the problem with the idea of unifying the Arabs is that every single last Arab thinks that *HE* should be in charge of Arabia. which kills this idea outright.
This was the same problem with Yugoslavia. Every Slavic leader wanted to be the dominant leader of the state and didn't like it if one (e.g. Serbians) became the dominant one.
The Serbians saw Yugoslavia more as a Greater Serbian state that should rule over the southern slavs, luckily they were put down through the yugo wars@@onemoreminute0543
Same with just about any major unification of an ethnic group - but this is usually only in cases where there are also differences in culture/language/religion that are impossible to avoid, and especially so when all parties involved are relatively similar in terms of economic size & strength. When there's an overwhelmingly more powerful nation already in existence both militarily and economically (i.e. Prussia in the German Confederation) unification under their terms is inevitable. Perhaps if such a power rises within the Arab world, something similar could occur...
As an Arab, gotta say your being too nice to us the problem is with our mentality the only thing that had actually unified us is Islam (look at history, countless times we were only united under the banner of religion) hence why the caliphate is the only solution for the Arab world at least now about Christians well historically there were alright in the caliphate, operating as merchants and even scholars since they were of the civilized portions of the middle east back in 7th century and them being a minority mostly in cities meant they would be great catalysts for the economy and jews as well however the only must is tax, the jiziyah tax imposed on those who can pay (excluding women, children and elderly) and those who cant pay as in men who are poor or sick wouldnt. This to some parallels the zakat tax imposed on muslims also the caliph can at will impose more taxes on Muslims and christians alike (I am talking about taxes that arent Jiziyah or Zakat related). My Jordanian Arab friend is christian and his family had been for (statistically) a millenia living side by side with Muslims and the way he acts, dresses, even talks its all Arab but more specifically Jordanian I couldnt differentiate him from the other 99% Jordanian Muslims Ironically I would relate to him as a Arab Muslim more than a circassian Jordanian Muslim or a Syrian Kurd in terms of ethnicity since to me religion is most important thing and ethnicity comes number two not sayng it isnt important, it is but religion is more important. Hope my point is clear.
@@hishamalaker491 I understand what you're saying, but I feel that criticizing "mindset" is not fair to any group or peoples whatsoever. This same logic is often used by pro-colonialism wackos to try and justify enslaving Africa, but a widespread "entrepreneurial mindset" is literally impossible in countries that are constantly exploited, controlled, subverted, and colonized, either economically or directly. When said country's education, industrial, developmental programs etc. cannot take off due to constant conflict propagated by foreign powers, there can be no advancement whatsoever. Most organized religions are complicit/contribute to violence, but they're more of a symptom in my opinion.
Jabzy, over the last 5 months you have made sooo many videos back-to-back about Muslim history in the Middle East and surrounding areas like West/East/North Africa, India, and Central Asia. And I gotta say..... keep doing that. I love it!
I went to Turkey last year and man, Ataturk is so idolized it’s crazy. His picture is everywhere and while I was there they commemorated the 85th anniversary of his death where they shut down the country for a few minutes and the airlines announce it on the loudspeaker. One Turkish woman I asked about it was almost in tears.
@@mogh2603 Not when he is the one that created your entire nation, future, life, rights, culture and so on. Ataturk's importance to Turkey is only rivaled with the prophet and the God, there is no one else like him for other nations in modern era (i think)
Ataturk is THE hero of Turkey. He won the independence of his country against Europeans powers who wanted to balkanize it, against Greece with the thoughts of a Greater Greece, modernized the country, secularized, education reforms and much more. Without him, Turkey wouldn't be what is today.
i am an assyrian and i thank you mentioning our struggle. its in the dark and its a huge issue we are millions scattered around the world and we still live in assyria they took it over in 1933 in the simele genocide
@@Youd876 no they did not, they did however quell the kurdish rebllion on behalf of the british as the assyrian levy. i do give you that but it was in no way shape or form genocide it was quelling a rebllion. nothing like simelle, kurds also helped the ottomans and even enticed them to start the 1918 sheyfo genocide , 1M assyrians dead
@@Youd876 he killed assyrians too, so what ? ur mistaking killing tens of people compared to thousands or millions. stop trying read up on ur history and akowledge what your people did to us and the yazidis dont be like the turks your people is neglected just like us
As a Circassian in diaspora in the US from a lineage from Jordan and Syria back to our homeland, I sincerely appreciate being included in such a complex and tumultuous period in history.
I LOVE YOUR CHANNEL. sorry for typing so large, but really , you are outstanding. You are not biased , your facts are 10000000000000% true and you make nice animations
Fascinating review. You've done a lot of work to bring this to You Tube. You nailed a number of issues. Personally, in one 24hr period, I worked at a government level with Israeli's, then Palestinians, then Arabs after that. Every ethnic group, individually, were superb people to deal with. Collectively, the chap I worked for at the time could get nowhere on behalf of the world community. It's an experience I have always appreciated.
I worked in various Middle Eastern for many years. It was easy to see that the main divisions were not between countries, but between tribes. The whole region is very tribal and loyalty is always to the tribe. A tribe will get into power in a country - usually with a strong dictator (or 'king'), but that causes resentment in the other tribes. Not a stable situation.
Thank you for another wonderfully educational video! This made me realize just how little I actually know about the details of the immediate post-WW1 and early post-Ottoman Middle East (not to mention the Caucasus region by extension). I hope the nations in turmoil there find peace again soon. God be with you out there, everybody. ✝️ :)
Loved this video but you should've put a conclusion part at the end explaining the whole video and what changes will and may take place after them. all of that aside this video is still good and i enjoyed all the 48m of it, really explains the situation of the current borders and how sykes-picot still affects the region to this day.
Why do "effects" begin with Sikes-Picot? I think it's ironic that Muslims (and Arabs, generally) think that's the beginning....look how the Turks (mis)treated Arab aspiration long before the war. No sense of introspection. At least the Brits allowed Indians to serve in fairly high positions of the civil service, rail network & telegraph office. But I guess Muslims ignore (& justify) Ottoman caliphate's centuries of abuse & corruption & absolutism because....you know, Ummah.
After watching it, I realized that I was biased... I removed my comment. Instead, I am writing my appreciation for how thoroughly you have researched and mastered the subject.
