Now we come to question of how the war ended in Greece? What was the division of power between the various powers that took over the, what was in the past the Ottoman Empire? The British historian and journalist Elizabeth Monroe, defined this post-war period as Britain's moment in the Middle East. And indeed, Britain was after the first World War by far, the superior power in the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire had come to an end. The French, who were completely preoccupied at the front in France could spare only token forces for the Mideast. Russia was completely pre-occupied by revolution and her opting out of the war. So British occupation forces were in most of the Arab areas of the Empire. They were in Syria, they were in Iraq and they were in Palestine. And there was only a small French force in Lebanon. Faisal, the son of Hussein bin Ali who had lead the Arab rebellion against the Ottomans. Faisal at the end of the war was in control an Arab state, the capital of which was Damascus in Syria. Which was taken with the assistance of the Arab rebels of the Arab revolt at the end of the war. And Faisal remained in this Syrian Arab state under his control until 1920 when he was finally evicted by the French with actual British agreement. As for the rest, Britain was in control of Egypt and the Sudan. Britain was also seen control of Arabia and the various degrees of British influence. The French were in North Africa, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia well before the war. Algeria in 1830, Tunisia in 1881 and Morocco in 1912. Libya had been under the Italians since 1911. So the great powers, especially Britain could shape the region now more or less as they wished. And the borders of the Middle Eastern states were now drawn by British and French officials in accordance with all sorts of imperial interests and tradeoffs, which eventually shaped the borders of the states of the Middle East. And it was these imperial interests that shaped the borders of the Middle East, very often imperial officials with rulers in their hands rather than the identities of the peoples in question. Very important French concessions were made to the British in Palestine and in Iraq. According to Sykes-Picot as we have already seen, Palestine was to be shared between the British and the French. But after the war, the British wanted Palestine for themselves and had no interest in sharing it with the French and the British wanted Mosul, which was to be part of French influenced Syria. The British wanted more so to be part of British influenced Iraq. And therefore, the French conceded both in Palestine and even more so to the British. And in exchange, the British allowed the French to take over Syria that was previously in the hands of Faisal and the Arab rebellion and to expel King Faisal from Syria in July of 1920. Why did the British do this? Why did the British allow the French to take Lebanon and Syria? Clashing and defeating Britain's own Arab allies. How could the British have allowed that to happen? To understand why the British did that, one has to understand the very complicated balance between European and Middle Eastern interests in British foreign policy. British Foreign Policy was made in various places. Obviously, in London, but in Cairo too. In Cairo, British officials were in great support of an Arab solution. That is to create a series of Arab states in alliance with the British and not necessarily with much left for the French. But in London, the view was very different. From London, it was indeed very important to give the French what the French deserved according to war time agreements with them, even though they had very little power in the Middle East. Because for the British Foreign Policy makers in London, France is important force as a European ally against Germany. And as a European ally against Germany, France was much more important than any territory in Beirut, in Damascus or anywhere else in the Middle East. In the aftermath of the war, important Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire were divided into territories called mandates given to the British and to the French. And according to the conference of the victorious European powers in San Remo in April 1920, the mandates were divided in the following fashion. The French obtained the mandates for Lebanon and Syria. The British obtained the mandates for Palestine, Trans-Jordan and Iraq. But what is a mandate? And why was the mandate terminology invented in the first place? The mandate was an essential colonial compromise with the principle of self-determination. In the aftermath of the first World War and the emergence of the United States as a great power and the principles put forth by President Wilson and above all else, the principle of self-determination. One could not simply ignore the principle of self-determination and impose endless colonial rule on foreign territories. The mandate was a colonial compromise whereby the mandate power committed itself to guide the mandated territory to self-determination and independence. At last, it was the commitment of the French to guide Lebanon and Syria towards independence and it was the commitment of the British to do the same in Palestine, Trans-Jordan and Iraq. In reference to Turkey [COUGH] and what was left of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks were coerced into signing in their defeat. The Treaty of Servre's with the European powers in August 1920. And the Treaty of Servre was a reflection of the European desire to punish the Turks. To enhance the prestige of the European powers and to punish the Turks as an Asian power who had urged Muslims everywhere to rise against the Europe rulers, they must play. The Greeks landed in Izmir in May 1919. This was an extreme deviation for the Turkish people. Not just a foreign power, but a foreign power who for centuries had been under Turkish domination. There were demands of the Armenians in Eastern Anatolian for an independent state of their own. The Turkish nationalist movement for it's part, demanded Turkish control of all the areas within the natural boundaries that were inhabited by a Muslim majority at the time of the armistice that ended the war. The treaty of Sevres that was imposed on the Turks in August 1920 created the following, extremely humiliating, reality. There was to be an international regime for the Straits. There was to be in the Armenian state in the East. There was a possibility of a Kurdish state in the east too. There were Italian and French spheres of influence in Southern Anatolia. Greek control of Eastern Thrace and Izmir. And on top of all that, international financial controls over the Turkish economy. This was not only the end of the empire, but the conversion of Turkey into a European semi-colonial dependency. The Turks rose in rebellion and waged what for the Turks would be a glorious war of liberation and that Turkish war of liberation. Changed the reality on the ground to such an extent that Sevre became a dead letter and was replaced by another treaty later on.
