The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East

The fall of the Ottomans - The great war in the Middle East presents an engaging history of the final years of the Ottoman Empire which was dismantled at the end of the first world war. The book gives a comprehensive overview of the political environment both prior to and during the war. It provides details on the major battles fought as well as an overview on the tragedy of the Armenian genocide that occurred. It is highly readable and the author has the readers attention throughout the entire book. The dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and the forming of the modern Middle East is of fundamental historic importance and much of what decided that is contained in this book. The Fall of the Ottomans begins while the empire is in terminal decline The weak Ottoman state had been in decline for a long time but the author begins with the domestically politically challenging period of 1908-13 while the Sultan had reclaimed authority due to a weak parliamentary government. The author introduces the political movement of the Young Turks who were focused on bringing back the parliamentary process to Turkey and create a stronger national voice for the people. The author details how the weakness of the state and the hostile borders the Ottomans faced led to a Young Turk bargain with the Germans's after the start of the first world war to become allies. In particular Turkey felt threatened by Russia which had long outstanding border and citizen disputes due to orthodox and muslim rivalries near Serbia. The author gives the reader insight into the German's perspective on the value of the Ottomans and in particular how a jihad could help catalyze local rebellions throughout the colonial empires of France and in particular Great Britain. The author discusses how the Turkish helped disrupt the Italian conquest of Libya initially with the help of religious ties (though this ended badly) and how such a model was seen as a force that could help throughout the war. The author then starts giving the details of the major battles in the Near East between the Allies and the Turks. The Turks initially lost a sequence of battles and territory in Egypt and modern Iraq. The perspective that the Turks were a military liability for the Germans and an easy target for the Allies led to the move to take Istanbul via the Dardanelles. The strategy and history is given of Gallipoli is then given which marks the turning point for the Turks. The battles were horrific for both sides with mass loss of life on both sides but the retreat by the British at Gallipoli was a major setback. The author discusses how the fractured Ottoman empire was creating rifts in the local populations where people's allegiances were torn. In particular many Orthodox Armenians favored Allied victory as they felt repressed and underrepresented in the empire. The move to resettle orthodox christians took place in small communities near Greece but with the Armenians the policy took a most sinister turn and the Turks undertook the first modern genocide and through death marches and outright killing, decimated the Armenian population in the empire. The details are horrifying and the author spends time going through how the events unfolded as well as the nonetheless inexcusable outcome as well as the modern day issues that still surround the events. The author then moves back to the middle east where Turkey first lost major territory and gives a history of Kut, where the English took the city but then had to surrender due to exhaustion of resources. The horrors of the war and the starvation and conditions endured are given along with some photos. The author spends quite a bit of time as well on the Arab revolt and Lawrence of Arabia. The mixed allegiances of the Arab sub populations and the lack of affiliation with the Ottoman based Caliphate goes to show that the initial belief in the power of a call to jihad was misplaced. The author also spends time discussing the Sykes-Picot Agreement and in particular how the Arab revolt and alliance with the Allies was based of a subsequent territorial understanding of what the post war landscape would be, which was liberated and under the rule of Amir Faysal and his sons. The Ottomans of course lost the war and the author goes into how that took place. The ending was quick and the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire was entire. All of the Middle East was carved up and into what we see today. The author gives the reader the political reasons for the need to create a zionist Palestine and how it was and continues to be bitterly disputed. The Turks got a buffer between themselves and Russia with the creation of new nation states and kept Constantinople and Anatolia. The author is careful to discuss how the modern map of the region was effectively created in those weeks and their repercussions lie with us today. The Fall of the Ottomans was really enjoyable to read and it completely refreshed my understanding of the last days of the Ottoman Empire as well as the events in the first world war that led to its dissolution. For all interested in the forming of the modern middle east, the first world war or the Ottoman empire, this book is a must read. Even without those interests this book will hold your attention!

