it doesnt. its not like the nation that existed before colonization had boarders that seperated ethnicities and religions. U would have the some ppl beeing split up, different religions and the hate of each other like u have today.
@Mars Dunes Wasn't it Woodrow Wilson and his League of Nations Mandates which prevented that from happening? Also the Turkish War of Independence and the Iraqi Revolt.
@@Gardstyle35 That doesn't change the fact that the French and British could have split the land based on ethnic and/or religious lines regardless, but they chose not to.
The Brits have caused many bad breakups: This. Including the partitioning of Palestine and Israel India & Pakistan Brexit Oh, hey looks like Scotland wants be independent after the Brexit mess
The middle East should not even be on fire. Shouldn't this people be happy at the current borders they have? Ohhhhhhhh never mind they are religious crazies anyway.
France: "We demand this land." Uk: "Fair enough. We have one condition though." France: "Speak!" Uk: "You need to take more of it." France: *visible confusion* "That should not be a problem."
UK: "Terribly sorry, old bean, but I'm afraid we'll be keeping Mosul after all." France: "But tou promised!" UK: *points at Sykes' name on the agreement*
French people are funny. If there was more French people in the middle east there would be less tension because they would be to busy laughing at what fckn idiot's they are.
Trust me. I am the government. Would i do you wrong?? Just go and fight for me. We will take care of you once it is over. When will everyone learn? Only the rich survive.
@@gtaquizmaster well thats because the only reason the Empire was still a thing was European power intervention.. just few years prior to that the empire was about to fall to Egypt.. And few years prior to that they lost all of thier lands in the bolkens (thats why Eypgt and all the land in the Arabin plain is Not part of the ottoman empire by the first world War time ) the only reason European powers kept it alive was because it was Eaiser to exploit a weaken otteman empire then a strong whatever replacement empire there would have been.. probably Egyption
@@_Sami_H Beside i wonder why that Enver pasha thinking going to war was the best ideal of the time especially when their empire is crumbling and don't have the resources for attrition war. Also did he study geography or not. The Empire geography force them have to fight in many fronts.
@Andrew Mitchell Britain and France created a vacuum there for sure. But had it not been for US supported coup in Iran or outright invasion like Iraq, Middle East would be better. Look at videos of Middle East in 70s and compare it to modern time. US needs to stop Zionist influencers in its government.
@@armija well I'm a Muslim too. I live Nowhere near middle east but a great portion of Muslim here are just bunch of Arab wanna be. I fear our local identity and origins would be lost in the next 30 years. (How fucking sad is that!?)
For further reading I highly recommend the book “A Peace to End All Peace: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East” by David Fromkin. It goes into detail behind everything mentioned in this video and more.
There are pictures of the daughter of the first Sharif of Mecca after WW1, without hijab. Compare that to the extermist Saudis sponsored by the British.
Sharif of Mecca was beter beacuse he lived 15 years in İstanbul and maried with a Turk women. Some arabs dont like sharif beacuse of Turk influance in him. But this make him better. He wasnt a desert arab he was modern.
Mirokuofnite It’s sad to think all the turmoil in the middle east caused (partially) by these meaningless borders and selfish agreements lead to the creation of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda
@@Rowlph8888 They won WWII, but barely, with little tolerance for further casualties, though won "Their Vietnam", the Malay States Emergency, in the '50s. They weren't trying to "Hold on" to their Empire, but a lot of stuff they'd tamped down when the Sahibs had one foot out the door came out, as well as the Revolution.
@Big Z The British Empire was sorely cracked by the first War, then became unsustainable following the 2d War. It dissolved following Indian independence in 1947.
This deserves a longer episode, added to it the Greek invasion of Turkey, founding of Turkey, British control of the Dardanelles and Italian action in Anatolia.
@@kubat552 There were minor skirmishes tho that the Italians lost. Ontop of hating the Greeks for grabbing all the Aegean Islands and İzmir which Italy wanted it was the only option for them to withdraw.
@@khagan5951 Yes and actually italian zone was so small. It wasnt worth to fight turks (probably their soldiers would be wiped out easily) instead of this they traded with turks sell them guns ammo etc and italy was happy when british-greece duo failed at the end. Anyway after 20 years later italy attacked both greece and UK :D
Britain: *splits up India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh* this won't matter for a long time Indian and Pakistani relationship hundreds of years later: *surprised pikachu face*
@@walsh9080 "Hardly Britain's fault" except they fucked up in drawing the correct borders and left many areas unsolved. Had those areas been given to right places there would have been no wars between India and Pakistan.
@@pike8290 No... India was United under Mughals, Marhatas (kind of), Mauryan empire, Rajputs, Dehli Sultanate (kind of) etc so no.. British were given an already unified India.
@Detective Conan Arab-israel war, the six days war, palastine uprising, war on terror and iraq-iran war which the only 1 i can remember but i assured there more
@@Whatareyoudoinnhere and now just add Lebanon and their civil war and Lebanon is the most damage from this but anyways .... country's all been damaged still this days
@@roisingtommy In fact, the Arabs not only wanted to unite Arabia, they also wanted to unite with the Arabs in South Africa (or at least they wanted to unite all places that speak the Arabic language) They wanted to rebuild the Islamic caliphate, of course Britain is not that stupid to build a great superpower that it will face in the future, so they just divided arabs into 22 country.
@@kasadam85 I didn't mean that! We used to have more in depth 10 minute videos (channel was called 10 minute history), but now we only have those really quick 4 minutes max ones. That's why I made the sarcastic comment.
@@roisingtommy the Ottomans fought against Saudi Wahhabism. England backed Wahhabism. Current terrorism is rooted in Wahhabism. England is root evil of our current situation.
@@roisingtommy The Ottomans were too stagnant, had been on the decline since the 17th century. And Wahhabism is currently an ever present threat to democracy. I'm just sad that when the Suadis began the Wahhabi movement, the Ottoman army was sent there to defeat them and extinguish that flame, but they ultimately lost the war. Had they won, we might not have seen the same Wahhabi-Linked terrorism that we see today.
Basically, after learning a lot about history of the world, you realise there were really few truly good guys and that everything was a game to the big powers.
@@shreyvaghela3963 I wouldn’t say that, there were no good super powers, but there’s no way América is the ‘least bad’ (wtf, why did autocorrect put an accent on America). I would say they’re all equally as bad.
