it doesnt. its not like the nation that existed before colonization had boarders that seperated ethnicities and religions. U would have the some ppl beeing split up, different religions and the hate of each other like u have today.
@Mars Dunes Wasn't it Woodrow Wilson and his League of Nations Mandates which prevented that from happening? Also the Turkish War of Independence and the Iraqi Revolt.
@@Gardstyle35 That doesn't change the fact that the French and British could have split the land based on ethnic and/or religious lines regardless, but they chose not to.
Trust me. I am the government. Would i do you wrong?? Just go and fight for me. We will take care of you once it is over. When will everyone learn? Only the rich survive.
@Andrew Mitchell Britain and France created a vacuum there for sure. But had it not been for US supported coup in Iran or outright invasion like Iraq, Middle East would be better. Look at videos of Middle East in 70s and compare it to modern time. US needs to stop Zionist influencers in its government.
Britain: *splits up India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh* this won't matter for a long time Indian and Pakistani relationship hundreds of years later: *surprised pikachu face*
@@walsh9080 "Hardly Britain's fault" except they fucked up in drawing the correct borders and left many areas unsolved. Had those areas been given to right places there would have been no wars between India and Pakistan.
@@pike8290 No... India was United under Mughals, Marhatas (kind of), Mauryan empire, Rajputs, Dehli Sultanate (kind of) etc so no.. British were given an already unified India.
@@Whatareyoudoinnhere and now just add Lebanon and their civil war and Lebanon is the most damage from this but anyways .... country's all been damaged still this days
Basically, after learning a lot about history of the world, you realise there were really few truly good guys and that everything was a game to the big powers.
@@shreyvaghela3963 I wouldn’t say that, there were no good super powers, but there’s no way América is the ‘least bad’ (wtf, why did autocorrect put an accent on America). I would say they’re all equally as bad.
Really and who supported a no fly zone at Libya during it’s civil war and gave money to it’s rebels, who yeah France and it’s allies. The U.S are no saints but don’t act like other other powers weren’t involved to take advantage of the these nations as well, especially the Russians and French.
Jan Piórko there were pan-slavic movements in all slavic nations not only in russia Plus im sure that many slavs wouldve rather lived under russia than under german austrian or ottoman rule In addition to that the people lso wanted it and were completely fine with russia making it since they were by far the strongest just comoare it with prussia and the rest of germany its the same situation and tho there were some problems in the beginning generally it was very successful
This isn't complex. The idea that what's happening in the middle east is complex is so that fewer people come to realize the horrible destruction Europe leaves on the middle east.
Those divisions have resulted in the instability of the current Middle East. Churchill played a big role in these imperialistic decisions and thus has culpability
As Al Murray put it: “We decided to make an effort in the Middle East by getting a map, pencil and ruler and drew some nice straight borders around all the oil well that we found and that they weren’t looking for and gave them beautiful Arab names like Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. We might as well have called them Shell, Esso, BP and Texaco”
@@HerewardWake It can be argued that by backing out of Britain's original deal, the Middle East became a lot more divided. Not to mention they decided to support a more extremist nation over the original, more moderate nation they originally planned to help.
@@HerewardWake A load of religious extremists and dictators took control in the end, we are talking about the Saddams, the ISIS, the Saudis etc. if that is your main argument for justifying interventionism then its pretty damn clear that you also failed at that objective too
If the powers had divided everything up according to who was living where instead of random lines this probably would've reduced a lot of the chaos. Then it'd be a question of colonies fighting for independence. This applies to other treaties too.
Pfft wouldn’t it be crazy if completely ignoring cultural groups, ethnicities, and religious divisions led the Middle East into a total cluster of chaos, hatred and radicalism?
İstanbul(Ottoman) governmant accepted it but Ankara(Turkey) governmant refused it.People liked Atatürk and his supporters more so Sevres was ended.Firstly Kuvayi Milliye defeated Armenia and France with gueralla resistince,then Italy got scared and left(and even sold us weapons lmao) and then a proper army started to push Greece back.After Greece was out of Anatolia UK also backed off.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The countries that joined WW1 after July all made some of history's worst political miscalculations. Some leniency can be given to the naivety of the original combatant nations, but the fact nations were still so excited to join the war after the carnage of modern War was apparent, is astounding. I can only have so much sympathy for those nations. The great irony is that the Ottomans were only around because Britain intervened to keep them around in the 19th century as the imbalance with Russia grew dramatically.
