What led to the creation of today’s Middle East? How did European decisions after World War I shape the region’s ongoing conflicts?
In A Peace to End All Peace, David Fromkin reveals how Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire after World War I, creating new countries and drawing borders that still spark tension today. He explores the complex alliances, secret agreements, and cultural misunderstandings that transformed the region.
Keep reading for an overview of this book that can help us understand the world.
Overview of A Peace to End All Peace (David Fromkin)
In A Peace to End All Peace, David Fromkin provides an overview of how the modern Middle East came into being after World War I (1914-1918). He uses the term Middle East to refer to the path Britain cleared to more easily reach its colonies in India. It includes Egypt, Türkiye, Iran, Afghanistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and the territories within that perimeter. Before World War I, countries such as Israel, Jordan, and Syria didn’t exist—they were all part of the Ottoman Empire, which lost them following its defeat in World War I.
(Shortform note: In December 2021, the Turkish government requested that the United Nations refer to it as Türkiye, matching how the name is spelled and pronounced in Turkish. The government rebranded the country to better represent its culture and disassociate itself from Turkey, the bird.)
Fromkin contends the modern Middle East arose from England and France’s negotiations during and after World War I. Seeking compensation for the war’s losses, these European powers reshaped the remnants of the Ottoman Empire into new countries with new leaders.
(Shortform note: Just like the modern Middle East’s political geography, the term Middle East is a European creation. The British coined the term during the late 1800s to describe the area between the Near East (Arabia) and the Far East (India). Critics argue the term is Eurocentric because it labels the region from a European point of view.)
Europe’s decisions created dilemmas the Middle East still grapples with, including which states are legitimate and where their borders should be. The book’s title refers to the legacy of these decisions. While World War I was supposed to be the “war to end all wars,” the postwar settlements made peace difficult throughout these regions. Fromkin credits Archibald Wavell, a British officer who fought in the war, with coining the phrase “a peace to end peace”—words suggesting a lack of faith in the postwar peace processes.
(Shortform note: Wavell’s phrase was a riff on “The war that will end war,” an idealistic term author H.G. Wells used in 1914, believing that World War I would prevent future conflicts.)
When researching this book (which was published in 1989), Fromkin examined previously secret official documents and private papers, which allowed him to differentiate truth from propaganda. He combined his findings from archival research with modern scholarship.
(Shortform note: Before becoming a historian, Fromkin was a defense lawyer. Perhaps his experience looking for evidence in documents and correspondence helped him uncover details other historians missed, such as the episode of the Turkish battleship.)
In his book, Fromkin doesn’t deeply explore the war itself. He focuses instead on the negotiations related to the Middle East that took place during and after the war, which mainly involved Britain and France. For this reason, the book doesn’t spend much time on the role of the US, which was highly involved in the war but not in these negotiations.
This overview organizes Fromkin’s findings into three stages: before, during, and after World War I. Within each stage, we explore some of the key decisions that shaped the modern Middle East.
Before World War I
Before World War I, Europe and Asia’s major powers frequently shifted alliances. Fromkin notes that these changes paved the way for the conflict between the Allies (the British Empire, France, and Russia) and the Central Powers (Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Austria-Hungary). These alliances contributed to the Ottoman Empire’s collapse, reshaping it into the modern Middle East.
We’ll discuss these shifting alliances in the context of the “Great Game,” a 19th-century imperial competition among Britain, France, and Russia. We then examine Europe’s policy changes toward the Ottoman Empire as the “Great Game” evolved. This led the Ottomans to join the Central Powers.
Essential Context: The Great Game
Fromkin argues that the pre-war period (late 19th and early 20th centuries) was the peak of imperialism for European powers. The British Empire’s “Great Game” aimed to block France and Russia’s colonial objectives in the territories between India and England. The wealth of natural resources the British Empire was extracting from India made the region its crowning jewel—and they protected it fiercely from competing empires’ advances.
Britain protected the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire to safeguard its Indian colonies, using the Ottomans as a buffer against Russian expansion. This strategy served British interests and helped the Ottomans defend against Russia. Once a major power, the Ottoman Empire flourished in the 16th century but began declining in the 17th century. Fromkin argues that the Ottomans were vulnerable to foreign intervention because they failed to shift from conquest to governance. The empire faced nationalist uprisings and lagged behind Europe in military, industrial, and administrative development, struggling to maintain peace and defend its borders.
