Peace to End All Peace, 20th Anniversary Edition

This is one of the best books for understanding how the Middle East got to where it is today. Like most of the problems in the modern world, the problems started with World War I. I highly recommend reading to get a good base understanding of the modern world.

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.

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.

An enthralling rhetoric involving how WWI, via its Allied winners, ultimately determined today's artificial construct encompassing the vast Middle East into "Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.... All of them belonged to the Turkish-speaking Ottoman Empire ..." (Page 569). At times, repetitive and subjective. Further, the analysis is, disturbingly, contradictory. For instance, the Author conclusively asserts that "[t]he growing [postwar WWI] British conviction that Bolshevik Russia was involved in a far-reaching international conspiracy that has incited rebellion throughout the Middle East was a delusion" (Page 465). Yet, in contravention of this conclusion, the Author subsequently expresses facts, to the contrary. In that regard, the Author oddly indicates that "[o]n 1 September 1920 the Bolsheviks convened the 'first congress of people of the east' ... Comintern ... [wherein] Zinoviev, leader of the Communist International, acted as president of the congress.... In his opening address he cried out 'Brothers, we summon you to a holy war ... against English imperialism'" (Page 482). Meanwhile, at another location in Afghanistan 1920, "Djemal Pasha ... the Turkish leader also founded an organization called the Islamic Revolutionary League, devoted to freeing India from British rule. His intrigues with the warlike frontier tribes helped to keep them in a state of anti-British ferment" (Page 483). Moreover, in 1921, "[t]he Soviets encouraged revolutionary Kemalist Turkey to enter into a pact ... with traditionalist Afghanistan, the purpose of which was to join hands in opposing aggression and exploitation by the British Empire" (Page 484). Hence, the aforementioned three examples are contrary to the Author's rationale that Britain was not persecuted nor conspired against by the Bolsheviks. They certainly were -- by formal organizations and subversion. Nonetheless, overall, an enlightening narrative of the individuals and events affecting the course of the Middle East. __________ *** For more, please see, Colonel T. E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars Of Wisdom" (Lawrence Of Arabia).

This is one of my all-time favourite historical works, and I've read a lot of them. David Fromkin tells the story of how the colonial re-adjustments made by England and France during World War I in anticipation of the demise of the Ottoman Empire were ultimately responsible for the continuing mess that is the modern Middle East. It is a story that has been told many times, but seldom with such eloquence and rarely with such a sure eye for the telling detail. Mr. Fromkin has the gift of explication and the ability to really see the big picture. From the fateful voyage of the German warships Goeben and Breslau to the violent death of Enver Pasha in the wilds of Central Asia, and from the fictions of TE Lawrence to the cynical accomodations of Sykes and Picot, the reader is conducted expertly through an incredible but factual story whose ending has yet to be determined. As he shows in other books such as "In the Time of the Americans," Fromkin is a stern critic of the old colonial powers, and some readers may find his account of French and British politics and policies to be a little one-sided, but what really good book isn't? An amazing work of history - six stars!

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.

There are extensive reviews of this book already, so I can't materially add to those. This is a very readable history of the late 1910s and early 1920s and helps you understand "the Great Game" and how the English, the French, and the Russians (pre- and post-Bolshevik revolution) created the monstrosity of the current Middle East - namely, the made up countries of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine/Israel. Taking a bunch of different religious and ethnic groups and saying "you guys are now a country" - what could possibly go wrong with that? Well, 100 years later, we're still working on the problems created by these actions.

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.

Questo libro e bellissimo. Se si vuole capire qualcosa sulla Prima Guerra Mondiale che vada oltre i libri di testo di scuola bisogna leggerlo. Con la scusa di parlare della guerra sul fronte Ottomano, l’autore di fatto scrive una storia della Prima Guerra Mondiale incentrato non sulke battaglie ma sulla politica che ha influenzato l’andamento della guerra. Due cose appaiono in modo originale. Primo: la guerra sarebbe potuta finire prima (forse nel 1917) se Churchill e Loyd George avessero potuto far prevalere la loro strategia. Secondo: Laurence d’Arabia tanto osannato come eroe ne esce con le ossa rotte, risulta essere un impostore, un millantatore di successi mai avuti. Per capire questo leggere il libro ne vale veramente il prezzo.

