Support us and get 40% off Nebula: go.nebula.tv/the-great-war Watch Red Atoms on Nebula: nebula.tv/redatoms Nebula Lifetime Membership: go.nebula.tv/lifetime?ref=thegreatwar
My favorite things I’ve learned from this channel is how countries would join the war so they would be present at the peace agreements and benefit from the deal
@@billhicks808 Sure. However, WWI has a direct link and impact on the modern world. The Israel-Hamas war is a direct descendent of the First World War.
I work across the street from the WWI Museum in Kansas City, and they have an exhibit near the end about the ongoing conflicts that stem from the Great War. I will now be sharing this documentary alongside your one about British Palestine when I try to help others understand how the modern conflict is not some ancient feud.
Some clarification. Although in this video it sounds like the French decided to expand Lebanon's borders by themselves it was the Maronite patriarch who suggested the expansion. He wanted farmland for the country, for he feared a second occurence of the Mount Lebanon famine which killed as much as a third of the country
You missed, like so many do, the struggle for eastern Arabia. People always seem to think the Hashemites of west Arabia were the only arabs fighting. I blame Lawrence's PR. On the east side near the center of Arabia the Nedj (ruled by the house of Saud) were conquering the Ottoman vassal Jabal Shammar in north Arabia. The perfidious British promised Nedj much also, thus setting Arabia up for a postwar fight. In the 1925 after the war, the Nedj Sauds beat the west Arabian Hashemites occupying the holy cities of Medina and Mecca, leading in the 1932 into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
What?? No mention of the former Ottoman lands of Yemen and Hejaz which were states set up after 1918! No mention of the Saudi Wars which gave Saudi Arabia its present borders! The maps give the mistaken impression that the Saudis' borders were the same in 1918 as they are today!
Learning about Lawrence of Arabia and the events in the middle east when I was pretty young and then when I found out the domino effect that happened after the war it was like a revelation to all the current events today, really shocked me then! Glad to see a video on it today❤
Compared to what happened later, the rule of the Ottoman Empire was moderate and even wise. The incapibility of Britain and France to secure peace after WW1 directly leads to the present mess in the region.
Depends what part of the mid east. The parts untouched by British and French shenanigans and with full western backing like UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi, are drenched in money and their cities are like lavish western cities with constant construction of high rise buildings and luxury cars....
Ottomans were the last true rulers of the region as a key. Without a greater power leading, this region will always be a target for outsiders and scavengers.
How is the Balkans, long the "power keg of Europe" and also cause of WWI, so different from the troubled Middle East? Or have you forgotten already the breakup of Yugoslavia, the wars and genocides that followed, the struggle for Kosovo and Macedonia? tribalism is tribalism.
Its incredible the Ottomans relinquished all there century old, millions of kilometer Eyalets Villayets and Sanjaks in a matter of a few years! Interesting how the British and French gave the Hashemite dynasty Iraq and even the short lived Arab kingdom of Syria, but not there dream of a United Kingdom of Arabia.
At this point, there should be a "days since last division" count for the Middle East. Something is always happening there, from the old tribal days to current nation states.
As much as you want to blame the victors of WW1 the fact is that the people in the middle east never got along.And that is not Britain or France's fault.
This is interesting and informative, but I can't help but think that a historical examination of the Middle East that only goes back to WW1 is extremely short sighted...
@@froster3117 I know, but the claim is overstated. Do the events they describe directly affect today's state of affairs? Yes. Is that the complete explanation of today's state of affairs? No.
Yeah, just the title alone is absurd. It's not like the late Ottoman Empire was more stable, different provinces fought each other for land and influence, even when they were nominally part of the Empire. The many hostile tribal and religious groups didn't just suddenly appear after WW1. Maybe the Zionists, but they had earlier settler movements, too. WW1 changed the political landscape in the Middle East and with it the nature of some conflicts, but it didn't create more conflicts.
@@TheGreatWar Your title says that WW1 caused the Middle East conflicts. And while the informative, there wasn't really anything in your video that would prompt a viewer to expand their scope of examination on the subject.
No. Governors of Ottoman provinces fought each other over land and influence, even when they were nominally loyal to the Sultan. The Empire barely held together and needed European support in several conflicts. Late Ottoman reforms helped a bit, but they also upset peasants who had lost their land in land reforms. Arabs living in the Empire grew to resent Turkish rule and WW1 was the perfect opportunity to get rid of the Ottomans.
While the borders were terrible ideas, I don't though why can't the local people have instead of using violence, just talked amongst themselves and sorted out the borders. Easy to blame Britain and France for the borders, but they did not force these people to shoot each other and fight though, the local people could have held a great conference to rash out more local favouring borders.