Key Decisions: Europe’s Policy Shift Regarding the Ottoman Empire
Fromkin notes that Europe’s view of the Ottoman Empire changed at the start of World War I. We’ll explore these changes by describing Germany’s role before the war, how the Allies’ closer ties isolated the Ottomans, and how Ottoman land became a bargaining chip.
Europe’s attitude shift happened as the threat of war grew. Germany’s industrial and military rise challenged Britain’s dominance, impacting strategic and economic dynamics. Fromkin explains that Britain’s weakening industry and Germany’s advancements in chemicals, tools, and railroads threatened British interests.
As Germany became a new imperial force, Britain sought alliances with old enemies, unsettling the Ottoman Empire. Britain and France solidified their alliance, while Britain resolved tensions with Russia through a 1907 treaty. Fromkin says this treaty alarmed the Ottomans, who feared losing British protection against Russia.
Compounding Ottoman concerns, the Allies began negotiating Ottoman territories, expecting these regions to become available postwar. As World War I progressed, Britain believed declaring war on the Ottoman Empire would allow it to divide its territories among smaller nations like Italy to lure them into joining Britain against Germany. Adding to the strategic considerations, Fromkin argues that Britain started considering controlling the region directly, without the Ottoman Empire as a middleman.
Key Outcome: The Ottomans’ Alliance With Germany (1914)
After losing Britain’s protection, the Ottoman Empire formed a secret alliance with Germany in August 1914, joining the Central Powers. Fromkin identifies several reasons:
1. The Ottomans sought alliances with other powers after they lost the British Empire’s protection from the territorial advances of Russia and other European nations.
2. Germany sought strategic alliances, and the Ottoman Empire’s size and location made it an attractive partner. Fromkin also found that the Ottomans offered Germany a powerful battleship to convince them of their military worth. However, the offer was likely a ruse: Britain had seized the British-made battleship earlier that day, which the Ottomans already suspected.
3. Rising Turkish nationalism motivated the faction in power within the Ottoman Empire to assert its dominance. The Young Turks, the political faction ruling the Ottoman Empire, hoped that joining the war would help them reclaim Turkish-speaking regions from Russian control. This Turkish nationalist faction also asserted its dominance within the empire, with tragic consequences for minorities, especially Armenians. In 1915, Turkish officials massacred Armenians, accusing them of supporting Russia. The Ottoman government killed and forcefully deported the Armenians, leading to famine and the death of half the population.
During World War I (1914-1918)
World War I pitted the Allies against the Central Powers from 1914 to 1918. First, we’ll discuss how shifting alliances set the course for the war. Then, we’ll explore how those shifts informed two key decisions the Allies made:
- The Sykes-Picot agreement outlining how the Allies would split the territories of the soon-to-be-dismantled Ottoman Empire
- The Balfour Declaration supporting the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine
Essential Context: Conflicting Alliances
Fromkin discusses the conflicting alliances during World War I. These alliances complicated Britain’s efforts to negotiate with any single group. In addition, Britain struggled to balance immediate goals, such as winning the war quickly, with long-term goals, such as placing British-friendly leaders in strategic places. We’ll describe some of these alliances.
The Triple Entente
Russia’s alliance with Britain and France (“The Triple Entente”) was in peril due to an economic crisis that led to the Soviet revolution. Vladimir Lenin, a Soviet leader who advocated for ending Russia’s involvement in the war, seized control of the Russian government in 1917. Fromkin claims that Britain tried to stall Russia’s exit from the alliance by appealing to the interests of Russian Jews, mistakenly thinking they held a lot of power in the government. Despite Britain’s attempts, Russia signed a peace treaty with Germany in 1918 and left the Entente.
The Anglo-Zionist Alliance
Fromkin argues that Britain’s alliance with Zionism during the war supported both their wartime and postwar goals. Zionism aimed to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine so Jews could self-govern and live free from persecution. The British mistakenly believed that Jews in the US had significant influence and that supporting Zionism would give Britain political and financial backing from the US and Russia. Britain also aimed to control Palestine postwar to block German dominance of key routes to British colonies in Asia and the Pacific, such as India and New Zealand. An alliance with Zionism ensured Palestine remained friendly to British interests.
Fromkin notes that the Zionist movement arose amid 19th-century European nationalism, which advocated national freedom but fostered intolerance toward minorities. Jews in Western Europe faced hostility and questions about their national identity, while Eastern European Jews endured legal restrictions and violent pogroms (organized massacres of minority groups). These adversities led to calls for an independent Jewish state. Zionist leaders chose Palestine for its religious significance and the existing Jewish communities settling there.
