A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin

Nov 09, 2011 T rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: middle, east, world, war, i, history, israel, jordan, palestine, egypt, churchill, lloyd, george, zaghlul, pasha, ottoman, empire, turks, djemal, enver, bolshevik, revolution

The last 2 chapters were disappointing.[return]In the last one he makes a quick 10 page conclusion of everything that I thought was just poor;[return]I have a feeling he had a deadline to meet and those last 10 pages he regurgitated the night before it was due.[return]All in all,[return]it was interesting, but very, very dense. I would say university history class level.[return]I would say that I know more now on the history than I did before, but there was such a huge mass of information that y...more The last 2 chapters were disappointing.[return]In the last one he makes a quick 10 page conclusion of everything that I thought was just poor;[return]I have a feeling he had a deadline to meet and those last 10 pages he regurgitated the night before it was due.[return]All in all,[return]it was interesting, but very, very dense. I would say university history class level.[return]I would say that I know more now on the history than I did before, but there was such a huge mass of information that you really need to stick to this book and not stop for too long or you'll just forget everything.[return][return]Despite the poor conclusion, he did say something interesting there:[return]Basically he said that the current system was never meant for Arabia.[return]The Europeans had concurred the world, and the last place to concur was the Middle East.[return]They had concurred America, north and south,[return]Australia, New Zealand, east Asia, Africa...[return]Everything was colonized by them.[return]They believed in this secular nation-state, which worked in Europe, but had never been introduced to the Middle East.[return]First Islam conquered the whole area, and [return]then the ottomans took over for 700 years.[return]Also, the fact that all the leaders were put in place by the English and French meant that the local people had no faith in their politicians, and didn't understand their borders.[return]For example, the Saudi-Jordanian border is the site of where Ibn Saud tried to invade what is now Jordan,[return]but Jordan had king Abdullah, put in place by the English, so the English sent airplanes and tanks and armored vehicles and massacred Ibn Saud's bedouins.[return]They did this to save face. They could not have their puppet being killed or crushed. It would simply make the Brits look weak.[return]The site of that battle became the border of Jordan and Saudi Arabia:[return]hence the names, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.[return]Basically 2 local dynastic tribal leaders tried to adapt to this European idea of nation-states and took their areas of control and turned them into countries.[return]So basically what I think he was trying to say in his conclusion was that that form of government was never meant for the Middle East and won't last long.[return]He was saying that the Europeans underestimated the only unifying factor in Arabia, which was Islam.[return]They would never have believed that a bunch of wahhabi bedouins could invade the hejaz, or that the muslim brotherhood would be so strong today, or the Afghani mujahedeen, or the shia revolution in Iran...[return] [return]He also said that it was like Europe in the 5th century[return]the roman empire crumbled and then Europe spent 1000 years warring against each other trying to find a comfortable solution, and it evolved this idea of secular nation states.[return]Anyway, I came off with the feeling that the English and the French screwed up everything, and have the blood of millions of deaths on their hands, and that the countries that exist today are sad jokes.[return]The whole area was part of Greater [return]Syria for 2 weeks. All the Arabs there united under 1 government right in between Egypt and Iran.[return]And I think that's how it should end one day.[return][return][return]So to summarize:[return]Pros:[return][return]Good book.[return]Dense[return]Well researched[return][return]Cons:[return][return]As one reviewer mentioned, too euro-centric for a book about the Middle-East.[return]The part on Ibn Saud taking the Hejaz and naming himself king, for example, was about 2 pages long![return]Also, he seems to quickly mention things that were of utmost importance, such as Ibn Saud collecting vast amounts of money from the British. He does not connect the dots here, because what this means is that Ibn Saud would have had little money to pay his troops and to buy weapons if the British had not payed him off as handsomely as they did, and hence, the world would not know a Wahhabi Saudi Kingdom in control of Islam's two holiest cities. And that, is something worth a chapter or two.(less)

like · see review

Dec 14, 2008 Cendri rated it 4 of 5 stars

An interesting history of the machinations that set the stage for the current Middle East. I've read more gripping historical counts, but this is very detailed, and well thought out. It traces the usually (but not always) well-intentioned policies, the brilliant but ill-informed and culturally ignorant politicians, and the unfortunate historical legacy of the Great Game played by the European powers that led to a division of peoples and power in the remains of the Ottoman Empire during and in th...more

like 3 likes · see review

Aug 11, 2012 G.d. Brennan rated it 5 of 5 stars

World War I was a profound cataclysm for much of the world. In some places, its effects were merely monumental, but in others, its consequences were so great that we are only now beginning to deal with them. World War I may have changed the face of Europe dramatically, but it completely remade the face of the Middle East. And that remaking has had profound aftereffects--virtually every major problem in that region (from the insurgency in Iraq, to the Israli-Palestinian conflict, to the struggle...more World War I was a profound cataclysm for much of the world. In some places, its effects were merely monumental, but in others, its consequences were so great that we are only now beginning to deal with them. World War I may have changed the face of Europe dramatically, but it completely remade the face of the Middle East. And that remaking has had profound aftereffects--virtually every major problem in that region (from the insurgency in Iraq, to the Israli-Palestinian conflict, to the struggle for the soul of Saudi Arabia) has roots in this book's subject, the death of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of the modern Middle East.