@@plarteey1316 You missed the point. The British and French aambassadors, were not at loggerheads.The Russians were a strategic threat to Britain, not France. It was not an issue for france's given landmass to border russia
Jan Piórko there were pan-slavic movements in all slavic nations not only in russia Plus im sure that many slavs wouldve rather lived under russia than under german austrian or ottoman rule In addition to that the people lso wanted it and were completely fine with russia making it since they were by far the strongest just comoare it with prussia and the rest of germany its the same situation and tho there were some problems in the beginning generally it was very successful
Really and who supported a no fly zone at Libya during it’s civil war and gave money to it’s rebels, who yeah France and it’s allies. The U.S are no saints but don’t act like other other powers weren’t involved to take advantage of the these nations as well, especially the Russians and French.
This isn't complex. The idea that what's happening in the middle east is complex is so that fewer people come to realize the horrible destruction Europe leaves on the middle east.
Honestly, it's a failure of diplomacy on their part not to recognise that a nation that was fighting a total war, would say anything to get you on their side. That when they regain a position of strength; they probably won't stick to their word. It's happened so many times from so many different powers, it's naive to think would they stick to their word. Why would they? Gratitude? A sense of fairness? Anyone who would be dumb enough to believe that is going to exploited.
@@walsh9080 Although i agree minor countries can't afford to be naive in everyday politics its worth mention that doesn't make on his own morally justifiable the european betrayal to the middle easterns. (Not saying you did it, just pointing it out for someone might get the idea "Might makes right")
@@mauricioaguilar7227 Oh yeah, I agree with you. I just personally think it almost always makes the most sense to view politics through the lenses of the realpolitik because I'm cynical like that. I've often thought, I bet the British politicians couldn't believe that people were falling for it. It must've seemed obvious to them that Britain didn't really mean any of it. After all, they had signed no international treaties, made no concessions, offered no real proof they would keep their word and yet people fought to the death believing them. Must've been strange for them. The foreign secretary Balfour (of the Balfour declaration that promised the jews a state) even said something like "I am quite sure Britain has never signed a treaty it would not wholly violate if it was necessary, whether it intended to honour it at the time the men signed the paper or not"
@@mauricioaguilar7227 Personally though with the middle east, I actually do think there is some diplomatic failure on their part (from the leadership not the citizenry). Britain publically announced it had intention to support a state for Jewish people. That was a clear, international declaration of Britain's double sided intentions. Also, there should've been some questioning of "Let's say we help Britain. They attack Germany's less defended and less defensible Southern border, beat the Germans and the war is over. Then what? We become best buds? Didn't they like the Ottomans because the Ottomans acted as a bulwark against Russia? Also, Russia is fucked and currently tearing itself apart. Wasn't Russian interests the only thing stopping Britain from completely dominating the region via India like a century ago? Are we sure they've forgotten that ambition? They'll have no European enemies worth mentioning and we have nothing but their guarantees. Is this a good idea?"
0:22 actually the terms of the treaty referred to "area of economic influence", it's not like Italy had to annex a piece of Turkey. The Italian government decided later to drop the offer, because a weak and carved up Turkey would mean that Greece (a rival of Italy in western Mediterranean, and a close ally of England, who was another rival for Italy in the mediterranean) would become too strong.
TK5GQJ's response was on the mark; it's not as if Italy "changed her mind," particularly after Italy revealed its expansionist aims by invading ill-defended Ottoman Libya in 1911, committing atrocities against the native population (which continued for decades; of interest is 1981's _Lion of the Desert,_ a movie starring Anthony Quinn). Italy won, once the First Balkan War began the next year, proving disastrous for the Ottomans. After Italy invaded and briefly occupied Anatolia's southwestern region after WWI had ended, atrocities were perpetrated upon the Turkish population. The major reason why Italy's imperialistic dream was shattered was because the Allies, including the USA's Woodrow Wilson, shut Italy out. Italy was not playing ball, or did not know its place, allowing for Britain and France to break the terms of the treaty. Incidentally, it was my belief the Treaty of London was only between Russia, Britain and France; a web search reveals Italy was included, but I'm not sure about that... especially when one of the results was from untrustworthy _Wikipedia._ My understanding was that Italy came in two years later, with 1917's Agreement of St.-Jean-de-Maurienne. _"The Italian government decided later to drop the offer"_ served as odd wording. Greedily hungering for a piece of another's homeland cannot be described as an "offer," as if Italy was performing a selfless favor. .
3:15 Bro nah, you forget to tell about the turkish indepedent war, if turks would loose that war the borders wouldnt be like this. So that war was very important in this scene
Ottoman: I am a strong empire Britain and France: yea Ottoman: and I have strong allies Britain and France: yea Ottoman: so I could theoretically win this war Britain: So I believe the very northern part should belong to Russia you get the middle part and I get the kinda southern part...sound good? France: Sounds good to me
I can't believe how you managed to make a video about carving up the Ottoman Empire following its fall after WW1 without mentioning the plans on dividing it up in Anatolia (the treaty of Sevres) and how it didn't work out because of the national movement in Turkey that took the situation from Turkey being a very small country that's basically a British puppet to a fully independent state that has twice the land that it otherwise would have had the treaty of Sevres worked.
If the Treaty of Sèvres "worked," Turkey was not going to wind up with half the land. The Allies cruelly granted a small parcel around Ankara, amounting to little more than an Indian reservation. Furthermore, with exterminating Greeks and Armenians situated to its left and right, and given how the Allies disallowed an army to speak of, today there would have been no Turkey - and many Turks living today would have never been born. The Treaty of Versailles was so famously unfair, Hitler and WWII resulted, yet that treaty was a comparative picnic. The Treaty of Sèvres amounted to a *death sentence.* .
If they didn't join, the Ottomans could have gave out independence gracefully, and actually took note of ethnic and religious differences when carving out borders. They could have died gracefully. At least they didn't fucked over as hard as Germany and Austria-Hungary. I mean losing your empire sucks, but it was going to happen either way.
@erick meyer I'm well aware Austria-Hungary got fucked over the hardest. I'm just saying, if the Ottomans stayed out of the war, their empire could have died gracefully, and would have resulted in a lot less deaths, and perhaps a more stable middle east.
I think you mean the Levant & Mesopotamia. These were the regions that had the worst borders looking at their ethnic, linguistic and religious divisions.
