Best turkey history books according to redditors
We found 261 Reddit comments discussing the best turkey history books. We ranked the 78 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 261 Reddit comments discussing the best turkey history books. We ranked the 78 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
You serious? Because the British literally selected the tribal leader Ibn Saud and gave him control of what we now call Saudi Arabia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#Rise_to_power
The Brits mistakenly believed that the King of Mecca was like a Muslim pope and everyone would fall in line behind him. So they created the boundary lines for Iraq and Jordan and placed his sons on the thrones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_bin_Ali,_Sharif_of_Mecca#Following_World_War_I
The founding of Israel was guaranteed by ex prime minister Balfour and later the Sykes-Picot agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
Suggested reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453911664&sr=1-1&keywords=a+peace+to+end+all+peace
http://www.amazon.com/Kingmakers-Invention-Modern-Middle-East/dp/0393337707
Hopefully someone can chime in with a more complete answer on this, but I believe answer is yes. During the Greco-Turkish war Greece got a bit uppity because they thought that they had the full support of the Allies despite being a relatively weak nation. They attempted to steal a bunch of territory from the fledgling state of Turkey. Turkey pushed them back and managed to retake all of the land claimed by Greece in their initial conquest. At the end of that war there was a massive population exchange in which all of the "Turks" were evicted from Greece and sent to Turkey and all of the "Greeks" were evicted from Turkey and sent to Greece. To me this exchange of populations suggests that both Turkey and Greece were interested in expanding their territories further but decided it was easier to just accept things as they were and switch around the controversial portions of their populations.
Despite the population exchange, the Turks and the Greeks still lived in close quarters in Cyprus because Cyprus was, and still is, an independent nation; except for Northern Cyprus which was claimed by the Turks following the 1974 coup in Cyprus. The Turks claimed that they took over the territory in an effort to protect the Turks that were living on the island, but to this day they have never given back the land they took over which implies that they were interested in more than protecting the Turkish Cypriots.
It is also important to remember that the original Turks were mainly Ottomans who were used to living in a massive empire. Many of those that went on to create and fight for Turkey had fought throughout the Middle East in WWI trying to defend the Ottoman Empire. The diaries of many ex-Ottoman officers have shown that they were loyal to the empire until the very end. So I don't think it is unlikely that during the establishment of Turkey there would have been feelings of resentment towards the Allies and a desire to procure more land and reestablish the mighty Ottoman Empire.
For a succinct overview of the Turkish history mentioned here I would check out chapters 10 and 14 of Cleveland and Bunton's A History of the Modern Middle East. For more insights into how Ottoman military officers felt about the empire during and after WWI I recommend Leila Parson's The Commander.
Can we stop spreading this misinformation please?
I keep hearing this and its flat out not true and I hate that it keeps getting brought up.
The vast majority of Arabs did not fight against the Ottomans, they fought for the Ottomans. Did you all really think the Ottoman Army consisted of only Turkish soldiers? 1/3 of the Ottoman military consisted of Arab officers and soldiers. Many of them fought against the British at Galipoli and in Iraq, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. Unless you're talking about members of the Jordanian or Saudi Royal Family, or are affiliated with them, most Arabs did not fight against the Ottomans. Hell, even the Saudis didn't directly fight against the Ottomans until well towards the end of the war, since most of the anti-Ottoman fighting was done by the Hashemite family.
The majority of Arabs fought for the Ottomans, despite the fact that Enver Pasha (the guy responsible for the Armenian Genocide), arrested, tortured, and executed many innocent Arabs because of his own paranoia that they were somehow plotting to have him killed. In fact, we didn't learn until much later that there was no major movement to overthrow the Ottomans in favor of an Arab nationalist government. In fact, even after the Ottoman Empire was defeated, there were many Arabs who were working hard to expel the British and return back to the Ottoman Empire, but when the Mustafa Kemal declared a Turkish Republic in 1923, and all hopes of returning were lost, and that is when we started to see Arab Nationalism really start to take off as an anti-Imperialist movement.
I'm an Indian and let's not forget, that many Indian soldiers, Muslims included did fight against the Ottoman Empire. The explanation that was given to them by their British commanders were that they weren't fighting to overthrow the Caliphate, but to free it from those who have "taken the Sultan hostage" (i.e., the Three Pashas and The Young Turks).
If you want me to recommend one, let's start with this one.
A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin
The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire, 1516-1918 by Bruce Masters
More information:
The forgotten Arabs of Gallipoli | Al Jazeera
If you want to learn more about the history of the Ottoman Empire, its life, culture and the people that made up the Empire, then I suggest you subscribe to:
The Ottoman History Podcast
where they actually interview historians and experts in the field.
The decline of the Ottoman Empire can be traced back as early as the 1600's. The peak of the empire is often considered to have happened in 1520-1566 under Sulaiman the Magnificent and gradually declined in power from this point onward. Like all complex situations, there were several issues that caused the decline of the Ottoman Empire but I will be only examining economics and military aspects related to actions with Europe. I gathered my information from Peter Mansfield's book, 'A History of the Middel East'.
During the medieval era, Europe experienced a time of both economic and social stagnation. This was not the case in areas controlled by the Ottoman Empire (most of which is geographically considered the Middle East). Reasons for Ottoman dominance can be traced to the powerful system the sultans maintained over their empire. Sultans held great power and used it to create a strict institution based on the preservation of Ottoman culture. With little political resistance against the sultan, he was allowed to keep the empire on track and prosperous while neighboring European countries were lost in disorganization.
Mansfield argued that the tide of dominance between the Ottoman Empire and Europe begins to change in the 1600's because of the emergence of capitalism. Feudal societies are often attributed as the first steps towards modern capitalism and could be seen in effect in many places throughout Europe. The Ottoman Empire did not begin this development as early as Europe because of overconfidence amongst the Arab and Turkish people and also because of the rigid and ultra-conservative control by the sultans. Throughout the centuries, the Ottoman Empire began to decline in economic terms compared to Europe and its more efficient capitalist system. In order to reverse this trend, Ottoman sultans attempted to open up the Turkish economy for European investors. Many deals, known as the Capitulations, were made with European nations that allowed European merchants to move more freely within the Ottoman Empire. Examples of certain Capitulations includes European citizens not being help to laws in the empire ( which operated mostly under Sharia law) and paying very few taxes.
Mansfield concluded that through economic means Europe was able to peacefully infiltrate into an empire that they saw as hostile and slowly weaken it. Europe was able to further outpace the empire because of the one-sided trade environment that was created. It also didn't help that many European merchants abused the Capitulations by breaking laws or avoiding the minuscule tax all together. By the 1900's, the Ottoman Empire was only able to continue to exist because of European nations propping it up. The empire was able to last until the end of the First World War because European powers feared its collapse would cause a power vacuum which would lead to a sort of European civil war. After WWI this sort of became irrelevant because of Germany's collapse. France and Britain also wanted land holdings in the Middle East and had no moral problems carving up their vanquished Ottoman foe into different spheres through the Sykes-Picot agreement.
As a matter of fact, yes! David Fromkin wrote a wonderful book on the subject, "A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East." It is engaging and very informative!
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091
Thank you everyone for the laughs and the subtle concern. As mentioned here, I've been incredibly busy. This is all good stuff and I'm truly blessed. A few of the goings on:
Once more, thank you all for the laughs and subtle concern. Thank you /u/linuxuser86 for making this post. If any of you have questions please email me any time: [email protected]
First of all, the first thing to ask should be: "Why should they have tried?" European powers explored and expanded their empire did it to gain something Ottomans already had: Some control over spice trade that was flowing over Egypt. Portugese discovered America while trying to create trade routes to India and China. Their biggest motivation was to get the control of Egypt and Holy Lands, which Ottomans already did.
