DOCSLIB.ORG

The Eastern Question Re-Examined

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Eastern Question Re-Examined A. L. Macfie. The Eastern Question, 1774-1923. London and New York: Longman, 1996. vii + 141 pp. $11.50, paper, ISBN 978-0-582-29195-9. Reviewed by Theophilus C. Prousis Published on HABSBURG (December, 1996) A. L. Macfie's concise survey of the complex tinued viability, a question of no small importance Eastern Question ably fulfills the objectives of in view of the Empire's strategic position astride Longman's Seminar Studies in History, a series of the Balkans, Near East, and eastern Mediter‐ brief introductory works on major themes in ranean. Dated conventionally from tsarist expan‐ British, European, and world history. The author's sion toward the Black Sea in the reign of Cather‐ expertise is in British and Middle Eastern history. ine the Great (1762-1796) to the demise of the Ot‐ He has published extensively on the Straits Ques‐ toman Empire in 1923, the Eastern Question re‐ tion, Great Power diplomacy in the late Ottoman volved around four intersecting issues: the de‐ period, and the formation of modern Turkey un‐ cline of the once-mighty Ottoman Empire, precipi‐ der Ataturk. The work under review lucidly ex‐ tated by military defeat and breakdown of admin‐ plains the intricate diplomacy of the Eastern istrative and fnancial institutions; the ultimate Question from the late eighteenth to the early failure of Ottoman modernizing reform to rejuve‐ twentieth centuries, and the primary sources in nate the "sick man of Europe," as the Ottoman the documents section illustrate perspectives and Empire came to be known in the nineteenth cen‐ issues addressed in the text. Students and scholars tury; the rise of nationalism among Ottoman sub‐ will fnd Macfie's succinct study a welcome intro‐ jects, especially Balkan Orthodox Christians, Arab duction to the more detailed and elaborate work Christians and Muslims, Armenians, and Turks; of Matthew S. Anderson, The Eastern Question, and the rivalries of the Great Powers (Britain, 1774-1923 (London, 1966), long considered a clas‐ France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy) sic in the feld of European and Near Eastern for commercial, diplomatic, political, and strategic diplomatic history. leverage in the Ottoman Near East. The Eastern Question is the term used in Macfie's chronological approach examines diplomatic and historical writing for the question Great Power involvement in the Near East from of the Ottoman Empire's political status and con‐ the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774 to the Treaty H-Net Reviews of Lausanne in 1923. Twelve short chapters treat agreements and promises made by Britain, such Eastern episodes as tsarist expansion in the France, Russia, and Italy regarding the partition Black Sea area, Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, the of Ottoman-ruled lands represented a departure Greek War of Independence, Mehmet Ali and the from traditional policy. In virtually every Eastern Egyptian Question, the Crimean War, the Eastern crisis until 1914, the Great Powers worked indi‐ Crisis of 1875-1878, the Bosnian Annexation of vidually or collectively to maintain the indepen‐ 1908, the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, the Great dence and integrity of the sultan's domains. De‐ War, and the Peace Settlement of 1918-1923. The spite frequent partition proposals put forth by documents section includes clauses of landmark diplomatic officials, the Great Powers generally treaties, such as Kutchuk-Kainardji (1774) be‐ adopted a defensive and conservative stance tween Russia and Ottoman Turkey; decrees by predicated on the goal of preserving a fragile bal‐ government ministries and committees on Great ance of power that included the "sick man of Eu‐ Power reactions to Eastern crises; and reports by rope." diplomatic and consular officials on the status of Nevertheless, the Great Powers took actions the Ottoman Empire. either individually or collectively that under‐ The strengths of Macfie's study are several. mined the status quo, exacerbated Ottoman de‐ The author clearly demonstrates that the Eastern cline, and made the balance of power more pre‐ Question