# data[].attributes.body
A chart of the Ottoman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Ottoman Empire represents one of the largest imperial projects in human history, ruling vast territories in North Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East over a period of some five centuries. During its history, it did much to sustain Islamic civilization. Outsiders and insiders have had different perceptions of the Ottoman Empire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The opening moves

Few events in world history have had a more profound impact than that of World War One (1914-8). Although the German attempt to dominate Europe was thwarted in the end, the equilibrium of the region was also destroyed by the fierce fighting between its different elements.

The Middle East was no less affected by the conflict. After four centuries of continuous rule, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, creating a vacuum that contributed to tensions between local inhabitants and external powers or interests. The 'war to end all war' had not achieved its aim.

At the beginning of November 1914, the Ottoman Empire, the world's greatest independent Islamic power, abandoned its ambivalent neutrality towards the warring parties, and became a belligerent in the conflict, with the sultan declaring a military jihad (holy war) against France, Russia and Great Britain.

The Ottoman Empire had recently been humiliated by setbacks in Libya and the Balkans. Participation in what had begun as a European war might seem to outside observers, therefore, to have been suicidal, but key elements in the government, impressed by German industrial and military power and motivated by dreams of imperial glory, greeted the expanding war as an opportunity to regain lost territories and incorporate new lands and nationalities into the empire.

The Ottoman/Turkish army (some 600,000 troops divided into 38 divisions) was of an unknown quality. But with Germany as an ally, the Ottoman Empire represented a serious threat to the British Empire, so in a pre-emptive strike, London immediately landed an Anglo-Indian force at Basra, near the estuary of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. This was done to protect the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline, which was vital to the British navy, and to show the Union Jack in this strategically important area in the Persian Gulf.

Within weeks the Central Powers struck back with a surprise attack against Britain's 'jugular vein', the Suez Canal. This attempt, in early February 1915, to breach British defences on the Suez Canal and raise an Islamic revolt in Egypt, failed however, and resulted in heavy losses for the attackers.

Defeat at Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia

Unwilling to commit all of its emerging military resources in 1915 to the Western Front, where trench warfare prevailed, the British leadership embraced a naval offensive against Istanbul to force the Ottoman Empire out of the war. When the Royal Navy in February and March was unable to fight its way through the Dardanelles to place the Ottoman capital under its big guns, the military authorities hastily assembled an expeditionary force to land on the Gallipoli peninsula.

The muddled thinking that led to this campaign continued during the savage fighting, and the predominantly British force suffered heavy losses (205,000 British soldiers, and 47,000 French - with the sick included in the figures) and had to be withdrawn. The Ottoman/Turkish Fifth Army, well armed and fighting from strong defensive positions, had proved more than a match for the Allies.

As the Gallipoli campaign wound down, an Anglo-Indian force was cut off and surrounded at Kut-el-Amara, a town about 100 miles south of Baghdad. The limited, defensive stance at Basra had evolved into a distant and risky advance up the Tigris toward Baghdad, and this had been the result.

Political objectives, as had been the case in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli venture, had trumped military considerations - the Anglo-Indian force did not have the necessary reserves or logistical support to retain Baghdad, even if they had been able to capture it. Moreover, a strong British presence in Mesopotamia had no connection to the defeat of Britain's primary strategic rival, Germany. But the Indian government were concerned that a holy war might be ignited in Persia and Afghanistan, thus threatening India, and they wanted British prestige upheld in the Islamic world to avert such a war.

A more difficult theatre in which to fight would be hard to imagine. Flies and mosquitoes attacked the troops, many of whom became sick. Soldiers froze during the winter nights, and were overcome by heat during the summer. Dust turned to mud when the banks of the Tigris overflowed during the rainy season.

Defeat of the Ottoman Empire

Murray's failure to capture Gaza led to his replacement by General Sir Edmund Allenby, a soldier of great vigour and imagination, who was able to create a personal bond with his troops. His government hoped to achieve a concrete victory to boost morale at home, and gave him the flexibility to advance on Jerusalem.

In October, when the weather was more favourable, Allenby made good use of his infantry and a large mounted force, which included many troopers from Australia and New Zealand, to break through the Gaza-Beersheba Front. And after a difficult advance across the Judean hills, he walked through the Jaffa Gate on 11 December 1917 as the 34th conqueror of Jerusalem, the first Christian conqueror since the Crusades.

Many of Allenby's soldiers were deeply conscious that they were fighting on sacred soil, and some viewed themselves as modern-day crusaders, but their leader was acutely aware that many of his soldiers and workers were Islamic, and he vigorously played down any notion of a crusade.

Convinced that neither side had the means to achieve victory in France in 1918, Prime Minister David Lloyd George sought to make Allenby's theatre the focus of his country's military effort. Germany's massive offensives closer to home during the first half of 1918, however, forced the government to recall most of Allenby's British soldiers to France. Allenby, who retained his cavalry, received replacements for his infantry in Egypt from many sources, predominately from India but also from many other diverse nations ranging from Burma to the West Indies.

Allenby returned to the offensive at the Battle of Megiddo, on 19 September 1918. With a decided advantage in manpower, artillery, air power and morale, and assisted by Arab allies on his flank, he quickly destroyed the Ottoman/Turkish armies facing him.

Once the enemy front was broken, the EEF's cavalry dominated the campaign. Damascus fell on 1 October, Aleppo, the last city to fall in the campaign, on 26 October. Five days later an armistice with the Ottoman Empire came into effect. Since 19 September Allenby's forces had advanced hundreds of miles and netted over 75,000 prisoners.

The aftermath

The war ended with the British occupying the territory that was to become Iraq, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. With the Ottoman Empire destroyed, Russia paralysed by foreign intervention and civil war, and French influence limited somewhat by their minor military role in the Middle East, Britain's military success made her the dominant power in the region. The resulting settlement, which fostered an instability that continues to be a source of conflict today, generated much controversy at the time and has continued to do so ever since.

Employing bags of gold, the diplomacy of Lawrence of Arabia, and promises of Arab independence, the British had encouraged an Arab uprising in 1916 against the Turks. Although the Hashemite Arabs were rewarded with considerable territory, they and other Arab nationalists believed that they had been 'robbed' when the British did not fully deliver on their pledges of independence. They believed that the western powers, especially the British, had acted with arrogance, drawing borders and creating nations with little or no regard for the wishes of the local inhabitants.

The fate of Palestine, occupied by the British, especially provoked Arab frustration and anger. (In 1917 the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, had supported a Jewish home in Palestine.)

But in important respects the Arab view of the peace settlement (which is supported by many western historians) is a caricature of what actually happened. In a revisionist work, Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh have made a convincing argument that many forces, both local and foreign, were at work at the time the settlement was agreed. In their words, 'even at the weakest point in their modern history, during the First World War and its immediate wake, Middle Eastern actors were not hapless victims of predatory imperial powers, but active participants in the restructuring of their region.'

They argue, for example, that Iraq and Trans-Jordan were not simply British inventions, but owed their existence to a compromise between Hashemite imperial greed and well-intended British efforts to meet local needs and allay the fears and suspicions of their allies.