The original division of the Ottoman Empire at Sevres was a lot more severe than this one. The Ottomans were set to lose Istanbul to an international zone and most of what is now Turkey to Britain, France, Greece and Italy. But the Turks managed to repel a British-backed Greek invasion and toppled the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, creating a new agreement in 1923-1924. This agreement, the treaty of Lausanne, created the modern day borders we see today, as Britain and France relinquished their territorial claims in Anatolia. The Turkish border with Russia was settled by an agreement between the Turkish Republic and Soviet Russia, whereby however far their armies got before they reached the other would define the border, which was fairly similar to 1914’s anyway. The only other border change after 1924 was between French Syria and Turkey, as the Hatay State of Syria declared independence and joined Turkey. There have also been numerous border changes regarding Israel and its neighbours: the West Bank is de jure Palestine but was occupied from 1948(?) to 1967 by Jordan. Israel has occupied the Golan Hights from 1967 and Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula from 1967 until the Camp David Accords with Egypt in 1978(?). The Egyptians, the Syrians and the Yemenis also briefly united as the United Arab Republic in the 1960s, but this didn’t last long.
@@bigbelly9478 Because the crusades ended up doing more damage to the non-Turks then the Turks, and I don’t think the Black Death was a problem to people outside of Europe.
France: "We demand this land." Uk: "Fair enough. We have one condition though." France: "Speak!" Uk: "You need to take more of it." France: *visible confusion* "That should not be a problem."
UK: "Terribly sorry, old bean, but I'm afraid we'll be keeping Mosul after all." France: "But tou promised!" UK: *points at Sykes' name on the agreement*
French people are funny. If there was more French people in the middle east there would be less tension because they would be to busy laughing at what fckn idiot's they are.
The Brits have caused many bad breakups: This. Including the partitioning of Palestine and Israel India & Pakistan Brexit Oh, hey looks like Scotland wants be independent after the Brexit mess
The middle East should not even be on fire. Shouldn't this people be happy at the current borders they have? Ohhhhhhhh never mind they are religious crazies anyway.
@@armija well I'm a Muslim too. I live Nowhere near middle east but a great portion of Muslim here are just bunch of Arab wanna be. I fear our local identity and origins would be lost in the next 30 years. (How fucking sad is that!?)
@@gtaquizmaster well thats because the only reason the Empire was still a thing was European power intervention.. just few years prior to that the empire was about to fall to Egypt.. And few years prior to that they lost all of thier lands in the bolkens (thats why Eypgt and all the land in the Arabin plain is Not part of the ottoman empire by the first world War time ) the only reason European powers kept it alive was because it was Eaiser to exploit a weaken otteman empire then a strong whatever replacement empire there would have been.. probably Egyption
@@_Sami_H Beside i wonder why that Enver pasha thinking going to war was the best ideal of the time especially when their empire is crumbling and don't have the resources for attrition war. Also did he study geography or not. The Empire geography force them have to fight in many fronts.
Mirokuofnite It’s sad to think all the turmoil in the middle east caused (partially) by these meaningless borders and selfish agreements lead to the creation of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda
@@Rowlph8888 They won WWII, but barely, with little tolerance for further casualties, though won "Their Vietnam", the Malay States Emergency, in the '50s. They weren't trying to "Hold on" to their Empire, but a lot of stuff they'd tamped down when the Sahibs had one foot out the door came out, as well as the Revolution.
@Big Z The British Empire was sorely cracked by the first War, then became unsustainable following the 2d War. It dissolved following Indian independence in 1947.
There are pictures of the daughter of the first Sharif of Mecca after WW1, without hijab. Compare that to the extermist Saudis sponsored by the British.
Sharif of Mecca was beter beacuse he lived 15 years in İstanbul and maried with a Turk women. Some arabs dont like sharif beacuse of Turk influance in him. But this make him better. He wasnt a desert arab he was modern.
For further reading I highly recommend the book “A Peace to End All Peace: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East” by David Fromkin. It goes into detail behind everything mentioned in this video and more.
@@roisingtommy In fact, the Arabs not only wanted to unite Arabia, they also wanted to unite with the Arabs in South Africa (or at least they wanted to unite all places that speak the Arabic language) They wanted to rebuild the Islamic caliphate, of course Britain is not that stupid to build a great superpower that it will face in the future, so they just divided arabs into 22 country.
This deserves a longer episode, added to it the Greek invasion of Turkey, founding of Turkey, British control of the Dardanelles and Italian action in Anatolia.
@@kubat552 There were minor skirmishes tho that the Italians lost. Ontop of hating the Greeks for grabbing all the Aegean Islands and İzmir which Italy wanted it was the only option for them to withdraw.
@@khagan5951 Yes and actually italian zone was so small. It wasnt worth to fight turks (probably their soldiers would be wiped out easily) instead of this they traded with turks sell them guns ammo etc and italy was happy when british-greece duo failed at the end. Anyway after 20 years later italy attacked both greece and UK :D
@@roisingtommy the Ottomans fought against Saudi Wahhabism. England backed Wahhabism. Current terrorism is rooted in Wahhabism. England is root evil of our current situation.