Absolutely loved this video. Chaim Witzmen (first president of Israel) is pronounced when the phlem sound, closer to Haim more so than Chaim. Thanks for a great video.
He was in his garden, when his monkey and his dog started fighting. When he exerted diplomatic pressure on the situation, the monkey bit him on the leg. Doctors considered amputating his leg but they decided against it, unaware of how serious the bite was. He died of sepsis not long after.
You learnt nothing from industrial democracy then? No wonder it is doomed. It must be clear that their was relative tolerance peace and order until the European colonists got involved? Small tribal disputes were given the militarised power of modern industrial states- and their ludicrous ideologies. ie Yazidis survived Roman, caliphate and Baathism, but not "The West".
18:35 There was ONE Mandate for Palestine in the 1920s from Britain and it included what is today Israel, Gaza, The West Bank, AND JORDAN. There were NOT two mandates in 1920. Your video is misleading to make everyone think that the mandate for Palestine was always from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean and IT WAS NOT! It would be decades before this was formalized with the breaking off 75% of the mandate to create the Transjordan portion for the creation of an Arab state, but the British already knew that there was no reconciliation between the Jews and the Arabs in the remaining 25% of the land West of the Jordan.
Although part of the shared British sphere of influence Palestine and Transjordan were never joined as Palestine had been conquered by the British whereas Transjordan (and part's of southern Syria) and been conquered by T E Lawrence's Arab Army
As an arab i would say a kurdish state would have saved millions of lives, and billions in funds for both turkey and iraq as they spent fortunes on meaningless suppressions of kurds
So you want ethno-states, in places where dozens of ethnic/cultural/religious/lingual groups lived simultaneously, based on regional plurality population. I can not think of a more destructive way of creating societal cohesion and ensuring human rights.
The colonial borders created 3 states - Lebanon, Syria and Iraq that became very unstable. Those states could be held together during the fifties and somewhat later because significant parts of the population were illiterate and politically inactive but with gradual spread of education could only be held by strongmen like Yugoslavia. Their population is divided into too many religious communities (in reality very divergent ethnic groups masquerading as religious communities). The idea of Arab union also couldn't work as the Arabs deep down are not a single ethnicity but a collection of differing ethnic groups with semi-common language. An Arab federation would have disintegrated before 2000 , partially peacefully and partially with blood.
@@FalconfromRF yeah sure honey, have you ever talked to Arabs, and I mean real Arabs born and raised not westerners with ancestry, at the very least a greater Syria would've been a stable country because as mentioned in the video the people there saw themselves as a one thing and fought the colonizers many times to achieve that goal, and to this day that's the general sentiment in the area, the only thing preventing stability in the area is the authoritarian regimes and Israel which are both a direct consequence of colonial meddling.
16:00 Rival of the Turkish government accuses Turks to commit atrocities as standart policy THEN French and Armenians commiting atrocities... The problem here is commiting awful crimes was a norm back then. The crucial part here is we hear these news from one side. When everyone began to throw shit at the other, its obvious, everyone got their hands in shit.
No, killing and displacing millions within a few years in a pre-planned attempt to rid an Empire of a fourth of its population isn't and has never been the norm. Read a history book and stop yapping.
The best compromise would be on ethnic lines but there is an area of Majority of Hungarians living in Transylvania and it would be impossible to give Hungary that territory without forcing Romania to give up majority Romanian territory, that happens a lot like poles in Lviv and Bruxelles in Belgium
@gabrieled.r427 like I said the best compromise would be among ethnic lines not the kingdom of hungarys old borders as that had a lot of slavic majority land and Romanian however drawing off ethnic map only requires a little bit of territory off Slovenia Croatia Serbia Romania and Slovakia ultimately not amounting to a whole lot, how the EU pretty much nulls the idea because they can travel freely through borders anyway
@@gabrieled.r427ideally you could make ethnic lines for borders however that would require an American like union of states as all the disconnected portions that would end up would being made like Hungarians living in Transylvania would be unreachable if relations ever soured, basically everlasting peace like that is nearly untenable in the world at least today
Can you make a video on how Africa's borders should have been drawn during to avoid all the ethnic conflicts and instabilities which have happened in Africa.
the region been always controlled by multiethnic empire back to 3000 years ago till 1900 Assyrian, Babylonian Roman/Byzantium, Persian, Arab Empires and Turk Empires so this kind of borders is new to the most Historical region on earth
The problem tho is that those Multiethnic Empires were Authoritarian, so most people were like “hey, we have no choice on who rules us”, but then Europeans Introduced Democracy to these multiethnic regions, which caused a ton of problems because everyone said “if we can choose our leaders then it should be us to rule”
@@safs3098 well first of all instead of intruduce the democracy to the middle east European at that time have problem with second religion in Europe the jew problem the jew had been live in Europe for 2000 years and European could not built a multiethnic society and the kicked the jew from Europe in 1948 so if European democracy killed the jew in Europe, Moors, Chechnyaian Romani PPL and that's just 75 years ago as middle eastern i will say thank you ill pass we still have historical religion dated back to 4000 years ago like Zerositain and Yazidi they mange to not convert or wiped out from the history like what happend to Slavic religion or hilinstic relegion or Viking religion so again fixed your psychopaths society first
@@safs3098 and btw democracy of what of Germany in 1930 or USA before 1960 and the racism or who France killing 1 m Algerian to take there land or UK controlling India and it resources India in 1700 had 25% of the global economy left India with civil war and the poorest region on earth so this your democracy taking our land and resources hahahhahahha but you need to know its not going to be for good cuz we will rise again we are the Cardel of civilization this is temporary situation
@@safs3098 Ottomans did try to become a Liberal Empire starting with the Tanzimat. Ottoman Liberalisation efforts started even prior to the Russian one. The problem was that the European nations were carving spheres of influences and it was the age of Imperialism, so that meant the Ottomans were not able to achieve much.
This is extremely anti-Armenianly biased. The Shushi massacre was performed by Azeris in 1920, which led to the dominance of Azeri population in the old Armenian capital during the Soviet era.
You use the term Raj several times when referring to British administration. I thought it referred specifically to colonial rule (not administration) over the Indian sub-continent? For example, colonies in Africa were not part of the Raj, nor indeed Singapore or Hong Kong.