It is perhaps only proper to note that if Germany had won the war, the Ottoman Empire would have been expanded, subjecting many Arabs and other nationalities to its rule. And if the French and British had granted 'self-determination' to the inhabitants of this region it is possible that the result would have been the balkanisation of the area, with fragile and often antagonistic fiefdoms and kingdoms prevailing. It seems likely that, no matter how this war in the Middle East had been resolved, the region was destined to suffer instability and conflict in the years ahead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Few events in world history have had a more profound impact than that of World War One (1914-8). Although the German attempt to dominate Europe was thwarted in the end, the equilibrium of the region was also destroyed by the fierce fighting between its different elements.

# data[].attributes.body
A chart of the Ottoman Empire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Ottoman Empire represents one of the largest imperial projects in human history, ruling vast territories in North Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East over a period of some five centuries. During its history, it did much to sustain Islamic civilization. Outsiders and insiders have had different perceptions of the Ottoman Empire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Partition of the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The partition of the Ottoman Empire ( Armistice of Mudros, 30 October 1918 - Abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate, 1 November 1922) was a political event that occurred after World War I and the occupation of Constantinople by British, French and Italian troops in November 1918.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://study.com/academy/lesson/important-events-in-africa-1945-present.html&ved=0ahUKEwiPq4atno_QAhUKLyYKHbf-CO4Qo7QBCC0wCQ&usg=AFQjCNF7ofY8Cz5T8BrqUoHCSUuYyK7B8w

# data[].attributes.body
War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
also called:

Gulf War

(Show more)

This article was most recently revised and updated by

Persian Gulf War, (1990-91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the invasion and occupation of Kuwait with the apparent aim of acquiring that nation's large oil reserves, canceling a large debt Iraq owed Kuwait, and expanding Iraqi power in the region. It was the first major international crisis of the post- Cold War era, and the U.S.-led response would set important precedents for the use of military force over subsequent decades.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait

Tensions in the Persian Gulf began to build during the summer of 1990, with Iraq adopting an increasingly belligerent tone toward both Kuwait and members of its ruling Ṣabāḥ dynasty. On July 17 Saddam launched a televised verbal attack on Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates for exceeding the oil export quotas that had been set for them by OPEC. A day later Kuwait was accused of stealing oil from the Al-Rumaylah oil field, which straddles the border between Iraq and Kuwait. As criticism mounted, talks between the two countries in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, broke down on August 1. Hours later, early on August 2, Iraqi armoured divisions invaded Kuwait despite personal assurances from Saddam to Egyptian Pres. Hosni Mubarak that Iraq would avoid using force to press its claims against Kuwait.

Active resistance to the invasion lasted about 14 hours, during which time an estimated 4,200 Kuwaitis were killed in combat. Although remnants of Kuwait's 20,000-man army maintained a spirited defense over the next 36 hours, the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait city was completed with little difficulty. The fiercest opposition came at Dasman Palace, the royal residence of emir Sheikh Jābir al-Aḥmad al-Jābir al-Ṣabāḥ, which only yielded to the Iraqis after hours of bitter hand-to-hand fighting in which the emir's younger brother, Sheikh Fahad, was killed. At 11:11 am on August 3 Kuwait Radio fell silent with these words: "Arabs, brothers, beloved brothers, Muslims. Hurry to our aid." Sheikh Jābir, his cabinet, and senior members of the Ṣabāḥ family fled to Saudi Arabia to establish a government-in-exile. Crown prince Saʿd al-ʿAbd Allāh al-Sālim al-Ṣabāḥ quickly emerged as the dominant personality within this group, and finance minister Sheikh Ali al-Khalifah al-Ṣabāḥ took control of most of Kuwait's overseas assets, which amounted to some $100 billion. As many as 350,000 Kuwaiti refugees also fled south into Saudi Arabia.

On August 4 Iraqi occupation forces appointed Col. Alaa Hussain Ali as head of state of Kuwait; he was backed by a nine-member cabinet of "revolutionaries" who, Iraq said, were responsible for ousting remnants of the previous regime. On August 8 the Iraqis installed the Provisional Free Government of Kuwait, a body that was established to give credence to Iraq's dubious claim that the invasion was conducted at the request of Kuwaitis opposed to the Ṣabāḥ dynasty. On August 10 foreign diplomats were given a two-week deadline to close their embassies in Kuwait and move to Baghdad. On August 28 Saddam declared that Kuwait was now the 19th province of Iraq. Place-names were "Iraqized," and the southern Iraqi province of Al-Baṣrah was extended to include the Kuwait side of the Al-Rumaylah oil field as well as the islands of Būbiyān and Al-Warbah at the head of the Shaṭṭ Al-ʿArab waterway.

During the occupation of Kuwait, Iraqi troops began a systematic campaign of pillage, rape, torture, murder, and theft of Kuwait's economic assets. The Iraqi occupation government announced the death penalty for looters but condoned the removal to Baghdad of medical equipment from hospitals, the assets of the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, treasures of Islamic art from the Kuwait National Museum, and $1.6 billion in gold and cash from the Central Bank of Kuwait. Amnesty International reported that Iraqi soldiers had carried out hundreds of extrajudicial killings and taken several thousand Kuwaiti civilians prisoner. One widely circulated story about Iraqi soldiers removing newborn infants from hospital incubators was eventually debunked as a fabrication, but the truth did not emerge until long after the conflict had been settled.

The international response to the invasion of Kuwait

The diplomatic response to the invasion was swift. On August 6 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 661, which imposed a ban on all trade with Iraq and called on UN member countries to protect the assets of the legitimate government of Kuwait. A day later the first U.S. troops were sent to Saudi Arabia, while Mubarak invited Arab leaders to Cairo for an emergency summit. On August 10, 12 of the 21 Arab League countries passed a resolution condemning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and endorsing the UN resolution. Among those Arab states sympathetic to Iraq were Jordan, Yemen, Sudan, Tunisia, and Algeria as well as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The key supporters of Kuwait, apart from Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states, were Egypt and Syria, whose leaders had improved mutual relations in the months preceding the invasion. Saddam countered the Arab League resolution on August 12 by declaring that "all occupation problems, and those portrayed as occupation problems in the Middle East, can be resolved simultaneously and on the same principles and bases as should be set out by the UN Security Council." Saddam also used the crisis as an unlikely opportunity to conclude peace with Iran. On August 15 he announced that Iraq was ready to accept Iranian terms for the settlement of the Iran-Iraq War: the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from occupied Iranian territory, resolution of the Shaṭṭ Al-ʿArab waterway dispute, and a prisoner-of-war exchange. The Soviet Union, at first guarded in its response to the invasion, on September 3 expressed its support for the U.S. military presence in the Gulf.

More than 600,000 expatriates, including some 7,000 Western nationals, remained in Kuwait after the invasion, having been barred from leaving the country by Iraqi occupation authorities. The Iraqi regime began rounding up hundreds of Westerners and holding some of them at strategic military and industrial sites as "human shields" in the event of attack. On August 28, the same day that Iraq declared that it had annexed Kuwait, Saddam said that women and children would be allowed to leave. The plight of the remaining hostages resulted in a procession of Western politicians and celebrities to Baghdad. Among those appealing for the release of the hostages were former British prime minister Edward Heath, Labour politician Tony Benn, American heavyweight boxing champ Muhammad Ali, and British singer-songwriter Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens). In a sudden and dramatic move, on December 6 Saddam announced that all remaining hostages would be released. Although this put the Iraqi government in compliance with Security Council Resolution 674-which demanded that "Iraqi authorities and occupying forces immediately cease and desist from taking third State nationals hostage"-there remained the matter of Iraq's continued occupation of Kuwait and the potential threat to Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer and exporter.