I mean with the exception of Yemen, the Arabian peninsula is doing fine. It spelt doom for the levant and Mesopotamia, who basically never recovered from the fucked up borders and numerous power vacuums. That being said, the Saudis coming to power was probably the worst thing to happen to the Islamic world since the Mongols.
no matter the social problems in the arabian peninsula, as the comment above mine states, besides yemen, the countries there are doing fine, saudi arabia is doing relatively fine economically, the uae, kuwait, and qatar are pretty well developed i'd say and oman thanks to its ties with the british, it's natural borders that have mostly been made thanks to its own conquests as an empire which left no room for sectarianism like in other islamic countries, and the very fact that it doesn't follow any of the sects of islam but just a different type itself, has helped it in the long run, jordan is also pretty ok too, iraq though, is fucked up, lebanon is somehow more fucked up, and so is syria, while palestine, well i don't think i should get into that topic.
@@MrRamazanLale2 well at least i came with an original joke, while you turks always say the same, you so proud of having conquered the city with 10 vs 1. (Btw im Philhellene, not Greek, im Russian ans Spanish descent) and i can tell you that all Lepanto and ALL RUSSO-TURKISH WAR FELT VERY VERY VERY GOOD! DANG! IN YA FACE, BLYAT!
Those divisions have resulted in the instability of the current Middle East. Churchill played a big role in these imperialistic decisions and thus has culpability
This is why history classes have to focus more on world war I and not simply on Hitler and Stalin and world war II. The second world war happened for a reason. The gulf Wars and the war on terror happened for a reason. All of history is predicated on what came before.
Turks: *Attacked with Soviet Russia's help a small country, half of the population of which are starving refugees of genocide (carried out by Turkey earlier). Made another massacres there.* Also Turks: *YEa! TuRkiSh waR Of INdEpeNdeNcE! KeMaL iS a GReat MiLitaRY cOmmAndeR!*
@@RS_N5 Well the main problem wasnt Armenia (only a single corps was there), but Greece with 250000 troops. Also, lets not forget that Turkey lost WWI so its entire army was disbanded (except for the aforementioned XV. Corps whose general refused to disband it. Genocides? Well, I dont say otherwise, but that was Enver's fault.
The Republic of Armenia did not attack Turkey; after the WWI (1918), Armenia did not fight with Turkey. Turkey simply decided to seize the opportunity and capture the weakened country (Kars and Ararat weren't part of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey). And after that, Turks proclaim this invasion and slaughter as part of their "war for independence"? Enver and Talaat began genocide, Kemal continued it.
You mean the lands the Ottomans conquered in the first place against the natives that lived there. The Egyptians, the Bulgrians, the Greeks, the Armenians, Hungarians, Romanian’s, and the Serbians, were all conquered by the greedy Ottoman Empire when they were the most powerful nation the planet since the 1400’s. I say it's Karma finally getting back at the Ottomans for there imperial ambitious that once treated all of Europe at one point.
"Whoops. Looks like drawing borders with no regard to ethnic or religious affiliation doesn't work." "Ok, next time we'll divide countries by religion. That should work, right?"
As Al Murray put it: “We decided to make an effort in the Middle East by getting a map, pencil and ruler and drew some nice straight borders around all the oil well that we found and that they weren’t looking for and gave them beautiful Arab names like Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. We might as well have called them Shell, Esso, BP and Texaco”
@@HerewardWake It can be argued that by backing out of Britain's original deal, the Middle East became a lot more divided. Not to mention they decided to support a more extremist nation over the original, more moderate nation they originally planned to help.
@@HerewardWake A load of religious extremists and dictators took control in the end, we are talking about the Saddams, the ISIS, the Saudis etc. if that is your main argument for justifying interventionism then its pretty damn clear that you also failed at that objective too
Did you change this title in the last 2 hours? Props I knew what the agreement was after a second, but your new title is a lot more likely to grab views. Bravo as always. I still live for these.
@rouy malic Well the agreement to Hussein was predicated on a general Arab revolt which didn't happen (Arabs north of Hejaz overwhelmingly supported the Ottomans). So besides considering that Hussein overwhelmingly didn't have the support of the Arabs in the north and considering there were other powerful Arab leaders who wouldn't recognize his authority (such as Ibn Saud as already discussed in the video) it was natural for the British and French governments to fill the vacuum.
Britain in 1918: "It's not like this is gonna matter in a century anyway"
I mean if things go sour we can just leave \ / ^ _ ^ \ /
Britain in 2018: *What have I done?*
it doesnt. its not like the nation that existed before colonization had boarders that seperated ethnicities and religions. U would have the some ppl beeing split up, different religions and the hate of each other like u have today.
@Mars Dunes Wasn't it Woodrow Wilson and his League of Nations Mandates which prevented that from happening? Also the Turkish War of Independence and the Iraqi Revolt.
@@Gardstyle35 That doesn't change the fact that the French and British could have split the land based on ethnic and/or religious lines regardless, but they chose not to.
Britain: *draws line in a map*
Middle East: *forever on fire*
Behold the power of the British Empire!
@@joshuafredericksen5370 the mightiest pencils in the world!
Joshua Fredericksen you mean the swindle empire
The Brits have caused many bad breakups:
This. Including the partitioning of Palestine and Israel
India & Pakistan
Brexit
Oh, hey looks like Scotland wants be independent after the Brexit mess
The middle East should not even be on fire. Shouldn't this people be happy at the current borders they have? Ohhhhhhhh never mind they are religious crazies anyway.
France: "We demand this land."
Uk: "Fair enough. We have one condition though."
France: "Speak!"
Uk: "You need to take more of it."
France: *visible confusion* "That should not be a problem."
UK: "Terribly sorry, old bean, but I'm afraid we'll be keeping Mosul after all."
France: "But tou promised!"
UK: *points at Sykes' name on the agreement*
French people are funny. If there was more French people in the middle east there would be less tension because they would be to busy laughing at what fckn idiot's they are.
@@SCARPENTER290 that role has been taken by British now. All the world is busy laughing at Britain and their Brexit circus
@@skiteufr You French pussy .
@@SCARPENTER290 what are you so mad about? Are you that easily insulted by a harmless joke? Thats weak
"If you help us defeat the Ottomans you will get your own state"
"Siiiike we're carving it up for ourselves"
Sykes*
@@nikolas3198 this is an underrated comment
Sikes and Pico
they played this card during the 40s too
Trust me. I am the government. Would i do you wrong?? Just go and fight for me. We will take care of you once it is over.