In this excellent history, which is comprehensive but still compelling, stimulating but still scholarly, David Fromkin tracks that birth, deftly illuminating its causes and hinting at its consequences. His book looks in great detail at the initial phases of the war, showing how British and French diplomats and soldiers dealt with a region that initially appeared to be nothing but a backwater. This history looks behind the "Lawrence of Arabia" myths to show with much greater accuracy how the British and French contributed to the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. And it illustrates what appears now to have been the true high-water mark of European colonialism--the drawing of Middle Eastern borders and the creation of Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel by British and French burecrats.

Rare indeed are the opportunities to seize the reins of history and lead it in an altogether new and better direction. The British and French had such an opportunity after World War I, and they bungled it badly, creating nations without regard for ethnic or political distinctions, nations without any real reason for being, except to serve as thrones for the Hashemites who had helped the British and French defeat the Turks but who ended up being driven out of Saudi Arabia by Ibn Saud. Ever wonder why Iraq is such a motley and volatile mix of Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurd? Or why Jordan, Syria and Iraq have borders that don't really follow any geographic or ethnic lines? Read this book, and you'll understand, and weep.

It's not a completely perfect study--while Fromkin generally does a good job walking the tightrope between readability and accuracy, at times the book slows down under the weight of all the facts he provides. Also, he understands and conveys the machinations of the British and French burecrats somewhat better than he does with the various Arabs and Turks who played a role in these events. Lastly, Fromkin perhaps doesn't give some events (the Armenian Massacre, for instance) enough play. But don't let those relatively minor flaws stop you--this is as good a work as has ever been written on its subject, and it's unlikely a better and more comprehensive one will ever appear.

A history professor once told me that World War I was the most important single event in Middle Eastern history since Mohammed. After reading this book, I understood why. (less)

like 2 likes · see review

Nov 12, 2011 John E. Branch Jr. rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: warfare-commentary-analysis, politics-history-theory, history

One might come away from this book with a deeply pessimistic outlook toward geopolitics, or at least it’s possible to regard its import that way from a distance of a few years. It seems to imply that whenever a country or countries attain to the status of great powers, they soon find it impossible to resist mucking about in the affairs of other nations, and when that goes wrong they usually do no better than to muddle through the consequences. (I recently read “muddling through” treated as a chi...more One might come away from this book with a deeply pessimistic outlook toward geopolitics, or at least it’s possible to regard its import that way from a distance of a few years. It seems to imply that whenever a country or countries attain to the status of great powers, they soon find it impossible to resist mucking about in the affairs of other nations, and when that goes wrong they usually do no better than to muddle through the consequences. (I recently read “muddling through” treated as a chief characteristic of Great Britain, during the later period of empire and since, but if that’s so it’s a behavioral habit much of the rest of the world has borrowed.) What used to be called the Great War and, more to the point where this book is concerned, the way it was concluded are a prime example. Europe has, perhaps, finally done better for itself; after creating the conditions for another great war and fighting it, the Treaties of Rome and Maastricht and other arrangements may, but then again may not, save it from further self-inflicted wounds of the kind represented by World Wars One and Two. Yet where the Middle East is concerned, Europe and the United States mucked about awfully in 1919 and have done worse than muddle through the consequences since then.

As David Fromkin’s book will tell you if you haven’t learned it elsewhere, the very term “Middle East” arises from the first two decades of the 20th century. In the only quotation I saved from my reading, Fromkin explains: “During the summer of 1916, [Sir Mark] Sykes spent a good deal of time making public speeches. In his speeches he gave currency to the new descriptive phrase, ‘the Middle East,’ which the American naval officer and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan had invented in 1902 to designate the area between Arabia and India.” Having come to see it during the Great War as a defined region of its own (it had earlier been regarded more as a part of the Ottoman Empire), the four chief victors of the war undertook afterward to tinker with its map. The reason was not simply because they could, though considering the punitive attitude they took toward any country that had ended up on the wrong side of the conflict (namely the Ottomans, in this case), that would explain something, but because Britain, France, and Italy all had interests and territorial ambitions in the area.

To do justice to the subject and justify his subtitle—“The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East”—requires Fromkin to survey a rather broad swathe of time and geography, from before the war to the final territorial arrangements made in 1922, and from the United States to Russia, though the center of his focus throughout is Great Britain. The result is thorough, intricate, and complex, but also remarkably clear and, considering his scope, even concise.

For a non-historian, reading it is still somewhat challenging. But the importance of what Fromkin describes is great, as a personal anecdote may suggest. Early one morning not long after the 9/11 attacks, my clock radio woke me to a BBC program, on which the hosts discussed with Fromkin how the chopping up of the Middle East after World War I had created a problematic situation we’re still struggling with. By the end of the program, I felt confirmed in my vague notion that the failure to end a war properly is often the cause of later wars (the Korean War, halted by an armistice but no formal treaty, is a case not yet settled either way). My eyes had been opened to how events of the past—more distant in time than the soon-to-be-routine recitation of American support for jihadists against the Soviets in Afghanistan—had contributed to the smoking mountain of rubble a mile or so downtown from where I lived, in New York’s West Village. And I had better grasped the brilliance of Fromkin’s ironic title for this book, for we have seen little enough peace in Europe and the Middle East since 1919. (Whether he attributes the phrase I don’t recall, but a review tells me it came from a British statesman named Archibald Wavell. Incidentally, the same review, written by a professional historian, which Fromkin is not, takes issue with one of his emphases but otherwise praises the work highly.)