Second, historians always downplayed the Ottoman efforts of "exploration" in the Indian Ocean, since there was little attention and knowledge on the issue. But recently historians realized that Ottomans did not sit on their butt during the age of exploration. For example, they involved in a huge struggle against Portugese in Indian Ocean, in a great region included Madagascar, Swahili, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, India and even Indonesia (Aceh). They have disrupted Portugese trade and hegemony in the region. They even tried to create a global alliance of Islamic world, and they have used the authority of caliphate very wisely. You see elements of Ottoman regime everywhere in the region during 16th century. You see Ottoman ships fighting against Portugese even around Indonesia.
But most crucial part was(repeating what I already set): Ottoman Empire already hold positions that Portugese and other European powers wanted to hold. Ottoman efforts were mostly directed towards protecting these positions. Discovery and colonizing of Americas were a side product of this struggle and was an accident (which turned out to be a game changer accident)) There is a reason why Columbus was disappointed when he realized he in fact found a new continent, not went to Asia, and he insisted for a long time he reached Asia.
One problem for Ottomans during this time was they had many frontiers to focus. They had one epic struggle against European powers in Mediterranean Sea(Venice & league of christian nations). They had to struggle against Austrian Empire. They had to struggle against Persian Empire on the east. Indian Ocean was the least important frontier for them during 16th and 17th century, other frontiers were more about the existence of the empire whereas Indian Ocean was about profits. All the enemies had to focus on one of these frontiers most of the time, which made everything extremely difficult for the Empire. Depending on the Sultan and viziers of the time, struggle in Indian Oceans gained more attention or was not seen as important. This fact caused lack of consistency of Ottoman actions against Portugese in a vast geography.
And here is a wonderful book to read, written by a smart academician:
http://www.amazon.com/Ottoman-Age-Exploration-Giancarlo-Casale/dp/0199874042/ref=la_B003BWYZZU_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347656608&sr=1-1
There is a version of book on scribd (http://www.scribd.com/doc/79042382/The-Ottoman-Age-of-Exploration-Giancarlo-Casale). I can't recommend that book enough, please buy it if you can. It is interesting for everyone whether a historian or someone with little knowledge; and written in a clever way.
I understand this is reddit but, Honestly are you just repeating what you have heard people say or do you understand how guerrilla warfare and insurgencies work and their history? There is a vast amount of material to study on this subject and many history lessons (https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Armies-History-Guerrilla-Warfare-ebook/dp/B007P9M034) <great book on the subject and multiple expanses of how extremely hard insurgencies are to fight and why governments usually always lose in them including the United States. If the US military wanted to destroy the entire country and have just ashes left then yes they could win but, thats not what would happen and history shows us that. Tyrannical rulers do not want to rule over ashes.
Can you identify and address the moral, cultural, geographical, economic, and infrastructural problems the US government would face if it turned on its own armed populace?
A few examples would be...
Do you think our volunteer army (composed of citizens) would actually kill their fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, and fellow veterans just because they were ordered to (especially when most are there just to get a few years in and free college) ?
The US military only needs to lose 20% of its man power to become seriously degraded and at 30% becomes combat ineffective (source below). That means only 2/10 people would have to refuse to fight. If we can use Vietnam as a comparison for the unwillingness to fight an unjust war then, we know the tyrannical US government would be facing major problems right there
https://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/us-military-power/
Would the militaries civilian contractors and logistics arm continue to do the same?
Would regular citizens continue to produce the massive commercial productions of oil, food, munitions, etc... that are helping fuel the military that is killing and/or oppressing their own families?
According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey – the leading source of international public information about firearms – the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 90 firearms for every 100 resident. Do you know the history of governments trying to fight an insurgency that is way less armed (from your comment, you do not)?
Can you explain why the United States has never been able to win a counter insurgency war but, for some reason you think they would be able to win the one against their own populace which is heavier armed and more well trained than any in the history of warfare?
Nobody is denying that thousands of Armenians have died, BUT not with the intention of massacring them. Most of them died due to starving and sickness. There were also some massacres in some villages, but has nothing to do with the government. The government never tried to massacre anybody. The reason for this all was caused by the Armenians by themselves, cause during the World War I they allied with the Russians and started invading villages, such as the city of Van. All of this forced the government to relocate them, and not all of them, those living in the East.
If you don't believe what I say, or any Turk say, please then believe scientists/historians.
The most important expert in Middle East history from Princeton Bernard Lewis. Or from Oxford Norman Stone. Look up Justin McCarthy's lectures on Youtube, who shows you it. There are multiple other professors from famous universities (and I am not naming one Turkish source). Read Guenter Lewy's book who himself is a Jew. And someone posted here this link a while ago. Here you can read proofs from a professional french historian:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/52kppi/clarifications_about_the_armenian_genocide_claims/?st=it1x9zhz&amp;sh=24d56c00
Short answer: no.
Slightly longer answer: The radicalization of Islam in the Middle East ties into the division of the region by the western powers after WWI, and further during the Cold War, when the U.S. (not only, but in particular) supported the rise to power of radical religious figures in opposition to communist/leftist parties & figures who might be sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and therefore potentially threaten U.S./U.K. access to oil in the region. This included aiding in the over-throwing of democratically elected governments in favor of autocratic but U.S./U.K.-favored leaders - most notably the U.S.-led 1953 coup d'etat in Iran, when Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown. The 1978 Iranian Revolution began as a popular uprising against the Shah who replaced him.
For more extensive reading on the subject:
Inventing Iraq by Toby Dodge (I have some major issues with Dodge's conclusions post 9/11, but the historical analysis that makes up the majority of the book is solid)
Spies in Arabia by Priya Satia, and Lawrence in Arabia are good histories of imperial ambition during the WWI period and its after-effects
Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan for the political maneuvering of the Western powers
A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin
I also recommend Edward Said, if you're looking for cultural analysis as well as history
Guenter Lewy, a Holocaust survivor and Professor Emeritus of Political Science, successfully sued the SPLC after an Armenian employee convinced an editor to write an article claiming Lewy was “part of a network of persons, financed by the Turkish government, to promote the denial of the Armenian Genocide.” In settlement, the SPLC entirely retracted their claims and apologized.
His 2006 book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide refutes most of the arguments Armenians have used to promote their genocide allegations.
C-SPAN Book Discussion
Solarz: To what extent was the seizure of Van, and the Turks who were killed by the Armenians, the development which precipitated the deportation decision?
Lewy: At the Paris Peace Conference, the Armenians bragged that the uprising of Van had distracted entire Turkish divisions, who had to be removed from the Caucasus Front back to Van to suppress the uprising. There’s no question that this was a seminal event in reaching the decision for deportation.
Interview
Lewy talks about how most non-Armenian, non-Turkish scholars of Ottoman history do not accept the Armenian version of events.
A Peace to End all Peace by historian David Fromkin covers this in great detail. It's a great read if you want to be sad and angry and confused.
Instead of stepping on a possible landmine, I'd recommend asking her about it to learn as much as you can from her. The national narrative differs quite a bit from most books.
