Development of the Middle East wthout WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

I don't know where you got that idea. The US produced 60% of the world's oil by 1939, and the USSR was at a distant second place.

Guess I didn't recall correctly. :eek:
Do you have a source where I can see the production numbers and ranking for the 1930s and 40s?
 
How would the Middle East develop without WW1?
As I understand it the Ottoman Empire was reviving after the Balkan wars and contrary to its reputation as the 'sick man of Europe' was actually on the upswing.

Turkey is not a robust state. It has lost its European provinces, which means it isn't the 'sick man of Europe' anymore, but that's not an improvement.

Its economy, population, and political system are backwards. I've never heard much of anything positive about the reigning Sultan, nor about the Young Turks. Enver Pasha was a piece of work, and the Armenian massacres could not have happened in a country with a decent government.

However, there does not appear to be any crisis that is going to bring down Turkey.

I think the key development over the next two decades is going to be the incorporation of Arabia into the Westphalian system. That is, sovereignty over all of the area is going to be determined. As of 1914, there are still areas on the map that are terra nullius (not subject to any recognized sovereign state); that won't be tolerated.

And that means the suppression or subjugation of the House of Saud and its base in Nejd. It also means formal annexation of Kuwait. Bahrein and Qatar probably become sovereign under British protection.


Therefore it seems likely that the Empire would continue to dominate the Middle East and therefore all of its oil.

The oil isn't a big deal in 1914, and won't be for many years.

Does this prevent the Saudis from rising to power and the Middle East eventually being plagued by an upswing in Wahhabi interpretation of Islam?

I think it does mean a radically reduced position for Wahhabism, but it also depends on the religious evolution of the Ottomans. No WW I means no Kemalist revolution; the Sultan remains the Caliph and Turkey does not become a secular nation. Wahhabist or Salafist revivalism might become a strong current in the Empire.

What does all the oil revenue mean for the Ottoman Empire...

There won't be significant oil revenue for 50 years or more. It's hardly certain the Ottomans would last that long.

Oil prices were low until the 1970s, when massive U.S. demand finally gave OPEC the leverage to mandate increases.

While Arab nationalism was not a force in 1914, nor likely to become one soon while the Ottomans ruled - over 50 years, that is very likely to change.

If nothing else, there will be Arab nationalist agitation in Egypt. The Middle East will be dominated by Ottoman Turkey, Egypt, Great Britain, Russia, and eventually Iran.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Here and here: http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Production/strategic-raw-materials.htm. The petroleum world looked very different compared to now.

If you look at the link, a ballpark for Ottomans in Iraq is 100 million barrels per year, so 100 million USD per year. Enough to provide a lot of help to the Ottomans and presumably improve the military, but not enough to take to first tier Great Power status. Spending 100% on the military would probably being about 1/10 of the German military budget. It is also 1/10 of the TOTAL USA federal budget. Still, unless one starts to look at fleets of dreadnoughts, it is enough money to greatly improve the Ottoman military or infrastructure. It is also enough to make Ottomans important to Germany with Galacia vulnerable to Russian attack and Romania being somewhat unreliable.
 

Deleted member 1487

If you look at the link, a ballpark for Ottomans in Iraq is 100 million barrels per year, so 100 million USD per year. Enough to provide a lot of help to the Ottomans and presumably improve the military, but not enough to take to first tier Great Power status. Spending 100% on the military would probably being about 1/10 of the German military budget. It is also 1/10 of the TOTAL USA federal budget. Still, unless one starts to look at fleets of dreadnoughts, it is enough money to greatly improve the Ottoman military or infrastructure. It is also enough to make Ottomans important to Germany with Galacia vulnerable to Russian attack and Romania being somewhat unreliable.
Assuming that was in 1930 dollars:
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
$100 million=$1.385 billion
That is at a time when the world economy was much smaller than now, so the purchasing power of it was significantly larger than the numbers suggest.

http://www.turkeyswar.com/economy/before.htm
As to the rest of their GDP:
The Ottoman GDP in 1913 (at current prices) was £220 million and the GDP per head was roughly £10 [Sources: Eldem (1970) and Pamuk (2005)]. These figures correspond to $25.3 billion and $1,100, when calculated at purchasing power parity and 1990 prices.