@@roisingtommy The Ottomans were too stagnant, had been on the decline since the 17th century. And Wahhabism is currently an ever present threat to democracy. I'm just sad that when the Suadis began the Wahhabi movement, the Ottoman army was sent there to defeat them and extinguish that flame, but they ultimately lost the war. Had they won, we might not have seen the same Wahhabi-Linked terrorism that we see today.
@Detective Conan Arab-israel war, the six days war, palastine uprising, war on terror and iraq-iran war which the only 1 i can remember but i assured there more
@@kasadam85 I didn't mean that! We used to have more in depth 10 minute videos (channel was called 10 minute history), but now we only have those really quick 4 minutes max ones. That's why I made the sarcastic comment.
@@plarteey1316 You missed the point. The British and French aambassadors, were not at loggerheads.The Russians were a strategic threat to Britain, not France. It was not an issue for france's given landmass to border russia
Honestly, it's a failure of diplomacy on their part not to recognise that a nation that was fighting a total war, would say anything to get you on their side. That when they regain a position of strength; they probably won't stick to their word. It's happened so many times from so many different powers, it's naive to think would they stick to their word. Why would they? Gratitude? A sense of fairness? Anyone who would be dumb enough to believe that is going to exploited.
@@walsh9080 Although i agree minor countries can't afford to be naive in everyday politics its worth mention that doesn't make on his own morally justifiable the european betrayal to the middle easterns. (Not saying you did it, just pointing it out for someone might get the idea "Might makes right")
@@mauricioaguilar7227 Oh yeah, I agree with you. I just personally think it almost always makes the most sense to view politics through the lenses of the realpolitik because I'm cynical like that. I've often thought, I bet the British politicians couldn't believe that people were falling for it. It must've seemed obvious to them that Britain didn't really mean any of it. After all, they had signed no international treaties, made no concessions, offered no real proof they would keep their word and yet people fought to the death believing them. Must've been strange for them. The foreign secretary Balfour (of the Balfour declaration that promised the jews a state) even said something like "I am quite sure Britain has never signed a treaty it would not wholly violate if it was necessary, whether it intended to honour it at the time the men signed the paper or not"
@@mauricioaguilar7227 Personally though with the middle east, I actually do think there is some diplomatic failure on their part (from the leadership not the citizenry). Britain publically announced it had intention to support a state for Jewish people. That was a clear, international declaration of Britain's double sided intentions. Also, there should've been some questioning of "Let's say we help Britain. They attack Germany's less defended and less defensible Southern border, beat the Germans and the war is over. Then what? We become best buds? Didn't they like the Ottomans because the Ottomans acted as a bulwark against Russia? Also, Russia is fucked and currently tearing itself apart. Wasn't Russian interests the only thing stopping Britain from completely dominating the region via India like a century ago? Are we sure they've forgotten that ambition? They'll have no European enemies worth mentioning and we have nothing but their guarantees. Is this a good idea?"
Ottoman: I am a strong empire Britain and France: yea Ottoman: and I have strong allies Britain and France: yea Ottoman: so I could theoretically win this war Britain: So I believe the very northern part should belong to Russia you get the middle part and I get the kinda southern part...sound good? France: Sounds good to me
3:15 Bro nah, you forget to tell about the turkish indepedent war, if turks would loose that war the borders wouldnt be like this. So that war was very important in this scene
@@MrRamazanLale2 well at least i came with an original joke, while you turks always say the same, you so proud of having conquered the city with 10 vs 1. (Btw im Philhellene, not Greek, im Russian ans Spanish descent) and i can tell you that all Lepanto and ALL RUSSO-TURKISH WAR FELT VERY VERY VERY GOOD! DANG! IN YA FACE, BLYAT!
If they didn't join, the Ottomans could have gave out independence gracefully, and actually took note of ethnic and religious differences when carving out borders. They could have died gracefully. At least they didn't fucked over as hard as Germany and Austria-Hungary. I mean losing your empire sucks, but it was going to happen either way.
@erick meyer I'm well aware Austria-Hungary got fucked over the hardest. I'm just saying, if the Ottomans stayed out of the war, their empire could have died gracefully, and would have resulted in a lot less deaths, and perhaps a more stable middle east.
I think you mean the Levant & Mesopotamia. These were the regions that had the worst borders looking at their ethnic, linguistic and religious divisions.