@@AKK5I You get my point though, it is easy to blame the Europeans, but over 50 years on since the last colonies, you can't keep blaming them, when surely the people of the region could come to some terms.
Diversity wasn't the sole cause of the instability, but rather how the Europeans pitted the diverse population of the region against each other for personal gain. It was petty and overall fairly pointless as all it did was briefly united many different ethnic and religious groups in opposition to their imperialism.
@@extrahistory8956 Oh, so the colonial governments from 1917 passed laws demanding they kill each other? Or installed machines in even modern generations that take over peoples bodies to make them kill each other? Or injected everyone with meth or something to turn them all into rage monsters with no self control? They did something like that?
We really need the people Of the present world to take accountability for their own actions, let's stop blaming other people, countries. It's been over a hundred years. Brown people can also be accountable for the actions they make, let's not kid ourselves here.
@@josephd.5524 The whole region has been unstable for centuries to be fair, long before the British and French arrived. The Arabs who conquered the region in the early middle ages were no saints either, they were just as oppressive if not worse. They used enslavement and the Jizya Tax to enforce their rule on non Muslims and the only way out was to convert. The ill informed call the Europeans out but don't call out the Arabs for the conquest and colonisation of the region.
@@bloodrave9578 It was fairly peaceful before the Europeans decided to get their grubby hands in the pie, and further escalated things throughout the Cold War.
@@extrahistory8956 There were the frequent wars fought by the Ottomans in the region against Persia. The Ottoman-Persian Wars were a series of border conflicts along what is now the modern Iraq-Iran border.
england and france were racist imperial nations but Ottomans look Arabs as their own people but some radical groups like wahhabis fought against Ottomans
The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century bce occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv-Yafo and Gaza Try again
@@karimmaasri1723 I mean it’s simple linguistics, but at least we can admit that modern Palestinians have nothing to do with the original Philistines. Some pragmatism would help solve this conflict though. I hope both sides get their act together
@@The_universal_cynic And no we see genocide caused by the Zionists on women and children, breaking their lives and dreams, putting them in prisons and treat them like animals.
I'm confused, I thought that the Jewish population of Palestine accepted the UN division of 1948, while the Arab population boycotted the vote. Or are you referring to other points?
Without a doubt. London ensured it stayed that way setting the US up to take over the reign and ensuring it’s own survival of comfort. Shame current London is doing its best to throw the commoner to the wolves
@@Mercian-Lad often that part is lost conveniently. A lot still hadn’t left 3rd world squalor but decent parts exist with those conquered specifically because of the English
*fewer clicks, and *masturbatory self-flagelation. Do you have any grammatically correct and logical arguments against the points put forth, or do you simply have an ideological opposition to the premise that the West sowed the seeds of today's (and yesterday's) genocides in the Middle East?
@@AndSome625028 oh, but Anglo hegemony still exists. Through the Anglosphere, and the USA. Our language, culture, laws, and inventions, influence everyone. That type of hegemony. UK does not have much military power but still has the most alliances and cultural influence.
Support us and get 40% off Nebula: go.nebula.tv/the-great-war
Watch Red Atoms on Nebula: nebula.tv/redatoms
Nebula Lifetime Membership: go.nebula.tv/lifetime?ref=thegreatwar
My favorite things I’ve learned from this channel is how countries would join the war so they would be present at the peace agreements and benefit from the deal
Meanwhile, US carriers are parked offshore while Israel is conducting negotiations with Hamas.
Join the party get a slice of the cake
Hard to find any mess that wasn’t caused by WW1 somehow.
Very true
any things before ww1? Kinda easy
WWI laid the foundations of the era we live in now, in many ways.
You could say the same thing about the Roman Empire. History leads to history. Things don't happen in a vacuum.
@@billhicks808 Sure. However, WWI has a direct link and impact on the modern world. The Israel-Hamas war is a direct descendent of the First World War.
I work across the street from the WWI Museum in Kansas City, and they have an exhibit near the end about the ongoing conflicts that stem from the Great War. I will now be sharing this documentary alongside your one about British Palestine when I try to help others understand how the modern conflict is not some ancient feud.
Some clarification. Although in this video it sounds like the French decided to expand Lebanon's borders by themselves it was the Maronite patriarch who suggested the expansion. He wanted farmland for the country, for he feared a second occurence of the Mount Lebanon famine which killed as much as a third of the country
You missed, like so many do, the struggle for eastern Arabia. People always seem to think the Hashemites of west Arabia were the only arabs fighting. I blame Lawrence's PR.
