wabpilot

There were originally 42 members of whom several left before the League was dissolved and about fifteen were added later. Members included, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Chile, Canada, Australia, Iran and many others. Some of the nations were definitely colonial powers, others not.

I think you would be wrong. While the UK and France were certainly emperial powers, you cannot claim the Mexico, Peru, Chile, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Venezuela and a host of other members were. Further, Palestine was not under London's control for long enough to amount to much of the British Empire either in a commercial sense or military one.

wabpilot

The UK never sought to rule Palestine by conquest. In fact, it did not conquor Palestine at all. Palestine fell into Britain's lap by default on the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Keep in mind that the League divided the Ottoman Empire among France and the UK.

Ray

You call them states who were not imperial powers?

Latin America was an appendage to the US and the others colonies of the British Empire, except Iran, Portugal, Spain and Germany!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Aranthus

What issue and what question?

Ray

The legitimacy of Israel or otherwise and connected questions.

Aranthus

Well, that is the divide between being pro-Israel and pro-Arab.

What do you think gives a state legitimacy?

Ray

World recognition and it being a physical entity.

Aranthus

Actually, the British fought a sizeable campaign in Palestine. They conquered Jerusalem in December, 1917, well before the Ottoman Empire dissolved.

xerxes

it doesnot matter the least. The military prowess of the sublime porte was defeated in WWI, the western allies as victors and as the conqueror of Constantinople, the seat of power, have the right to all Ottoman territories.

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

Stan187

By that definition, Brigadier, the Kurdish claim for a state is illegitemate, because of a lack of world recognition. So do you think the Kurdish claim for national homeland is illegitimate?

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

xerxes

@STAN ..... it matters not that there is no dejure Kurdish nation, considerng the fact that there is a defacto Kurdish territory ... once the defacto is achieved, recognition will come after ... see PRC

I have read that book ... i am reading another one but this one goes mosty into administration ... it goes from Osman to Suleiman


though i dont remember any of the two having any opinion regarding the Palestine, espacially "Ottoman Centuries" that spans across several centuries ...

would it be as fullfiling as edward gibbons's history of the decline and fall of the roman empire ....

Stan187

I think you missed my point, one that shows that world recognition is not a prerequisite for legitimate claims. Jews also had a legitimate right to their own homeland, prior to the world agreeing on this fact.

Kansas Bear

What is the title and author. I might be interested in reading it.


It was in reference to this statement I made...


No. Although, surprisingly it mentions the massacre of Armenians. Which he attributes as the actions of a dying empire.

xerxes

its simply called "Ottoman empire. the classical age 1300-1600"
by Halil Inalcik, I am not sure if you would consider him as biased or not ....
but i didnt think of him that way.

the only two other books that have read recently goes delve deep one the issue of Suleiman the Lawgiver another Mehmet the Second. Personnlly, i am more into infos such as names of different dynaties that Turkish overthrow, vassal states, their various titles and at one point did the sultan attained the, then slow breakup, the statues of various Balkan states coming independents etc.etc.

there is a website and i think you would greatly apperciated the shear amount of names and work in there .. ti concerns the whole history

The Ottoman Sultans of Turkey & Successors in Romania

Kansas Bear

Thanks!

Did you read this part??

Unbelievable!