What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908-1923
An astonishing retelling of twentieth-century history from the Ottoman perspective, delivering profound new insights into World War I and the contemporary Middle East
Between 1911 and 1922, a series of wars would engulf the Ottoman Empire and its successor states, in which the central conflict, of course, is World War I—a story we think we know well. As Sean McMeekin shows us in this revelatory new history of what he calls the “wars of the Ottoman succession,” we know far less than we think. The Ottoman Endgame brings to light the entire strategic narrative that led to an unstable new order in postwar Middle East—much of which is still felt today.
The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East draws from McMeekin’s years of groundbreaking research in newly opened Ottoman and Russian archives. With great storytelling flair, McMeekin makes new the epic stories we know from the Ottoman front, from Gallipoli to the exploits of Lawrence in Arabia, and introduces a vast range of new stories to Western readers. His accounts of the lead-up to World War I and the Ottoman Empire’s central role in the war itself offers an entirely new and deeper vision of the conflict. Harnessing not only Ottoman and Russian but also British, German, French, American, and Austro-Hungarian sources, the result is a truly pioneering work of scholarship that gives full justice to a multitiered war involving many belligerents.
McMeekin also brilliantly reconceives our inherited Anglo-French understanding of the war’s outcome and the collapse of the empire that followed. The book chronicles the emergence of modern Turkey and the carve-up of the rest of the Ottoman Empire as it has never been told before, offering a new perspective on such issues as the ethno-religious bloodletting and forced population transfers which attended the breakup of empire, the Balfour Declaration, the toppling of the caliphate, and the partition of Iraq and Syria—bringing the contemporary consequences into clear focus.
Every so often, a work of history completely reshapes our understanding of a subject of enormous historical and contemporary importance. The Ottoman Endgame is such a book, an instantly definitive and thrilling example of narrative history as high art.
Between 1911 and 1922, a series of wars would engulf the Ottoman Empire and its successor states, in which the central conflict, of course, is World War I—a story we think we know well. As Sean McMeekin shows us in this revelatory new history of what he calls the “wars of the Ottoman succession,” we know far less than we think. The Ottoman Endgame brings to light the entire strategic narrative that led to an unstable new order in postwar Middle East—much of which is still felt today.
The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East draws from McMeekin’s years of groundbreaking research in newly opened Ottoman and Russian archives. With great storytelling flair, McMeekin makes new the epic stories we know from the Ottoman front, from Gallipoli to the exploits of Lawrence in Arabia, and introduces a vast range of new stories to Western readers. His accounts of the lead-up to World War I and the Ottoman Empire’s central role in the war itself offers an entirely new and deeper vision of the conflict. Harnessing not only Ottoman and Russian but also British, German, French, American, and Austro-Hungarian sources, the result is a truly pioneering work of scholarship that gives full justice to a multitiered war involving many belligerents.
McMeekin also brilliantly reconceives our inherited Anglo-French understanding of the war’s outcome and the collapse of the empire that followed. The book chronicles the emergence of modern Turkey and the carve-up of the rest of the Ottoman Empire as it has never been told before, offering a new perspective on such issues as the ethno-religious bloodletting and forced population transfers which attended the breakup of empire, the Balfour Declaration, the toppling of the caliphate, and the partition of Iraq and Syria—bringing the contemporary consequences into clear focus.
Every so often, a work of history completely reshapes our understanding of a subject of enormous historical and contemporary importance. The Ottoman Endgame is such a book, an instantly definitive and thrilling example of narrative history as high art.
592 pages, Paperback
First published October 13, 2015
235 people are currently reading
3644 people want to read
About the author
Sean McMeekin
14 books222 followersSean McMeekin is an American historian, focused on European history of the early 20th century. His main research interests include modern German history, Russian history, communism, and the origins of the First and Second World Wars and the roles of Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
He has authored eight books, along with scholarly articles which have appeared in journals such as Contemporary European History, Common Knowledge, Current History, Historically Speaking, The World Today, and Communisme. He is currently Francis Flournoy Professor of European History and Culture at Bard College.
He has authored eight books, along with scholarly articles which have appeared in journals such as Contemporary European History, Common Knowledge, Current History, Historically Speaking, The World Today, and Communisme. He is currently Francis Flournoy Professor of European History and Culture at Bard College.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 176 reviews
July 26, 2025
The War Of The Ottoman Succession
I read Sean McMeekin's new book, "The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East: 1908 -- 1923 (2015) because I have become interested in the history of the Middle East and its many current issues. McMeekin's book is broader in scope than a history of WW I in the Middle East. The book begins in 1876 with the installation of a new Sultan and a fledgling attempt at constitutional government. The book ends in 1923 with the Treaty of Lausanne and the establishment of modern Turkey following a bitter war between Turkey and Greece. The story of WW I is sandwiched between the two sections. Thus, McMeekin suggests that the final years of the Ottomans might be viewed as involving a "War of Ottoman Sucession" to stress the continuity of events before, during, and after the Great War. McMeekin, a Professor of History at Bard College, has written extensively on WW I with emphasis on the roles of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union in the conflict.
"The Ottoman Endgame" is lengthy, detailed, and sometimes difficult to follow. The difficulty of the book for the most part is due to the complexity and unfamiliarity of the events it recounts. The book combines political and military history with a good deal of information about the internal workings of the Ottoman Empire. Many different peoples, nations, and persons are involved. A listing of some of the characters in the book taken from the Introduction gives an idea of the volume's scope and purpose.
"So far from a sideshow to the First World War, the Ottoman theater was central to both the outbreak of European war in 1914 and the peace settlement that truly ended it. The War of the Ottoman Succession, as we might call the broader conflict stretching from 1911 to 1923, was an epic struggle, as seen in the larger-than-life figures it made famous -- Ismail Enver, Ahmed Djemal, and Mehmed Talat, the three 'Young Turk' triumvirs; Kaiser Wilhelm II, Admiral William Souchon, and Otto Liman von Sanders on the German side; Kitchner, Churchill, T.E. Lawrence, and Lloyd George in Britain, Sergei Sazonov, Grand Duke Nicholas, Nikolai Yudenich, and Alexander Kolchak in Russia, Sherif Hussein of Mecca and his sons Feisal and Abdullah, along with Ibn Saud in Arabia; Eleftherios Venizelos and King Constantine in Greece, and not least Kazim Karabekir, Ismet Inonu, and Mustafa Kemal as fathers of the Republic of Turkey. It was not Sykes and Picot but these far greater men who forged the modern Middle East in the crucible of war. A century later, with the opening of the last archives of the period, their story can be told in full."
With so many participants and events, familiar and unfamiliar, the book is bound to tell a complex story. For the most part, the writing is clear and concise. At times McMeekin does not help the reader with long, convoluted sentences, poor proofing, and a tendency to flip comments. Still the book is thoroughly done, well researched and documented, and thoughtful. McMeekin helped me understand the era he describes and to see different ways of thinking about it.
The pre and post WW I sections of the book are likely to be less familiar to most readers than the long middle section dealing with the Great War. They are thus harder to follow than the story of the War but the effort is rewarding for readers with a serious interest in the time. In the opening section, McMeekin shows the Ottoman Empire, the much-maligned "sick man of Europe" struggling with internal problems as well as with European powers, particularly Russia eager to pounce and divide the spoils. The final portion of the book shows a beaten Ottoman Empire at the close of WW I, nearly going to War with its former ally, Germany, and managing to turn the tables on its conquerors by winning a brutal war and establishing the boundaries of modern Turkey. The pre and post War sections of the book are integrated well with the story of WW I and add a perspective that I didn't have before my reading.
The story of the Ottomans in WW I covers in good detail the decision to align with Germany. The Ottomans substantial and surprising successes at Dardanelles, Gallipoli, Kut, and elsewhere are covered as are the Empire's disastrous losses. McKeekin puts a great deal of stress on Russia's expansionist aims in explaining the course of political and military events in the Ottoman theater. His discussion of Armenia tends to avoid the term "genocide" while recognizing the horror of the killings and the massacres. The book emphasizes the support many Armenians were in fact lending the Russians both before and after the War. McMeekin also expresses a degree of skepticism about the transcripts of trials for human rights violations that emanated from the Ottomans at the conclusion of the conflict. There is a great deal of emphasis in the book on the Russian Revolution and on the Soviet Union's exit from the War, which, McMeekin believes, had great impact on the ultimate result in the Middle East. McMeekin also devotes considerable attention to the role of the United States and to its unwillingness to assume the role of neutral protectorate over the region at the conclusion of the War. The book downplays the role of the Arab Revolt and of the romanticized figure of Lawrence of Arabia. It argues that their role was minimal and that most Arabs remained loyal to the Ottomans for the duration of WW I.
I had the opportunity to read McMeekin's book at the same time I read another new book covering much of the same subject: Eugene Rogan's "The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East" (2015) The two books went to press at about the same time and did not influence one another. It is valuable to think about them together. Rogan's book focuses on the War itself and is much more elegantly written. The maps in Rogan are inadequate at best while those in McMeekin's book are helpful. Rogan's work makes more use of Ottoman sources although they are used in both books. I didn't find the books wildly different in their perspectives, but there are some important differences. Rogan is harsher on the Ottoman's treatment of the Armenians and also more inclined to emphasize the importance of the Arab Rebellion. McMeekin gives more attention to the roles of Russia and the United States.
As with most history, it is valuable to try to see the Great War in the Middle East from a variety of perspectives. I learned from both McMeekin and Rogan. Rogan's book is the more engagingly written of the two while McMeekin's book has more background and follow-up in the years up to 1923. For a reader wanting only one book, I would recommend Rogan but McMeekin's book is important for readers with a serious interest in the subject.
Robin Friedman
I read Sean McMeekin's new book, "The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East: 1908 -- 1923 (2015) because I have become interested in the history of the Middle East and its many current issues. McMeekin's book is broader in scope than a history of WW I in the Middle East. The book begins in 1876 with the installation of a new Sultan and a fledgling attempt at constitutional government. The book ends in 1923 with the Treaty of Lausanne and the establishment of modern Turkey following a bitter war between Turkey and Greece. The story of WW I is sandwiched between the two sections. Thus, McMeekin suggests that the final years of the Ottomans might be viewed as involving a "War of Ottoman Sucession" to stress the continuity of events before, during, and after the Great War. McMeekin, a Professor of History at Bard College, has written extensively on WW I with emphasis on the roles of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union in the conflict.
"The Ottoman Endgame" is lengthy, detailed, and sometimes difficult to follow. The difficulty of the book for the most part is due to the complexity and unfamiliarity of the events it recounts. The book combines political and military history with a good deal of information about the internal workings of the Ottoman Empire. Many different peoples, nations, and persons are involved. A listing of some of the characters in the book taken from the Introduction gives an idea of the volume's scope and purpose.
"So far from a sideshow to the First World War, the Ottoman theater was central to both the outbreak of European war in 1914 and the peace settlement that truly ended it. The War of the Ottoman Succession, as we might call the broader conflict stretching from 1911 to 1923, was an epic struggle, as seen in the larger-than-life figures it made famous -- Ismail Enver, Ahmed Djemal, and Mehmed Talat, the three 'Young Turk' triumvirs; Kaiser Wilhelm II, Admiral William Souchon, and Otto Liman von Sanders on the German side; Kitchner, Churchill, T.E. Lawrence, and Lloyd George in Britain, Sergei Sazonov, Grand Duke Nicholas, Nikolai Yudenich, and Alexander Kolchak in Russia, Sherif Hussein of Mecca and his sons Feisal and Abdullah, along with Ibn Saud in Arabia; Eleftherios Venizelos and King Constantine in Greece, and not least Kazim Karabekir, Ismet Inonu, and Mustafa Kemal as fathers of the Republic of Turkey. It was not Sykes and Picot but these far greater men who forged the modern Middle East in the crucible of war. A century later, with the opening of the last archives of the period, their story can be told in full."
With so many participants and events, familiar and unfamiliar, the book is bound to tell a complex story. For the most part, the writing is clear and concise. At times McMeekin does not help the reader with long, convoluted sentences, poor proofing, and a tendency to flip comments. Still the book is thoroughly done, well researched and documented, and thoughtful. McMeekin helped me understand the era he describes and to see different ways of thinking about it.
The pre and post WW I sections of the book are likely to be less familiar to most readers than the long middle section dealing with the Great War. They are thus harder to follow than the story of the War but the effort is rewarding for readers with a serious interest in the time. In the opening section, McMeekin shows the Ottoman Empire, the much-maligned "sick man of Europe" struggling with internal problems as well as with European powers, particularly Russia eager to pounce and divide the spoils. The final portion of the book shows a beaten Ottoman Empire at the close of WW I, nearly going to War with its former ally, Germany, and managing to turn the tables on its conquerors by winning a brutal war and establishing the boundaries of modern Turkey. The pre and post War sections of the book are integrated well with the story of WW I and add a perspective that I didn't have before my reading.
The story of the Ottomans in WW I covers in good detail the decision to align with Germany. The Ottomans substantial and surprising successes at Dardanelles, Gallipoli, Kut, and elsewhere are covered as are the Empire's disastrous losses. McKeekin puts a great deal of stress on Russia's expansionist aims in explaining the course of political and military events in the Ottoman theater. His discussion of Armenia tends to avoid the term "genocide" while recognizing the horror of the killings and the massacres. The book emphasizes the support many Armenians were in fact lending the Russians both before and after the War. McMeekin also expresses a degree of skepticism about the transcripts of trials for human rights violations that emanated from the Ottomans at the conclusion of the conflict. There is a great deal of emphasis in the book on the Russian Revolution and on the Soviet Union's exit from the War, which, McMeekin believes, had great impact on the ultimate result in the Middle East. McMeekin also devotes considerable attention to the role of the United States and to its unwillingness to assume the role of neutral protectorate over the region at the conclusion of the War. The book downplays the role of the Arab Revolt and of the romanticized figure of Lawrence of Arabia. It argues that their role was minimal and that most Arabs remained loyal to the Ottomans for the duration of WW I.
I had the opportunity to read McMeekin's book at the same time I read another new book covering much of the same subject: Eugene Rogan's "The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East" (2015) The two books went to press at about the same time and did not influence one another. It is valuable to think about them together. Rogan's book focuses on the War itself and is much more elegantly written. The maps in Rogan are inadequate at best while those in McMeekin's book are helpful. Rogan's work makes more use of Ottoman sources although they are used in both books. I didn't find the books wildly different in their perspectives, but there are some important differences. Rogan is harsher on the Ottoman's treatment of the Armenians and also more inclined to emphasize the importance of the Arab Rebellion. McMeekin gives more attention to the roles of Russia and the United States.
As with most history, it is valuable to try to see the Great War in the Middle East from a variety of perspectives. I learned from both McMeekin and Rogan. Rogan's book is the more engagingly written of the two while McMeekin's book has more background and follow-up in the years up to 1923. For a reader wanting only one book, I would recommend Rogan but McMeekin's book is important for readers with a serious interest in the subject.
Robin Friedman
April 18, 2018
What's a girl like you doing in a place like this ? At first, the fall of the Ottomans seemed an odd subject for the man who gave us The Russian Origins of the First World War but hereditary enemies entwine their histories and the series of Russo-Turkish wars spanning four centuries tied the fates of the Balkan and the Caucasus to those of the two powers.
The rise of the Young Turks, so often glossed over as a sudden burst of modernism, is set within a context of reforms under the Ottoman sultans, as slow and partial as they may have been. The Great War, in turn, is set firmly within the context of the Tripolitanian and Balkan wars. The overall effect is an adjustment of the 'Sick Man of Europe' view: he made several miraculous recoveries in a decade of warfare.
The 14-18 story as told here has its strengths and weaknesses. On one hand, the Caucasian front gets an amount of attention in proportion to the importance Enver Pasha attached to it, not seldom to the detriment of other theaters. Lawrence of Arabia gets taken down from his mythological pedestal to a level even with the second-rate impact of the Arab revolt on the Ottoman war. On the other hand, there is (still) too much Gallipoli here and events in Mesopotamia unfold a bit too rapid after the infamous siege of Kut.