So you've got the standard Fromkin:
A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation-ebook/dp/B003X27L7C/
Karen House as an overview:
http://www.amazon.com/On-Saudi-Arabia-People-Religion-ebook/dp/B007MDK5GM/
Then you've got the . . . interesting take on it from Alexei Vassiliev.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Saudi-Arabia-Alexei-Vassiliev-ebook/dp/B00F21X5Y0/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
There's more stuff but that should give a fairly comprehensive overview for what you're looking on.
> And I cannot join together the image of a relatively peaceful religion of pretty great people (which I say really without any irony or quote marks) with all the wars that are caused by Islam itself and by its internal differences.
Christianity went through pretty much the same phase, but even more violent and bloody. And unlike the Muslim world, it wasn't precipitated by external forces meddling in internal political affairs. It just spontaneously happened.
I suggest reading this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091
Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting in Iraq because of greed, a massive political power vacuum, and the spark that ignited the blaze was Al-Qaeda in Iraq (now ISIS) targeting Shi'ites and their Mosques for attacks, purposefully stoking a civil war (so they could have a chance at seizing control once the civil war took down the government and chased out the US... they wanted to rule over the ashes of Iraq). It failed because the US got the Sunnis to turn on the extremists (the Sunni Awakening). But then Syria collapsed into civil war, so the Iraqi insurgents went there and reorganized, took land, then swept back into Iraq.
A modern Western country could wipe ISIS off the face of the Earth in a ground campaign in probably a few weeks (or less if they were willing to put up with a few casualties). I think they'd prefer just watching what happens and bombing from afar (even when their own citizens become targets of ISIS, desperately trying to get the people behind the bombers to engage them on the ground so they can actually shoot back at them).
The Sunni-Shi'ite conflict in Syria/Iraq played into the pre-existing wider regional conflict between Iran and Saudi-Arabia with Iran's influence extending over Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and the Assad government in Syria (as well as the Shi'ites in Iraq and Shi'ite minorities in the Persian Gulf). This conflict has been raging since 1979 after Iran's Islamic Revolution (watch the intro to the movie Argo for background on that), after which the CIA instigated their man in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, to fight Iran in a disastrous decade-long conflict.
Sunnis and Shi'ites, like Protestants and Catholics, don't usually just fight and aren't usually at each other's throats but if the situation pushes them enough, they will turn on each other (see: Northern Ireland, which was in modern times, not centuries ago).
This is an extreme simplification.
>We didn't kill the Armenians because they were Armenians or because we wanted to exterminate their whole race like Hitler, but because it was war and they were our enemies.
People such as Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter, who was an early member of the Nazi Party, and Hans von Seeckt spent time in Ottoman Turkey and drew inspiration from what was happening. Even Rudolf Höss, who would later be the commandant of Auschwitz, was there. He joined the German forces in Turkey.
Yes, there was an armed Armenian insurgency, but the Turks responded to that but going to every single Armenian village and slaughtering every single Armenian they could get their hands on, without respect to age or gender. The vast majority of which had absolutely nothing to do with that insurrection. Turkish soldiers took babies and bashed their brains out on rocks. They enticed the help of the Kurds in carrying away the women to be raped. Railways and cattle cars were used to transport Armenian people from one end of the empire to the other, which shares parallels with the trains used to transport Jews to death and labour camps.
Enver Pasha told Henry Morgenthau that the Armenians were being sent to "new quarters", just as the Jews were latter to be "resettled".
Morgenthau himself stated: "Persecutions of Armenians assuming unprecedented proportions. Reports from widely scattered districts indicate systematic attempt to uproot peaceful Armenian populations and through arbitrary arrests, terrible tortures, whole-sale expulsions and deportations from one end of the Empire to the other accompanied by frequent instances of rape, pillage, and murder, turning into massacre, to bring destruction on them. These measures are not in response to popular or fanatical demand but are purely arbitrary and directed from Constantinople in the name of military necessity, often in districts where no military operations are likely to take place."
Furthermore, Taalat Pasha said this in an official document to his prefect: "You have already been advised that the Government, by order of the Djemiet, has decided to destroy completely all the indicated persons [Armenians] living in Turkey.
Their existence must come to an end, however tragic the means may be; and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to conscientious scruples."
How on earth can you describe this as anything other than genocide?
EDIT: In case you think that Morgenthau's account is not credible since he was representing a country at war with the Ottoman Empire, I point you towards von Wagenheim, a German ambassador who lead a diplomatic mission to the Ottoman Empire, who recounted that Talat had admitted that the deportations were not "being carried out because of 'military considerations alone'". One month later, he came to the conclusion that there "no longer was doubt that the Porte was trying to exterminate the Armenian race in the Turkish Empire"
A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East
Thanks to DrPoop_PhD
I don't see how its relevant to the topic at hand, but here you go some good books on the topic, let me know if want any other suggestions.
A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide
Great Catastrophe: Armenians and Turks in the Shadow of Genocide
A Peace to End all Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East
Fall of the Ottomans:The Great War in the Middle East
Israeli history Professor Shlomo Sand The Invention of the Jewish People https://www.amazon.co.uk/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234
Ashkenazi Jews originated in the Caucasus and converted to Judaism in the 8th Century AD. They have no ancestral and no DNA relationship to the Middle East.
First Customer Review:-
A thorough and interesting update on 'The Khazar Hypothesis'. In this book Shlomo Sand goes into considerable detail about the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews, providing considerable support for the view that they are of Khazar origin, and are a Slavic, not a Semitic people.
Arthur Koestler's pioneering book, 'The Thirteenth Tribe' from 1976 was subjected to all the ire that the powerful Israeli propaganda machine could throw at it. Sand's book is much better researched, and written in a less provocative manner.
More on the Origins of Ashkenazi Jews, the Origins and History of Israel, and the real reasons why Israel bombed Gaza in 2014 http://ian56.blogspot.com/2014/07/an-honest-israeli-jew-tells-real-truth_11.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/lies-damn-lies-and-armeni_b_211408.html - Huffington Post, Bruce Fein
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/10/turkey-armenia-genocide - Newstatesman (i don't know about this guys but it says about Turkey's proposal to Armenia, let's build a joint historical commission.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#1914_Ottoman_census - Wikipedia, demography of the Ottoman Empire @1914 which says ~1.1 million Armenians were living in Ottoman Empire (Armenians say ~1.5 million Armenians got killed by Turks)
http://www.eglencelitarih.com/?Syf=26&amp;Syz=418032 - A Turkish website called "Funny History", website has some photos (some of them can't be read and most of them written with arabic alphabet) but you can use google translate for the "structure" of it. But i'm going to write a few from the website;
"Armenian bureau, in Tbilisi, published a report that states Armenians joined Russian army as volunteers, with the help of Russia they will be independent and flag of Russia will be hanged to the Istanbul and Canakkale (then there is a photo)"
"Eygpitian newspaper, pblished in 21 October 1915, made a news about Armenians; Thinking that it isn't possible to defend our villages we took food and supplies then moved to the Musa Mountain. We were 5000 people as 6 Armenian village. Survivors are 4049 in total, childrens under 4 years 413, 4-14 year old girls are 505, 4-14 year old boys 606, more then 14 year old women 1449, more then 14 year old men 1076."