24:06 That is an oximoron. Literally impossible. You can't say that "Jews are not equal" while also "they deserve self-determination and equal rights like every other nation". He wasn't a Zion ist. That is a lie.
Wow! It’s like a giant game of Chess. In the aftermath of War it was just a bunch of players moving pieces around, taking over an area just to have it taken away shortly thereafter. I knew the history bin the Middle East was complex and not made any easier due to British attempts to “fix” problems, but this is wild. Well presented and makes me want to learn more.
When Palestinians say they supported being a part of “Syria,” they weren’t referring to the modern state of Syria. After the Romans renamed the Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel, along with its immediate borders (which encompassed areas of modern Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, & Iraq)…. The Romans divided the territory into two regions, Syria-Phoenicia and Syria-Palestina. When the Arabian Empire conquered the region from the Romans (Byzantines), the Arabs renamed the area “Ballad Al Shem.” “Ballad Al Shem” literally means “Land of the Semites” in Arabic, which is also synonymous with the term “Syria” since before the Roman times. Ballad Al Shem united the two territories together into one territory. It was like that until the Turks conquered the region. Keep in mind that the people who lived there are the descendants of the people who lived there before. The Palestinians are genetically Canaanite and Israelite, the Lebanese are Phoenician and Canaanite, etc. Not all of the “Jews” left the region after the Jewish revolts in the first two centuries. Most of them converted to Christianity and then to Islam during their respective eras. You find evidence of this from archeology, history, and multiple genetic studies… which show a continuous presence on the land dating thousands of years.
I love how people think borders are a contributing factor to this problem. The levant area is a jumbled mess of tribes, religions, religious sects and ethnic groups. Not to mention 80% of it is desert so you have like 50 million people just along the west coast all cramped together trying to fight for the small piece of fertile and livable land there is. in the eastern side it's all mostly desert with one river going through and there's a better chance to just divide Iraq into 3, Shia south, Sunni triangle center and Kurdish north but the Shia aren't fully united either are the Sunnis and there is some divisions among the Kurds. I think Europeans just said "fuck it" and just throw a bunch of people together and hope they sort their shit out.
Previously, those people have been held together by the islamic teligion wish stopped that nationalist idea and focus more about religious union and so Kurd and Arabs and Turk were along even though there was some confrontation some time.
It's interesting how the term Allies overtook the original term Entente and how the term Central Powers overtook the term Triple Alliance. I found a 1964 thesis from an American university with the title "The Triple Entente and The Tiple Alliance".
Ha, I'm maybe more interested in researching these than people are to watch them, but I haven't found a decent place to stop yet. Formation of New Arab States, rise of Ataturk, WW2, Formation of Israel, Suez Crisis? So I've just pushed.
@@JabzyJoe I have to agree with you! As someone interested in the British Empires relationship with Arab leaders like in the Trucial states. Hejaz etc I’m living it up. I wonder have you considered an episode on potential alternate boundaries like. ‘Here are frances ideal boundaries’ the Brits- Turks and Arabs etc. Obviously it verges into the alternate history but would work with ‘could new borders being peace’ examining how different countries might approach it.
It must also be pointed out that the khalifat movement was also a move to counter the perceived threat of a Hindu ruled India. Hence later leading to the partition.
Unfortunately, it seems the region stretching from North Africa to Afghanistan is condemned to suffer the same growing pains as Europe as it developed into nation states. In addition the weapons of war have only increased in their deadliness.
The British- and French-controlled countries were divided by the Sykes-Picot line. The agreement allocated to the UK control of what is middle east country today
Yeah well by that logic the whole world should unite. People just dont want to alot of the time. The best example is the completely useless Great War at this time.
And importantly in the present context, not for an instant any kind of Palestinian national anything. Unlike the Jewish national claims. From this historical perspective, the so called Palestine geographical area was discussed as Arab only as a minor part of other countries (Jordan or Syria), never independently, and repeatedly dropped out of these possible unions with Jordan or Syria. That also makes it clear why after the 1948 Israel establishment war, any land captured by Jordan and Syria was naturally integrated into these countries, and no Arab considered these lands as a potential part of some other "Palestine" state. In short no idea of an independent Palestine state was even floating in the air before 1967.
I think you don’t understand yes you are right about the name Palestine but they just changed their name that’s why in reality they are 100% related to the old Israel the new one just stole the name aka the zionists
Chaim Weissman's name is pronounced, k'hayiiim (meaning life in hebrew), with the chet sound that exists in hebrew, turkish, persian, kurdish and some indo european langauges, and some dialects of arabic. Not ch-aim, like choochoo train, when ever you see a jewish name or hebrew word, that starts with Ch in english, this is a germanic Ch, not an english Ch deriving from norman french. Correcting because Chaim was a major player in middle east politics and I know you will likely make more videos where he pops up as a character
Given the border realities circa mid-1920s, the best settlement today would be to unite Jordan, Syria, West Bank & Gaza under Hashemite leadership & call it "Syria." This would be a return to what was expected after WWI.
May be, resettlement of Christian folks is also need. Long-term peace must include garantee of security for Israel, and this is hard to imagine if Arabs are still majority in all this area.
The border between Armenia and Georgia was left undetermined (de jure); the Armenians did not lay claim onto Lazeti, although one should note that the area did harbour a partially Armenian population (Christian and Islamised Hamshen Armenians/Hemşinli). Tao is another question: Both Armenia and Georgia have historic ties to the region (the Armenians call it Tayk'). It was a culturally mixed region, although Armenians were dominant in the West.
it is interesting turn of events really. When Armenians and French made atrocities, Turks escaped and every life was sparred. But when Turks made atrocities, they killed millions of Armenians. I did not know that. Thank you.
