The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East, 1914-1920

This book was recommended to me by a friend who said it really helped him understand the historical background to a lot of today’s politics. He also said the writing was such that one just wanted to keep turning the pages to read on. Having read this book, I agree with him on both points. I love reading and watching history related material. This is an exceptional book and I learnt so much on a topic I thought I already knew quite a lot about. This book has really changed a lot of my previous (incorrect) understandings of what caused World War 1 and the significance of the Eastern Front of the Great War. I also learnt more about the Armenian genocide than I had ever known. The book contains moving anecdotes of sparks of humane behaviour between soldiers fighting each other in trench warfare that is surprising to read and not the kind of stuff normally covered in standard histories. The tempo of the book and stle of writing is like if a really exciting thriller. I kept wanting to just keep reading on and on. Importantly, the book covers both perspectives of Allied Poerws and Central Powers. Unbiased account. This book is clearly an example of history telling at its very best. I highly recoomend this book.

There’s a ton of information and loads of opinion in this beautifully written book, but not terribly much cohesion when it comes to the telling of the story itself. Rather, what we have here is a collation of twelve very separate chapters about the six theaters of war that transformed the Great War into WWI: the Caucasian front, the European front (chiefly the Dardenelles), the North African front, the Arab Peninsula, Mesopotamia and what we call today the Middle East. You also get a chapter about the Armenian Genocide. On the plus side, each chapter stands on its own and can be read separately. On the minus side, stuff gets repeated unnecessarily and you’re often left asking yourself questions along the lines of “this al Askari fellow who’s leading the Arabs against the Ottomans, is he the same guy who was fighting the British earlier in the book in North Africa?” A bit more of an effort could have gone into turning this book into a narrative. No idea what some of the reviewers are talking about here, the angle is 110% British. It’s not a whitewash, it’s not an attempt to make the British look good, but it’s told by a Brit to other Brits and you’re invited to listen in if you care. For all the personal accounts included, it is most definitely NOT a history of WWI from the Ottoman perspective. That said, with the exception of two and a half fronts (the Caucasian front, the Hijaz and Libya) this is the story of a war between the British and Ottoman Empires, so the British angle is far from inappropriate. No attempt is made to glorify war. The author admires many of the protagonists and does a very good job of giving their background and explaining their motivations. He does an even better job of conveying the horrors of trench warfare, the divided loyalties of the Ottoman subjects and the plight of the civilians who played host to the two warring empires. Apart from the harrowing descriptions of what it was like to be in the trenches and what it was like to be an Armenian or a POW marched to one’s death, the heart-rending story of the civilians caught in the crossfire in Kut also stands out. The annihilation of Gaza some 100 years ago is quite poignant too. What I most liked about the book is that the author says it how he sees it. No wishy-washy stuff here. In no particular order, here’s a selection of views: • Churchill is poorly served by history. Yes, he ordered the original naval attack on the Dardanelles, but the Gallipoli disaster is pretty much down to one man, Kitchener. • The time honored British technique of naming places with reference to ancient history is outlined, with the example of Cresiphon given, near Baghdad. The author does not mince words about the motivations: it is to take the focus away from the Muslim religion that tied together the subjects of the Empire and toward the ancient history that often divided them. (The author keeps quiet when it comes to the word Palestine, on the other hand) • Sykes Picot, the Balfour Declaration and the promises made to the Hashemites and the Iraqis were shameful, alright, but that’s easy to say after the fact. In practice, they all amounted to the same thing: in order to beat the Germans and the Ottomans, the British repeatedly promised the same piece of land to multiple sets of people; after the war was over they did what they could to accommodate them all as best they could. (Yes, probably a bit too convenient an explanation, but a brave view nonetheless) • Laurence of Arabia was a self-promoting buffoon with a good Oxford accent, a solid command of Arabic and a knack for turning up at the right place at the right time, rather than a pivotal character; similarly, if the spoils of war are due to those who have spilt the most blood, the Arabs he occasionally escorted do not truly deserve to feel cheated out of their entitlements. • The Armenians were clearly targeted for death, they were not merely marched out of their homeland; but their extermination has to be seen under the light of an empire that was facing dismemberment at best and annihilation at worst. While this does not excuse genocide, it provides insight as to what motivated the death marches. The author does not quite say “it was war,” but he comes close. • The Kurds are invariably depicted as bloodthirsty bandits and looters who did the dirtywork of the Ottomans. • When they are not singled out as undisciplined looters, the Bedouin tribes are depicted as fickle allies to the Arabs, the Ottomans or the British. This judgement I personally could not square with the understanding the author shows for the very similar behavior of other locals who had no choice other than to bow to the latest conqueror of their territory. • Indians and Anzacs are a supporting act. The author only ever goes into any detail about them to quote letters they are sending home from the front or to recount Kiwi rowdiness. While I don’t necessarily buy all these views, and even though they are all rather Anglo-centric, I have to say they are probably what I’ll be left with after having read “The Fall of the Ottomans.” Overall, this book has kept me excellent company for the last ten days. My recommendation would be “read it, but take notes along the way.”

