+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...

  1. Link to Post #1
    Avalon Member Kindred's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th February 2011
    Location
    At Peace, within the Noise
    Age
    59
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    1,807
    Thanked 3,950 times in 812 posts

    Default The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...

    I found this just this moment on 'Before It's News'... where they had found it on 'From the Trenches World Report'...
    http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.co...america/16860/

    A Most interesting read, given the fact that the presentation it reports on was penned by a successful Jewish-American Entrepreneur, and given in a speech in 1961.

    Introduction by webmaster:

    Publishers (Prag Witness) Introductory Note: Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company.

    He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

    Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

    This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley’s patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman’s essential message to us — his warning to the West — is more urgent than ever before. — K.A.S.

  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Kindred For This Post:

    Alie (27th June 2012), Cartomancer (27th June 2012), Ceedub (27th June 2012), Cidersomerset (27th June 2012), karelia (27th June 2012), Lettherebelight (27th June 2012), Paul (28th June 2012), Star Tsar (27th June 2012), taurad (28th June 2012)

  3. Link to Post #2
    UK Avalon Member Cidersomerset's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th May 2011
    Location
    Bridgwater somerset UK
    Age
    53
    Posts
    9,603
    Thanks
    15,735
    Thanked 31,860 times in 7,873 posts

    Default Re: The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...

    For those who prefer to listen.....


  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Cidersomerset For This Post:

    Alie (27th June 2012), Cartomancer (27th June 2012), karelia (27th June 2012), Kindred (27th June 2012), Lettherebelight (27th June 2012), Star Tsar (27th June 2012), taurad (28th June 2012)

  5. Link to Post #3
    United States Avalon Member Cartomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th June 2011
    Posts
    1,051
    Thanks
    4,240
    Thanked 3,931 times in 905 posts

    Default Re: The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...

    WWI and WWII were IMO only the last installment of the Holy Roman Empire (Germany allied w/ the Vatican) vs. The Masonic/Jewish faction composed of the US and Britain. Britain has traditionally opposed the Church. The reasons for both of those wars go all the way back to at least the sixteenth century.

    I haven't watched the video but I will come back and add more after.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cartomancer For This Post:

    Cidersomerset (27th June 2012), Lettherebelight (27th June 2012), Star Tsar (27th June 2012)

  7. Link to Post #4
    United States Avalon Member Ceedub's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th April 2012
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 201 times in 47 posts

    Default Re: The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...

    There is some interesting history in the link you posted much of which is new to me. When I saw the name of this thread I instantly thought of the Albert Pike letter to Manzzini. These two pieces fit together in interesting ways I'll need to consider a little deeper but in the meantime here is the letter for those who may not have read it before:

    Quote The following is a letter that speculation claimed that Albert Pike wrote to Giuseppe Mazzini in 1871 regarding a conspiracy involving three world wars that were planned in an attempt to take over the world.



    The Pike letter to Giuseppe Mazzini was on display in the British Museum Library in London until 1977.



    This letter has been claimed by many internet sites to reside in the British Library in London, which denies the letter exists.

    Giuseppe Mazzini was an Italian revolutionary leader of the mid 1800s as well as the Director of the Illuminati

    Albert Pike (historical Masonic figure) is a 33rd degree, Freemason Occultist Grand Master and creator of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Masonic Scottish Rite Order

    Following are apparently extracts from the letter, showing how Three World Wars have been planned for many generations.



    "The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."



    "The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."



    "The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other.



    Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion… We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil.



    Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view.



    This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."
    I can't vouch for the authenticity of this letter of course or whether it was on display. I can say that Masonic authors go to great lengths to defend Pike and so an abundance of misinfo should be expected and is kind of their signiture. Oh let's not forget he started the kkk too. To me it is less important whether this was actually penned by Pike in 1871, the greatest significance to me is whether or not it's existence predates WWI. I think either way we can rest assured these rapscalions had a plan to guide world affairs since way back when.
    I Am

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ceedub For This Post:

    Cartomancer (27th June 2012), Cidersomerset (27th June 2012), Kindred (27th June 2012)

  9. Link to Post #5
    UK Avalon Member Cidersomerset's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th May 2011
    Location
    Bridgwater somerset UK
    Age
    53
    Posts
    9,603
    Thanks
    15,735
    Thanked 31,860 times in 7,873 posts

    Default Re: The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...