The Jordan Valley has long been one civilization. The Brits should not have created a Trans-Jordan or Palestine. In the current circumstances, Jordan should get Palestine, but the Israelis can keep 12,000 sq.km which largely corresponts to the ancient Kingdom of Israel + Jersualem. Thus Jordan would get the southern desert, Gaza, the entire Hebron-Beersheba River catchment, southern West Bank, Ramallah, and Jericho and the floor of the Jordan River Valley uo to its junction with the Yarmuk River. The primary dispute will be - should the Jerusalem border be Route 60 or the Security Barrier - the Old city lies between. Jordan thus gets the whole of the Jordan River where Israel has robbed it of water. Jordan will need to build a number of Desal plants near Gaza to make fresh water for Jordan and to restore flow in the Jordan River. Jordan would get the Job of managing the dead sea. The Hagia Sophia cathedral has been turned into a mosque, setting a precedent for Temple Mount.
I wished more people would at least go through this kind of intro to the Middle East before ‘taking sides’ Middle Eastern history is super complex post WW1
The roots of all these problems are in the Arab conquests of the 600s. Before then there wasn’t so much divisiveness in the Middle East. It was much more peaceful and homogeneous. There was much more religious and ethnic tolerance. The Arab conquest changed all that and we are still living with the ill effects of it today.
Wrong, before 600s there was Greeks, Assyrians Aramaics, March arabs, Iranians, Armenians, Romans, Nabataen arabs and bedeons. Some were pagans others were Christians (Coptic and Orthodox) some were Jewish others Zeroastrainism this applies on multiple different ethnicities at that time you could find an arab who's a Christian and an Arab who is a jew and another who is pagan
Agreed. They really fucked up everything. I can’t help but think how much more tolerant and more compatible with the west the Middle East would be if it wasn’t for Arab conquests and imperialism.
I toiled over this question many a years and made countless maps in my younger years. There is certainly a way to make better borders... but no one solution will fit all the different regional people group's needs and desires. Then there is also the issue of nationalism that has been established from the people born in these false borders since their creation. I am interested to see what you propose though.
@@burakahmettr8193 No, are you? Look at 🦃 for example. 40 years of ethnic conflict and billions of dollars of loss because Turkeys refuse to give Kurds their country
As a arab i just want to say no if you give every arab culture there own country that'll make us more devidied rn we're all unified and we enjoy it but sunis and shiats can't live together I'm talking only for my country iraq that doesn't mean one should be kicked out of the country it really doesn't matter if someone is shiat or suni
Too many people have moved throughout the world to know where to make new borders peacefully. Don't worry people will figure it out through war. War is how borders were established in the beginning and will change the same way.
the problem with the idea of unifying the Arabs is that every single last Arab thinks that *HE* should be in charge of Arabia. which kills this idea outright.
This was the same problem with Yugoslavia. Every Slavic leader wanted to be the dominant leader of the state and didn't like it if one (e.g. Serbians) became the dominant one.
The Serbians saw Yugoslavia more as a Greater Serbian state that should rule over the southern slavs, luckily they were put down through the yugo wars@@onemoreminute0543
Same with just about any major unification of an ethnic group - but this is usually only in cases where there are also differences in culture/language/religion that are impossible to avoid, and especially so when all parties involved are relatively similar in terms of economic size & strength. When there's an overwhelmingly more powerful nation already in existence both militarily and economically (i.e. Prussia in the German Confederation) unification under their terms is inevitable. Perhaps if such a power rises within the Arab world, something similar could occur...
As an Arab, gotta say your being too nice to us the problem is with our mentality the only thing that had actually unified us is Islam (look at history, countless times we were only united under the banner of religion) hence why the caliphate is the only solution for the Arab world at least now about Christians well historically there were alright in the caliphate, operating as merchants and even scholars since they were of the civilized portions of the middle east back in 7th century and them being a minority mostly in cities meant they would be great catalysts for the economy and jews as well however the only must is tax, the jiziyah tax imposed on those who can pay (excluding women, children and elderly) and those who cant pay as in men who are poor or sick wouldnt. This to some parallels the zakat tax imposed on muslims also the caliph can at will impose more taxes on Muslims and christians alike (I am talking about taxes that arent Jiziyah or Zakat related). My Jordanian Arab friend is christian and his family had been for (statistically) a millenia living side by side with Muslims and the way he acts, dresses, even talks its all Arab but more specifically Jordanian I couldnt differentiate him from the other 99% Jordanian Muslims Ironically I would relate to him as a Arab Muslim more than a circassian Jordanian Muslim or a Syrian Kurd in terms of ethnicity since to me religion is most important thing and ethnicity comes number two not sayng it isnt important, it is but religion is more important. Hope my point is clear.
@@hishamalaker491 I understand what you're saying, but I feel that criticizing "mindset" is not fair to any group or peoples whatsoever. This same logic is often used by pro-colonialism wackos to try and justify enslaving Africa, but a widespread "entrepreneurial mindset" is literally impossible in countries that are constantly exploited, controlled, subverted, and colonized, either economically or directly. When said country's education, industrial, developmental programs etc. cannot take off due to constant conflict propagated by foreign powers, there can be no advancement whatsoever. Most organized religions are complicit/contribute to violence, but they're more of a symptom in my opinion.
"well, I think that concludes our treaty, gentlements peace in middle east"
"forgive me ambassador but what about Jerusalem?"
omfg , amazing
Brilliant reference lmao
Internationally controlled with freedom or worship and movement. Easy really
"Oh, she's back"
ottoman palestine :)
15 HOURS TO EXPLAIN THE MIDDLE EAST BORDERS??? I'm impressed you managed to explain it in such a short time.
AS middle east man, i am also in shock
@@skeletonking4119 is it accurately explained tho? That would be the real question. If it's wrong then it doesn't matter anyways I assume
@@gareonconley1956 im also middle eastern i will watch this and explain if its accurately explained or not
@@Samsonig is it accurate?
@@tezcanaslan2877 Yeah most of it was accurate though I did forget the inaccurate things I will rewatch it soon
Jabzy, over the last 5 months you have made sooo many videos back-to-back about Muslim history in the Middle East and surrounding areas like West/East/North Africa, India, and Central Asia. And I gotta say..... keep doing that. I love it!
"Massacres once again took place" - average year in Middle East
Not true, and indirectly racist
Very resemblant of what constantly in the Balkans or amongst Slavic people ....
@@mogh2603I’m racist
@@mogh2603I mean he isn’t wrong
@@mogh2603I'm middle eastern and can confirm that I get massacred every day 😳
Dude your videos are so good and engaging, I can't wait to see what you make next.