actually embraced "many eastern ques‐ carious. British, French, and Russian naval action tions," most prominently the various territorial against the Ottoman feet at Navarino in 1827 arenas of Great Power competition. Imperial Rus‐ helped seal the victory of Greek independence. A sia and Austria-Hungary clashed in the Balkans; series of wars between Russia and Ottoman Tur‐ Britain and France were rivals in North Africa, key (1768-1774, 1787-1792, 1806-1812, 1828-1829, Egypt, and the Levant; Britain sought to maintain 1853-1856, 1877-1878) advanced Russia's trade unchallenged mastery over Mediterranean routes and strategic position in the Balkans and Con‐ to India; and Britain and Germany competed in stantinople. Britain's occupation of Cyprus and Ottoman Mesopotamia with the building of the Egypt, Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia- Berlin-Baghdad Railroad. All the Great Powers, Herzegovina, Italy's seizure of Tripolitania--such but especially Russia and Britain, struggled for in‐ were some of the blows struck by the Great Pow‐ fluence in Constantinople and the strategic water‐ ers against the Ottoman Empire. So perhaps ways of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles (the World War I agreements by the Triple Entente on Straits). the fate of the Ottoman Empire did not represent On the whole, the author is even-handed and a dramatic departure from the tradition of Great balanced in his treatment of Great Power strate‐ Power interference and territorial claims. gies and reactions. A good example is his judi‐ My few points of criticism are minor and do cious handling of the Franco-Russian quarrel over not detract from what is an exceptionally fne and the Holy Places in Jerusalem, a major dispute important work. For clarity and organization I which provoked the Crimean War, the only occa‐ would begin an exploration of the Eastern Ques‐ sion when an Eastern Question issue triggered a tion by specifying the various interests and aims European-wide conflict. Macfie sorts out the tan‐ of the Great Powers. These objectives eventually gled web of contradictory agreements by the emerge in the author's discussion of particular Triple Entente in the First World War, when the crises, but they need to be detailed or at least Ottoman Empire fought with Germany and Aus‐ identified early in the text. For instance, it is not tria-Hungary. We are reminded that conflicting until chapter 9 ("The First World War, 1914-1918") 2 H-Net Reviews that we fnd mention of Russia's "historic mission" Chapters 10 and 12, on the Peace Settlement and "age-old dream" to secure possession of Con‐ of 1918-1923 and the aftermath of the Eastern stantinople, "the source and inspiration of their Question, might have benefited from David [Russia's] Orthodox faith and culture."[1] Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of Any scholar who assumes the challenge of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Mod‐ crafting a succinct introduction to the Eastern ern Middle East (New York, 1989). Seeds of con‐ Question in eighty pages can hardly be expected temporary conflict in Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, to master all the available primary and secondary and Turkey were planted when Britain and sources, and A. L. Macfie is to be commended for France re-configured the post-Ottoman Middle his adept handling of works on British policy and East by creating new states, drawing new borders, strategy. His treatment of tsarist policy, however, and importing western political concepts. Cultural is not as sure or as nuanced as his sections on and political imperialism of this sort often disre‐ Britain or France. This observation is reinforced garded long-standing ethnic, religious, tribal, and by a glance at the author's bibliography, which linguistic frontiers in the Middle East. Ethnic and omits several recent as well as older studies of religious antagonisms in Turkey, Iraq, Bosnia, and tsarist activity in the Balkans and Near East.