On the east side near the center of Arabia the Nedj (ruled by the house of Saud) were conquering the Ottoman vassal Jabal Shammar in north Arabia. The perfidious British promised Nedj much also, thus setting Arabia up for a postwar fight.
In the 1925 after the war, the Nedj Sauds beat the west Arabian Hashemites occupying the holy cities of Medina and Mecca, leading in the 1932 into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
What?? No mention of the former Ottoman lands of Yemen and Hejaz which were states set up after 1918!
No mention of the Saudi Wars which gave Saudi Arabia its present borders! The maps give the mistaken impression that the Saudis' borders were the same in 1918 as they are today!
Oh how the Great War continues to affect us all to this very day.
Learning about Lawrence of Arabia and the events in the middle east when I was pretty young and then when I found out the domino effect that happened after the war it was like a revelation to all the current events today, really shocked me then! Glad to see a video on it today❤
Compared to what happened later, the rule of the Ottoman Empire was moderate and even wise. The incapibility of Britain and France to secure peace after WW1 directly leads to the present mess in the region.
If you ignore the last 50-100 years of Ottoman rule then yes
One of the best channels on UA-cam
"The war to end all wars ."🙄😒
I absolutely love this channel. Thank you for all the videos you've produced!
Deeply needed by an impartial channel. Thank you.
Britain and France…..making life hard for middle schoolers in geography class the world over
Still picking up the pieces
A peace to end all peace.
I've always been curious why the Balkans and Middle East had such different trajectories after gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire.
The balkans by no means perfect looks like Rose Garden compared to the Middle East
Depends what part of the mid east. The parts untouched by British and French shenanigans and with full western backing like UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi, are drenched in money and their cities are like lavish western cities with constant construction of high rise buildings and luxury cars....
Ottomans were the last true rulers of the region as a key. Without a greater power leading, this region will always be a target for outsiders and scavengers.
How is the Balkans, long the "power keg of Europe" and also cause of WWI, so different from the troubled Middle East?
Or have you forgotten already the breakup of Yugoslavia, the wars and genocides that followed, the struggle for Kosovo and Macedonia? tribalism is tribalism.
Good video. Thanks for sharing.
This channel is excellent at explaining historical backgrounds（at least a part of）of current affair.
Whenever you see two neighbors fighting, you can be sure that one of them dined with Englishmen the night before.
Its incredible the Ottomans relinquished all there century old, millions of kilometer Eyalets Villayets and Sanjaks in a matter of a few years! Interesting how the British and French gave the Hashemite dynasty Iraq and even the short lived Arab kingdom of Syria, but not there dream of a United Kingdom of Arabia.
It was actually the French that kicked the Hashemite Faisal I out of Syria, they invaded twice with their army if I recall correctly.
Excellent Video thank you
They made deals for oil, just call it what it is😅
Please do a video on tactics in the ruso Japanese war,
Or in the Chinese civil war/age of warlords
I think they did one on the Chinese warlord era
@@ymtzlgn but not of tactics, i will rewatch to see if they spoke of the warfare but i do rember it wasn't very deep
@@ymtzlgn in there pre ww1 video theres not even a mention of warfare, same for the ww1 video, im watching the Chinese civil war one in a minute
well done, thank for sharing
👍
I literally wrote my Scientific Paper for my Final Exams in High School about this exact Topic😂
Comment for the algorithm excellent video very informative.
Like beggar
100k years of Middle East history: Peace was never an option
Like most modern problems, the British are responsible
Спасибо!
At this point, there should be a "days since last division" count for the Middle East. Something is always happening there, from the old tribal days to current nation states.
For hundreds of years it was governed by the Ottoman Empire, which was the point of this video. It lasted until the 20th century.
i forgot i subbed to this channel and i can see why i did, i love the subject of history
An old adage to remember. If there's a problem in the world today, the root cause was probably a British or a French afterthought from a bygone era.
Nobody with more than a passing interest in history should think this simplistically.
He's right tho@@DerMef
@@DerMef and yet its somehow that simple, greed and imperialism. Not much has changed in the past few thousand years
Yes, we Brits conquered a lot of land, and we installed our laws, culture, and infrastructure, but when we left, we dusted our clothes off.
It actually goes back to Roman and ottoman times.
it actually goes back to the age of homo sapiens
WW I did not create the conflicts but Arthur Balfour and Chaim Weizmann certainly did and the British politicians did for sure.
Who would have thought that colonialism would have led to years of war and strife?
The Kurd's should certainly have been given a state, like the US was going to push for.
They deliberately sliced the Kurds into three parts to weaken all three nations
Acualy, you can trace it all back to starting with ancient Rome. The former Roman areas vs. the non Roman areas. It's all Italies fault!
