A Peace to End All Peace
by David Frokman
This book could have easily been titled “What If” or even better yet “Only If” as it describes at world leader level in detail not only intentions that were miss understood, but also entangled with poor timing of superseding events. If you had ever heard disparaging comments on Churchill as the prime instigator, this book helps you visualize that he was indeed a prime mover, surrounded by a cacophony of leaders on the rise and fall, as we were all twisted by a press leading their peoples into war and a peace that has yet to be achieved. Other prime mover instigators are The Mark Sykes the co author of the infamous Sykes - Picot Agreement between England and France to partition the Ottoman Empire. Infamous do to through his naivete, as it turns out. Also to the cast of British arrogance was Lord Kitchener’s march towards folly in the Middle Eastern debacle. And finally the granddaddy of them all was the British PM Lloyd George, who pulled the strings of many.
This book is clearly from a British perspective as it describes the art of getting the bureaucratic politics right, the chief endeavor of the book. It was clearly akin to the work of Picasso. The chief story plot in the framework of history is the Great Game which was to shield Britain's road to India from the motives of Russia and then France. It was a game where Russia plays a Central Role in the beginning through deception, the middle through folly, and the end through deception. If written by a Russian author it would be only slightly twisted through logical story telling that the British made all their strategic decision from a standpoint of paranoia.
As a late comer to World War One an American can say that Wilson, lost in his own theories of sovereign destiny, was duped by all sides in the conflict and the peace process. I mention this to help the American reader appreciate history's cause and effect and learn you must make a paradigm shift to the perspective of WWI to learn a critical lesson pertinent to our involvement in the Middle East. The book provides a worthy plot in a panoramic view worth the time to read you find nascent Modern Middle East politics entwined with the politics of the Great Powers in a time where the paradigm of a Palestinian State was lost, and still is. In the brokering of Palestinian land Syria was granted to the House of Hussein, and not the Palestinians. This huge gap in fate is only the collective total of what is still an enigma today which is peace. Leaders of that time left today’s world leaders, still blind to that oversight and now buried in time, trying to divide a small piece of unproductive land in Israel when in fact the fruitful land of Arab Syria is rightfully Palestinian. Even the author of this book, a historian uncovers the folly, but does not recognize what is right before his eyes. A paradigm shift in history is still at large.
The first British domino after the Duke Ferdinand was assassinated in Serbia drawing Russia and Germany at odds in a land where Great Britain was beholden as essential to the Great Game. It was only an excuse to go to a pending war to settle brewing international intrigue. Keep in mind this is only 55 years after the Crimean War over the very similar world order. To ward off such a folly; if only the world knew of Churchill’s intentions regarding Turkey, much like his arm waving in the 1930's. If only England knew anything at all about the inner movements of the Ottoman Empire's rising new leaders, and a missed opportunity to bring the Turks in on the side of the Western Allies. If only British admirals at sea actually knew that in their first attack on the Dardanelles, the Turks were out of bullets and evacuating the city, and a simple sail in to the harbor was all that was required to take The Ottoman Empire out of the war. If only.… WWI would have been reduced to a mere conflict. But rather the folly of deception and intrigue between Russia, and England, as the Great Game for the passage to India found new wrinkles of deceptive quagmire that would spin mankind into further world disorder. The deal, missed deal, and counter dealing between the West and the Middle Eastern factions would never have allowed to bloom into the man eating orchid that it had.
Delving into the first layer the reader learns that the partners that went in to WWI as allies came out some as adversaries and some as reluctant partners. Of course the agendas of the alliances were of equally folly as the reasons for their break ups. In every case the rationale could not be substantiated by any argument of self interest. Russia effectively changed sides in the peace process and found alignment with Germany. France and Britain lost their way over Syria. In the process of each country’s effort to out maneuver their partner in a political dance with their new dance partner in their face amidst dance partners among the Muslim survivors who had not learned how to dance to a sovereign tune. All that was missing was a “Square Dance Caller’. This found France with a mandate over a reluctant people and Britain over a vast disparate people that it could not afford to rule.
