T.E Lawrence

What does Veeky Forums think of T.E Lawrence?

Was uniting the Arabs to kill the Ottomans a good thing?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Pillars-Wisdom-Wordsworth-Classics-Literature/dp/1853264695
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Pussy ass beta butt he-bitch boi. He actually ENJOYED being raped in a Turkish prison.

source?

Letting Saud control Mecca instead of the Ottomans was the stupidest idea in the long run. He truly makes the case for the Eternal Anglo as scum

Araboo

It's not often taught in schools, but British military practices and foreign policy prior to and during WW1 were dishonorable, perfidious, and disgusting.

They allied with France and Russia to force Germany's back against the wall, then refused to commit to their allies in summer 1914 which encouraged Germany to figure this was their last chance and attack rather than convince A-H to back down.

They blockaded Germany from shipping, then whined about the horrors of German subs attacking their shipping. They insisted Germany follow Cruiser Law, then told their captains to ram German ships that tried to uphold it. They filled the Lusitania passenger liner with arms and explosives, then decried Germany for the atrocity of attacking it. (This particular perfidy is famous for being one of America's top reasons for joining the war.)

They promised every people they could convince that they'd get whatever they wanted if they'd join the war. They promised thd Jews and Arabs the same territory, then said they actually meant something else and had their fingers crossed, then just divided the area up with France, then double-crossed France to get the juicy parts. They stirred up national dreams across the Eurasian continent only to attempt to snuff them and leave everyone bitter and agitated.

Britain in the 1910s is a tale of despicable bad faith. Which isn't to say they were really better before or since.

>The only Great Power actively working against the war.
>Perfidy

Kraut dindu's are the worst.

Bad because they weren't that effective
If not for ww2 Arab nationalism may not have been so great
>passively evil is as bad as actively evil

>Explicitly say Germany started the war.
>Get called a "kraut dindu."

Top notch reading skills, my friend.

>but they only started the war because of Perfidious Albion's machinations.

Whatever happened 100 years ago the fact is that nationalism has failed the arabs since then and today they are left with nothing.

They will turn back to Turkey and like a beaten housewife.

his ass
not that user's ass, I mean lawrences ass

Is that syrian men are fleeing to europe en masse while leaving their families behind?

We are entering a new epoch, turkey's going to espouse a sort of neo-pan-islamism more compatible with modernity. Arab countries are going to find it attractive after the failure of western style nationalism and liberalism.

It's in his autobiography.

amazon.com/Pillars-Wisdom-Wordsworth-Classics-Literature/dp/1853264695

This has got to be the saltiest post I've seen in a while, bravo user

There is around 4 million Syrians in Turkey, more than entirety of Europe

kind of.
the proliferation of political islam and in particular it's salafi variety has a lot to do with the failure of pan-arab nationalism which was in part a result of british colonial policy (riling up nationalist sentiment against the turks, promising the arabs a unified arab state, then going back on that promise and giving a significant part of that land to jewish settlers while dividing up the rest together with france and giving the extremist Sauds the arabian peninsula thus elevating them and their wacko cult to guardians of the holy cities etc.)
Since the failure of pan-arabism many arabs have turned to (pan-)islamism instead. the war in syria
is fought between islamists and the manifestly pan-arab but de facto sectarian government.

obvious things: the post

>They promised every people they could convince that they'd get whatever they wanted if they'd join the war. They promised thd Jews and Arabs the same territory, then said they actually meant something else and had their fingers crossed, then just divided the area up with France, then double-crossed France to get the juicy parts
Say what you like about the rest of his post, but this part right here is 100% accurate

c e c i f r a n c h e m e n t

its a shame the germans stole alsace-lorraine, otherwise a true pan-european alliance to destroy the anglo-saxon barbarians should have been formed

seeing as britain has thrown its toys out of the pram and turned its back on the franco-german alliance, you may yet get your wish, pierre

He didn't unite the Arabs. Most Arabs fought under the Ottomans. The war wasn't an Arab war against the Ottomans. It was the Sharif of Mecca war against the Ottomans.

T.E Lawrence role is easily one of the most "romanticized" bullshit in Western history.

>giving the extremist Sauds the arabian peninsula
They didn't give the Sauds the Arabian peninsula. The House of Saud got it itself. Westerners had no say in the fate of the peninsula.

>Since the failure of pan-arabism many arabs have turned to (pan-)islamism instead
Lol. Virtually all Arabs are pan-arabist. The question is to which degree they are. Even the most religious Arabs, believe in pan arab unity. They just don't prioritize it or necessarily believes in has to be political.

>the war in syria
>is fought between islamists and the manifestly pan-arab but de facto sectarian government.
Gross simplification. The rebels still have pan Arabist groups they are just weak. You're also ignoring the fact that Assad has a lot of Shia mercenaries that will stay after the war. Hezbollah is a key ally of Assad along with Iran.

The rebels (not counting SDF) is actually more Arab than the Assad side. Even Nusra like groups are still vastly made up of Syrians. And no, ISIS doesn't count as they are their own faction with no allies in Syria.

>romanticized
The point of his book wasn't to be necessarily real and historical

Who wouldn't?