Nicely presented with facts and analysis. However, Paperback version has small font size which strains the eyes.

Es habe. so schließt David Fromkin, nach dem Fall des weströmischen Reiches 1500 Jahre gebraucht, bis sich eine allgemein akzeptierte Staatenordnung in Europa herausbildete. nach dem Fall des osmanischen Reiches 1917/18 könnte es ähnlich lange dauern. Die Friedensordnung von Sykes- Picot-sasonnov ist jedenfalls keine Ordnung, die von den Betroffenen als legitim akzeptiert wird. im Kernbereich des Abkommens - Syrien, Irak, Libanon. Jordanien, Israel und Palästina sind Staaten entstanden, deren Existenzrecht alltäglich, innerlich, äußerlich, wechselseitig in Frage steht. Warum es so kam, erschließt Fromkin in typisch angelsächsischer Erzählkunst mit Spannungsmoment und anekdotenoriginalität. Erstens ist die Ordnung des nahen Ostens entlang der Erfordernisse längst untergegangener Weltreiche definiert. Zweitens: die Handelnden selbst glaubten schlussendlich nicht an die Zielführung ihrer Bemühungen. Sir Mark Sykes nahm die Skepsis über das mit seinem Namen verbundene Abkommen 1918 mit ins Grab. Drittens: die völlige Ignoranz der Akteure gegenüber dem Lokalkolorit, auch der Religion. Lord Kitchener meinte, die Einsetzung eines haschemitischen Kalifen könne die Moslems für die alliierte Sache gewinnen. Viertens formte das britische Empire seine nahostkoalitionen mit sehr fragwürdigen Bündnispartnern und Techniken: feisal-, Abdullah- Hussein, Lawrence von Arabien, waren schwache bis gefährliche Bündnispartner oder Protagonisten. Palästina wurde drei Mächten gleichzeitig versprochen, jeweils aus augenblickserwägungen. Unter den Hypothesen des Autoren finden sich auch einige Extravaganzen. So die These, die balfour-Deklaration fusse auf dem Glauben an eine jüdische weltverschwörung, um die einflussreichen zionistischen Kreise in den Hauptstädten der Mittelmächte zum Umsturz zu bewegen, habe man ein Angebot machen müssen. Unglaublich oder wahr? Die staaten von Sykes/Pilot sind dysfunktional. möglicherweise wird es keine vollen 1500 Jahre dauern, bis sich die alte Welt neu sortiert. es wird Gewinner- und verliererstaaten geben, wie Burgund oder Savoyen. dass die windschiefen Gebäude des Iraks oder syriens diesen Prozess überstehen werden, fällt nach Lektüre dieses Buchs schwer. Höchstens als Hülle falsch verstandener unverletzlichkeitsdogmen des Völkerrechts haben diese Staaten eine Zukunft. territorial verfasster Zynismus des ersten Weltkriegs.

The book arrived in heart time and great condition. I am looking forward to reading it.

I was looking for a book to give me some background on the ongoing, and seemingly unending, conflict in the Middle East. After checking out a large selection of books, and authors, I settled on this one, and, so far I have not been disappointed. The amount of research that has gone into this book is epic! The amount of detail is almost mind boggling. Fromkin puts to rest the common perception that there is a simple cause and a simple solution to most situations. There are so many players, and motivations in "The Game", as Fromkin calls it, it is impossible to tell who is allied with whom, and for how long, and what is the "end game" for each player. It seems that many of the decisions made, that have far reaching consequences, were made on the basis of misinformation, greed, and stupidity. The book also makes the political leaders in many jurisdictions look like the self centered scoundrels that they profess not to be. I find that I am not "reading" this book but rather "studying" it. I hope that the rest of the book is as good as the part that I have read already.