This document outlines Scott Wagner's exam preparation in history. It discusses conversations Wagner had with his exam committee about the topics of late modern European foreign relations and late modern Middle East politics. Wagner spoke to Dr. Baron and Dr. Campbell about the chronological scope of these topics. The document also includes potential exam questions Wagner's committee suggested and an outline Wagner created for his exam paper on the impact of the Sykes-Picot agreement on the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.

1. Scott Wagner
HIS 665-Seminar in History
Dr. Pollard
10/2/08
Exam Discussion
For my two exam fields I have chosen late modern European foreign relations and late
modern Middle East politics. When speaking to Dr. Baron about the European portion of my
exams, I asked him when, in general, he believed this historical period began. As I expected, he
considered the French Revolution of 1789, the subsequent Napoleonic Wars, and the French
invasion of Egypt in 1798-99 to be the first substantial events in relation to my other field, late
modern Middle Eastern politics.
I spoke with Dr. Campbell in person about what her role would be on my exam
committee and also what she would expect of me on this portion of the exam. I informed her
that I would like both her and Dr. Baron to have an equal part for the exam in terms of questions
and reading lists. This has been my goal from the beginning due to their increasingly
overlapping historical relationship in many respects over the last two centuries. In getting a
better chronological understanding of this portion of my exam, Dr. Campbell asked me when I
believed late modern Middle Eastern political history began. I argued that it really started to take
shape in the mid-19th century with the advent of secret Arab societies. She agreed in part, but
preferred to give more attention to the late 19th-early 20th century period. She argued that this
timeframe is when the concepts of Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism really began to resonant
across the region as the end of Ottoman rule neared. My readings in this field confirmed her
chronology for the most part.

2. In talking to all of my committee members about the significance of the Sykes-Picot
agreement within the framework of these two fields, I wanted to stress how it has come to be a
microcosm of the fractured and mutually suspicious historical relationship that existed (and still
exists) between them. My committee conversations have been very productive, and I have
started to think about some possible exam questions that they may ask me.
1) What impact did Napoleonic France have upon early European-Middle Eastern relations?
2) What were some of the economic interests in the region that convinced major European
powers to increase their ties with the Ottomans as WWI neared?
3) What factors led the Ottoman Empire to side with the Central Powers in the war?
4) How much importance did Great Britain and France give to the concept of Arab nationalism
and calls for independence within the new mandate system at the Paris Peace Conference?
5) What effects did the problems at Paris in 1919 pose for the Allies against the Axis in their
relationship with the Middle East during WWII?
6) How did the Cold War adversaries posture themselves in the region in terms of ideological
exportation? What influence and effect(s) did they have upon the region's governments?
Prospectus Statement of Purpose
The contradictory and often ambiguous diplomacy of the British and French, as
exemplified in the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, in dealing with a precarious Arab national
movement during and after World War I helped create a multitude of geopolitical problems that
we are still coping with today. In addition, a growing sense of hostility, suspicion, and
misrepresentation has developed between the imagined post-war constructs,"the West" and the
"Middle East" (term coined directly from WWI diplomacy).
2

3. Many insightful scholarly contributions on this topic have been produced within and
across various countries, universities, and disciplines. In contrast, there has been a substantial
amount of polemical and biased work that has increased the divide among these postwar
geographic conceptions. This has clouded the ability to achieve a more balanced and tempered
understanding of what took place during and after the war. This topic continues to be of great
importance for the field as it often directly linked with many of the international issues we face
today. As generalizations, stereotypes, and fears about the "Middle East" continue to flood our
communication mediums, I believe the time has come to take a reappraisal of the events that
transpired during those years. With that in mind, my objective is to advance a more
comprehensive understanding through careful analyses on both sides of the historical debate.
Methodology
For my paper, I will predominately use an empirical approach. Due to the large volume
of scholarship on this particular topic, there is always the danger of slipping into a
historiographical mindset. For that reason, I have decided to limit the number of secondary
sources, especially books, on my topic so as to keep an even balance among my primary and
secondary sources. I will also try to invoke a postcolonial approach within my paper for a couple
of reasons. First, it is important to recognize a school of thought that has changed the way we
view history in a variety of ways, especially in terms of its direct relationship to my topic.
Second, I believe it will help to illuminate more traditional approaches prior to it as well as
provide a fresh perspective on the selected primary sources.
When I first started researching this topic as a possibility, I unwittingly carried my own
presumptions and vague understandings of what took place. I was completely unaware of the
intense complexity that existed within formal diplomatic talks during that time. It became
3