So it looks like there would be a significant boost to the Ottoman economy and it depends on how they spend the oil profits, whether they spend it to improve the economic infrastructure, which causes a boom for the rest of the economy. Look at what building a modern rail network did for the Russian economy up to 1914.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Assuming that was in 1930 dollars:
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
$100 million=$1.385 billion
That is at a time when the world economy was much smaller than now, so the purchasing power of it was significantly larger than the numbers suggest.

http://www.turkeyswar.com/economy/before.htm
As to the rest of their GDP:


So it looks like there would be a significant boost to the Ottoman economy and it depends on how they spend the oil profits, whether they spend it to improve the economic infrastructure, which causes a boom for the rest of the economy. Look at what building a modern rail network did for the Russian economy up to 1914.

Largely agreed. I work in 1913 dollars due to research for my TL. The fixed exchange rates make things easy to calculate. My rule of thumb is to add two zeros for inflation, so I get 10 billion in 1913 dollars. A dollar a day was an ok wage back then, now you need 100 USD per day to survive ok (lower middle class). And I add three zeros to adjust for inflation and size of economy, so I get 100 billion. It is a big noticeable number when adjusted up. Say 50% does not go to the government, and 25% is squandered on low value items. It is like some country today getting a 25 billion dollar boost to its defense budget. Not enough to go by carriers and F-35. Well, maybe one ego carrier. But add say 25 billion USD to a second class power budget (say Brazil) and the military gets much much better.

Or put another way with the same 75% penalty, we get 100 million marks or about 1/5 of German Naval budget in 1912. So the Ottomans could have an exceptional coastal defense force for a fraction of this amount. The real use would probably be adding machine guns and artillery to the TOE from German companies, and you probably know the cost a lot better than I. Or if you want rail, seems like narrow gauge in Africa was under 0.1 million marks per mile, so you can build 1000 miles of track per year. So in a half decade or so, you could build out a pretty nice railroad system in Turkey. One the entire length of the Black Sea Coast, one down center of country east to west, and finish gaps to Baghdad. It is not enough to do everything at once unless you think in terms of many decades long plan, but you can start fixing one or two major problems for decades.

While not what the Ottomans would do, I would spend half modernizing the rail and half on heavier TOE for army in first decade. Also buy a few modern coastal artillery for near the capitol. Second decade would look at more Army improvements and real coastal defense forces. Third decade push domestic industrialization. I don't know what the Pasha would have done, but it is clear to me that they could have done a Stalin light improvement plan without the horrible Soviet excess. Modern Army, modest navy, good transport, and some heavy industry. Basically, they will be an equal of Italy in many ways. And with the right allies and diplomacy they can accomplish a lot. And it can also end badly if badly led.
 

Deleted member 1487

Largely agreed. I work in 1913 dollars due to research for my TL. The fixed exchange rates make things easy to calculate. My rule of thumb is to add two zeros for inflation, so I get 10 billion in 1913 dollars. A dollar a day was an ok wage back then, now you need 100 USD per day to survive ok (lower middle class). And I add three zeros to adjust for inflation and size of economy, so I get 100 billion. It is a big noticeable number when adjusted up. Say 50% does not go to the government, and 25% is squandered on low value items. It is like some country today getting a 25 billion dollar boost to its defense budget. Not enough to go by carriers and F-35. Well, maybe one ego carrier. But add say 25 billion USD to a second class power budget (say Brazil) and the military gets much much better.

Or put another way with the same 75% penalty, we get 100 million marks or about 1/5 of German Naval budget in 1912. So the Ottomans could have an exceptional coastal defense force for a fraction of this amount. The real use would probably be adding machine guns and artillery to the TOE from German companies, and you probably know the cost a lot better than I. Or if you want rail, seems like narrow gauge in Africa was under 0.1 million marks per mile, so you can build 1000 miles of track per year. So in a half decade or so, you could build out a pretty nice railroad system in Turkey. One the entire length of the Black Sea Coast, one down center of country east to west, and finish gaps to Baghdad. It is not enough to do everything at once unless you think in terms of many decades long plan, but you can start fixing one or two major problems for decades.