Instead of the pessimistic outlook that I said one might take away from it, one can adopt a more useful view. (One has a choice in one’s attitudes, after all.) To borrow an expression from a former girlfriend of mine, we might at least learn not to make this mistake again. The trick is in saying just what the mistake consisted of. A good start: the great powers of the time made decisions about borders, peoples, and nations that were arbitrary, convenient, narrowly conceived, self-interested, or vindictive, and in the Middle East they were all of those.

In the midst of the Paris talks, John Maynard Keynes argued, for purely economic reasons, against what was being contemplated for the losers of the war. Soon after, he wrote his first best-selling book, on the outcome he had been unable to prevent. No one who knew of it could have been happy to see his prediction of future disaster for the victors as well as the defeated beginning to come true within two decades. Nor have we outlived it yet. Whatever happens in terms of war in the future, we can say, to policy makers as well as to the electorates whose opinion guides them: Please, let us have no more peace of this kind.(less)

like · see review

Aug 08, 2011 Juan-Pablo rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Fromkin delivers what he promises; how after the fall of the Ottoman Empire during the Great War, the modern Middle East was basically drawn in the map. He explains how the Englishmen were ignorant in Middle Eastern affairs and how the religious fervor in both continents shaped many of the events recounted in the book. The story has a very clear arch. The formation of the Middle East is a counterpoint to the destruction of the Old European Order after the First World War.

Where the book fails is...more

like · see review

Jul 05, 2010 Clif rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

One of the best books I've read, Peace is a thorough account of the events and personalities that shaped the Middle East as a result of World War I.

Taking Winston Churchill as the principle character, the framework upon which the book is built, Fromkin let's us see how momentous policies are made, often with complete ignorance of the true situation of the people inhabiting the lands that will be subject to the policy.

It also reveals how individuals can change the course of history. I don't refer...more One of the best books I've read, Peace is a thorough account of the events and personalities that shaped the Middle East as a result of World War I.

Taking Winston Churchill as the principle character, the framework upon which the book is built, Fromkin let's us see how momentous policies are made, often with complete ignorance of the true situation of the people inhabiting the lands that will be subject to the policy.

It also reveals how individuals can change the course of history. I don't refer only to leaders but also to those who are commanded to implement policy, either military of political, and either interpret the commands in their own way, disobey them or do exactly the opposite of what they were instructed to do. At every level there is the good chance that policy will go astray, the results ranging from disaster to saving the day.

I came away from the book marveling that any grand policy can ever be brought to bear in a way even moderately close to its intent. How can it when even those who propose it cannot agree on what is to be accomplished?

As the afterward indicates, it's too easy for us today to dismiss the imperialist views of 1918, not realizing that it was central to the mental world of the time and impossible for those living at the time to escape.

Peace reinforces my idea that truth is stranger than fiction. This book is an exciting and fascinating read. I kept wondering what would happen next...did I really have to go to bed right away without finding out?!

You'll want to have Google Maps running as you read so you can instantly see the particular areas under discussion and you will want Wikipedia open as well to show you pictures of personalities you'll encounter.

Best of all, the book will give any reader great insight into the intractability of politics in the Middle East. Why is it called Saudi Arabia? How did Jordan, Israel, Syria and Lebanon come into existence? Why is Jordan's official name "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"? What area does the name Palestine refer to? What is the big deal about Islam over there and what was the Caliphate? Most of all, what was the Ottoman Empire that has seemingly vanished from American minds?

Excitement, education and great story-telling all in one package. Bravo to David Fromkin for this masterpiece.(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Aug 01, 2011 Daniel rated it 4 of 5 stars

In this thorough work, Fromkin chronicles how the threat of war and the might of the Allied armies (principally the British army) served as the catalyst that completed the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The British politicians (notably Lloyd George) had the will (if not the understanding) to remake the Middle East, and began to construct from the fallen empire countries we recognize today (e.g., Iran, Jordan, Iraq, Israel). They envisioned these states as roughly following the model of Europ...more In this thorough work, Fromkin chronicles how the threat of war and the might of the Allied armies (principally the British army) served as the catalyst that completed the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The British politicians (notably Lloyd George) had the will (if not the understanding) to remake the Middle East, and began to construct from the fallen empire countries we recognize today (e.g., Iran, Jordan, Iraq, Israel). They envisioned these states as roughly following the model of European states, which would protect the Mediterranean (in the event of another world war) and buffer their trade routes from Egypt to India against their traditional rival, Russia. (Religious overtones also played a significant factor in the fervor that made the state of Israel into a reality.) But as their vision for how to proceed sharpened, their means to carry it out dissipated. Driven by a failing British economy and by a common desire to bring the troops home, Churchill executed what by today’s standards was a very quick and efficient pullout, slashing costs and leaving a power vacuum that no one then or since could adequately fill.