4. apparent to me very early on that I would have to separate the various chains of dialogue
between the two primary empires involved, Great Britain and France, in order to gain a clear
understanding of what I wanted to argue. Furthermore, I began to realize that my understanding
of the Arab national movement and its diplomacy with the Great Powers was somewhat
rudimentary. In order for me to understand and give an interpretation on this side of the
historical debate, I needed to obtain a better comprehension of its foundations, objectives, and
most importantly, its fragility.
After surveying my sources and contemplating the argument I wanted to make, a
chronological approach seems the most logical. It will help the reader to sort out various bits of
information along a specific timeline. Also, my goal is to help create a narrative-like feel within
an academic paper, and a chronological format offers the best means to achieve that.
I plan to divide the paper into several parts, beginning with an overview of the early
makings of the Arab national movement in the early 20th century. After this, I want to fast-
forward to the early correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon, British diplomat in Cairo,
and Sharif Hussein ibn Ali of Mecca in 1915. After that I want to go into great detail on the
Sykes-Picot agreement (with maps), briefly cover the Bolshevik exposure of the agreement in
November 1917, and more intensely on the significance of the previous events at Paris in 1919.
I will also touch upon the San Remo Conference of 1920, the expulsion of Emir Faisal, son of
Sharif Hussein, from Damascus in July 1920 by the French, and their significance in relation to
the other events. Although somewhat distanced from the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, these
events reflect its tangible conclusions and ultimate significance within the larger framework of
European-Middle East relations.
4

5. Evidence
I am currently in the process of whittling down my secondary sources while
simultaneously adding to my primary ones. I have just obtained four document reels containing
the personal papers of Mark Sykes (waiting in four more from ILL), discovered London Times
pieces covering British diplomatic dealings ( only ones that they disclosed at the time), and also
searched through British Parliamentary and State Papers obtained from the compact shelving
area of the library. This has provided a good amount of primary information. It will compliment
my official copy of the Sykes-Picot agreement, personal correspondence with British officials
sighted in historian Elie Kedourie's work, British archival documents containing their
connections to the Arab national movement, and the personal memoirs of David Lloyd George.
Mrs. Lamont is pursing specific volumes of British Foreign Affairs for me and I am currently
searching other outlets that I became aware of through research for my 500 level course, 19th
century Britain. The cross-class professor references and suggestions for primary sources should
prove useful here.
Current hypotheses/argument
After further research, I amended my argument, however slightly, in order to achieve the
balance I was looking for within my paper. I will continue to research the impact of the Sykes-
Picot agreement on the Paris Peace Conference. But as mentioned in the first sentence of my
prospectus, I will take into greater account the divisions and problems within the Arab national
movement and its diplomatic consequences. Undoubtedly, this will help in part to understand
why the Entente negotiated as they did. With this in mind, in addition to creating a more
5