Anglo-Arab Alliances
Fromkin reveals that the British were intentionally vague in their promises to Arabs and Zionists regarding Palestine, knowing they couldn’t keep their promises to both groups. Also, he says the British government believed Middle Eastern leaders could help end the war more quickly by inciting rebellion within the Ottoman Empire. The British led and financed Arab uprisings to destabilize the region, promising their local agents they’d be able to govern themselves. These revolts helped the British take over key cities across the Arab Ottoman territories.
The Anglo-French Alliance
At the same time, supporting any level of Arab independence challenged France’s regional objectives in Syria-Lebanon, whose Christian communities were under French protection. Fromkin argues that British officials thwarted French objectives in the Middle East. For instance, they supported an Arab leader in Syria despite the French wanting Syria for themselves.
Key Decision: The Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916)
According to Fromkin, the Sykes-Picot Agreement—named after Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot, the negotiators for Britain and France—marks a pivotal point in Middle Eastern history. Signed in 1916, this secret agreement between Britain and France attempted to resolve their tensions by outlining their plans for the Ottoman Empire after the war.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement tried to balance France’s goal to control some Middle Eastern territories and Britain’s goals to maintain influence over the region and give some independence to Middle Eastern leaders. Fromkin explains that Britain and France agreed on the following arrangement:
- The British Empire would have control of modern-day Iraq and the Haifa and Acre districts in modern-day Israel, providing Britain with access to the Mediterranean Sea.
- The British Empire would have political influence over modern-day Jordan and southern Iraq. This influence would include choosing rulers and shaping their international policies.
- France would have direct control over Cilicia in southeastern Türkiye, the coastal region of modern Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Iraq.
- Both the British Empire and France would have administrative power over Palestine.
Key Outcome: Setting the Stage for the Modern Middle East
Fromkin argues that the Sykes-Picot Agreement laid the groundwork for many of the tensions and conflicts we see in the Middle East today. The agreement carved out new nations without much regard for ethnic or sectarian divisions. The arbitrary division of territories fueled resentment in the region toward Western powers. The agreement also overlooked Arab leaders’ ambition for full independence, and its secrecy heightened their feelings of betrayal.
Key Decision: The Balfour Declaration (1917)
A year after the Sykes-Picot agreement, Britain made another decision that would change the trajectory of the Middle East: the Balfour Declaration supporting a Jewish state. The declaration took the form of a letter from Britain’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a prominent Jewish man in London society.
Fromkin argues that the Balfour Declaration built on the Zionist movement’s momentum and was a result of the successful Zionist lobbying of British policymakers during World War I. Through the declaration, Britain hoped to secure Jewish support in the war and ensure that Palestine was under British influence after the war.
The letter marked the first time a major world power endorsed the idea of Jewish statehood. Specifically, it expressed British support for the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine and paved the way for the creation of Israel. Fromkin explains that the letter’s wording was intentionally ambiguous so as not to overcommit Britain. An initial draft, created in consultation with British Zionist leaders, stated that Palestine should be the Jewish people’s national home. After some back-and-forth with the government, it turned into a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
On December 11, 1917, British forces entered Jerusalem, aided by Arab tribesmen, Bedouin fighters, Ottoman prisoners of war, and Jewish-Palestinian spies. Fromkin explains this marked the end of Ottoman rule and the start of the British administration of Palestine. In 1920, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine officially put the region under British control.
Key Outcome: The Israel/Palestine Conflict
Fromkin notes that the Balfour Declaration was contentious from the start. It promised that Jews could have land already inhabited by an Arab majority, and it conflicted with earlier British promises to Arabs and the French. In 1915, Britain promised independence to their Arab allies in exchange for their help against the Ottomans. Britain also promised the French joint rule over Palestine through the Sykes-Picot agreement. Fromkin argues that French support for Zionism was aimed at keeping Zionist leaders involved in the war, not a commitment to a Jewish state.
The Balfour Declaration stated that the British government would support efforts to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine without negatively affecting the religious and civil rights of the Muslim and Christian populations already living there.
Fromkin explains that Britain struggled to govern Palestine while balancing their goals with the interests of Jewish and Arab allies. British officials in Palestine delayed announcing the Balfour Declaration to avoid alarming locals. In contrast, the British Foreign Office set up a Zionist Commission to prepare for a Jewish homeland, which faced resistance from the Arabs.