When will everyone learn? Only the rich survive.
I like how they went straight into partitioning the Ottoman Empire like They didn't even Consider Them Winning
well they did lose half their land like two years prior
Surprised me as well lol, just straight up started discussing how to divide it up lol
@@gtaquizmaster well thats because the only reason the Empire was still a thing was European power intervention.. just few years prior to that the empire was about to fall to Egypt.. And few years prior to that they lost all of thier lands in the bolkens (thats why Eypgt and all the land in the Arabin plain is Not part of the ottoman empire by the first world War time )
the only reason European powers kept it alive was because it was Eaiser to exploit a weaken otteman empire then a strong whatever replacement empire there would have been.. probably Egyption
Kaisserreich be like
@@_Sami_H Beside i wonder why that Enver pasha thinking going to war was the best ideal of the time especially when their empire is crumbling and don't have the resources for attrition war. Also did he study geography or not. The Empire geography force them have to fight in many fronts.
Everyone: America ruined the Middle East
Britain and France: yeah what they said
@Andrew Mitchell Britain and France created a vacuum there for sure. But had it not been for US supported coup in Iran or outright invasion like Iraq, Middle East would be better. Look at videos of Middle East in 70s and compare it to modern time. US needs to stop Zionist influencers in its government.
Sulu Ayran No. Britain and France are responsible for those events too. They set up the Middle East in a way that doomed it to never ending crisis.
@@suluayran121 Actually it was Britain that told the US to overthrow Iran
@@Edmonton-of2ec Yeah and it was France who invaded Irak maybe ? France even tried to stop the American invasion in the UN with its veto.
Count Noctilus No it was Britain that setup that clusterfuck. If no WWI, no Iraq. Britain created that country
"The modern Middle East was born"
And there was much rejoicing.
yaaaaaaayy...
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move
for about 2 minutes after the european nations left
And later, much bloodshed...
hsgdfet nice hitchhikers guide to the galaxy reference.
One of the most important affairs that define our modern world, yet it is hardly brought up.
I doubt that the folks who rules these new countries enjoy mentioning that they owe thier thrones to shady imperial dealings
What makes you say that? I had about this topic in secondary school and it's constantly pointed out in news media when discussing the middle East.
@@Nikolaj11 *In the U.S. Yeah my class "went over it"... doesn't mean anyone understood it or took its ramifications seriously.
@@prstudios3256 That's not the same as the subject being "hardly brought up"
They all blame USA for destabliziation of the middle east
Britain and France: draw some lines on a map
The Middle East: "Peace was never an option."
Hahaha
So Westerners were always treating Arabs as morons and not just recently... Basically over a century of tradition now...
@@imawormbeforeiamaman4261 Vast majority unfortunately.
I am saying that as a Muslim...
@@armija well I'm a Muslim too. I live Nowhere near middle east but a great portion of Muslim here are just bunch of Arab wanna be. I fear our local identity and origins would be lost in the next 30 years. (How fucking sad is that!?)
Im a Worm Before I am a Man Which country do u live
Britain: I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further.
Arabs: This deal is getting worse all time
Arabs: Do you take us for fools?
Britain: Yes, but that is irrelevant
Ottoman Empire: *Screams in Han Solo*
Best comment ever.
@@Mustafa-to9si Britain: further more i wish for you to wear this dress and bonnet.
For further reading I highly recommend the book “A Peace to End All Peace: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East” by David Fromkin. It goes into detail behind everything mentioned in this video and more.
A line in the sand
Good book too
"A Line in the Sand" by James Barr is good too
I just added it to my Audible Library.
thank you
That's on my to do list now
"If you see two fish fighting, know that the English are near." Chinese proverb.
@@flemishtemplar3766 now, you cannot even say jew or what? phony son of a bitch! don't give me any excuses!
@@flemishtemplar3766 AMEN‼️
@@flemishtemplar3766 excuse me what?
I thought that was an Indian saying
@@epiccookie9889 Given the English record, I presume everyone has a saying.
"But you promised me all these lands under this Treaty"
Sykes! That's the Wrong Treaty!
Got 'em
LMAO
OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOhhhhhh !
What is this meme??
@@Brahmdagh Search Supa Hot Fire
Saddest part is that the Brits backed the extremist Saud family in overthrowing the Sharif of Mecca who was relatively much better.
There are pictures of the daughter of the first Sharif of Mecca after WW1, without hijab. Compare that to the extermist Saudis sponsored by the British.
Sharif of Mecca was beter beacuse he lived 15 years in İstanbul and maried with a Turk women. Some arabs dont like sharif beacuse of Turk influance in him. But this make him better. He wasnt a desert arab he was modern.
@@UnwantedFeather I think more importantly he wasn't a Wahabi. Also the Saud family is [art Kuwaiti and part Turkish themselves.
Yes. The Saudis have not been a good influence.
@@UnwantedFeather Yes, the Dessert Arabs, famous for many regional desserts such as Mshabak and Knafeh.
I think you mean to say 'Desert Arabs'.
"The modern Middle East was born."
And everyone got along great, and nothing bad ever happened there again.
Oh wait.
"Allahu Akbar!!!"
India- Pakistan-Bangladesh, Hong Kong-China etc: Allow us to introduce ourselves.
Mirokuofnite It’s sad to think all the turmoil in the middle east caused (partially) by these meaningless borders and selfish agreements lead to the creation of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda
@@imawormbeforeiamaman4261 fuck off , pinworm
@@imawormbeforeiamaman4261 fuck off you son of a bitch
“In the end, only the british got what they wanted” All of history summarized in one sentence.
The British got what they wanted, and soon realised they'd really rather not.
Then they lost Iraq 10 years after😂
Then the Jews and the Arabs started infighting, and the Brits thought pretty quickly. "I'm out of here!"
@@Rowlph8888 They won WWII, but barely, with little tolerance for further casualties, though won "Their Vietnam", the Malay States Emergency, in the '50s. They weren't trying to "Hold on" to their Empire, but a lot of stuff they'd tamped down when the Sahibs had one foot out the door came out, as well as the Revolution.
@Big Z The British Empire was sorely cracked by the first War, then became unsustainable following the 2d War. It dissolved following Indian independence in 1947.
I really believe this is the origin for the word “Sike!!!”
That would explain a lot.