While not what the Ottomans would do, I would spend half modernizing the rail and half on heavier TOE for army in first decade. Also buy a few modern coastal artillery for near the capitol. Second decade would look at more Army improvements and real coastal defense forces. Third decade push domestic industrialization. I don't know what the Pasha would have done, but it is clear to me that they could have done a Stalin light improvement plan without the horrible Soviet excess. Modern Army, modest navy, good transport, and some heavy industry. Basically, they will be an equal of Italy in many ways. And with the right allies and diplomacy they can accomplish a lot. And it can also end badly if badly led.

Why not all on the rail network? It would provide a major boost to the economy and massively increase military flexibility, as IOTL the Turkish army performed very well when operating in the one area that had an adequate rail network, the area around Istanbul (Gallipoli), suggesting that upgrading their military wouldn't have been as necessary, especially as much of that money would flow out of the country when the Ottomans want to be building up domestic industry, which first needs a modern, adequate rail system.

Next upgrade domestic mining and exploit other natural resources, of which Turkey is better off then Austria-Hungary IIRC. Plus they can spend more on creating better irrigation systems for their agriculture and exploit domestic water sources better. Electrical infrastructure would be huge too. Honestly 1914 Russia is a prime example of how spending on infrastructure and some military items can modernize the economy. Oil will provide the means instead of foreign loans, though the Berlin-Baghdad rail line won't hurt. Pipeline infrastructure building will undoubtedly help as well. Modern Turkey is self-sufficient in food, so it seems that investments there can bear fruit, pardon the pun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Turkey#Natural_resources
Minerals
Turkey is the tenth ranked producer of minerals in the world in terms of diversity. Around 60 different minerals are currently produced in Turkey. The richest mineral deposits in the country are boron salts, Turkey’s reserves amount to 72% of the world's total. According to the CIA World Factbook, other natural resources include coal, iron ore, copper, chromium, uranium, antimony, mercury, gold, barite, borate, celestine (strontium), emery, feldspar, limestone, magnesite, marble, perlite, pumice, pyrites (sulfur), clay, arable land, hydropower, and geothermal power.

After that it wouldn't hurt to build up domestic ship building so that they can have those jobs to boost the economy and keep money spent in the internal economy AND have a merchant marine and tankers without having to purchase them abroad. Eventually they will gain experience and they can start building warship domestically with German and/or British help.

Modern Turkey is a good example:
Shipbuilding
Turkey is one of the world's leading shipbuilding nations; in 2007 Turkish shipyards ranked 4th in the world (behind China, South Korea and Japan) in terms of the number of ordered ships, and also 4th in the world (behind Italy, USA and Canada) in terms of the number of ordered mega yachts.[45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atatürk_Dam
Dam building will be important in the 1930s too IMHO as potential for economic expansion in electrical production, as the technology was there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#Agriculture
The Ottoman Empire was an agrarian economy, labour scarce, land rich and capital poor. Majority of the population earned their living from small family holdings and this contributed to around 40 percent of taxes for the empire directly as well as indirectly through customs revenues on exports.

The Ottomans would seriously benefit from improving public health to boost the population and take advantage of their land and produce enough labor for economic growth and soldiers for the military. Obviously investments in primary schooling and agricultural schools would pay off within a generation or two. Frankly they should focus on the core Turkish territories first, building up a rail infrastructure, improving public health and education, and industrializing so as to boost their control of the underdeveloped imperial territories, which can then be focused on once the core economy was developed. In the mean time investments in oil production, refinement, and transport could be boosted as the only part of investment in non-Turkish territories until the Metropole is sufficiently invested in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IRAN AND

If you look at the link, a ballpark for Ottomans in Iraq is 100 million barrels per year, so 100 million USD per year. .

Hmm I looked at the link too. I see a row labeled

"Iran and Iraq (British Occupied)" Multiply 0.054 times 272 then convert from metric tons to barrels I get 107.66 OK that's close to 100.

But wait the row is labeled "Iran and Iraq" and we're treating it as nearly all of that as Iraq???
 