    The Khazaria empire around the time of the first millenium...for ref...


  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cidersomerset For This Post:

    Cartomancer (27th June 2012), Ceedub (27th June 2012), Kindred (27th June 2012), Lettherebelight (27th June 2012)

  11. Link to Post #6
    UK Avalon Member Cidersomerset's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th May 2011
    Location
    Bridgwater somerset UK
    Age
    53
    Posts
    9,603
    Thanks
    15,735
    Thanked 31,860 times in 7,873 posts

    Default Re: The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...

    2. Palestine in the Ottoman Empire



    Ottoman atlas of the world, map of Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine, Istanbul A.H. 1314 (1899)


    After the Ottoman conquest in 1516 ‘Palestine’ disappeared as an official name of an administrative unit, since the Turks usually named their provinces after their capital cities. For the Jews it was important that these Turks were fairly tolerant. Many Jewish refugees from Spanish regions settled in Ottoman cities, including Safed and Jerusalem. After the reorganisation of 1873 the area north of the line Jaffa-Jericho became part of the province of Beirut. The area to the south became part of the special district of Jerusalem, whereas the Negev, Sinai and West Arabia became part of the province of Hijaz.

    The old name of Palestine remained popular, however. In the nineteenth century the Ottoman government used ‘Ard-u Filistin’ (Land of Palestine) in its semi-official correspondence. This name was used to refer to the region to the west of the Jordan, which later became the western half of the British Mandate for Palestine. Educated Arabs also used the term Filastin for this area, or, more specifically, for the district of Jerusalem.

    In 1880 Ottoman Palestine had 25,000 Jews. At the end of the nineteenth century the first wave of 30,000 Zionist immigrants arrived. These were Jews from eastern Europe and Yemen, who laid the foundations of agricultural co-operatives and built the first Hebrew primary schools. The second wave of 40,000 Jews arrived after the 1903-’07 pogroms in the Russian empire, which started in Kishinev. These Jews, mostly young socialists, dreamed of a strong workers’ movement in Eretz Israel. In 1910 Tel Aviv was founded.

    http://www.siger.org/jewish-history-...el-palestine-2
    Last edited by Cidersomerset; 27th June 2012 at 20:51.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cidersomerset For This Post:

    Cartomancer (27th June 2012), Kindred (27th June 2012), Lettherebelight (27th June 2012)

  13. Link to Post #7
    United States Avalon Member Cartomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th June 2011
    Posts
    1,051
    Thanks
    4,240
    Thanked 3,931 times in 905 posts

    Default Re: The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...

    Quote Posted by Cidersomerset (here)
    I think this is my favorite all time post on Avalon.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cartomancer For This Post:

    Cidersomerset (27th June 2012), Kindred (27th June 2012)

  15. Link to Post #8
    UK Avalon Member Cidersomerset's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th May 2011
    Location
    Bridgwater somerset UK
    Age
    53
    Posts
    9,603
    Thanks
    15,735
    Thanked 31,860 times in 7,873 posts

    Default Re: The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...



    http://www.scribd.com/doc/8104532/Th...n-of-Palestine

    Where as the restablishment of the state of Israel was a political as well as military affair
    circa 1947 and beyond.The speech by Benjamin Freedman shows all the Machiavelian
    dark arts at play and he gave it at a time when he could express his true views as he saw it.
    The individual Jew and Arab have/ are being manipulated in this great power play
    Which we know goes deep behind the curtain.But bit by bit I hope the puppet
    masters that have been pulling the strings of time and tears will be exposed !!
    Last edited by Cidersomerset; 28th June 2012 at 17:40.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cidersomerset For This Post:

    Cartomancer (27th June 2012), Kindred (28th June 2012)

  17. Link to Post #9
    UK Avalon Member Cidersomerset's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th May 2011
    Location
    Bridgwater somerset UK
    Age
    53
    Posts
    9,603
    Thanks
    15,735
    Thanked 31,860 times in 7,873 posts

    Default Re: The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...

