Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I

Rename

From my Talk Page:

Dear sir; I was hoping you would consider this proposal. Under the "World War I", "Middle Eastern theatre of World War I" is listed. If you look where the battles had been performed, also between the armstice to "threaty of serves" most the allies were in te anatolian lands. That name does not really cover the material presented under it. If you consider this proposal, either we should rename that to "Ottoman Front" or break it into peaces. I'm specifically objecting the "Caucasus Campaign" and "Dardanelles Campaign" listed under the Middle Eastern, even if you like to interperet that word liberally. --user:Tommiks

From an British Empire perspective the action took place in the Middle East and the command base camp etc was based in Egypt. However as Tommiks points out the Caucasus Campaign did not take place in the Middle East nor geographically did the fighting in the Dardanelles Campaign.

1. I think the article should remain intact (we should not create two articles)
2. I think the name for most English speaking people is name is accetable and clear so my prfernce is not to change it.
3. But it could be renamed to somthing like Middle and Near Eastern theatres of World War I. (As Near East includes Turkey.) The alternative like Middle East and South East European Theatre of World War I seems over long.
4. The phrase "Ottoman Front" implies one continuous front line which I do not think is applicable in this case, Perhapse Ottoman Camapigns or Ottoman Theatre --Philip Baird Shearer 10:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this page was added under to the Ottoman Empire page, which was a good idea. Previous page, "Fronts of the Ottoman Empire (World War I)" did not develop significant content. However, "Middle Eastern" is a concept which really do not cover this Theatre. It might have been used by an English speaking audiance which percieved those lands as distant lands and not cared for the datails. But given the current developments this concept has been changed drastically, even among the English speaking population. To direct people correct concepts, and PLEASE read the text, every activity performed in this Front for the goal of sharing of the Ottoman Empire, I WOULD GIVE MY VOTE to "Ottoman Theathre of the World War I".--Karabekir 20:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel "Ottoman Theatre" is a good choice. Campaigns gives a feeling of seperate events. However, idea behind whole thing was already set before the war began. We can create a war box of "Ottoman Theatre" and locate the individual campaigns under it. thanks guys.--tommiks 06:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Most English language speakers are searching on the web for the conflict they are likely to look under "Middle East" not "Ottoman". The trouble with the term "Ottoman Theatre" or ("Ottoman Theater") is that AFAICT it is a neologism see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Searching Google only throws up one page which looks like a translation. The term "Middle East Theatre" is not see for example the link in the further reading section: The Middle East during World War One By Professor David R Woodward. Philip Baird Shearer 12:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Ottoman Empire a Middle East empire? Or is it an empire that covers more than one region? Why are you packaging it to a single region? Why are these people mentioned by Philip Baird Shearer looking "Middle East" but not "Ottoman" under WWI? I feel, they might be interested in history of Iraq-Iran-Syria more than WWI. If so, what is the real objective of the page. I hope they know that, these national states do not exist in this period of time. Anyhow, what exists seems to be the root of the discussions, even for the experts. :) Is this page directed to British Nationalism and its results on Middle East; A subjective explanation of events based on English view point; or explain objectively a specific period that millions lost their life for Imperialism. Get to your senses, buddies. --OilPolitics 21:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. I do agree with the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms but look at the situation; if there is a real need to keep the name, than we have to get rid of the two major campains under it. If you carefully analyze the issue, for the Ottomans Middle East is only one side of the issue. I think problem arises because you concentrate on Middle East as the highest term, but it is not the reality. That is also apparent when you look at the WWI page. Three campaigns against Ottomans are out of order among very orderly Europe and Africa theaters. I can see how this puts whole page biased against the one of the biggest issues of the war. I also remember some cases that claimed this perspective arises as people like Professor David R Woodward wants to push a specific perspective which might (argumentable) loose its weight if you look under one higher organizing issue, the process of sharing Ottoman Empire. I think if you want to avoid neologisms, you should find a better way to include that term, instead of getting rid of the higher term, which is “Ottoman Front.” Or another way to say it, your point is taken, we need to find an organization that will reflect your perspective, and maybe sub categorize two campaigns (middle east campaigns) under main theater page, which they really are (without any need to stretching) .--Karabekir 20:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I do not see the fairness in covering four campains and would have a conclusion statement like Professor David R Woodward's. "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." This statement only covers the two fronts. Either it is really intended for the middle east, or the person has concentrated his study too much which causes him to loose the sight. In this respect other fronts should be taken out of this page. --Karabekir 20:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I will try to answer the question about why people from the (British) Commonwealth will perceive all three campaigns as in the Middle East theatre. Now we (who are discussing this) all know that the Dardanelles are not in the Middle East, but the men fighting on the Allied side were in Egypt before embarking for the Dardanelles (or Palatine) so the perception rightly or wrongly is that the Dardanelles is a Middle East campaign. This is the viw that most people who know anything about the campaign still have. The term does not have to be a correct to be used. As for the fourth campaign, as far as the English reading world is concerned, it did not exist unless the person has a very detailed knowledge of WWI history. We could strip that campaign out of this article but I see no advantage to that as it does introduce English speaking people to the concept that the war against Turkey was more than a British Empire effort and that the Turkish high command had more to worry about than attacks by just the British. --Philip Baird Shearer 03:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I like your response; AND point 1: Allied side were in Egypt before embarking There is no need to discuss where soldiers who shed their blood in Gallipoli originally located. We do not call this war as "Australian war". point 2: know anything about the campaign still have Whole argument, even your claim that Ottoman Front is an neologism is based on this biased perception, teaching, propaganda, etc. This teaching is what really under discussion. "Ottoman Front" exists under the secret agreements, if you accept it here or not. point 3. "English speaking people" I always thought, I 'm an English speaking people. You going to have hard time making me believe that I do not speak English. I want to ask you this question. "What is common among these people that they were not thought to see the WWI under the secret agreements, or mainly Ottoman Front" point 4: Turkey. You personally need to think this word. If it is geological word, it does not cover the issue. If it is the name of a state, it did not exist at that time. If you are talking about an Empire, it is "Ottoman Empire". Ottomans did not like to be associated with Turk, Turkish, or even Turkey. They saw themselves bigger than this concept. I guess it is your problem that you can only read from one side. "Not able to communicate with the language of other people might be a problem." I hope this does not extent to other English speaking people of yours. point 5: It is disappointing to recognize that truth does not have a value to your arguments. More dissappointing is that You recognize that there are problems under what you are pushing. It seems you had a chance to clear one big misconception about WWI, but you have chosen to ignore. I HOPE THESE EXPERTS OF YOURS WOULD RECONSIDER. --Karabekir 16:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm SURPRISED that Briths did not argue "Caucasus Campaign" is also a middle east campaign. At the end, their forces in the cacusus (after the armstice) moved from the middle east. This thread is getting interesting. :-)) Go Brits! Go Brits! Go Brits! Concure the electronic world. --OilPolitics 19:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose to call it " Barbarian Turkish Front" like in this website. And them we can put pictures of people on horsebacks. We can even put a link to warlords, and barbarians check this site: Official History Channel --OilPolitics 19:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Theatre by campaign or chronological order