[2] Ot‐ Cyprus today comprise one of the bitter legacies toman decline sparked Balkan unrest and revolt, of Great Power diplomacy in the Eastern Ques‐ which threatened to embroil the Great Powers in tion. Macfie might have clarified why and how Eastern conflict, none more so than Russia in Europe's complicated relationship with the Ot‐ view of its geographical proximity and religious toman Empire serves as a bridge and a frame‐ ties to the Eastern Orthodox lands of the Near work for understanding unresolved questions East. Such crises as the Greek War of Indepen‐ and disputes which make up the Eastern Question dence and the Bosnian and Bulgarian revolts in‐ in its current phase. variably confronted the Russian government with Scholars and students of Eastern Question the dilemma of intervention or neutrality. Safe‐ history need to re-examine the subject in several guarding Orthodox Christians provided an oppor‐ ways. Traditional interpretations such as Macfie's tunity to advance imperial state interests, yet the focus almost exclusively on Great Power diploma‐ pursuit of strictly Russian national goals risked cy and geopolitical strategy and pay insufficient Great Power hostility, balance of power disrup‐ attention to trade, culture, education, religion, tion, and squandered resources in costly war and and philanthropy. These, too, were key facets of sacrifice. Eastern disturbances thus found Russia the Eastern Question for all the Great Powers. delicately poised between preserving the "sick Study of the Ottoman-European nexus requires a man of Europe," cooperating with other Great wide angle
Load more

Recommended publications
  • World War I Concept Learning Outline Objectives
    AP European History: Period 4.1 Teacher’s Edition World War I Concept Learning Outline Objectives I. Long-term causes of World War I 4.1.I.A INT-9 A. Rival alliances: Triple Alliance vs. Triple Entente SP-6/17/18 1. 1871: The balance of power of Europe was upset by the decisive Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War and the creation of the German Empire. a. Bismarck thereafter feared French revenge and negotiated treaties to isolate France. b. Bismarck also feared Russia, especially after the Congress of Berlin in 1878 when Russia blamed Germany for not gaining territory in the Balkans. 2. In 1879, the Dual Alliance emerged: Germany and Austria a. Bismarck sought to thwart Russian expansion. b. The Dual Alliance was based on German support for Austria in its struggle with Russia over expansion in the Balkans. c. This became a major feature of European diplomacy until the end of World War I. 3. Triple Alliance, 1881: Italy joined Germany and Austria Italy sought support for its imperialistic ambitions in the Mediterranean and Africa. 4. Russian-German Reinsurance Treaty, 1887 a. It promised the neutrality of both Germany and Russia if either country went to war with another country. b. Kaiser Wilhelm II refused to renew the reinsurance treaty after removing Bismarck in 1890. This can be seen as a huge diplomatic blunder; Russia wanted to renew it but now had no assurances it was safe from a German invasion. France courted Russia; the two became allies. Germany, now out of necessity, developed closer ties to Austria.
    [Show full text]
  • CAUSES of WORLD WAR I Objective: Analyze the Causes of World War I
    CAUSES of WORLD WAR I Objective: Analyze the causes of World War I. Do Now: What are some holidays during which people celebrate pride in their national heritage? Causes of World War I - MANIA M ilitarism – policy of building up strong military forces to prepare for war Alliances - agreements between nations to aid and protect one another ationalism – pride in or devotion to one’s Ncountry I mperialism – when one country takes over another country economically and politically Assassination – murder of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand Causes of WWI - Militarism Total Defense Expenditures for the Great Powers [Ger., A-H, It., Fr., Br., Rus.] in millions of £s (British pounds). 