I went to Turkey last year and man, Ataturk is so idolized it’s crazy. His picture is everywhere and while I was there they commemorated the 85th anniversary of his death where they shut down the country for a few minutes and the airlines announce it on the loudspeaker. One Turkish woman I asked about it was almost in tears.
Yes I saw this , it is very strange,
@@mogh2603 Not when he is the one that created your entire nation, future, life, rights, culture and so on. Ataturk's importance to Turkey is only rivaled with the prophet and the God, there is no one else like him for other nations in modern era (i think)
@@umutcankoc3010Biden? Obama?? Hello!
Without Atatürk and his revolution Turkiye would as Taliban's Afghanistan. Thats because Turks love Atatürk this much
Ataturk is THE hero of Turkey. He won the independence of his country against Europeans powers who wanted to balkanize it, against Greece with the thoughts of a Greater Greece, modernized the country, secularized, education reforms and much more.
Without him, Turkey wouldn't be what is today.
Even knowing how he died, the utterance "killed by a monkey-bite" is never not wtf-worthy.
Alexander I of Greece or someone else?
Euphemism for poison, , likely.
Unfortunately impossible. Majorities who benefit from current borders will never accept adjustments, Iraqi Shia being the biggest culprit.
What a stupid take, name a country that would be happy to do this.
@@bipolarkeyboardIsn't that exactly his point?
Iraqi shias are a small group with no power, it's mainly Israel, Turkey and Saudis who benefit from the current status quo.
@@bipolarkeyboardyou seem to have confused take with your own perspective, as in you're stupid period. Get mad at yourself. Learn more history.
@@Diego-de6dq not with a statement like "Iraqi Shia being the biggest culprit" at the end of a sentence
i am an assyrian and i thank you mentioning our struggle. its in the dark and its a huge issue we are millions scattered around the world and we still live in assyria they took it over in 1933 in the simele genocide
You know that Assyrian also took the part of genocide with Turk as while Kurds?
@@Youd876 no they did not, they did however quell the kurdish rebllion on behalf of the british as the assyrian levy. i do give you that but it was in no way shape or form genocide it was quelling a rebllion. nothing like simelle, kurds also helped the ottomans and even enticed them to start the 1918 sheyfo genocide , 1M assyrians dead
@@karlfreiha4745 yeah, later with Saddam Hussein, top general he was Assyrian that killed Arabs and Kurds.
@@Youd876 he killed assyrians too, so what ? ur mistaking killing tens of people compared to thousands or millions. stop trying read up on ur history and akowledge what your people did to us and the yazidis dont be like the turks your people is neglected just like us
@@karlfreiha4745 Brother, master of genocides are Assyrian. Go look up the bible or any history books.
coming back to your channel after years and seeing the improvement of your art and the fact you finally bought a mic is crazy
The most comprehensive series on the Middle East I've ever seen.
You put together some impressive videos... much time and research probably go into these. Cheers!
Outstanding presentation! I happily subscribed to your channel while watching this video.
As a Circassian in diaspora in the US from a lineage from Jordan and Syria back to our homeland, I sincerely appreciate being included in such a complex and tumultuous period in history.
You are in a diaspora within a diaspora
@@user-gr9fq9gt9w I suppose so lol
I LOVE YOUR CHANNEL. sorry for typing so large, but really , you are outstanding. You are not biased , your facts are 10000000000000% true and you make nice animations
Fascinating review. You've done a lot of work to bring this to You Tube. You nailed a number of issues. Personally, in one 24hr period, I worked at a government level with Israeli's, then Palestinians, then Arabs after that. Every ethnic group, individually, were superb people to deal with. Collectively, the chap I worked for at the time could get nowhere on behalf of the world community. It's an experience I have always appreciated.
I worked in various Middle Eastern for many years. It was easy to see that the main divisions were not between countries, but between tribes. The whole region is very tribal and loyalty is always to the tribe. A tribe will get into power in a country - usually with a strong dictator (or 'king'), but that causes resentment in the other tribes. Not a stable situation.
Great series honestly
Thank you for another wonderfully educational video! This made me realize just how little I actually know about the details of the immediate post-WW1 and early post-Ottoman Middle East (not to mention the Caucasus region by extension). I hope the nations in turmoil there find peace again soon.
God be with you out there, everybody. ✝️ :)
This is a really great history of post WWI Middle East history. Now I need to watch the other 20 parts.
Loved this video but you should've put a conclusion part at the end explaining the whole video and what changes will and may take place after them. all of that aside this video is still good and i enjoyed all the 48m of it, really explains the situation of the current borders and how sykes-picot still affects the region to this day.
Why do "effects" begin with Sikes-Picot?
I think it's ironic that Muslims (and Arabs, generally) think that's the beginning....look how the Turks (mis)treated Arab aspiration long before the war.
No sense of introspection.
At least the Brits allowed Indians to serve in fairly high positions of the civil service, rail network & telegraph office.
But I guess Muslims ignore (& justify) Ottoman caliphate's centuries of abuse & corruption & absolutism because....you know, Ummah.
Man this series is such an interesting thing to watch tbh
25:57: - Thank you for this spotlight.
Great video! btw the "J" in jabotinsky is pronounced like the "G" in geneva
i think most anglos pronounce those words the same but it is only /d͡ʒ/ vs /ʒ/ he’s close enouh
After watching it, I realized that I was biased...
I removed my comment. Instead, I am writing my appreciation for how thoroughly you have researched and mastered the subject.
Would love to see a series on British history next
It would be a lot shorter
Absolutely loved this video. Chaim Witzmen (first president of Israel) is pronounced when the phlem sound, closer to Haim more so than Chaim. Thanks for a great video.
Can you make series about Eastern Europe.
King Alexander then died of a monkey bite
I'm sorry what
A Barbary macaque if my memory is not fooling me.
He was in his garden, when his monkey and his dog started fighting. When he exerted diplomatic pressure on the situation, the monkey bit him on the leg. Doctors considered amputating his leg but they decided against it, unaware of how serious the bite was. He died of sepsis not long after.
Yep. Infection from a monkey bite.