The post-war chaos takes up 100 pages or a good 20% of the book. It is not enough to do the shifting frontiers justice and the diplomatic games surrounding the treaties of Sèvres and Lausanne aren't spelled out coherently, but it is not 'stumbling through', either. The occupation of Constantinopel by British, French and Italian forces was news to me. The Allied intervention carries (for good reasons) similarities with their undrwhelmed support of the Whites in the Russian civil wars. The main event in McMeekin's version is the Greek invasion and its mutual atrocities, accumulating in the fire of Smyrna after the lines in front of Ankara almost broke.
1911-1923 is a lot of Turkey to fit within 500 pages, but McMeekin is a consummate storyteller.
The following breathless excerpt (p.245) looks back upon 1915:
"And so the British, instead of landing several divisions in scarcely defended Alexandretta to cleave the Ottoman Empire in two, [to] aid their Russian allies [who were] fighting the Ottoman Third Army at Manzikert and [to] save thousands of Armenian refugees, chose to reinforce failure by landing yet another 25.000 troops on Gallipoli, to face the deadly fire of forces entrenched on high ground. After beginning so well at Basra and Suez, 1915 had thoroughly turned sour for Britain in the Ottoman theatre. It was about to get worse."
The rise of the Young Turks, so often glossed over as a sudden burst of modernism, is set within a context of reforms under the Ottoman sultans, as slow and partial as they may have been. The Great War, in turn, is set firmly within the context of the Tripolitanian and Balkan wars. The overall effect is an adjustment of the 'Sick Man of Europe' view: he made several miraculous recoveries in a decade of warfare.
The 14-18 story as told here has its strengths and weaknesses. On one hand, the Caucasian front gets an amount of attention in proportion to the importance Enver Pasha attached to it, not seldom to the detriment of other theaters. Lawrence of Arabia gets taken down from his mythological pedestal to a level even with the second-rate impact of the Arab revolt on the Ottoman war. On the other hand, there is (still) too much Gallipoli here and events in Mesopotamia unfold a bit too rapid after the infamous siege of Kut.
The post-war chaos takes up 100 pages or a good 20% of the book. It is not enough to do the shifting frontiers justice and the diplomatic games surrounding the treaties of Sèvres and Lausanne aren't spelled out coherently, but it is not 'stumbling through', either. The occupation of Constantinopel by British, French and Italian forces was news to me. The Allied intervention carries (for good reasons) similarities with their undrwhelmed support of the Whites in the Russian civil wars. The main event in McMeekin's version is the Greek invasion and its mutual atrocities, accumulating in the fire of Smyrna after the lines in front of Ankara almost broke.
1911-1923 is a lot of Turkey to fit within 500 pages, but McMeekin is a consummate storyteller.
The following breathless excerpt (p.245) looks back upon 1915:
"And so the British, instead of landing several divisions in scarcely defended Alexandretta to cleave the Ottoman Empire in two, [to] aid their Russian allies [who were] fighting the Ottoman Third Army at Manzikert and [to] save thousands of Armenian refugees, chose to reinforce failure by landing yet another 25.000 troops on Gallipoli, to face the deadly fire of forces entrenched on high ground. After beginning so well at Basra and Suez, 1915 had thoroughly turned sour for Britain in the Ottoman theatre. It was about to get worse."
August 5, 2019
The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908 - 1923 brought to light, in English, the unraveling of the Ottoman Empire from the sultanate of Abdul Hamid II through the establishment of the Republic of Turkey under the leadership of the stalwart Mustafa Kemal. Naturally, the emphasis was on the First World War. The Great War was seen in the West as the death throes of Ottoman power. But, as McMeekin presented so well, it was preceded by devastating blows delivered by Russia, Italy, and the Balkan nations before 1914, coupled with the rise of internal reformist elements (the Young Turks), and followed by the bloody post-war clash with a predatory Greece. Despite the circling vultures, Ottoman Turkey was not a helpless "sick man," but a remarkably rugged and resilient power that staved off defeat and dismemberment again and again. With the empire's demise in 1922, Kemal and the nationalists created a successful nation-state by abandoning the ungovernable empire and its troublesome minorities. Even today outside the borders of Turkey -- in Iraq, Syria, Kurdistan, Palestine, and elsewhere -- "the War of the Ottoman Succession rages on, with no end in sight."
Sean McMeekin produced a book that is an exceptional example of well-written and illuminating history. A distinguished American academic, most of McMeekin's writings have concentrated on Russia, but he taught at two universities in Turkey and now holds a chair at Bard College. His research reflected solid work among primary sources and archives in Russian, German, and Turkish. A review in The Irish Examiner stated: "This is a work of scholarship and not for enthusiasts of ‘history lite’." I agree, but with the caveat that while thorough, it is still readable. The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908 - 1923 is among the best books of modern history I have read in recent years. McMeekin earned Five Stars from me.
Sean McMeekin produced a book that is an exceptional example of well-written and illuminating history. A distinguished American academic, most of McMeekin's writings have concentrated on Russia, but he taught at two universities in Turkey and now holds a chair at Bard College. His research reflected solid work among primary sources and archives in Russian, German, and Turkish. A review in The Irish Examiner stated: "This is a work of scholarship and not for enthusiasts of ‘history lite’." I agree, but with the caveat that while thorough, it is still readable. The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908 - 1923 is among the best books of modern history I have read in recent years. McMeekin earned Five Stars from me.
June 18, 2016
The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908-1923, is a book on the final years of the Ottoman Empire, and its dissolution after WWI. The Ottoman Empire was a fascinating conglomerate of cultures, religions and regions that lasted for hundreds of years. It controlled territory that today is often considered restive, areas such as the Balkans, the Middle East, and North Africa. It controlled these areas for centuries, where many others failed to for even a few years, and it did so using religious power (the Caliph in Istanbul), military might, and decentralized administration.
In its final few decades, however, the Ottoman's were often considered the punching bag for an increasingly Imperialist Europe. Britain, France and Russia all staked claims to the Empire, shaving off territorial concessions and new nations for decades before WWI. The Ottomans lost control of Tunisia and Algeria to France, Libya and Rhodes to Italy, Egypt and Sudan to Britain, and the Caucus and Black Sea ports of Crimea to Russia. Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia, Greece, Macedonia and Montenegro all spawned from previous Ottoman provinces, and proceeded to squabble over the spoils of a weakened state.
This book helps to refute the notion that the Ottoman's were the "Sick Man of Europe" by showing how they were attacked from all fronts for Imperialist purposes. Any nation would have had difficulty defending from a combination of Great Powers in this time period, and the Ottoman's were no exception. Leading up to WWI, the Central Powers (Austria-Hungary and Germany) sought to beef up relations with the Sublime Porte, in order to dilute the border with Russia and spread her armies thin. As a result, the Germans began to ship masses of men and material to the beaten and bruised Ottoman army, which had been fighting wars in the Balkans for almost a decade leading up to WWI. During the war, the Ottoman's garnered victory and defeat on the battlefield, failing to capture the Suez Canal, and losing territory to Russia in the Caucus regions. However, the successful defense of Gallipoli, and the closure of the Dardanelles to Russian fleets put the squeeze on the Entente powers, and showed that the Sick Man of Europe could scrap with the best of them.
Following the war, the Ottomans continued to fight, resisting occupations by Greece, France and Britain, and beating the Soviets and Italians to strategic resources. The Ottoman Empire lost millions of citizens during the war, to flight, to conflict, and most disturbingly, to inter-ethnic cleansing, massacre, and religious strife. The Armenian massacres are well known in modern circles, but Kurds, Pontic Greeks, and Muslims themselves were massacred by both Ottoman forces, paramilitary groups and foreign armies. With the modern political rhetoric that circles any talk of Turkish genocide, I will leave it at that.
Suffice to say, this was an excellent read, that chronicles the transformation of the Ottoman Empire into nationalistic states like Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, as well as the carving up of the Arab world, and the beginning of the inter-ethnic conflict the Balkans and Middle East are synonymous with in the modern world. The Ottoman war effort is chronicled in detail, down to their troop operations on their multiple fronts, and the naval excursions into the Black Sea. This is a really interesting look at WWI from the Ottoman viewpoint, and helps to solidify the Ottomans as one of the powers of the war, and not just the Sick Man of Europe sneer that is so often pointed in their direction, even to this day. A solid read and worth your time if your are a history or war buff.
In its final few decades, however, the Ottoman's were often considered the punching bag for an increasingly Imperialist Europe. Britain, France and Russia all staked claims to the Empire, shaving off territorial concessions and new nations for decades before WWI. The Ottomans lost control of Tunisia and Algeria to France, Libya and Rhodes to Italy, Egypt and Sudan to Britain, and the Caucus and Black Sea ports of Crimea to Russia. Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia, Greece, Macedonia and Montenegro all spawned from previous Ottoman provinces, and proceeded to squabble over the spoils of a weakened state.
This book helps to refute the notion that the Ottoman's were the "Sick Man of Europe" by showing how they were attacked from all fronts for Imperialist purposes. Any nation would have had difficulty defending from a combination of Great Powers in this time period, and the Ottoman's were no exception. Leading up to WWI, the Central Powers (Austria-Hungary and Germany) sought to beef up relations with the Sublime Porte, in order to dilute the border with Russia and spread her armies thin. As a result, the Germans began to ship masses of men and material to the beaten and bruised Ottoman army, which had been fighting wars in the Balkans for almost a decade leading up to WWI. During the war, the Ottoman's garnered victory and defeat on the battlefield, failing to capture the Suez Canal, and losing territory to Russia in the Caucus regions. However, the successful defense of Gallipoli, and the closure of the Dardanelles to Russian fleets put the squeeze on the Entente powers, and showed that the Sick Man of Europe could scrap with the best of them.
Following the war, the Ottomans continued to fight, resisting occupations by Greece, France and Britain, and beating the Soviets and Italians to strategic resources. The Ottoman Empire lost millions of citizens during the war, to flight, to conflict, and most disturbingly, to inter-ethnic cleansing, massacre, and religious strife. The Armenian massacres are well known in modern circles, but Kurds, Pontic Greeks, and Muslims themselves were massacred by both Ottoman forces, paramilitary groups and foreign armies. With the modern political rhetoric that circles any talk of Turkish genocide, I will leave it at that.
Suffice to say, this was an excellent read, that chronicles the transformation of the Ottoman Empire into nationalistic states like Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, as well as the carving up of the Arab world, and the beginning of the inter-ethnic conflict the Balkans and Middle East are synonymous with in the modern world. The Ottoman war effort is chronicled in detail, down to their troop operations on their multiple fronts, and the naval excursions into the Black Sea. This is a really interesting look at WWI from the Ottoman viewpoint, and helps to solidify the Ottomans as one of the powers of the war, and not just the Sick Man of Europe sneer that is so often pointed in their direction, even to this day. A solid read and worth your time if your are a history or war buff.
April 5, 2023
Divide and Conquered.
With my impending trip into old Ottoman territory and fondness of Sean McMeekin’s other works it was only a matter of time before I turned his Ottoman Endgame. This centres around the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire over a period of 12 or so years. We start in the mid 19th century where the plasters were placed over the Sick Man (not ‘of Europe’) as Tsar Nicholas I of Russia described the weakened Sublime Porte. Sultan Abdul Hamid II takes power and is able to wield influence until 1909 when he is deposed during the Young Turk movement. Slowly the power, strength and majesty of the only Islamic Empire in the world is corroded, by internal fracturing, external hacking and independence war after independence movement. Around 40% of territory was lost between 1900 and 1913!
The ultimate question is why did they join in a war that did not concern them? They had no quarrel with Serbia or the question of Slavic freedom. The answer is complex, but there was immense pressure from both sizes and with the Entente powers likely to instigate a land grab (Russia, Britain, France in the that order) it was to save something or to at least go down fighting.
Surprisingly an army which had been battered by rebel forces in the Balkans in the previous few years have as good as it good and held off the might Royal Navy and British Empire in the Dardanelles Campaign and of 1915. They also were able to surround British and a Indian forces in Mesopotamia. Only in the Caucasus weee the slowly thrown back by the Russians. Within this a black spot is stained on the memory of the Empire, the Armenian Genocide, built out of a distrust that they were forming a rebellion. Along the way we hear about the rise of the Arabs in Arabia and a certain TE Lawrence who McMeekin argues fuelled his own legend.
Ultimately there was too much to ask to hold on and following the Armistice on the Western Front in November 1918, war still waged on. Greek and Italians invaded Asia Minor which initial success. However, one man grew from the ashes to rally the Turks: Mustafa Kemal aka Ataturk. A Ottoman military officer who took control in Ankara and pushed them out. Unable to rescue (or perhaps knowing it wasn’t worth it) Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia the stable and constant boarder of modern Turkey was formed.
The book is face paced, exciting and written exuberantly. I read it cover to cover in four days (a book of 500 reading pages). It is not perfect (for example there is a lot of focus on Russia, more so than Turkey in some places and McMeekin strangely argues the British have always tried to make the Americans be Imperialist[?]) but it is well worth a read. I am looking forward to other books on the subject. Great job once again from McMeekin.
With my impending trip into old Ottoman territory and fondness of Sean McMeekin’s other works it was only a matter of time before I turned his Ottoman Endgame. This centres around the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire over a period of 12 or so years. We start in the mid 19th century where the plasters were placed over the Sick Man (not ‘of Europe’) as Tsar Nicholas I of Russia described the weakened Sublime Porte. Sultan Abdul Hamid II takes power and is able to wield influence until 1909 when he is deposed during the Young Turk movement. Slowly the power, strength and majesty of the only Islamic Empire in the world is corroded, by internal fracturing, external hacking and independence war after independence movement. Around 40% of territory was lost between 1900 and 1913!
The ultimate question is why did they join in a war that did not concern them? They had no quarrel with Serbia or the question of Slavic freedom. The answer is complex, but there was immense pressure from both sizes and with the Entente powers likely to instigate a land grab (Russia, Britain, France in the that order) it was to save something or to at least go down fighting.
Surprisingly an army which had been battered by rebel forces in the Balkans in the previous few years have as good as it good and held off the might Royal Navy and British Empire in the Dardanelles Campaign and of 1915. They also were able to surround British and a Indian forces in Mesopotamia. Only in the Caucasus weee the slowly thrown back by the Russians. Within this a black spot is stained on the memory of the Empire, the Armenian Genocide, built out of a distrust that they were forming a rebellion. Along the way we hear about the rise of the Arabs in Arabia and a certain TE Lawrence who McMeekin argues fuelled his own legend.
Ultimately there was too much to ask to hold on and following the Armistice on the Western Front in November 1918, war still waged on. Greek and Italians invaded Asia Minor which initial success. However, one man grew from the ashes to rally the Turks: Mustafa Kemal aka Ataturk. A Ottoman military officer who took control in Ankara and pushed them out. Unable to rescue (or perhaps knowing it wasn’t worth it) Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia the stable and constant boarder of modern Turkey was formed.
The book is face paced, exciting and written exuberantly. I read it cover to cover in four days (a book of 500 reading pages). It is not perfect (for example there is a lot of focus on Russia, more so than Turkey in some places and McMeekin strangely argues the British have always tried to make the Americans be Imperialist[?]) but it is well worth a read. I am looking forward to other books on the subject. Great job once again from McMeekin.