    One of the main points B.Freedman was trying to get over is the fact that because you convert to Judism,Christianity,Muslims ,Hindu or whatever
    or were christened a particular faith.Religion as well as atheist are just tools used by TPTB to ferment friction and war. Although his PTB were the
    Zionists and they are still prominant in global politics...

    Jews of Khazaria, brief history and other resources

    Posted on April 3, 2002


    According to an article published at the World Zionist Organization's (WZO) website:

    "REMARKABLY, the Khazars, a people of Turkic origin, converted to the Jewish religion sometime in the 9th century, beginning with the royal house and spreading gradually among the general populace. Judaism is now known to have been more widespread among the Khazar inhabitants of the Khazar kingdom than was previously thought. In 1999, Russian archaeologists announced that they had successfully reconstructed a Khazarian vessel from the Don River region, revealing 4 inscriptions of the word "Israel" in Hebrew lettering. It is now the accepted opinion among most scholars in the field that the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism was widespread, and not limited merely to the royal house and nobility. Ibn al-Faqih, in fact, wrote "All of the Khazars are Jews." Christian of Stavelot wrote in 864 that "all of them profess the Jewish faith in its entirety." Click here to view the full article and links to the original source.



    http://www.palestineremembered.com/A.../Story800.html

    Wikipedia: Khazars.
    Khazaria, A hidden & forbidden Jewish history exposed
    The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler
    NYTimes: Geneticists Report Finding Central Asian Link to Ashkenazi Levite
    NY Times: Studies Show Jews' Genetic Similarity
    In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots by the NY Times
    Ukraine & The Khazar Empire By the Jewish Virtual Library
    Zionist FAQ: The Land of Israel was promised to the descendents of Isaac by God
    Electronic Intifada: Israel's surprising best seller contradicts founding ideology
    Ha'aretz: An invention called 'the Jewish people'
    Khazri-Fiction: A Yahoo e-group that is for people interested in reading, writing, publishing, or distributing historical fiction novels and short stories about the Khazar Khaganate as well as other topics in Jewish, Slavic, and Turkic history
    Ha'aretz: Shattering a 'national mythology' By Ofri Ilani
    Associated Press: Scholar claims to find medieval Jewish capital
    The lost Palestinian Jews
    A Must See NOVA Video: The Bible's Buried Secrets
    Last edited by Cidersomerset; 27th June 2012 at 21:39.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Cidersomerset For This Post:

    Star Tsar (27th June 2012)

  19. Link to Post #10
    UK Avalon Member Cidersomerset's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th May 2011
    Location
    Bridgwater somerset UK
    Age
    53
    Posts
    9,603
    Thanks
    15,735
    Thanked 31,860 times in 7,873 posts

    Default Re: The True Reasons for WW's 1 & 2... and More...

    Sykes–Picot Agreement

    The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in Western Asia should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]

    The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.[4] The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and British Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes-Picot agreement and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, 'the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted

    Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets. The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas. Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including the Sharif of Mecca.[6]

    British-Zionist discussions during the negotiations

    Following the outbreak of World War I, Zionism was first discussed at a British Cabinet level on 9 November 1914, four days after Britain's declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire. At a Cabinet meeting David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, "referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine."[7] Lloyd George's law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionists to work on the British Uganda Programme.[8] In a discussion after the meeting with fellow Zionist Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board, Lloyd George assured him that "he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine."[7] Samuel then outlined the Zionist position more fully in a conversation with Foreign Secretary Edward Grey. He spoke of Zionist aspirations for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish state, and of the importance of its geographical position to the British Empire.[9] Samuel's memoirs state: "I mentioned that two things would be essential— that the state should be neutralized, since it could not be large enough to defend itself, and that the free access of Christian pilgrims should be guaranteed... I also said it would be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European power as neighbour than the Turk"[7] The same evening, Prime Minister H. H. Asquith announced that the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire had become a war aim in a speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet.[10]