Is that how you get monkey pox
@@tonyclough9844
No
Interesting video
A marathon of history of a complex region
The only conclusion I can make after this video : the Middle East has always been a tribalistic mess so no surprise for what is happening now
thats just racist and wrong
Yep, has been this way since the beginning of time.
You learnt nothing from industrial democracy then? No wonder it is doomed. It must be clear that their was relative tolerance peace and order until the European colonists got involved? Small tribal disputes were given the militarised power of modern industrial states- and their ludicrous ideologies. ie Yazidis survived Roman, caliphate and Baathism, but not "The West".
18:35 There was ONE Mandate for Palestine in the 1920s from Britain and it included what is today Israel, Gaza, The West Bank, AND JORDAN. There were NOT two mandates in 1920. Your video is misleading to make everyone think that the mandate for Palestine was always from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean and IT WAS NOT! It would be decades before this was formalized with the breaking off 75% of the mandate to create the Transjordan portion for the creation of an Arab state, but the British already knew that there was no reconciliation between the Jews and the Arabs in the remaining 25% of the land West of the Jordan.
Although part of the shared British sphere of influence Palestine and Transjordan were never joined as Palestine had been conquered by the British whereas Transjordan (and part's of southern Syria) and been conquered by T E Lawrence's Arab Army
yep. jordan is the "palestinian" arab homeland.
As an arab i would say a kurdish state would have saved millions of lives, and billions in funds for both turkey and iraq as they spent fortunes on meaningless suppressions of kurds
Or there would be horrible wars of conquest with an indipendent kurdistan
So you want ethno-states, in places where dozens of ethnic/cultural/religious/lingual groups lived simultaneously, based on regional plurality population. I can not think of a more destructive way of creating societal cohesion and ensuring human rights.
@@onatdeveci5502clearly not the rights of the Kurds for some reason or their lives.
@@horstnietzsche1923 Kurds in Turkey have rights? What are you talking about?
@@onatdeveci5502Explain which rights, you lack?
As it can be seen on the video, Turks are fighting against Christians, Araps are licking their boots.
Lol
This Middle East series has been a great listen on my drives to and from work
can you make this into a short im sn expert in ME history but even this confused me.
The colonial borders created 3 states - Lebanon, Syria and Iraq that became very unstable. Those states could be held together during the fifties and somewhat later because significant parts of the population were illiterate and politically inactive but with gradual spread of education could only be held by strongmen like Yugoslavia. Their population is divided into too many religious communities (in reality very divergent ethnic groups masquerading as religious communities).
The idea of Arab union also couldn't work as the Arabs deep down are not a single ethnicity but a collection of differing ethnic groups with semi-common language. An Arab federation would have disintegrated before 2000 , partially peacefully and partially with blood.
"the Arabs deep down are not a single ethnicity but a collection of differing ethnic groups with semi-common language"
wrong lol
@@someguy4512 Arabic in Middle East is like Spanish in South and Central America
@@FalconfromRF arabs been there at least in the bronze age dummy.
unlike spanish people lmfao.
@@FalconfromRF yeah sure honey, have you ever talked to Arabs, and I mean real Arabs born and raised not westerners with ancestry, at the very least a greater Syria would've been a stable country because as mentioned in the video the people there saw themselves as a one thing and fought the colonizers many times to achieve that goal, and to this day that's the general sentiment in the area, the only thing preventing stability in the area is the authoritarian regimes and Israel which are both a direct consequence of colonial meddling.
Can you make a video about the history of Algeria from Ottoman rule until independence?
16:00 Rival of the Turkish government accuses Turks to commit atrocities as standart policy THEN French and Armenians commiting atrocities...
The problem here is commiting awful crimes was a norm back then. The crucial part here is we hear these news from one side. When everyone began to throw shit at the other, its obvious, everyone got their hands in shit.
No, killing and displacing millions within a few years in a pre-planned attempt to rid an Empire of a fourth of its population isn't and has never been the norm. Read a history book and stop yapping.
Very good document
Will you guys make a South Asian series too?
This made me understand all more about Land and people. Can someone name the music in the background please?👍🏼🤯
Nevada City
There are a lot of little mistakes in parts about turkey
That's a question i often wonder about europe. What's the best compromise, for natural borders for all the european nations?
The best compromise would be on ethnic lines but there is an area of Majority of Hungarians living in Transylvania and it would be impossible to give Hungary that territory without forcing Romania to give up majority Romanian territory, that happens a lot like poles in Lviv and Bruxelles in Belgium
@@Finn_the_Cat in case of the hungarians there is no need to give them their old borders. Hungary is as good as it is.
European union effectively made it not important expect in Balkans
@gabrieled.r427 like I said the best compromise would be among ethnic lines not the kingdom of hungarys old borders as that had a lot of slavic majority land and Romanian however drawing off ethnic map only requires a little bit of territory off Slovenia Croatia Serbia Romania and Slovakia ultimately not amounting to a whole lot, how the EU pretty much nulls the idea because they can travel freely through borders anyway
@@gabrieled.r427ideally you could make ethnic lines for borders however that would require an American like union of states as all the disconnected portions that would end up would being made like Hungarians living in Transylvania would be unreachable if relations ever soured, basically everlasting peace like that is nearly untenable in the world at least today
can anybody tell me the name of the background music? I would be very grateful
Can you make a video on how Africa's borders should have been drawn during to avoid all the ethnic conflicts and instabilities which have happened in Africa.
Excellent.