6. grounded, substantive piece of work, my hope is to reduce the impact of one-sided arguments
fueled by contemporary passions.
Outline
I. INTRODUCTION
A. I am working on the topic of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 because I want to find
out its impact upon the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 so that I can help others better
understand some of the roots of the geopolitical problems we face today in the region.
B. Claim: The contradictory and often ambiguous diplomacy of the British and French, as
exemplified in the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, in dealing with a precarious
Arab national movement during the World War I and after it helped create a multitude of
geopolitical problems that we are still coping with today.
C. Historiography Overview
II. BODY
A. Nascent Arab national movement developed in the early 20th century (1900-1914) 2-3pgs
1. Developed out of increased alienation with centralizing policies within the Turkish
government (Committee of Union and Progress)
2. Two secret Arab groups in particular, Al-Ahd and Al-Fatat, attracted large numbers
and military officers from the Turkish army
B. Suppression of Arab aspirations under CUP fomented greater discontent 1-2pgs
1. Intelligentsia groups from Syria, Palestine, and Arabia meet with Great
Powers in 1912
2. This includes correspondence between Sharif Hussein of Mecca (Hijaz region) with
British authorities in Egypt (recently achieved independence from Ottomans)
3. Sir Mark Sykes began travels through region spreading anti-Ottoman sentiment
C. Outbreak of war and Ottoman alliance with Central Powers increased contact between
British and Sharif Hussein 3-4pgs
1. Sir Henry McMahon, British diplomat in Egypt, began low level talks with Hussein in
early 1915
2. In October 1915, Horatio Kitchener, fellow diplomat to McMahon in Egypt,
guaranteed Arabs protection against foreign aggression in exchange for assistance
3. Hussein wanted a guarantee of complete independence as well-vaguely promised
4. Hussein's desire for prestige led him to accept terms-June 6, 1916 set as date for
Arab revolt-various other local tribal leaders (Ibn-Saud, Ibn-Rashid, Idrissi of
South Arabia) skeptical-their personal ambitions and feuds play into decisions of who
they side with in war
5. Influence of British Foreign Office in India-Montagu’s reservations, Muslim Indians
D. Sykes-Picot agreement (May 1916) 4-5pgs
1. Agreement reached between Georges Francois-Picot and Sir Mark Sykes to divide up
6

7. large portion of Ottoman Empire upon conclusion of war between France, Great
Britain, Russia, and Italy
a. Portions of modern Syria, Jordan, and Iraq to fall under zones of direct and indirect
French control
b. Portions of modern Syria, Jordan, and Iraq to fall under zones of direct and indirect
British control
c. Constantinople and Bosporus Straits to come under Russian control
d. Palestine to come under "international" control
2. Ambiguous language and Turkish propaganda created fears among Arab population
a. Definition of independence and self-governance from French and British perspective
b. Arab uneasiness about promises and understanding of McMahon pledges
c. Confusion over what constitutes Syria and the role of Sharif Hussein in the
"independent" Arab state
d. Hussein’s acknowledgement of Sykes-Picot and its historical validity
E. Following Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917, Great Britain and France deny Russian
claims, and Lenin subsequently releases copy of agreement to Ottomans in November 1917
2-3 pgs
1. Embarrassment on behalf of GB and France is accompanied by widespread confusion
among Arab leaders and population
2. Sharif Hussein seeks reassurances from McMahon and British-pledges are reconfirmed
3. Schisms and fears within Hussein's army and among his sons (Faisal, Abdullah, and
Ali) began to emerge-Arab and Allied armies tried to assert control and set up
administration in major cities as the end of the war neared in mid 1918
4. Anglo-French Declaration-November 8, 1918
F. Paris Peace Conference (January 1919-January 1920) 3-4 pgs
1. France and Great Britain between League of Nations Mandate system, Wilson's self-
determination, and Sykes-Picot
2. Emir Faisal and T.E. Lawrence at the conference
3. Britain's attempt to downplay Sykes-Picot, France's increased adherence to it
4. Growing restlessness and radicalization of Arab population through 1919-1920
5. Faisal's dilemma: between compromise in Paris and fiery nationalism in Damascus
6. Lack of finality in terms of the “Syrian question”
G. After Paris: Faisal, San Remo, and the fall of Sharif Hussein 3-4 pgs
1. Dismayed at the conclusions in Paris, Faisal returns to Damascus and is pronounced
King of Syria in March 1920-went against his “understanding” with Clemenceau
2. France under new president Alexander Millerand did not recognize him or Syrian
Congress as legitimate power and convened San Remo Conference in April 1920
a. League of Nations Mandate in Palestine handed over to Great Britain exclusively
b. French to receive mandate for Syria and free hand to exact Sykes-Picot agreement
c. British influence waned as relations deteriorate between Faisal and French
3. French move militarily in June 1920 before League of Nations ratified their mandate
a. Attacks upon French outposts by Arab nationalists and Faisal belligerence were cited
as primary reasons for action
b. French seize Damascus in late July and send Faisal into exile and put all of Syria
under direct French control-abrogation of Sykes-Picot
7