October 27, 2015
excellent book about the last years of the Ottoman Empire - though it essentially starts in 1876 with the palace coup that brought the young (and seemingly inexperienced so easy to control) Sultan Abdul Hamid to power and the desperate maneuvers of the new Sultan to avoid immediate disaster as the Russian Army will be a few miles from the gates of Constantinople in early 1878, maneuvers that will prove quite successful and stave disaster for another 20 years, while later only the mildness and clemency of the Sultan who tried hard to be a modernizer allowed his opponents to dethrone him in 1908 (only to blunder into disaster in the Balkan Wars of 1912-3);
the bulk of the book presents the fall of the Ottoman empire into German orbit (started by Abdul Hamid who found in young kaiser Wilhelm a kindred soul) and the battles of WW1 and collapse followed by rebirth as a nation state and the massive population transfers of 1922-24 (which were lauded at the time and even led to a Nobel peace prize awarded to famed explorer Nansen who brokered them, but later became the model for the massive involuntary transfers of people in Europe, the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent)
an epilogue discussing how the vision of Ataturk to keep the modern Turkish state within majority Turk areas led to the stablest borders in the area (the Turkish borders are essentially unchanged since 1923), while his rejection of expansion into the Mosul area (which was very weakly held by the British, had lots of oil and enough Turkish people to allow a claim to it, so it was part of the original Young Turk nationalist manifesto area - which Ataturk mostly followed) turned to have been so wise into retrospect; on the other hand, the De-Christianization of Turkey in 1923 (while understandable after the bitter religious Greek-Turk war of the previous years) had long term negative effects as the roughly 1.2 million Greeks and other Christians expelled by Ataturk of which many were skilled professionals and businessman were replaced by some 400000 Greek Muslims of mostly peasant origins, with the economy of Turkey not rebounding for decades
highly recommended and a page turner to boot
the bulk of the book presents the fall of the Ottoman empire into German orbit (started by Abdul Hamid who found in young kaiser Wilhelm a kindred soul) and the battles of WW1 and collapse followed by rebirth as a nation state and the massive population transfers of 1922-24 (which were lauded at the time and even led to a Nobel peace prize awarded to famed explorer Nansen who brokered them, but later became the model for the massive involuntary transfers of people in Europe, the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent)
an epilogue discussing how the vision of Ataturk to keep the modern Turkish state within majority Turk areas led to the stablest borders in the area (the Turkish borders are essentially unchanged since 1923), while his rejection of expansion into the Mosul area (which was very weakly held by the British, had lots of oil and enough Turkish people to allow a claim to it, so it was part of the original Young Turk nationalist manifesto area - which Ataturk mostly followed) turned to have been so wise into retrospect; on the other hand, the De-Christianization of Turkey in 1923 (while understandable after the bitter religious Greek-Turk war of the previous years) had long term negative effects as the roughly 1.2 million Greeks and other Christians expelled by Ataturk of which many were skilled professionals and businessman were replaced by some 400000 Greek Muslims of mostly peasant origins, with the economy of Turkey not rebounding for decades
highly recommended and a page turner to boot
December 22, 2017
The Great War saw the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In fact it was a result of a long period of conflict and revolution and was not a collapse, but rather a climax. In this book, Sean McMeekin offers a grand overview of the events leading up to this collapse.
August 11, 2016
I came to The Ottoman Endgame in my quest to explore the global reach of WWI - i.e., everything beyond the Western front. Sean McMeekin's latest book is perfect for this purpose, as it describes the conflict from the Ottoman empire's perspective. The results are impressive: an exciting, well told, and illuminating narrative history.
This focus requires a somewhat broader perspective than a 1914-1918 battlefield account. McMeekin reaches back to 1900-1914 (indeed, begins in the late 1800s) in order to set up the "sick man of Europe" problematic, and to introduce the crucial Balkan Wars. He also continues the tale beyond 11/11/1918 as he views the Turkish story as bound up with the Russian Civil War, and, of course, carried on through the Turko-Greek War (1919-1922) and Kemal Ataturk's founding on today's Turkish state. There's also a strong if understated pointer to our time, as the book's last line reminds us: "Outside Turkey's borders, the War of the Ottoman Succession [see below] rages on, with no end in sight." (495)
And what a tale unfolds! Students of the First World War are familiar with the fact that it brought down so many empires; McMeekin gives us a front row seat for one's spectacular crash. We see intrigue, betrayal, ambition, disaster, epic struggle, and many, many battles. Not only does the Ottoman empire get destroyed and replaced with a constellation of states still unsettled (to put it mildly) today, but the Russian empire collapses into revolution and civil war, Israel's founding starts to move, and the whole, more familiar drama of the Western front transpires.
A crucial argument in the book is to consider the Ottoman story as not a sideshow, in TE Lawrence's terms, but as "central to both the outbreak of European war in 1914 and the peace settlement that truly ended it." (xx) A second claim is that the Ottomans fought better, smarter, and harder than their enemies and much of posterity have given them credit for. Those are ultimately very persuasive arguments, especially given the close connections between the Ottomans and Russia ("Russia, always the prime [external] mover in Ottoman affairs", 286), for the former point.
Ottoman Endgame offers some intriguing perspectives on the first World War. It suggests reviewing the Middle Eastern theater (plus the Macedonian and Russian) as a War of the Ottoman Succession (xx, 483). There's the possibility of WWI breaking out in 1912, as the great powers maneuvered around the First Balkan War, which makes for a fascinating counterfactual. McMeekin, no fan of TE Lawrence, nevertheless picks up his call for the British to land in the Ottoman realm not at Gallipoli, but at Alexandretta (173ff), arguing that such a campaign might have been far more effective for the Entente than the disaster (or, from the Ottoman perspective, glorious victory) of Gallipoli. Speaking of Gallipoli, the book raises the possibility that a Russian attack on Constantinople (which had been promised) during the Entente's bloody campaign might have collapsed the Ottomans as early as 1915 (216ff).
Speaking of Lawrence of Arabia, McMeekin falls squarely into the skeptic's camp. Ottoman Endgame portrays Lawrence as a bungling tactician, "an ineffective liaison officer" (416), a bag man for British imperial cash (according to "a Bedouin sheikh... 'He was the man with the gold'", 361), a maker of myths about himself.
McMeekin lets us revisit and understand familiar events in new contexts. The Allied attempt on Gallipoli makes more sense considered alongside the other Ottoman battles at the same time, in Suez, Mesopotamia, and the Caucuses. The Young Turks and their maneuvers are more rational in their domestic setting. Sykes-Picot (or Sazonov-Sykes-Picot) appears more ramshackle that I recall, as well as more centered on Russian aspirations. British prime minister Lloyd George comes off as a dangerous fumbler. The Armenian genocide occurs in the midst of several military campaigns, rather than on its own.
Ottoman Endgame also draws attention to underappreciated or simply forgotten aspects of WWI, such as the Battle of Dilman (1915), which helped the Russians drive deeply into the eastern empire (227), and Wilhelm Souchon's brilliant escapades with the SMS Goeben. I was impressed that a second great battle took place in 1915 on the world-historic site of Manzikert, almost a thousand years after the first one. The first Ottoman attack on the Suez canal doesn't get nearly enough attention; I completely missed that there was a second one, in 1916; McMeekin wants us to consider the latter as "the decisive turning point in the British-Ottoman war" (343). McMeekin also would like us to consider the scarcely ever mentioned Macedonian front as "the real catalyst of defeat for the Central Powers" (394), which I'm not fully convinced by, but enjoy thinking through.
I'd forgotten that the Versailles process raised the idea of putting the United States in charge of big swathes of former Ottoman territory (420ff). The epic, intercontinental carve-up of the Russian empire by the Germans and Ottomans, often neglected in favor of the epic 1918 western front battles, was very well presented. And I was pleased to see the author once more make the case for the vital importance and skills of Russia's one-time foreign minister Sergei Sazonov (example: 185-6) (this was a key point of McMeekin's previous book on WWI and Russia).
I was disappointed at some omissions and topics underplayed. The entry and rapid exit of Romania into the war was very significant in 1916, and had huge implications for the Balkans, but it barely receives a mention (ex: 326). More importantly Austria-Hungary is barely mentioned (cf 370), which is strange, given its huge role in the Balkans, not to mention in kicking off war in 1914. On the Ottoman side I hoped to learn more about culture and society, such as public opinion, attitudes towards the war, etc. But this is more of a diplomatic and military history.
The Ottoman Endgame is well grounded in archival work, especially on the Turkish side.
But one all too rare virtue made me love this book the more: its maps. Oh, what a delight to read a history liberally speckled with maps. Each one is placed precisely where it is most germane. Every one is easy to read. Nearly every single geographical detail in the text is clearly apparent on the relevant map. Publishers and authors, please learn from this book's example!
Overall, I strongly recommend The Ottoman Endgame for every WWI reader, as well as for anyone curious about the modern Middle East, and for anyone interested in fine historical nonfiction.
This focus requires a somewhat broader perspective than a 1914-1918 battlefield account. McMeekin reaches back to 1900-1914 (indeed, begins in the late 1800s) in order to set up the "sick man of Europe" problematic, and to introduce the crucial Balkan Wars. He also continues the tale beyond 11/11/1918 as he views the Turkish story as bound up with the Russian Civil War, and, of course, carried on through the Turko-Greek War (1919-1922) and Kemal Ataturk's founding on today's Turkish state. There's also a strong if understated pointer to our time, as the book's last line reminds us: "Outside Turkey's borders, the War of the Ottoman Succession [see below] rages on, with no end in sight." (495)
And what a tale unfolds! Students of the First World War are familiar with the fact that it brought down so many empires; McMeekin gives us a front row seat for one's spectacular crash. We see intrigue, betrayal, ambition, disaster, epic struggle, and many, many battles. Not only does the Ottoman empire get destroyed and replaced with a constellation of states still unsettled (to put it mildly) today, but the Russian empire collapses into revolution and civil war, Israel's founding starts to move, and the whole, more familiar drama of the Western front transpires.
A crucial argument in the book is to consider the Ottoman story as not a sideshow, in TE Lawrence's terms, but as "central to both the outbreak of European war in 1914 and the peace settlement that truly ended it." (xx) A second claim is that the Ottomans fought better, smarter, and harder than their enemies and much of posterity have given them credit for. Those are ultimately very persuasive arguments, especially given the close connections between the Ottomans and Russia ("Russia, always the prime [external] mover in Ottoman affairs", 286), for the former point.
Ottoman Endgame offers some intriguing perspectives on the first World War. It suggests reviewing the Middle Eastern theater (plus the Macedonian and Russian) as a War of the Ottoman Succession (xx, 483). There's the possibility of WWI breaking out in 1912, as the great powers maneuvered around the First Balkan War, which makes for a fascinating counterfactual. McMeekin, no fan of TE Lawrence, nevertheless picks up his call for the British to land in the Ottoman realm not at Gallipoli, but at Alexandretta (173ff), arguing that such a campaign might have been far more effective for the Entente than the disaster (or, from the Ottoman perspective, glorious victory) of Gallipoli. Speaking of Gallipoli, the book raises the possibility that a Russian attack on Constantinople (which had been promised) during the Entente's bloody campaign might have collapsed the Ottomans as early as 1915 (216ff).
Speaking of Lawrence of Arabia, McMeekin falls squarely into the skeptic's camp. Ottoman Endgame portrays Lawrence as a bungling tactician, "an ineffective liaison officer" (416), a bag man for British imperial cash (according to "a Bedouin sheikh... 'He was the man with the gold'", 361), a maker of myths about himself.
Two days after the fall of Damascus, to which his only contribution was to be chauffeured into town afterwards in a Rolls-Royce sedan (the Blue Mist), Lawrence asked [general] Allenby for permission to return to England, whence he returned to begin composing his own legend. (404n)
McMeekin lets us revisit and understand familiar events in new contexts. The Allied attempt on Gallipoli makes more sense considered alongside the other Ottoman battles at the same time, in Suez, Mesopotamia, and the Caucuses. The Young Turks and their maneuvers are more rational in their domestic setting. Sykes-Picot (or Sazonov-Sykes-Picot) appears more ramshackle that I recall, as well as more centered on Russian aspirations. British prime minister Lloyd George comes off as a dangerous fumbler. The Armenian genocide occurs in the midst of several military campaigns, rather than on its own.
Ottoman Endgame also draws attention to underappreciated or simply forgotten aspects of WWI, such as the Battle of Dilman (1915), which helped the Russians drive deeply into the eastern empire (227), and Wilhelm Souchon's brilliant escapades with the SMS Goeben. I was impressed that a second great battle took place in 1915 on the world-historic site of Manzikert, almost a thousand years after the first one. The first Ottoman attack on the Suez canal doesn't get nearly enough attention; I completely missed that there was a second one, in 1916; McMeekin wants us to consider the latter as "the decisive turning point in the British-Ottoman war" (343). McMeekin also would like us to consider the scarcely ever mentioned Macedonian front as "the real catalyst of defeat for the Central Powers" (394), which I'm not fully convinced by, but enjoy thinking through.
I'd forgotten that the Versailles process raised the idea of putting the United States in charge of big swathes of former Ottoman territory (420ff). The epic, intercontinental carve-up of the Russian empire by the Germans and Ottomans, often neglected in favor of the epic 1918 western front battles, was very well presented. And I was pleased to see the author once more make the case for the vital importance and skills of Russia's one-time foreign minister Sergei Sazonov (example: 185-6) (this was a key point of McMeekin's previous book on WWI and Russia).
I was disappointed at some omissions and topics underplayed. The entry and rapid exit of Romania into the war was very significant in 1916, and had huge implications for the Balkans, but it barely receives a mention (ex: 326). More importantly Austria-Hungary is barely mentioned (cf 370), which is strange, given its huge role in the Balkans, not to mention in kicking off war in 1914. On the Ottoman side I hoped to learn more about culture and society, such as public opinion, attitudes towards the war, etc. But this is more of a diplomatic and military history.
The Ottoman Endgame is well grounded in archival work, especially on the Turkish side.
But one all too rare virtue made me love this book the more: its maps. Oh, what a delight to read a history liberally speckled with maps. Each one is placed precisely where it is most germane. Every one is easy to read. Nearly every single geographical detail in the text is clearly apparent on the relevant map. Publishers and authors, please learn from this book's example!
Overall, I strongly recommend The Ottoman Endgame for every WWI reader, as well as for anyone curious about the modern Middle East, and for anyone interested in fine historical nonfiction.
July 5, 2016
I watched some months ago a recent 2-hour french documentary on the fall of the Ottomans and I was amazed by the clarity of it and its economic storytelling of the last days of the empire. It didn't pay much attention to numbers (ie, number of ships, number of soldiers, etc) and it focused, instead in creating a compelling story. I was expecting something like that in this book, a general storytelling of the empire's last years, however, what i got was a military history of the Ottomans in the first world war (the title says 1908-1923 but there is plenty of space for more information). Now, i wouldn't mind reading that on another ocassion, but i just wasn't ready for a in-depth account of military affairs since the raw data puts me off history books; you don't need to tell me with how many soldiers someone fought and against how many, just tell me the ending and its consequences. Maybe on another time I would read it, if i was in the mood, but this one took me off-guard and put me off most of the book.
At the beginning I felt that a lot of names were thrown in, with barely any background of them (what were they, where were they and what were they doing prior to whatever you're telling me), it kind of assumed the reader to know that. Luckily, and thanks to the documentary (and history lessons at school), I knew most of the players in this timeline, but for the ocassional reader, it'd be better for him to skim the wikipedia page before diving in. Also, it has a semi-consistent approach to the turks: one chapter is talking about the ottomans and in another it's talking about the war on the other front, focusing on germans and british. Again, If i was reading a general history of ww1 that is the kind of info i'd like, but here, at times it feels that the ottomans are relegated to a secondary position in the book and more time is invested on other countries than in the ottomans themselves.
It was good overall, accuracy-wise but not too engaging. If you need raw data, this is your book. And since there are tons of characters mentioned (even more than in Game of Thrones, methinks) it would be wise if you had a notebook or something by your side. (it would've been useful a dramatis personae at the beginning or something like that).
I will give Rogan's book a chance, but later. Too many Pashas for now.
