Roj Bash Kurdistan

I have been reading a book by Christopher Catherwood - called "Winstons Folly: Imperialism and he Creation of Modern Iraq" - which I would recomend to everybody... HAVE A READ! It's REALY educational! And at the same time... DAMN INTERESTING! (Never thought that would happen, did you? )

Anyway... It turns out that Winston Churchill - was VERY much FOR an independent Kurdistan - and that the Mosul Vilayet - would excluding Mosul, be independent...

He meant it would be a good buffer against Turkey and Russia to the North! And he was also supporting it, because he wanted to save money, and Kurdistan - far north from Basra - was not so cheap to maintain - with the troops, food and other provisions... (PS - Turns out that in 1920 - Britan had ca 52 000 in it's ranks! LOL )

However - the reason it didn't happen was that the majority of the other ministers and experts where against it. Because they wanted a STRONG central Bagdad - under Hashemite controll! That means - King Abdulllah in Jordan, Faysal in Iraq and Hussain (their father) in Hejaz (includes the holy cities of Mekka and Medina)... Anyway - so NO Kurdistan... But you know? I have grown to like Winston - though I hated him for using chemichal weapons on rebells - but his aim was never to kill them - just to, at the most, maim them... So they would be silenced...

He says about having a strong Bagdad leader may:

"while outwardly accepting constitutional procedures and forming a Parliament, (might) at the same time despie democratic and constitutional procedures... (and) with power of an Arab army behind him... ignore Kurdish sentiment and oppress the Kurdish minority."

(quote from the book - "Winstons Folly" - Christopher Catherwood)

We are talking about the time AFTER the Treaty of Sèvres - in ealy 1920's - when Britain was trying to figure out what to do with Mesopotamia, Palestine, Hejaz etc... Winstons support for Kurdish independence was still strong - even though the Turks fooled the Kurds in North Kurdistan...

Winston wanted to give the Kurds independence in Mosul Vilayet - but because other experts suggested there was danger that either, Russia, Persia or Turkey might attack the small slice of land squized between them...


The dotted lines below show how the Treaty of Sêvres gave independence to the Mosul Vilayet - to join North Kurdistan by 1923 - through referendum - as was the American - Wilson's wish to give all nations their own state!

The consistent red line shows North Kurdistan as desired by the Treaty of Sèvres, but in 1921 - only Britain was ready to ratify the Treaty - because the Italian and French - had signed secrect agreements with Turkey - Kemal Atagû... So Britain only did as it did about the Kurdish issue and about Treaty of Sèvres - because the Italians and French backstabbed them! So Kurdistan is not a country today, in part because of Italy and France! French had already gotten their share of the Middle East - Syria - and they later made Lebanon - a "Christian" state - but with significant Muslim land mass from Syria...

That is an interesting perspective... but I am still not very fond of Winston Churchill or any of the other leaders during his time. They divided and carved lands and so-called territories based on self-interest, and never in the interest of the people living in those lands...

Very nice and interesting post. It is good to know those aspects of history....

heval wrote:That is an interesting perspective... but I am still not very fond of Winston Churchill or any of the other leaders during his time. They divided and carved lands based on self-interest.

Politicianssssssssss.....It is always how they see and what people want

Churchill was a clever man, very tricky, very pragmatic, cruel sometimes, but not stupid. He would have never made a Kurdish state because of humanism, but in the interests of England. But if Brittons would have listened to him, perhaps all the Middle East would be more stable today...

I hear what you say Heval. And politics is done based on self-interest - sadly...

Thanks, Zering!

Piling - actually - this book, is based on Churchill's memoirs and telegrams and anything else written by him - and the reason he wanted an independent Kurdistan as well as an independent Bagdad was before anything, money... He repeatedly adviced the government, which he was part of, that they would save millions of pounds by giving those areas self-determination... But he later agreed that Bagdad was needed as a strategic place - but he wanted to install a pro-British government in South Kurdistan (Mosul Vilayet) - which would be self-maintained...

The author of this book, has read ALL of Churchill's ever written documents... So he has a pretty good idea - when he finally says that money was the most important reason why he did the things he did...

You see, the Brits wanted to have Colonies in the Middle East - but since this would cost A LOT of money - Churchill, who was "in charge of" the money - and spendings - constantly advocated that they find the cheapest ways to deal with the Middle East! He constantly made wishes to the government that he should be given sole responsibility of the Middle East, but orhers were against that, since it meant they would lose their jobs...