I mean with the exception of Yemen, the Arabian peninsula is doing fine. It spelt doom for the levant and Mesopotamia, who basically never recovered from the fucked up borders and numerous power vacuums. That being said, the Saudis coming to power was probably the worst thing to happen to the Islamic world since the Mongols.
no matter the social problems in the arabian peninsula, as the comment above mine states, besides yemen, the countries there are doing fine, saudi arabia is doing relatively fine economically, the uae, kuwait, and qatar are pretty well developed i'd say and oman thanks to its ties with the british, it's natural borders that have mostly been made thanks to its own conquests as an empire which left no room for sectarianism like in other islamic countries, and the very fact that it doesn't follow any of the sects of islam but just a different type itself, has helped it in the long run, jordan is also pretty ok too, iraq though, is fucked up, lebanon is somehow more fucked up, and so is syria, while palestine, well i don't think i should get into that topic.
I can't believe how you managed to make a video about carving up the Ottoman Empire following its fall after WW1 without mentioning the plans on dividing it up in Anatolia (the treaty of Sevres) and how it didn't work out because of the national movement in Turkey that took the situation from Turkey being a very small country that's basically a British puppet to a fully independent state that has twice the land that it otherwise would have had the treaty of Sevres worked.
If the Treaty of Sèvres "worked," Turkey was not going to wind up with half the land. The Allies cruelly granted a small parcel around Ankara, amounting to little more than an Indian reservation. Furthermore, with exterminating Greeks and Armenians situated to its left and right, and given how the Allies disallowed an army to speak of, today there would have been no Turkey - and many Turks living today would have never been born. The Treaty of Versailles was so famously unfair, Hitler and WWII resulted, yet that treaty was a comparative picnic. The Treaty of Sèvres amounted to a *death sentence.* .
You mean the lands the Ottomans conquered in the first place against the natives that lived there. The Egyptians, the Bulgrians, the Greeks, the Armenians, Hungarians, Romanian’s, and the Serbians, were all conquered by the greedy Ottoman Empire when they were the most powerful nation the planet since the 1400’s. I say it's Karma finally getting back at the Ottomans for there imperial ambitious that once treated all of Europe at one point.
This in a nutshell explains why, since that time the Middle East has been in a constant turmoil. The British and French colonial interests are to blame it seems.
0:22 actually the terms of the treaty referred to "area of economic influence", it's not like Italy had to annex a piece of Turkey. The Italian government decided later to drop the offer, because a weak and carved up Turkey would mean that Greece (a rival of Italy in western Mediterranean, and a close ally of England, who was another rival for Italy in the mediterranean) would become too strong.
TK5GQJ's response was on the mark; it's not as if Italy "changed her mind," particularly after Italy revealed its expansionist aims by invading ill-defended Ottoman Libya in 1911, committing atrocities against the native population (which continued for decades; of interest is 1981's _Lion of the Desert,_ a movie starring Anthony Quinn). Italy won, once the First Balkan War began the next year, proving disastrous for the Ottomans. After Italy invaded and briefly occupied Anatolia's southwestern region after WWI had ended, atrocities were perpetrated upon the Turkish population. The major reason why Italy's imperialistic dream was shattered was because the Allies, including the USA's Woodrow Wilson, shut Italy out. Italy was not playing ball, or did not know its place, allowing for Britain and France to break the terms of the treaty. Incidentally, it was my belief the Treaty of London was only between Russia, Britain and France; a web search reveals Italy was included, but I'm not sure about that... especially when one of the results was from untrustworthy _Wikipedia._ My understanding was that Italy came in two years later, with 1917's Agreement of St.-Jean-de-Maurienne. _"The Italian government decided later to drop the offer"_ served as odd wording. Greedily hungering for a piece of another's homeland cannot be described as an "offer," as if Italy was performing a selfless favor. .
Turks: *Attacked with Soviet Russia's help a small country, half of the population of which are starving refugees of genocide (carried out by Turkey earlier). Made another massacres there.* Also Turks: *YEa! TuRkiSh waR Of INdEpeNdeNcE! KeMaL iS a GReat MiLitaRY cOmmAndeR!*
@@RS_N5 Well the main problem wasnt Armenia (only a single corps was there), but Greece with 250000 troops. Also, lets not forget that Turkey lost WWI so its entire army was disbanded (except for the aforementioned XV. Corps whose general refused to disband it. Genocides? Well, I dont say otherwise, but that was Enver's fault.
The Republic of Armenia did not attack Turkey; after the WWI (1918), Armenia did not fight with Turkey. Turkey simply decided to seize the opportunity and capture the weakened country (Kars and Ararat weren't part of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey). And after that, Turks proclaim this invasion and slaughter as part of their "war for independence"? Enver and Talaat began genocide, Kemal continued it.
This is why history classes have to focus more on world war I and not simply on Hitler and Stalin and world war II. The second world war happened for a reason. The gulf Wars and the war on terror happened for a reason. All of history is predicated on what came before.