Deleted member 1487

Hmm I looked at the link too. I see a row labeled

"Iran and Iraq (British Occupied)" Multiply 0.054 times 272 then convert from metric tons to barrels I get 107.66 OK that's close to 100.

But wait the row is labeled "Iran and Iraq" and we're treating it as nearly all of that as Iraq???
Oil production in Iran:
http://watd.wuthering-heights.co.uk/chartpages/p/p6oilprodiran.html
p6oilprodiran.gif

Gigabarrel= one thousand million barrels
Eyeballing it seem that maybe around 50 million barrels came from Iran in 1935

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=59630&start=15
Saudi Arabia produced around .75 million barrels of oil per years 1940;1941;1942 and spiked in 1943 to 3 million barrels.

Egypt produced 800,000 barrels of oil in 1940; 1.1 million each year in 1941-1943

Iraq produced 4.5 million barrels in 1940; 3.75 million barrels in 1941; 4.6 million barrels in 1942; 5 million in 1943.

Iran(Persia) produced 8 million barrels in 1940; production averaged 8 million barrels in 1941, lower in first half and higher second half of the year; 1942 Oil production began the year at 10 million barrels on a yearly basis but averaged on a yearly basis 13.5 million barrels. 1943 began the year at 15 milllion barrels on a yearly basis and increased from then.

This was the oil production in metric tons of Middle East countries in 1937, 1938 and 1946:
Iran: 10,331,000 10,359,000 19,189,000
Iraq: 4,255,000 4,272,000 4,476,000
Bahrein: 1,062,000 n.a. n.a.
Kuwait: oil has been found by an American company, but production had not yet started in 1939. Production of 1946: 800,000 t.
Saudi Arabia: first drillings in the Hasa region; a port was under construction in 1939 in Ras Tanura (N-W of Bahrein) for the transport of the oil production of Hasa. Probable presence of oil in the Red Sea in front of Tihama (in Asir), islands Farsan, El Daba and Hueigh (both in Hejaz). Production of 1946: 8,200,000 t.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BlondieBC

Banned
Hmm I looked at the link too. I see a row labeled

"Iran and Iraq (British Occupied)" Multiply 0.054 times 272 then convert from metric tons to barrels I get 107.66 OK that's close to 100.

But wait the row is labeled "Iran and Iraq" and we're treating it as nearly all of that as Iraq???

Well, you have to find ways to ballpark numbers. And IMO, heavy German investment in the oil fields is likely. We know that the shallow oil field are easily 10 times that amount north of Baghdad alone. For discussion purposes, I think it is a good number. I would not argue with a much lower or somewhat higher number in an ATL. Know remember, my mindset comes from research of a TL where German and the Ottomans are strong allies, and the Germans have a strong desire for secure oil. I also applied a 75% loss factor in going to the Ottoman treasury. A person who has different assumptions will see see a different TL.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Why not all on the rail network? It would provide a major boost to the economy and massively increase military flexibility, as IOTL the Turkish army performed very well when operating in the one area that had an adequate rail network, the area around Istanbul (Gallipoli), suggesting that upgrading their military wouldn't have been as necessary, especially as much of that money would flow out of the country when the Ottomans want to be building up domestic industry, which first needs a modern, adequate rail system.

Next upgrade domestic mining and exploit other natural resources, of which Turkey is better off then Austria-Hungary IIRC. Plus they can spend more on creating better irrigation systems for their agriculture and exploit domestic water sources better. Electrical infrastructure would be huge too. Honestly 1914 Russia is a prime example of how spending on infrastructure and some military items can modernize the economy. Oil will provide the means instead of foreign loans, though the Berlin-Baghdad rail line won't hurt. Pipeline infrastructure building will undoubtedly help as well. Modern Turkey is self-sufficient in food, so it seems that investments there can bear fruit, pardon the pun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Turkey#Natural_resources


After that it wouldn't hurt to build up domestic ship building so that they can have those jobs to boost the economy and keep money spent in the internal economy AND have a merchant marine and tankers without having to purchase them abroad. Eventually they will gain experience and they can start building warship domestically with German and/or British help.