At the beginning I felt that a lot of names were thrown in, with barely any background of them (what were they, where were they and what were they doing prior to whatever you're telling me), it kind of assumed the reader to know that. Luckily, and thanks to the documentary (and history lessons at school), I knew most of the players in this timeline, but for the ocassional reader, it'd be better for him to skim the wikipedia page before diving in. Also, it has a semi-consistent approach to the turks: one chapter is talking about the ottomans and in another it's talking about the war on the other front, focusing on germans and british. Again, If i was reading a general history of ww1 that is the kind of info i'd like, but here, at times it feels that the ottomans are relegated to a secondary position in the book and more time is invested on other countries than in the ottomans themselves.
It was good overall, accuracy-wise but not too engaging. If you need raw data, this is your book. And since there are tons of characters mentioned (even more than in Game of Thrones, methinks) it would be wise if you had a notebook or something by your side. (it would've been useful a dramatis personae at the beginning or something like that).
I will give Rogan's book a chance, but later. Too many Pashas for now.
September 11, 2024
I found this period in our history; I knew nothing of and should have as I’m from an Italian family, captivating although also detailed and somewhat difficult to keep track of. Too highbrow for my head.
Embattled on all sides, the Ottomans had for a number of years prior to WW1 withstood their aggressors.
A coup in 1913 led to three officers taking the helm. One, a young Enver Bey, became a war minister and was given the title ‘Pasha’ (major general). Enver Pasha made strategic decisions that allowed armies from both the French and the British to gain an upper hand, ultimately leading to the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire.
For those who have a more overall understanding of the geo-politics of that era, I would suggest will get more from this than I did. Still, I’m glad I took the time with it and I did learn from it.
Embattled on all sides, the Ottomans had for a number of years prior to WW1 withstood their aggressors.
A coup in 1913 led to three officers taking the helm. One, a young Enver Bey, became a war minister and was given the title ‘Pasha’ (major general). Enver Pasha made strategic decisions that allowed armies from both the French and the British to gain an upper hand, ultimately leading to the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire.
For those who have a more overall understanding of the geo-politics of that era, I would suggest will get more from this than I did. Still, I’m glad I took the time with it and I did learn from it.
July 27, 2019
An accessible, traditional diplomatic/military history of the First World War in the Middle East, although mainly from Britain’s point of view.
The book is basically just a military history of the Turks during this period. Despite the title, much of the narrative is taken up by the likes of Lawrence (whom McMeekin regards as important if not militarily significant), Churchill, Lloyd George, and Kitchener, and the Turkish perspective doesn’t come into play as much as you might expect. McMeekin’s style is wry and ironic, and he really rams home the amount of suffering endured by the peoples of this era and that region. Some parts receive more attention than others: in particular, I enjoyed McMeekin’s coverage of Souchon’s arrival in Constantinople, the relationship between Germany and Turkey, the Gallipoli campaign, the war in Mesopotamia, the Palestine campaign, and the post-world war fighting in the Caucasus. Although the Sykes-Picot agreement is usually portrayed as a deal between Britain and France, McMeekin emphasizes the role played by Russia, and argues that Russia was the “senior partner.”
A few of McMeekin’s points could still have been elaborated on, and there seem to be a few typos regarding certain Ottoman commanders. In the introduction, McMeekin argues that the idea of France and Britain arbitrarily dividing the Middle East among themselves is a both a myth and a cliche, but he never returns to this argument in the text. Elsewhere McMeekin writes that the Russians attempted to stir up Armenian uprisings, but he does not detail any of the Russian debate about this contentious proposal. He also asserts that the diplomacy of 1923 concluded a conflict that began in 1911, and that the Ottomans were key players in both the outbreak and conclusion of the world war. Unfortunately, McMeekin does not return to these arguments in the actual narrative. Elsewhere he asserts that the Greeks were planning a war of aggression against the Ottomans during the summer of 1914 (they were?), and that Mustafa Kemal had no problem with handing Mosul over to the British (really?) He also doesn’t really make clear the distinctions between a mandate and an independent state. All of McMeekin’s points about the origins of the “modern middle east” can be found in the final chapter: among them, that the loss of the Ottomans’ territory in the Middle East was inevitable and that postwar Turkey solved its minorities problems (although no mention is made of the Kurdish issue) He writes that Turkey abandoned the idea of empire after the war, even though much of its empire had been militarily conquered by then. In all, the book isn’t even really about the “Middle East” but about Turkey.
A well-researched, gripping and balanced work.
The book is basically just a military history of the Turks during this period. Despite the title, much of the narrative is taken up by the likes of Lawrence (whom McMeekin regards as important if not militarily significant), Churchill, Lloyd George, and Kitchener, and the Turkish perspective doesn’t come into play as much as you might expect. McMeekin’s style is wry and ironic, and he really rams home the amount of suffering endured by the peoples of this era and that region. Some parts receive more attention than others: in particular, I enjoyed McMeekin’s coverage of Souchon’s arrival in Constantinople, the relationship between Germany and Turkey, the Gallipoli campaign, the war in Mesopotamia, the Palestine campaign, and the post-world war fighting in the Caucasus. Although the Sykes-Picot agreement is usually portrayed as a deal between Britain and France, McMeekin emphasizes the role played by Russia, and argues that Russia was the “senior partner.”
A few of McMeekin’s points could still have been elaborated on, and there seem to be a few typos regarding certain Ottoman commanders. In the introduction, McMeekin argues that the idea of France and Britain arbitrarily dividing the Middle East among themselves is a both a myth and a cliche, but he never returns to this argument in the text. Elsewhere McMeekin writes that the Russians attempted to stir up Armenian uprisings, but he does not detail any of the Russian debate about this contentious proposal. He also asserts that the diplomacy of 1923 concluded a conflict that began in 1911, and that the Ottomans were key players in both the outbreak and conclusion of the world war. Unfortunately, McMeekin does not return to these arguments in the actual narrative. Elsewhere he asserts that the Greeks were planning a war of aggression against the Ottomans during the summer of 1914 (they were?), and that Mustafa Kemal had no problem with handing Mosul over to the British (really?) He also doesn’t really make clear the distinctions between a mandate and an independent state. All of McMeekin’s points about the origins of the “modern middle east” can be found in the final chapter: among them, that the loss of the Ottomans’ territory in the Middle East was inevitable and that postwar Turkey solved its minorities problems (although no mention is made of the Kurdish issue) He writes that Turkey abandoned the idea of empire after the war, even though much of its empire had been militarily conquered by then. In all, the book isn’t even really about the “Middle East” but about Turkey.
A well-researched, gripping and balanced work.
August 23, 2016
(Note: I received a free copy of this book through Goodreads First Reads.)
A history of the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and the emergence of the new nation of Turkey, drawing upon long-unavailable archives in Turkey and Russia.
The largest share of the book covers the events of World War 1, and it's illuminating to see the war portrayed from the Turkish point of view; not one often seen in the West. I'd venture to say that most Westerners are mostly familiar with the Ottoman role in WW1 for three things: the Armenian genocide of 1915, the failed British invasion of the Dardanelles and Gallipoli, and Lawrence of Arabia. Even aficionados may be largely unfamiliar with other aspects- the battles on the Ottoman/Russian front in Asia Minor, for instance. There's also a lot of interesting material concerning the confusing power shifts and strategic alliances in the Balkans in the years leading up to the War.
At least half the book is essentially a war chronicle, and it suffers from the same problem as any such book: unless you're deeply interested in military history, the endless progression of troop movements, commanders, who fought whom and where, quickly grows repetitive and dull. In this case, the problem is compounded by the fact that most names of people and places will be unfamiliar to most readers.
I found the early portions of the book much more interesting, in which McMeekin familiarizes us with the state of the Ottoman Empire in the years leading up to the war. One particular episode is especially fascinating: relating the story of one powerful German warship, caught in the Mediterranean Sea at the outbreak of the war and pursued by a British fleet, which headed for Turkey seeking sanctuary. It's the stuff of high drama, not only for the sake of the German ship, but because of its effect on diplomatic negotiations (the Ottomans, at the time, had not actually entered the war, and were not certain to do so).
By contrast, the ending portions of the book- in which, from the wreckage of the war, Turkish nationalists succeed in establishing a new nation, despite opposition from powers intent on carving it into pieces- feel a bit short and abrupt. I'd have liked more detail on the new nation's early years.
It is, in the end, a very good book; pretty much required reading if you're interested in WW1, or the history of Turkey and the Middle East. It's a bit more difficult to recommend to casual readers of history, especially ones who aren't looking to read about wars.
A history of the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and the emergence of the new nation of Turkey, drawing upon long-unavailable archives in Turkey and Russia.
The largest share of the book covers the events of World War 1, and it's illuminating to see the war portrayed from the Turkish point of view; not one often seen in the West. I'd venture to say that most Westerners are mostly familiar with the Ottoman role in WW1 for three things: the Armenian genocide of 1915, the failed British invasion of the Dardanelles and Gallipoli, and Lawrence of Arabia. Even aficionados may be largely unfamiliar with other aspects- the battles on the Ottoman/Russian front in Asia Minor, for instance. There's also a lot of interesting material concerning the confusing power shifts and strategic alliances in the Balkans in the years leading up to the War.
At least half the book is essentially a war chronicle, and it suffers from the same problem as any such book: unless you're deeply interested in military history, the endless progression of troop movements, commanders, who fought whom and where, quickly grows repetitive and dull. In this case, the problem is compounded by the fact that most names of people and places will be unfamiliar to most readers.
I found the early portions of the book much more interesting, in which McMeekin familiarizes us with the state of the Ottoman Empire in the years leading up to the war. One particular episode is especially fascinating: relating the story of one powerful German warship, caught in the Mediterranean Sea at the outbreak of the war and pursued by a British fleet, which headed for Turkey seeking sanctuary. It's the stuff of high drama, not only for the sake of the German ship, but because of its effect on diplomatic negotiations (the Ottomans, at the time, had not actually entered the war, and were not certain to do so).
By contrast, the ending portions of the book- in which, from the wreckage of the war, Turkish nationalists succeed in establishing a new nation, despite opposition from powers intent on carving it into pieces- feel a bit short and abrupt. I'd have liked more detail on the new nation's early years.
It is, in the end, a very good book; pretty much required reading if you're interested in WW1, or the history of Turkey and the Middle East. It's a bit more difficult to recommend to casual readers of history, especially ones who aren't looking to read about wars.
March 18, 2017
The opening of Turkish and Russian archives in recent years has allowed for an avalanche of new scholarship on the late-Ottoman period and WW1. This book is a rarity in that it covers extensively the war fronts in Russia and Eastern Europe, as opposed to the Middle East (which tend to be focused upon more due to their relevance to contemporary events). I had just finished a book on Turko-German relations by the same author that I was quite underwhelmed by, but I found this work to be far superior in every respect. Although the events will feel like a retread to anyone who has read other recent books on this era, McMeekin manages to pull out lots of historical episodes and analyses that add color to what happened.
One thing that struck me was how incredibly fickle the alliances of the various powers were. The Ottomans were negotiating a possible alliance with Russia right up until the last moments when the war began. Meanwhile the Balkan powers, which had chance after chance to take Constantinople, repeatedly hamstrung themselves with internal fights and the fracturing of their alliances against Turkey. In the end their insatiable greed destroyed all of them, particularly the Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbians who also all birthed an extremely aggressive nationalism, seemingly out of nowhere, that ended up essentially destroying their own countries. Despite their ultimate failures, its amazing how close we came to having a Serbian Empire or a Greek Empire instead of what we see in Europe today.
There is a lot about the atrocities carried out during the ethnic cleansing on all sides and, as the title suggests, the diplomatic endgame that led to the emergence of the new borders that we see on the map today. For me there was not much new, but it was still a nice review (Fall of the Ottomans by Eugene Rogan is still the preeminent book on this period in my opinion, if for not other reason than the writing). As McMeekin ably demonstrates "the war of the Ottoman Succession" is still raging in the Middle East and elsewhere. This is an even-handed approach to that era that manages to convey the perspective of all sides during the tragic period of the empire's last days.
One thing that struck me was how incredibly fickle the alliances of the various powers were. The Ottomans were negotiating a possible alliance with Russia right up until the last moments when the war began. Meanwhile the Balkan powers, which had chance after chance to take Constantinople, repeatedly hamstrung themselves with internal fights and the fracturing of their alliances against Turkey. In the end their insatiable greed destroyed all of them, particularly the Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbians who also all birthed an extremely aggressive nationalism, seemingly out of nowhere, that ended up essentially destroying their own countries. Despite their ultimate failures, its amazing how close we came to having a Serbian Empire or a Greek Empire instead of what we see in Europe today.
There is a lot about the atrocities carried out during the ethnic cleansing on all sides and, as the title suggests, the diplomatic endgame that led to the emergence of the new borders that we see on the map today. For me there was not much new, but it was still a nice review (Fall of the Ottomans by Eugene Rogan is still the preeminent book on this period in my opinion, if for not other reason than the writing). As McMeekin ably demonstrates "the war of the Ottoman Succession" is still raging in the Middle East and elsewhere. This is an even-handed approach to that era that manages to convey the perspective of all sides during the tragic period of the empire's last days.
February 20, 2021
Very informative on Turkey before and during the Great War. Seeing the conflicts from the Turkish point of view really does add a lot of nuance. I did expect this book to cover the formation of the Arab world out of the splinters of the Ottoman Empire in greater detail, but it is very much the transition from the Empire to The Republic of Turkey that dominates this book. I found it easy to read, considering the topic, and mostly enjoyable but the discussion of the Armenian genocide seemed misjudged. McMeekin seems reluctant to refer to it as a genocide, though he discusses and doesn't deny the atrocities carried out. It seems to me that a purposeful expulsion of people based on their religion or ethnicity to a place where they cannot possibly live along inhospitable routes with no assistance isn't a topic where terminology is top of the list to discuss. As a result, the reluctance to use the word, placed in inverted commas once I think, produces a very negative impression as I can only speculate about the author's reasons.
May 15, 2022
Although McMeekin has written several books on the confusing pre-WW1 years, a topic of interest to me, I had not read any of his works until randomly picking this volume up free in February 2022, in a book exchange at the Grand Rapids Airport. It immediately piqued my interest by combining an analysis of the Balkan Wars, detailed coverage of WW1 campaigns like Gallipoli, and the postwar dust-ups between Turkey and Greece.
McMeekin has a droll but occasionally dense writing style common to academics who want to make a lot of points in a small space, akin to someone like Niall Ferguson. That can be useful when trying to cover a difficult topic like the myriad of anarchist groups struggling for power during the Balkan Wars. But it also leads to long sentences and challenging passages, requiring the reader to pay attention. Nevertheless, anyone with more than a passing interest in the subject matter will have little problem paying such attention to the narrative.
The book is first and foremost a study of great-power diplomacy, but McMeekin also like to analyze battle campaigns, so we get detailed breakdowns of Gallipoli, and of the Turkish-Russian battles along the Black Sea. Sometimes, it's hard to keep names and place-names straight in the complex battles that took place after the 1917 Russian Revolution.
As for the Sevres period, when the Entente powers were occupying Turkey, McMeekin finds faults aplenty, but he reserves special scorn for British Prime Minister David Lloyd George. Since most historians have little use for George, this might seem an easy mark, but McMeekin doesn't have much use for Winston Churchill either. Since Churchill later was lionized for his WW2 roles, it's useful to remember that in many ways, along many dimensions, Churchill was a pretty terrible person. But then you could say that about the representatives of most imperial powers at the time.
McMeekin touches only briefly on the implications of the Ottoman collapse, continuing to the rise of Islamic State that took place at the time this book was published. McMeekin is not too enamored of Kemal Ataturk or anyone who followed him, save maybe Turgut Ozal. He certainly doesn't like Erdogan, and with good reason. But the book is particularly harsh on the imperial powers of Europe, and the haphazard way in which they caused the Ottoman collapse.
McMeekin has a droll but occasionally dense writing style common to academics who want to make a lot of points in a small space, akin to someone like Niall Ferguson. That can be useful when trying to cover a difficult topic like the myriad of anarchist groups struggling for power during the Balkan Wars. But it also leads to long sentences and challenging passages, requiring the reader to pay attention. Nevertheless, anyone with more than a passing interest in the subject matter will have little problem paying such attention to the narrative.