An excellent book. It is written with sufficient detail to inform but not so much detail that it overwhelms. For those interested in European history of the late 19th & early 20th centuries and in particular in WW1 it is valuable reading: it completes the picture which is gained by reading histories of European nations over the same period and helps to explain much that these histories do not cover - I learned much for example about the Gallipoli campaign, the Armenian genocide and the history of the erstwhile Ottoman-dominated Arab world (it led me to buy Rogan's equally excellent book "The Arabs: A history". The author's style is very clear and readable. The book is well researched and I feel the conclusions drawn are very fair. I highly recommend this book.

A fascinating page turner. This is a very well written and interesting book on a less well known , but important, aspect of the First World War. The declining Ottoman Empire ,supported by Germany, fighting off Great Britain (when it was still Great) , France and Russia. Underestimated by the British , and French, whose forces, especially Commonwealth/Colonial forces had a very tough time in the Dardanelles before being evacuated having gained little but sacrificed much.It was also revealing to see how the then mighty Royal Navy was somewhat humiliated in the same campaign. German led Ottoman forces sometimes performed well but then just when things were looking quite bleak for them the Russian revolution broke out giving the Ottomans and the Germans a further boost.The double dealing of the British and French whilst dealing with Arab nationalists and creating problems that exist to this day.This book also describes the horrific genocide of the Armenians in an analytical but well written way. 100 years on this is a must read book.

A good summary of the Entente Powers' conflict with the Ottoman Empire. The author has a strong grasp of the subject matter(especially concerning the Arab Revolt), but I was concerned that in his coverage of the Armenian genocide he relied on the disputed scholarship of authors such as Vanokh Dadrian when there are more reputable accounts available. I was impressed by the authors account of the military campaigns, and it is good to see that he has harnessed information from Turkish sources which lends the book more thoroughness(it was interesting to read snippets from memoirs left by Turkish troops alongside those from British and Anzac troops). Previous English language works on this theatre(with the exception of Erickson's who has dealt exclusively with military matters), have relied largely on English source material due to the fact that is far more widely available, not to mention more easily accessed, than Turkish sources. All in all, I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Turkey and the Middle East during WW1.

An interesting book about Turkey during and after the First World War. Very well researched particularly on the massacres of the Armenians which appears inaccurately in the newspapers from time to time Highly recommended

Having read a book on Gallipoli already, there were a couple of interesting discrepancies in this (eg the gully at Y beach on Helles is described as impassable, while the other book suggested the British could have won the battle by advancing here). But this is a minor point, with the book being excellent in giving an overview of the battles with Russia, in Iraq, in Egypt and the Arab revolt and the subsequent campaign into Palestine and Syria. It touches on politics, examines the Armenian genocide, and is a really good read. It was disappointing to finish this, especially as Ataturk's victory in 1922-23 would be fascinating to read more on. Highly recommend.

This book is, as has been mentioned by other reviewers, an excellent *introduction* to the subject at hand. Well written, tightly focused and always relevant to the subject of each chapter, it flows well and the 406 pages (of this hardback copy) are devoured quickly. There are, however, a few issues I have with this book. Firstly, it states the period covered is 1914 to 1920. The book covers (albeit briefly) the Balkan Wars in 1912-13 and goes past 1920 to the foundation of Turkey in 1923. So why not devote a coupe more chapters and cover these periods fully? 1920 seems a strangely arbitrary date to stop at, seeing as many events were in full flow - only to cease in 1923. Secondly, I bought this book on the basis of the "Ottaman sources" that were to avail us of the Turkish view of these conflicts. Disappointingly, these seem to stretch to a few diary entries from soldiers and provincial politicians, rather than any revelations that change our perspective on the events described. Certainly nothing of the manner of McMeekin's Russian Origins of the First World War for instance. Finally, for a book based on the "Turkish perspective", the usual inordinate amount of attention is given to the Galipoli campaign and the struggles of the various ANZAC troopers. The Caucasus provinces were, Rogen tells us, a national humiliation when they were lost to Russia and the Front over which they were fought for massively important to Constantinople. So why so little attention paid to them outside the initial campaign early on in the war? Those looking for information on Enver's Pan-Turkic adventure or the Greco-Turkish War are better advised to read Fromkin's War to End Peace.