I would recommend A Peace to End All Peace as a bedtime book, which is how I read it. Spreading it out over several weeks, I found each chapter brought engaging new storylines. The deeper you get into the read, the more you realize just how complex and garbled this whole process was, and how great a debt we owe to diligent historians like Fromkin who have condensed into sections and chapters. The downside of Fromkin’s thoroughness is that having so broad a scope and so many players and story threads makes it difficult to fasten onto a story line. The simple addition of summary points and diagrams of how the many players and events connect would make this book into a more powerful education and reference tool.

By the way, if you ever start reading a lot of history books, you may notice fewer and longer paragraphs showing up in your own writing. And footnotes!(less)

like · see review

Jun 28, 2012 Marks54 rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is 20 year reissues of an account of how the current situation in the Middle East, in many of its current dimensions, came into existence as European powers, especially Great Britain, developed their policy during World War I, the resulting peace conferences, and the immediate aftermath of the war and the subsequent peace. The claim of the author is that a significant part of the current crises in the Middle East stems from decisions made or not made during this time period - making it reas...more This is 20 year reissues of an account of how the current situation in the Middle East, in many of its current dimensions, came into existence as European powers, especially Great Britain, developed their policy during World War I, the resulting peace conferences, and the immediate aftermath of the war and the subsequent peace. The claim of the author is that a significant part of the current crises in the Middle East stems from decisions made or not made during this time period - making it reasonable to review that time in detail.

The book is exceptional and one of the best I have ever read on strategic issues. It is a convincing case that weaves together military, political, economic, organizational, social, and religious currents - all ignited by the actions of some very extraordinary individuals in Britain, Turkey, the former Ottoman lands like Iraq and Palestine, and others.

The argument is very complex with many takeaways and conclusions, but some of the themes are worth noting.

1) Imperialism was not benign at all to the area, despite the strong beliefs of the British and others that it was. It is easy to see why people in Eygpt, Turkey, and elsewhere were not as supportive of the British mission as they were initially thought to be. National power and interests provide a much better interpretive lens.

2) Even if imperial aims were altruistic towards the ruled - which they were not -- the problem of organizing a far flung empire to undertake any course of action coherently proved to be exceedingly difficult and nearly impossible. The book is a chronicle of conflicting goals, perspectives, interests, and values among individuals supposedly on the same side. Add to this the lack of experience of many of the players and the adulation of the amateur administrator in the British Empire and it is a wonder that anything ever got done.

3) Even if you could organize your empire, the process of building new nations out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire was a task about which the British knew nothing. How does one go about "nation building" where there is no history of nations, secular or otherwise? The role of British hubris is large in the book. While the book was originally written twenty years ago, the question is relevant today in light of US wars since 2003.

4) The role of individuals in these events is very interesting, especially the usual suspects like Churchill, Lloyd-George, or Kemal Ataturk. Some people can make a difference.

5) The role of religion in these conflicts has been largely destructive from the start, so it is not surprising that it remains so today. This includes some rather fanciful interpretations and conspiracy theories that seem crazy today but were taken serious at the time. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result.

6) The conflicts between Jews and Palestinians were confused and highly contentious from the start - it is hard to see how that conflict ever gets resolved given the history since 1922.

7) While there are some villains in the story, there is plenty of blame to go around and no nation emerges unscathed as virtuous.

This is not an easy read, although the chapters are generally short. The book is well worth the effort.

(less)

like · see review

Nov 15, 2010 Edward rated it 3 of 5 stars

An interesting history of the role the Middle East played in World War I, and how its aftermath shaped the present Middle-East, including the state of Israel. Plans for a Jewish homeland were being formulated after the war, and ironically in view of the present animosity between Jews and Arabs, Jews in the early 20's said there was plenty of land for both, and that a Jewish state would benefit the Arabs by making the entire region productive and prosperous. Arabs should welcome Jewish settlemen...more

like · see review

Jun 21, 2011 Mycroft rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, disappointing

I bought this book to better understand how history influenced the current situation in the Middle East. Fromkin clearly researched the book extensively and for that, I gave him credit. Unfortunately despite the research, the book was largely incoherent. Fromkin didn't seem to pick a narrative which made events at best confusing and at worst a jumbled mess. The book follows neither chronological order, nor tracking an individual people, country or event. Fromkin tossed out information in one cha...more

like · see review

Sep 30, 2012 Mark Singer rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: anyone interested in modern and middle east history

Recommended to Mark by: gift

Shelves: world-war-i, russia, soviet-union, afghanistan, britain, colonialism, diplomacy, egypt, european-history, france, germany, greece, history, imperialism, india, islam, middle-east, military, favorites

I can't emphasize enough how this book is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand why the Middle East is the way it is today. It's long, densely written, and well worth the effort. This book was given to me as a present on my 30th birthday, and I have read it three times since.