The book is first and foremost a study of great-power diplomacy, but McMeekin also like to analyze battle campaigns, so we get detailed breakdowns of Gallipoli, and of the Turkish-Russian battles along the Black Sea. Sometimes, it's hard to keep names and place-names straight in the complex battles that took place after the 1917 Russian Revolution.
As for the Sevres period, when the Entente powers were occupying Turkey, McMeekin finds faults aplenty, but he reserves special scorn for British Prime Minister David Lloyd George. Since most historians have little use for George, this might seem an easy mark, but McMeekin doesn't have much use for Winston Churchill either. Since Churchill later was lionized for his WW2 roles, it's useful to remember that in many ways, along many dimensions, Churchill was a pretty terrible person. But then you could say that about the representatives of most imperial powers at the time.
McMeekin touches only briefly on the implications of the Ottoman collapse, continuing to the rise of Islamic State that took place at the time this book was published. McMeekin is not too enamored of Kemal Ataturk or anyone who followed him, save maybe Turgut Ozal. He certainly doesn't like Erdogan, and with good reason. But the book is particularly harsh on the imperial powers of Europe, and the haphazard way in which they caused the Ottoman collapse.
January 23, 2017
Remarkably good account of the end of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of modern Turkey. McMeekin brings the Ottoman perspective to the forefront of this account more so than any other history of the place/period I have read. The result is a very even-handed and compelling narrative of a fascinating time and place, full of insight and understanding. (And lots of detailed and helpful maps!). Highly recommended.
Read
November 2, 2016This was a great book on a subject I've been reading a lot about lately, the twilight and eventual dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Very detailed and exhaustively researched, there were a couple of points that stuck out to me. For one, It's so shocking to me that the European powers thought their partition of what's now modern Turkey was tenable at all. Forget Gallipoli, you can at least explain the motivation behind that but encouraging the Greek Army to push far beyond reason caused untold devastation to both the native Greeks that had lived in Turkey for centuries and Turkish civilians killed in scorched earth campaigns. The hubris of England, France et al in those days was unmatched. The book also detailed the chapter of the war that was most relevant to me, the events that led to the Armenian Genocide. I alternated between immense pride at reading about the resistance of the Dashnaks at Van (the place my Grandfather's family is from), who fought back and successfully held the city for a time, and disgust at the many times Armenians were hung out to dry by various "well meaning" countries. In those days people loved to bemoan the fate of the poor Ottoman Armenian Christians, probably to raise money, but when it came down it we were just pawns in the stupid little diplomatic power games played by severely inbred European aristocrats. Like those Armenians in Van learned when they were finally massacred after Russia withdrew support, you can't trust anyone. I digress though! The book was excellent, especially the large amount of time it spends focusing on the impact of the war in the Caucasus and Eastern Empire, something that I've noticed gets short shrift compared to the effects of the Ottoman dissolution in Syria, Palestine etc which is admittedly more relevant to modern events. Someone told me that the author had extensive access to Russian archival sources for this book, which likely accounts for the wealth of information it offers in that area. In any case it's a must read if you're interested in this time of history.
October 5, 2018
If you are looking for a book to introduce you to the Ottoman Empire, and its last days, because you've got a very America- and Euro-centric view of history and are trying to expand, PICK A DIFFERENT STARTER BOOK.
I'm not quite sure if this book is mediocre, good, or excellent. It presupposes familiarity with people I mostly didn't know, and geography I don't know like I should. Even a modern map isn't much help, because of the complexity of the old countries and boundaries.
What did I learn?
1. There was some guy named Abdul Hamid who was the last sultan.
2. Mustafa Kemal was huge.
3. I get a little bit why some guy getting assassinated in Sarajevo started a war. Not really - the causes of World War I are still a mess to me, but unrest in the Balkans made land that Germany, Russia, England and France wanted to fight over, in a general imperialist way. Why was there a western front, though? Why was there fighting all over the place, instead of just this region? I don't really get it.
4. There was fighting and unrest where Europe, Asia and Africa merge before, during, and after.
5. Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and was down in the Aegean and Black Seas even before WWI started, and was just itching to get in a fight.
It's a long book, though, told at a very thorough and detailed level. Told like someone describing a Monet painting a square inch at a time, without ever pulling back to show the view from 20 feet away.
Also, the book overuses the metaphor of the Ottoman Empire being a carcass to be carved up. Like 842 times I think. And relatedly (and I realize this is on me) I took the title to mean that the Ottoman Empire would come across as an actor in its own last years. Like in chess if I talked about Otto Mann's endgame I'd mean what moves Otto Mann made as the game wound down. In this book the Ottoman Empire comes across just as an object. A pawn, as it were.
I'm not quite sure if this book is mediocre, good, or excellent. It presupposes familiarity with people I mostly didn't know, and geography I don't know like I should. Even a modern map isn't much help, because of the complexity of the old countries and boundaries.
What did I learn?
1. There was some guy named Abdul Hamid who was the last sultan.
2. Mustafa Kemal was huge.
3. I get a little bit why some guy getting assassinated in Sarajevo started a war. Not really - the causes of World War I are still a mess to me, but unrest in the Balkans made land that Germany, Russia, England and France wanted to fight over, in a general imperialist way. Why was there a western front, though? Why was there fighting all over the place, instead of just this region? I don't really get it.
4. There was fighting and unrest where Europe, Asia and Africa merge before, during, and after.
5. Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and was down in the Aegean and Black Seas even before WWI started, and was just itching to get in a fight.
It's a long book, though, told at a very thorough and detailed level. Told like someone describing a Monet painting a square inch at a time, without ever pulling back to show the view from 20 feet away.
Also, the book overuses the metaphor of the Ottoman Empire being a carcass to be carved up. Like 842 times I think. And relatedly (and I realize this is on me) I took the title to mean that the Ottoman Empire would come across as an actor in its own last years. Like in chess if I talked about Otto Mann's endgame I'd mean what moves Otto Mann made as the game wound down. In this book the Ottoman Empire comes across just as an object. A pawn, as it were.
July 28, 2020
طريقة الغرب المنصف في التعامل خسائر المسلمين
1- ابدأ بخسائر الطرف الآخر حتى يعتقد القارئ أن
المعتدي هو المسلم بالتأكيد وأي رد فعل من هذا
المعتدى عليه هو دفاع شريف عن النفس
2- هول في الأرقام وبالغ في الوصف حتى تثير
المشاعر وتستدر الدموع
3- لا تنس طبعا أن تتطرح السؤال الأخلاقي وبكل قوة
فقضيتك هي روح العدالة نفسها ولب الإنسانية
4- الآن وبعد أن هيئت نفس القارئ لتقبل ' الحقيقة '
لا بأس بأن تذكر ذرة من خسائر المسلمين ' من باب
الإنصاف طبعا فنحن الأخلاق مجسدة '
5- تجاوز وأوجز في هذه الخسائر، لماذا تثقل القارئ
بما لا يهم ؟
6- إياك وأن تكون هذه الخسائر غير حقائق مجردة،
أرقام لا تعني أكثر من الحبر الذي كتبت به ( ابتعد عن
الأرقام الكبيرة طبعا)
7- إن ذكرت أن مسلما مات فاحرص على أن تذكر في
نفس الجملة أن عشرة غيره من غير المسلمين ماتوا
أيضا، فمن يدري ربما يحن قلب أحدهم لهذا الواحد
فلا تترك بابا للشر المفتوح
8- إياك والسؤال الأخلاقي في قضايا المسلمين هي
حقائق.. تاريخ... ليس هناك ما يستحق التوقف عنده
9- إذا قتل المسلم أحدهم لإنه خائن أو معتدي فاذكره
دائما من بين الضحايا... أليسو كلهم أرواح بشرية
خائن أو معتدي.. ما الفرق ؟ بالتأكيد لا داعى لذكر
أي سياق غير ضروري مثل الخيانة أو الاعتداء
10- اختم كلامك بضحايا الطرف الآخر مرة ثانية
وتوقف عندهم كثيرا
لم تكن هذه مراجعة... فقط جانب من جوانب الكتاب
وبالمجمل أرشح الكتاب للمهتم بهذه الفترة المهمة جدا
مع مراعاة النقاط السابقة طبعا
1- ابدأ بخسائر الطرف الآخر حتى يعتقد القارئ أن
المعتدي هو المسلم بالتأكيد وأي رد فعل من هذا
المعتدى عليه هو دفاع شريف عن النفس
2- هول في الأرقام وبالغ في الوصف حتى تثير
المشاعر وتستدر الدموع
3- لا تنس طبعا أن تتطرح السؤال الأخلاقي وبكل قوة
فقضيتك هي روح العدالة نفسها ولب الإنسانية
4- الآن وبعد أن هيئت نفس القارئ لتقبل ' الحقيقة '
لا بأس بأن تذكر ذرة من خسائر المسلمين ' من باب
الإنصاف طبعا فنحن الأخلاق مجسدة '
5- تجاوز وأوجز في هذه الخسائر، لماذا تثقل القارئ
بما لا يهم ؟
6- إياك وأن تكون هذه الخسائر غير حقائق مجردة،
أرقام لا تعني أكثر من الحبر الذي كتبت به ( ابتعد عن
الأرقام الكبيرة طبعا)
7- إن ذكرت أن مسلما مات فاحرص على أن تذكر في
نفس الجملة أن عشرة غيره من غير المسلمين ماتوا
أيضا، فمن يدري ربما يحن قلب أحدهم لهذا الواحد
فلا تترك بابا للشر المفتوح
8- إياك والسؤال الأخلاقي في قضايا المسلمين هي
حقائق.. تاريخ... ليس هناك ما يستحق التوقف عنده
9- إذا قتل المسلم أحدهم لإنه خائن أو معتدي فاذكره
دائما من بين الضحايا... أليسو كلهم أرواح بشرية
خائن أو معتدي.. ما الفرق ؟ بالتأكيد لا داعى لذكر
أي سياق غير ضروري مثل الخيانة أو الاعتداء
10- اختم كلامك بضحايا الطرف الآخر مرة ثانية
وتوقف عندهم كثيرا
لم تكن هذه مراجعة... فقط جانب من جوانب الكتاب
وبالمجمل أرشح الكتاب للمهتم بهذه الفترة المهمة جدا
مع مراعاة النقاط السابقة طبعا
January 7, 2016
Covers the same ground as Rogan's book and equally good.
November 26, 2015
I thoroughly enjoyed “The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908-1923” by Sean McMeekin. It rapidly addresses the intercontinental disruptions across the Ottoman Empire. McMeekin strikes a balance between military history and geopolitics, while writing a compelling narrative that flows with ease and depth. I happen to love studying this time period, and have read quite a bit about the fall of the Ottoman Empire, yet I also discovered new insights into this much written topic. I do have one slight complaint; I wish McMeekin delved deeper into the inner workings of the Ottoman Empire, particularly during World War I. Still, “The Ottoman Endgame” is an excellent read, which even draws extremely interesting parallels to the Middle East of today.
The Prologue opens with 1876, the “year of three sultans,” which really does set the reader up for a clearer understanding of later developments. By the end of chapter one, the reader is rapidly brought to 1906, when Muslims and Christians were migrating to and from Ottoman territory, and European powers were courting the Ottomans. At the end of Chapter 2, the reader learns about the German’s increased support to the Ottomans.
For me, Chapter 3 is where the plot thickens. Nineteen-eleven, Tripolitania, always framed in the periscope of Sicilian/Italian warriors (think I, II & III Punic Wars), becomes a hotbed of angst. Italy attacks while the Ottomans are obviously preoccupied with internal strife and unrest in the Balkans. Enter the Tripolitanian War, also known as the Italo-Turkish War of 1911-1912. This, predictably, leads to the First and Second Balkan Wars, which escalated the fall of the Ottoman Empire and readied the “Guns of August.” (A reference to Barbara Tuchman’s famous book about the start of WWI. If the reader is interested in delving into the Tripolitanian War, I strongly suggest reading “Italo-Turkish Diplomacy and the War Over Libya 1911-1912” by Timothy W. Childs. It sounds dry, but it is not!)
Chapter 4 truly stands out, providing stupendous detail on the growing alliance with Germany against Russia. Further, Chapter 5, predictably, covers the Goeben; however, McMeekin does a stellar job of laying out the Ottoman response to the Goeben. Chapter 6 covers in detail the duplicity of the Turks at the beginning of WWI, when they were still trying to court England and France, while not selling out Germany, a true feat that ultimate led to the Ottomans siding with Germany. Chapter 7 highlights the ever-conflicted areas of Shatt al-Arab and Kuwait, which rose to modern prominence in the Iran-Iraq war and later the First Gulf War. At one point, Germany started creating propaganda to propel the Ottomans into the war, which I found particularly interesting in light of terrorism today. McMeekin quotes a German-produced Arabic language holy war pamphlet, circa November 1914, which states: “The killing of the infidels who rule over the Islamic lands has become a sacred duty.”
Chapter 8 is where McMeekin begins to focus a bit too heavily on the British and Russian mentality, while not delving deeply enough into the Ottoman’s thoughts.
I was glad to see coverage of the Armenian genocide—I’m choosing to use a word that for some is still contentious—in enough detail to show the complicated nature of the relationship between Armenians and the Turks. Furthermore, McMeekin goes into the relationship between the Kurds and the Turks, a relationship that is still highly belligerent.
I’m pleased with the manner in which McMeekin covers T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia). I felt he is honest, separating legend from truth, which provides enough context to explain Lawrence’s rise to fame. I’m also glad that McMeekin chooses not to write too much about Lawrence.
By Chapter 13, we learn about the Fall of Erzurum, “a signature victory in the First World War,” between the Terek Cossacks and the Ottomans. It would seem that the Ottoman Empire would have fallen at this point, but, as McMeekin points out, “at this critical and still little understood juncture of the First World War, the only thing keeping the tottering Ottoman Empire together was the friction between the Entente Powers greedily carving her up.”
The United State’s entry into the war is appropriately covered, including a reasonably short discussion of the Zimmermann Telegram between German and Mexico, promising that if Mexico joined the war and attacked the United States, Mexico would receive Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. We also learn a bit about President Wilson’s guiding principles in “self-determination” of people creating new national lines.
Unfortunately, “self-determination” was more of a utopian ideal, and was of little interest to the Entente Powers or the Ottomans. We learn, for example, about the creation of a “Zionist state,” which was popular with some, but certainly not popular with the Muslims. Interestingly, the King-Crane Commission “reported nearly unanimous sentiment in favor of the American mandate in Palestine and Syria, because the United States was seen as the power most likely to accept Arab independence.” However, in President Wilson’s words at the end of World War I, he “could think of nothing the people of the United States would be less inclined to accept than military responsibility in Asia.” Ultimate, British and French mandates split the area up.
The Ottoman Empire was certainly fractured at the conclusion of WWI; however, it wasn’t yet dead. Key cities, like Smyrna, went to various competing forces, which later sparked enormous unrest in Anatolia. The final acts involving the end of the Ottoman Empire happened from within, with the rise of modern Turkey created by the destruction of the sultanate and the abolition of the caliphate in March 1924.
“The Ottoman Endgame” concludes with a brief overview of how these events have set the stage for World War II, the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, the Syrian civil war of today, and the rise of the Islamic State. McMeekin does a stellar job of linking past events with today’s crisis in the Middle East, and by virtue of the intertwined histories, Russia and Europe. “The Ottoman Endgame” struck me as a cautionary tale of the trap that is Arab/Middle Eastern politics.
