Peace to End All Peace, 20th Anniversary Edition

Although somewhat intimidating at first due to its length and the density of the material, this is probably the best elucidation available of the complex events one hundred years ago that led to the creation of the borders of what we now know as the Middle East. The writing is quite good, the illustrations provide a welcome break, and the maps are helpful. It is essential reading for anyone trying to make sense of the endless problems in that part of the world.

As I read this wonderful book, I conjured a fantasy of a White House meeting held a couple of months before the Bush Administration’s fateful 2002 decision to invade Iraq. In attendance were the usual suspects: Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Rumsfeld, et al. But some sage attendee had also suggested the inclusion of Professor Fromkin who was asked to reflect on the notion of such an adventure in light of his study of the history of the Middle East. The professor went on for a couple of hours describing the events leading up to, and then following, the allied victory in World War One: the British change of heart about the essential integrity of the Ottoman Empire; the second and third thoughts about the Balfour Declaration; the ex parte division by the allies of the human and territorial spoils of war; the resultant festering resentment of foreign domination; the brutal machinations of the occupiers (especially the French in Algeria and elsewhere); the interwoven, ever-lasting, invariably brutal sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia…the list went on and on. The government officials sat in rapt fascination at the professor’s tale. They thanked him for his visit, and upon his departure, took just moments to conclude that any such invasion would be a historically tragic mistake. Of course, such a conclave was never convened. Despite many attendees’ knowledge of the same history Professor would have recounted, the invasion decision was taken and its predictable (if someone were listening and thinking) consequences dog us and the rest of the world to this day. We history buffs are especially enamored of Santayana’s observation that, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” But I guess governments don’t read history books, no less invite an authority on a particular region or period in for a coffee and a chat before a momentous and irreversible decision is made. More’s the pity. The upshot is this: if you believe your knowledge of the Middle East is not quite what it should be and you wonder from time to time why certain events happen and others do not in this perpetually troubled part of the world, just read this book. Then you will know what our Iraq invasion decision makers didn’t...or chose to forget.

Most informative. It shows how politicians work for their own aggrandizement, and rarely for the people, whom they use as mere pawns. The book gives a valuable insight into how the Middle East got to where it is today. Unfortunately, not much has changed in political policy.

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 in its internal dynamic. For some people this book lacks details, for others it has too much. I was annoyed by both, some parts of the book don't have detail at all, others are overwhelming. This makes the reading a bit uneven from chapter to chapter, with a consequential loss of insight. Fromkin claims that Chruchill is the central and structural character that shapes the book. I found that to be a failed enterprise. On the other hand, the book is a very interesting reading, it demystifies a lot, and the insights at the beginning, and specially at the end are really worthwhile. The thesis is that, if Europe needed 1000 years to shape itself after the fall of the Roman Empire, how many year does the Middle East need?

Peace in our world is fleeting. WW1 was a horrible total war. Millions died a horrible death. There was revenge on the minds of the Allies at Versailles. The world dramatically changed after WW1. The Russian Revolution, creation of new nation states, the Middle East changes and the failure of the Weimar Republic in Germany. The title of this book is ironic. You will read detail about change in Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries. Great Britain was involved in many of these changes in a complicated Middle East. Much disillusionment by the leaders of this era. Very good factual detail coming from this Author about post WW1 politics.

Fromkin has created a brilliant history of the Middle East following WW1. With almost 600 pages, it is not a quick read, and with so many different countries, personalities, prejudices, and perfidies involved, it does get confusing at times and takes a lot of concentration to keep the various players separate (especially when they keep changing sides and opinions). With Britain, France, Russia, Turkey, Italy, Greece, India, Bulgaria and others, plus multiple sects of Arabs and Jews, all trying to protect their own interests, no wonder the Middle East was put in chaos then. It still is in chaos, and Fromkin thinks that it may take 1500 years to quiet region, as it took Europe after Rome fell. But, he knows very well that this region is comparable to none because of religious history. Until radical Islam changes, it's only going to get more bloody. The author covers how boundaries of current Middle East were determined, Britain's struggles to keep their empire although the country was broke after WW1, Arabs determination to break free of British rule, Russian role in eliminating British influence in the area, French-British conflicts, and so much chaos created by so many different Moslem groups wanting independence. This book makes sense of how the region got to be the tinderbox that it is currently. Although a quest for oil played a small part, colonialism, religion, and inter-sect conflicts and political power has caused most of the problems.

take notes while reading, I'm just 100 pages in (have skimmed through for research years earlier) and I'm already utterly blown away by the seemingly impenetrable morass of confusion, misinformation, paranoia, anti-Semitism, Russo-phobia, political gambling, and a truly inexplicable belief in a cabal of "Gipsy-Jews" and "Jewish and Latin [Free]Masonry" (pg 42) somehow controlling the Young Turks, unfolding just between August and December 1914 that David Fromkin pries apart and lays out with a narrative ease so concise and informative that I had to re-read entire passages just to be clear that what I was reading was actually unfolding as plainly described, being used to general history texts and documentaries casually skimming over causes and events with a few sentences of "entity secretly engaged entity, failed, war were declared". from earlier readings I also got a sense of just how amazingly tenuous the communications between British Cairo and Emir Hussein were that a single man, Muhammad al-Faruqi, could perfectly damage and disorient negotiations by meeting with the British and the Arabs and claiming to represent the opposite side. al-Faruqi "...drew and redrew the frontiers of countries and empires, in the course of exchanges among the British Residency, the Emir of Mecca, and Arab nationalist leaders, each of whom took al-Faruqi to be the emissary of one of the other parties" (pg 178). even that is not even half-way through this book it's in no way shocking to see this book is rated #1 in Middle Eastern history. also recommended is the documentary Blood and Oil: The Middle East in World War I which also features the author of this book David Fromkin in it.

Good book, very insightful into history around that region.