Where Britain had an opportunity to reach her goal of an empire that ran up the East coast of Africa, across the Middle East and in to India, her deceit in politics domestically and internationally led to the squandering of a peace founded in the footings of democratic rule. This book draws an ironic parallel to that of the American Colonists of the folly in colonial management of far away lands. The difference is is found in the American rue where their subjects who aware of the democratic process and were once amicable with the British Parliament and Crown. In the case of the Middle East mandates that went to Britain, they had no clue of parliamentary procedure and could only judge Britain on the early promises that they could not keep, because they were financial and politically, both domestically and internationally, exhausted.
This book provides detailed account of my summary. The reader gets to agonize over the near misses of peace. The chance for world order seemed always around the corner with ill timed or misplaced communications that would set world leaders off in to a direction totally against their lost goals and objectives. In the end you are as exhausted from frustration as you learn the belligerents of the war and the antagonists of the peace, there were no winners to be found. The following are synopsis’ of a few near misses and of intrigue.
1. The British government was unaware of Turkish diplomatic activity of CUP ( young Turks) and did not realize that the Porte was urgently seeking a Great Power Alliance rather than with Germany.
2. Admiral De Robeck's withdrawal from a Sea – land battle that the Turks had already retreated from combined with the army who failed to attack an enemy who had run out of ammunition. For Winston Churchill, who was only hours away from victory, was to become the torment of his life. It was more than a personal triumph that had slipped through his fingers. It was also his last chance to save the world in which he had grown up: to win a war while the familiar, traditional Europe of traditional established monarchies and empires still survived.
3. al-Faruqi a rogue Arab emissary under no authority form Hussein found himself negotiating the Damascus Protocol drawing up boarders of a partitioned Ottoman Empire with Britain. Language combined with British exuberance, hindered accuracy of the lines...But the geographical references made by McMahon for Britain were hazy. Was reference made for example to the city of Damascus, the environs of Damascus, or the province of Damascus? Did "districts" mean wilayahs (environs) or vilayets (provences)? Was it al-Faryuqi who spoke of districts, or was it McMahon or Clayton? By districts did the British mean towns? The significance of the Aleppo-Homs-Hama-Damascus demand had been bitterly debated ever since. For decades afterward s partisans of an Arab Palestine argued that if those four geographical terms were properly understood, boarders would be different. British Cairo had promised that Palestine would be Arab; while partisans of a Jewish Palestine argued the reverse. In a sense the debate was pointless; McMahon deliberately used phrases so devious as to commit himself to nothing at all. In fact the cities in question were merely four stops on a French railway, connecting Constantinople power to the Hejaz.
4. Whether or not they constituted a majority in the city- and the then current Encyclopedia Britannica indicated that they did not- the Jews were economically preponderant, Baghdad, along with Jerusalem, was one of the two Jewish cities of Asia, and a thousand years before had become the seat of if Diaspora- the head of Jewish religion in the Eastern Diaspora- and this the Capitol of Oriental Judaism. Jews in large numbers lived in the Mesopotamian provinces of Basra and Baghdad since the time of captivity by Babylonians about 600 BC and this settled in the country a thousand years before the coming of Arabs in 634 AD. Recognition of this could have found a Jewish State in Baghdad.
5. Weizman (Jewish leader to Palestine, was introduced the Feisal. He wrote, He is a leader! He is quite intelligent and very honest man, handsome as a picture! He is not interested in Palestine, but on the other hand he wants the while of Northern Syria and Damascus.. Grist contemptuous of the Palestinian Arab whole he doesn't even regard as Arab.
6. The Syrian National party of 1920 did insist on full immediate independence for Syria and was also prepared to recognize a Jewish National home in Palestine. At the same time an Arab delegation from Palestine confronted the British military governor with a resolution opposing Zionism and petitioning part of an independent Syria.
7. When the Palestinian – Jewish question came up the map of the time held that Palestine included what is now Jordan and part of Syria. By 1923 what was once Palestinian, became “token booby prize gifts” to Saudi kings who were not awarded Saudi Arabia and the Jews were left with a barren land to win 35 years and another World War later by comparison called Israel. Today we find ourselves further subdividing the small strip of land called Israel into two separate states on of which already has internal strife leading to further fractionating of Palestinian people.