8. c. Faisal’s pleas for recourse in Great Britain fail-he is ultimately made King of Iraq in
1921 but wields little power under British Mandate
4. Sharif Hussein is discredited among Arab population for failure to achieve
independence
a. Ibn-Saud’s Wahhabi army moved to take advantage
b. Allies himself with Hussein’s enemies and conquers Sharifian forces, consolidates
power within Arabian Peninsula not under colonial administration by 1924
III. CONCLUSION
A. Short overview of my thesis: strengths, weaknesses, challenges
B. Changing significance and legacy of Sykes-Picot within historical scholarship
1. Changing empirical approaches
2. Effects of postcolonial theory (possible use of Edward Said’s ground-breaking work
Orientalism-still figuring out how to incorporate it within my paper) on Sykes-Picot
3. Differences and similarities between these two schools of thought??
C. Broader implications and final thoughts
1. Where this topic may be going within the field-my suggestions
2. Gaps in my work-“historical humility”
3. “The West” vs. “The Middle East”: progress amid failure
Paper Problems: Interim Report
There are a few problems that I am encountering when figuring out how to develop this
paper. First, unlike some other people who may be struggling to find scholarship on their
particular topics, I am faced with an overabundance. My decisions on which books and articles
to use are coming from book reviews for the most part, but they are by in large mostly positive
reviews. I am hoping someone may be able to suggest another criterion from which I can reduce
my sources thoughtfully. Second, I am struggling with the competing desire to insert a larger
degree of narrative within my work at the expense of more academic evidence. I already feel
that I am sacrificing a substantial amount of valuable evidence (which is not touched upon in the
above outline) in order create a more appealing read-is less more? Lastly, due to the almost
pedantic nature of my topic, I am struggling to find a balance between the desire to write lucidly
8

9. without sacrificing the “nuts and bolts” of my work. How much should I assume the reader
knows about the “glue” of my topic?
Amended Bibliography
Primary Sources
“Empire and Foreign Policy.” London Times, May 29, 1916, Foreign News section, 22.
(Microfilm/Read)
George, David Lloyd, Memoirs of the Peace Conference. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1939. (SDSU/Search trail)
George, David Lloyd, The Truth about the Peace Treaties. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1938.
(SDSU/Search trail)
Gooch, GP and Harold Temperley, eds. British Imperial Connexions to the Arab National
Movement from Volume X, Part II: The Last Years of Peace (British Documents on the
Origins of the War, 1898-1914. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1938.
Also available online at
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/British_Imperial_Connexions_to_the_Arab_National_
Movement. (Read)
Kedourie, Elie and Mark Sykes. "Sir Mark Sykes and Palestine 1915-16." Middle Eastern
Studies 6, no. 3 (October 1970): 340-345, http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR/Read)
Lansing, Robert, The Peace Negotiations: A Personal Narrative. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co, 1921. (SDSU/Search trail)
Library of Brigham Young University, "Sykes-Picot Agreement."
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Sykes-Picot_Agreement (accessed 9/16/2008) (Read)
The papers of Sir Mark Sykes, 1879-1919 with special reference to the Sykes-Picot
Agreement and the Middle East: from Hull University Archives. (ILL/Read 4 of 8 reels
on microfilm/waiting on other 4-LARGE AMOUNT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE)
“Woodrow Wilson on Secret Diplomacy.” London Times, May 24, 1916, Foreign News
section, 22. (Microfilm/Read)
Secondary Sources
9

