A fascinating insight into the untold story of how British-French rivalry drew the battle-lines of the modern Middle East. In 1916, in the middle of the First World War, two men secretly agreed to divide the Middle East between them. Sir Mark Sykes was a visionary politician; Francois Georges-Picot a diplomat with a grudge. They drew a line in the sand from the Mediterranean to the Persian frontier, and together remade the map of the Middle East, with Britain's 'mandates' of Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq, and France's in Lebanon and Syria. Over the next thirty years a sordid tale of violence and clandestine political manoeuvring unfolded, told here through a stellar cast of politicians, diplomats, spies and soldiers, including T.E.Lawrence, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle. Using declassified papers from the British and French archives, James Barr vividly depicts the covert, deadly war of intrigue and espionage between Britain and France to rule the Middle East, and reveals the shocking way in which the French finally got their revenge. 'The very grubby coalface of foreign policy ... I found the entire book most horribly addictive' Independent 'One of the unexpected responses to reading this masterful study is amazement at the efforts the British and French each put into undermining the other' Spectator

'Beautifully written and deeply researched' The Observer Upon victory in 1945, Britain still dominated the Middle East. But her motives for wanting to dominate this crossroads between Europe, Asia and Africa were changing. Where 'imperial security' - control of the route to India - had once been paramount, now oil was an increasingly important factor. So, too, was prestige. Ironically, the very end of empire made control of the Middle East precious in itself: on it hung Britain's claim to be a great power. Unable to withstand Arab and Jewish nationalism, within a generation the British were gone. But that is not the full story. What ultimately sped Britain on her way was the uncompromising attitude of the United States, which was determined to displace the British in the Middle East. Using newly declassified records and long-forgotten memoirs, including the diaries of a key British spy, James Barr tears up the conventional interpretation of this era in the Middle East, vividly portraying the tensions between London and Washington, and shedding an uncompromising light on the murkier activities of a generation of American and British diehards in the region, from the battle of El Alamein in 1942 to Britain's abandonment of Aden in 1967. Reminding us that the Middle East has always served as the arena for great power conflict, this is the tale of an internecine struggle in which Britain would discover that her most formidable rival was the ally she had assumed would be her closest friend. 'Bustles impressively with detail and anecdote' Sunday Times 'Consistently fascinating' The Spectator 'Barr draws on a rich and varied trove of sources to knit a sequence of dramatic episodes into an elegant whole. Great events march through these pages' Wall Street Journal

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1910. Excerpt: ... decided. By the common law of England it is only a person of unsound mind and dangerous to himself or others that may be restrained of his liberty by another. Such is taken to be law from the case in Bro. Abr. down to the last case on the subject. Mr. Bovill has gravely contended that the plea showed that the plaintiff pretended to be a madman expressly that he might be shut up in an asylum; for that is what his argument amounted to. But no such meaning can be put upon it: it merely states that he acted as a person of unsound mind. Then, shall it be said that the fact of any person acting so as to appear of an unsound mind is to be a justification for another locking him up as a lunatic? It would be most dangerous to the liberty of the subject if such a doctrine were to prevail. Ira furor brevis est; and there are many persons of eccentric habits, but still entirely in possession of their faculties, as we know from cases of contested wills, yet they may be said to be of unsound mind; and it would be monstrous to say that, because some persons chose to suppose they were lunatics, they might be locked up as such. The plea goes on to allege that a certificate of two physicians had been obtained. But where is the authority at common law for saying that if one or two men, physicians, if you will, say that another is a lunatic, that will justify a third person in taking him and confining him as a lunatic? On the other hand, the statute, instead of being of any service to the defendant, affords an argument against him; for the protection given by it to persons acting under certain circumstances in pursuance of it in regard to alleged lunatics would be unnecessary if the merely acting as a person of unsound mind would be sufficient to justify another in arresting...