But it was the Cairo Conference, which REALY divided the Middle East. Here everybody who was something and who had some expertise gathered, all summoned by the Brits - from the Brits - "Lawrence of Arabia" (T.E. Lawrence) included.

Winston called the group of people - "My 40 thieves" - So the meeting came to be doubed "Winston and his forty thieves".

They divided into two groups, one was for military and the other for social/governmental economy. Both had the same aim: find the cheapest way to deal with affairs.

And it was agreed that the "Hashemite solution" was the best - because it was the cheapest. Faysel, whom was to be throned King of Iraq was thrown out of Damascus, Syria by the French - because he had demanded being more than a puppet of the French. This had caused the French to threaten the Brits - telling them they wouldn't accept Hashmite controll of their neighbours - Iraq and Transjordan. Nevertheless - it came to be as so - Abdullah, brother of Faysel, was in Amman at the time, getting ready to attack Syria - "reclaim Hashemite land" as he and his father Hussain in Hejaz saw hit. But that didn't happen - because a new state called Transjordan was created merely to please the Hashemites - giving Abdullah a state of his own, with Amman as his capital - today Abdullah II still sits on the throne...

As we know - Faysel was deposed by the Baath - a Pan-Arab nationalism(read: fascism) which had surfaced first in Syria.

I do not know if kurds would ever have a state especially with their current tribal, rural and underdeveloped social structure but if they would have, it should be becasue the people living in the region have consensented to that. Not becasue of power games between major western powers. Otherwise that would not be a state but a pet-dog and also be very dependant on aid from outside world. Also, such kind of a government have a possibility of being sold-out very easily.

current tribal, rural and underdeveloped social structure

I'm afraid south kurdistan is slightly more developped than Azerbaijan now...and I prefer a thousand Barzanis and Talabanis than 2 Allievs...

I'm afraid south kurdistan is slightly more developped than Azerbaijan now...and I prefer a thousand Barzanis and Talabanis than 2 Allievs...

Oh really! I am no fan of Aliyev but I am sure he is much more qualified than those landlords called Talaban and Barzani who got no job except screwing each other when they do not screw ordinary kurds. If you praise current social structure of northern iraq I have got nothing to say to you. Some loce Arab dictators, some loce kurdish dictators. İt is called "freedom to choose".

Yeah Alliev does have a great reputation for his leadership skills. I do not "praise" the social structure of kurdistan (neither of France...)! But I prefer some feudal middle age pro imperialist traitor ( ) to an ex apparatchik. These ex sovietic rulers like "turkmenbasi", karimov, nazarbaiev or Alliev are the illness of central asia, they turned "nationalist" after having been communists.

tomjez wrote:Yeah Alliev does have a great reputation for his leadership skills. I do not "praise" the social structure of kurdistan (neither of France...)! But I prefer some feudal middle age pro imperialist traitor ( ) to an ex apparatchik. These ex sovietic rulers like "turkmenbasi", karimov, nazarbaiev or Alliev are the illness of central asia, they turned "nationalist" after having been communists.

That is the same as PKK!

Azeri - you have NO support here... Azerbaycan cooperates with our ENEMY #1 - Turkey...

Don't expect any sympathy from Kurds... Azeris COULD have been close friends of the Kurds - BUT you chose to be brothers of the Turan...

Don't expect any sympathy from Kurds... Azeris COULD have been close friends of the Kurds - BUT you chose to be brothers of the Turan...

How many kurds do you know except yourself? Or more honesly, how many kurds you represent?

I hope for Azerbayjan that you don't represent ALL the Azeris

azeriactivist wrote:

Don't expect any sympathy from Kurds... Azeris COULD have been close friends of the Kurds - BUT you chose to be brothers of the Turan...

How many kurds do you know except yourself? Or more honesly, how many kurds you represent?

I speak for myself, you rodent...

And my claims are based on popular-consensus... Go read a Kurdish blog or something... Non of them like Azerbaycan...

No Kurd "supports" Azerbaycan - because Azerbaycan supports Turkey...

Infact Turkey support azerbeycan, how do you think azeris can support turkey?

Also I didnt know armenians are best friends of kurds, ah ofcourse you have not much common with a standart kurd at turkey.

you are kurd not turd!

zurderer wrote:Infact Turkey support azerbeycan, how do you think azeris can support turkey?

Also I didnt know armenians are best friends of kurds, ah ofcourse you have not much common with a standart kurd at turkey.

you are kurd not turd!

Are you talking about me?

Basically you just repeated what I said...

Azeris support Turkey, and Turkey supports Azeris...

Kurds don't support Azerbaycan...

And I am a Kurd from North-East Kurdistan...