8. Brought out in parallel events were the Bolshevik excursions of intrigue into Afghanistan and India including what is now Pakistan. This in conjunction with their return to the remains of the Ottoman Empire confounded British strategy to maintain their newly established supremacy of the Great Game. There was a keen fear of Bolshevism among all western powers long before the Totalitarian Communism fear took root. It was in the context of Jewish borne conspiracy that the second Russian Revolution was seen by British officials as the latest manifestations of a bigger conspiracy. Jews were prominent among the Bolshevik leaders; so the Bolshevik seizure of power was viewed by many within British government as not merely as German inspired but as Jewish directed. In the West Bolshevism was a threat to the order of rule by Captains & Kings” more-so that a threat to the liberties of the individual man. One can clearly see that the Jews had to win Israel, despite England’s attempts to "help them along".
In conclusion this strictly British view of the events the of 1915 to 1923 laid the frame work for continued hostilities from the Mediterranean Ocean to the Pacific Ocean open to further settlement by the last of political means…wars. It is clear that at the time the attempted colonial state, while it may have momentarily taken advantage of the local people deserving of self determination, there existed a temporary sense of law and order. The British pull back for what ever reason left one sixth of our world population to figure out how to organize a civilized form of government in a world that at the time was fully vested in nation building through self determination and democratic process. These people only knew government through edicts of corrupt Caliphs through the process of suzerainty. India, a non Muslim country figured it out as they actually maintained the quality aspects of the ruler they later threw out. A lesson learned.
So this leaves a question on Iraq and Afghanistan . Will the United States along with its half hearted world partners repeat the mistake made by the British 86 years ago? Will our efforts to plant the seeds of self determination, beginning at the will of the people take root without the nurturing akin to what France gave to the United States in 1776, or what United States provided to Japan and Germany in the aftermath of WWII? Or will the vacuum left in a premature pullback be a perpetuation of a region in continual conflict? Taking the unfortunate reality of rogue leaders out of the equation to maintain the scope of this book: If history can be of value, the lessons learned are for our world leaders of today to get past the agendas of attack and fear, and on to the recognition of the values found in world peace?
The number one obstacle to learning the truth about ourselves is fear founded in belief in scarcity that perpetuates greed and power. To over come that fear we must first have trust in ourselves and then in our neighbors. In a world of trust comes a world of knowing, a world of intelligence. It was the that lack of intelligence that led to the folly of wars producing more human destruction than any other period in history. This book exposes the need to re-prioritize that lesson learned. A must read.
Showing posts with label british empire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label british empire. Show all posts
Monday, June 29, 2009
Crimea
Crimea
by Trevor Royle
The prime players are Russia, Turkey, Britain, France. The issue is world power, or at least a strategic piece of the world's power puzzle. At issue in disguise were the holy prizes, masked in Russia's need to save '' the Christians '' in a Muslim ruled Turkey. It was a land within the Ottoman Empire in decline. ( a sick old man was the phrase of the time). With the battlefield looking like it should be Turkey, the Russian Crimean peninsula and actually the city of Sevastopol becomes the scene of the siege. There was an air of arrogance and possibly hubris amongst the European powers specifically amongst the people at large. Hubris spilled over into the leadership of each country as they were actually giving considerable thought to their strategic interest. England had concerns over an encroachment of influence immediately on their Indian colony. Russia was in search of a warm water port in the Mediterranean. France…well its not quite clear what she wanted outside of an influence in the Middle East as other than the Christian prizes there were no outside strategic interests. The one possible rationale for the French may have been the mood of the French where a convincing victory would remove the 1815 international shackles.
The Affair at Sinope is history’s lesson in poetic justice. Russia took advantage of their naval supremacy over Turkey. In proactive reaction to ward off the deployment of additional Turkish troops in Maldivian front, Russian ships sank the Turkish ships while still in harbor. They annihilated the fleet with a first in the use of solid shells. The burning fleet caught the harbor on fire. Turkey’s loss of 2000 soldiers and as many sailors. It gave the impression of a massacre to the rest of the world. Up to this point the world leaders were not anxious to war with Russia. That all changed as England and France took notice.
