just because you didn't know about something doesn't mean nobody studied it before

Thanks for sharing because I didn't know about it either. I mean it probably was studied by Persian or Iranian historians at some point but you know constant turmoil and regime changes likely destroyed records.

The page literally says it.

I think that's a just a politically correct way of saying the britsh government actively denies it

The British really fucked up the Middle East. In order to fight the Ottoman Empire that was in modern day Iran they recruited both Jewish people and Arabs and promised them both land in modern day Israel. Then when they were successful in defeating the Ottoman Empire, they refused to give either group the land they promised and their occupation of modern day Iran was so brutal that millions of people died.

Looks like we found the historian who studied it.

easily my top 10 favorite famines

Just because they said not many have studied it doesn't mean that nobody studied it.

The neat thing is they continued to screw over Jewish people at one of the worst times. So at that point it was a feature of the system for sure.

Led*

I'm pretty sure Iran has heard of it

What are you referring to?

The fact that they limited jewish asylum seekers trying to enter Palestine to just 15,000 a year during the late 1930’s through the 1940’s. Because money.

Edit: I’m not sure what you down voters expected other than a factual answer.

Edit 2: I’ll keep my statement but also admit to oversimplifying the complex problem.

They also didn't want an Arab revolt. The Jewish community leaders and the Arab community leaders would sit down regularly with the British authorities, who were just trying to stop stuff from getting blown up, both literally and figuratively. No wonder the British ran for the exits as soon as they could.

Well no shit. Many historians haven't studied any single event in history

I agree, no reason to down vote a clarification.

Although, I do think the limit had it's reasons which were arguably quite just. England played a large role in both the spike in Zionism and the decision of Palestine being the location for the new Jewish state. Until they pulled out (immigrants pushing them out) they were overseeing the migration. The indigenous peoples were justifiably upset once they felt the repercussions of the immigration and once they were able to actually read the Balfour declaration and British Mandate. The limit was an agreement between the Palestinians and England.

I think it is more appropriate to censure England for not allowing more refugees into their own country rather than being upset at how few they funneled into someone else's land.

[deleted]

The British did give the Arabs the land they promised Hussein bin Ali and his sons got given control of Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

An enormously generous reward for there contribution when you consider that the total force of the Arab revolt were barely 1/1000 that of the British forces during the war who did most of the work of taking these land from the Turks who has previously ruled the Arabs.

The Jews also got the right to migrate to Israel as the British promised but after the arab started resistance to high levels of migration did they start putting a limit on the speed of migration.

The British never promised the Jews a literal Jewish nation nor unlimited migration merely that they could settle in underpopulated area of palestine Nor were the British responsible for the famine in Iran it was mainly the civil war in the soviet union that spilled over into Iran that caused the famine because Russia and the northern part of iran were where the food would have been imported from in the case of a drought.

It was in the middle of a war. There was also widespread Influenza, Cholera, and Typhus epidemics. The most productive land in Iran was a war zone between the Ottomans and the Russians. Inter-country transport and international import of grain was disrupted by the conflict, and there was also unusually low snowfall in the mountains, which led to a drought. 3 of the 4 major players disintegrated during or shortly after the war (Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Qanjaz Dynasty) leading to paucity of reliable sources.

Not particularly easy to study.

For your edit, Because you were factual, until your last remark.

What “money” did the British gain from not allowing Jews to enter Palestine?

That area was quickly turning into a hotbed, it’s why the British would pull out in the next decade. But at the time, WW2 was ongoing. If the Arabs revolted mid war the British would not have the capacity to answer it. Ignoring even the strategic reasons, the Arabs would likely end up killing a lot of the Jewish refugees.

Hussein bin Ali al Hashimi named himself the king of those regions after the Arab Revolt. But then once World War I ended Syria and Lebanon were given to France and Palestine was given to the United Kingdom.

The British said that if the Arabs lead a revolt they'd be entitled to an independent Arab state from Syria to Yemen. The Arabs then did in fact lead a successful revolt and the British refused to grant them the independent state that they promised. Do you have a source for you 1/1000 figure?

The British promised Jewish people "a national home in Palestine" in the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The British then arrested Jewish people migrating to Israel up through 1948.

The Soviet Union didn't exist from 1917-1919 when the famine happened. You must be confusing this famine with another event.

Why else would you control land that is not yours to begin with? You don’t get to just pick “middle east hotbed” and not acknowledge why colonialism happened in the first place. The whole comment chain started because of it being on the British.

By stemming the tide of jewish refugees and putting the process in the hands of the Arabis, they fully intended to fix their image and maintain control. So they absolutely had money to gain.