Personally I think that the information should be by campaign not chronologically, although the paragraphs/subsections of each campaign section can/ought to be arranged chronologically . user:OttomanReference, by the edits (s)he has made clearly thinks that the theatre should be organised chronologically.

My major objection to this is that the campaigns were not clearly linked and it destroys the ability to place "Main article" links in each of the sections. I am not against having a timeline section in this article but I do not think that the all of article should be arranged chronologically What do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If we keep it as it is; the campaign's have their own pages, which makes this article a collection of introduction sections of these campaigns; That should be the main reason to change the article to a time line, so that the links between the campaings can be build. Otherwise what is the use of this article? IT BECOMES a copy cat of the campaigns. ALSO it is naive to assume that the campaigns did not have any higher order links to each other. Ottomans constantly moved sources between the fronts, which falsifies the idea that campaigns were different from each other. Also politically and time wise these campaigns were related to each other. Summary (a)we need an article that tells what happened each year (b) we need to tell why other fronts opened when Gallipoli did not work (c) we need to tell the movement of the forces among the fronts to show how political decisions were reflected on the battle field decisions. (d) brought this article to a unique level that would break the current "just the collections of introduction sections" THANKS--OttomanReference 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer: I do not think that the all of article should be arranged chronologically I do not know why you say that because the article has the campaigns listed at the beginning of the sections. If there is another way to do it, I would appreciate to learn that. However, I might be missing your point, as campaigns are there at the beginning of every paragraph, ALREADY. THANKS--OttomanReference 00:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest having sections for each campaign—as that allows the most coherent narrative—but arranged chronologically. Thus, while there will be overlaps (i.e. a section's narrative will start before the previous section's ends), the overall flow will follow logically through the course of the war. Kirill Lokshin 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So that people can see at a glance the two proposed alternatives for the section headers:

• Version by campaign Revision as of 00:16, 27 October 2006
• Version by year Revision as of 00:58, 27 October 2006

--Philip Baird Shearer 01:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the version by year definitely has its merits, as it represents an overall chronological narrative. Done only by campaign, it is more difficult to get a whole overall picture of what was happening in each campaign in a single given year. (Yes, I know I'm stating the obvious. I just want to get it out there. Say outright the pros and cons of each.) On the other hand, doing it by year looks over-organized; it looks more like a list than prose paragraphs, and I find it somewhat harder to follow; there's no flow like there would be in regular prose. The by campaign version is less clear on the overall picture, and makes it seem as if each of these actions was entirely separate - five separate narratives strung through the same chronology. (Then again, the by year one does that too...) But I do think it's prettier done by campaign. Looks more like a proper article than bullet points. Ultimately, I'm interested to see what the end result of this discussion is, and whether or not we could/should/will apply it to other theatres of WWI & WWII for the sake consistency. Good luck! LordAmeth 07:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Prelude

"The Ottoman Empire's entry into World War I occurred on October 29, 1914 when ships of the Ottoman navy shelled Odessa."

This is incorrect. During World War I, the Ottoman Empire was close to entering the war on the side of the Allies. The reason that this did not happen is because the British were supposed to deliver a warship to the Turks, but even after it had been fully paid for by the common folks (including Turkish schoolchildren), the British had decided on not delivering it after all. No refunds either. Meanwhile, Germany takes note of this and makes a pseudo-gift of a couple of warships. As a result, the Ottoman Empire joins the Central Powers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WiiVolve (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the current sentence shown on the article describes any of that. -- WiiVolve 19:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

removed a bit

"Turkish peasantry of Anatolia drops to 40% of the pre-war levels" this is a misunderstanding The source simply says "So the burden of military service in the regular units in the front line fell overwhelmingly on the Turkish peasant population of Anatolia, which constituted about 40% of the total population..."

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/bitstream/1887/2512/1/350_012.pdf 

16:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Leroyhurdfan (talk)

adding a link

I found a really good link to a site that has vintage and new maps of the middle eastern front of world war one. I am adding it to the bottom of the page due to the lack of good links. If you feel its not good, go ahead and take it down, but I think it adds alot that you cant cram into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofbritain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Page Name

Ottoman Front page name should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonade16 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Middle-Eastern philosophy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618180128/http://www.sacktrick.com/igu/germancolonialuniforms/austrian%20ottoman%20fronts.htm to http://www.sacktrick.com/igu/germancolonialuniforms/austrian%20ottoman%20fronts.htm
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20011116074925/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/turkgerm.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/turkgerm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Peculiar wording in introduction

The introduction currently states that the British had the help of "Jews, Greeks, Assyrians and the majority of the Arabs, along with Indians under its empire." Greece is a country and "Arab" is a category which could refer to multiple countries. But I'm confused about what it could possibly mean that "The British had the help of Jews." Judaism isn't a country, Israel didn't exist at that point, and, clearly, not every individual Jewish person was helping Britain. Certainly some Jews were on the British side during WWI, but that's also true of every conflict Britain's been in since the cessation of anti-Semitic laws banning them from the country, so it's strange to specifically point this one out. It kind of makes it sound as if "the Jews" are one united faction, which they are obviously not. --70.95.57.250 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

the image on campaignbox

Why all the photos are focused on Ottomans? This seems quite awkward. 웬디러비/Wendy Lovey (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue of military numbers

The data of this army is originally cited from The Cambridge History of Turkey: Turkey in the Modern World and Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I: A Comparative Study. The first book states:

'The magnitude of the Ottoman contribution to the war effort is perhaps best appreciated by considering the size of the forces thrown against the empire. Over the course of the war, Great Britain deployed 2,550,000 troops on the Ottoman fronts, constituting 32 percent of the total number of troops deployed; at one point, the British had 880,300 men fighting the Ottomans, or 24 percent of the British armed forces. The Russians initially mobilized 160,000 troops on the Caucasian front. By September 1916, they had 702,000 troops facing the Ottomans in Anatolia and Iran out of a total force of 3.7 million. Additionally, 50,000 French troops fought the Ottomans, mainly at the Dardanelles.'