Operation Desert Shield

Saddam's conquest of Kuwait had been achieved in short order, and he seemed poised to continue his military push into Saudi Arabia. Conquering Saudi Arabia would give Saddam control of more than 40 percent of the world's oil reserves as well as two of the holiest sites in the Islamic world, Mecca and Medina. With Iraqi troops on the Saudi border, King Fahd, in an unprecedented move, invited Western and Arab forces to deploy in the kingdom in support of the Saudi defense forces. The U.S. immediately dispatched elements of its Rapid Deployment Force. This included the "ready brigade" of the 82nd Airborne Division, the U.S. Marine Corps First Expeditionary Force, and two squadrons of U.S. Air Force F-15s. Two U.S. Navy carrier battle groups were also deployed to the Persian Gulf. The U.S. ground contingent was a relatively lightly equipped "trip wire" force; even if Saudi Arabian and other Arab armies had rushed to the area, it is unlikely that the hastily assembled defenders could have repelled a concerted Iraqi attack. Nevertheless, this initial U.S. deployment deterred Saddam from attacking Saudi Arabia and initiating a war with the U.S. and its allies.

On paper, the Iraqi military looked formidable. Its army was the fifth largest in the world, with some 950,000 personnel, 5,500 main battle tanks, 10,000 additional armoured vehicles, and nearly 4,000 artillery pieces. The Iraqi air force consisted of some 40,000 personnel and 689 combat aircraft. Both the army and air force had extensive combat experience from the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), including the large-scale use of chemical weapons. Iraq was believed to also have a significant stockpile of biological agents, most notably weaponized botulinum toxin and anthrax. In addition, Iraq had a force of modified Soviet-made Scud surface-to-surface missiles mounted on mobile launchers. These missiles had an effective range of 185 miles (300 km) and were capable of carrying a payload of conventional explosives as well as chemical or biological weapons.

Over the following months the U.S. military carried out its largest overseas deployment since World War II. By mid-November the U.S. had more than 240,000 troops in the Gulf and another 200,000 on the way, and the United Kingdom had sent more than 25,000, Egypt 20,000, and France 5,500. Some 25 other countries, including Canada, Syria, Bangladesh, and Morocco, had committed troops and weapons to the military buildup that was designated Operation Desert Shield. On November 29, 1990, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 678 by a vote of 12 to 2, sanctioning the use of force if the Iraqis had not left Kuwait by January 15, 1991. Only Cuba and Yemen voted against the resolution, with China abstaining. This was the first UN authorization of the use of force since 1950, when the Security Council approved military action against North Korea after its unprovoked attack on South Korea. With this resolution in place, the U.S. offered to engage in a dialogue with Saddam to extend the possibility of a peaceful settlement based on a timely Iraqi withdrawal.

Gen. Colin Powell, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, had advised Bush that if the U.S. wished to use its military to liberate Kuwait, several conditions needed to be fulfilled. The force employed must be overwhelming and utilized as a last resort, the goals must be clear and accompanied by a coherent exit strategy, and the operation must have broad domestic and international support. In time these criteria would come to be known as the Powell Doctrine. Powell had served as a field-grade officer in Vietnam, the last major U.S. conflict, and had witnessed the dangers of "mission creep"-that is, the growth of a military operation beyond its original stated goals without a clear end. The Powell Doctrine was intended to prevent a repeat of the Vietnam War, and, as it was implemented in the Persian Gulf War, it was wholly successful.

Another legacy of Vietnam was a debate over the war-making powers of the president of the United States. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives only Congress the power "to declare war" and "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Yet Article II says that the president is "commander in chief of the Army and Navy" and has the power, with the consent of the Senate, to make treaties with other nations. That ambiguity came to a head in 1973 during the Vietnam War, when Congress-over Pres. Richard Nixon's veto-passed the War Powers Act. That legislation required the executive branch to consult with Congress prior to major deployments of U.S. forces, but it was generally resisted or outright ignored by subsequent presidents. Bush, for his part, eventually sought congressional approval for the U.S. military operation in the Persian Gulf. On January 12, 1991, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution was passed by the House (250-183) and the Senate (52-47). It cited UN Security Council Resolution 678 as its casus belli, and Bush signed the measure into law on January 14. The UN deadline for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait was the following day.

Casualties, Kuwaiti oil fires, and Gulf War syndrome

There are no official figures for the Iraqi military operation, leading to vastly differing figures of combatants and casualties. Estimates of the number of Iraqi troops in the Kuwait theatre range from 180,000 to 630,000, and estimates of Iraqi military deaths range from 8,000 to 50,000. Allied casualties, by contrast, were remarkably light. Just 147 U.S. personnel and 47 British troops were killed in action; for the duration of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, U.S. noncombat deaths actually exceeded combat fatalities in the Kuwaiti theatre. Approximately 1,000 coalition troops were wounded.

During their retreat from Kuwait, Iraqi troops set fire to oil storage installations and more than 700 of Kuwait's 950 oil wells, creating an environmental disaster that affected the entire region. A pall of dense smoke covered Kuwait, causing a slight fall in temperature and blotting out sunlight in Kuwait city. The fires emitted a toxic mixture of hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. Below the smoke, pollution was severe, with the number of soot particles about 1,000 times higher than normal. In nearby Bahrain May temperatures were 7 °F (4 °C) cooler than normal. Particles from the fires were detected more than 600 miles (965 km) away, and the massive injection of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere caused acid rain to fall as far away as the Black Sea and Pakistan. By November the fires, which had consumed about six million barrels of oil per day, had been extinguished, and temperatures and air quality in the area returned to normal values.

Exposure to the fires was proposed as one possible cause of Gulf War syndrome, a cluster of illnesses that were reported by some veterans of the conflict. As many as 300,000 of the 700,000 troops who served in the Middle East during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm complained of a variety of symptoms that included fatigue, anxiety, muscle and joint pain, headaches, memory loss, and post-traumatic stress reactions. While these claims were initially dismissed as psychological in nature, Gulf War veterans continued to insist that they were experiencing an array of chronic and debilitating maladies. Researchers eventually concluded that Gulf War syndrome was likely caused by exposure to a class of extremely toxic chemicals known as anticholinesterases. Anticholinesterases to which Gulf War veterans could have been exposed include nerve toxins such as sarin, the prophylactic anti-nerve-toxin drug carbamate pyridostigmine bromide, and organophosphate- or carbamate-containing insecticides. A 2016 study by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs found that veterans of the Persian Gulf War continued to report poorer health than those who had served in the military at the same time but had not deployed.

Aftermath and Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction

The terms of the peace were, inter alia, that Iraq recognize Kuwait's sovereignty and that it divest itself of all weapons of mass destruction-i.e., nuclear, biological, and chemical-and all missiles with ranges exceeding 90 miles (150 km). Pending complete compliance, economic sanctions would continue.