So one can look at the power strategic of military victory versus the power of the free press and ask which is most effective in terms of winning the long lasting minds of men. In particular the London Times worked the English people into lather over the ordeal that otherwise giving the speed and quality of information in 1855, could have gone unnoticed. The book does not delve into the reasons why. The reason I select hubris over arrogance is the aristocracy of the English would actually take knoll top picnics giving them clear vista over battlefields where thousands would die in a day.
You could also look at the leadership, but only from a perspective of the shortsightedness of their strategic vision. While arrogance may have played a minor part the book makes it painfully clear how ignorant the leaders were to how unprepared England and Russia were for the war. Only France, who by coincidence of recently having been involved in wars in North Africa had an army with a working practice on the battlefield. England had not seen war in almost 50 years so they let their armies, not yet institutions, go fallow. Russia did not have access to the same technological advancements as those of Western Europe. All belligerents involved had not yet learned the lesson of coordinating the military with the leaders. When you put poor vision in conjunction with a lathered up people, you have license to exercise a military power that may not have legitimate moral standing. Given the news still coming out of the Balkins and the Ottoman Empire, all this chemistry of a European and World society of man has yet to find stability.
The news turned from that of spawning war to that of severe criticism of the British government’s execution of the war. The armies went into the war theater unprepared where even in victory, there were heavy losses attributed to non-combat scenarios. At the first sounding of difficulty the English people became un-nerved at wars prospect. Poor, inaccurate, and untimely communication led to many interpretations of an event where not just knowledge, but timing of that knowledge was essential for a clear picture. And only an unmerciful God knew. With regard to the imminent attack on Sevastopol, while the British were on reconnaissance the Russians already new British intensions, they were reading the Times. I am most intrigued at most with the people’s views before, during, and after this battle. Arrogance -to- Blame. Arrogance in We - to - Blame in You. (any one but me )
The Crimean war gave significant ground to test the rapid advancements in technology coming from the western born industrial revolution. The naval attack on Odessa marked the last time a British war ship, the Arethusa would fight a sea battle fully under sail. The Russian introduced to mankind a new military weapon of under water mines in the harbor of Kronstdat in the Gulf of Finland. Other technologies include telegraph, balloons, tunneling; steam powered train, sulfurous fumes, missiles, periscope, and the Minie Rifle.
Behind the lines medical advancements along with an elevated awareness to the loss of life and limb gave room for the introduction of battlefield rescue and behind the line hospitals in war. Ladies with Lamps brings Florence Nightingale to a sorely exposed medical service. The press, for the first time in British history, brought home the horror of war. The controversy was politicized at a social class level. While the French were supreme in medical service, all the Christian contingencies in the war appealed to the new awareness of war enough to advance medical technology, while the Turks did absolutely nothing.
With regard to diplomacy there were channels between the leaders and press, between the leaders themselves, between the leaders and the Admirals and Generals, and finally between the participants. On the Battlefield the European combatants distained the Turks in many way, most notable for me was to read: “In fighting along side Turks, the French distained the Turkish ritual of beheading their fallen foe, so much that they did not want to fight along side them.” Missed Opportunities, during and immediately after the battle of Alma the first battle on the Crimean peninsula, first poor field reconnaissance resulting in disagreements by field command. Second was conflicting direction from Allied leaders lead to a battle victory but not a victory of what was to become the Crimean War.
