time the 4th was taken back to Syria.
On the other hand HQ of 156th and 127th Divizions were also in Adana with some of their units. Those 2 Divisions was taken back to Syria after a short time.

Some of the Armenians living in Cilicia supported Ottoman Turkish Army by money, raw materials and goods were not transported to safer areas. One of those Armenians was Yaver Kirkor from Kozan. This man was assassianed one night by unknown killers. His killers were not found. The Armenians who returned with the French to their old homes claimed that Kirkor was killed by Turks. According to thoes Armenians Sehlik zade Hasan, Kurtoğlu Hulusi, Topaloğlu Halil and Ali Efendi were killers. Those Turks were well known personalities of Kozan. One night they escaped to Kayseri. In Kayseri they met Mustafa Efendi, Ruhi Bey and Mahfe zade İbrahim Hoca from Kozan who fled just before the occupation of Kozan by French.

Just at that time on Oct. 30 1919 Mustafa Kemal Pasha summoned the Representatives of Turkish Nation in Sivas at a Congress to defend the county againts invading British, French and Greeks.. They decided to send a delegation of 3 men to Sivas. Mustafa Kemal talk with them and give his word to support them. He ordered Artillary Major Kemal Bey (Lt. Gen. Kemal Dogan) who was with him since the Gallipoli Anafartalar Battles and Infantry captain Osman Nuri Efendi ( Maj. Gen. Osman Tufan) to estabish the national Resistance in Ciliia. Major Kemal Bey was made Commander of National Forces in Cilicia and Capt. Osman Nuri Efendi his Assistant.

Maj.Kemal Bey ( Üsküp 1879 - Ankara 20 Nov. 1951)was nicknames as “Kozanoğlu Doğan Bey” and Capt. Osman Nuri (Üsküp 1886 - İstanbul, 4 Feb. 1944) as “Aydınoğlu Tufan Bey”


Poor French they never realized that they were in Turkish Territory. Arap lands were lost with the war. Poor, sick, unwhealty, wounded, demoralized Turkish Soldier remembered again that he was a War Lord. A Lord of many nations. A Victorious Warrior of Centuries. They resisted the French and they defined the current and eternal border with their blood.


Source: My book "Vatan Nasıl Kurtarıldı" (How the Faterland was Saved"

TS's note: The two officers were Balkan Turks borned in Üsküp= Skopje.:)

Axis History Forum :: The French in Cilicia 1919-1921




Source: My book: "Vatan Nasıl Kurtarıldı? (How Fatherland was saved?)

[deadkenny]

Such as?

And I think "under the Turks" shouldn't be the right word for their situation.

can u reflect ur ideas with their supports

…
I've already put far more effort into this thread than copy / pasting in text from another source, or asking other posters to elaborate / support their positions further. Care to give it a shot yourself?

Apparently you’re not willing to put any effort into it, beyond copy-pasting.

[Kansas Bear]

Honestly deadkenny, did you expect a credible response??

[laertes]

The Turks had no more 'right' to rule those lands than did France or Britain. Did they want to cynically 'profit' from their victory? No doubt. There was at least some recognition of the rights of the Arab peoples, which was more than they had under the Turks.

Actually they promised Arabs self-rule, and by that promise could they acquire Arab support against the Ottoman Empire. But in the meantime they had had their secret arrangements about the partition of the middle east into their respective colonial zones. they never granted it and supressed the revolts for autonomy in post war period. Ottoman rule had often very loose control over its provinces by the way, Arabs revolted for autonomy not for your abstract concept of "more rights" and it was never given..

If you bother to read Neyzen's post a bıt more carefully you will notice that these secret arrangements were not only about Arab lands of the empire but also included the areas where Turks were constıtutıng the majority, almost the entire Turkish mainland was being partitioned among the Allies..

they felt 'compelled' to take a step away from 'outright ownership' of foreign lands and dress it up in a League of Nations 'mandate' of theoretically finite duration.