In the aftermath of Iraq's defeat, Kurds in the north of the country and Shiʿis in the south rose in a rebellion that was suppressed by Saddam with great brutality. These actions prompted the allies to prohibit Iraqi aircraft from operating in designated "no-fly" zones over these areas. As the other allies gradually left the coalition, U.S. and British aircraft continued to patrol Iraqi skies, and UN inspectors sought to guarantee that all illicit weapons were destroyed. Iraq's failure to cooperate with inspectors led in 1998 to a brief resumption of hostilities (Operation Desert Fox). Iraq thereafter refused to readmit inspectors into the country, and regular exchanges of fire between Iraqi forces and U.S. and British aircraft over the no-fly zones continued into the 21st century. In 2002 the United States sponsored a new UN resolution calling for the return of weapons inspectors, who then reentered Iraq in November. Member states of the UN Security Council, however, differed in their opinion of the degree to which Iraq had cooperated with inspections.

On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom, which had begun to mass troops on Iraq's border, dispensed with further negotiations, and U.S. Pres. George W. Bush-seeking no further UN endorsement-issued an ultimatum demanding that Saddam step down from power and leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war; he even suggested that if Saddam did leave Iraq, U.S. forces might still be necessary to stabilize the region and to hunt for weapons of mass destruction. When Saddam refused to leave, U.S. and allied forces launched an attack on Iraq on March 20 and thus began what became known as the Iraq War.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Michael Ray.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Persian Gulf War | Summary, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, Syndrome, Map, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Persian Gulf War, conflict (1990-91) triggered by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with the apparent aim of acquiring its large oil reserves, canceling a large debt owed to Kuwait, and expanding Iraqi regional power. A U.S.-led invasion ended Iraq's occupation and required Iraq to divest of its weapons of mass destruction.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=%23&ved=0ahUKEwiPq4atno_QAhUKLyYKHbf-CO4Qxa8BCB8wAg&usg=AFQjCNF1sHlk2z9QIx28jtvfnGP_UlkifA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WATCH: Mysterious Psychic BABA VANGA's Predicts Obama Will Be Last President!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world-famous prophet Baba Vanga was born into poverty in 1911, in a village deep within the Ottoman Empire. Because she was an unhealthy infant, her parents chose not to give her a name until they knew she would survive. Upon hearing the baby cry out, a stranger passing by suggested that the...

# data[].attributes.body
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Flag_of_the_Ottoman_Empire.svghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Flag_of_the_Ottoman_Empire.svg

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ottoman_Empirehttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ottoman_Empire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ottoman EmpireOttoman Empire Explain how European partitioningExplain how European partitioning in the Middle East after thein the Middle East after the breaku...

# data[].attributes.body
O

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ottoman Empire facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Ottoman Empire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get information, facts, and pictures about Ottoman Empire at Encyclopedia.com. Make research projects and school reports about Ottoman Empire easy with credible articles from our FREE, online encyclopedia and dictionary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The opening moves

Few events in world history have had a more profound impact than that of World War One (1914-8). Although the German attempt to dominate Europe was thwarted in the end, the equilibrium of the region was also destroyed by the fierce fighting between its different elements.

The Middle East was no less affected by the conflict. After four centuries of continuous rule, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, creating a vacuum that contributed to tensions between local inhabitants and external powers or interests. The 'war to end all war' had not achieved its aim.

At the beginning of November 1914, the Ottoman Empire, the world's greatest independent Islamic power, abandoned its ambivalent neutrality towards the warring parties, and became a belligerent in the conflict, with the sultan declaring a military jihad (holy war) against France, Russia and Great Britain.

The Ottoman Empire had recently been humiliated by setbacks in Libya and the Balkans. Participation in what had begun as a European war might seem to outside observers, therefore, to have been suicidal, but key elements in the government, impressed by German industrial and military power and motivated by dreams of imperial glory, greeted the expanding war as an opportunity to regain lost territories and incorporate new lands and nationalities into the empire.

The Ottoman/Turkish army (some 600,000 troops divided into 38 divisions) was of an unknown quality. But with Germany as an ally, the Ottoman Empire represented a serious threat to the British Empire, so in a pre-emptive strike, London immediately landed an Anglo-Indian force at Basra, near the estuary of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. This was done to protect the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline, which was vital to the British navy, and to show the Union Jack in this strategically important area in the Persian Gulf.

Within weeks the Central Powers struck back with a surprise attack against Britain's 'jugular vein', the Suez Canal. This attempt, in early February 1915, to breach British defences on the Suez Canal and raise an Islamic revolt in Egypt, failed however, and resulted in heavy losses for the attackers.

Defeat at Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia

Unwilling to commit all of its emerging military resources in 1915 to the Western Front, where trench warfare prevailed, the British leadership embraced a naval offensive against Istanbul to force the Ottoman Empire out of the war. When the Royal Navy in February and March was unable to fight its way through the Dardanelles to place the Ottoman capital under its big guns, the military authorities hastily assembled an expeditionary force to land on the Gallipoli peninsula.

The muddled thinking that led to this campaign continued during the savage fighting, and the predominantly British force suffered heavy losses (205,000 British soldiers, and 47,000 French - with the sick included in the figures) and had to be withdrawn. The Ottoman/Turkish Fifth Army, well armed and fighting from strong defensive positions, had proved more than a match for the Allies.

As the Gallipoli campaign wound down, an Anglo-Indian force was cut off and surrounded at Kut-el-Amara, a town about 100 miles south of Baghdad. The limited, defensive stance at Basra had evolved into a distant and risky advance up the Tigris toward Baghdad, and this had been the result.

Political objectives, as had been the case in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli venture, had trumped military considerations - the Anglo-Indian force did not have the necessary reserves or logistical support to retain Baghdad, even if they had been able to capture it. Moreover, a strong British presence in Mesopotamia had no connection to the defeat of Britain's primary strategic rival, Germany. But the Indian government were concerned that a holy war might be ignited in Persia and Afghanistan, thus threatening India, and they wanted British prestige upheld in the Islamic world to avert such a war.

A more difficult theatre in which to fight would be hard to imagine. Flies and mosquitoes attacked the troops, many of whom became sick. Soldiers froze during the winter nights, and were overcome by heat during the summer. Dust turned to mud when the banks of the Tigris overflowed during the rainy season.

Defeat of the Ottoman Empire

Murray's failure to capture Gaza led to his replacement by General Sir Edmund Allenby, a soldier of great vigour and imagination, who was able to create a personal bond with his troops. His government hoped to achieve a concrete victory to boost morale at home, and gave him the flexibility to advance on Jerusalem.

In October, when the weather was more favourable, Allenby made good use of his infantry and a large mounted force, which included many troopers from Australia and New Zealand, to break through the Gaza-Beersheba Front. And after a difficult advance across the Judean hills, he walked through the Jaffa Gate on 11 December 1917 as the 34th conqueror of Jerusalem, the first Christian conqueror since the Crusades.

Many of Allenby's soldiers were deeply conscious that they were fighting on sacred soil, and some viewed themselves as modern-day crusaders, but their leader was acutely aware that many of his soldiers and workers were Islamic, and he vigorously played down any notion of a crusade.