Here’s the one thing I disliked: “The Ottoman Endgame” contains an incredible amount of information about other countries, namely Russia, Germany, and England. This is especially true once the reader reaches the discussions on World War I. Certainly one cannot discuss the “Endgame” of the Ottoman Empire without covering those playing the “game,” but I had hoped to learn more about the internal working of the Ottomans. Entire chapters discussed Russia and German, with a few pages devoted to the Ottomans. McMeekin is a skilled author, and Penguin has some of the finest editors in the English language. I would have enjoyed another one hundred pages to cover in greater detail what was happing in the Ottoman Empire. Given the state of the world, I think sacrificing these details while rehashing the rise of the Bolsheviks—which McMeekin admits has been voluminously written about—was a missed opportunity to provide the educated reader with newfound knowledge. It would be unfair to say that the Ottoman Empire is not discussed, it certainly is, but at times I felt like its internal workings were afterthoughts when they should have been forefront.
Platitudes are frustrating because they are unsatisfyingly true. In this case, history is repeating itself: Turkey is involved in a war against Syria and ISIS, Russia is playing both hands, and Europe is endlessly involved in staking a claim, while the United States tries to placate allies while resisting making more enemies. I can’t help but think, shouldn’t the U.S. follow the 1919 U.S. Senate’s wisdom and extract itself from the Middle East all-together? After all, the “Ottoman” Endgame is more like a game of Dungeons and Dragons, that’s to say, a never-ending charade, and less like a game on Monopoly with a clear end.
The Prologue opens with 1876, the “year of three sultans,” which really does set the reader up for a clearer understanding of later developments. By the end of chapter one, the reader is rapidly brought to 1906, when Muslims and Christians were migrating to and from Ottoman territory, and European powers were courting the Ottomans. At the end of Chapter 2, the reader learns about the German’s increased support to the Ottomans.
For me, Chapter 3 is where the plot thickens. Nineteen-eleven, Tripolitania, always framed in the periscope of Sicilian/Italian warriors (think I, II & III Punic Wars), becomes a hotbed of angst. Italy attacks while the Ottomans are obviously preoccupied with internal strife and unrest in the Balkans. Enter the Tripolitanian War, also known as the Italo-Turkish War of 1911-1912. This, predictably, leads to the First and Second Balkan Wars, which escalated the fall of the Ottoman Empire and readied the “Guns of August.” (A reference to Barbara Tuchman’s famous book about the start of WWI. If the reader is interested in delving into the Tripolitanian War, I strongly suggest reading “Italo-Turkish Diplomacy and the War Over Libya 1911-1912” by Timothy W. Childs. It sounds dry, but it is not!)
Chapter 4 truly stands out, providing stupendous detail on the growing alliance with Germany against Russia. Further, Chapter 5, predictably, covers the Goeben; however, McMeekin does a stellar job of laying out the Ottoman response to the Goeben. Chapter 6 covers in detail the duplicity of the Turks at the beginning of WWI, when they were still trying to court England and France, while not selling out Germany, a true feat that ultimate led to the Ottomans siding with Germany. Chapter 7 highlights the ever-conflicted areas of Shatt al-Arab and Kuwait, which rose to modern prominence in the Iran-Iraq war and later the First Gulf War. At one point, Germany started creating propaganda to propel the Ottomans into the war, which I found particularly interesting in light of terrorism today. McMeekin quotes a German-produced Arabic language holy war pamphlet, circa November 1914, which states: “The killing of the infidels who rule over the Islamic lands has become a sacred duty.”
Chapter 8 is where McMeekin begins to focus a bit too heavily on the British and Russian mentality, while not delving deeply enough into the Ottoman’s thoughts.
I was glad to see coverage of the Armenian genocide—I’m choosing to use a word that for some is still contentious—in enough detail to show the complicated nature of the relationship between Armenians and the Turks. Furthermore, McMeekin goes into the relationship between the Kurds and the Turks, a relationship that is still highly belligerent.
I’m pleased with the manner in which McMeekin covers T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia). I felt he is honest, separating legend from truth, which provides enough context to explain Lawrence’s rise to fame. I’m also glad that McMeekin chooses not to write too much about Lawrence.
By Chapter 13, we learn about the Fall of Erzurum, “a signature victory in the First World War,” between the Terek Cossacks and the Ottomans. It would seem that the Ottoman Empire would have fallen at this point, but, as McMeekin points out, “at this critical and still little understood juncture of the First World War, the only thing keeping the tottering Ottoman Empire together was the friction between the Entente Powers greedily carving her up.”
The United State’s entry into the war is appropriately covered, including a reasonably short discussion of the Zimmermann Telegram between German and Mexico, promising that if Mexico joined the war and attacked the United States, Mexico would receive Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. We also learn a bit about President Wilson’s guiding principles in “self-determination” of people creating new national lines.
Unfortunately, “self-determination” was more of a utopian ideal, and was of little interest to the Entente Powers or the Ottomans. We learn, for example, about the creation of a “Zionist state,” which was popular with some, but certainly not popular with the Muslims. Interestingly, the King-Crane Commission “reported nearly unanimous sentiment in favor of the American mandate in Palestine and Syria, because the United States was seen as the power most likely to accept Arab independence.” However, in President Wilson’s words at the end of World War I, he “could think of nothing the people of the United States would be less inclined to accept than military responsibility in Asia.” Ultimate, British and French mandates split the area up.
The Ottoman Empire was certainly fractured at the conclusion of WWI; however, it wasn’t yet dead. Key cities, like Smyrna, went to various competing forces, which later sparked enormous unrest in Anatolia. The final acts involving the end of the Ottoman Empire happened from within, with the rise of modern Turkey created by the destruction of the sultanate and the abolition of the caliphate in March 1924.
“The Ottoman Endgame” concludes with a brief overview of how these events have set the stage for World War II, the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, the Syrian civil war of today, and the rise of the Islamic State. McMeekin does a stellar job of linking past events with today’s crisis in the Middle East, and by virtue of the intertwined histories, Russia and Europe. “The Ottoman Endgame” struck me as a cautionary tale of the trap that is Arab/Middle Eastern politics.
Here’s the one thing I disliked: “The Ottoman Endgame” contains an incredible amount of information about other countries, namely Russia, Germany, and England. This is especially true once the reader reaches the discussions on World War I. Certainly one cannot discuss the “Endgame” of the Ottoman Empire without covering those playing the “game,” but I had hoped to learn more about the internal working of the Ottomans. Entire chapters discussed Russia and German, with a few pages devoted to the Ottomans. McMeekin is a skilled author, and Penguin has some of the finest editors in the English language. I would have enjoyed another one hundred pages to cover in greater detail what was happing in the Ottoman Empire. Given the state of the world, I think sacrificing these details while rehashing the rise of the Bolsheviks—which McMeekin admits has been voluminously written about—was a missed opportunity to provide the educated reader with newfound knowledge. It would be unfair to say that the Ottoman Empire is not discussed, it certainly is, but at times I felt like its internal workings were afterthoughts when they should have been forefront.
Platitudes are frustrating because they are unsatisfyingly true. In this case, history is repeating itself: Turkey is involved in a war against Syria and ISIS, Russia is playing both hands, and Europe is endlessly involved in staking a claim, while the United States tries to placate allies while resisting making more enemies. I can’t help but think, shouldn’t the U.S. follow the 1919 U.S. Senate’s wisdom and extract itself from the Middle East all-together? After all, the “Ottoman” Endgame is more like a game of Dungeons and Dragons, that’s to say, a never-ending charade, and less like a game on Monopoly with a clear end.
April 24, 2025
Sean McMeekin’s The Ottoman Endgame is an ambitious, sweeping narrative that reexamines the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the emergence of the modern Middle East through the lens of high diplomacy, military campaigns, and shifting global power dynamics. Eschewing the usual Eurocentric or purely Arab nationalist perspectives, McMeekin restores the Ottomans to center stage in a story that spans the Balkan Wars, World War I, and the birth of the Turkish Republic.
At its core, the book challenges the conventional image of the Ottoman Empire as the “Sick Man of Europe,” already fated to collapse by the 20th century. McMeekin instead portrays a dynamic, if deeply flawed, imperial structure grappling with internal reform, ethnic nationalism, and the onslaught of European colonial ambitions. He argues that the empire’s demise was neither inevitable nor wholly self-inflicted, but accelerated by Great Power machinations and the pressures of total war.
One of the book’s major strengths lies in its detailed military and geopolitical analysis. McMeekin, drawing on newly available Ottoman and Russian sources, traces the complex interplay between Germany, Britain, Russia, and the Ottomans—particularly during World War I. He devotes significant attention to the Eastern Front, the Caucasus campaign, and the Ottoman-Russian rivalry, often overlooked in Western histories. This Eastern orientation provides a fresh corrective to narratives that center exclusively on Gallipoli or the Arab Revolt.
Yet The Ottoman Endgame is more than a military history. McMeekin weaves in the ideological ferment within the empire—rising Turkish nationalism, the crumbling of multiethnic coexistence, and the radicalization of political leadership. His portrayal of figures like Enver Pasha, Djemal Pasha, and Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk) is nuanced and revisionist. He neither lionizes nor demonizes these men, instead placing them within the volatile swirl of war, imperial collapse, and national rebirth.
The book does not shy away from the darker aspects of the Ottoman twilight. McMeekin addresses the Armenian genocide, although some critics have argued he understates its ideological underpinnings and systemic character. This section, while informative, is more reserved in tone than in other comprehensive works on the subject.
The Ottoman Endgame is a rich history that gives the Ottoman Empire the dignity of agency in its own demise and places the Middle East’s modern origins in a broader global context. Its reinterpretation of familiar events and uncovering of lesser-known dimensions make it essential reading for those seeking to understand not only how the Ottoman Empire fell, but why the modern Middle East emerged in the way that it did.
At its core, the book challenges the conventional image of the Ottoman Empire as the “Sick Man of Europe,” already fated to collapse by the 20th century. McMeekin instead portrays a dynamic, if deeply flawed, imperial structure grappling with internal reform, ethnic nationalism, and the onslaught of European colonial ambitions. He argues that the empire’s demise was neither inevitable nor wholly self-inflicted, but accelerated by Great Power machinations and the pressures of total war.
One of the book’s major strengths lies in its detailed military and geopolitical analysis. McMeekin, drawing on newly available Ottoman and Russian sources, traces the complex interplay between Germany, Britain, Russia, and the Ottomans—particularly during World War I. He devotes significant attention to the Eastern Front, the Caucasus campaign, and the Ottoman-Russian rivalry, often overlooked in Western histories. This Eastern orientation provides a fresh corrective to narratives that center exclusively on Gallipoli or the Arab Revolt.
Yet The Ottoman Endgame is more than a military history. McMeekin weaves in the ideological ferment within the empire—rising Turkish nationalism, the crumbling of multiethnic coexistence, and the radicalization of political leadership. His portrayal of figures like Enver Pasha, Djemal Pasha, and Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk) is nuanced and revisionist. He neither lionizes nor demonizes these men, instead placing them within the volatile swirl of war, imperial collapse, and national rebirth.
The book does not shy away from the darker aspects of the Ottoman twilight. McMeekin addresses the Armenian genocide, although some critics have argued he understates its ideological underpinnings and systemic character. This section, while informative, is more reserved in tone than in other comprehensive works on the subject.
The Ottoman Endgame is a rich history that gives the Ottoman Empire the dignity of agency in its own demise and places the Middle East’s modern origins in a broader global context. Its reinterpretation of familiar events and uncovering of lesser-known dimensions make it essential reading for those seeking to understand not only how the Ottoman Empire fell, but why the modern Middle East emerged in the way that it did.
September 12, 2019
نهاية العثمانيين: الحرب، الثورة، وصناعة الشرق الأوسط الحديث ١٩٠٨-١٩٢٣
كانت الدولة العثمانية آخر دولة تحكم بإسم الخلافة العثمانية. دولة، بل إمبراطورية امتدت على ثلاث قارات، أوروبا وآسيا وأفريقيا وحكمت باسم الخلافة لأكثر من أربع مئة سنة. كيف ولماذا سقطت هذه الإمبراطورية، أو ربما يصح أن نسأل على غرار المؤرخ إدوارد جيبون عن الإمبراطورية الرومانية، كيف صمدت كل هذه المدة الطويلة، وهي المعروفة برجل أوروبا المريض؟
في هذا الكتاب يأخذنا المؤرخ الأمريكي شون مكميكن في رحلة عن آخر عقد ونصف من عمر هذه الإمبراطورية العتيقة. بدءًا بثورة جماعة تركيا الفتاة على الخليفة عبدالحميد الثاني، وتأسيسهم لجمعية الاتحاد والتقدم، مرورًا بالحرب العالمية الأولى بشيء من التفصيل، وانتهاءً بانتصارات مصطفى كمال التي ولدت فيها جمهورية تركيا بعد مخاض شديد وعسير.
إن أبطال الأحداث ليسوا هم المعهودين في الثقافة العامة، مثل سايكس وبيكو، بل رجال أعظم من دول مختلفة، ستكون أسماء بعضهم معروفة للقارئ، إلا أني استبعد أن يكون قد سمع بأغلبيتهم. يذكر الكاتب تفاصيل مثيرة عن هذه الفترة، خصوصًا ما يتعلق بالجبهة الشرقية في الحرب العالمية الأولى وما تلاها. سأذكر نقطتين لتوضيح ما أعنيه
اتفاقية سايكس-بيكو لم تكن بين بريطانيا وفرنسا فقط، بل اشتركت فيها بقية دول الحلفاء كذلك. الخريطة في الصورة الثانية تبين خطة تقسيم الإمبراطورية العثمانية. بريطانيا بالأحمر وفرنسا بالأزرق كما هو معهود، ولكن هناك روسيا (بالأصفر) وإيطاليا (بالأخضر) حيث كانت لهما تقسيمات كبيرة في تركيا، مثلًا مدينة اسطنبول بالمضائق كانت ستكون تحت سيطرة روسيا!
كيف فشلت هذه الخطة وخطط التقسيم الأخرى التي تبعتها وعلى رأسها معاهدة سيڤر؟ من خلال مناضلة وقتال الحركة الوطنية التركية والتي خاضت حربًا بطول مدة الحرب العالمية لأجل تحرير تركيا، ولعل أهم معركة فيها هي معركة سقاريا (١٩٢١) التي وقت على مشارف أنقرة، حيث انتصر فيها الأتراك على اليونانيين، وكانت هذه معركة فاصلة لتحرير تركيا التي كانت محتلة من قبل عدد من الدول الأوروبية. قائد الجيش التركي كان مصطفى كمال، الذي عرف بأتاتورك لاحقًا. وصف أحد الكتاب الأتراك هذه المعركة بأنها التي أوفقت التراجع الذي بدأ من أسوار فيينا في ١٦٨٣ أي لمدة ٢٣٨ عام!
الكتاب طويل بعض الشيء ولكنه مثير ويتكلم عن حقبة مهمة في تاريخ المنطقة أسهمت في رسم خريطة المنطقة والتي لا تزال قائمة حتى وقتنا هذا. أسلوب الكاتب ممتاز إبقاء القارئ مستمتعًا ومترقبًا لمزيد من التفاصيل.
January 19, 2016
Indulging in cliché today. We seem to be living history over and over and making nearly the same mistakes in the Middle East with a revolving cast of characters. McMeekin makes a strong case that the War of the Ottoman Succession is still unfolding in the Middle East. OTOH, Turkey seems to have done pretty well emerging out of WWI and the ensuing struggles. Without the Ottoman Caliphate, what is to stop Iran and KSA from ultimately going to war? Is that how this century-old conflict is gonna pan out? God help us all. The only thing I know for sure regarding the Middle East is that the US needs to tread very lightly or go all in (always hoping for the former!). And most importantly, read up, world leaders of the West! More historians, less neocons. I walk around the house chanting: No more Clinton, no more Bush! Oh, and McMeekin doesn’t forget to hint at some of my favorite bugaboos: The MSM are unreliable. What do aspiring journalists study in college? Communications? Certainly not history at any depth. And don’t necessarily trust Russian leadership! They’ll say what you want to hear and then do what they want. Sound familiar? There is no war in eastern Ukraine, right? McMeekin wrote an excellent book on “The Russian Origins of the First World War” (my review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list...). And, don’t necessarily count on the Arabs soldiers working with us. They often flee when the fighting starts. Beware of unintended consequences. Dizzying number of them from this era, not the least of which is Germany getting Lenin into Russia. Ouch. In Mesopotamia, the British were “[s]itting on a human volcano.”
McMeekin is a bona fide expert on Russo-Ottoman history (as opposed to almost everyone on tv). His knowledge is as deep as it is broad and humbling. To sum up a VERY complicated conundrum, Sazanov-Sykes-Picot is not well understood. Mesopotamia and the Arabian peninsula were seething, violent places well before the end of WWI. It’s just that nobody in the West was much interested in that part of the world before the War. No map drawing was gonna fix that anytime soon. I get the feeling when too much emphasis is placed on the Entente (or the West, or Israel, or the Jews, or the US) it's like taking away agency from the people on the ground. It's condescending when overdone. Furthermore, Russia had a much bigger role in Ottoman affairs than is generally acknowledged. Mustafa Kemal and the Lausanne peace conference were more instrumental to the region emerging from the Ottoman Succession. If the Entente was so all determining in the ME, the al Sauds would not be in charge -- our guys, the Hashemites, would.
Between Greece and Turkey, “a precedent was set for what would soon be the largest mutual population exchange ever recorded between two sovereign states….” Are we seeing this in and around Mesopotamia today?
“To unmix the populations of the Near East will tend to secure [the] true pacification of the Near East;” – Fridtjof Nansen, League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1922 (awarded the Nobel peace prize for 1922). Population transfers are ugly but....
“… the only thing keeping the tottering Ottoman Empire together was the friction between the Entente powers greedily carving her up….. The very phrase “Sick Man” was first used by Tsar Nicholas I in conversation with the British ambassador … in 1853. The inability of Russia (unwillingness?) and the UK to coordinate their war strategy kept the Empire together as well.
“… since 1924 there has been no caliphate to unite the world’s Muslims. The Islamic World has never been the same.” Daesh is endeavoring to rectify this!
“… the borders of Kemal’s Turkish Republic, forged by blood on the field—not on paper by far-away diplomats—have proved to be just as solid as those of Turkey’s southeastern borders are porous.” I think Iraq and Syria have already been altered. Not going back.
“Just as the fall of the Hapsburg and Hohenzollern empires produced an age of intolerance and anti-Semitism in central Europe, the fall of the Ottomans ushered in a time of troubles in the Middle East.” And how!
Responding to a German question on supporting Zionism, the Ottoman interior minister during the Armenian 1915 genocide “I would be happy to establish an national home for the Jews [in Palestine], … [except] the Arabs will only kill the Jews.”
“However its borders were defined and by whom, Iraq was never going to be an easy country to govern.” “After 1918, Iraq was no longer Turkey’s nightmare.” Saddam Hussein was maniacal enough to govern there. We don't have the chops, though we did break the country. No foresight, no long term strategy. People must think we are nuts.
Meticulous, archival, original-language research and endnotes. Worthy of book awards and scholarly accolades. I have 2 small problems with McMeekin, in that he seems a bit easy on the Ottomans and the genocidal mania perpetrated against the Armenians, cuz everybody does it to some degree or maybe I’m a brainwashed child of the West or maybe I just like Armenians (I do) or maybe he has to take care not to ruffle the feathers of the Turks who helped him gain access to Ottoman archives and gave him jobs, and he also creates 44-word sentences, often linking together distinct ideas, as this book is already a dense read at 500-pages, the extra-long sentences cause me to read them twice, meaning it took forever to finish! Whew! I’m not worthy of critiquing such an accomplished scholar but I just did anyway. Less commas, more periods next time, please! Ottoman Endgame had more detail than I bargained for. The introduction and the epilogue are must reads. McMeekin should be busy briefing decision-makers or at least be on tv, reaching our masses unburdened by history. Ha ha ha! A girl can dream.
McMeekin is a bona fide expert on Russo-Ottoman history (as opposed to almost everyone on tv). His knowledge is as deep as it is broad and humbling. To sum up a VERY complicated conundrum, Sazanov-Sykes-Picot is not well understood. Mesopotamia and the Arabian peninsula were seething, violent places well before the end of WWI. It’s just that nobody in the West was much interested in that part of the world before the War. No map drawing was gonna fix that anytime soon. I get the feeling when too much emphasis is placed on the Entente (or the West, or Israel, or the Jews, or the US) it's like taking away agency from the people on the ground. It's condescending when overdone. Furthermore, Russia had a much bigger role in Ottoman affairs than is generally acknowledged. Mustafa Kemal and the Lausanne peace conference were more instrumental to the region emerging from the Ottoman Succession. If the Entente was so all determining in the ME, the al Sauds would not be in charge -- our guys, the Hashemites, would.
Between Greece and Turkey, “a precedent was set for what would soon be the largest mutual population exchange ever recorded between two sovereign states….” Are we seeing this in and around Mesopotamia today?
“To unmix the populations of the Near East will tend to secure [the] true pacification of the Near East;” – Fridtjof Nansen, League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1922 (awarded the Nobel peace prize for 1922). Population transfers are ugly but....
“… the only thing keeping the tottering Ottoman Empire together was the friction between the Entente powers greedily carving her up….. The very phrase “Sick Man” was first used by Tsar Nicholas I in conversation with the British ambassador … in 1853. The inability of Russia (unwillingness?) and the UK to coordinate their war strategy kept the Empire together as well.
“… since 1924 there has been no caliphate to unite the world’s Muslims. The Islamic World has never been the same.” Daesh is endeavoring to rectify this!
“… the borders of Kemal’s Turkish Republic, forged by blood on the field—not on paper by far-away diplomats—have proved to be just as solid as those of Turkey’s southeastern borders are porous.” I think Iraq and Syria have already been altered. Not going back.
“Just as the fall of the Hapsburg and Hohenzollern empires produced an age of intolerance and anti-Semitism in central Europe, the fall of the Ottomans ushered in a time of troubles in the Middle East.” And how!
Responding to a German question on supporting Zionism, the Ottoman interior minister during the Armenian 1915 genocide “I would be happy to establish an national home for the Jews [in Palestine], … [except] the Arabs will only kill the Jews.”
“However its borders were defined and by whom, Iraq was never going to be an easy country to govern.” “After 1918, Iraq was no longer Turkey’s nightmare.” Saddam Hussein was maniacal enough to govern there. We don't have the chops, though we did break the country. No foresight, no long term strategy. People must think we are nuts.
Meticulous, archival, original-language research and endnotes. Worthy of book awards and scholarly accolades. I have 2 small problems with McMeekin, in that he seems a bit easy on the Ottomans and the genocidal mania perpetrated against the Armenians, cuz everybody does it to some degree or maybe I’m a brainwashed child of the West or maybe I just like Armenians (I do) or maybe he has to take care not to ruffle the feathers of the Turks who helped him gain access to Ottoman archives and gave him jobs, and he also creates 44-word sentences, often linking together distinct ideas, as this book is already a dense read at 500-pages, the extra-long sentences cause me to read them twice, meaning it took forever to finish! Whew! I’m not worthy of critiquing such an accomplished scholar but I just did anyway. Less commas, more periods next time, please! Ottoman Endgame had more detail than I bargained for. The introduction and the epilogue are must reads. McMeekin should be busy briefing decision-makers or at least be on tv, reaching our masses unburdened by history. Ha ha ha! A girl can dream.
November 2, 2024
I've owned this book for YEARS, and have only just gotten around to reading it... What a mistake!
The perspective McMeekin uses for this book is an underrated one— the Ottoman Empire's role in WW1 is often portrayed (contemporarily and historically) as a sideshow, but if that is the case then it might be the most interesting spin-off of all time.
This book is a very solid overview, but the reader should keep in mind that's what it is: an overview. It's a relatively short book, and it covers a huge ammount of time very quickly. It also occasionally struggles to get its priorities straight; for instance McMeekin spends three chapters on the Dardanelles Campaign and Gallipoli, or two chapters on the RUSSIAN Revolution, but only one on the Armenian Genocide or Turkish War of Independence.
With that said, I do want to commend McMeekin's honest approach to the atrocities in the story. So many histories of this era (rightfully) emphasize the violence toward Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians and completely ignore the reprisals against the Turks. I'm glad our author is able to be honest with the reader, and not present a purely partisan perspective.
The perspective McMeekin uses for this book is an underrated one— the Ottoman Empire's role in WW1 is often portrayed (contemporarily and historically) as a sideshow, but if that is the case then it might be the most interesting spin-off of all time.
This book is a very solid overview, but the reader should keep in mind that's what it is: an overview. It's a relatively short book, and it covers a huge ammount of time very quickly. It also occasionally struggles to get its priorities straight; for instance McMeekin spends three chapters on the Dardanelles Campaign and Gallipoli, or two chapters on the RUSSIAN Revolution, but only one on the Armenian Genocide or Turkish War of Independence.
With that said, I do want to commend McMeekin's honest approach to the atrocities in the story. So many histories of this era (rightfully) emphasize the violence toward Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians and completely ignore the reprisals against the Turks. I'm glad our author is able to be honest with the reader, and not present a purely partisan perspective.
October 16, 2015
I received a free copy of this book through Goodreads First Reads in exchange for a fair review.
Initially I wanted to summarize the content of this book but it is not an option since the book is five hundred and fifty pages, and my political views or feelings are no consequence to anybody who will read this review. Instead, let me say this is an extraordinary book with amazing details backed up by historical documentations from the most recently opened Ottoman and Russian archives. Although I had studied WWI and the end of the Ottoman Empire in school as well as having read different books about them over the years, this is the first time I saw the whole picture behind the names, numbers, figures and dates frequently quoted, while talking about this subject. Another thing impressed me about this book is the neutral way it describes events with numbers, figures and facts, instead of expressing author’s political views or personal biases. I was blown away by the amazingly detailed content, writing style and the way information was organized. I can’t even imagine how much work, effort, and time must have taken writing this book.
Dr. McMeekin says he writes his books for his children to enjoy someday. I say this book is more than that since it is more like a gift to humanity in the sense that we must learn from the history to make sure same mistakes are not repeated again.
My enjoyment from reading such a well-documented book with a neutral tone was somewhat taken away by the lump in my throat and sadness in my heart reading about the carnage and the extent of human suffering from all sides and ethnic backgrounds in three continents for years as a result of greed and a handful of politicians wanting to make names for themselves. My favorite quote from the whole book is from the second chapter, “Radical Surgery: The Young Turks” explains how almost twenty different groups of ethnic people from different religious background who had lived in peace over six hundred years turned on each other: ”The memory is so intense that to this day, I cannot think of it unmoved. I think of it as a final embrace of love between the simple peoples of Turkey before they should be led to exterminate each other for the political advantage of foreign powers or their own leaders.” Halide Edip, Memoires.
I highly recommend this book which will change the way you look at WWI and the end of the Ottoman Empire, even if you are not interested in this subject, since the end of the book also explains the reasons for the unrest in today’s Middle East and its relation to the end of Ottoman Empire. I also would like to thank Sean McMeekin. Ph.D. for taking time to write this book and the publisher for publishing it since it is so hard to find history books about the Ottoman Turks while there are abundance of books about history of England. I would be interested to read about the early days of Ottomans, especially as historical fiction, if there were any available.
Initially I wanted to summarize the content of this book but it is not an option since the book is five hundred and fifty pages, and my political views or feelings are no consequence to anybody who will read this review. Instead, let me say this is an extraordinary book with amazing details backed up by historical documentations from the most recently opened Ottoman and Russian archives. Although I had studied WWI and the end of the Ottoman Empire in school as well as having read different books about them over the years, this is the first time I saw the whole picture behind the names, numbers, figures and dates frequently quoted, while talking about this subject. Another thing impressed me about this book is the neutral way it describes events with numbers, figures and facts, instead of expressing author’s political views or personal biases. I was blown away by the amazingly detailed content, writing style and the way information was organized. I can’t even imagine how much work, effort, and time must have taken writing this book.
Dr. McMeekin says he writes his books for his children to enjoy someday. I say this book is more than that since it is more like a gift to humanity in the sense that we must learn from the history to make sure same mistakes are not repeated again.
My enjoyment from reading such a well-documented book with a neutral tone was somewhat taken away by the lump in my throat and sadness in my heart reading about the carnage and the extent of human suffering from all sides and ethnic backgrounds in three continents for years as a result of greed and a handful of politicians wanting to make names for themselves. My favorite quote from the whole book is from the second chapter, “Radical Surgery: The Young Turks” explains how almost twenty different groups of ethnic people from different religious background who had lived in peace over six hundred years turned on each other: ”The memory is so intense that to this day, I cannot think of it unmoved. I think of it as a final embrace of love between the simple peoples of Turkey before they should be led to exterminate each other for the political advantage of foreign powers or their own leaders.” Halide Edip, Memoires.
I highly recommend this book which will change the way you look at WWI and the end of the Ottoman Empire, even if you are not interested in this subject, since the end of the book also explains the reasons for the unrest in today’s Middle East and its relation to the end of Ottoman Empire. I also would like to thank Sean McMeekin. Ph.D. for taking time to write this book and the publisher for publishing it since it is so hard to find history books about the Ottoman Turks while there are abundance of books about history of England. I would be interested to read about the early days of Ottomans, especially as historical fiction, if there were any available.
October 15, 2016
Most absorbing account of the Great War in this part of Europe and Asia, and the machinations and the shortcomings that doomed a proud but moribund empire... Interesting take on Lawrence and on the Arabs too..
February 22, 2016
If you were ever a child in America, you are familiar with Nik-o-Lok. They manufacture the mechanisms for the capsule machines that dot both urban and suburban landscapes: on the sidewalks before bodegas or laundromats and throughout shopping malls, toy stores, and grocers. You definitely know the ones; drop in a coin, turn the handle and out rolls a gumball or a clear plastic sphere filled by a small rubber hamster dressed as a ninja or a stretchable sticky hand that left mysterious Ghostbusters 2-esque stains on whatever it touched.
What you probably do not know is that they also manufactured the atmosphere of terror that still presides over dark and lonely public restrooms. Hopefully lonely; Nik-o-Lok circa the early 1970s would have you believe that lurking inside every public restroom is a rapist, sodomite, heroin fiend, or felon. Your only protection from this cavalcade of seediness was a single, thin dime. Unsurprisingly, the voice of dissent against making public restrooms a free public utility was—via lobbyist-proxy—the company that built all the locks for public restrooms. Those lobbyists needed to change the argument from positions they were sure to lose—humane civil rights and non-gendered economic fairness (women had to pay to urinate in a stall while men could use a freestanding urinal for free)—to ones they might have a shot at winning; namely, fear-based class warfare. Locks were positioned as a way to “discourage drug addicts, homosexuals, muggers and just plain hippies from haunting public restrooms.”
The past seems so inevitable that it is rare to reflect on how different things used to be. It is difficult to think that the world need not remain the way it is now. What I knew before The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908-1923 was that Franz Ferdinand was shot and then there were trenches, machine guns, and the iron cross of Kaiser Wilhelm. That’s not enough history to form a worthy opinion of World War I—of that, I knew going in—which was why I chose this book. What I did not know was that it wasn’t even enough history to form an opinion on the modern Middle East; I had already discounted the subtitle, because I have been burned before. But it was, for once, an apt signifier. It falls on me, then, that I didn’t know enough history to even know that I needed more history to recognize the importance of knowing more history.
To understand the collapse of the Ottomans is to begin to comprehend the arbitrary sovereign borders, hubristic colonialism, and nation-building tribalism that is still ripping the region apart:
Another “A-ha” piece of contextual history was Kuwait’s independent Kingdom status being promulgated by the British through strength of arms. It was partially economic opportunism and partially designed to smother the embers of Arab nationalism the British themselves had been stoking to combat the Germans:
I have never lived in a world without the country of Kuwait; it went completely unconsidered by me that borders could or did change or that countries might be created—imposed—by force or by fiat from outsiders with military superiority. I suppose I have the luxury of ignorance as an American citizen; since 1776 overthrowing colonial occupation is enshrined in our national character; we’ve been on the gunboat not had it pointed back at us for centuries. My country’s borders seem natural and never in a state of flux—at least during my lifetime. While academically I acknowledge that Manifest Destiny was riddled with destruction and fraught with war and genocide, it is hard difficult to counter my own personalized jingoistic indoctrination; Atlantic Ocean on one side and Pacific Ocean on the other—from sea to shining sea—seems natural. Do those that were Ukrainians in 2014 now feel comfortable in the Crimea calling themselves Russians?