    In January 1915 Samuel submitted a Zionist memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine to the Cabinet after discussions with Weizmann and Lloyd George. On 5 February 1915, Samuel had another discussion with Grey: "When I asked him what his solution was he said it might be possible to neutralize the country under international guarantee...and to vest the government of the country in some kind of Council to be established by the Jews"[11] After further conversations with Lloyd George and Grey, Samuel circulated a revised text to the Cabinet in the middle of March 1915.

    Zionism or the Jewish question were not considered by the report of the de Bunsen Committee, prepared to determine British wartime policy toward the Ottoman Empire, submitted in June 1915.[12]

    Prior to the departure of Sykes to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov in Petrograd on 27 February 1916, Sykes was approached with a plan by Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board and was strongly sympathetic to Zionism. The plan put forward by Samuel was in the form of a memorandum which Sykes thought prudent to commit to memory and destroy.[9] Commenting on it, Sykes wrote to Samuel suggesting that if Belgium should assume the administration of Palestine it might be more acceptable to France as an alternative to the international administration which she wanted and the Zionists did not. Of the boundaries marked on a map attached to the memorandum he wrote:[9][7]


    "By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing center of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd."

    Conflicting promises

    Lord Curzon said the Great Powers were still committed to the Reglement Organique Agreement regarding the Lebanon Vilayet of June 1861 and September 1864, and that the rights granted to France in the blue area under the Sykes–Picot Agreement were not compatible with that agreement.[13] The Reglement Organique was an international agreement regarding governance and non-intervention in the affairs of the Maronite, Orthodox, Druze, and Muslim communities.

    In May 1917 W. Ormsby-Gore wrote "French intentions in Syria are surely incompatible with the war aims of the Allies as defined to the Russian Government. If the self-determination of nationalities is to be the principle, the interference of France in the selection of advisers by the Arab Government and the suggestion by France of the Emirs to be selected by the Arabs in Mosul, Aleppo, and Damascus would seem utterly incompatible with our ideas of liberating the Arab nation and of establishing a free and independent Arab State. The British Government, in authorising the letters despatched to King-Hussein before the outbreak of the revolt by Sir Henry McMahon, would seem to raise a doubt as to whether our pledges to King Hussein as head of the Arab nation are consistent with French intentions to make not only Syria but Upper Mesopotamia another Tunis. If our support of King Hussein and the other Arabian leaders of less distinguished origin and prestige means anything it means that we are prepared to recognise the full sovereign independence of the Arabs of Arabia and Syria. It would seem time to acquaint the French Government with our detailed pledges to King Hussein, and to make it clear to the latter whether he or someone else is to be the ruler of Damascus, which is the one possible capital for an Arab State, which could command the obedience of the other Arabian Emirs."[14]

    Many sources report that this agreement conflicted with the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence of 1915–1916. It has also been reported that the publication of the Sykes–Picot Agreement caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon.[15] However, the Sykes-Picot plan itself stated that France and Great Britain were prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State, or Confederation of Arab States, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief within the zones marked A. and B. on the map.[16] Nothing in the plan precluded rule through an Arab suzerainty in the remaining areas. The conflicts resulted from the private, post-war, Anglo-French Settlement of 1–4 December 1918. It was negotiated between British Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau and rendered many of the guarantees in the Hussein-McMahon agreement invalid. That settlement was not part of the Sykes–Picot Agreement.[17] Sykes was not affiliated with the Cairo office that had been corresponding with Sherif Hussein bin Ali, but he and Picot visited the Hedjaz in 1917 to discuss the agreement with Hussein.[18] That same year he and a representative of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered a public address to the Central Syrian Congress in Paris on the non-Turkish elements of the Ottoman Empire, including liberated Jerusalem. He stated that the accomplished fact of the independence of the Hedjaz rendered it almost impossible that an effective and real autonomy should be refused to Syria.[19]