Modern Turkey is a good example:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atatürk_Dam
Dam building will be important in the 1930s too IMHO as potential for economic expansion in electrical production, as the technology was there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#Agriculture


The Ottomans would seriously benefit from improving public health to boost the population and take advantage of their land and produce enough labor for economic growth and soldiers for the military. Obviously investments in primary schooling and agricultural schools would pay off within a generation or two. Frankly they should focus on the core Turkish territories first, building up a rail infrastructure, improving public health and education, and industrializing so as to boost their control of the underdeveloped imperial territories, which can then be focused on once the core economy was developed. In the mean time investments in oil production, refinement, and transport could be boosted as the only part of investment in non-Turkish territories until the Metropole is sufficiently invested in.

Well, first government with big windfalls tend to find multiple ways to spend the money. Also, they had just lost a war with Italy. Just lost war in the Balkans where they could get troops. A stronger army (say for example 3 elite corps to German TOE) will likely curb some of the Christian ambitions in the Balkans. For example, a Bulgaria looking at a much stronger Ottoman army will be more likely to be friendly or at least not hostile. Same for Greeks. Italy has islands too near my capital. Need better naval defenses at least. I would like full navy, but way to expensive. Now that I have an improving army, I will need better rail. I would finish the RR to Baghdad faster and extent the Hajiz RR past Mecca. I would like to build on the Black Sea faster, but Russia has threatened/implied war if I do it. So I need the better divisions. I probably try to get German or British Backing in case attacked diplomatically. I will push a central section east of Ankara, an hope Russians don't get too upset. Maybe do sections around ports on Black Sea. I am afraid with my army if I just build all the RR at one time, Russia will attack me down the Army. So go slower. To me safer option, and 20 years down the road gets me good army, good rails and good coastal defense force (object to keep Italians and Russians Away from coast. Maybe make UK think twice if they were thinking of attacking me.)

I would not object to some money for dams, irrigation or farming improvements. I is just after losing 3 or so wars in last 10 years, this is where i throw money. In stronger military. Also buying German weapons likely helps strengthen relationship. I would prefer UK, but they have tendency to be cutting off parts of my empire. Egypt, SE Arabia. And likely will ask for more for help. Lesser evil type idea.
 

ingemann

Banned
The Ottoman Empire wasn't a well functioning state something it had in common with a lot of Arabic states today. So what will it mean that the Ottomans suddenly get a major source of capital and the oil are mostly in areas with Arabic and Shia majority.
This recipe we have seen before, as the oil are pumped up, the mony for it end up in the heart of the empire (Western Anatolia), while the local get nothing. As result we will see increasing hostility from Arabs and Shias against the regime. So we likely see rebellion. Of course the Ottomans are strong enough to keep them down, and the money will help pay for a large army.
The oil will also mean that the Ottomans don't need to reform their society, develop their industry or seek any alternative sources of revenue.
So what we got, is slightly more well functioning Saudi Arabia without the religious extremism.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The Ottoman Empire wasn't a well functioning state something it had in common with a lot of Arabic states today. So what will it mean that the Ottomans suddenly get a major source of capital and the oil are mostly in areas with Arabic and Shia majority.
This recipe we have seen before, as the oil are pumped up, the mony for it end up in the heart of the empire (Western Anatolia), while the local get nothing. As result we will see increasing hostility from Arabs and Shias against the regime. So we likely see rebellion. Of course the Ottomans are strong enough to keep them down, and the money will help pay for a large army.
The oil will also mean that the Ottomans don't need to reform their society, develop their industry or seek any alternative sources of revenue.
So what we got, is slightly more well functioning Saudi Arabia without the religious extremism.

Kurdish first, then Sunni Iraq. Much later for Shia areas or Arabia.
 
Politics

The economics discussion is moderately interesting but quite frankly the key element is political. Unfortunately KISS is the basis for bad Alt Hist. At a minimum you need to consider political developments in the 1914-1924 period before you can meaningfully talk about economic developments At the very minimum 4 nations need to be considered (if I was to expand this list to 5 Germany would be included)

1] Ottoman Empire (d'uh) Without WWI full fledged Kemalism is unlikely and the Arab revolt is attenuated not eliminated (though this cannot meaningfully addressed until we get to #3 on the list) The first question is whether or not the Three Pashas can continue to rule without serious challenge for an entire decade. I think it's probable but far from certain say 65% odds. I do not get the impression any of them wanted to get rid of the other two and become Uncontested Boss. The Sultan was essentially a figurehead

Connected with this is the role of Islam. In a sense the 3 Pashas wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to move in the direction of secularism but also wanted to retain Islam as a mechanism of control which is why they would never get rid of the Kaliph. The Salafists will see through this and get upset.