like 2 likes · see review

May 02, 2012 Renee rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is a must read for people trying to make sense of the current shape of the world. It really is needed as the foundation for other readings. The author David Fromkin is a brilliant writer and an excellent story teller. Having a fair understanding of the Ottoman Empire and Colonial France and England help before reading this book, because all though it is full to the brim with data, Fromkin does not proceed chronologically and moves rapidly to and fro. Keeps you on your toes and while he is e...more

like · see review

Sep 09, 2009 thad.miller rated it 4 of 5 stars

A VERY detailed examination of the Middle Eastern theater before, during and after WWI. Fromkin looks at the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the characters and processes that drew up the boundaries of what essentially became the current day Middle East up to the "settlement of 1922." For anyone looks for a non-biased, historical look into the complexities of the Middle East situation, this is a fantastic (though extremely dense) book. The final chapter really brings it home as Fromkin poses the q...more

like 1 like · see review

May 09, 2013 Andrew rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a readable and comprehensive history of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and formation of the modern states in the Middle East. It is very useful for understanding how the current political boundaries of the Middle East came into existence. This book also really excels in providing the diplomatic and political history, drawing heavily from the records and correspondence of the British leadership. I would have appreciated a bit more emphasis, however, on other historical approaches - such a...more

like · see review

Apr 14, 2009 Thomas ODonnell added it

Sometimes when we are negotiating we get overwhelmed and feel that we are the only ones in the world with problems. If so, read this book and see what truly monumental negotiation problems are like. Second, sometimes we think that the other party is the demon and we, of course, are blameless. If so read this book and see how flawed all the parties generally are and see if it applies to you. Third, normally we NEED to see that there is a solution for a problem before we can move energetically on...more

like · see review

Apr 15, 2013 Joe Blankenship rated it 4 of 5 stars

Our current dilemmas and continuing issues in the Middle East and Asia stem from the events detailed in this book. Fromkin does an excellent job in explaining the European involvement leading up to and following the First World War and its detrimental results. I was slightly disappointed by the Eurocentric tone taken in some of the passages regarding the fall of the Ottoman Empire and partitioning of the Levant region. Additional exploration of these events' historical implications would have be...more

like · see review

Feb 07, 2009 Justin rated it 5 of 5 stars

If you have the patience to read about 500 pages of dense historical observation and testimony you will find out the reason why there isn't going to be an easy answer to our contemporary problems in the region. You may wind up lamenting everything with a newfound sense of historical fatalism, you may both curse and yearn for the times of empire and colony, but you should come to the conclusion that we can no longer afford to have people without any dilplomatic sense, or idea of realpolitik influ...more

like 2 likes · see review

May 12, 2013 Michael rated it 5 of 5 stars

"When the uprisings in the Middle East after the war occurred, it was natural for the British officials to explain that they formed part of a sinister design woven by the long-time conspirators. Bolshevism and international finance, pan-Arabs and pan-Turks, Islam and Russia were pictured by British Intelligence as agents of international Jewry and Prussian Germany, the managing partners of the great conspiracy. In the mind of British officialdom, bitter enemies such as Enver and Kemal were playi...more

like · see review

Apr 13, 2013 Ryan Hunter rated it 3 of 5 stars

This book is considered an essential source on how and why the modern Middle East was created from the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. It was this creation, predominantly at the hands of imperial Great Britain and France, that has significantly fueled the conflicts that continue to plague the region today. What stood out for me the most was the paternalistic colonial attitudes of the European leaders and their a total disregard and ignorance of the opinions or needs of local popula...more

like · see review

Oct 16, 2012 Ardene added it

Shelves: dcpl, non-fiction, politics, 2012, history, middle-east

I read this as part of a Middle East/North African (MENA) group read. It was eye opening to say the least.

What I liked about it:

Big picture view of Western European interests that were influential in creating what we call the Middle East out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey/Middle East/Central Asia). Particularly British, as well as (to a lesser extent) France, Russia/USSR.

My impressions:

Britain's interests were conflicted – they started out wanting to protect the overland path to th...more I read this as part of a Middle East/North African (MENA) group read. It was eye opening to say the least.

What I liked about it:

Big picture view of Western European interests that were influential in creating what we call the Middle East out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey/Middle East/Central Asia). Particularly British, as well as (to a lesser extent) France, Russia/USSR.

My impressions:

Britain's interests were conflicted – they started out wanting to protect the overland path to the Indian Empire from their rivals in Europe & Russia. However, various parts of the empire (India = Simla, Egyptian protectorate, & various factions in London ) had different points of view at different times. Kitchener/Mark Sykes/ David Lloyd George/Winston Churchill are the names I have retained. Alliances & agreements between the Allies changed also.

Britain supported two sons of Sheriff Hussein of Mecca for “rulership” while France supported the Saud family. It’s no wonder there is conflict, as the form of government the region was accustomed to was destroyed, and there was no clear authoritative form of government or monarch to put in its place.

Britain ended up with the biggest “piece of the pie” – Palestine, “Transjordan” (which was part of Palestine), Egypt, Persia (Iran), Iraq (created out of 3 provinces of the empire); France with Lebanon (which started out as part of Palestine) & the Saudi Peninsula, including Mecca. And Turkey gained independence.

By the time World War I was over & treaties & agreements were concluded, Western European governments didn’t have the will or the funds to maintain a presence to control their client states. And the client states didn’t want to be clients, but independent in their own right.