Convinced that neither side had the means to achieve victory in France in 1918, Prime Minister David Lloyd George sought to make Allenby's theatre the focus of his country's military effort. Germany's massive offensives closer to home during the first half of 1918, however, forced the government to recall most of Allenby's British soldiers to France. Allenby, who retained his cavalry, received replacements for his infantry in Egypt from many sources, predominately from India but also from many other diverse nations ranging from Burma to the West Indies.

Allenby returned to the offensive at the Battle of Megiddo, on 19 September 1918. With a decided advantage in manpower, artillery, air power and morale, and assisted by Arab allies on his flank, he quickly destroyed the Ottoman/Turkish armies facing him.

Once the enemy front was broken, the EEF's cavalry dominated the campaign. Damascus fell on 1 October, Aleppo, the last city to fall in the campaign, on 26 October. Five days later an armistice with the Ottoman Empire came into effect. Since 19 September Allenby's forces had advanced hundreds of miles and netted over 75,000 prisoners.

The aftermath

The war ended with the British occupying the territory that was to become Iraq, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. With the Ottoman Empire destroyed, Russia paralysed by foreign intervention and civil war, and French influence limited somewhat by their minor military role in the Middle East, Britain's military success made her the dominant power in the region. The resulting settlement, which fostered an instability that continues to be a source of conflict today, generated much controversy at the time and has continued to do so ever since.

Employing bags of gold, the diplomacy of Lawrence of Arabia, and promises of Arab independence, the British had encouraged an Arab uprising in 1916 against the Turks. Although the Hashemite Arabs were rewarded with considerable territory, they and other Arab nationalists believed that they had been 'robbed' when the British did not fully deliver on their pledges of independence. They believed that the western powers, especially the British, had acted with arrogance, drawing borders and creating nations with little or no regard for the wishes of the local inhabitants.

The fate of Palestine, occupied by the British, especially provoked Arab frustration and anger. (In 1917 the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, had supported a Jewish home in Palestine.)

But in important respects the Arab view of the peace settlement (which is supported by many western historians) is a caricature of what actually happened. In a revisionist work, Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh have made a convincing argument that many forces, both local and foreign, were at work at the time the settlement was agreed. In their words, 'even at the weakest point in their modern history, during the First World War and its immediate wake, Middle Eastern actors were not hapless victims of predatory imperial powers, but active participants in the restructuring of their region.'

They argue, for example, that Iraq and Trans-Jordan were not simply British inventions, but owed their existence to a compromise between Hashemite imperial greed and well-intended British efforts to meet local needs and allay the fears and suspicions of their allies.

It is perhaps only proper to note that if Germany had won the war, the Ottoman Empire would have been expanded, subjecting many Arabs and other nationalities to its rule. And if the French and British had granted 'self-determination' to the inhabitants of this region it is possible that the result would have been the balkanisation of the area, with fragile and often antagonistic fiefdoms and kingdoms prevailing. It seems likely that, no matter how this war in the Middle East had been resolved, the region was destined to suffer instability and conflict in the years ahead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Few events in world history have had a more profound impact than that of World War One (1914-8). Although the German attempt to dominate Europe was thwarted in the end, the equilibrium of the region was also destroyed by the fierce fighting between its different elements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is an important video explaining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Must watch. This video is not mine but I didn't find it titled in English.

# data[].attributes.body
Andy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THE HISTORY OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE - Discovery History Science (full documentary)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AMAZON PRIME - FREE TRIAL SIGN UP: http://amzn.to/2e0bAGM the history of the ottoman empire (full documentary). thanks for watching.

# data[].attributes.headline
Renaissance for Kids: Ottoman Empire - Ducksters

# data[].attributes.subject
Renaissance for Kids: Ottoman Empire - Ducksters

# data[].attributes.body
Emma Nelms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The birth  of Israel -  BBC DOCUMENTARY - part 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A remarkable British documentary about the birth of Israel state which was created at the expense of palestinians who lost their homes and homeland, were driven out from their lands by Jews and suffered ethnic cleansing and genocide. Israeli-Arab conflict is the result of this history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HistoryWorld contains narrative world history and interactive world history timelines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The opening moves

Few events in world history have had a more profound impact than that of World War One (1914-8). Although the German attempt to dominate Europe was thwarted in the end, the equilibrium of the region was also destroyed by the fierce fighting between its different elements.

The Middle East was no less affected by the conflict. After four centuries of continuous rule, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, creating a vacuum that contributed to tensions between local inhabitants and external powers or interests. The 'war to end all war' had not achieved its aim.

At the beginning of November 1914, the Ottoman Empire, the world's greatest independent Islamic power, abandoned its ambivalent neutrality towards the warring parties, and became a belligerent in the conflict, with the sultan declaring a military jihad (holy war) against France, Russia and Great Britain.

The Ottoman Empire had recently been humiliated by setbacks in Libya and the Balkans. Participation in what had begun as a European war might seem to outside observers, therefore, to have been suicidal, but key elements in the government, impressed by German industrial and military power and motivated by dreams of imperial glory, greeted the expanding war as an opportunity to regain lost territories and incorporate new lands and nationalities into the empire.

The Ottoman/Turkish army (some 600,000 troops divided into 38 divisions) was of an unknown quality. But with Germany as an ally, the Ottoman Empire represented a serious threat to the British Empire, so in a pre-emptive strike, London immediately landed an Anglo-Indian force at Basra, near the estuary of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. This was done to protect the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline, which was vital to the British navy, and to show the Union Jack in this strategically important area in the Persian Gulf.

Within weeks the Central Powers struck back with a surprise attack against Britain's 'jugular vein', the Suez Canal. This attempt, in early February 1915, to breach British defences on the Suez Canal and raise an Islamic revolt in Egypt, failed however, and resulted in heavy losses for the attackers.

Defeat at Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia

Unwilling to commit all of its emerging military resources in 1915 to the Western Front, where trench warfare prevailed, the British leadership embraced a naval offensive against Istanbul to force the Ottoman Empire out of the war. When the Royal Navy in February and March was unable to fight its way through the Dardanelles to place the Ottoman capital under its big guns, the military authorities hastily assembled an expeditionary force to land on the Gallipoli peninsula.

The muddled thinking that led to this campaign continued during the savage fighting, and the predominantly British force suffered heavy losses (205,000 British soldiers, and 47,000 French - with the sick included in the figures) and had to be withdrawn. The Ottoman/Turkish Fifth Army, well armed and fighting from strong defensive positions, had proved more than a match for the Allies.

As the Gallipoli campaign wound down, an Anglo-Indian force was cut off and surrounded at Kut-el-Amara, a town about 100 miles south of Baghdad. The limited, defensive stance at Basra had evolved into a distant and risky advance up the Tigris toward Baghdad, and this had been the result.

Political objectives, as had been the case in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli venture, had trumped military considerations - the Anglo-Indian force did not have the necessary reserves or logistical support to retain Baghdad, even if they had been able to capture it. Moreover, a strong British presence in Mesopotamia had no connection to the defeat of Britain's primary strategic rival, Germany. But the Indian government were concerned that a holy war might be ignited in Persia and Afghanistan, thus threatening India, and they wanted British prestige upheld in the Islamic world to avert such a war.