A combination of war time agreements, premises of autonomy to Arabs and fitting in the war time agreements to Wilsonian principles of "every nation has the right to govern itself"..;)

[deadkenny]

It appears that neyzen and snc128 are unable to reply for themselves. Or perhaps actually they have. ;)

Actually they promised Arabs self-rule, and by that promise could they acquire Arab support against the Ottoman Empire. But in the meantime they had had their secret arrangements about the partition of the middle east into their respective colonial zones. they never granted it and supressed the revolts for autonomy in post war period.

So, 'they never granted it'? So all of the 'provinces' taken from the defunct Ottoman Empire are all still French or British colonies to this day? Oh, wait, they actually gained their independence while under French and British rule, which they never had under the heel of the Turk. ;)

Ottoman rule had often very loose control over its provinces by the way, Arabs revolted for autonomy not for your abstract concept of "more rights" and it was never given..

Yes, I've heard the argument before of Ottoman corruption and incompetence in governance put forward as 'loose control' and therefore a form of 'autonomy'. It seems that the Arabs themselves didn't feel that way about it however.

If you bother to read Neyzen's post a bıt more carefully you will notice that these secret arrangements were not only about Arab lands of the empire but also included the areas where Turks were constıtutıng the majority, almost the entire Turkish mainland was being partitioned among the Allies..

I've read a lot more on the topic than neyzen's copy-paste in this thread. First, what 'God given right' do the Turks have to Anatolia? Other peoples lived there before the Turks came. The Turks 'took over' by 'military force'. When the Turks lost militarily, they were 'threatened' with the loss of territory. If the Allies deserve to be 'vilified' for what they attempted to do at the end of WWI, then the Turks deserve it tenfold. Be that as it may, the Greeks tried to 'bite off more than they could chew', both at the conference table and on the ground. The Turks refused to accept it, fought the Greeks and won. The Allies refused to back up the Greeks and a new peace treaty was written up and signed that recognized the reality on the ground. The 'new' Turkish Republic was the only nation to refuse the initial peace treaty 'offered' and 'force' changes to the terms in their favour. Truly a great moment in the history of the fledgling Turkish Republic. If that's what the original post had been about, it not only would have been more interesting but something that I would basically have agreed with. But no, unfortunately we got yet another 'copy-paste special' with a brief 'editorial' about what a wonderful entity the Ottoman Empire was and how 'evil' everyone else was for treating them badly. ;)

A combination of war time agreements, premises of autonomy to Arabs and fitting in the war time agreements to Wilsonian principles of "every nation has the right to govern itself"..;)

If you had read the post yourself, you would have seen that there was quite a bit of 'verbiage' regarding respecting the 'rights' of Arab 'states'. Not 'colonies' or 'possessions' with Arabs living on it, but Arab 'states'. Rather a step up from the administrative 'provinces' of the Ottoman Empire. It was 'commercial' rights in the area that were being 'divvied up'. Although the verbiage was not entirely honest, it was something that did require some legit recognition when it came to drafting the peace treaties. The perspective that the Arabs were 'better off' under the Turks, simply because the Allies didn't grant independence immediately and weren't entirely altruistic in their intentions is simply uninformed and biased. It was in fact alot more complicated than that.

[Guest]

The only things that matters ...

The only thing that matters is that the Ottoman sultanate lost the war of 1914-18, therefore UK and France as victors had every right to do what they wished with the defeated nation ... I am sure the sublime port showed no mercy to the vanquished Balkans kingdoms centuries before that. Nor for that matter did the Persians showed any mercy to their conquered subjects ....

There is nothing unfair about it ... just business

[Kansas Bear]

It appears that neyzen and snc128 are unable to reply for themselves. Or perhaps actually they have. ;)

Nothing like arguing with sockpuppets....

[laertes]

It appears that neyzen and snc128 are unable to reply for themselves. Or perhaps actually they have. ;)

Oh youre such a genius Kenny..

So, 'they never granted it'? So all of the 'provinces' taken from the defunct Ottoman Empire are all still French or British colonies to this day? Oh, wait, they actually gained their independence while under French and British rule, which they never had under the heel of the Turk. ;).

If you ask my personal point of view, yes to a degree they still are..But thats another matter of dispute, not the current one..