Edit: It actually didn't come from that but it would be a lot more fun if it did.
Lmao fr
@@olbradley ye
Whats this meme?
@@Brahmdagh it's not really a meme it's just saying syke when youre giving something to someone but actually don't
This deserves a longer episode, added to it the Greek invasion of Turkey, founding of Turkey, British control of the Dardanelles and Italian action in Anatolia.
And mabey the agreement between the sherif and the zionist organization
Italian action in Anatolia: leaving
@Kadir Garip They sold actually not left freely :D
@@kubat552 There were minor skirmishes tho that the Italians lost. Ontop of hating the Greeks for grabbing all the Aegean Islands and İzmir which Italy wanted it was the only option for them to withdraw.
@@khagan5951 Yes and actually italian zone was so small. It wasnt worth to fight turks (probably their soldiers would be wiped out easily) instead of this they traded with turks sell them guns ammo etc and italy was happy when british-greece duo failed at the end. Anyway after 20 years later italy attacked both greece and UK :D
Britain and France signing the Sykes-Picot Agreement : what could possibly go wrong ?
Britain: *splits up India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh* this won't matter for a long time
Indian and Pakistani relationship hundreds of years later: *surprised pikachu face*
@@walsh9080
"Hardly Britain's fault" except they fucked up in drawing the correct borders and left many areas unsolved. Had those areas been given to right places there would have been no wars between India and Pakistan.
Joseph Leonard the brits didn’t even draw the borders they let the local nobility do it
@@mirzahamzabaig5667 But the british didn't divide India, they united India as there was never a unified India before the british era.
@@pike8290
No... India was United under Mughals, Marhatas (kind of), Mauryan empire, Rajputs, Dehli Sultanate (kind of) etc so no.. British were given an already unified India.
It’s crazy how some old people one hundred years ago could draw some lines on a map which led to some of the most destructive wars in recent history
@Detective Conan Arab-israel war, the six days war, palastine uprising, war on terror and iraq-iran war which the only 1 i can remember but i assured there more
@@adammuhammaf290 Syrian Civil war, Israel-Lebanon war, Yemeni-saudi war, invasion of Kuwait, Operation Protective edge and a few more.
@@Guy.B besides the civil wars and the war on terror and the Yeman war... The rest are pretty small scale really lol..
it got super charged by super powers.. they are sad events yes.. But they arent really that major 🙄
@@_Sami_H they are some of the biggest post WW2 wars tho
British Empire: "The pen is mightier than the sword!"
tea*
Oh the swords were still rather handy
The one who decided who hold the pen is wielding the sword
"But mightier still, is the man armed with both" - Me
@@bigbelly9478 You british people draw borders with tea?
I'm sure nothing bad will come out of this fine agreement made by reasonable gentlemen.
Drietfoga Love your pfp
Never trust a man named, "syke"
@@Whatareyoudoinnhere and now just add Lebanon and their civil war and Lebanon is the most damage from this but anyways .... country's all been damaged still this days
REMILIA SENPAI
Hussien : finally a united arab kingdom
King George : Well yes but actually no
They had that before the war aqnd lost it because they chose to join the war.
Captain Failure it wasn’t an Arab kingdom? Do you know what the arabs are? Because no
@@roisingtommy
In fact, the Arabs not only wanted to unite Arabia, they also wanted to unite with the Arabs in South Africa (or at least they wanted to unite all places that speak the Arabic language) They wanted to rebuild the Islamic caliphate, of course Britain is not that stupid to build a great superpower that it will face in the future, so they just divided arabs into 22 country.
@@AK-nm1jh I think you mean North Africa there is no arabs in South Africa
@@AK-nm1jh Yeah, we have next to no Arabs in South Africa. Wrong part of Africa lol
Britain be like: everyone will get land!
5 seconds later
Literally everyone: Britain where is my land?
Britain: don’t you mean MY land?!
LoL be like that sometimes
Garabic communism: dont you mean OUR land
Britain: We lied.
Syke
Everyone: I will get land
Britain: SYKE
You could have added the Turkish War of Independence and how it also changed the carving up of the Ottoman Empire and the Treaty of Sevres.
True
Honestly that would've been the most important point in the video , it's a pity that he didn't include .
It would become a 10 minute video then and we cannot have that.
@@JonatasAdoM he could've summed up everything , we do need that , just because you're not interested you can't say that .
@@kasadam85 I didn't mean that!
We used to have more in depth 10 minute videos (channel was called 10 minute history), but now we only have those really quick 4 minutes max ones. That's why I made the sarcastic comment.
You know you messed up when your enemies are immediately discussing who will annex which part of your country before the fighting even starts.
*Except Turkey, Turkey makes a brand new Turkey!*
You are a man of culture as well.
@@Runo1923 bill wurtz
Let's cut the cake said Sykes and Picot carving up the not so Ottoman anymore empire
Bw reference yes...
Beautiful
“Sykes Picot”
*Say sike right now*
Britain: I'm sure this won't have any lasting consequences and it definitely won't backfire in 100 years
*Backfires in 30 years*
The alternative (Ottoman/muslim empire) was a 1000 year nightmare and not really a favored outcome.
@@roisingtommy still no rise of wahabism
@@roisingtommy the Ottomans fought against Saudi Wahhabism. England backed Wahhabism. Current terrorism is rooted in Wahhabism. England is root evil of our current situation.
@@MyUniqueVibe The Ottomans wanted conquest in the Baltics and they were a much bigger problem for Europe than Wahhabism has ever been.
@@roisingtommy The Ottomans were too stagnant, had been on the decline since the 17th century. And Wahhabism is currently an ever present threat to democracy.
I'm just sad that when the Suadis began the Wahhabi movement, the Ottoman army was sent there to defeat them and extinguish that flame, but they ultimately lost the war. Had they won, we might not have seen the same Wahhabi-Linked terrorism that we see today.
Basically, after learning a lot about history of the world, you realise there were really few truly good guys and that everything was a game to the big powers.
Nikimon America is the least bad superpower with all its problems
@@shreyvaghela3963 I wouldn’t say that, there were no good super powers, but there’s no way América is the ‘least bad’ (wtf, why did autocorrect put an accent on America). I would say they’re all equally as bad.
@@shreyvaghela3963 lol
@@shreyvaghela3963
Pre-Cold War America could be considered "good".
But after sponsoring terrorists and dictatorships across the world. Nah.