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1914 94 130 154 268 289 398 1910-1914 Increase in Defense Expenditures France 10% Britain 13% Russia 39% Germany 73% Causes of WWI - Alliances Triple Entente: Triple Alliance: Great Britain Germany France Austria-Hungary Russia Italy Causes of WWI - Nationalism Causes of WWI - Nationalism Pan-Germanism - movement to unify the people of all German speaking countries Germanic Countries Austria * Luxembourg Belgium Netherlands Denmark Norway Iceland Sweden Germany * Switzerland * Liechtenstein United * Kingdom * = German speaking country Causes of WWI - Nationalism Pan-Slavism - movement to unify all of the Slavic people Imperialism: European conquest of Africa Causes of WWI - Imperialism Causes of WWI - Imperialism The “Spark” Causes of WWI - Assassination Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand visited the city of Sarajevo in Bosnia – a country that was under the control of Austria. Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Duchess Sophie in Sarajevo, Bosnia, on June 28th, 1914. Causes of WWI - Assassination Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were killed in Bosnia by a Serbian nationalist who believed that Bosnia should belong to Serbia.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the British Invasion of Egypt (1882) Through the Lens of Victorian Party Politics
    Tarih Dergisi, Sayı 69 (2019/1), İstanbul 2019, s. 113-134 AN ANALYSIS OF THE BRITISH INVASION OF EGYPT (1882) THROUGH THE LENS OF VICTORIAN PARTY POLITICS Begüm Yıldızeli Dr. Öğr. Üyesi, Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü, Bilecik, Türkiye Abstract The British occupation of Egypt in 1882 meant a breakaway from the Anglo-French entente’s control over Ottoman financial system and the end of the Liberal Government’s ‘reluctant’ imperialism. When the Liberal ministry began in 1880, the cabinet immediately focused on foreign policies towards the Ottoman Empire subsequent to Gladstone’s campaign during the Bulgarian Agitation which had already turned out to be a party question. The protection of the Suez Canal as well as the interests of the British bondholders and the prestige of the British Empire was vital, which united the Liberal ministry and the Conservatives under the same purpose. Despite late Ottoman approval, the occupation signified the edge of Anglo-Ottoman alliance during the nineteenth century. This study will analyse why the Egyptian question is important for British party politics and to what extend the Anglo-Ottoman relations was affected with these circumstances. Keywords: Suez Canal, British Party Politics, Egypt, Urabi Pasha Öz VİKTORYA DÖNEMİ PARTİ SİYASETİ PERSPEKTİFİNDEN İNGİLİZLER’İN MISIR’I İŞGALİ (1882) ÜZERİNE BİR ANALİZ 1882 yılında İngilizler ’in Mısır’ı işgali gerek İngiliz Hükümeti’nin ‘gönülsüz’ emperyaliz- minin gerekse de Osmanlı ekonomisindeki
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 31 Notes: Societies at Crossroads
    Chapter 31 Notes: Societies at Crossroads Chapter Outline I. Introduction: Ottoman empire, Russia, China, and Japan A. Common problems 1. Military weakness, vulnerability to foreign threats 2. Internal weakness due to economic problems, financial difficulties, and corruption B. Reform efforts 1. Attempts at political and educational reform and at industrialization 2. Turned to western models C. Different results of reforms 1. Ottoman empire, Russia, and China unsuccessful; societies on the verge of collapse 2. Reform in Japan was more thorough; Japan emerged as an industrial power II. The Ottoman empire in decline A. The nature of decline 1. Military decline since the late seventeenth century a. Ottoman forces behind European armies in strategy, tactics, weaponry, training b. Janissary corps politically corrupt, undisciplined c. Provincial governors gained power, private armies 2. Extensive territorial losses in nineteenth century a. Lost Caucasus and central Asia to Russia; western frontiers to Austria; Balkan provinces to Greece and Serbia b. Egypt gained autonomy after Napoleon's failed campaign in 1798 (a) Egyptian general Muhammad Ali built a powerful, modern army (b) Ali's army threatened Ottomans, made Egypt an autonomous province 3. Economic difficulties began in seventeenth century a. Less trade through empire as Europeans shifted to the Atlantic Ocean basin b. Exported raw materials, imported European manufactured goods c. Heavily depended on foreign loans, half of the revenues paid to loan interest d. Foreigners began to administer the debts of the Ottoman state by 1882 4. The "capitulations": European domination of Ottoman economy a. Extraterritoriality: Europeans exempt from Ottoman law within the empire b.