Fromkin draws a parallel between the time it took for Western European government to develop after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire and the time it may take for a "secular" form of government to develop in the Middle East. Stilll chewing on this.(less)

like · see review

May 25, 2012 Alan Overholser rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

This is an excellent account of how the Modern Middle East was created out of the carnage of the First World War. The author starts with his thesis that it was long assumed in Europe that when the Ottoman Empire inevitably collapsed, one or more of the Great Powers would step in to fill the void. This assumption was "one of the motors that drive history." Then he makes a compelling case for how this assumption guided the decisions made by the allies during the course of the war, militarily and d...more This is an excellent account of how the Modern Middle East was created out of the carnage of the First World War. The author starts with his thesis that it was long assumed in Europe that when the Ottoman Empire inevitably collapsed, one or more of the Great Powers would step in to fill the void. This assumption was "one of the motors that drive history." Then he makes a compelling case for how this assumption guided the decisions made by the allies during the course of the war, militarily and diplomatically. Basically, during and after the war, policy makers in Britain and France divided the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire between them and carved the Middle East into separate entities which eventually became new nation states--Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and Iraq, essentially "drawing lines on an empty map." There is more to it than that, however, and the author lays out a complex web of people and events that influenced the course of history in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire. The sheer volume of characters can be overwhelming at times, but the author does a great job clearly communicating his arguments and demonstrating how the various episodes in his account fit into the big picture.

My critique is that the author spent too much time focusing on British politics. Of course, domestic politics exerted influence on the decision making of Britain's leaders during the war and during the peace negotiations after the war, but he could have done without some of those details where they did not have direct bearing on the Middle East. It seemed like one of his main points was how unfolding events in the Middle East affected the political fortunes of Asquith, Churchill, and Lloyd George. Also, he asserts at the end of the first chapter that no one figure had more influence on the shaping of the Middle East than Winston Churchill. Yet, judging from the content of the vast majority of the book, it was actually Prime Minister Lloyd George who had the most influence on the shaping of the Middle East. He was the only man to serve as a member of the Cabinet from the beginning of the war to the conclusion of the "settlement of 1922." He was the man who made it the policy of the British government to completely destroy the Ottoman Empire, and who strove to claim as much territory in the Middle East as possible, even to the point of attempting to exclude France from the war spoils.

His concluding chapter is interesting, but he introduces an idea that he had not alluded to in the previous sixty chapters. He compares the fall of the Ottoman Empire to the fall of the Roman Empire, and makes the point that it took over a thousand years for Europe to become politically stable after the Roman Empire in the West fell. In the aftermath of the collapse of a large empire, it takes time for the territories which had been ruled by that empire for several centuries to form a new political identity. Great Britain did not have the financial resources, military manpower, or political will to stay in the region long enough to enforce the European model for political organization (secular nation states) that they attempted to impose on the region. I think this is an idea he could have taken more time to develop.

Overall, this is an excellent historical account, and I think it's one of those books that anyone who wants to understand the Middle East should read. Other reviewers have critiqued the book as overly Euro-centric. However, that misses the author's intention in writing the book. It is not an account of the native history of the region; it is primarily an account of how the policies and decisions of leaders and officials in the British government, during and after the First World War, shaped the political destiny of the Middle East. (less)

like · see review

Nov 19, 2012 Anthony rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

David Fromkin's acclaimed "classic" is highly overrated. At best, its wooly narrative will appeal to those seeking an "epic tale" rather than a careful and patient study. At worst, Fromkin's bloated tome will reaffirm Western biases toward the Middle East(more on that later.)

For starters, Fromkin is too general with his conclusions. He piles on fact after fact with hardly any detailed analysis. Chapters are very short (sometimes a two pages.) Secondly, his writing style is very disjointed and e...more David Fromkin's acclaimed "classic" is highly overrated. At best, its wooly narrative will appeal to those seeking an "epic tale" rather than a careful and patient study. At worst, Fromkin's bloated tome will reaffirm Western biases toward the Middle East(more on that later.)

For starters, Fromkin is too general with his conclusions. He piles on fact after fact with hardly any detailed analysis. Chapters are very short (sometimes a two pages.) Secondly, his writing style is very disjointed and even confusing. He jumps around from year to year in a cavalier fashion. Thirdly, he overemphasizes Winston Churchill as a not just a major player but THE major player post-1919. Churchill was no doubt influential in British policy in the Middle East during that time but Fromkin goes too far in viewing the history through Churchill's eyes and he seems more interested in constructing a tale of personal struggle instead of a historical study. Fromkin's background as a journalist perhaps plays a role in this. Fourthly, Fromkin's study is just too Western-centric. There are not enough Arab, Hebrew, Farsi etc. sources to balance against the Western ones and he holds a strongly American perspective (one steeped in Francis Fukuyama.) Not to be unexpected for a book written in 1989 I suppose. Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on the latter but for a book that's viewed as "authoritative" (the Obama Adminstration as well as the US Marines Corps. both have it on their respective lists for example)his reliance on Anglo-American sources is just unacceptable.

I'd like to make one more point about his 2009 afterword: it reeks of neocon philosophy. Fromkin, an advisor to Hubert Humphrey's 1972 presidential campaign, would perhaps balk at such an accusation (despite the fact that Humphrey supporters, many of them jaded Democrats, became neocons in the late 1970s and 1980s.) True, Fromkin is critical of the European powers but he repeatedly denigrates Arab nationalism throughout the book as well as in the afterword. He paints Arabs as "religious zealouts" but applauds Zionism with an uncritical praise. And as of the 2009 afterword, Fromkin continues to believe that Arabs are not "ready" or "capable" of democracy. This is beyond problematic.