But both can be true. All the allies, not just Britain should have done more. And Britain had plenty to gain by leaning more towards the arabic people. They took the land for money and they tried to maintain control for money. There is no other reason for them to be there other than that.

And if I came across hostile towards you, completely unintentional. Just adding to the conversation.

The addition of more people doesn’t reduce the amount of money made though does it?

For sure, they intended to maintain control, but how can you argue the british losing control during WW2 would be good for anyone?

Who benefits from a vastly larger Jewish populations fighting Arab rebels with the British unable to intercede due to the Germans and Italians moving west from Libya?

Sometimes there’s a bit more to things than the British being a super villain. They were wrong to take that area in the first place, but the actions they took there aren’t turbo evil 24/7.

I guess my simplification does come off as super evil. The money to gain by doing what the population would want is a long term. Their control was slipping in India so the Empire was on full decline. To me it was reactionary damage control to try and keep it.

I appreciate your input though so I’m not tryin to come off as argumentative. But I’m not always good at that. Definitely learning a lot from the comments as a whole.

>Not particularly easy to study.

Also, what else would need to be discovered? Pretty sure that even the most uneducated would think that is a terrible situation to be in.

You want famine read about the one that Britain cause in Bengal in 1942-4. https://newint.org/features/2021/12/07/feature-how-british-colonizers-caused-bengal-famine

Honestly, the person you are replying to sounds like a member of the British royalty. Cause they are straight up full of garbage.

Even if someone was as generous as possible, you can not explain anything the empire did that wasn't just straight up awful. Attempting to conquer the globe usually suggests that the people are indeed assholes.

Amusing, how the tables turn isn't it? After this, there was a period where the United States was sought out as an arbitrator in the region, because "Who would trust the word of the British or French?".

"Hussein bin Ali al Hashimi named himself the king of those regions after the Arab Revolt. But then once World War I ended Syria and Lebanon were given to France and Palestine was given to the United Kingdom."

The British compensated Hussein bin Ali al Hashimi with control of Iraq for the loss of Syria. Pretty fair compensation.

The British gave the leader of the Arab revolt vast amounts of territory the fact that they didn't get everything they thought they were entitled to is whiny talk that disquise just how fortunate they were in what they were granted relative to there contribution to the war.

The average size of the force of the Arab revolt during most of the war was about 5000 men comparatively the total force of the British empire were over 7500000 men so technically 1/7500 time smaller then the British contribution. Almost every battle and campaign against the Turks which freed the Arabs was fought and won by regular British troops the Arabs were merely a raiding force against poorly defended rear areas.

The only reason the British took Palestine was so they can keep there promise to the Jews of a nationl home in Palestine.

But you know what the word national home land sound like it sounds to me like they were avoiding the word nation.

Because they never promised there own country nor did they promise that millions of Jews across the world could expect to migrate and take over the country from the Arabs.

The Russia civil war started in 1917 so during the period of drought in southern iran from 1917 to 1919 there traditional source of imports in Russia was cut of by the war they were also cut of from their own northern crops by the Russia occupation. This is what caused the famine not the British.

So it sounds like we agree that the British broke their promise then. They agreed to give the Arabs an independent state from Syria to Yemen and then once they war ended they didn't.

The idea that the British just held on to Palestine to keep their promise to the Jewish people is a lie. They arrested Jewish people who tried to travel to Palestine.

You said that the British did "most of the work" taking back land from the Ottoman Empire. That was a lie. It was the Arab forces in modern day Iran who were estimated to be 30,000-50,000, not 5,000 who did most of the work. Trying to compare their numbers to British forces fighting in France as evidence that the British did most of the work in modern day Iran is nonsense.

At least you stopped referring to Russia as "the Soviets". I'll give you credit for that but nothing else in your rant was historically accurate.

The British didn't take Palestine for money it literally cost the British tax payer money to hold Palestine. Seeing everything capitalist country do through the eyes of making money is a blind spot that has led to Marxist academic who use such perspective miss calculating the path of event time and again.

Then why did they take over Palestine? What is the end goal if it’s not money?

it hasn't been studied because it was the western allies, aka the victors of ww1, who caused it, and the modern government of Iran blows it out of proportion, calling it a deliberate act of genocide

basically nobody wants to tell the truth about it

So "after extensive study, retrieval of lost journals, and reconstruction of fragmented journalism, scholars hypothesize that this famine sucked. Like no fun.

The exact causes of the famine, the experience of the people that lived there, how it affected history going forward, etc. It's worth studying history for its own sake in my opinion, you could boil down most events in history to "well that sucked", but it doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to learn about it.