"As a requirement of your instructions, talked with Malezian and Damadian. In Cyprus there will be 5000 Armenians as ready to attacking North Syrian coast. .." (UK ARCHIVES FO 371/2485, No. 115866)
"After the growth of rebellion Ottoman Empire made a decision, moving Armenians to the Syria and (another place). They were given 1 week of time for preparing."
http://bit.ly/2qAHdjP - Imprescriptle, a french website, writes about Pierre Loti on this page which shows that Armenians attacked and killed Turks and Bedouins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-XxG2alJv0 - Interview with Guenter Lewy about his book (http://amzn.to/2qyyONs) which is called Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkish. Why did i put him there ? Because he was called "connected with Turkish Government, financed by Turks".
http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/what-do-real-historians-and-experts-say - A website dedicated to Armenian Genocide (or whatever you call), talks about historicans who mostly deny using genocide word.
https://ricochet.com/archives/the-voltaire-project-i-deny-the-armenian-genocide/ - Ricochet, i don't know this site either but there is a statement.
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/gilles.htm - Another website dedicated to Armenian genocide, this webpage is about Gilles Veinstein.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/5ov46v/up_to_1917_up_to_600000_turks_and_kurds_were/ - From the Turkish subreddit, a post about what Armenians done to Turks and Kurds up to 1917.
https://en.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitaplar-1418 - General Directorate of State Archives of the Prime Ministry of the Republic of Turkey, shows about Armenians and Allies (WWI) (books are Turkish unfortunately but books say they have benn translated to English too).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS65RvEGEh8 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r917rWj8cgA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJsyI8Lr9T4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2NA8K9c_os - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKkA8q23ol4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bg2n_4rRbE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNZ8JMKlRKY - A speech made by Prof. Justin McCarthy.
I failed to find about smth but as i know Carter Vaughan Findley made researchs about Turks (or mostly Ottomans). He probably talked about this. This are all i could found in like 2 hours.
-I have listed a few source about Armenian thing(genocide,massacre etc.) but you are the one who is going to accept or deny it.
What is wrong using bitly reddit what is wrong ?
bahsi geçen kitap.
For a solid read/introduction, try Carter Vaughn Findley's The Turks in World History.
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0195177266/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I6P1BHLGDYRDX&amp;colid=34L2ZEROOHSDL&amp;psc=0
From page 498 of A Peace to End All Peace:
>The public believed Thomas's account; so that when Lawrence became an adviser to Winston Churchill, his appointment over-shadowed all others. His reputation grew. He passed off his fantasies as history, and in the years to come, Lawrence was to claim far more credit for his share in Churchill's achievements as Colonial Secretary than was his due.
.....A few years later Thomas wrote a book called With Lawrence in Arabia, based on the show,repeating the story he had told to his mass audiences of millions around the world. It was an immensely readable, high-spirited write-up of Lawrence's service career—much of it untrue—that made its points through hyper-bole.
Here's a screenshot of the page for more context.
Read it here. The author mentions that such voyages are mentioned in the geography text of al-Masudi from the 900s.
Now please send Hawaiian Punch.
They were referred to as Janissaries, but they were essentially just state sponsored pirates. The Barbary Coast was for a time the western periphery of the Ottoman Empire, but the relationships between the beys/deys of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli (not so much Morocco) was more of a formality than anything. The Barbary States paid their taxes and weakened the economies of other European nations while in return they were provided with all the benefits associated with being under the protection of the Ottoman Empire. Casale talks about all of this in his book The Ottoman Age of Exploration.
There are many books, museums and even documents on the topic. But a good book to start on is: https://www.amazon.com/They-Live-Desert-Nowhere-Else/dp/0691147302
Another Israeli historian Shlomo sand actually wrote a whole book about israel.
As far as i know, he still a professor in University of Tel Aviv.
source
Well there's even more to the situation than this article mentions. The US was actually helping to arm both Iraq and Iran with the goal of helping to inflict casualties on both sides. A weak Iran and Iraq tipped the power scales in the middle east toward Israel and Saudi Arabia, which was and is the US's desired balance in the middle east powers.
To learn more about it, read Reset by Stephen Kinzer. It's a great book, as are Kinzer's other books.
The media is useless. Honestly, just do some reading. I highly recommend History of the Middle East. It's a very in-depth, impartial look at the Middle East starting with a quick one-chapter primer to get you up to speed from ancient to modern times, then going much more in-depth starting around 1800 up to modern day problems such as the Arab-Israeli conflict.
If you want to confine your reading to the Arab-Israeli conflict, then I would recommend The Iron Wall which will start you off around 1947, post WWII.
The Israel/Gaza fiasco is just the latest in a looooong chain of events. Again, anyone coming down solely on one side over the other is simply ignorant of all of the facts. There's no such thing as an innocent player in this and to pretend there is is simply foolish.
Beirut - Samir Kassir
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beirut-Samir-Kassir/dp/0520271262
I also suggest researching the author :)
If you are interested in further reading about their impact as well as the making of the modern Middle East following WWI, I highly suggest this book. http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091
What rubbish.
There was no such thing as "The Jews" nor was Israel their "homeland":
https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234
https://www.amazon.com/Wandering-Who-Gilad-Atzmon/dp/1846948754
Even the rabbis are facing some facts:
>Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/books/new-torah-for-modern-minds.html
Even if you accept Bible as history, in total "The Jews" were politically dominant in the area for a grand total of 600 years out of the thousands of years of history there.
In fact the whole idea of a "national homeland for the Jews" was Manufactured in Europe based on the same 19th century "Blood and Soil" ethnocentricism that created Nazism.
And considering how many wars and conflicts have resulted from the creation of Israel, saying that it has somehow secured them is absolutely silly. And in any case why should we prioritize the security of Jews over that of Palestinians? Why should a Palestinian suffer because Jews were treated badly in Europe?
Books on the subject are somewhat hard to come by, but here is one related by TAORT Kurdistan (translated by Janet Biehl), about the organization of north kurdistan, which later inspired the organization of west kurdistan, or Rojava:
http://www.amazon.com/Democratic-Autonomy-North-Kurdistan-Liberation/dp/8293064269/
Declaration of Democratic Confederalism by Öcalan:
http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=10174
Kurdish Communalism:
http://new-compass.net/article/kurdish-communalism
A Case for Communalism in Kurdistan:
http://new-compass.net/articles/communalist-alternative-capitalist-modernity
Libertarian Socialist perspective (from August):
http://roarmag.org/2014/08/pkk-kurdish-struggle-autonomy/
Edit: Fixed info on sources.
As an American who grew up in Beirut I can only tell you how jealous I am.
My advice:
1)Learn Arabic. Yes it's hard, and no you won't master it. And yes, everyone speaks English, French or both...but do it.
2) Learn the history - it's very interesting and people will be impressed that you cared enough to do so.
Start with: http://www.amazon.com/Beirut-Samir-Kassir/dp/0520271262/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1348796298&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Beirut
http://www.amazon.com/Beware-Small-States-Lebanon-Battleground/dp/1568586574/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1348796349&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=beware+of+small+states
3) Almost everybody has a home town/village. Learn the geography and accept all invitations to visit. Beirut is great, but you learn Lebanon from the small towns.
4) Yes, Americans are appreciated and given some slack. But get yourself an informal coach there and give them permission to enlighten you on the cultural norms. They are very different than the US and if you can make mistakes only once, you show you are interested and care.
5) The Lebanese food is the best in the Middle East and they are very proud of it. Learn it before you go and try everything....over and over again. Even the stuff you don't like to begin with will grow on you.
6) Find a brie (drinking jug) and learn to drink out of the spout (this means swallowing while the water is still coming out. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cP-2t4P84Og/TI4r2ji5hxI/AAAAAAAABCg/C5ZmKwrNSYI/s1600/IMG_1257.jpg
> Jews had the Jerusalem as their capital for centuries.
For about 800 years, even assuming that the Bible is true
out of a total how many years of civilization there?