It's amazing to me that the biggest complaints about this book here on Goodreads related to Fromkin's "dry" writing style. Hardly any reviewers have picked up on his political prejudices. His opinions are hardly dull! It is disturbing to me that this book is viewed as "factual" and "well-researched;" it is neither. Instead, Fromkin's study should be viewed with caution and, in my opinion, is not very useful to historians.(less)

like · see review

Jan 26, 2013 Tony Heyl rated it 5 of 5 stars

Reading Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace could very well give you the impression that World War I was the dumbest war ever. Yet at the same time, every miscalculation, every arrogance, every partnership created and dissolved, seems to make sense in terms of the historical actors involved.

Lesson one: Never doubt the human capacity to make very bad decisions.

Lesson two: If you don't learn history, you are doomed to repeat it. And we've been repeating many things.

This book is not about all of Wor...more Reading Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace could very well give you the impression that World War I was the dumbest war ever. Yet at the same time, every miscalculation, every arrogance, every partnership created and dissolved, seems to make sense in terms of the historical actors involved.

Lesson one: Never doubt the human capacity to make very bad decisions.

Lesson two: If you don't learn history, you are doomed to repeat it. And we've been repeating many things.

This book is not about all of World War I, but instead just about how the Ottoman Empire got into the war, how the war in the Middle East was fought, and, most importantly, how the eventual peace shaped the world in ways that nobody at the time could have understood.

The British saw Islam as organized similarly to Catholicism, which caused bad decisions, but also is frustrating to read since Islam wasn't exactly "new" in 1914. The West also saw the Arabs as inferior, and sometimes that stereotyping was proven true, but more than anything, the two cultures were just very alien to each other. The West tried to define the Islamic world as just like the West, only with some different language and customs. On the flip side, the Arabs saw the Allies through their own prism, and nobody seemed to know who was saying what. Intelligence was botched, mistakes were made, and many times in the following decades, history would repeat itself.

The Declarations put together at this time lead to the creation of Israel and it is interesting to see how many Jews really didn't see an Israeli state as that important and how the Arabs weren't necessarily against having the Jews there, at least at the time, they just didn't want anything imposed on them. Oh, and the heads of the British cause thought that creating a Jewish state would bring Jesus back, which makes sense if you disregard logic.

The internal politics with the countries involved could not be stressed enough. The goals of France and Britain for the Middle East flipped because of changes in elections. The legitimacy of the League of Nations mandates was quickly thrown out when America, following Wilson leaving office and the Senate diavowing the League, didn't help, and the British were basically like "what the fuck guys?" And the Bolshevik Revolution, supported in part by Germany, which is an interesting story in itself, added so many complexities to the war and the world as the Russian interests in the region changed and the desire to dedicate resources.

Everything was defined through the eye of Empire because everybody, in some sense, was part of one. The Ottomans were on the decline at the start of the war as they had little ability to hold onto their territories and chaos reigned with new leadership. Churchill was a hero, a goat, a villain, a hero, a villain, and on and on over again. Countries that should have stayed to enforce agreements pulled out when their populations stopped caring and wanted attention back home.

The world was complex, and the Peace created here made the world even more complex.

One final note about how Fromkin writes. He treats the reader like an adult, writes intelligently, but doesn't expect you to know everything either. It's a long read, but an important one.(less)

like · see review

Aug 01, 2011 Eric rated it 2 of 5 stars

It's hard to decide what to rate this book. It was just dry history, and a whole lot of it, so it wasn't a particularly enthralling experience. But it was good history. It was enlightening and the meticulousness with which it was compiled should be commended. That being said, the site is called "Goodreads" and the book technically wasn't, so it gets two stars on factual merit alone.

The most interesting, enlightening, and sad part, was the detail in which Europe's role in screwing up the Middle E...more

like · see review

Dec 24, 2012 Micah is currently reading it

Richard Holbrooke assesses the relevance of A Peace to End All Peace.

RICHARD C. HOLBROOKE is U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard once observed that "life must be understood backward. But . . . it must be lived forward." This applies to more than one's own life: what is past is more than prologue; it is essential for anyone wanting to understand how today's world was created. This is especially true of the critical region between the Mediterr...more

like · see review

Apr 04, 2011 Paul Donahue rated it 3 of 5 stars

Continuing my stubborn practice of literally interpreting the Goodreads review system, I hereby declare that I liked this book. However I should note that I "really liked" learning about the subject matter; the book itself I merely "liked."

David Fromkin is why I (we?) love writers like David McCullough so much. McCullough brings history to life in a narrative, while Fromkin seems content to simply relay historical situations, figures, and legacies. Whereas I read stories by McCullough, I read h...more Continuing my stubborn practice of literally interpreting the Goodreads review system, I hereby declare that I liked this book. However I should note that I "really liked" learning about the subject matter; the book itself I merely "liked."

David Fromkin is why I (we?) love writers like David McCullough so much. McCullough brings history to life in a narrative, while Fromkin seems content to simply relay historical situations, figures, and legacies. Whereas I read stories by McCullough, I read hundreds of pages of black and white text by Fromkin. Much of this book was "come onnnnnnn" dull, but at the end of each chapter I was able to appreciate the fact that my understanding of the subject was slowly increasing.