A more difficult theatre in which to fight would be hard to imagine. Flies and mosquitoes attacked the troops, many of whom became sick. Soldiers froze during the winter nights, and were overcome by heat during the summer. Dust turned to mud when the banks of the Tigris overflowed during the rainy season.

Defeat of the Ottoman Empire

Murray's failure to capture Gaza led to his replacement by General Sir Edmund Allenby, a soldier of great vigour and imagination, who was able to create a personal bond with his troops. His government hoped to achieve a concrete victory to boost morale at home, and gave him the flexibility to advance on Jerusalem.

In October, when the weather was more favourable, Allenby made good use of his infantry and a large mounted force, which included many troopers from Australia and New Zealand, to break through the Gaza-Beersheba Front. And after a difficult advance across the Judean hills, he walked through the Jaffa Gate on 11 December 1917 as the 34th conqueror of Jerusalem, the first Christian conqueror since the Crusades.

Many of Allenby's soldiers were deeply conscious that they were fighting on sacred soil, and some viewed themselves as modern-day crusaders, but their leader was acutely aware that many of his soldiers and workers were Islamic, and he vigorously played down any notion of a crusade.

Convinced that neither side had the means to achieve victory in France in 1918, Prime Minister David Lloyd George sought to make Allenby's theatre the focus of his country's military effort. Germany's massive offensives closer to home during the first half of 1918, however, forced the government to recall most of Allenby's British soldiers to France. Allenby, who retained his cavalry, received replacements for his infantry in Egypt from many sources, predominately from India but also from many other diverse nations ranging from Burma to the West Indies.

Allenby returned to the offensive at the Battle of Megiddo, on 19 September 1918. With a decided advantage in manpower, artillery, air power and morale, and assisted by Arab allies on his flank, he quickly destroyed the Ottoman/Turkish armies facing him.

Once the enemy front was broken, the EEF's cavalry dominated the campaign. Damascus fell on 1 October, Aleppo, the last city to fall in the campaign, on 26 October. Five days later an armistice with the Ottoman Empire came into effect. Since 19 September Allenby's forces had advanced hundreds of miles and netted over 75,000 prisoners.

The aftermath

The war ended with the British occupying the territory that was to become Iraq, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. With the Ottoman Empire destroyed, Russia paralysed by foreign intervention and civil war, and French influence limited somewhat by their minor military role in the Middle East, Britain's military success made her the dominant power in the region. The resulting settlement, which fostered an instability that continues to be a source of conflict today, generated much controversy at the time and has continued to do so ever since.

Employing bags of gold, the diplomacy of Lawrence of Arabia, and promises of Arab independence, the British had encouraged an Arab uprising in 1916 against the Turks. Although the Hashemite Arabs were rewarded with considerable territory, they and other Arab nationalists believed that they had been 'robbed' when the British did not fully deliver on their pledges of independence. They believed that the western powers, especially the British, had acted with arrogance, drawing borders and creating nations with little or no regard for the wishes of the local inhabitants.

The fate of Palestine, occupied by the British, especially provoked Arab frustration and anger. (In 1917 the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, had supported a Jewish home in Palestine.)

But in important respects the Arab view of the peace settlement (which is supported by many western historians) is a caricature of what actually happened. In a revisionist work, Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh have made a convincing argument that many forces, both local and foreign, were at work at the time the settlement was agreed. In their words, 'even at the weakest point in their modern history, during the First World War and its immediate wake, Middle Eastern actors were not hapless victims of predatory imperial powers, but active participants in the restructuring of their region.'

They argue, for example, that Iraq and Trans-Jordan were not simply British inventions, but owed their existence to a compromise between Hashemite imperial greed and well-intended British efforts to meet local needs and allay the fears and suspicions of their allies.

It is perhaps only proper to note that if Germany had won the war, the Ottoman Empire would have been expanded, subjecting many Arabs and other nationalities to its rule. And if the French and British had granted 'self-determination' to the inhabitants of this region it is possible that the result would have been the balkanisation of the area, with fragile and often antagonistic fiefdoms and kingdoms prevailing. It seems likely that, no matter how this war in the Middle East had been resolved, the region was destined to suffer instability and conflict in the years ahead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Few events in world history have had a more profound impact than that of World War One (1914-8). Although the German attempt to dominate Europe was thwarted in the end, the equilibrium of the region was also destroyed by the fierce fighting between its different elements.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire/The-decline-of-the-Ottoman-Empire-1566-1807https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire/The-decline-of-the-Ottoman-Empire-1566-1807

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NOTE TO READERS
"Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations" has been retired and is no longer maintained. For more information, please see the full notice.

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.

Eliahu Elath presenting ark to President Truman

Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.

Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946, Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state. Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain's former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.

Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states. The State Department, concerned about the possibility of an increasing Soviet role in the Arab world and the potential for restriction by Arab oil producing nations of oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. Later, as the date for British departure from Palestine drew near, the Department of State grew concerned about the possibility of an all-out war in Palestine as Arab states threatened to attack almost as soon as the UN passed the partition resolution.

Despite growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews and despite the Department of State's endorsement of a trusteeship, Truman ultimately decided to recognize the state Israel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Milestones: 1945-1952 - Office of the Historian

# data[].attributes.body
Alex Austin

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empirehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=iraq++war+&&view=detail&mid=2BD2C7A38FCF789228212BD2C7A38FCF78922821&FORM=VRDGAR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1900, at the dawn of a new century in the 700th year of its existence, the Ottoman Empire began to die a violent, climactic death. The forces that destroyed this old and once powerful state catapaluted the Middle East, Europe, and indeed the world, toward increased instability and chaos. Out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire arose the forces that contributed, directly or indirectly, to some of the most long-lasting and horrific conflicts to afflict the world since 1914. Both , the Holocaust, the rise and reign of Soviet Communism in Russia, the Arab-Israeli wars , the various and the terrorism that shook the world on September 11, 2001 are all related. All these events and the world-wide violence that ensued, originated, to some degree, with the death throes of the Ottoman Empire.
By 1900, the Ottoman Sultan could claim rule over a domain that stretched from the deserts of Libya in Africa to the snow-covered mountains of Armenia and . This ruler controlled the oil fields and marshes of southern Iraq and the mountain valleys of Bosnia on the Austrian border. The Sultan's flag flew along the shores of the Adriatic Sea near Italy in Europe and down to the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula in West Asia. Between these geographic extremes, lay a vast and diverse empire containing multiple ethnic and religious groups, many of whom disliked each other more than they disliked Turkish rule. These groups, over the hundred years prior to 1900, had begun to identify themselves as distinct national groups rather than as subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

The disintegration of the Turkish Ottoman Empire accelerated in the Twentieth Century. By 1923, the Ottoman Empire was destroyed, replaced by a significantly smaller country simply known as "Turkey;" a nation stripped of most of its non-Turkish lands and peoples. Also, several smaller nations were born out of the dead body of the Ottoman lands in the Middle East, including the states of Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and yet-to-be-born state of Palestine. In addition, Arabia began its transformation into a country ruled by the al-Saud family, who seized the current Ottoman territory in Arabia, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Out of the remaining carcass of Ottoman-ruled Europe, Albania became an independent nation for the first time in over 400 years.