And they stole it from the Canannites, yes?
But in fact the Jewish residents of Jerusalem welcomed the Arabs in the Siege of Jerusalem, which at the time was under Byzantine control and not Jewish control -- the Byzantines had massacred the Jews in fact. Under the Muslims, the Jews were able to once again practice their religion, FYI
There has never been a country called Florida either, does that mean you get to steal that land and drive out its inhabitants to manufacture a fake version of a non-existent past?
And speaking of national identity, who are these "The Jews" you speak of at all?
The Invention of the Jewish People
by Shlomo Sand
http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234
There is an excellent book called A Peace to End all Peace.
It gives a great view of WWI with all the actors in the Middle East from the perspective of a bunch of different people like Winston Churchill, Lawrence of Arabia, and Ataturk. It is also really easy and entertaining to read (I read it at the pool).
I was also going to make a note but when I looked it up on amazon, it's apparently only $2.91 with free shipping (prime), so I just ordered it.
> These are all very rare occurrences in history and generally deal with inhospitable terrain and other factors that would have made it rather irrelevant here.
Nope. Guerrilla warfare was well understood in both the ancient and medieval world and became an increasingly frequent feature of conflict with the rise of gunpowder.
Here is the in depth wiki article on the subject.
Here is a work arguing that guerrilla warfare has been a defining feature of human conflict.
Beyond that there was a long standing tradition of guerrilla warfare in the America's stretching back to the Spanish expeditions in the mid 1500's. It was extensively practiced by the French and Indian war. In fact during the American Civil war it was practiced, the border regions Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee became hotbeds of low scale guerrilla conflict that later spawned more organized guerrilla units like Quantrill's Raiders.
Terrain most certainly would be a factor. The south has several mountainous regions, deep forests, extensive rivers etc. Beyond that the real advantage of terrain in Guerrilla warfare is that one side typically has a much more intimate knowledge of the area than the other, giving them more tactical options in relation to maneuver. The terrain need not be difficult itself for locals with an excellent knowledge of it to make it difficult for an occupying force.
>Guerrillas need to eat.
Everyone needs to eat. This isn't really a relevant statement the way you think it is. Typically Guerrilla forces don't require the extensive supply trains that standing conventional armies do to keep fed. Guerrillas typically source the provisions from local support, raiding, and foraging. Beyond that you are talking about the South in a time when the majority of it's populace practiced sustenance level agriculture, it would have been very feasible to keep small units fed than it would have been a standing army.
The Confederacy's trouble supplying it's armies was partially based on it's poor internal infrastructure and inability to transport what goods they had. This isn't the same kind of concern for a small force operating out of a localized area.
>Why not? The transcontinental railroad was built with less pomp and circumstance than you're proposing here.
No it wasn't. The transcontinental railroad was a massive undertaking that required tremendous funding, manpower, and planning.
>The north's moral position was that the south unconstitutionally tried to leave the union, and that then the south instigated a war. That position is unassailable.
The North's moral position was rooted in a political conflict over slavery. Had slavery not been the issue at hand it would have difficult to garner the support to continue the war in the early years as the North suffered a string of defeats in the first two years of the conflict that saw many wanting to draw a peace with the south. It required a great deal of political maneuvering and an involving of many church networks in the north to drive home the idea of the war as a moral issue of more than just succession. Turning around and selling off Confederate soldiers likely would have caused a crisis of public perception in a populace already shaken by the assassination of President Lincoln.
Pretty sure the pic is from the Lost Islamic History book.
There have been hushed mutterings from a few geneticists that the Jews' heritage doesn't go back to the roots one might expect. I should warn that even taking an interest in this topic makes you an anti-semite, so since you're already cursed, the two main books are:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Thirteenth-Tribe-Empire-Heritage/dp/0445042427
http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1407268340&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=shlomo+sand
A PEACE TO END ALL PEACE by David Fromkin. In my opinion, you should start with this before anything else. Well researched, respected in the academic community, well written. It's absolutely one of the best books on the subject, and the first place I would go.
Bonus FYI: the "redrawing" period went on from 1918-1922.
Also, this book is primarily focused on the Middle East, so you won't get as much on post-war Germany, or the African continent. But it will give you tons of context for what happened during the peace conference.
A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805088091/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_zs7iDb51WDZHF
Edit spelling.
Biographies of the Prophet (peace be upon him)
Martin Ling's "Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources"
| Amazon
| PDF
| Audiobook
Sheikh Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarkpuri "The Sealed Nectar"
| Amazon
| PDF (Older edition)
Autobiographies
Muhammad Asad "The Road to Mecca"
| Amazon
| PDF
Jeffrey Lang "Even Angels Ask: A Journey to Islam in America"
| Amazon
| PDF
Alex Haley and Malcolm X "The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley"
Amazon
| PDF
Other recommendations
Firas Alkhateeb "Lost Islamic History"
Hamza Tzortzis "The Divine Reality: God, Islam & The Mirage Of Atheism"
Given your background, some speakers you may find beneficial:
Sheikh Hussain Yee - From Buddhism to Islam
Abdur-Raheem Green - How I Came to Islam
Joshua Evans - How the Bible Led Me to Islam: The Story of a Former Christian Youth Minister
Wa 'alaykum as salam wa rahmatul lahi wa barakatuh
I hope you're okay and in good health, brother /u/alienz225 - May Allah cure you and firm you upon the deen.
Bismillah...
Arabic books:
English books:
---
Some of the best books, after the book of Allaah [i.e The Qur'an] in: Aqeedah, Hadeeth, Tafseer, Arabic Language, Seerah, Methodology of Da'wah etc According to Sheikh Muhammad Bazmool (May Allah preserve him):
End Quote.
Of course, the majority of these books are just beginner books. You could always try to find the works of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Al-Qayyim... considering their books are so well-known, it's safe to assume some of their books have English translations.
A great Tafseer book is - Tafseer ibn Kathir.
Also try to check out Al-Fawaa'id - Ibnul Qayyim.
Lectures to follow:
I'm assuming the recommended sources will be of benefit, insha'Allah! I ask Allah to bless us and guide us and May Allah protect us from His wrath and punishment and May Allah admit us into Jannatul Firdous.
A History of the Modern Middle East
An earlier version of this book was part of my university curriculum, and I found it to be fairly unbiased. It examines the middle east over the past 200 years, from the roots of modern conflicts through to the present strife in the region.
Dude, I've read...lots and lots of books on the subjects. Saying its "the fault" of the West is highly, highly simplifying a rather complex situation. lol "read wiki".
Dude, read this. Don't ever think that you got informed on something from a wiki article. The West had a role, but it's not like, oh, I dunno, the people of the Arabian Peninsula were just on the sidelines, passively observing.
The same goes for Afghanistan.
I guess not being genocidal war criminals is not an option then? I guess not when you have to find some way to justify murdering people and stealing their lands to create an ethnically-purified mythical "homeland" for a made-up people. http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234/
> to really understand what's going on today in the middle east, you pretty much have to go back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1, and then work your way forward from there
Absolutely. Actually one of my 2016 objectives was to gain a better understanding in Middle Eastern history which was something I really lacked. I am in no way an expert now but have a better idea on how everything unfolded post Ottoman Empire fall and I am genuinely disturbed at seeing how absolutely no one ever mentions any bit of relevant history in the media. The lack of any attempt at explanation is really bothering me :/
If you're interested, this book taught me a lot: A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Lots of very interesting stories about how the Middle East was built post-Ottoman empire!