It was a mess before WW1. After WW1 it was no longer manageable I would say.
It was Ottoman for centuries before WWI
As much as you want to blame the victors of WW1 the fact is that the people in the middle east never got along.And that is not Britain or France's fault.
This is interesting and informative, but I can't help but think that a historical examination of the Middle East that only goes back to WW1 is extremely short sighted...
while true, this IS a channel called the great war that focuses on WW1
@@froster3117 I know, but the claim is overstated. Do the events they describe directly affect today's state of affairs? Yes. Is that the complete explanation of today's state of affairs? No.
do we say in the video that it is the complete explanation of Today's state of affairs? No.
Yeah, just the title alone is absurd. It's not like the late Ottoman Empire was more stable, different provinces fought each other for land and influence, even when they were nominally part of the Empire. The many hostile tribal and religious groups didn't just suddenly appear after WW1. Maybe the Zionists, but they had earlier settler movements, too.
WW1 changed the political landscape in the Middle East and with it the nature of some conflicts, but it didn't create more conflicts.
@@TheGreatWar Your title says that WW1 caused the Middle East conflicts. And while the informative, there wasn't really anything in your video that would prompt a viewer to expand their scope of examination on the subject.
Flagging that Prager U ads are appearing when I played this video today - they are known to be deeply inaccurate
To be fair, was it better under the Ottomans?
Yes, absolutely.
@@cosmicwakes6443 How so? Maybe give some actual source instead of some weak "yes" answer. 🤦♂
More stable, yes. If barely. Better? Depends on who's side you were on.
Yes if you wanted a one world caliphate it was better....otherwise no
No. Governors of Ottoman provinces fought each other over land and influence, even when they were nominally loyal to the Sultan. The Empire barely held together and needed European support in several conflicts. Late Ottoman reforms helped a bit, but they also upset peasants who had lost their land in land reforms.
Arabs living in the Empire grew to resent Turkish rule and WW1 was the perfect opportunity to get rid of the Ottomans.
Sadly, if you try to talk about things sourced by your previous video on this matter, your comment gets automatically shadow-deleted.
bro just triggered the Zionists
This is where the trouble in the middle east truly started. Man the allies really dropped the ball on that one
"Dropped the ball"? No, keeping the middle east in conflict so we could get their resources was the goal.
There should’ve been only three States in the Middle East a Kurdish state Arabs state and a Jewish state
Seriously the French were stupid enough to actually add Muslim districts to Christian areas. Just a microcosm of the Middle East is so messed up.
Whatever, but It really comes down to how people won't get along and it's Always been that way in the middle East.
Bro have you ever watched this channel before. Where did both world wars start?
@@totallynotraging what does that change?
@jasperchance3382 middle Eastern violence is nothing compared to European violence.
@@totallynotraging it's the same everywhere. Africa, Asia, Europe. History Is Just Page After Page of Wars
While the borders were terrible ideas, I don't though why can't the local people have instead of using violence, just talked amongst themselves and sorted out the borders. Easy to blame Britain and France for the borders, but they did not force these people to shoot each other and fight though, the local people could have held a great conference to rash out more local favouring borders.
are you sure about that. This type of stuff will trigger violence as it creates misunderstanding among the people and it is sponsored by the west
It'd seem one side was adamant to refuse any agreements
One side tried, the other side said no 5 different times
@@AKK5I You get my point though, it is easy to blame the Europeans, but over 50 years on since the last colonies, you can't keep blaming them, when surely the people of the region could come to some terms.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD agreed. The onus is on today’s leaders. It’s a tragedy that there seems to be no appetite for pragmatic agreements
Correction, there was no such thing as Palestine in the Ottoman Empire...
blame the bankers that funded the whole damned thing
47th, 8 December 2023
Middle East has always been like that because of RELIGION.
But we are told "Diversity is a Strength".
Diversity wasn't the sole cause of the instability, but rather how the Europeans pitted the diverse population of the region against each other for personal gain. It was petty and overall fairly pointless as all it did was briefly united many different ethnic and religious groups in opposition to their imperialism.
It is strength when you arent driven by divisive governments.
@@extrahistory8956 So you're saying that mixing a diverse population together didnt create paradise?
@@GusOfTheDorks Not when the colonial governments are deliberately inciting violence.
@@extrahistory8956 Oh, so the colonial governments from 1917 passed laws demanding they kill each other? Or installed machines in even modern generations that take over peoples bodies to make them kill each other? Or injected everyone with meth or something to turn them all into rage monsters with no self control? They did something like that?