The destruction of this very old empire began much earlier, but the events of the Twentieth Century bear special significance for the end of the realm begun by the Turkish tribal leader Osmanli in the year 1300. This is a tale of revenge, deceit, conspiracy, war in the name of empire-building, war in the name of nation-building, war in the name of God and religion, and war in the name of vengeance.

The Last Wars of the Ottoman Empire

From 1897 to the signing of the Lausanne Treaty in 1923, the never-ending internal and external conflicts eventually tore apart the Ottoman Empire and sent it to the graveyard of dead nations. As described in the individual sections for each conflict, the Ottomans were engaged in many conflicts, including: Uprisings in Albania (1897, 1908, 1910, 1911 and 1912), a chaotic and multi-sided uprising in Macedonia (1903-1912), a long rebellion by the people of the Yemen for self-rule (1904-1911), a political revolution by part of the Ottoman Army, led by a group called the "Young Turks."

In addition to the internal rebellions, foreign enemies picked apart the Ottoman Empire through land seizures, attacks and invasions. A list of these foreign wars and foes includes: the annexation of Ottoman Bosnia by Austria (1909), Bulgaria declaring full independence from the Ottomans (1909), war with Italy (1911-1912), wars with Greece (1897, 1912-1913, 1920-1922), Montenegro (1912-1913), Serbia (1912-1913), Bulgaria (1912-1913, and a second Balkan War in 1913), the Arab tribes ruled by the al-Saud family (1913), the World War One Allies (Britain, France, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Russia) from 1914 to 1918.

The climax to this long list of wars and conflicts was the Turkish War of Independence. This struggle by the Turks to create a non-Ottoman Turkish nation was opposed by Greece, Britain, France, and Italy. In addition to all the military actions mentioned above, several coups and uprisings among the Turks themselves took place, as well as the infamous "Armenian Massacres."

*The modern nation of Greece was born after its long War of Independence from the Ottoman Turks (1821-1832). In the eyes of most historians, the Greece of today is different from the Greek Byzantine Empire of the Middle Ages (also known as the Medieval Period). That Greek empire fought many wars against the young Ottoman Empire. The Turks finally completed their conquest of the medieval Greeks in 1453, when they captured the Greek capital of Constantinople. The Turks turned the city into their capital, later renaming it Istanbul. The Turks then ruled the Greeks for nearly 400 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1900, at the dawn of a new century in the 700th year of its existence, the Ottoman Empire began to die a violent, climactic death. The forces that destroyed this old and once powerful state catapaluted the Middle East, Europe, and indeed the world, toward increased instability and chaos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
YOU CAN SHARE YOUR WORKS AND THOUGHTS ABOUT THE OTTOMANS WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR SITE USING OUR NEW FORUM PAGES. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BECOME A MEMBER AND VISIT THE PAGES.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Ottoman Empire represents one of the largest imperial projects in human history, ruling vast territories in North Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East over a period of some five centuries. During its history, it did much to sustain Islamic civilization. Outsiders and insiders have had different perceptions of the Ottoman Empire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pressured out of their homes in the Asian steppes by the Mongols, the nomadic Turkish tribes converted to Islam during the eighth and ninth centuries. By the tenth century, one of the Turkish tribes, the Seljuks, had become a significant power in the Islamic world and had adopted a settled life that included Islamic orthodoxy, a central administration, and taxation. However, many other Turkish groups remained nomadic and, pursuing the gazi tradition, sought to conquer land for Islam and to acquire war booty for themselves. This led them into conflict with the Seljuk Turks, and to pacify the nomadic tribes, the Seljuks directed them to the eastern domain of the Byzantine Empire, in Anatolia. The tribe known as the Ottomans arose from one of the smaller emirates established in northwestern Anatolia after 1071. The dynasty was named after Osman Gazi (1259-1326), who began to expand his kingdom into the Byzantine Empire in Asia Minor, moving his capital to Bursa in 1326.

The political and geographical entity governed by the Muslim Ottoman Turks. Their empire was centered in present-day Turkey, and extended its influence into southeastern Europe as well as the Middle East. Europe was only temporarily able to resist their advance: the turning point came at the Battle of Varna in 1444 when a European coalition army failed to stop the Turkish advance. Only Constantinople ( Istanbul) remained in Byzantine hands and its conquest in 1453 seemed inevitable after Varna. The Turks subsequently established an empire in Anatolia and southeastern Europe which lasted until the early twentieth century.

Although the Ottoman Empire is not considered a European kingdom per se, Ottoman expansion had a profound impact on a continent already stunned by the calamities of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and the Ottoman Turks must, therefore, be considered in any study of Europe in the late Middle Ages. The ease with which the Ottoman Empire achieved military victories led Western Europeans to fear that ongoing Ottoman success would collapse the political and social infrastructure of the West and bring about the downfall of Christendom. Such a momentous threat could not be ignored and the Europeans mounted crusades against the Ottomans in 1366, 1396, and 1444, but to no avail. The Ottomans continued to conquer new territories.

One of a number of Turkish tribes that migrated from the central Asian steppe, the Ottomans were initially a nomadic people who followed a primitive shamanistic religion. Contact with various settled peoples led to the introduction of Islam and under Islamic influence, the Turks acquired their greatest fighting tradition, that of the gazi warrior. Well trained and highly skilled, gazi warriors fought to conquer the infidel, acquiring land and riches in the process.

While the gazi warriors fought for Islam, the greatest military asset of the Ottoman Empire was the standing paid army of Christian soldiers, the Janissaries. Originally created in 1330 by Orhan Gazi, the janissaries were Christian captives from conquered territories. Educated in the Islamic faith and trained as soldiers, the janissaries were forced to provide annual tribute in the form of military service. To counter the challenges of the Gazi nobility, Murad I (1319-1389) transformed the new military force into the elite personal army of the Sultan. They were rewarded for their loyalty with grants of newly acquired land and janissaries quickly rose to fill the most important administrative offices of the Ottoman Empire.

During the early history of the Ottoman Empire, political factions within Byzantium employed the Ottoman Turks and the janissaries as mercenaries in their own struggles for imperial supremacy. In the 1340's, a usurper's request for Ottoman assistance in a revolt against the emperor provided the excuse for an Ottoman invasion of Thrace on the northern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. The conquest of Thrace gave the Ottomans a foothold in Europe from which future campaigns into the Balkans and Greece were launched and Adrianople ( Edirne) became the Ottoman capital in 1366. Over the next century, the Ottomans developed an empire that took in Anatolia and increasingly larger sections of Byzantine territories in Eastern Europe and Asia Minor.

Ottoman expansion into Europe was well underway in the late 14th century. Gallipoli was conquered in 1354 and a vast crusading army was crushed at the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396. The disaster was so great that the knights of Western Europe were discouraged of launching a new expedition against the Turks. The appearance of the Tatars under Tamerlane early in the fifteenth century temporarily delayed Turkish advances but the Ottomans soon resumed attacks on Byzantium and Eastern Europe. A Hungarian - Polish army was decimated at Varna in 1444 by Murad II and Ottoman conquests were virtually unchecked during the reign of his son, Mehmed II the Conqueror (1432-1481).