This was my introduction to the Middle Eastern front in the Great War, and it turned out to be one of the most interesting books I have read in quite some time. The author presents the facts from both sides, and manages to do so in a detailed manner without the book ever feeling tedious or excessive, despite the amount and seriousness of the topics covered. I absolutely recommend it to anyone willing to explore this often forgotten side of the first world war, which still matters greatly to this day for the immense changes it brought.

Pesquisa histórica apurada, didático e interessantíssimo.

A remarkably clear and concise picture of Ottoman collapse and its impact on the Middle East. The book sheds light on the fate of the last Ottoman ruler, the rise of Kemal Ataturk, the genesis of the Middle Eastern imbroglio - starting with an analysis of Turkish tenacity, the reason for its ties with Kaiser's Germany, the precarious victories of the Entente powers, the preservation of Turkish nationalism and its reclamation of conquered territory in the Caucasus from the Russians who withdrew from the War with the start of the Communist revolution. It tells us how the buffer states of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia came to be and foreshadowed the instability in Iraq and The Arab Israeli wars. The tragedy of Great Power politics and the endurance of the bitter conflicts till the present day lies in unfolding of history and the follies and foibles of Generals, Statesmen and the determination and heroism of those who picked up the gauntlet to steer a different course to set right the derailed trajectories of a positive and equitable outcome. A moving and well paced, fair and clear account of events. It left me wanting to know ore about the subject. It served as a more than adequate introduction on a vital subject! Hence the five stars.

This compelling history of the Ottoman Empire's involvement in World War One -- and of the peace that led to the Empire's collapse -- is important not just as history, but as a backdrop to current events. As history, it is a major achievement, opening a perspective on the war with which I at least was almost totally unfamiliar (barring references to the Treaty of Sevres and to Lawrence of Arabia). Why has so little been written about the Ottoman involvement in World War One? Western European and American historians have focussed on the diplomatic lead-up to the war and on the war on the Western front, not surprisingly given the tendency to focus on one's own (or one's country's), point of view. Beyond that, there are vast troves of material on the War in English, French, and German, and a wide audience for World War One books in countries where those languages are spoken. Much less has been written from an Ottoman perspective. Much of the source material is in Turkish or Arabic, not part of most Western historians' toolkits. And from a current-day Turkish perspective, the First World War was a prologue to Turkey's definitive war -- the War of Independence from 1919 to 1923, when Turkish forces led by Ataturk defeated the Greek, French and other forces who had invaded. For many modern day Turks, Ottoman history is barely relevant to the new state founded by Ataturk. This lack of attention has left a significant empty space in popular writing on the First World War , a space which this book admirably fills. It is meticulously researched, relying extensively on Turkish and Arabic sources, and on a very wide range of other sources as well. It is admirably clear, with an organization that pulls one steadily forward, and a prose style that makes reading a pleasure. The author evokes characters and circumstances in a compelling way, particularly given that this is in part a military history. As to conclusions, the author argues that it wasn't the war that overthrew the Ottomans, it was the peace that followed. The Treaty of Sevres is best known as the treaty in which the British and French carved up the Middle East; what is less widely understood is that they carved up Turkey as well. This finished the Ottomans, and almost finished the Turkish state as well. It seems questionable that the the Empire could have survived even given a less draconian treaty -- the Ottoman Empire in Europe was crumbling before the War, and Arab rebellion became a key factor in Asia during the War -- but the author's case is well put. Another conclusion is that the Armenian genocide was almost certainly at least in part a deliberate policy of the "Young Turks" Ottoman government. The author's reliance on contemporary sources to demonstrate this is compelling. As to the relevance of this work to today's events, it is direct. In their post-war division of the Middle East, Britain and France created states that had no relation to ethnic and religious groupings, nor to historical patterns of trade and settlement. Instead, they suited the interests of the imperial powers. In the 1950's and 1960's, the colonial lid was replaced by the lid of dictatorial power. With that removed, religious and ethnic differences are boiling over, with "states" that do not have the power, or legitimacy, to impose order. The past doesn't tell us what to do in future, but it does give strong hints of what not to do. As we start to do it all over again -----

気になって購入したところ、青いペンのアンダーラインが引いてありました。 このような商品を売るamazonの品質管理はどうなっているんでしょうか？ 内容はおもしろかったので4です 近々、日本語版も販売されるのでそっちに興味をもたれてもいいかもしれません。