The logistics leading up to the siege and actual of Battle of Sevastopol, found the French always waiting on the English and impatience drew a rivalry in who’s in charge. At Balaklava the Cavalryman’s Battle represents more of poor planning in a war that was hastily rushed in to. The Russians were mostly organized, however with a character of complacency. The allies found battle strategy undermined by poor communication across battalions within armies and generals of each army. On the French/British side Egos' were the prime protagonist. On page 272 you read: “That was the interpretation of the order but, from his position above the cavalry, Raglan wished them to move forward to take any of attacking the enemy. Instead he was treated to the sight of the Light Brigade dismounted and taking their ease in the morning sun. His inpatients were exacerbated by the tardy arrival of the infantry.” Myself I have to struggle to imagine, knowing I am going into combat, and taking a preverbal '' coffee break ''
Diplomacy, as we know it in the 20th century post 1917, amongst the leaders found to be lacking in every case in Crimea. It was only too evident that Napoleon III thumbed his nose at peace talks that were ripe for all when he had not convincingly beat the Russians. The English and the French had changed their tunes. Just prior to the battle of Sevastopol, it became apparent that even with an allied victory, a war could not be won. Even the United States came close to joining in the war. Nathaniel Hawthorne, had been instrumental in stopping an illegal shipment through a merchant called Field.....(This was quite a concession. Hawthorne had already admitted his preferences:’ I hate England; though I love some Englishmen, and like them generally, in fact'') this was in the course of diplomacy against England. It is clear, had we engaged, it would have been on the side of Russia. In the end Austria’s Ferdinand played the part of broker in a war of exhausted belligerents that did not see their way to a clear treaty. It is discussed that in 1877, twelve years later, the events and causes of the Crimean War were being repeated already. This time. Disraeli chose diplomacy over war. With Bismarck as broker, a peace treaty was drawn that laid down all manner of problems, which would re-emerge 36 years later in WWI. While not discussed in this book, I know from reading Bismarck that the protagonist of WWI was not Bismarck work, but rather the deviation from his work by the Kaiser. In 1914 Disraeli and Bismarck were gone but the same issues of Turkish {Islamic ) oppression of Christians and Russian expansion were catalyst where a reckless Germany lit the fuse. In all three wars the issues, the sides taken by the belligerents, and the peace treaties did not square up. The impending factor was the arrogant mood of hubris of the people, including the leaders, in conjunction with a fear of losing control of world power; a power that translated to psyche and life style of its people.
With regard to the moral cause for war, any war, it always seems to get lost in the shuffle. In the case of the Crimean War, one which I now call World War One, The Great Elche, Lord Stratford to the Sultan lays into a formal letter a call to an end of Islamic oppression and corruption. In doing so there would be no cause for international involvement, war. Ironically, the forth treaty point-of peace was Joint European guarantees of Rights for Christians in the Ottoman Empire. In Turkey, they said, How could Stratford in behalf of the Allies declared war on Russia because this Power was encroaching upon the independence of the Sultan by demanding to interfere in spiritual affairs of the Orthodoxies and how can he now demand a concession which they declared themselves, more than once, both verbally and in writing, to be inconsistent with the Sultans sovereign rights and independence? General Stratford: noted not only did the then leader Mahomet Ali lead an obnoxious personal life.... notorious for corruption and branded with criminality...he had been found guilty of murdering his Christian mistress and, at Stratford’s insistence, sacked from public life-but official Turkish appointment of him in the first place showed a contempt for British attempts to introduce reforms in court. What was the point of bolstering the Ottoman Empire by taking its side against Russia asked Stratford, if its rulers were in default to British demands that changes be made in its style of government? Ali’s successor Abd-el-Mejit agreed to a wide range of measures to protect Christian rights and all non-Muslims in his Empire, including the abolition of the death penalty for apostasy. This commitment was included in the peace settlement. I must make a note having traveled to Saudi Arabia, that when the aircraft crosses over into Saudi territory the captain comes on the public address and reads to the passengers key Islamic laws. Included in this is the abolition of Christianity, which he reads is punishable by death. When I heard that I rose from my business class seat to use the restroom. When I looked back all the women who were previously wearing some very skin bearing outfits were all in black ropes. It was alarming at least.
You could then ask, what was won. Russia's aim was a warm water port through a Russian solution to the Eastern Question. Nicholas succeeded, somewhat in 1855. The 1914 tzar/Chairman continued the success somewhat. I find it ironic that a man more evil than Hitler conned three of the Great Leaders of the free world to grant Nicholas' wish in signing a treaty in Yalta, on the tip of the Crimean Peninsula; went un-noticed!!! This gave Moscow 45 more years of warm water access. Only now as I write this review, sitting next to a woman from Crimea on an aircraft traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit, do I fully appreciate that the Crimea is now Ukraine and not Russia. What was lost or never really won; apparently free will amongst all man. Included with this reality is a fear that we are apt to do it all again.