    [Show full text]
  • New Perspectives on the Eastern Question(S) in Late-Victorian Britain, Or How „The Eastern Question‟ Affected British Politics (1881-1901).1
    Stéphanie Prévost. New perspectives on the Eastern Question(s) New perspectives on the Eastern Question(s) in Late-Victorian Britain, Or How „the Eastern Question‟ Affected British Politics (1881-1901).1 Stéphanie Prévost, LARCA, Université Paris-Diderot Keywords: Eastern Question, Gladstonian Liberalism, social movements, Eastern Question historiography. Mots-clés : Question d‘Orient, libéralisme gladstonien, mouvements sociaux, historiographie. In 1921, in the preface to Edouard Driault‘s second edition of La Question d’Orient depuis ses origines jusqu’à la paix de Sèvres, a work originally published in 1898, French historian Gabriel Monod postulated that ―the Eastern Question was the key issue in European politics‖ (v). In his 1996 concise introductory The Eastern Question, 1774-1923, Alexander L. Macfie similarly stated that ―for more than a century and a half, from the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-74 to the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923, the Eastern Question, the Question of what should become of the Ottoman Empire, then in decline, played a significant, and even at times a dominant, part in shaping the relations of the Great Powers‖ (1). Undoubtedly, the Eastern Question has always been deeply rooted in the intricacies of European diplomacy, more obviously so from the Crimean War onwards. After an almost three-year conflict (1853-6) first opposing Russia to the Ottoman Empire, then supported by France, Britain, Sardinia, Austria and Hungary, belligerents drafted peace conditions. The preamble to the 30 March, 1856 Treaty of Paris made the preservation of Ottoman territorial integrity and independence a sine qua non condition to any settlement – which was taken up in Article VII of the treaty as a collective guarantee.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Turks and Europe by Gaston Gaillard London: Thomas Murby & Co
    THE TURKS AND EUROPE BY GASTON GAILLARD LONDON: THOMAS MURBY & CO. 1 FLEET LANE, E.C. 1921 1 vi CONTENTS PAGES VI. THE TREATY WITH TURKEY: Mustafa Kemal’s Protest—Protests of Ahmed Riza and Galib Kemaly— Protest of the Indian Caliphate Delegation—Survey of the Treaty—The Turkish Press and the Treaty—Jafar Tayar at Adrianople—Operations of the Government Forces against the Nationalists—French Armistice in Cilicia—Mustafa Kemal’s Operations—Greek Operations in Asia Minor— The Ottoman Delegation’s Observations at the Peace Conference—The Allies’ Answer—Greek Operations in Thrace—The Ottoman Government decides to sign the Treaty—Italo-Greek Incident, and Protests of Armenia, Yugo-Slavia, and King Hussein—Signature of the Treaty – 169—271 VII. THE DISMEMBERMENT OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE: 1. The Turco-Armenian Question - 274—304 2. The Pan-Turanian and Pan-Arabian Movements: Origin of Pan-Turanism—The Turks and the Arabs—The Hejaz—The Emir Feisal—The Question of Syria—French Operations in Syria— Restoration of Greater Lebanon—The Arabian World and the Caliphate—The Part played by Islam - 304—356 VIII. THE MOSLEMS OF THE FORMER RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND TURKEY: The Republic of Northern Caucasus—Georgia and Azerbaïjan—The Bolshevists in the Republics of Caucasus and of the Transcaspian Isthmus—Armenians and Moslems - 357—369 IX. TURKEY AND THE SLAVS: Slavs versus Turks—Constantinople and Russia - 370—408 2 THE TURKS AND EUROPE I THE TURKS The peoples who speak the various Turkish dialects and who bear the generic name of Turcomans, or Turco-Tatars, are distributed over huge territories occupying nearly half of Asia and an important part of Eastern Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • World War I 1914-1918