After World War I (1918-1923)
By the end of the war, the Central Powers had lost and the Ottoman Empire was dismembered. Fromkin explains that many countries we think of today as part of the Middle East emerged from the postwar remains of the Ottoman Empire. The period between 1918 and 1923 was one of intense negotiations between European powers as well as unrest and bids for independence from Middle Eastern countries. It culminated in what Fromkin calls the 1922 settlement, a series of agreements delineating new borders for the Middle East. However, Fromkin argues that Europe’s agreements failed to ensure lasting stability in the region it tried to govern.
We’ll discuss why Europe failed to stabilize the Middle East after the war. Then, it will explore how Europe reorganized the region and how those agreements defined the lay of the land in today’s Middle East.
Essential Context: Why Europe Failed to Stabilize the Middle East
While Britain and France thought they had solved the Middle Eastern “problem” of who would rule the region after the Ottoman collapse, they created lasting conflict and instability. We’ll describe two of Fromkin’s explanations for Europe’s failure.
Europe’s Self-Centered Choices
Fromkin argues that European leaders based the Middle Eastern boundaries they drew on their interests. They disregarded local preferences, leading to legitimacy issues and opposition. People didn’t identify with their new nationalities, and neighboring countries had competing claims to the lands and peoples the Europeans reshuffled.
In addition, Europe imposed a Western state system on the Middle East without considering local cultures. Fromkin claims European policymakers didn’t understand the regions they were trying to govern. They lacked accurate maps and cultural context about regional divisions and politics.
New Faultlines in the West
Fromkin explains that the West also reconfigured itself after the war, complicating its ability to stabilize the Middle East. Russia and the US distanced themselves from the Allies during the lengthy period of peace negotiations. This break conflicted with the British goal of sharing the expense and hassle of governing the region.
Sharing the load was important because Europe’s money and manpower were dwindling after the war. Fromkin writes that Allied soldiers were eager to return home, and army occupations were a drain on financial resources. Citizens back home demanded their money be spent rebuilding their countries’ shattered economies rather than governing distant regions. This led Britain to establish puppet governments and rule by proxy to limit the costs of having a physical presence in all the Middle Eastern territories under their influence.
Key Decision: The “1922 Settlement”
European powers drew up what Fromkin calls the 1922 settlement—a long list of agreements European powers and Middle Eastern leaders arrived at around 1922. The agreements determined which Ottoman Empire territories would become independent countries and which would be absorbed by European empires such as Britain, France, and Russia. The agreements impacted the countries throughout the region, from Egypt—which gained independence—to Afghanistan. We’ll focus on some of the most controversial decisions.
Regarding Russia, the settlement defined its political borders along the Türkiye-Iran-Afghanistan line. Fromkin writes that the Russian proclamation of a Soviet Union in 1922 consolidated its control over Muslim Central Asia, quashing independent movements and integrating the territory into the new Soviet state.
Key Outcome: The 1922 Settlement Unsettles the Middle East
Fromkin describes how Europe reshaped the Middle East post-World War I. Some countries became independent, but Fromkin explains that independence came at a cost, whether it was war or foreign intervention. Greater Syria fell under France and Britain’s direct control, and the European administration of the region led to the creation of several new countries.
We’ll discuss how the 1922 settlement shaped nine Middle Eastern countries and contributed to their instability.
Türkiye
According to Fromkin, the harsh terms Europe imposed on Türkiye as part of the postwar agreements led to the Turkish War of Independence.
Through the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, Europe dismantled the Ottoman Empire and imposed large territorial losses and heavy financial reparations on Türkiye, the empire’s seat of government. The Treaty fueled nationalist sentiment and ignited the Turkish War of Independence, which killed hundreds of thousands of Turkish, Greek, and Armenian civilians. Turkish forces succeeded, leading to the establishment of the Republic of Türkiye and the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which recognized the borders of the modern Turkish state.
Iraq
The decision to create Iraq by uniting the ethnically and religiously diverse regions of Mesopotamia led to persistent infighting and questioning of the country’s legitimacy. According to Fromkin, the country still grapples with internal conflicts as a result of the rivalries between the Shia and Sunni strands of Islam and with minority ethnic groups such as the Kurds.
