Talk:Fall of Baghdad (1917)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

"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)

[edit] This is not india, its Iraq, please learn to spell and note differences

I'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)