10. Adelson, Roger. “Untitled.” Review of British Policy Towards Syria and Palestine,
1906-1914: A Study of the Antecedents of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, the
Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Balfour Declaration, by Rashid Ismail Khalidi. The
American Historical Review 86, no. 2 (April 1981): 435-6. http://www.jstor.org/.
(JSTOR-Search trail)
Andelman, David A, A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today.
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2008. (SDSU-Search trail)
Anderson, M.S. "Untitled." Review of The Climax of French Imperial Expansion,
1914- 1924, by Christopher M. Andrew and A.S. Kanya-Forstner. The Journal of
Modern History 55, no. 1 (March 1983): 142-4. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search
trail)
Andrew, Christopher M, and A.S. Kanya-Forstner. The Climax of French Imperial
Expansion, 1914-1924. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1981. (SDSU-Search trail)
Antonius, George, The Arab Awakening: the story of the Arab national movement.
Safety Harbor, Florida: Simon Publications, 2001. (HIS 574-Dr. Lukitz's Class-Read)
Betts, Raymond F. "Untitled." Review of The Climax of French Imperial Expansion,
1914-1924, by Christopher M. Andrew and A.S. Kanya-Forstner. The American
Historical Review 87, no. 2 (April 1982): 514. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search
trail)
Brecher, F.W. “French Policy Towards the Levant 1914-1918.” Middle Eastern Studies
29, no. 4 (October 1993): 641-663. http://www.jstor.org/. (SDSU-Read)
Busch, Briton C. “Untitled.” Review of Allenby and British Strategy in the Middle East,
1917-1919, by Matthew Hughes. The Journal of Military History 64, no. 1 (January
2000): 221-3. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search trail)
Dockrill, Michael L, and J. Douglas Goold. Peace Without Promise: Britain and The
Peace Conferences, 1919-23. Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books, 1980. (SDSU-
Search trail)
Eldar, Dan. “France in Syria: The Abolition of the Sharifian Government, April-July
1920.” Middle Eastern Studies 29, no. 3 (July 1993): 487-504. http://www.jstor.org/.
(JSTOR-Search trail)
Fair, John D. "Untitled." Review of Peace without Promise: Britain and the Peace
Conferences, 1919-1923, by Michael L. Dockrill and J. Douglas Goold. Albion: A
Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 13, no. 3 (Autumn 1981): 320-1.
http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search trail)
10