In 1914, Britain (and France and Russia), apart from fighting the War to End All Wars, set about deciding what to do with their vanquished opponents once the war ended. Even in the initial years when the outcome of the war was in doubt, the British political machine -- from London throughout colonial Egypt, Sudan and India -- was plotting its postwar spoils. Throughout this process, a number of other players helped and hindered (mainly hindered) this process: France, Russia, post-war Bolshevik Russia, Turkey, Italy, Greece, and the various Arab and Jewish peoples whose land was being toyed and tinkered with like a game of Risk.

The story is told largely through the eyes of Britain, whose empire had so many leaders, local and otherwise, that it seems there was never a solidified, concrete plan for what to do. Agreements with France and certain Arab leaders in 1916 were essentially obsolete by 1922. New regimes -- especially in Russia and France -- complicated everything. They had to balance promises to Arabs with those to the Zionist movement, to which they assured they would provide a Jewish national state in Palestine, alongside Arab Palestinians. In the 1910s and early 20s this astoundingly was not a blatant contradiction.

The end result was a former Ottoman Empire divided among Britain, France, Russia and Turkey, all of whom by the postwar shambles of 1922 had neither the means, the will or the public support on either end of the continent for continued occupation (except for Turkey in its new nation-state, the last remnants of the Turkish-ruled Ottoman Empire). The age of imperialism was over. In Fromkin's dense words, it is not only a tale of how the Middle East was changed by the events of 1914-1922, but all of Europe and indeed the world was everlastingly impacted by the Peace to End All Peace.(less)

like · see review

Aug 02, 2010 Mark Flowers rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is the best history book I've read in a very long time. Using diaries, letters, official communications, secondary accounts, and in some cases newly-declassified information, Fromkin pieces together the threads of how the Western powers (most specifically Britain) hand-designed the Middle East, during and after World War I. Not the least of Fromkin's achievements is giving us a whole new take on the war itself, by focusing on the little understood South-eastern front in the Ottoman Empire....more

like · see review

Apr 18, 2011 Kristi rated it 3 of 5 stars

What a slog! This book aggravated me on so many levels: the author's inconsistent use of sources to provide context on the Arab and Turkish perspectives, his irresponsible handling of the Zionist/Arab conflict, his irresponsible handling of the Armenian/Ottoman and Greek/Ottoman politics, etc. Moreover, he tries to center the book on Winston Churchill, who I don't find to be a terribly charismatic character... but then he doesn't even have Churchill in the book for the middle 300ish pages. Go fi...more

like 1 like · see review

Jan 07, 2011 Lynn rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: middle-east-past-and-present

Wilson reads like a great statesman. What honor. What moral fiber. He was the first American President to ever leave the US during his term of office. He genuinely believed in the end of "the empire". On the eve of declaring war with Germany during WW1 his words were: "The actions of the Kaiser's government, he told Congress, constituted a war against all nations and so the challenge is to all mankind. We have no selfish ends to serve. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensati...more Wilson reads like a great statesman. What honor. What moral fiber. He was the first American President to ever leave the US during his term of office. He genuinely believed in the end of "the empire". On the eve of declaring war with Germany during WW1 his words were: "The actions of the Kaiser's government, he told Congress, constituted a war against all nations and so the challenge is to all mankind. We have no selfish ends to serve. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. The world must be made safe for democracy."

An absolutely essentially read. It took me forever to complete, I must have read it two or three times before I really started digesting it. Like an old black and white film, it flickers across your imagination, weaving for you the tale of when the world's roads crossed and nothing would ever again be the same. The high seas, the great battles, the long desert routes, months to get communications back and forth, moving men, food, and ammunition, the mystery and exoticness of the unknown.

Do you know that when Britain entered the great deserts of Syria... they didn't have the slightest clue what the landscape looked like, no map had ever been produced, utterly no idea weather the desert was 50 miles wide or 500,000 miles...but they knew they wanted it.

This book explains clearly and fully, and more so I believe unbiasedly, the surrounding events that created the crescendo of the modern world. All the lines on the map you see today they are directly effected or a reaction to the wars fought during the end of the 1800s and the beginnings of the 20th century. The Ottomans, the Kaiser, The Arabs, The New Turks, The Russians, The Arabians, The British, The French,The Americans, The Italians on occasion too... the secret agreements, the misunderstandings, the outright lies, after the millionth time of reading this book it begins to become one big novella or soap opera.

It should be required for all citizens of the world so that we all understand how responsible we all are.(less)

like · see review

Aug 14, 2009 Robert Kroese rated it 4 of 5 stars

A Peace to End All Peace covers the events leading up to what Fromkin calls the "Settlement of 1922," when the political boundaries and institutions that were to predominate in the Middle East for most of the next century took shape. The book details the many factors involved, such as the rise of Zionism, the exaggerated sense of importance to the war effort of both Jews and Arabs that predominated in Europe, and the personal ambitions of the many actors on the stage, from Winston Churchill to S...more

like 1 like · see review

title link	preview: A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East
avg rating	preview: A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East Goodreads rating: 4.11 (1707 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/78107.A_Peace_to_End_All_Peace?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1316738014l/78107.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/78107.A_Peace_to_End_All_Peace?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin[/url]

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (10)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About David Fromkin

Books by David Fromkin

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About A Peace to End Al...