Yes, I've heard the argument before of Ottoman corruption and incompetence in governance put forward as 'loose control' and therefore a form of 'autonomy'. It seems that the Arabs themselves didn't feel that way about it however.

Actually Ottoman control has always been "loose" in the distant provinces of the empire, and i didn say that was a form of autonomy..
Arabs revolted for autonomy and there were premises made as such, but it was not granted, thats the point of argument for me, not your inner spechees, i dont know with whom youre doing with it. you answer to statements i actually never made..

I've read a lot more on the topic than neyzen's copy-paste in this thread. First, what 'God given right' do the Turks have to Anatolia? Other peoples lived there before the Turks came. The Turks 'took over' by 'military force'. When the Turks lost militarily, they were 'threatened' with the loss of territory. If the Allies deserve to be 'vilified' for what they attempted to do at the end of WWI, then the Turks deserve it tenfold..

And who is saying it? A Canadian, somebody who is living in the lands of natives who were most brutally murdered in millions..

Turks have been living in Anatolia for centuries and in the lands where they constitute the majority they had every right of soverignty. Sorry but this was one of the most idiotic statements ı have recently heard, in the midddle ages everybody had the "right of conquest", whoever had the power to do so was invading somewhere..

But no, unfortunately we got yet another 'copy-paste special' with a brief 'editorial' about what a wonderful entity the Ottoman Empire was and how 'evil' everyone else was for treating them badly. ;)

Again i guess this is one of your inner speeches, because i never said such a thing..

If you had read the post yourself, you would have seen that there was quite a bit of 'verbiage' regarding respecting the 'rights' of Arab 'states'. Not 'colonies' or 'possessions' with Arabs living on it, but Arab 'states'. Rather a step up from the administrative 'provinces' of the Ottoman Empire. It was 'commercial' rights in the area that were being 'divvied up'. Although the verbiage was not entirely honest, it was something that did require some legit recognition when it came to drafting the peace treaties. The perspective that the Arabs were 'better off' under the Turks, simply because the Allies didn't grant independence immediately and weren't entirely altruistic in their intentions is simply uninformed and biased. It was in fact alot more complicated than that.

Oh sure, and im sure just because of their good intent of respecting the rights of Arab states that they crushed movements of autonomy in post war period...Im not saying Arabs were better off under Turks, with a simple use of logic one can say that if they were so better off they wouldnt revolt in the first place..

Problem here is while so enthousiastically vilifying the Turkish rule, youre representing what the Allies had done as almost the opposite of it..Post war settlements were problematic ever since they came into effect, it created artificial arbitrary states with border problems, and to repeat i didnt say oh evil allies they destroyed good old Ottoman Empire..

[deadkenny]

Actually Ottoman control has always been "loose" in the distant provinces of the empire, and i didn say that was a form of autonomy..
Arabs revolted for autonomy and there were premises made as such, but it was not granted, thats the point of argument for me, not your inner spechees, i dont know with whom youre doing with it. you answer to statements i actually never made..

I was referring to comments made in the first post of this thread, and by the first one to post in this thread.

And who is saying it? A Canadian, somebody who is living in the lands of natives who were most brutally murdered in millions..

If you think that 'millions' of natives were murdered in Canada, then you need to read some more history. Because of the climate, there were fewer natives here than further south to begin with, and relatively more are still around today. If you're going to make a specific reference to my country of origin, you could at least study up on it a little beforehand, and not just 'lump' us in with all of North America.

Turks have been living in Anatolia for centuries and in the lands where they constitute the majority they had every right of soverignty. Sorry but this was one of the most idiotic statements ı have recently heard, in the midddle ages everybody had the "right of conquest", whoever had the power to do so was invading somewhere..

Yes, of course you consider any attempt to apply the same standards or rules to Turks that apply to everyone else as 'idiotic'. Of course the Turks never ruled over other peoples, or took their land and forced them out, or exterminated them en mass.

Again i guess this is one of your inner speeches, because i never said such a thing..

Again, reference the first post and first poster in this thread.

Oh sure, and im sure just because of their good intent of respecting the rights of Arab states that they crushed movements of autonomy in post war period...Im not saying Arabs were better off under Turks, with a simple use of logic one can say that if they were so better off they wouldnt revolt in the first place..