11. Fisher, John. “Syria and Mesopotamia in British Middle Eastern Policy in 1919.” Middle
Eastern Studies 34, no. 2 (April 1998): 129-170. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search
trail)
Fitzgerald, Edward Peter. “France’s Middle Eastern Ambitions, the Sykes-Picot
Negotiations, and the Oil Fields of Mosul, 1915-1918.” The Journal of Modern History
66, no. 4 (December 1994): 697-725. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Read)
Gelvin, James L. “The Social Origins of Popular Nationalism in Syria: Evidence for a
New Framework.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 26, no. 4 (November
1994): 645-661. http://www.jstor.org/ (JSTOR-Search trail).
Hass, Ernst B. “The Reconciliation of Conflicting Colonial Policy Aims: Acceptance of
the League of Nations Mandate System.” International Organization 6, no. 4
(November 1952): 521-536. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Read)
Hourani, Albert. "Untitled." Review of England and the Middle East: The Destruction of
the Ottoman Empire 1914-1921, by Elie Kedourie. International Affairs 32, no. 4
(October 1956): 511-2. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search trail)
Hughes, Matthew, Allenby and British Strategy in the Middle East 1917-1919.
London: Frank Cass, 1999. (SDSU-Read)
Ireland, Philip Willard. "Untitled." Review of The Arab Awakening, by George Antonius.
The American Political Science Review 33, no. 4 (August 1939): 709-711.
http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Read)
Johnson, Gaynor. “Lord Curzon as Acting Foreign Secretary: The Foreign Office and
British Diplomacy.” Contemporary British History 18, no. 3 (2004): 53-73.
http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Read)
Kedourie, Elie. “Cairo and Khartoum on the Arab Question, 1915-18.” The Historical
Journal 7, no. 2 (1964): 280-297. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Read)
Kedourie, Elie, England and the Middle East: The Destruction of the Ottoman Empire,
1914-1921. London: Bowes & Bowes, 1956. (SDSU-Search trail)
Kedourie, Elie, and Mark Sykes. “Sir Mark Sykes and Palestine 1915-1916.” Middle
Eastern Studies 6, no.3 (October 1970): 340-345. (ArticleFirst-Read)
Khalidi, Rashid Ismail, British Policy towards Iraq and Palestine, 1906-1914: A Study
of the Antecedents of the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, the Sykes-Picot
Agreement, and the Balfour Declaration. New York: Ithaca Press, 1980. (Book/
WorldCat- ILL-received)
Kubicek, Robert. "Untitled." Review of The Climax of French Imperial Expansion, 1914-
11

12. 1924, by Christopher M. Andrew and A.S. Kanya-Forstner. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 463, (September 1982): 164.
http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search trail)
Lukitz, Liora. "The Antonius Papers and 'The Arab Awakening', over Fifty Years On."
Review of The Arab Awakening, by George Antonius. Middle Eastern Studies 30, no. 4
(October 1994): 883-895. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Read)
MacMillan, Margaret, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World. New York:
Random House, 2001. (SDSU-Dr. Baron recommendation-briefly read)
Neilson, Francis. “The Labyrinths of Diplomacy.” American Journal of Economics and
Sociology 18, no. 1 (October 1958): 1-14. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Dr. Alexseev
recommendation)
Paris, Timothy J. “British Middle East Policy-Making after the First World War: The
Lawrentian and Wilsonian Schools.” The Historical Journal 41, no. 3 (September
1998): 773-793. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Read)
Raccagni, Michelle. “The French Economic Interests in the Ottoman Empire.”
International Journal of Middle East Studies 11, no. 3 (May 1980): 339-376.
http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Read)
Raugh, Harold E. Jr. “Untitled.” Review of Allenby and British Strategy in the Middle
East, 1917-1919, by Matthew Hughes. Middle East Journal 55, no. 1 (Winter 2001):
158-9. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search trail)
Robbins, Keith. "Untitled." Review of Peace without Promise: Britain and the Peace
Conferences, 1919-23, by Michael L. Dockrill and Douglas J. Goold. International
Affairs 58, no. 1 (Winter 1981-2): 136-7. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search trail)
Suleiman, Mousa. “Untitled.” Review of British Policy Towards Syria and Palestine,
1906-1914: A Study of the Antecedents of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, the
Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Balfour Declaration, by Rashid Ismail Khalidi. Middle
East Journal 35, no. 2 (Spring 1981): 266. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search trail)
Thomas, James Paul, The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916: its genesis in British Policy.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1971. (Book/WorldCat ILL-received)
Yale, William. "Untitled." Review of England the Middle East: The Destruction of the
Ottoman Empire 1914-1921, by Elie Kedourie. Middle East Journal 10, no. 4 (Autumn
1956): 438-9. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Search trail)
Zamir, Meir. “Faisal and the Lebanese Question, 1918-1920.” Middle Eastern Studies 27,
no. 3 (July 1991): 404-426. http://www.jstor.org/. (JSTOR-Read)
12

13. .
.
13