There's a book called: A Peace to end all Peace
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091
It was a great book and helped me have a decent understanding of how the West screwed over rebelling Muslims during WWI which eventually led to the conflict we see today. It doesn't directly reference Hamas but it talks about why the Middle East is screwed up and tensions between the Jews and Arabs following WWI.
Yeah, the immediate negative reaction to "Western science" has more to do with many Muslims around the world having a bad taste in their mouths regarding the West in general (can't blame them, Europe did invade and carve up their nations).
Here's a few good books to look into:
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Challenge-History-Lectures-Series/dp/0300159110/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1404626540&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=islam+science
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-Enduring-Scientists-Thinkers/dp/1426202806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1404626582&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=lost+history
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Islamic-History-Firas-Alkhateeb/dp/1849043973/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1390934800&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=lost+islamic+history
Martin Lings is great! Also, if you're looking for a book that doesn't delve too much into the history of Islam's theological development but discusses Islamic history throughout the ages and Islam's impact on the world, Lost Islamic History by Firas Alkhateeb is gold!
Shameful Act
They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else
Burning Tigris
Lots of great answers everyone. I see that I have a lot of reading to do and that is a good thing. Just for anyone also interested I compiled all of the named books into a list and sourced them, for your reading pleasure.
The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen
Counterinsurgency by David Kilcullen
Out of the Mountains by David Kilcullen
Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons From Malaya and Vietnam by John Nagl
Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods by John Poole
Modern War: Counter-Insurgency as Malpractice by Edward Luttwak
A Savage War of Peace by Alistar Horne
The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Lester Grau
Invisible Armies by Max Boot
Vid Putivla do Karpat by Sydir Artemovych Kovpac
Fire in the Lake by Frances FitzGerald
Inside Rebellion by Jeremy M. Weinstein
You literally just described how the borders of the middle east were drawn after ww1. And I mean literally literally. How'd that work out?
didn't Cyrus the great, (the persians) free the jews? lol. Also the continuity of jewish history is adequately questioned in this book, http://www.amazon.ca/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417045798&amp;sr=1-1
but this is besides the point,
the real question is, who has the power to, often anachronistically, create history in the first place?
>most white people have nothing to do with black's people's predicament
there are some people in the world who have historically benefited from the oppression of others, regardless of their intentions (although that was made clear in the earlier quote i gave). In western society, racism is intrinsically linked to white supremacy; as such, only those who benefit from white supremacy, only those who have access to this "privilege," may be identified as racist. When non-whites are negatively biased against one another, who benefits in the end? In a similar vein, when a supplier and a consumer engage in a trade, sure they each benefit, but who are those that ultimately benefit? In the first case, it is those who have access to white privilege, and not those affected by internalizing and believing the illusions that they are inferior races (if you are a dark skinned black women, take a moment to google image the term 'beauty'.. how would it affect you to see light skinned people as the prime idea of what this term encompasses?'). In the second, it is those who have access to printing currency and determining its trajectory. Of course, this is why intersectionality is important: those who ultimately benefit in both cases are the same people. the fact that some of the oppressed have been able to climb out of the hole and others have not been able to, doesn't really matter. all of this requires empathy.
Take for instance, the idea of ‘ethnic solidarity’; where migrants and minorities provide economic and social support that is biased against or excludes white communities. Those who claim that this exclusion is racist against whites; or that, by prejudicing and categorizing their own and/or other non-white communities as being vulnerable, they are perpetuating ‘the problem’ are missing the point all together: that the problem of racism is nothing without power. In other words, oppressive institutions, in this case involving race and economic/social power (class), are necessarily interconnected and cannot be understood separately. The more precise our level of analysis would like to be, the more context dependent it becomes.
Slaves in the Middle East weren't all African. Here are some books that can give you a better perspective on slavery in the Islamic world:
http://www.amazon.com/Race-Slavery-Middle-East-Historical/dp/0195053265/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1353987039&amp;amp;sr=8-1&amp;amp;keywords=bernard+lewis+race+and+slavery
http://www.amazon.com/Tell-This-My-Memory-Enslavement/dp/0804782334/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1353987192&amp;amp;sr=1-1&amp;amp;keywords=eve+troutt+powell
http://www.amazon.com/Women-Slavery-Late-Ottoman-Empire/dp/1107411459/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1353987281&amp;amp;sr=1-2&amp;amp;keywords=madeline+zilfi
EDIT: I think it's important to note that I don't have some sort of pro white revisionist history agenda, I just think it's important to know that Europeans were not the only ones who had slaves. I say this as a half Arab myself.
Price and use would be a good indicator of this.
>They were largely indiscriminate, in terms of race and sex.
This is quite wrong. [1][2][3] They used different peoples for different purposes. I've only read summaries of [3]. You couldn't actually say this unless you were pretty unfamiliar with the Ottomans.
My comment was a bit of a dark joke. The concept of 'racism' is an artifact of 20th century Allied war propaganda (and Soviet anti-American propaganda), and doesn't really apply to older societies. Recognized differences between peoples was ordinary. And it's still ordinary on a worldwide basis. It's even fairly ordinary in a lot of European countries that provide state funding to different religious groups that cater to different ethnic groups.
[1]http://jreuter.hubpages.com/hub/The-Harem-Luxuries-and-Enslavement-within-the-Sultans-Palace
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire
[3]http://www.amazon.com/Women-Slavery-Late-Ottoman-Empire/dp/1107411459
A Peace to End All Peace isn't directly about WWI, but it does a great job of explaining how the war and its aftermath led to the modern Middle East.
This is a great book on it
https://www.amazon.com/Christians-Jews-Ottoman-Arab-World/dp/0521005825
And it worked, until Maliki's horrible governance undid everything we achieved. "Hearts and minds" is a key tenet of any successful counterinsurgency; it's why the surge was successful, it's why the British in Malaya were successful, and its absence was why Vietnam was such a disastrous campaign.
If you want to learn more about insurgencies and how they are defeated, I'd strongly recommend checking out this book.
It has to do with oil and the imperialism, all the contemporary wars in the area was because of oil and colonization. Centuries ago everywhere was war. :) Because of the oil peace has never reached the middle East. Just like Africa and it's minerals.
Iran and the Ottomanian empire made several peace treaties and border definition in 15th and 16th century. They never attacked each other after that.
Edit: I really suggest you to read the book "a peace to end all peace: the fall of the Ottomanian empire and the creation of the modern Middle East", before making such comment. It is from a Westerner's point of view not complete but very informative.
https://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091
A Peace to End All Peace
It's not a general history of WWI, as it deals with the war in the Ottoman theater. To my knowledge, it's the definitive history of WWI and its aftermath in the Mid-East for a general audience.
If you're quite interested, I'd recommend Invisible Armies by Max Boot. It'll take some time to get through but it covers every major insurgency in recorded history and he's a pretty good writer so the read goes faster than expected.
Nonsense, and nobody said facts matter less than feelings. It is a FACT that Palestnians have been ethnically-cleansed by Israel. Note that not ONE jew is sent to refugee camps, only Palestinians are, and not ONE Palestinian is granted an automatic "Right of return" from anywhere in the world to enjoy state-subsidized housing in settlements in Israel, only Jews are -- do you think that's a coincidence?