2] Russian Empire -- Does near absolute Tsarism continue for a decade. If yes how does it foreign policy evolve? If no then what replaces it? A deposition with Grand Duke Nikolai becoming Tsar and agreeing to reduced powers. Bolshevism? Maybe a period of SR rule and land reform under Chernov? Is there Civil war? It makes a HUGE (as The Donald would say) difference in this thread.

3] British Empire -- I see some speculation that HMG becomes less anti-German and resumes the Great Game. I see that as unlikely under the Liberals (the animuss of Grey and Churchill towards Germany is going to persist for sometime) but much more possible under the Tories esp. if Curzon becomes PM. OTOH a Labour Government will be one step from isolationism though it make find things it likes in an SPD dominated Germany.

4] Persia (aka Iran) -- There is a better than even chance IMHO that Ahmad Shah gets to grow into his role and the Qajar Dynasty could continue for some time. There would be internal problems with the Majiles and at least 3 external problems (listed above) but he has a decent chance
 

Deleted member 1487

The economics discussion is moderately interesting but quite frankly the key element is political. Unfortunately KISS is the basis for bad Alt Hist. At a minimum you need to consider political developments in the 1914-1924 period before you can meaningfully talk about economic developments At the very minimum 4 nations need to be considered (if I was to expand this list to 5 Germany would be included)

1] Ottoman Empire (d'uh) Without WWI full fledged Kemalism is unlikely and the Arab revolt is attenuated not eliminated (though this cannot meaningfully addressed until we get to #3 on the list) The first question is whether or not the Three Pashas can continue to rule without serious challenge for an entire decade. I think it's probable but far from certain say 65% odds. I do not get the impression any of them wanted to get rid of the other two and become Uncontested Boss. The Sultan was essentially a figurehead

Connected with this is the role of Islam. In a sense the 3 Pashas wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to move in the direction of secularism but also wanted to retain Islam as a mechanism of control which is why they would never get rid of the Kaliph. The Salafists will see through this and get upset.

2] Russian Empire -- Does near absolute Tsarism continue for a decade. If yes how does it foreign policy evolve? If no then what replaces it? A deposition with Grand Duke Nikolai becoming Tsar and agreeing to reduced powers. Bolshevism? Maybe a period of SR rule and land reform under Chernov? Is there Civil war? It makes a HUGE (as The Donald would say) difference in this thread.

3] British Empire -- I see some speculation that HMG becomes less anti-German and resumes the Great Game. I see that as unlikely under the Liberals (the animuss of Grey and Churchill towards Germany is going to persist for sometime) but much more possible under the Tories esp. if Curzon becomes PM. OTOH a Labour Government will be one step from isolationism though it make find things it likes in an SPD dominated Germany.

4] Persia (aka Iran) -- There is a better than even chance IMHO that Ahmad Shah gets to grow into his role and the Qajar Dynasty could continue for some time. There would be internal problems with the Majiles and at least 3 external problems (listed above) but he has a decent chance

Can you recommend any books about the Pashas?

Also, if Germany takes a less confrontationalist approach from 1916 on, what are the odds that they will reconcile with Russia to a degree and further develop their economic ties? As it was Russia and Germany were big trade partners (IIRC Germany was the plurality of Russian trade) and Russia was Germany's major source of cheap raw materials, while Germany was building factories in Russia. Eventually as their economies expand Germany will be more dependent on Russia for raw materials and probably cheap labor, while the Russians will require German markets and technical expertise to develop.

Edit:
Also with the completion of the Berlin-Baghdad railroad, would Britain's fears come true of German attempts to gain influence/cause trouble in India? I think Germany would be more interested in developing their interests in the Ottoman Empire and wouldn't want to antagonize Britain further after 1916 and their loss of (in their minds) military superiority.
 
Top