Constantinople itself was captured in 1453, sending a shock wave across Europe, and its name was changed to Istanbul. With the fall of Byzantium, a wave of Byzantine refugees fled to the Latin West, carrying with them the classical and Hellenistic knowledge that provided additional impetus to the burgeoning humanism of the Renaissance.

Athens fell in 1456 and Belgrade narrowly escaped capture when a peasant army led by the Hungarian Janos Hunyadi held off a siege in the same year, nevertheless, Serbia, Bosnia, Wallachia, and the Khanate of Crimea were all under Ottoman control by 1478. The Turks commanded the Black Sea and the northern Aegean and many prime trade routes had been closed to European shipping. The Islamic threat loomed even larger when an Ottoman beachhead was established at Otranto in Italy in 1480.

Although the Turkish presence in Italy was short-lived, it appeared as if Rome itself must soon fall into Islamic hands. In 1529, the Ottomans had moved up the Danube and besieged Vienna. The siege was unsuccessful and the Turks began to retreat. Although the Ottomans continued to instill fear well into the 16th century, internal struggles began to deteriorate the once overwhelming military supremacy of the Ottoman Empire. The outcome of battles was no longer a foregone conclusion and Europeans began to score victories against the Turks.

Despite military success of their territorial expansion, there remained problems of organization and government within the Ottoman Empire. Murad II attempted to limit the influence of the nobility and the gazi by elevating faithful former slaves and janissaries to administrative positions. These administrators came to provide an alternative voice to that of the nobility and, as a result, Murad II and successive Sultans were able to play one faction against the other, a feature that came to typify the Ottoman Empire. The power of the janissaries often overrode a weak sultan and the elite military force occasionally acted as "king-makers".

Another weakness was that primogeniture was not used in Islam and the transference of power from a deceased sultan to his son was frequently disputed. If a sultan died without a male heir or if he left several sons, succession was violently contested. In the early period, to prevent ongoing rivalries, all male relatives of a newly crowned sultan were put to death. Later, however, the potential rivals were merely imprisoned for life. Some historians consider that this policy of imprisonment contributed to the decline of the Ottoman Empire as mentally unstable and politically inexperienced sultans were rescued from prison and placed upon the throne. Nevertheless, despite frequent disputes over succession, the Ottoman Empire managed to produce effective leaders in the late Middle Ages and a comprehensive government policy developed.

Despite the difficulties of succession and administrative control, the Ottomans had a number of advantages that contributed to their success, the enormous wealth of the Empire being the most significant asset. As the Ottoman Empire expanded, it acquired control of the trade routes to the East and many European powers, such as Venice and Genoa, paid great sums for the privilege of access to these routes.

Although the atrocities of the "Infidel Turk" struck fear into the hearts of all Christians in the late Middle Ages, in actuality, the Ottomans generally allowed religious groups to continue to practice their own faiths within the conquered territories. They also tended to preserve the established feudal institutions and, in many cases, permitted the co-existence of law codes to regulate the different ethnic and religious groups. Their administrative and governmental systems were well developed and highly effective and most lands under Ottoman control were well managed during this time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pressured out of their homes in the Asian steppes by the Mongols, the nomadic Turkish tribes converted to Islam during the eighth and ninth centuries. By the tenth century, one of the Turkish tribes, the Seljuks, had become a significant power in the Islamic world and had adopted a settled life that included Islamic orthodoxy, a central administration, and taxation.

# data[].attributes.body
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v9ok0XDgXgU/T0wT5WZEPCI/AAAAAAAAAiU/5-_fVmt8unA/s1600/anti-semitism+7.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.britannica.com/event/Afghanistan-Wa
Emma Nelms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See a newer updated and more accurate one here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPkbJPguPn8

# data[].attributes.body
Battle of Mosul 2016 - Heavy Clashes As Iraqi Forces zaire

# data[].attributes.body
http://study.com/academy/lesson/judaism-antisemitism-and-zionism-attitudes-growth-movements.htmlhttp://study.com/academy/lesson/judaism-antisemitism-and-zionism-attitudes-growth-movements.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israelhttps://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfmhttp://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm

# data[].attributes.body
Matt

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.earthtimes.org/newsimage/will-peak-oil-save-planet_44.jpg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ottoman Empire, empire created by Turkish tribes that grew to be one of the most powerful states in the world in the 15th and 16th centuries. Its dynasty was founded by a prince (bey), Osman, after the Mongols defeated the Seljuqs at the end of the 13th century.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.deliberation.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/anti-zionism-is-not-anti-semitism.gifhttp://www.deliberation.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/anti-zionism-is-not-anti-semitism.gif

# data[].attributes.body
Matt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Break Up of the Ottoman Empire - ParkerPedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your encyclopedia for 7th Grade Social Studies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Final Destruction Of The Ottoman Empire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire (30 October 1918 -- 1 November 1922) was a political event that occurred after World War I. The huge conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several new nations. The partitioning brought the creation of the modern Arab world and the Republic of Turkey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
YOU CAN SHARE YOUR WORKS AND THOUGHTS ABOUT THE OTTOMANS WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR SITE USING OUR NEW FORUM PAGES. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BECOME A MEMBER AND VISIT THE PAGES.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Most Powerful Empire All The Times,Ottoman Empire. L'Empire le plus Puissant Tous Les Temps, L'Empire ottoman PREPARED:ERSIN FAIKZADE http://www.ersinfaikzade.net

# data[].attributes.body
https://prezi.com/m/exnjvac3lz-0/european-partitioning-of-the-middle-east/https://prezi.com/m/exnjvac3lz-0/european-partitioning-of-the-middle-east/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Witness the rise and fall of the mighty Ottoman Empire, one of the largest empires in world history!

# data[].attributes.headline
Ottoman Empire | Facts, History, & Map |Britannica.com

# data[].attributes.subject
Ottoman Empire | Facts, History, & Map |Britannica.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Break Up of the Ottoman Empire - ParkerPedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your encyclopedia for 7th Grade Social Studies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NOTE TO READERS
"Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations" has been retired and is no longer maintained. For more information, please see the full notice.

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.

Eliahu Elath presenting ark to President Truman

Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.

Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946, Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state. Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain's former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.

Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states. The State Department, concerned about the possibility of an increasing Soviet role in the Arab world and the potential for restriction by Arab oil producing nations of oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. Later, as the date for British departure from Palestine drew near, the Department of State grew concerned about the possibility of an all-out war in Palestine as Arab states threatened to attack almost as soon as the UN passed the partition resolution.

Despite growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews and despite the Department of State's endorsement of a trusteeship, Truman ultimately decided to recognize the state Israel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Milestones: 1945-1952 - Office of the Historian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Partition of the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The partition of the Ottoman Empire ( Armistice of Mudros, 30 October 1918 - Abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate, 1 November 1922) was a political event that occurred after World War I and the occupation of Constantinople by British, French and Italian troops in November 1918.

# data[].attributes.body
SS7H2 The student will analyze continuity and change in Southwest Asia (Middle East) leading
to the 21st century.
a. Explain how European partitioning in the Middle East after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire
led to regional conflict.
b. Explain the historical reasons for the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948;
include the Jewish religious connection to the land, the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, and Zionism
in Europe.
d. Explain U.S. presence and interest in Southwest Asia; include the Persian Gulf conflict and
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.