Not sure if both Siyke and Picot are rolling over their graves, or laughing it up in the afterlife over the mess they created.
Most likely the latter
It is a blessing for Europe's part seeing how the now dead muslim empire spent the entire last 1000 years trying to conquer it.
@@roisingtommy its not like empires as a whole never done that
@@fulcrum2951 True. But like with the other empires, it was a good thing that this empire was carved up.
@@roisingtommy carved up in the absolute worse way possible
Russia: Guys the Ottomans just declared war on us
Britain 2 seconds later: Going once going twice, Syria is now French
Britain an hour later: Russia has forfeit its territory do I have any takers?
@@plarteey1316 You missed the point. The British and French aambassadors, were not at loggerheads.The Russians were a strategic threat to Britain, not France. It was not an issue for france's given landmass to border russia
XD
This information is still extremely relevant to this day. Thank you for the great video, you left me wanting more.
Arabs: can we get a united Arabia?
France and Britain: *_No_*
Hot diggidy dog my reply section is on fire!
IJM Slavs:Can we get a united slavic nation?
Literally everybody else: *NO*
@@affentaktik2810 more likely:
Slavs:Can we get a united slavic nation?
Slavs: NO i dont like other Slavs
because the american model, when you're technically independent but all your natural resources are legally owned by americans, wasn't invented yet
@@affentaktik2810 United slavic nation was a concept invented by Russian Empire to give itexcuse to be imperialistic piece of shit. It would suck.
Jan Piórko there were pan-slavic movements in all slavic nations not only in russia
Plus im sure that many slavs wouldve rather lived under russia than under german austrian or ottoman rule
In addition to that the people lso wanted it and were completely fine with russia making it since they were by far the strongest just comoare it with prussia and the rest of germany its the same situation and tho there were some problems in the beginning generally it was very successful
Everybody: “But...but, It’s America’s fault!”
United Kingdom: *Laughs in imperial British*
French as well
Really and who supported a no fly zone at Libya during it’s civil war and gave money to it’s rebels, who yeah France and it’s allies.
The U.S are no saints but don’t act like other other powers weren’t involved to take advantage of the these nations as well, especially the Russians and French.
It seems like whenever major powers come into the Middle East the only thing they achieve is screwing up things even more.
Ottoman Empire "looks around nervously".
It is America's fault, they're the reason British lost their colonies, the middle east was far better off under imperialist rule.
Amazing how you can condense very complex events down to just four minutes.
This isn't complex. The idea that what's happening in the middle east is complex is so that fewer people come to realize the horrible destruction Europe leaves on the middle east.
“ So Britain came up with a cunning plan to keep everyone on board....They lied “ 😂😂😂😂😂 Seems to be a pattern
Honestly, it's a failure of diplomacy on their part not to recognise that a nation that was fighting a total war, would say anything to get you on their side. That when they regain a position of strength; they probably won't stick to their word. It's happened so many times from so many different powers, it's naive to think would they stick to their word. Why would they? Gratitude? A sense of fairness? Anyone who would be dumb enough to believe that is going to exploited.
@@walsh9080 Although i agree minor countries can't afford to be naive in everyday politics its worth mention that doesn't make on his own morally justifiable the european betrayal to the middle easterns. (Not saying you did it, just pointing it out for someone might get the idea "Might makes right")
@@mauricioaguilar7227 Oh yeah, I agree with you. I just personally think it almost always makes the most sense to view politics through the lenses of the realpolitik because I'm cynical like that.
I've often thought, I bet the British politicians couldn't believe that people were falling for it. It must've seemed obvious to them that Britain didn't really mean any of it. After all, they had signed no international treaties, made no concessions, offered no real proof they would keep their word and yet people fought to the death believing them. Must've been strange for them. The foreign secretary Balfour (of the Balfour declaration that promised the jews a state) even said something like "I am quite sure Britain has never signed a treaty it would not wholly violate if it was necessary, whether it intended to honour it at the time the men signed the paper or not"
@@mauricioaguilar7227 Personally though with the middle east, I actually do think there is some diplomatic failure on their part (from the leadership not the citizenry). Britain publically announced it had intention to support a state for Jewish people. That was a clear, international declaration of Britain's double sided intentions.
Also, there should've been some questioning of "Let's say we help Britain. They attack Germany's less defended and less defensible Southern border, beat the Germans and the war is over. Then what? We become best buds? Didn't they like the Ottomans because the Ottomans acted as a bulwark against Russia? Also, Russia is fucked and currently tearing itself apart. Wasn't Russian interests the only thing stopping Britain from completely dominating the region via India like a century ago? Are we sure they've forgotten that ambition? They'll have no European enemies worth mentioning and we have nothing but their guarantees. Is this a good idea?"
That's why I'm glad when terrorist attacks happen in UK and France. It just came back to bite them. LMAO
"The modern middle east was born" and we've been suffering the consequences of that division for the past 100 years.
0:22 actually the terms of the treaty referred to "area of economic influence", it's not like Italy had to annex a piece of Turkey. The Italian government decided later to drop the offer, because a weak and carved up Turkey would mean that Greece (a rival of Italy in western Mediterranean, and a close ally of England, who was another rival for Italy in the mediterranean) would become too strong.
No they were to annex that part of Turkey. And they actually did but left it without fighting after Turkish War of İndependence began.
TK5GQJ's response was on the mark; it's not as if Italy "changed her mind," particularly after Italy revealed its expansionist aims by invading ill-defended Ottoman Libya in 1911, committing atrocities against the native population (which continued for decades; of interest is 1981's _Lion of the Desert,_ a movie starring Anthony Quinn). Italy won, once the First Balkan War began the next year, proving disastrous for the Ottomans.
After Italy invaded and briefly occupied Anatolia's southwestern region after WWI had ended, atrocities were perpetrated upon the Turkish population. The major reason why Italy's imperialistic dream was shattered was because the Allies, including the USA's Woodrow Wilson, shut Italy out.
Italy was not playing ball, or did not know its place, allowing for Britain and France to break the terms of the treaty. Incidentally, it was my belief the Treaty of London was only between Russia, Britain and France; a web search reveals Italy was included, but I'm not sure about that... especially when one of the results was from untrustworthy _Wikipedia._ My understanding was that Italy came in two years later, with 1917's Agreement of St.-Jean-de-Maurienne.