Even when the Russians were laying down their arms in the Crimea, Germans were still dying in the Ukraine:
Syrian refugees, radicalized religious terrorists—these are the bogeymen, the “drug addicts, homosexuals, muggers and just plain hippies...haunting public restrooms” that have infiltrated the public conscious and seem like they’ve always been there. But they—like the bathroom hippies and addicts of the early 1970s—probably haven’t; they’ve been put there to keep the manufacturers of bathroom-door-locks in business. And that business is beneficial to those that make the locks and those that are paid by the locksmiths; never to the rest of us. We must continue to be haunted by spectres and burdened by dimes.
What you probably do not know is that they also manufactured the atmosphere of terror that still presides over dark and lonely public restrooms. Hopefully lonely; Nik-o-Lok circa the early 1970s would have you believe that lurking inside every public restroom is a rapist, sodomite, heroin fiend, or felon. Your only protection from this cavalcade of seediness was a single, thin dime. Unsurprisingly, the voice of dissent against making public restrooms a free public utility was—via lobbyist-proxy—the company that built all the locks for public restrooms. Those lobbyists needed to change the argument from positions they were sure to lose—humane civil rights and non-gendered economic fairness (women had to pay to urinate in a stall while men could use a freestanding urinal for free)—to ones they might have a shot at winning; namely, fear-based class warfare. Locks were positioned as a way to “discourage drug addicts, homosexuals, muggers and just plain hippies from haunting public restrooms.”
The past seems so inevitable that it is rare to reflect on how different things used to be. It is difficult to think that the world need not remain the way it is now. What I knew before The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908-1923 was that Franz Ferdinand was shot and then there were trenches, machine guns, and the iron cross of Kaiser Wilhelm. That’s not enough history to form a worthy opinion of World War I—of that, I knew going in—which was why I chose this book. What I did not know was that it wasn’t even enough history to form an opinion on the modern Middle East; I had already discounted the subtitle, because I have been burned before. But it was, for once, an apt signifier. It falls on me, then, that I didn’t know enough history to even know that I needed more history to recognize the importance of knowing more history.
To understand the collapse of the Ottomans is to begin to comprehend the arbitrary sovereign borders, hubristic colonialism, and nation-building tribalism that is still ripping the region apart:
In strategic terms, control of Ukraine, and particularly the Crimean Peninsula, annexed in 1783, had been central to the rise of Russia in the modern era—and the decline of Ottoman power. As long as the tsars had dominated the Black Sea, neither Turkey’s northern coastline nor Constantinople itself had even been secure....each of the Central Powers shared a basic interest in undermining Russian power, and detaching Ukraine was the obvious way to do this.So the forced annexation of the Crimea last year by the Russian Federation now has a small amount of historical context in my brain.
Another “A-ha” piece of contextual history was Kuwait’s independent Kingdom status being promulgated by the British through strength of arms. It was partially economic opportunism and partially designed to smother the embers of Arab nationalism the British themselves had been stoking to combat the Germans:
Islamic holy war against Germany’s enemies has been a pet idea of Kaiser Wilhelm II ever since he had proclaimed himself the “friend for all time” of the Muslim world before the tomb of Saladin in Damascus in 1898.Kuwait was, in all but name, another British colony with no historical, cultural, or regional basis to be an independent, international state; it did, however, effectively sever what was to be named Iraq from the Persian Gulf and its rich shipping lanes.
I have never lived in a world without the country of Kuwait; it went completely unconsidered by me that borders could or did change or that countries might be created—imposed—by force or by fiat from outsiders with military superiority. I suppose I have the luxury of ignorance as an American citizen; since 1776 overthrowing colonial occupation is enshrined in our national character; we’ve been on the gunboat not had it pointed back at us for centuries. My country’s borders seem natural and never in a state of flux—at least during my lifetime. While academically I acknowledge that Manifest Destiny was riddled with destruction and fraught with war and genocide, it is hard difficult to counter my own personalized jingoistic indoctrination; Atlantic Ocean on one side and Pacific Ocean on the other—from sea to shining sea—seems natural. Do those that were Ukrainians in 2014 now feel comfortable in the Crimea calling themselves Russians?
Infuriated by the Bolsheviks’ double-dealing, the Germans signed a separate peace with the Ukrainian Rada, backed by Austria-Hungary and Turkey. Kuhlmann informed Trotsky that he would have to sign the treaty within twenty-four hours of face the resumption of hostilities.Do they acknowledge that the Ukraine was legitimized on the international stage by the Germans as a tactic to irk and defang the now-Soviet Russians?
Playing his trump, Trotsky now announced that Russia was leaving the war and demobilizing her armies, though she refused to sign a “peace of landlords and capitalists”: Germany and her allies must now explain to their war-weary publics why they were still fighting a country without an army.The diplomatic coup that turned Trotsky into a coffee-shop legend amongst college freshmen was a direct result of Germany building Ukraine into its own nation-state.
Even when the Russians were laying down their arms in the Crimea, Germans were still dying in the Ukraine:
Whatever agreements the German army signed with the Rada, there was simply no grain to be had. As Groener wrote Ludendorff, in the Ukrainian capital where Germans had so naively assumed that “milk and honey” would flow freely, “we cannot even get bread.” And so, on April 23, 1918, Ludendorff authorized Groener to overthrow the Rada is food shipments were not forthcoming and set up a law-and-order regime respecting private property in order to coax the peasants into parting with their grain.The Germans didn’t create the Ukraine to help the Ukrainians become a Wilsonian “self-determined” country, they did it to help the Germans supply themselves. This is history that needs to be taught, information that creates connections in the mind and fosters a broader understanding of what is happening today—right now!—in the Middle East and what Western imperialism and colonial conquest from one hundred years ago has wrought.
On April 28, German soldiers occupied the Rada and arrested its deputies. In an inspired touch, Groener had a Cossack tsarist army veteran, Pavlo Skoropadskyi, descendant of a chief of the Hetmanate, or Zaporizhian Host of Cossacks who had ruled central Ukraine between 1649 and 1764, acclaimed as hetman. Having helped empower bohemian Bolsheviks like Trotsky and Ukraine’s student radicals in the Rada, and then jousting with Trotsky over Wilsonian self-determination, the Germans had now defrosted a form of Cossack strongman governance not seen since the seventeenth century.
Syrian refugees, radicalized religious terrorists—these are the bogeymen, the “drug addicts, homosexuals, muggers and just plain hippies...haunting public restrooms” that have infiltrated the public conscious and seem like they’ve always been there. But they—like the bathroom hippies and addicts of the early 1970s—probably haven’t; they’ve been put there to keep the manufacturers of bathroom-door-locks in business. And that business is beneficial to those that make the locks and those that are paid by the locksmiths; never to the rest of us. We must continue to be haunted by spectres and burdened by dimes.
November 14, 2023
McMeekin is rare as an anglo historian fluent in many languages, including crucially here Turkish and Russian.
His work centres what he references as the War of Ottoman Succession within the First World War narrative. There is much to learn for even experts on the period, whose knowledge of this theatre tends to focus on Suvla Bay, Kut, Lawrence and Allenby.
The Russo-Turkish struggle for supremacy takes up much of the book. The reader can be left in no doubt that far from three years of staggering incompetence from Petrograd and Stavka that represents the traditional narrative of the seemingly inevitable Revolutions of 1917, Russia was a victor, often handsomely so, against Ottoman forces (and of course Austrian in Galicia).
Russia’s failure to support their Entente allies when it would have counted, despite promising to descend upon the Bosphorus during the Gallipoli campaign, relieve Townshend at Kut and support the advance to Baghdad is a reminder that the wartime alliances were fractious and the tensions of the Victorian age had not been forgotten. A Russian military that kept to its obligations, and alongside the British and French crushed the Ottomans in 1915 is a fascinating counterfactual of the First World War that McMeekins plausibly allows the reader to consider.
Of course, for the Ottomans the war did not begin at Sarajevo nor end at Compeigne. The wars and frictions in the Balkans are explored, as is the birth of the modern Turkish nation in their war against Greece and their struggle with an increasingly isolated Lloyd George.
Few emerge from this well written and researched narrative with much credit. The grand visiers and the CUP risk an Empire on a descent into war alongside an ally who misunderstood their politics, and they had misled. The peoples of their Empire were rewarded by conflicts that continue to this day and a war so brutal that their armies melted, simply running out of men. Even as their world crumbles around them, they are rushing to Baku in the hope of pan-Turkic unity and oil, firing on their German benefactors as they do.
The Russians proved mendacious allies and rapacious conquerors, their pride preventing them from achieving mastery of the Straits. They never had a better chance.
The British and French show tremendous greed, their avarice hindering cooperation and costing hundreds of thousands of lives. Paths of little resistance were not followed to avoid upsetting each other’s post-war imperial ambitions. Gallipoli appears as the ill thought out adventure that it was.
The Greeks appear at opportunistic intervals, killing every Turk they could find and scorching the earth.
The Arabs appear sporadically, burning, stealing and committing atrocities against all sides. Their leaders played both sides, lied about their exploits and collected fortunes in gold.
The Americans promise much to many, but recoil from backing up their words.
And of course the atrocities. McMeekin has a reputation in some quarters as something of a pro-Turkish scholar. Whilst he fails to use the word ‘genocide’ to describe Ottoman actions against the Armenian and Greek minorities, readers can come to their own conclusions as few punches are pulled. The narrative ends with the burning of Smyrna, the blame on balance lying with the Turks.
His epilogue sums up the region effectively. If the book has a hero it is Mustafa Kemal, Ataturk. It is worth considering that the nation he brought into being has enjoyed remarkable geographic stability in the century following Lausanne.
You don’t have to agree with all of what McMeekin espouses to learn much and enjoy this well written and fast paced history.
His work centres what he references as the War of Ottoman Succession within the First World War narrative. There is much to learn for even experts on the period, whose knowledge of this theatre tends to focus on Suvla Bay, Kut, Lawrence and Allenby.
The Russo-Turkish struggle for supremacy takes up much of the book. The reader can be left in no doubt that far from three years of staggering incompetence from Petrograd and Stavka that represents the traditional narrative of the seemingly inevitable Revolutions of 1917, Russia was a victor, often handsomely so, against Ottoman forces (and of course Austrian in Galicia).
Russia’s failure to support their Entente allies when it would have counted, despite promising to descend upon the Bosphorus during the Gallipoli campaign, relieve Townshend at Kut and support the advance to Baghdad is a reminder that the wartime alliances were fractious and the tensions of the Victorian age had not been forgotten. A Russian military that kept to its obligations, and alongside the British and French crushed the Ottomans in 1915 is a fascinating counterfactual of the First World War that McMeekins plausibly allows the reader to consider.
Of course, for the Ottomans the war did not begin at Sarajevo nor end at Compeigne. The wars and frictions in the Balkans are explored, as is the birth of the modern Turkish nation in their war against Greece and their struggle with an increasingly isolated Lloyd George.
Few emerge from this well written and researched narrative with much credit. The grand visiers and the CUP risk an Empire on a descent into war alongside an ally who misunderstood their politics, and they had misled. The peoples of their Empire were rewarded by conflicts that continue to this day and a war so brutal that their armies melted, simply running out of men. Even as their world crumbles around them, they are rushing to Baku in the hope of pan-Turkic unity and oil, firing on their German benefactors as they do.
The Russians proved mendacious allies and rapacious conquerors, their pride preventing them from achieving mastery of the Straits. They never had a better chance.
The British and French show tremendous greed, their avarice hindering cooperation and costing hundreds of thousands of lives. Paths of little resistance were not followed to avoid upsetting each other’s post-war imperial ambitions. Gallipoli appears as the ill thought out adventure that it was.
The Greeks appear at opportunistic intervals, killing every Turk they could find and scorching the earth.
The Arabs appear sporadically, burning, stealing and committing atrocities against all sides. Their leaders played both sides, lied about their exploits and collected fortunes in gold.
The Americans promise much to many, but recoil from backing up their words.
And of course the atrocities. McMeekin has a reputation in some quarters as something of a pro-Turkish scholar. Whilst he fails to use the word ‘genocide’ to describe Ottoman actions against the Armenian and Greek minorities, readers can come to their own conclusions as few punches are pulled. The narrative ends with the burning of Smyrna, the blame on balance lying with the Turks.
His epilogue sums up the region effectively. If the book has a hero it is Mustafa Kemal, Ataturk. It is worth considering that the nation he brought into being has enjoyed remarkable geographic stability in the century following Lausanne.
You don’t have to agree with all of what McMeekin espouses to learn much and enjoy this well written and fast paced history.
November 24, 2023
Out of the ones that were written in English, this is the single best book I've read on the collapse of the Ottoman Empire so far. McMeekin's writing is intriguing, his method is meticulous, his scope is vast.
What he's doing isn't exactly new, but he's doing it just right: He's reframing the 'solution' to the Eastern Question as 'the War of the Ottoman Succession', and retelling the story of the last 15 years of the Ottoman Empire in the vast context of the dissolution of an empire, taking into consideration the stances of every player and focusing on the most important turning points.
This isn't the story of Modern Turkey, this isn't the story of the Kemalist revolution, this is quite literally the 'Ottoman Endgame'. McMeekin isn't interested in the dynamics of the Kemalist revolution, he's merely putting it into the correct context within the scope of his work. In framing the happenings of the era as the War of the Ottoman Succession and focusing on each country's efforts to benefit from it to the fullest, McMeekin enables himself to tell a truer history of the region, placing the Ottoman collapse and the creation of modern Turkey at a central position in the making of the modern Middle East, while still including the perspectives of the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Greeks and the Arabs. This allows him to conclude that Mustafa Kemal's national revolution was in and of itself the Turkish solution to the War of the Ottoman Succession and it succeeded tremendously.
It's not a complete history, it's doubtlessly not without fault, but McMeekin's background and unique skillset seem to have given him the opportunity to tell the story of the last 15 years of the Ottoman Empire with a unique scope and a soulful narrative, baring the essential facts to the keen eye.
As far as I'm concerned, this is essential reading for any Westerner who's interested in early 20th century Turkey.
What he's doing isn't exactly new, but he's doing it just right: He's reframing the 'solution' to the Eastern Question as 'the War of the Ottoman Succession', and retelling the story of the last 15 years of the Ottoman Empire in the vast context of the dissolution of an empire, taking into consideration the stances of every player and focusing on the most important turning points.
This isn't the story of Modern Turkey, this isn't the story of the Kemalist revolution, this is quite literally the 'Ottoman Endgame'. McMeekin isn't interested in the dynamics of the Kemalist revolution, he's merely putting it into the correct context within the scope of his work. In framing the happenings of the era as the War of the Ottoman Succession and focusing on each country's efforts to benefit from it to the fullest, McMeekin enables himself to tell a truer history of the region, placing the Ottoman collapse and the creation of modern Turkey at a central position in the making of the modern Middle East, while still including the perspectives of the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Greeks and the Arabs. This allows him to conclude that Mustafa Kemal's national revolution was in and of itself the Turkish solution to the War of the Ottoman Succession and it succeeded tremendously.
It's not a complete history, it's doubtlessly not without fault, but McMeekin's background and unique skillset seem to have given him the opportunity to tell the story of the last 15 years of the Ottoman Empire with a unique scope and a soulful narrative, baring the essential facts to the keen eye.
As far as I'm concerned, this is essential reading for any Westerner who's interested in early 20th century Turkey.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 176 reviews