Fromkin explains how, after World War I, Mesopotamia became more strategic thanks to its oil reserves. At the same time, it was becoming more difficult for the British to govern it. The population often rose up against the British occupation, resulting in violent confrontations. In 1921, the British government handpicked the first Iraqi king so they could stop governing the region directly while still protecting their commercial interests. However, they chose a Sunni king, which made the Sunni minority into a ruling elite over the Shiite majority population.
During the postwar decision-making period, Europe decided not to facilitate a Kurdish kingdom. Fromkin writes that the discussions on the subject didn’t materialize into any decision, which effectively left the Kurds without a state of their own.
Saudi Arabia and Transjordan (Jordan)
Britain shaped today’s Arabian Peninsula in two ways. They made the Palestinian region of Transjordan into a separate state, and they backed a leader of Transjordan in opposition to the rising leadership of Ibn Saud in today’s Saudi Arabia. We’ll discuss both actions in more detail.
Fromkin explains that Britain’s administrative actions in Transjordan eventually led to the creation of Jordan. To control anti-French and anti-Zionist movements without overextending resources, Britain elevated Abdullah I bin Al-Hussein of the Hashemite royal family to lead Transjordan. This move contradicted Britain’s policy against Jewish settlement near territories led by Arabian leaders, so they separated Transjordan from Palestine to bypass this policy.
Fromkin argues that Britain’s support for Abdullah divided the desert Arabs and created lasting questions about Jordan’s legitimacy. Britain backed Abdullah in the west but tacitly approved Arab political leader Ibn Saud in the east. Ibn Saud embraced Wahhabism, a conservative Islamic movement, to expand his territory, threatening Abdullah’s control.
With British military backing, Abdullah retained some land, but Ibn Saud expanded across Arabia without confronting Britain directly. This rivalry led to the modern borders between Saudi Arabia and Jordan. According to Fromkin, it also encouraged Jordan’s critics to question its legitimacy, since it arguably could not have survived without Britain’s support.
Syria and Great Lebanon (Lebanon)
According to Fromkin, France’s decision to divide Syria-Lebanon into autonomous regions led to conflicts and bloodshed. Arab nationalists opposed French rule and declared Syria-Lebanon independent in 1920. But France was determined not to lose Syria-Lebanon, which was theirs according to Sykes-Picot, and they invaded Damascus.
Between 1920 and 1923, France consolidated its control over the region through military conquest and administrative division. In 1923, the League of Nations confirmed the French Mandate over Syria-Lebanon. During their administration of the region, the French implemented a policy of divide and rule to weaken nationalist movements by worsening sectarian and regional differences. They broke up the region into different administrative areas, making it difficult for the different groups resisting them to collaborate and successfully reject the French.
France divided Syria-Lebanon into several autonomous regions, including Great Lebanon—a precursor to modern-day Lebanon. Fromkin claims that redrawing Lebanon’s borders led to bloodshed in the 1970s and 1980s due to conflicts between the majority Muslim population and the minority Christian groups which were brought together artificially.
Palestine and Israel
In Palestine and Israel, the British government’s decision not to follow through on their promises to either Arabs or Zionists led to a still-unresolved dispute. The British administration committed itself to creating a Jewish home in Palestine without specifying what that meant. Fromkin argues that many British leaders believed it meant an expanded Jewish community within a multinational Palestine under British rule, not a Jewish state. However, the British had given the impression to their Zionist allies that they’d establish a full-blown Jewish state.
Fromkin explains that Zionist leaders felt constrained by the British administration’s wavering stance. They believed that if the British made it clear that the Balfour Declaration was non-negotiable and would be enforced, Arabs would be forced to accept it and even see its potential benefits, like increased economic development in the region.
According to Fromkin, the main obstacle to negotiations among the British, the Jewish settlers, and the Palestinians was the Palestinian delegation’s uncompromising stance. They were worried about losing their land. Some Palestinian groups responded to the increasing Jewish immigration with violence. Deadly anti-Zionist riots broke out against incoming Jewish settlers, leading Britain to suspend Jewish immigration into Palestine temporarily. In addition, Fromkin writes that the British officers in Palestine—not politicians but rank-and-file members of the army—sided with the Palestinians, doing little to suppress the violence. When the British army didn’t react quickly enough to restore order, Jewish militias took up arms to protect themselves.
Finally, Fromkin highlights Britain’s White Paper for Palestine, which Churchill wrote to bring order to the region. The document reiterated support for a Jewish national home in Palestine without making it into a Jewish state. It left Palestinian and Zionist leaders dissatisfied: Zionists wanted more support for their project, while Palestinians wanted to end the project entirely.