_"The Italian government decided later to drop the offer"_ served as odd wording. Greedily hungering for a piece of another's homeland cannot be described as an "offer," as if Italy was performing a selfless favor.
.
Love the content! really helpful in my history and has helped me get top marks on my projects (Like the first world war)
Thank you and keep it up!
Britain: Ah yes, land and oil
Also britain: *lAnD aNd OiL*
Britons when they see italian lybya
As Father as Son
As Britain as America
THIS CHANNEL NEEDS MORE SUBS THE CONTENT HAS BEEN 11/10 SINCE ITS STARTED POSTING THESE VIDS
Very good channel.
3:15
Bro nah, you forget to tell about the turkish indepedent war, if turks would loose that war the borders wouldnt be like this. So that war was very important in this scene
That's the post war borders, you mong.
If not for that they would be sooo much worse
@@marny3559 It is about the post war borders you shit maggot
Ottoman: I am a strong empire
Britain and France: yea
Ottoman: and I have strong allies
Britain and France: yea
Ottoman: so I could theoretically win this war
Britain: So I believe the very northern part should belong to Russia you get the middle part and I get the kinda southern part...sound good?
France: Sounds good to me
I can't believe how you managed to make a video about carving up the Ottoman Empire following its fall after WW1 without mentioning the plans on dividing it up in Anatolia (the treaty of Sevres) and how it didn't work out because of the national movement in Turkey that took the situation from Turkey being a very small country that's basically a British puppet to a fully independent state that has twice the land that it otherwise would have had the treaty of Sevres worked.
treaty of sevres was actually a continuous version of sykes picot
If the Treaty of Sèvres "worked," Turkey was not going to wind up with half the land. The Allies cruelly granted a small parcel around Ankara, amounting to little more than an Indian reservation. Furthermore, with exterminating Greeks and Armenians situated to its left and right, and given how the Allies disallowed an army to speak of, today there would have been no Turkey - and many Turks living today would have never been born. The Treaty of Versailles was so famously unfair, Hitler and WWII resulted, yet that treaty was a comparative picnic. The Treaty of Sèvres amounted to a *death sentence.*
.
3:14 AND NOW, THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD, BROUGHT TO YOU BY YAKKO WARNER!
😅😅😅
*History Matters
Ottomans: *Declare war on the Entente*
The Entente: _"We're gonna ruin this man's whole career"_
*Empires
that man's career was already ruined
Enver Pasha hoodwinked the Ottoman Empire into joining the war.
If they didn't join, the Ottomans could have gave out independence gracefully, and actually took note of ethnic and religious differences when carving out borders. They could have died gracefully. At least they didn't fucked over as hard as Germany and Austria-Hungary. I mean losing your empire sucks, but it was going to happen either way.
@erick meyer I'm well aware Austria-Hungary got fucked over the hardest. I'm just saying, if the Ottomans stayed out of the war, their empire could have died gracefully, and would have resulted in a lot less deaths, and perhaps a more stable middle east.
The Sykes-Pico Agreement
Probably one of the most important agreements that spelled doom to the Arabian Peninsula
I think you mean the Levant & Mesopotamia. These were the regions that had the worst borders looking at their ethnic, linguistic and religious divisions.
I mean with the exception of Yemen, the Arabian peninsula is doing fine. It spelt doom for the levant and Mesopotamia, who basically never recovered from the fucked up borders and numerous power vacuums. That being said, the Saudis coming to power was probably the worst thing to happen to the Islamic world since the Mongols.
no matter the social problems in the arabian peninsula, as the comment above mine states, besides yemen, the countries there are doing fine, saudi arabia is doing relatively fine economically, the uae, kuwait, and qatar are pretty well developed i'd say and oman thanks to its ties with the british, it's natural borders that have mostly been made thanks to its own conquests as an empire which left no room for sectarianism like in other islamic countries, and the very fact that it doesn't follow any of the sects of islam but just a different type itself, has helped it in the long run, jordan is also pretty ok too, iraq though, is fucked up, lebanon is somehow more fucked up, and so is syria, while palestine, well i don't think i should get into that topic.
@@No-mn9do libya and sudan are fucked up
“How the Ottoman Empire was Carved Up”.
Poorly. *Very Poorly.*
The otto empire was cutted as a turkey 🦃 is for thanksgiving!!!
@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 1453 felt good
@@MrRamazanLale2 well at least i came with an original joke, while you turks always say the same, you so proud of having conquered the city with 10 vs 1. (Btw im Philhellene, not Greek, im Russian ans Spanish descent) and i can tell you that all Lepanto and ALL RUSSO-TURKISH WAR FELT VERY VERY VERY GOOD! DANG! IN YA FACE, BLYAT!
@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 fillipino descent. You mean a Spanish slave.
@@MrRamazanLale2 1918 felt even better
Britain and France: draw the middle east's borders.
Any chances for a peaceful middle east: ight imma head out.
Sharif of Mecca: "So you will honor your agreement, right?"
Britain/France: *Well yes, but actually no.*
THEY LIED.
2:29 this has got to be my favourite "MORE/Soon" sign
Boy, your video output is insane! Keep up the good work :)
There's a great book about the topic called "A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that shaped the Middle East
" by James Barr
Or as i like to call it : "The great betrayal"
Never let Europe draw your borders
Fr fr
Unless your europe
Or south america
We're fine down here in the far east. it's not about the borders, it's about your people.
Perfect timing today 29th of October is the date which Turkey was founded!
I think it's events like these that show that long term planning is important.
0:50 I died Laughing at this point
Those divisions have resulted in the instability of the current Middle East. Churchill played a big role in these imperialistic decisions and thus has culpability
This is why history classes have to focus more on world war I and not simply on Hitler and Stalin and world war II. The second world war happened for a reason. The gulf Wars and the war on terror happened for a reason. All of history is predicated on what came before.
Thankfully these borders were well thought out and no one got upset over the outcome!
absolutely no one!