So I ask in this time of immediate gratification and living in the here and now, what defines now? Is it this moment or could the study of history expand our worldview of now in a way that allows us at a larger social level, to learn from our lessons in history, an expanded now, and not touch the hot stove. Not to let the newspapers draw us to a level of consciousness that allows leaders to go unchecked, or worse yet be protagonist in their waging of a war. That airplane ride as much as this book makes clear to me that world peace may require a military that does not fire a shot. Is this a bit naive? Possibly…likely. When you consider it took the complete destruction of Germany and Japan to change their ways in defense of a free world, in a snap shot of a broader now; is that what it takes to bring the Eastern Question, a world that is not free to an answer?
Perhaps another solution is the appreciation that freedom is infolded in the world of free enterprise and democracy, the American experiment, is the government of choice to ensure a check on our leaders, and a free expression of its people. Perhaps the expansion in information technologies will help get a broader message to the people of the world. The Internet is a new twist in that articles not subject to editors biased messaging but rather bloggers where all information is openly and aggressively challenged. Keep in mind however North Korea struggles with electricity let alone infrastructure for the information rich web. Iran and China are demonstrably very capable of using that same web to monitor and control what is being viewed and said. Throwing that reality into the equation helps a person of the Western World appreciate an informational peace is not around the corner and is dependant on a certain “freedom of the press” Until then the poison of fear will poison us all.
I could have taken an intriguing view on the personal stories described in this book. They are equally valuable in understanding the travesty in war. I welcome all readers to have a good look at this book and fill in on items I may have missed.
by Trevor Royle
The prime players are Russia, Turkey, Britain, France. The issue is world power, or at least a strategic piece of the world's power puzzle. At issue in disguise were the holy prizes, masked in Russia's need to save '' the Christians '' in a Muslim ruled Turkey. It was a land within the Ottoman Empire in decline. ( a sick old man was the phrase of the time). With the battlefield looking like it should be Turkey, the Russian Crimean peninsula and actually the city of Sevastopol becomes the scene of the siege. There was an air of arrogance and possibly hubris amongst the European powers specifically amongst the people at large. Hubris spilled over into the leadership of each country as they were actually giving considerable thought to their strategic interest. England had concerns over an encroachment of influence immediately on their Indian colony. Russia was in search of a warm water port in the Mediterranean. France…well its not quite clear what she wanted outside of an influence in the Middle East as other than the Christian prizes there were no outside strategic interests. The one possible rationale for the French may have been the mood of the French where a convincing victory would remove the 1815 international shackles.
The Affair at Sinope is history’s lesson in poetic justice. Russia took advantage of their naval supremacy over Turkey. In proactive reaction to ward off the deployment of additional Turkish troops in Maldivian front, Russian ships sank the Turkish ships while still in harbor. They annihilated the fleet with a first in the use of solid shells. The burning fleet caught the harbor on fire. Turkey’s loss of 2000 soldiers and as many sailors. It gave the impression of a massacre to the rest of the world. Up to this point the world leaders were not anxious to war with Russia. That all changed as England and France took notice.
So one can look at the power strategic of military victory versus the power of the free press and ask which is most effective in terms of winning the long lasting minds of men. In particular the London Times worked the English people into lather over the ordeal that otherwise giving the speed and quality of information in 1855, could have gone unnoticed. The book does not delve into the reasons why. The reason I select hubris over arrogance is the aristocracy of the English would actually take knoll top picnics giving them clear vista over battlefields where thousands would die in a day.
You could also look at the leadership, but only from a perspective of the shortsightedness of their strategic vision. While arrogance may have played a minor part the book makes it painfully clear how ignorant the leaders were to how unprepared England and Russia were for the war. Only France, who by coincidence of recently having been involved in wars in North Africa had an army with a working practice on the battlefield. England had not seen war in almost 50 years so they let their armies, not yet institutions, go fallow. Russia did not have access to the same technological advancements as those of Western Europe. All belligerents involved had not yet learned the lesson of coordinating the military with the leaders. When you put poor vision in conjunction with a lathered up people, you have license to exercise a military power that may not have legitimate moral standing. Given the news still coming out of the Balkins and the Ottoman Empire, all this chemistry of a European and World society of man has yet to find stability.
The news turned from that of spawning war to that of severe criticism of the British government’s execution of the war. The armies went into the war theater unprepared where even in victory, there were heavy losses attributed to non-combat scenarios. At the first sounding of difficulty the English people became un-nerved at wars prospect. Poor, inaccurate, and untimely communication led to many interpretations of an event where not just knowledge, but timing of that knowledge was essential for a clear picture. And only an unmerciful God knew. With regard to the imminent attack on Sevastopol, while the British were on reconnaissance the Russians already new British intensions, they were reading the Times. I am most intrigued at most with the people’s views before, during, and after this battle. Arrogance -to- Blame. Arrogance in We - to - Blame in You. (any one but me )
The Crimean war gave significant ground to test the rapid advancements in technology coming from the western born industrial revolution. The naval attack on Odessa marked the last time a British war ship, the Arethusa would fight a sea battle fully under sail. The Russian introduced to mankind a new military weapon of under water mines in the harbor of Kronstdat in the Gulf of Finland. Other technologies include telegraph, balloons, tunneling; steam powered train, sulfurous fumes, missiles, periscope, and the Minie Rifle.
Behind the lines medical advancements along with an elevated awareness to the loss of life and limb gave room for the introduction of battlefield rescue and behind the line hospitals in war. Ladies with Lamps brings Florence Nightingale to a sorely exposed medical service. The press, for the first time in British history, brought home the horror of war. The controversy was politicized at a social class level. While the French were supreme in medical service, all the Christian contingencies in the war appealed to the new awareness of war enough to advance medical technology, while the Turks did absolutely nothing.
With regard to diplomacy there were channels between the leaders and press, between the leaders themselves, between the leaders and the Admirals and Generals, and finally between the participants. On the Battlefield the European combatants distained the Turks in many way, most notable for me was to read: “In fighting along side Turks, the French distained the Turkish ritual of beheading their fallen foe, so much that they did not want to fight along side them.” Missed Opportunities, during and immediately after the battle of Alma the first battle on the Crimean peninsula, first poor field reconnaissance resulting in disagreements by field command. Second was conflicting direction from Allied leaders lead to a battle victory but not a victory of what was to become the Crimean War.
The logistics leading up to the siege and actual of Battle of Sevastopol, found the French always waiting on the English and impatience drew a rivalry in who’s in charge. At Balaklava the Cavalryman’s Battle represents more of poor planning in a war that was hastily rushed in to. The Russians were mostly organized, however with a character of complacency. The allies found battle strategy undermined by poor communication across battalions within armies and generals of each army. On the French/British side Egos' were the prime protagonist. On page 272 you read: “That was the interpretation of the order but, from his position above the cavalry, Raglan wished them to move forward to take any of attacking the enemy. Instead he was treated to the sight of the Light Brigade dismounted and taking their ease in the morning sun. His inpatients were exacerbated by the tardy arrival of the infantry.” Myself I have to struggle to imagine, knowing I am going into combat, and taking a preverbal '' coffee break ''
Diplomacy, as we know it in the 20th century post 1917, amongst the leaders found to be lacking in every case in Crimea. It was only too evident that Napoleon III thumbed his nose at peace talks that were ripe for all when he had not convincingly beat the Russians. The English and the French had changed their tunes. Just prior to the battle of Sevastopol, it became apparent that even with an allied victory, a war could not be won. Even the United States came close to joining in the war. Nathaniel Hawthorne, had been instrumental in stopping an illegal shipment through a merchant called Field.....(This was quite a concession. Hawthorne had already admitted his preferences:’ I hate England; though I love some Englishmen, and like them generally, in fact'') this was in the course of diplomacy against England. It is clear, had we engaged, it would have been on the side of Russia. In the end Austria’s Ferdinand played the part of broker in a war of exhausted belligerents that did not see their way to a clear treaty. It is discussed that in 1877, twelve years later, the events and causes of the Crimean War were being repeated already. This time. Disraeli chose diplomacy over war. With Bismarck as broker, a peace treaty was drawn that laid down all manner of problems, which would re-emerge 36 years later in WWI. While not discussed in this book, I know from reading Bismarck that the protagonist of WWI was not Bismarck work, but rather the deviation from his work by the Kaiser. In 1914 Disraeli and Bismarck were gone but the same issues of Turkish {Islamic ) oppression of Christians and Russian expansion were catalyst where a reckless Germany lit the fuse. In all three wars the issues, the sides taken by the belligerents, and the peace treaties did not square up. The impending factor was the arrogant mood of hubris of the people, including the leaders, in conjunction with a fear of losing control of world power; a power that translated to psyche and life style of its people.
With regard to the moral cause for war, any war, it always seems to get lost in the shuffle. In the case of the Crimean War, one which I now call World War One, The Great Elche, Lord Stratford to the Sultan lays into a formal letter a call to an end of Islamic oppression and corruption. In doing so there would be no cause for international involvement, war. Ironically, the forth treaty point-of peace was Joint European guarantees of Rights for Christians in the Ottoman Empire. In Turkey, they said, How could Stratford in behalf of the Allies declared war on Russia because this Power was encroaching upon the independence of the Sultan by demanding to interfere in spiritual affairs of the Orthodoxies and how can he now demand a concession which they declared themselves, more than once, both verbally and in writing, to be inconsistent with the Sultans sovereign rights and independence? General Stratford: noted not only did the then leader Mahomet Ali lead an obnoxious personal life.... notorious for corruption and branded with criminality...he had been found guilty of murdering his Christian mistress and, at Stratford’s insistence, sacked from public life-but official Turkish appointment of him in the first place showed a contempt for British attempts to introduce reforms in court. What was the point of bolstering the Ottoman Empire by taking its side against Russia asked Stratford, if its rulers were in default to British demands that changes be made in its style of government? Ali’s successor Abd-el-Mejit agreed to a wide range of measures to protect Christian rights and all non-Muslims in his Empire, including the abolition of the death penalty for apostasy. This commitment was included in the peace settlement. I must make a note having traveled to Saudi Arabia, that when the aircraft crosses over into Saudi territory the captain comes on the public address and reads to the passengers key Islamic laws. Included in this is the abolition of Christianity, which he reads is punishable by death. When I heard that I rose from my business class seat to use the restroom. When I looked back all the women who were previously wearing some very skin bearing outfits were all in black ropes. It was alarming at least.
You could then ask, what was won. Russia's aim was a warm water port through a Russian solution to the Eastern Question. Nicholas succeeded, somewhat in 1855. The 1914 tzar/Chairman continued the success somewhat. I find it ironic that a man more evil than Hitler conned three of the Great Leaders of the free world to grant Nicholas' wish in signing a treaty in Yalta, on the tip of the Crimean Peninsula; went un-noticed!!! This gave Moscow 45 more years of warm water access. Only now as I write this review, sitting next to a woman from Crimea on an aircraft traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit, do I fully appreciate that the Crimea is now Ukraine and not Russia. What was lost or never really won; apparently free will amongst all man. Included with this reality is a fear that we are apt to do it all again.
So I ask in this time of immediate gratification and living in the here and now, what defines now? Is it this moment or could the study of history expand our worldview of now in a way that allows us at a larger social level, to learn from our lessons in history, an expanded now, and not touch the hot stove. Not to let the newspapers draw us to a level of consciousness that allows leaders to go unchecked, or worse yet be protagonist in their waging of a war. That airplane ride as much as this book makes clear to me that world peace may require a military that does not fire a shot. Is this a bit naive? Possibly…likely. When you consider it took the complete destruction of Germany and Japan to change their ways in defense of a free world, in a snap shot of a broader now; is that what it takes to bring the Eastern Question, a world that is not free to an answer?
Perhaps another solution is the appreciation that freedom is infolded in the world of free enterprise and democracy, the American experiment, is the government of choice to ensure a check on our leaders, and a free expression of its people. Perhaps the expansion in information technologies will help get a broader message to the people of the world. The Internet is a new twist in that articles not subject to editors biased messaging but rather bloggers where all information is openly and aggressively challenged. Keep in mind however North Korea struggles with electricity let alone infrastructure for the information rich web. Iran and China are demonstrably very capable of using that same web to monitor and control what is being viewed and said. Throwing that reality into the equation helps a person of the Western World appreciate an informational peace is not around the corner and is dependant on a certain “freedom of the press” Until then the poison of fear will poison us all.
I could have taken an intriguing view on the personal stories described in this book. They are equally valuable in understanding the travesty in war. I welcome all readers to have a good look at this book and fill in on items I may have missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)