    The greatest source of conflict was the Balfour Declaration, 1917. Lord Balfour wrote a memorandum from the Paris Peace Conference which stated that the other allies had implicitly rejected the Sykes-Picot agreement by adopting the system of mandates. It allowed for no annexations, trade preferences, or other advantages. He also stated that the Allies were committed to Zionism and had no intention of honoring their promises to the Arabs.[20]

    Eighty-five years later, in a 2002 interview with The New Statesman, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw observed "A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past. .. ..The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis - again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one."[21]

    Events after public disclosure of the plan

    Russian claims in the Ottoman Empire were denied following the Bolshevik Revolution and the Bolsheviks released a copy of the Sykes–Picot Agreement (as well as other treaties). They revealed full texts in Izvestia and Pravda on 23 November 1917, subsequently the Manchester Guardian printed the texts on November 26, 1917.[22] This caused great embarrassment between the allies and growing distrust between them and the Arabs. The Zionists were similarly upset,[citation needed] with the Sykes–Picot Agreement becoming public only three weeks after the Balfour Declaration.

    The Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918 pledged that Great Britain and France would "assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia by "setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations". The French had reluctantly agreed to issue the declaration at the insistence of the British. Minutes of a British War Cabinet meeting reveal that the British had cited the laws of conquest and military occupation to avoid sharing the administration with the French under a civilian regime. The British stressed that the terms of the Anglo-French declaration had superseded the Sykes–Picot Agreement in order to justify fresh negotiations over the allocation of the territories of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine.[23]

    On 30 September 1918 supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to the Sharif of Mecca. He had been declared 'King of the Arabs' by a handful of religious leaders and other notables in Mecca.[24] On 6 January 1920 Faisal initialed an agreement with Clemenceau which acknowledged 'the right of Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation'.[25] A Pan-Syrian Congress meeting in Damascus had declared an independent state of Syria on the 8th of March 1920. The new state included portions of Syria, Palestine, and northern Mesopotamia. King Faisal was declared the head of State. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared Regent of Mesopotamia.

    The San Remo conference was hastily convened. Great Britain and France and Belgium all agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under customary international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention due to the lack of any League of Nations sanction for the mandates.[26] In any event, its provisional independence was not mentioned, although it continued to be designated as a Class A Mandate.

    France had decided to govern Syria directly, and took action to enforce the French Mandate of Syria before the terms had been accepted by the Council of the League of Nations. The French issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920. They deposed the indigenous Arab government, and removed King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. Great Britain also appointed a High Commissioner and established their own mandatory regime in Palestine, without first obtaining approval from the Council of the League of Nations, or obtaining the formal cession of the territory from the former sovereign, Turkey.

    Attempts to explain the conduct of the Allies were made at the San Remo conference and in the Churchill White Paper of 1922. The White Paper stated the British position that Palestine was part of the excluded areas of "Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus".

    Release of classified records

    Lord Grey had been the Foreign Secretary during the McMahon-Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on the 27th March, 1923, he made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British Government's (Churchill's) interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public.[27]

    Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were various assurances of Arab independence provided by Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener, the Viceroy of India, and others in the War Cabinet. The minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon, held on 5 December 1918 to discuss the various Palestine undertakings makes it clear that Palestine had not been excluded from the agreement with Hussein. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained:


    "The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . Great Britain and France - Italy subsequently agreeing - committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine 'should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done - and this, of course, was a most important proviso - to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine."[28]

    On 17 April 1964, The Times of London published excerpts from a secret memorandum that had been prepared by the Political Intelligence Department of the British Foreign Office for the British delegation to the Paris peace conference. The reference to Palestine said:


    "With regard to Palestine, H.M.G. are committed by Sir Henry McMahon's letter to the Sherif on October 24, 1915, to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab independence ... but they have stated their policy regarding the Palestine Holy Place and Zionist colonization in their message to him of January 4, 1918."