The second book states:

'The strength of an army. The Ottoman Army proved unexpectedly resilient to the enormous pressures of a sustained multi-front war. It continued to astonish its enemies into the final year of the Great War, despite early predictions that it was not an especially capable or modern army. The total number of men that the British Empire sent against the Turks remains an elusive figure—the author of this study estimates that it must have numbered about 1.5 million. (The rough figures are: Gallipoli 400,000, Sinai-Palestine 450,000, Mesopotamia 350,000, and Salonika, Persia, Libya, and Aden perhaps 100,000). Field Marshal Lord Carver put the total imperial casualties suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Army as 264,000 battle casualties. As to the question 'How good were the Turks and what was the strength of their army?' the Ottoman Army was good enough to absorb the collective military efforts of 1.5 million imperial troops, perhaps a million Russians, and several hundred thousand French and Armenians. At the armistice, the Turks still had over 900,000 men in the field organized into twenty-six combat infantry divisions.'

However, according to The Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914-1920, the British forces in the Middle East suffered a total loss of 276,322 men, which is far lower than the claimed 1.25 million casualties stated in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, this source records that the British Empire deployed a total of 8.65 million men, and the casualty count mentioned earlier is 2.94 million. Therefore, 2.94 ÷ 8.65 = 0.33, meaning the British loss rate was 33%. According to the data cited in Wikipedia, 102 ÷ 255 = 0.4, meaning the loss rate was about 40%, 7% higher than the overall loss rate. If we purely follow the data from Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I: A Comparative Study, 102 ÷ 150 = 0.68, meaning the loss rate was 68%, 35% higher than the overall loss rate. If this is the case, the Ottoman Army was stronger than the German Army, as it inflicted a higher loss rate on the British than the average. Interestingly, it seems the Germans were the ones who lowered the loss rate for the British. But if we rely on The Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914-1920, the British loss rate in the Middle East was about 31%, lower than the overall average, which is the expected phenomenon. Furthermore, it is noted that:

'The total numbers employed in this campaign were 327,606 combatants and 141,381 non-combatants, making a total of 468,987, or more than four times the maximum number of men employed at any one time, showing how heavy the wastage was.'

For the Palestine theatre (including Sinai and the Levant), the following is noted:

'The maximum number of troops employed at any one time in this theatre was 228,927 combatants and 203,930 non-combatants, making a total of 432,857.'

For the Mesopotamia theatre, the following is noted:

'The total numbers employed on the campaign up to 11th November, 1918, were 400,905 combatants and 488,596 non-combatants, making a total of 889,702, or nearly double the numbers employed at any one time. The wastage is largely due to heavy casualties from sickness.'

These are the British data. As for the Russian forces, according to Krivosheev's Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, the Imperial Russian and Provisional Government armies collectively mobilized 15.37 million men, with a total loss of 7.18 million (including killed, wounded, captured, missing, or those who died from severe wounds). The loss rate is approximately 46% (7.18 ÷ 15.37 = 0.46). However, this entry states that the Russian forces in this campaign numbered 1 million. According to Anton Kersnowski's История Русской армии, the Russian army in the Caucasus suffered only 119,000 casualties. If there really were 1 million soldiers, the loss rate would be 11.9% (11.9 ÷ 100 = 0.119).So why is the loss rate of the Russian forces in the Caucasus much lower than the overall loss rate? Does this imply that the Ottoman army was relatively weak? If that is the case, why didn't the Russians, with their reportedly large force, decisively conquer Asia Minor? These questions suggest that the claim of 1 million Russian troops stationed in the Caucasus might be highly questionable. Based on available data, the actual number of Russian forces in the Caucasus was likely around 300,000, with a loss rate of approximately 40%. This aligns with the overall Russian loss rate of 46%. Considering that the Ottoman forces were relatively weaker (compared to both the German and Austro-Hungarian armies), it is reasonable that the loss rate in the Caucasus would be lower than on the Eastern Front. In fact, История Русской армии states:

'Всего наши боевые потери составили 22 000 убитыми, 71 000 ранеными, 6 000 пленными и до 20 000 обмороженными. Турки лишились 350 000 человек, из коих 100 000 пленными. Нами потеряно в боях 8 орудий и взято 650.'

Translation: "Our combat losses amounted to 22,000 killed, 71,000 wounded, 6,000 captured, and up to 20,000 frostbitten. The Turks lost 350,000 men, of whom 100,000 were captured. We lost 8 guns in battle and captured 650." As for the French forces, the reported loss of 47,000 men is reasonably normal, but the figures stating that hundreds of thousands were deployed are unconvincing, especially in light of the numerous previous inaccuracies, making this data quite unreliable.Clod Huang (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)