Problem here is while so enthousiastically vilifying the Turkish rule, youre representing what the Allies had done as almost the opposite of it..Post war settlements were problematic ever since they came into effect, it created artificial arbitrary states with border problems, and to repeat i didnt say oh evil allies they destroyed good old Ottoman Empire..

No, again you're viewing the application of the same rules and standards for the Turks as for the Allies as being 'unfair'. My first point was that when they were victorious, the Turks took lands populated by other peoples. But when they lose, and other nations take those lands, some Turk has to 'cry a river of tears' about how terrible and 'imperialistic' the French and British were. I never denied the cynical, exploitative aspect to the French and British actions in the territories taken from the Ottoman empire. Go back and read MY posts earlier in this thread. Did I not say "a cynical attempt by France and Britain to 'profit' from their victory"?

Two points, very straightforward:

1. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The Turks took lands when they were strong militarily and lost them when they were weak. Nothing new. No sympathy.

2. The actions of the French and British were an incremental step away from the earlier purely exploitative approach. They recognized that the Arab territories constituted 'states', not possessions or colonies. They worded the agreement in terms of commercial rights, not rights of 'ownership'. They were obliged to accept League of Nations 'mandates' of limited duration, during which time they were supposed to be 'developing' the territories in preparation for 'self-rule' one day.

None of that is to deny the 'cynical' motivations. However, an unbiased student of history will recognize the steps taken away from the 'conquest and ownership' of foreign lands and towards the acknowledgment of the 'rights' of other peoples to govern themselves. There's no credible evidence that the Ottoman Empire was headed in that direction with their 'loose reigns' approach to 'incompetent' governing of subject lands.

[laertes]

If you think that 'millions' of natives were murdered in Canada, then you need to read some more history. Because of the climate, there were fewer natives here than further south to begin with, and relatively more are still around today. If you're going to make a specific reference to my country of origin, you could at least study up on it a little beforehand, and not just 'lump' us in with all of North America..

In overall thats the problem ı m having with your posts kennny, with a surface level of knowledge you talk with such a certainty, that sometimes become a boredom for the reader, especıally for a native of those lands..I have never claimed an expertise about the Canadian history but regardless of how many less natives there were in there, they were brutally murdered after their lands were occupied thus you are not in a position to claim moral superiority by any means..

Of course the Turks never ruled over other peoples, or took their land and forced them out...

Inner speech again i guess, what i say is clear, in earlier epochs in human history people had the right of conquest, the rule is applied for everyone, not solely for Turks, otherwise there wouldnt be such a thing as Canada..But it was largely abandoned by 20th century.

My first point was that when they were victorious, the Turks took lands populated by other peoples. But when they lose, and other nations take those lands, some Turk has to 'cry a river of tears' about how terrible and 'imperialistic' the French and British were.

nobody is crying for anything, but post war settlements can well be a matter of dispute..You keep saying the same thing, Turks took other peolpes land bla bla, let me repeat then your own country is built upon the tombs of natives whose land were "stolen", it seems to me in fact youre the one who is applying double standarts here, as you keep saying turks took other peoples land while carefully "forgetting" how your country is built..;)

I never denied the cynical, exploitative aspect to the French and British actions in the territories taken from the Ottoman empire. Go back and read MY posts earlier in this thread. Did I not say "a cynical attempt by France and Britain to 'profit' from their victory"?

Good, but one of the aim of the war was the partition of the lands, keeping tha balance of power as intact as possible, not just some "explotative aspects"

1. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The Turks took lands when they were strong militarily and lost them when they were weak. Nothing new. No sympathy.

who asked your sympathy?

None of that is to deny the 'cynical' motivations. However, an unbiased student of history will recognize the steps taken away from the 'conquest and ownership' of foreign lands and towards the acknowledgment of the 'rights' of other peoples to govern themselves. There's no credible evidence that the Ottoman Empire was headed in that direction with their 'loose reigns' approach to 'incompetent' governing of subject lands.

Which in practice was nothing short of formal colonial admınistration and open refusal of the premises that were made in regard to autonomy..