This is a very well written and good book on the topic. However, it is primarily a political study of the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. It is not so much a military study. The author, who teaches at Oxford, has looked at the Ottoman Empire and how it handled World War One. He works in Turkish and Arabic. There are many individual vignettes from individuals at ALL levels of society, from political policy carried on at the highest levels, to the various campaigns and the fighting that resulted. It is well-illustrated volume but includes only a handful of strategic maps of the Empire’s battlefields. The political history is excellent. The author has a firm grasp of the Young Turk movement, the JIHAD aspect of the Turkish war effort and the impact of the Arab on the Turk (and vice-versa). His discussion of the Armenian genocide is balanced and accurate and unlike many studies, does NOT ignore the brutal killing of thousands of Assyrians. An entire chapter is devoted to this and will inhibit sales in Turkey! But it is not so much a military study. The German battlecruiser GOEBEN & British battlecruiser INFLEXIBLE become battleships. The small old French battleship REQUIN becomes a cruiser, HMS AMETHYST becomes French (p137) and Ottoman losses are often based on old Allied accounts. German Admiral Souchon is mentioned once in the book, ignoring his large impact in the Black Sea. Edward Erickson’s I ORDER YOU TO DIE is in the bibliography but seemingly not consulted in some of the areas covered in the book. The Turkish Official military studies appear to be completely missing as well. The author does NOT note that after the Allied naval assault at the Dardanelles, in which they suffered major losses, the Turks were virtually out of artillery ammunition. One of the major postwar hindsight laments was that a second naval assault was not quickly made. The Allied losses could easily be made up while the resupply of vital ammunition was difficult in the extreme. This is a very good book, worth the read, much from the Turkish and Arab point of view. Definitive – no. Would a definitive study be longer – yes (and hence probably not published . . . )

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

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2015/06/book-review-fall-of-ottomans-great-war.html Eugene Rogan's 'Fall of the Ottomans' covers from roughly the last years of the 19th century to the early 1920's. Primarily a political history, it examines the causes of the various Balkan wars, the rise of the 'Young Turks', the 'Armenian Genocide, and the decision by the Ottoman Empire to join the war on the side of the Central powers. From 1914 to their surrender in 1918, it details all of the major conflicts not only militarily but the difficulties all sides had in logistics, the Arab Revolt, the results of the Russian withdrawal from the war, and the various 'Great Powers' deciding from the beginning on how the Empire would be divided up between them. An excellently written and researched book, it is also well balanced when it comes to politically charged topics, specifically the Armenians. It discusses not only the Western view but also the controversy in the numbers of claimed dead by both sides. This was especially interesting to me as the 100th anniversary of this event took place while I was reading it and I had several discussions with a Turkish co-worker of mine. A map is very helpful while reading. Most of the lower ratings on Amazon are due to the Kindle edition map not being very reader friendly. What one can take away from learning about this aspect of WWI is that there were no 'Good Guys' and that everyone was treacherous, especially the British and French. One really doesn't blame the Ottomans for joining the Central powers. Also that as far as military action went, most of the battles were won by the side that screwed up the least, and that only by marginal amounts. Up until the very end, incompetence seemed to be the primary factor in choosing leaders and battle plans. For those interested in WWI and/or military history, this is a definite read.