Assyrian mini-episode…? Soon?
the region been always controlled by multiethnic empire back to 3000 years ago till 1900 Assyrian, Babylonian Roman/Byzantium, Persian, Arab Empires and Turk Empires so this kind of borders is new to the most Historical region on earth
The problem tho is that those Multiethnic Empires were Authoritarian, so most people were like “hey, we have no choice on who rules us”, but then Europeans Introduced Democracy to these multiethnic regions, which caused a ton of problems because everyone said “if we can choose our leaders then it should be us to rule”
@@safs3098 well first of all instead of intruduce the democracy to the middle east
European at that time have problem with second religion in Europe the jew problem the jew had been live in Europe for 2000 years and European could not built a multiethnic society and the kicked the jew from Europe in 1948 so if European democracy killed the jew in Europe, Moors, Chechnyaian Romani PPL and that's just 75 years ago
as middle eastern i will say thank you ill pass we still have historical religion dated back to 4000 years ago like Zerositain and Yazidi they mange to not convert or wiped out from the history like what happend to Slavic religion or hilinstic relegion or Viking religion
so again fixed your psychopaths society first
@@safs3098 and btw democracy of what of Germany in 1930 or USA before 1960 and the racism or who France killing 1 m Algerian to take there land or UK controlling India and it resources India in 1700 had 25% of the global economy left India with civil war and the poorest region on earth so this your democracy
taking our land and resources hahahhahahha but you need to know its not going to be for good cuz we will rise again we are the Cardel of civilization this is temporary situation
@@safs3098 Ottomans did try to become a Liberal Empire starting with the Tanzimat. Ottoman Liberalisation efforts started even prior to the Russian one. The problem was that the European nations were carving spheres of influences and it was the age of Imperialism, so that meant the Ottomans were not able to achieve much.
You forgot something. You know that Russia is the second oldest state in europe ?
This is extremely anti-Armenianly biased. The Shushi massacre was performed by Azeris in 1920, which led to the dominance of Azeri population in the old Armenian capital during the Soviet era.
This is an amazing video for a recap. If you know mostly. But it is not a good educational video cause it’s so fast. Then you tighten your market.
You use the term Raj several times when referring to British administration. I thought it referred specifically to colonial rule (not administration) over the Indian sub-continent? For example, colonies in Africa were not part of the Raj, nor indeed Singapore or Hong Kong.
24:06
That is an oximoron. Literally impossible. You can't say that "Jews are not equal" while also "they deserve self-determination and equal rights like every other nation". He wasn't a Zion ist. That is a lie.
Wow! It’s like a giant game of Chess. In the aftermath of War it was just a bunch of players moving pieces around, taking over an area just to have it taken away shortly thereafter. I knew the history bin the Middle East was complex and not made any easier due to British attempts to “fix” problems, but this is wild. Well presented and makes me want to learn more.
Love your stuff, would just like more map labels, regardless, awesome vid
Sand turns to glass when super heated. That is the only way to bring peace to the region.
Very noble of you
When Palestinians say they supported being a part of “Syria,” they weren’t referring to the modern state of Syria.
After the Romans renamed the Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel, along with its immediate borders (which encompassed areas of modern Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, & Iraq)…. The Romans divided the territory into two regions, Syria-Phoenicia and Syria-Palestina.
When the Arabian Empire conquered the region from the Romans (Byzantines), the Arabs renamed the area “Ballad Al Shem.” “Ballad Al Shem” literally means “Land of the Semites” in Arabic, which is also synonymous with the term “Syria” since before the Roman times. Ballad Al Shem united the two territories together into one territory. It was like that until the Turks conquered the region. Keep in mind that the people who lived there are the descendants of the people who lived there before. The Palestinians are genetically Canaanite and Israelite, the Lebanese are Phoenician and Canaanite, etc.
Not all of the “Jews” left the region after the Jewish revolts in the first two centuries. Most of them converted to Christianity and then to Islam during their respective eras.
You find evidence of this from archeology, history, and multiple genetic studies… which show a continuous presence on the land dating thousands of years.
Big W, thank you for speaking the truth.
I love how people think borders are a contributing factor to this problem. The levant area is a jumbled mess of tribes, religions, religious sects and ethnic groups. Not to mention 80% of it is desert so you have like 50 million people just along the west coast all cramped together trying to fight for the small piece of fertile and livable land there is. in the eastern side it's all mostly desert with one river going through and there's a better chance to just divide Iraq into 3, Shia south, Sunni triangle center and Kurdish north but the Shia aren't fully united either are the Sunnis and there is some divisions among the Kurds.
I think Europeans just said "fuck it" and just throw a bunch of people together and hope they sort their shit out.
Previously, those people have been held together by the islamic teligion wish stopped that nationalist idea and focus more about religious union and so Kurd and Arabs and Turk were along even though there was some confrontation some time.
We live in the post empire world, the power stduggles will go on for a long time after even today.
Idk why but I watched 5:22
This video and others suggest that no, new borders will not bring peace. The history of this area is almost all conflict (for thousands of years).
It's interesting how the term Allies overtook the original term Entente and how the term Central Powers overtook the term Triple Alliance. I found a 1964 thesis from an American university with the title "The Triple Entente and The Tiple Alliance".
Wow i somewhat understood great powers interference in the middle east but honestly I didn’t expect it to be to this extent…..just wow
But all people in the middle east know that. Maybe you unterstand now, why they alltogether hate the West.
Unfortunately they were divided up in an artificial way.
From 15/16 to 14/21 Ayo? More episodes
Ha, I'm maybe more interested in researching these than people are to watch them, but I haven't found a decent place to stop yet.
Formation of New Arab States, rise of Ataturk, WW2, Formation of Israel, Suez Crisis? So I've just pushed.
@@JabzyJoe I have to agree with you! As someone interested in the British Empires relationship with Arab leaders like in the Trucial states. Hejaz etc I’m living it up.
I wonder have you considered an episode on potential alternate boundaries like. ‘Here are frances ideal boundaries’ the Brits- Turks and Arabs etc.
Obviously it verges into the alternate history but would work with ‘could new borders being peace’ examining how different countries might approach it.
It must also be pointed out that the khalifat movement was also a move to counter the perceived threat of a Hindu ruled India. Hence later leading to the partition.
Unfortunately, it seems the region stretching from North Africa to Afghanistan is condemned to suffer the same growing pains as Europe as it developed into nation states. In addition the weapons of war have only increased in their deadliness.
The British- and French-controlled countries were divided by the Sykes-Picot line. The agreement allocated to the UK control of what is middle east country today
so many of these countries could have more leverage on the international scale if they united. the irony of fractionalizing to seek self-autonomy
Yeah well by that logic the whole world should unite. People just dont want to alot of the time. The best example is the completely useless Great War at this time.
Sweet - first non bot comment. Will report back.