    A Significant War Over 16 million people died in WWI and over 20 million were wounded, totaling over 37 million. There are 317 million people in the United States today. That means, that if the casualties from WWI were applied to the United States today, one in every nine people would be dead or wounded. That is how much of an impact this war had on the world, especially Europe, and why it is important to know and understand. World War I What was the correlation between the Age of Imperialism and the outbreak of World War I? Long Term Causes Militarism- Glorifying Military Power Keeping a large standing army prepared for war Arms race for military technology Long Term Causes Nationalism- Deep Devotion to One’s Nation Competition and Rivalry developed between European nations for territory and markets (Example France and Germany- Alsace-Lorraine) Long Term Causes Imperialism- European competition for colonies Quest for colonies often almost led to war Imperialism led to rivalry and mistrust amongst European nations Long Term Causes Alliance System- Designed to keep peace in Europe, instead pushed continent towards war Many Alliances made in secret By 1907 two major alliances: Triple Alliance and Triple Entente The Two Sides Triple Alliance Triple Entente Germany England Austria-Hungary France Italy Russia Central Powers Allied Powers Germany England, France, Austria-Hungary Russia, United Ottoman Empire States, Italy, Serbia, Belgium, Switzerland Game of Allegiance Did it get confusing trying to keep your allegiances
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and the Crimean War, 1853-1856
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1972 The nitU ed States and the Crimean War, 1853-1856. William F. Liebler University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Liebler, William F., "The nitU ed States and the Crimean War, 1853-1856." (1972). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1319. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1319 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UNITED STATES and the CRIMEAN WAR 1853 - 1856 A Dissertation Presented By William F. Liebler Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in for the degree of partial fulfillment of the requirements DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ^972 September ^ ^^onth) {year) Major Subject History 11 (C) William Frederick Liebler 1972 All Rights Reserved 111• • • THE UNITED STATES and the CRIMEAN WAR 1853 - 1856 A Dissertation By William F. Liebler Approved as to style and content by; Sep tejTiber 1972 n[mbnth) ~ TJear) CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I 1 CHAPTER II 28 CHAPTER III CHAPTER IV 77 CHAPTER V 101 CHAPTER VI 126 CHAPTER VII 153 CHAPTER VIII 165 CHAPTER IX 202 CHAPTER X 251 CHAPTER XI 258 CONCLUSION 291 NOTES 504 BIBLIOGRAPHY 519 CHAPTER I The first link in the chain of events leading up to the Crimean War was a dispute between Catholic and Ortho- dox monks over the custody of the Holy Places of the Chris- tian religion in Jerusalem.
    [Show full text]
  • The Autonomy of Åland: a Reflexion of International and Constitutional Law
    THE AUTONOMY OF ÅLAND: A REFLEXION OF INTERNATIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW By Christer Janson, Chief Legislative Officer, Åland Provincial Government 1. The historical background of the autonomy of lland ' . _ , Aland has had af Swedish population at least since the sixth century A.D. For this reason Aland, when the Kingdom of Sweden was formed, from the very beginning was a part of that country. The population of the Finnish mainland however was probably already at that time of Finnish origin. Only after the Swedish conquest of Finland during the thirteenth century Swedes started to settle in the coastal regions of .Finland. When the Swedish domination in Finland had been consolidated and Finland been made a part of the Kingdom of Sweden Aland was in some administrative, judicial and ecclesiastical respect made a part of the Abo (Turku) region. The reasons for this were purely practical and had no constitutional significance since Finland was an integrated part of the Kingdom of Sweden. In the seventeenth century Sweden was a superpower in the Baltic region. During the eighteenth century its significance diminished. Eventually Finland and Aland were lost to Russia through the peace treaty of Fredrikshamn (Hamina) in 1809. During the Crimean War 1853-56 the Russian fortress Bomarsund in Aland was destroyed by English and French fleets. At the peace negotiations Sweden who had stayed neutral during the war claimed Aland back to Sweden. However, Russia refused to give up Aland. On the other hand Russia was forced to commit itself not to build any fortifications in Aland (the so-called Aland Islands Servitude).
