Arming themselves with the claim that citizens of the non-European nations were simply unequipped to deal with the complex difficulties of running a modern nation, the Europeans took their much-vaunted civilized culture and education and proceeded to take charge of affairs with such disastrous incompetence that many of the countries they "helped" have still not yet recovered. France's insane mishandling of northwestern Africa and southeastern Asia are legendary, and England fared with only marginally less idiocy in the middle east.
Understandably, many citizens of Middle-Eastern nations were rather angry, and sizable independence movements began in most areas. The British found themselves contending with a discontented populace which frequently had brilliant leaders (such as the astounding Prince Feisel, a master of Realpolitik who, after being deposed by the British as King of Saudi Arabia, eventually managed to get himself crowned King of Iraq - with British approval.) The British also faced protest from within, the most notable example being Lawrence of Arabia, arguably the most famous Brit in the world, who spent most of his time during the 1920's embarrassing the British government by repeatedly asking them to keep the promises they had made, through him, to the Arabs who had fought under his command.
But Britain, despite the shattering troop losses it had sustained during World War I, was still one of the foremost military powers in the world, and the secessionists stood no chance of being victorious in an outright rebellion. In some cases, they attempted nonmilitary forms of rebellion, such as the complete work stoppage known as a general strike - a technique first attempted in Russia and later perfected in India (which may be part of a fun fact for another week if our group ever explores the Indian connection.) And it was in fact a general strike which was immediately responsible for the concessions which Egypt, for example, received from the British in 1920. But, unlike India, the sword of Islam had never been tempered with the waters of Buddhism in the Middle East, and many were discontent with the slowness of such methods. They promptly began to look for military allies.
The Russians had been quick to denounce the predatory actions of the west, vilifying their "imperialism" to the extent that the Russian use of the word became a cliche. Cynics will undoubtedly argue that this was probably in large part because Russia, now an enemy of its former allies after the change in government, didn't get anything when the world got divvied up, and in fact lost a number of several centuries-old conquests in eastern Europe (although England and France did not apply the "self-determination" concept to themselves, they rigorously enforced it against Russia, Turkey, Austria, Germany . . .) And of course, history would later demonstrate that once Russia got the opportunity to practice imperialism itself, it did so with great enthusiasm. But at the time, they probably believed they were sincere, and, since their standing in the middle east at the time was excellent, many there looked to them as natural allies.
The Russians, like the British, were traditional enemies of the Ottoman Turks, a tradition they maintained after the Revolution. This by itself put them in good standing with pretty much everyone in the middle east who wasn't an Ottoman Turk. Perhaps even more important was their middle-eastern role in World War I - Russia's most notable action had been saving the lives of millions of Armenians who were being slaughtered by the Turks in one of the largest racially-motivated genocides prior to World War II. While the Armenians, one of the few Christian nations in the Mideast, were not exactly well-regarded by most of their neighbors, they were certainly better-liked than the Turks, and the Russian actions were largely regarded as being a fairly selfless act of heroism (comparatively, the British government, which demonstrably knew what was going on and had similar opportunities to help, did nothing.) It is also arguable that the Russian Revolution itself served as an inspiration for several instances of rebellion in the Mideast, although there were many other factors which also influenced them. It is certainly historical fact that just after the Revolution, a speaker on behalf of communism, when he went to the Mideast, was astounded to find himself facing adulatory applause from his cheering Arab audiences (admittedly, this may be because his speech was mistranslated to the point that a suggestion to "wage economic war against the capitalists" came across as "start a holy war against the corrupt westerners." It is unclear whether this was deliberate on the part of the translators or not.)
At any rate, despite their many points of mutual interest, the Russians and the Middle-Easterners were still oftentimes ill-matched and untrusting allies. The bulk of the Mideastern secessionists were Islamic fundamentalists; the Russian Revolution had been fought in the name of atheism. The Russians had fought to depose their monarch; many Mideasterners dreamed of the restoration of their monarchies. But there was a common bond which tended to overcome this issues, and began the long process of military aid, intelligence and support which flowed for many years from Russia to the Mideast - a mutual desire to screw over England.
Pleasant dreams.
[Home] [Expedition] [Scrap Book] [House Rules] [Fun Facts] [Links]