Anyway, first of all Jews have and had been in the Middle East for a long time before Israel's creation, they're well integrated in the rest of the world too, and if anything it is Israel itself that is placing "the jews" in danger
Second, there is no "The Jews", it is a manufactured identity
https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234
https://www.amazon.com/Wandering-Who-Gilad-Atzmon/dp/1846948754
Anyway, why should the Palestinians have to pay for Europe's antisemitism
https://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553
"A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East" by David Fromkin is the book you are looking for.
https://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091
I took a Modern History of the Middle East overview class in college, and the Cleveland book already recommended was our main textbook for the course.
We also read [From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East] (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/104039.From_the_Holy_Mountain), which is not an objective overview, but rather an engaging travel narrative through the region which helped to make many of the complex historical nuances and religious conflicts much more 'real' and understandable for me.
Europe
Its a geopolitical history of the continent, not a social one. Not much on say, slavery, but a lot on shifting alliances and battles for position or power.
Private Empire: Exxon-Mobile and American Power
Big Oil & US foreign policy
Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present
goes into the difference between regular wars and guerrilla wars, sort of a history with tons of short chapters focusing on different wars, starts with Rome vs the jewish rebels
The present regime is heavily based off of a few core values:
Too Short, Need Meat: Check out Stephen Kinzer's book. It actually speaks to your question about America's relationship with Turkey and Iran vis a vis its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's good.
Why not try this instead.
I'm not sure that I would call it "the best", but I heartily recommend Lords Of The Golden Horn by Noel Barber. The history of the Ottoman Empire had plenty of the same kookiness that makes Roman history so intriguing.
A Peace to end all Peace
It has been really good, I am glad I had a decent knowledge of the subject before starting it.
> Until the US overthrew Saddam and the Arab Spring, the region was generally stable. A hell of a lot more stable than ti is now
So in turn the US created a power vacuum... Instability in the Middle East has been the goal for over a century. Read something, like http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091
And what about the CIA's major role in overthrowing democratically elected politicians?
> Israel is the Jewish homeland is an uncontroversial historical fact
uuummm.....no.
http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y/188-3468134-4413316
http://www.amazon.com/The-Invention-Land-Israel-Homeland/dp/1844679462/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&amp;refRID=0S82X5DGSTNTX0YPD0KQ
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wandering-Who-Gilad-Atzmon/dp/1846948754
> this being pretty common and undisputed knowledge.
While that's the commonly held belief, it is not undisputed.
Shlomo Sand, a professor of Israeli history at Tel Aviv university, posits in his book The Invention of the Jewish People that Ashkenazi jewry is not in fact descended from the Jews who once lived in Judea and Samaria, but rather that they are decended from peoples who converted to Judaism in the middle ages. He draws on a wide range of archaeological, historical and demographic evidence to support his claim, and presents a persuasive argument.
While this book has come under heavy criticism in the West, it's worth mentioning that it was well received in Israel, and was on the bestseller list there for nineteen weeks.
Edit: I see that Sand now has a follow-up book, called The Invention of the Land of Israel. The Guardian has a review here, for those interested.
This map including your video on youtube is complete BS. You have no idea on the nature of Jews and you are just peddling Jewish mythologies that have no basis in reality. The scientific papers you reference use vague genetic findings that make assumptions based on those vague findings to align with Jewish mythologies which can be easily disproven by actual history and other more rigorous scientific papers. In fact, there was no "Roman exile" from Palestine (the original Jews were only banned from the old city of Jerusalem to the surrounding area) and practically all Jews today are descended from converts from various locations outside of the Levant, mostly North Africa (Berbers), Europe, Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Russia, and Yemen. Many of these Jews may have intermixed with one another to form a "pseudo-race" but that doesn't mean they originated from a single location like your map and video suggests. The descendants of the original Jews of Palestine are known as Palestinians today.
Go read "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Israeli professor and historian Dr. Shlomo Sand.
More History:
Europe: A History
Europe: European History
The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914
The Iran-Iraq War
Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law
They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide
Postmodernism and academic nonsense:
The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy
Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture
Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left
More Politics:
A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order
Human Nature/ Evolution:
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
On Human Nature
Clinical Psychology:
Introduction to Clinical Psychology (8th Edition) I'm not trained in psychology but I was told this one was quite good.
Ok, that's enough...
edit: double entry removed + sorting
I recommend "Peace to end all Peace" By David Fromkin http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091
I just finished reading Blood and Belief: The PKK and the Kurdish Fight for Independence. Pretty well written and a balanced look at the PKK, its history, and its evolution.
Are you claiming that Judaism arose spontaneously, out of thin air? Perhaps the Hebrews just sprang out of the ground somewhere? Are you arguing that Judaism is the first, or earliest religion? That it has no historical antecedent whatsoever? That monotheism was not, in fact, predated by polytheism? Have you conducted any research to support these claims?
The segments in my post are well-cited. Perhaps you'd like to refute the authors of the research? By all means, look up the citations and compose angry, emotionally-based retorts to this historical and archaeological research.
Educate thyself. The following works are by Israeli authors:
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
Authors: Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, an archaeologist, historian and contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine.
The Invention of the Jewish People
Author: Shlomo Sand, Professor of History at Tel Aviv University
The Wandering Who
Author: Isreali-born Gilad Atzmon
Review:
It is a scholarly and truly monumental work, deeply profound and, of course, controversial. (Alan Hart, British Journalist and covert diplomat in Middle East, ITN's News at 10, BBC's Panorama)
I haven't read the newest edition, but I'd recommend Mehran Kamrava's The Modern Middle East.
Dan Smith's The State of the Middle East: An Atlas of Conflict and Resolution does a great job presenting things visually.
Cannot agree more.
Here is a book I thought was brilliant book.
https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Armies-History-Guerrilla-Warfare/dp/0871406888
The Turks In World History by Carter Findley would be a good starting point, as it covers Turkish history from Steppes to the present day in an accessible manner. It's a broad approach, but should be able to give you a framework to discover topics you may want to explore in more depth.
Since the Turks are a Central Asian people, you may want to learn more about Central Asian history in general. Grousset's The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia is the authoritative tome, but be forewarned, it's dense, really dense.
> there is no concept of these nations beyond belonging to whatever ruling clan or tribe
And that is very much a description of Israel.
>Your phrase "manufactured state" is curious. What could it mean?
It means a nation built on an artificially constructed sense of national identity such as that which the Zionists created in order to manufacture "Israel":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1844676234
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wandering-Who-Gilad-Atzmon/dp/1846948754
>The polls prove nothing.
LOL, I'll take the word of multiple independent polls over some ass on reddit anyday
There are a lot of leftist groups in South America which have had some real longevity, if not success, such as The Shining Path and FARC. There's the Taliban, who really started out as a protection racket for the Pakistani ISI and bloomed into a Islamist revolutionary army, and then a state, and then an insurgency. The Bush War between the Rhodesians, especially the Selous Scouts, and groups like the ZANU is pretty fascinating. Probably the most successful was Giuseppe Garibaldi who started as an insurgent fighter in both South America and Europe before eventually unifying the Italian state.
I'd highly recommend Invisible Armies by Max Boot. I think it would be right up your alley.
EDIT: After rereading your post I think you may be looking more toward "unconventional warfare" teams than "Guerrilla groups". I'd check out the CIA and Special Forces operations with the Montagnards in Southeast Asia, who ran five or ten man teams with local fighters against communist forces in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. The Brandenburgers of the German Abwehr were also really fascinating. They ran teams of commandos who were often bi-national or born overseas to run operations in their respective ethnic areas behind enemy lines in World War Two. One of their more famous ops had Russian speaking commandos dressing up as NKVD troops in Crimea and then directing Soviet troop formations on the way to the front in the wrong direction. After the war quite a few of them disappeared, with some ending up in the French Foreign Legion, if legends are to be believed.