    [Show full text]
  • Anglo-French Relations in Syria: from Entente Cordiale to Sykes-Picot a Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Arts A
    Anglo-French Relations in Syria: From Entente Cordiale to Sykes-Picot A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts James L. Bowman May 2020 © 2020 James L. Bowman. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Anglo-French Relations in Syria: From Entente Cordiale to Sykes-Picot by JAMES L. BOWMAN has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by Peter John Brobst Associate Professor of History Florenz Plassmann Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 Abstract BOWMAN, JAMES L., M.A., May 2020, History Anglo-French Relations in Syria: From Entente Cordiale to Sykes-Picot Director of Thesis: Peter John Brobst Though the Entente Cordiale of 8 April, 1904 addressed several outstanding imperial tensions between the British Empire and the French Third Republic, other imperial disputes remained unresolved in the lead-up to World War I. This thesis explores Anglo-French tensions in Ottoman Syria, from the signing of the Entente to the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916. Syria proved to be a cause of frictions that brought many buried Anglo-French resentments back to the surface and created new ones. Cultural, strategic, and economic interests were at stake, interests which weighed heavily upon the Entente powers and which could not easily be forgone for the sake of ‘cordiality’. This thesis presents evidence that unresolved Anglo-French tensions in Syria raised serious concerns among officials of both empires as to the larger future of their Entente, and that even after the Entente joined in war against their common enemies, such doubts persisted.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict and Tension 1894 – 1918
    Conflict and tension 1894 – 1918 Wider world depth study Revision workbook Acklam Grange History department 60 minutes 4 questions to answer. Total of 44 marks. Q1. This source supports …….How do you know? 4 marks Q2.How useful are sources B and C ……..12 marks Q3. Write an account of a crisis………8 marks Q4.The main reason for………was….How far do you agree? 16 marks + 4 SPaG Author: Mrs G Galloway Name: What you need to know Part One – The causes of the First World War The Alliance system including: The Triple Alliance, the Franco – Russian Alliance and the relations between the Entente powers. The crises in Morocco and the Balkans (1905 – 1912) and their effects on international relations. Britain and the challenges to splendid isolation. Kaiser Wilhelm’s aims in foreign policy, including Weltpolitik. Colonial tensions European rearmament, including the Anglo-German naval race. Slav nationalism and relations between Serbia and Austria- Hungary The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo and its consequences The July crisis Timeline 1870 Franco-Prussian war. France was defeated. Germany as a country was created. Alsace and Lorraine were taken from France. To try and protect Germany from a revenge attack by France Germany entered into an alliance with Austria- Hungary and Italy (Triple Alliance) Early 1900s Anglo-German naval race. 1906 Britain launches the HMS Dreadnought. All countries in Europe also building up their arms 1905 First Moroccan Crisis – led to the humiliation of the Kaiser and the creation of the Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia. Although not intended as a military alliance Germany felt threatened as it was surrounded by hostile neighbours.
    [Show full text]
  • Militarism Alliances Nationalism Imperialism Assassination Causes
    Year 8 Learn Sheet The causes of the First World War can best be summed up with the acronym: Exam Week 4 The Causes of the First World War Remember, you could be assessed on any topic you MANIA have studied this year! Militarism Alliances Nationalism Imperialism Assassination Causes that were around a Causes that were around a few ‘Trigger’ causes that exploded long time before war started years before war started into war Nationalism Militarism Assassination At the time of the industrial revolution people had As tensions grew between countries, governments felt The stage was set for a massive war in the attitude that their country had to be the best; very defensive; Europe, but it needed a something to ‘pull Britain had the biggest navy and empire in the Britain was afraid that Germany would build a navy the trigger’; world, and was the richest; that was bigger than theirs – so they designed a new Someone really did pull a trigger when a Germany had only been a country since 1871 so battleship called the Dreadnought. By 1914 Britain had Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, shot wanted to prove itself to the world; 38 Dreadnoughts, but Germany was catching up with dead Archduke Franz Ferdinand on the th France traditionally had the best army; 24! This competition was called an ‘arms race’; 28 June 1914; Russia had the biggest population; In case of a war with France and Russia, Germany came The Archduke was visiting Sarajevo, the And countries like Serbia and Belgium didn’t want up with the ‘Schlieffen Plan’ = invade France through capital city of Bosnia, the area that to be bossed around by bigger ones! Belgium, win quickly, and then turn attention to Russia.
    [Show full text]