Talk:Fall of Baghdad (1917)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fall of Baghdad (1917) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg)
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 11, 2007, March 11, 2008, and March 11, 2009. |
Untitled
edit"This power struggle lead to the creation of the Mesopotamian Administration Committee under the leadership of Lord Curzon. Its main task was to determine who would govern the Basra and Baghdad provinces. Its ruling was a British, not Anglo-Indian, administration for Basra and an Arab authority for Baghdad. This decision would have wide ranging effects on the world, which still affect us today."
What 'wide ranging effects on the world' would it have? I don't see how its that huge of choice. Anyone know why the author said that? --24.7.128.51 02:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well first of, I changed the "affected us" to affected many people. Us, is a word never to be used in Wikipedia, because we can not generalise people. What us?
Anywaysm to your point...I hope I knew. I never even thought that the "British government in India" acted as independently as it is stated. I think the words, "British governance in India" is better. Oh sorry, I left your point at another tangent. Erm, well if British-Indians controlled Baghdad, consider the following:
- Iraq may or may not have rebelled into a pro-nazi government in 1941 because it would not have achieved the formal independence if it was governed by India (which had no formal independence at the time).
- Also, the British decision to create a united Iraq created a wie range of problems. The idea was to split the lands into three, one for the Arab shias, one for Kurds, and one for Sunni Arabs, or else along ethnic lines, just like the Austrian-Hungarian empirehad been split along ethnic lines. The result can be clearly seen in Iraq where coalition forces are trying to stop different ethnic peoples from vying over control of the land. Tourskin 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not india, its Iraq, please learn to spell and note differences
editI'm sorry, but if anything, this should be a part of:
Iraq not India. So I'm removing the India task force thing.Tourskin 06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, its got nothing to do with India. Indian troops fought here, true but then again, they also fought in the pacific theatre, in north africa - are those part of wikiproject india? No, so there! Tourskin 22:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Maps of the action
editI'm working on a detailed rewrite of the advance on Baghdad and the entry into the city at User:Harlsbottom/Fall of Baghdad (1917). There's no point in having the map of the Second Battle of Kut here as it's of such a small scale as to be useless to anyone trying to visualise the advance from Kut to Baghdad. On the subject of maps, does anyone know of decent old maps of Baghdad? I'm struggling with trying to get to grips with the multiple references to different banks of the Tigris. Harlsbottom (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"Tigris Corps"
editFrom the research I've done on the campaign, it becomes abundantly clear that Tigris Corps is a misnomer. The command to which the General Officer Commanding (Maude) was appointed was the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force (MEF), and under him he had I and III Indian Army Corps under Generals Cobbe and Marshall respectively. Tigris Corps had, of course, existed before the build-up of forces in the theatre. --Harlsbottom (talk|library) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)