As far as I know, the book is still representative of the current state of scholarship concerning the period. It deals exclusively with the period between 1914 and 1922, which is, by this time, relatively declassified in terms of documentation, so I wouldn't expect another book to eclipse it any time soon, unless someone happens to write a better synthesis of the available material.
It looks like the publisher recently released a 20th anniversary edition with an afterword from the author. That wasn't the edition I read, but I would imagine Fromkin's afterword serves as an index of more recent developments in the study of that period.
As for follow-up reading, my plan is to go regional, with a string of books about the development of the nationalisms that got their start in that period. So, on the one hand, I want to start digging backwards into the Ottoman Empire prior to the Young Turk movement (which more or less starts APTEAP), and on the other, I'd like to examine the modern histories of Transjordan, early Jewish nationalism, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Before I get to all of that, though, I've got A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani, which ought to keep me occupied for a while, once I start it.
Mehran Kamrava's The Modern Middle East, Third Edition: A Political History since the First World War is a good place to start. It covers topics relating to the Middle East overall, but there are (substantial) parts dedicated to conflicts surrounding Israel.
>of course nationalism is connected to language because nationalism is all about believing in the same thing and loving the same thing. To do that you must speak the same language to convey ideas to each other. But it could have been English for all I care! the fact the Jews spoke Hebrew had nothing to do with the UN vote. If you show me a source then there would be something to talk about.
You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you tell me it had nothing to do with it, now you're telling me of course it does.
And I didn't say anything about the UN vote. The UN vote was secured by other means.
>Again, you keep saying the same thing without backing it up. You keep saying the fact that Jews spoke Hebrew was a major role in our claim to the country. Show me a source that says that
It is the logical conclusion of the statements I made earlier, which you have verified as true. Why don't you show me a source that says it isn't?! Hahaha..who says the burden of proof is on me here?? I just made a logical argument and you agreed to it.
Language plays a key role in nationalism and culture, and they could not have created the zionist pretence of "return" to a "national homeland" without having any single thing unifying the populace other than some shaky self-identification as "jews". Without a single thing unifying them, Ethiopian Jews and Yemeni Jews had absolutely nothing in common with secular Jews coming in from Germany, or Russian peasant jews, or American Jews showing up from Brooklyn. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the language played an extremely important role for zionism.
If you can't provide a source to dispute that, then at least provide a logical argument other than "no it didnt".
>So you think millions of people decided to only speak Hebrew just as a ruse that the Jews have a connection to Israel??
No, people didn't decide as some ruse. They wanted to believe in it. They wanted to feel like a unified nation.
>The purpose of Zionism was to go back to their roots, to what they used to be. And that was having a sovereign country, with a unique language.
This is exactly my point. It is an artificial identity. It is as artifical as a bunch of people invading Israel from Syrian and Lebanon and "modernizing" the Canaanite language. Their culture isn't Canaanite, they have the cultures of the Arabs, French, Greeks - whatever. Just as the Jews had the culture of the Germans, the Russians, etc. It is a nationalist myth. Many countries do this. The Finns, when striving for independence from Russia, concocted a nationalist architecture that was made up. They copied other scandinavian architecture and tweaked it and everyone acted as if it was some kind of indigenous Finnish architecture.
>If Hebrew (for some weird reason) caught on and was spoken in all the major countries, it would still be the native tongue of Israeli Jews.
Yes and if Hebrew wasn't artificially reconstructed, then what would Israel's national language be today? Russian? Arabic? German? Yiddish? Farsi? Ethiopian? All of them? How would this nation of cousins speak to each other? They wouldn't!
>And yes. If you learned Jewish history like I did, there was an exile from Israel. Some people went to Europe, and some people went to the arabian peninsula and north africa. But they all come from the same place... At the end of the day, both sects of Judaism are simply that. Jews. And that is the root that zionism is trying to get back to.
This isn't even agreed on!
I suggest you read The Invention of the Jewish People
Jews are not some ethnically united group. They didn't even 'leave'. Most stayed, and just converted to other religions. Those would be the Palestinians.
And getting back to some nationalist mythical culture is as artificial as Egyptians reviving the Pharaoh culture, or Lebanese and Syrians and Iraqis reviving Canaanite culture. It's artificial. It's fake. It's just there to make people happy and give them some sense of self-respect.
That is what zionism is about. Not returning or any of that shit. Theodore Herzl and the other founders of zionism were largely secular atheists. Zionism didn't take on the aire of "return" or any of that shit till later. It's easily proven - look at how many people who made aliyah to Israel "hebrewized" their names. People wanted to feel like they were 1 national group, so American jews coming in with names like John Carpenter or some shit are all of a sudden Avi Ben Ami or some shit. If you can't understand what I'm saying you are living in the same nationalistic dream land. Nationalist ethnically pure nation-states was a concept that died in the 20th century my friend.
read the book and write a review.
http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1405599531&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=shlomo+sand
WWI smashed both Christendom (rule by Christian monarchs) across Europe, and the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. In its place were installed democracy (rule by puppets whose political campaigns were paid by the shadow elite) and dictatorship (rule by puppets installed by the military controlled by the shadow elite). Prior to WWI, the Christian and Muslim empires fought for territory but did not fight amongst themselves within their own territory. After WWI, the Middle East was divided and conquered, and European society was no longer Christian. The shadow elite was now able to enjoy power, wealth, and sex.
See http://www.amazon.com/1917-Red-Banners-White-Mantle/dp/0931888050 and http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091
Mossad
How Israelis look.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1844676234/ossnet-20
what about Jonathan Pollard?
Kuwait and Iraq.
Abu Gharib ?
why does some americans support the female?
Iraq roads
We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805094369/ossnet-20
Terrorists
Finally, ... how come no US military wether low or average rank is waking up
why is it the west call us backwards but when we show them buildings and education also entertainment they call us Show Offs ? and ignore the positive and useful for negative and useless ? why cant they say good job and well done?
why do they always ask for prostitiution, alcahol and nudity? instead of asking for a meeting and having normal conversations, drink pepsi and wear just clothes that does'nt show cleavage and ass?
why is that they say boohoo poor women in middle east but when she visits she gets snarled at ?
Yes yes, we're all aware of the "new antisemitism" wherein every criticism of Israel is defined as anti-semitic but sorry no one is buying it. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Yes-all-criticism-of-Israel-is-anti-Semitic
There is no such thing as a "Jewish people" -- this is a recently manufactured identity according to Prof Shlomo Sands at Hebrew University http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wandering-Who-Gilad-Atzmon/dp/1846948754/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&amp;refRID=1K0K6CEMKZXZWMFEGKPC
This is one of the many myths of Zionism -- there was no Roman Expulsion, there was no "King" David, there was exile from Egypt either, etc. etc. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/643380/posts
and even if there is, their "right of self-determination" is not superior to that of the Palestinians whom the Zionists ethnically-cleansed, and whose very existence the Zionists have sought to deny. "There are no such things as Palestinians" - Golda Meir.
The ashkenazi jews come from the old Khazar kingdom
What's with the "tribe" stuff. Genetically related to the Khazars. Historically related to the Khazars. The main city, Atil, (NW Caspian Sea) was wiped from the face of the earth by the Rus - "not a grape, not a leaf on a branch". Disporia into what became Russia and Poland. Not, as "historically" presented, from the eastern meditteranean. Jews but not Semites. Palestinians are Semites forced to convert to Islam.
Edit: Read Schlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People