WE WERE JUST LEARNING THIS IN THE HISTORY LESSON
Main stream media seems to never mention this history when explaining internation current affairs
Imagine France and Britain coming to an agreement.
worst agreement
Armenians: *"Ottomans are DEFEATED. WE FINALLY HAVE INDEPENDENT GREAT ARMENIA."*
Soviets and Kemal's Turkey: *"Well yes, but ACTUALLY no."*
Turks: *Attacked with Soviet Russia's help a small country, half of the population of which are starving refugees of genocide (carried out by Turkey earlier). Made another massacres there.*
Also Turks: *YEa! TuRkiSh waR Of INdEpeNdeNcE! KeMaL iS a GReat MiLitaRY cOmmAndeR!*
@@RS_N5 Well the main problem wasnt Armenia (only a single corps was there), but Greece with 250000 troops. Also, lets not forget that Turkey lost WWI so its entire army was disbanded (except for the aforementioned XV. Corps whose general refused to disband it. Genocides? Well, I dont say otherwise, but that was Enver's fault.
The Republic of Armenia did not attack Turkey; after the WWI (1918), Armenia did not fight with Turkey. Turkey simply decided to seize the opportunity and capture the weakened country (Kars and Ararat weren't part of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey). And after that, Turks proclaim this invasion and slaughter as part of their "war for independence"? Enver and Talaat began genocide, Kemal continued it.
R S boi get educated yourself. I dont wanna waste my time with you
Sounds like someone has run out of arguments
"Lets cut the cake said sykes and picot, carving up the remains of the not-so-ottoman-anymore-empire"
"Except Turkey! Turkey makes a brand new Turkey!"
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
didn't see the horse's head at 3:22... just thought Napoleon was dumb thicc
*Some old guys drawing lines*
*The entire middle east:* :0
@@HerewardWake The Ottomans could have avoided it all by not entering the war in the first place.
You mean the lands the Ottomans conquered in the first place against the natives that lived there. The Egyptians, the Bulgrians, the Greeks, the Armenians, Hungarians, Romanian’s, and the Serbians, were all conquered by the greedy Ottoman Empire when they were the most powerful nation the planet since the 1400’s. I say it's Karma finally getting back at the Ottomans for there imperial ambitious that once treated all of Europe at one point.
@@brandonlyon730
That Karma kind of messed everyone up as well it seems
@@brandonlyon730 well i guest europe became arab state is a karma too
@@somethung8188 You laugh at innocent people being killed?
Best summary or video on this subject. I dont know how you do it so concisely! Do the treaty of Lausanne please! And why it didnt happen.
I absolutely enjoy this guy’s humor
Same :)
Can you do one about the Treaty of Sevvres?
+John Tr. I reccomend the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (with Austrian Republic) and the Treaty of Trianon (with Hungary).
The treaty of sevres doesn't matter much these day tho, because the succesor of it(Treaty of Lausanne) replace it.
@@bebekdragon7604 it does matter
It's a shame it didn't last. Greece deserved all those territories more than Turkey.
@sülüman well, they do.
"Whoops. Looks like drawing borders with no regard to ethnic or religious affiliation doesn't work."
"Ok, next time we'll divide countries by religion. That should work, right?"
@John Ratican not really.
But there wasn't anything they could do better, they just hoped that people would get along with one another
@@George-cr6jq This is exactly why I say "terrible damage has been caused by optimism" when people question me about why I'm a pessimist.
@@walsh9080 Unless you happen to be carving up states in the Middle East, optimism isn’t that bad of a thing.
@@thatdude9091 Optimism in politics is generally not a good idea.
This dude: Britain lied.
Me: Wow! I could have never guessed that.
laughs imperially
Western betrayal.
The British lied???? impossible, no waaaaay, I never knew that, I never knew that.
1:48 nice detail, hopefully those are sound-proof windows
The funny thing is, the Ottoman Empire looks like Turkey grew legs
Ottoman: Become Human
The discovery of Oil around Mosul actually happened after Sykes Picot was signed. it was a dusty bit of diplomacy after the war that sorted it out.
Great stuff as Always! Thanks dude
As Al Murray put it: “We decided to make an effort in the Middle East by getting a map, pencil and ruler and drew some nice straight borders around all the oil well that we found and that they weren’t looking for and gave them beautiful Arab names like Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. We might as well have called them Shell, Esso, BP and Texaco”
Hahahaha.
“If you see 2 fish fighting in a pond, know the British where there”- a UA-cam comment
How do you know when a Brit is lying?
Their lips are moving.
@@gumdeo well you do need lips to utter words, wow i'm you were smart enough to come up with such conclusion
@@gumdeo You still mad we ruled you?
Thanks for these videos. They are quite informative to me. So many things that I did not know
Man, this agreement is almost as good as the treaty of Westphalia.
It will probably all work out fine in the end.
Sykes-Picot Agreement turned out to be a huge syke.
Loved this. Simple and concise w/ accurate maps 👍
Britain: “I have a cunning plan...”
Blackadder: “Oh god.”
3:18 never ending continuous fighting was born
Thanks to europe.
brings tears to my eye
The British; "When lines get squiggly, people get squiggly."
@@HerewardWake It can be argued that by backing out of Britain's original deal, the Middle East became a lot more divided. Not to mention they decided to support a more extremist nation over the original, more moderate nation they originally planned to help.
@@HerewardWake A load of religious extremists and dictators took control in the end, we are talking about the Saddams, the ISIS, the Saudis etc.
if that is your main argument for justifying interventionism then its pretty damn clear that you also failed at that objective too
@@HerewardWake if All the countries were just left alone then there wouldnt have been all this mees to begin with
No one:
The British: I’m not every good at drawing border lines but it doesn’t matter
Everyone else: 😐
Did you change this title in the last 2 hours? Props I knew what the agreement was after a second, but your new title is a lot more likely to grab views. Bravo as always. I still live for these.
a*abs in 1915: revolt to ottomans we’re will be free
a*abs in 2023: Turkey lemme in
shut up cockroach
why did you censor arab? that is like censoring w*stern
Turks:dude you sided with those west remember 😑
After the WW1 ended
Hussein Bin Ali: Those Bastard Lied To Me
@rouy malic Well the agreement to Hussein was predicated on a general Arab revolt which didn't happen (Arabs north of Hejaz overwhelmingly supported the Ottomans). So besides considering that Hussein overwhelmingly didn't have the support of the Arabs in the north and considering there were other powerful Arab leaders who wouldn't recognize his authority (such as Ibn Saud as already discussed in the video) it was natural for the British and French governments to fill the vacuum.
I laughed loudly where the british man came up with the banner that written "what a deal"
Middle east: *exists*
European powers: So anyway i started dividing
Please make videos about this
Japanese conquest of Taiwan & Korea
Wushe incident
Very informative...thank you.
"The modern middle-east was born...and doomed."