We really need the people Of the present world to take accountability for their own actions, let's stop blaming other people, countries. It's been over a hundred years. Brown people can also be accountable for the actions they make, let's not kid ourselves here.
True, but it wasn't the brown people that injected a colony into the region and massacred entire villages. That was the very, VERY pale British.
@@josephd.5524 The whole region has been unstable for centuries to be fair, long before the British and French arrived. The Arabs who conquered the region in the early middle ages were no saints either, they were just as oppressive if not worse.
They used enslavement and the Jizya Tax to enforce their rule on non Muslims and the only way out was to convert. The ill informed call the Europeans out but don't call out the Arabs for the conquest and colonisation of the region.
@@bloodrave9578 It was fairly peaceful before the Europeans decided to get their grubby hands in the pie, and further escalated things throughout the Cold War.
@@extrahistory8956 There were the frequent wars fought by the Ottomans in the region against Persia.
The Ottoman-Persian Wars were a series of border conflicts along what is now the modern Iraq-Iran border.
@@bloodrave9578 Indeed, and by the early 20th century they had pretty much ended, so how did exactly justify European imperialism in either nation?
Filastin (La Palestine) March 25th 1925 editorial
england and france were racist imperial nations but Ottomans look Arabs as their own people but some radical groups like wahhabis fought against Ottomans
Lol....I think u need to read more....
@@karimmaasri1723 yea i know i look like 9 year old ottoman fan who wants to make propaganda
The withdrawal of the Europeans- de-colonization is one generic term-- is what I blame at least in part: they left too early in most cases.
They never left, they've been involved ever since, most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya....
The word “Palestine” comes from the word “Pleshet” which means “invader”. It describes today’s Palestinians perfectly.
The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century bce occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv-Yafo and Gaza
Try again
@@chillyourself5208You are correct, if you’re looking at Greek and Latin. In ancient Hebrew and Cannanite, Pleshet means invader
@@ymtzlgn Spread your Hasbara elsewhere. A simple google search proves you wrong.
Thank u for ur mind gymnastics. U easily qualify for the gaslighting Olympics.
@@karimmaasri1723 I mean it’s simple linguistics, but at least we can admit that modern Palestinians have nothing to do with the original Philistines. Some pragmatism would help solve this conflict though. I hope both sides get their act together
That place was such a peaceful paradise until the west colonised it...
Their is no country named Israel it's palstain
Israel was created 2800 years ago....Palestine 2300 years ago......
@@randysavage1no
@@The_universal_cynic And no we see genocide caused by the Zionists on women and children, breaking their lives and dreams, putting them in prisons and treat them like animals.
@@The_universal_cynic literally yes Philistia, then became Philistine, then Palestine, the kingdom of Israel existed while Philistia did
@@randysavage1 the Philistines were Greek from the Aegean sea. Nothing to do with the modern Arabs whom took their name
✌✌
🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
Oh, I thought it was Israel refusing a two state solution for over 70 years but never mind.....
I'm confused, I thought that the Jewish population of Palestine accepted the UN division of 1948, while the Arab population boycotted the vote. Or are you referring to other points?
blaming the last drop, when the whole region was under other people controls for 2000 years. it was bound to happen.
So true, the video is like propaganda video more than historical one
When I doubt, blaim any English speaker
Without a doubt. London ensured it stayed that way setting the US up to take over the reign and ensuring it’s own survival of comfort. Shame current London is doing its best to throw the commoner to the wolves
True. Convenient for those we conquered. ¼ world
@@Mercian-Lad often that part is lost conveniently. A lot still hadn’t left 3rd world squalor but decent parts exist with those conquered specifically because of the English
You could do the same with the 4th crusade, but that would get less clicks and semi-mastubatorial self-flagellation.
*fewer clicks, and *masturbatory self-flagelation. Do you have any grammatically correct and logical arguments against the points put forth, or do you simply have an ideological opposition to the premise that the West sowed the seeds of today's (and yesterday's) genocides in the Middle East?
@@Copper_Pennyis there anything you don't blame on the west? You realize the people of the middle east make their own decisions, right?
Not world war, cough..brit..cough..ish.
🤡
Cough...Forgot...cough French...cough Locals could have sorted out borders peacefully.
Bla bla bla. Butthurt of Anglo hegemony
@@Mercian-Lad Anglo hegemony - exactly the point I was making, thanks.
And why would someone be butthurt about something that no longer exists?
@@AndSome625028 oh, but Anglo hegemony still exists. Through the Anglosphere, and the USA. Our language, culture, laws, and inventions, influence everyone. That type of hegemony. UK does not have much military power but still has the most alliances and cultural influence.