Over the last few years, as the centenary of World War I approached and began, I've been reading a number of books on World War I. When I saw Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East, I was immediately interested in it. With the exception of the Gallipoli Campaign, the war against the Ottomans is part of World War I that doesn't get a lot of attention. After reading Anderson's Lawrence in Arabia, I've been looking for more books that covered the Middle Eastern theater of World War and this book looked to fit the bill. Rogan treats this part of World War I not as a sideshow or afterthought, but as an important part of the war. "It is time to restore the Ottoman front to its rightful place in the history of the of both the Great War and the modern Middle East. For, more than any other event, the Ottoman entry into the war turned Europe's conflict into a world war." This is not a short book, as it has multiple campaigns and a lot of geography to cover. Despite the length, it captured my attention and kept me interested in because he not only tells the story from the usual British, French, and German perspectives but from the Ottoman perspective as well. To be honest, the Ottoman, Armenian, and Arab perspectives are what dominate the book. Rogan explains the Ottoman front by explaining what led up to the Ottoman entry into the war on the side of the Central Powers, what happened during the war, and what happened during peace process after the war, showing how what happened in World War I helped shape the Middle East we know today. "If the Ottomans turned Europe's conflict into a world war, it is equally true the Great War transformed the modern Middle East." There is a lot to like about this book. Rogan doesn't just tell what happened; he truly gets into the why by getting right down to the individual level. Examples are the stories of a Turkish medic and an Armenian priest when the story of the Armenian genocide is told. Rogan pulls no punches, not only does he not gloss over what happened to the Armenians, he is forthright about poor decision making on both sides of the conflict in both military and foreign policy arenas. Jihad takes a prominent role, explaining how the Central Powers sought to exploit it, Muslims didn't flock to the call, and how the Triple Entente overly feared it. He covers each part of the Ottoman war, the Caucasus, the Dardanelles, the Sinai and Palestine, and the Persian Gulf and explains how successes and failures in one area affected another. This is definitely a book worth reading if you're interested in World War I or the Middle East. It seems well researched and comprehensive and it offers a balanced look at the what happened during and after the war. The only complaint I have is that it lacked maps; only 6 maps for a military history book of this length is simply not enough. It's hard to comprehend movements without them, particularly when dealing with geography not everyone may be familiar with (I fully admit that my knowledge of the Caucasus isn't what it should be). If there had been more maps, properly placed I would have gladly given The Fall of the Ottomans five stars, but even at four stars I consider this a must read book for anyone studying the history of World War I and/or the Middle East

With the centenary of the First World War upon us, there is a slew of books on the topic. Sadly, a very few address the war in the Middle East. Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire...

Eugene Rogan, “The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East.” The best book on the subject I have read – which isn’t really very high praise. * Chiam Weitzman is in the book, but not in the index * Palestine is referred to as a nation-state * There is no mention of the Donme-Sabbateans and their connection to the Young Turks * The only Jewish claim to land cited is the British Balfour declaration – no mention of Jewish habitation for circa three millennia – as contrasted with historic occupation by Kurds, Armenians, Azeris, Arabs, Bedouin, and Turks, all of which are cited. Aside from that: he generally tells the narrative clearly, albeit with almost zero mention of Jews, one mention of Druze, and zero Donme.

The Middle Eastern theater of WWI has kind of fallen through the cracks in written history available in English. Most of what we know comes from Hollywood: “Lawrence of Arabia”, “Gallipoli”, “ The Lighthorsemen”. It is considered a sideshow to the trenches in Europe. Yet British casualties in this sideshow equal or exceed the total of all American war casualties from the revolution to the present day. The author begins with the conditions facing the Ottomans just prior to the outbreak of war in 1914. Their empire was in decline and in need of modernization. They also faced “predator nations” looking for some territory to nip off and add to their own empires. To try to play off the predators the new leaders of the Ottoman Empire allied themselves with Germany and Austria. It seemed like a good idea at the time. (There probably was no alternative, anyway) In the authors telling, the Ottomans found themselves in a multifront war without the resources to cope with more than one at a time. At the same time the British grossly under estimated the tenacity and endurance of the Ottoman solders. The narrative records one side or the other taking bold military initiatives which in case after case degenerated in to trench warfare. It is easy to sympathize with the Ottoman leadership - they were trying to hold together an empire which was threatening to crumble even before war broke out. The Armenian genocide is treated by the author. The Armenians, or at least their leaders, sympathized with with the Russians who were at with the Ottomans and hoped a Russian victory would result in an independent Armenian homeland. The Ottoman leadership obviously saw this as a deadly threat and decided the most effective response was to kill the Armenians- all of them! This is ticklish for both the author and the reader - you can understand the motives but genocide is srill genocide regardless of the motive. As far as political and military leadership there are few stars. Mostly it seems all sides just meddled along. There are two exceptions: the German generals who were given command of parts of the Ottoman army were competent professional who knew what needed to be done and then did it; and there was Allenby who managed to avoid the tendency of assaults to degenerate in to trench warfare by use of deception and reliance on the maneuver abilities of cavalry. (Cavalry by have become obsolete in Europe but was essential in the Middle East.) The author has thoroughly referenced and footnoted his materials. Much of his source material was original documents in Turkish which until now he says western historians had little access to. See much of the events from the Ottoman side makes the events hang together in an understandable narrative better than any previous account I have encountered.