The map of Caucauses has mistakes as it does not reflect the border changes.
good informative video , but I can speak regarding Libya history your information is not that exact
And importantly in the present context, not for an instant any kind of Palestinian national anything. Unlike the Jewish national claims. From this historical perspective, the so called Palestine geographical area was discussed as Arab only as a minor part of other countries (Jordan or Syria), never independently, and repeatedly dropped out of these possible unions with Jordan or Syria. That also makes it clear why after the 1948 Israel establishment war, any land captured by Jordan and Syria was naturally integrated into these countries, and no Arab considered these lands as a potential part of some other "Palestine" state. In short no idea of an independent Palestine state was even floating in the air before 1967.
I think you don’t understand yes you are right about the name Palestine but they just changed their name that’s why in reality they are 100% related to the old Israel the new one just stole the name aka the zionists
Pretty sure the planned number of total parts has doubled since the start of the series. That's the Middle East for you.
Chaim Weissman's name is pronounced, k'hayiiim (meaning life in hebrew), with the chet sound that exists in hebrew, turkish, persian, kurdish and some indo european langauges, and some dialects of arabic. Not ch-aim, like choochoo train, when ever you see a jewish name or hebrew word, that starts with Ch in english, this is a germanic Ch, not an english Ch deriving from norman french. Correcting because Chaim was a major player in middle east politics and I know you will likely make more videos where he pops up as a character
Given the border realities circa mid-1920s, the best settlement today would be to unite Jordan, Syria, West Bank & Gaza under Hashemite leadership & call it "Syria." This would be a return to what was expected after WWI.
May be, resettlement of Christian folks is also need.
Long-term peace must include garantee of security for Israel, and this is hard to imagine if Arabs are still majority in all this area.
Yes.
Why is Armenia getting access to sea through historical Georgian land? We forgot about Lazeti and Tao-Klarjeti?
The border between Armenia and Georgia was left undetermined (de jure); the Armenians did not lay claim onto Lazeti, although one should note that the area did harbour a partially Armenian population (Christian and Islamised Hamshen Armenians/Hemşinli). Tao is another question: Both Armenia and Georgia have historic ties to the region (the Armenians call it Tayk'). It was a culturally mixed region, although Armenians were dominant in the West.
No. Past behaviors are the best predictors for future behaviors. No, there will always be wars.
it is interesting turn of events really. When Armenians and French made atrocities, Turks escaped and every life was sparred. But when Turks made atrocities, they killed millions of Armenians. I did not know that. Thank you.
The Jordan Valley has long been one civilization. The Brits should not have created a Trans-Jordan or Palestine. In the current circumstances, Jordan should get Palestine, but the Israelis can keep 12,000 sq.km which largely corresponts to the ancient Kingdom of Israel + Jersualem. Thus Jordan would get the southern desert, Gaza, the entire Hebron-Beersheba River catchment, southern West Bank, Ramallah, and Jericho and the floor of the Jordan River Valley uo to its junction with the Yarmuk River. The primary dispute will be - should the Jerusalem border be Route 60 or the Security Barrier - the Old city lies between. Jordan thus gets the whole of the Jordan River where Israel has robbed it of water. Jordan will need to build a number of Desal plants near Gaza to make fresh water for Jordan and to restore flow in the Jordan River. Jordan would get the Job of managing the dead sea. The Hagia Sophia cathedral has been turned into a mosque, setting a precedent for Temple Mount.
Isreal hasn't robbed anything. It is their land.
This is nuts.
Durga Ibin Durga Durga defeated the French in Lebanon. I am SHOCKED!
"Killed by a monkey bite"
Truly the Turks were diabolical
I wished more people would at least go through this kind of intro to the Middle East before ‘taking sides’
Middle Eastern history is super complex post WW1
One the most diverse and complex regions there is
It was not peaceful before either.
Ah yes, assuming that ethnic homogeneity will lead to peace.
The roots of all these problems are in the Arab conquests of the 600s. Before then there wasn’t so much divisiveness in the Middle East. It was much more peaceful and homogeneous. There was much more religious and ethnic tolerance. The Arab conquest changed all that and we are still living with the ill effects of it today.
Wrong, before 600s there was Greeks, Assyrians Aramaics, March arabs, Iranians, Armenians, Romans, Nabataen arabs and bedeons. Some were pagans others were Christians (Coptic and Orthodox) some were Jewish others Zeroastrainism this applies on multiple different ethnicities at that time you could find an arab who's a Christian and an Arab who is a jew and another who is pagan
Agreed. They really fucked up everything. I can’t help but think how much more tolerant and more compatible with the west the Middle East would be if it wasn’t for Arab conquests and imperialism.
They are still doing it in africa and South Asia new conflicts arising with rise of communism and ethnonationalism
No, Dwyer did not "surround" protestors (44:05). The Amritsar Massacre is quite bad enough without making stuff up.
A gigabyte did not decide the fate of Turkey, rather, it was a monkey bite? History is strange indeed.
A video so videoing
Hint: if you need to travel to the region to find out who lives there and what they think you have absolutely zero business of drawing any boundaries.
"Both sides were at fault"
That is generally the case. Only mutual acceptance can free us from the cycle of violence.
I toiled over this question many a years and made countless maps in my younger years. There is certainly a way to make better borders... but no one solution will fit all the different regional people group's needs and desires. Then there is also the issue of nationalism that has been established from the people born in these false borders since their creation. I am interested to see what you propose though.
It would. European borders got stabilized the moment every nation got their own country.
Not even remotely true.
@@SkyGlitchGalaxyto an extend atleast. But as we see to this day, wars have many reasons
are you blind ?
@@burakahmettr8193 No, are you? Look at 🦃 for example. 40 years of ethnic conflict and billions of dollars of loss because Turkeys refuse to give Kurds their country
serbia and albania, croatia and bosnia-herzegovina.
As a arab i just want to say no if you give every arab culture there own country that'll make us more devidied rn we're all unified and we enjoy it but sunis and shiats can't live together I'm talking only for my country iraq that doesn't mean one should be kicked out of the country it really doesn't matter if someone is shiat or suni
And Christians, Jews and Muslims were able to live under Ottoman Rule till it's end...
The problem is not lines on a map , its arab/muslim mentality
Too many people have moved throughout the world to know where to make new borders peacefully. Don't worry people will figure it out through war. War is how borders were established in the beginning and will change the same way.
"Muhammad's religion was born by sword" . Really?