    Another document, which was a draft statement for submission to the peace conference, but never submitted, noted:


    "The whole of Palestine ... lies within the limits which H.M.G. have pledged themselves to Sherif Husain that they will recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs

    Lloyd George's explanation

    The British Notes taken during a 'Council of Four Conference Held in the Prime Minister's Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919, at 3 p.m.'[31] shed further light on the matter. Lord Balfour was in attendance, when Lloyd George explained the history behind the agreements. The notes revealed that:
    '[T]he blue area in which France was "allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they may desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States" did not include Damascus, Homs, Hama, or Aleppo. In area A. France was "prepared to recognise and uphold an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States'.[32]
    Since the Sykes-Pichot Agreement of 1916, the whole mandatory system had been adopted. If a mandate were granted by the League of Nations over these territories, all that France asked was that France should have that part put aside for her.
    Lloyd George said that he could not do that. The League of Nations could not be used for putting aside our bargain with King Hussein. He asked if M. Pichon intended to occupy Damascus with French troops? If he did, it would clearly be a violation of the Treaty with the Arabs. M. Pichon said that France had no convention with King Hussein. Lloyd George said that the whole of the agreement of 1916 (Sykes-Picot), was based on a letter from Sir Henry McMahon' to King Hussein.[33]
    Lloyd George, continuing, said that it was on the basis of the above quoted letter that King Hussein had put all his resources into the field which had helped us most materially to win the victory. France had for practical purposes accepted our undertaking to King Hussein in signing the 1916 agreement. This had not been M. Pichon, but his predecessors. He was bound to say that if the British Government now agreed that Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo should be included in the sphere of direct French influence, they would be breaking faith with the Arabs, and they could not face this.

    Lloyd George was particularly anxious for M. Clemenceau to follow this. The agreement of 1916 had been signed subsequent to the letter to King Hussein. In the following extract from the agreement of 1916 France recognised Arab independence: "It is accordingly understood between the French and British Governments.-(1) That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognise and uphold an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States in the areas A. and B. marked on the annexed map under the suzerainty of an Arab Chief." Hence France, by this act, practically recognised our agreement with King Hussein by excluding Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo from the blue zone of direct administration, for the map attached to the agreement showed that Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo were included, not in the zone of direct administration, but in the independent Arab State. M. Pichon said that this had never been contested, but how could France be bound by an agreement the very existence of which was unknown to her at the time when the 1916 agreement was signed? In the 1916 agreement France had not in any way recognised the Hedjaz. She had undertaken to uphold "an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States", but not the King of the Hedjaz. If France was promised a mandate for Syria, she would undertake to do nothing except in agreement with the Arab State or Confederation of States. This is the role which France demanded in Syria. If Great Britain would only promise her good offices, he believed that France could reach an understanding with Feisal.'[34]

    Consequences of the agreement

    The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western/Arab relations. It did negate the promises made to Arabs[35] through T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire.

    The agreement's principal terms were reaffirmed by the inter-Allied San Remo conference of 19–26 April 1920 and the ratification of the resulting League of Nations mandates by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E...e_negotiations



    2hr 48mins in.....

    I was having a Richard hoagland momment from last night...LOL. I could remember reference to Sykes-Picot agreement in the film
    which is quite interresting it does not go into any detail but gives the flavour of the momment when King Fiasal mentions it when
    he had been expecting to take over from the Turks after the efforts of Lawrence and the Arab Army in waging war against the Turks
    rear and communication lines in support of Gen Allenby and the Allied push thru Ottoman Palestine....
    Last edited by Cidersomerset; 27th June 2012 at 22:50.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Cidersomerset For This Post:

    Kindred (28th June 2012)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts