PDF Summary:A Peace to End All Peace, by David Fromkin

Why does it seem as though the Middle East is plagued by conflict? Why does democracy there feel fragile? Historian David Fromkin asked himself those questions and pored through secret documents, bureaucrats’ letters, and politicians’ journals to uncover why: The current state of the Middle East is largely due to decisions Europe made during and after World War I.

Before this war, countries like Israel, Jordan, and Syria didn’t exist—they were all part of the Ottoman Empire. Following World War I, Europe dismantled the Ottoman Empire, created new countries and borders, and chose new leaders, remaking it into a territory useful to Europe’s aims. However, these decisions created dilemmas the Middle East still grapples with.

This guide organizes Fromkin’s findings from his book A Peace to End All Peace (1989) into three stages: before, during, and after World War I. Within each stage, we explore the key decisions that shaped the modern Middle East. We also provide additional historical context and alternative viewpoints on these historical events.

(continued)...

(Shortform note: The agreement temporarily eased tensions between Britain and France, but they restarted soon after and continued until after World War II. For example, Britain supported the independence of Syria and Lebanon, and France responded by inciting violence within Britain-mandated Palestine. France’s actions diminished Britain’s political leadership in the region.)

The Sykes-Picot Agreement tried to balance France’s goal to control some Middle Eastern territories and Britain’s goals to maintain influence over the region and give some independence to Middle Eastern leaders. Fromkin explains that Britain and France agreed on the following arrangement:

• The British Empire would have control of modern-day Iraq and the Haifa and Acre districts in modern-day Israel, providing Britain with access to the Mediterranean Sea.
• The British Empire would have political influence over modern-day Jordan and southern Iraq. This influence would include choosing rulers and shaping their international policies.
• France would have direct control over Cilicia in southeastern Türkiye, the coastal region of modern Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Iraq.
• Both the British Empire and France would have administrative power over Palestine.

Key Outcome: Setting the Stage for the Modern Middle East

Fromkin argues that the Sykes-Picot Agreement laid the groundwork for many of the tensions and conflicts we see in the Middle East today. The agreement carved out new nations without much regard for ethnic or sectarian divisions. The arbitrary division of territories fueled resentment in the region toward Western powers. The agreement also overlooked Arab leaders’ ambition for full independence, and its secrecy heightened their feelings of betrayal.

The Legacy of Sykes-Picot

Some scholars argue that the legacy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement isn’t just geographical borders but the perception that these borders are illegitimate because Europeans created them without local input. Experts suggest the agreement's geographical impact was limited, as much of what it outlined didn’t happen. For example, France never gained control over Cilicia.

However, the agreement became a shorthand for talking about and rejecting European influence. For example, ISIS—widely recognized as a terrorist group—referenced Sykes-Picot in a 2014 propaganda video. In the video, ISIS fighters cross the Syria-Iraq border created by the agreement, vowing to dismantle artificial divisions in the Arab world.

The legacy of Sykes-Picot also lives on in discussions about peace in the Middle East. Scholars outline two main visions for a post-Sykes-Picot future:

1. Smaller, ethnically homogenous countries: Many Western analysts suggest dividing the region into smaller ethnostates, such as splitting Iraq into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish states. This vision might rectify Sykes-Picot’s betrayal by giving independence to more nations.

2. Federations of diverse regions with a shared Arab identity: Some Middle Eastern scholars propose uniting diverse regions into federations. They argue that dividing the region further would be a continuation of Sykes-Picot. It would fuel division and ensure that small countries rely on Western powers for protection, reinforcing Western influence on the region.

Key Decision: The Balfour Declaration (1917)

A year after the Sykes-Picot agreement, Britain made another decision that would change the trajectory of the Middle East: the Balfour Declaration supporting a Jewish state. The declaration took the form of a letter from Britain’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a prominent Jewish man in London society. (Shortform note: Lionel Rothschild was a member of Parliament before the war. At the time of the letter, he was president of the English Zionist Federation.)

Fromkin argues that the Balfour Declaration built on the Zionist movement’s momentum and was a result of the successful Zionist lobbying of British policymakers during World War I. Through the declaration, Britain hoped to secure Jewish support in the war and ensure that Palestine was under British influence after the war.

The letter marked the first time a major world power endorsed the idea of Jewish statehood. Specifically, it expressed British support for the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine and paved the way for the creation of Israel. Fromkin explains that the letter’s wording was intentionally ambiguous so as not to overcommit Britain. An initial draft, created in consultation with British Zionist leaders, stated that Palestine should be the Jewish people’s national home. After some back-and-forth with the government, it turned into a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

(Shortform note: There was a long way to go before Israel became an independent state, and Britain’s lack of outright support continued to be a stumbling block. By the end of World War II, Britain controlled Palestine and opposed the creation of an independent state, whether it was Jewish or Arab. They hoped their general commitment to a “national home for the Jewish people in Palestine” would enable them to govern both groups without giving independence to either. The impasse between Britain and Zionists allowed the US to step in. Israel declared independence in 1948, despite Britain's objections. US President Truman recognized the state, aiming to counter Soviet influence and secure oil access through a friendly government.)

On December 11, 1917, British forces entered Jerusalem, aided by Arab tribesmen, Bedouin fighters, Ottoman prisoners of war, and Jewish-Palestinian spies. Fromkin explains this marked the end of Ottoman rule and the start of the British administration of Palestine. In 1920, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine officially put the region under British control.

(Shortform note: Britain’s entry into Jerusalem is remembered differently by Jews and Arabs. Many Arabs consider it a takeover that started a colonial project undermining their self-determination. Some Europeans and Israelis view it as an emancipation that began the journey toward a Jewish state. While Israel celebrates May 14 as its independence day, Palestinians mark it as Al-Nakba, or “the catastrophe.” “Nakba” refers to the displacement of over 700,000 Palestinians during Israel’s establishment, when Palestinians’ villages and properties were seized or destroyed. Palestinians and supporters observe Al-Nakba Day on May 15, despite the Nakba Law in Israel, which criminalizes such commemorations.)

Key Outcome: The Israel/Palestine Conflict

Fromkin notes that the Balfour Declaration was contentious from the start. It promised that Jews could have land already inhabited by an Arab majority, and it conflicted with earlier British promises to Arabs and the French. In 1915, Britain promised independence to their Arab allies in exchange for their help against the Ottomans. Britain also promised the French joint rule over Palestine through the Sykes-Picot agreement. Fromkin argues that French support for Zionism was aimed at keeping Zionist leaders involved in the war, not a commitment to a Jewish state.

(Shortform note: Other analysts disagree, citing a 1917 letter from a French diplomat to a Zionist leader expressing support for Jewish colonies in Palestine. This was before the Balfour Declaration.)

The Balfour Declaration stated that the British government would support efforts to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine without negatively affecting the religious and civil rights of the Muslim and Christian populations already living there.

(Shortform note: Although the declaration promised to protect the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine, it omitted political rights. Some experts argue that this omission favored the minority Jewish population, hindered Palestinian democratic efforts, and enabled the Zionist population’s systematic takeover of the region.)

Fromkin explains that Britain struggled to govern Palestine while balancing their goals with the interests of Jewish and Arab allies. British officials in Palestine delayed announcing the Balfour Declaration to avoid alarming locals. In contrast, the British Foreign Office set up a Zionist Commission to prepare for a Jewish homeland, which faced resistance from the Arabs.

Britain’s Role in Shaping the Palestine/Israel Conflict

Some historians argue that Britain’s inept governance of Palestine after World War I played a key role in instigating lasting conflict in the region. They identify three key reasons:

1. The Balfour Declaration misrepresented the territory. It obscured the fact that Palestine was an established country with a settled population. This led to the idea of Palestine as land promised by Britain solely for Jewish people without harm done to non-Jewish communities.

2. The disenfranchisement of Palestinians generated resentment. Under Ottoman rule, Palestinian males had the right to vote in local elections but lost that right following Britain’s entry into Jerusalem. This loss stirred resentment against Britain and Jewish immigrants.

3. The mismanagement of the resistance encouraged more violence. When riots broke out between Arabs and Jews, British authorities didn’t take responsibility for their role in escalating tensions. They instead punished Arab and Jewish leaders, angering both groups.

After World War I (1918-1923)

By the end of the war, the Central Powers had lost and the Ottoman Empire was dismembered. (Shortform note: The war ended by degrees, just as it began. The Ottoman Empire surrendered in October, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire ended in November. With no allies left and facing unrest from its population, Germany signed an armistice in November 1918. The war officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.)

Fromkin explains that many countries we think of today as part of the Middle East emerged from the postwar remains of the Ottoman Empire. The period between 1918 and 1923 was one of intense negotiations between European powers as well as unrest and bids for independence from Middle Eastern countries. It culminated in what Fromkin calls the 1922 settlement, a series of agreements delineating new borders for the Middle East. However, Fromkin argues that Europe’s agreements failed to ensure lasting stability in the region it tried to govern.

(Shortform note: Europe also failed to ensure lasting stability within itself. The precarious peace settlements after World War I led to a second global catastrophe a few decades later. World War II also involved the Middle East, with key battles taking place in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.)

This final section will discuss why Europe failed to stabilize the Middle East after the war. Then, it will explore how Europe reorganized the region and how those agreements defined the lay of the land in today’s Middle East.

Essential Context: Why Europe Failed to Stabilize the Middle East

While Britain and France thought they had solved the Middle Eastern “problem” of who would rule the region after the Ottoman collapse, they created lasting conflict and instability. This section describes two of Fromkin’s explanations for Europe’s failure.

Europe’s Self-Centered Choices

Fromkin argues that European leaders based the Middle Eastern boundaries they drew on their interests. They disregarded local preferences, leading to legitimacy issues and opposition. People didn’t identify with their new nationalities, and neighboring countries had competing claims to the lands and peoples the Europeans reshuffled.

In addition, Europe imposed a Western state system on the Middle East without considering local cultures. Fromkin claims European policymakers didn’t understand the regions they were trying to govern. They lacked accurate maps and cultural context about regional divisions and politics.

(Shortform note: Fromkin’s description of Europe's disregard for local cultures, context, and preferences in the Middle East illustrates Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism. Orientalism is the framework through which Western policymakers have defined Islamic societies. Calling the Middle East “the Orient,” they have framed this region as fundamentally different, exotic, dangerous, and unchanging. This concept of a strange East incapable of progress enabled the West to think of itself as superior and to dismiss regional political movements, like nationalism, as anomalies. Believing the region’s political life was less evolved than Europe’s, Western policymakers decided which states and rulers to establish on behalf of the Middle East.)

New Faultlines in the West

Fromkin explains that the West also reconfigured itself after the war, complicating its ability to stabilize the Middle East. Russia and the US distanced themselves from the Allies during the lengthy period of peace negotiations. This break conflicted with the British goal of sharing the expense and hassle of governing the region.

Sharing the load was important because Europe’s money and manpower were dwindling after the war. Fromkin writes that Allied soldiers were eager to return home, and army occupations were a drain on financial resources. Citizens back home demanded their money be spent rebuilding their countries’ shattered economies rather than governing distant regions. This led Britain to establish puppet governments and rule by proxy to limit the costs of having a physical presence in all the Middle Eastern territories under their influence.

The End of One Conflict and the Start of Many Others

The period after World War I marks the beginning of the end of Western Europe’s imperial dominance. The economic and political chaos—which led to and intensified after World War II—fostered the reconfiguration of the world around the US and Russia.

After World War I, while Europe faced the economic turmoil Fromkin describes, the US emerged as a leading force. The victorious Allies, despite winning the war, were economically crippled by the debt they racked up to each other and the US during the war, with the US being the economic winner of the war. Russia’s economy had already collapsed during the war, leading to the Soviet revolution. As it transitioned into the Soviet Union, fears spread across Europe about potential working-class revolutions.

The US and the Soviet Union distanced themselves from the Allies but became key players in the Middle East. The Soviet Union consolidated its influence over Central Asia. Meanwhile, the US began its involvement in the Middle East to secure oil access. After World War II, as the region gained independence from Britain and France, US involvement grew to counter Soviet influence, leading to decades of conflict and intervention.

Key Decision: The “1922 Settlement”

European powers drew up what Fromkin calls the 1922 settlement—a long list of agreements European powers and Middle Eastern leaders arrived at around 1922. The agreements determined which Ottoman Empire territories would become independent countries and which would be absorbed by European empires such as Britain, France, and Russia. The agreements impacted the countries throughout the region, from Egypt—which gained independence—to Afghanistan. This guide will focus on some of the most controversial decisions.

(Shortform note: 1922 was a year of many significant global changes in addition to this settlement. Britain signed a treaty granting Ireland independence. In India, Gandhi was sentenced to six years for protesting British rule, foreshadowing India’s fight for independence. Meanwhile, fascist dictator Benito Mussolini rose to power in Italy.)

Regarding Russia, the settlement defined its political borders along the Türkiye-Iran-Afghanistan line. Fromkin writes that the Russian proclamation of a Soviet Union in 1922 consolidated its control over Muslim Central Asia, quashing independent movements and integrating the territory into the new Soviet state.

(Shortform note: In addition to quashing independence movements, the Soviet Union attempted to stifle Islam throughout Central Asia. The USSR’s state religion was atheism, so it banned Islam to force acculturation into the dominant Soviet Russian culture, which some argue led to many believers becoming radicalized.)

Key Outcome: The 1922 Settlement Unsettles the Middle East

Fromkin describes how Europe reshaped the Middle East post-World War I. Some countries became independent, but Fromkin explains that independence came at a cost, whether it was war or foreign intervention. Greater Syria fell under France and Britain’s direct control, and the European administration of the region led to the creation of several new countries.

(Shortform note: The League of Nations was a precursor to the United Nations, established with the hopes of preventing another global conflagration. After World War I, some of the territories that had been part of the losing empires were placed under the Mandate of one of the Allies. Besides the British and French Mandates in the Middle East, several countries in Africa and the Pacific were also placed under this model of governance.)

The remaining sections will discuss how the 1922 settlement shaped nine Middle Eastern countries and contributed to their instability.

Türkiye

According to Fromkin, the harsh terms Europe imposed on Türkiye as part of the postwar agreements led to the Turkish War of Independence.

Through the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, Europe dismantled the Ottoman Empire and imposed large territorial losses and heavy financial reparations on Türkiye, the empire’s seat of government. The Treaty fueled nationalist sentiment and ignited the Turkish War of Independence, which killed hundreds of thousands of Turkish, Greek, and Armenian civilians. Turkish forces succeeded, leading to the establishment of the Republic of Türkiye and the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which recognized the borders of the modern Turkish state.

(Shortform note: Before nationalism took hold, Turkish society debated different alternatives for their future. A Western takeover seemed imminent, and the question was which power was preferable. One faction advocated for an American mandate because President Wilson gave signs of recognizing Turkish sovereignty. Another faction preferred a British mandate since their centuries-long friendship with Britain had only been broken by the Young Turks, who were no longer in power. A third faction argued against a mandate altogether, proposing Türkiye establish a relationship with the US to receive aid to rebuild without relinquishing its autonomy. Eventually, as we note above, nationalist forces won the debate.)

Iraq

The decision to create Iraq by uniting the ethnically and religiously diverse regions of Mesopotamia led to persistent infighting and questioning of the country’s legitimacy. According to Fromkin, the country still grapples with internal conflicts as a result of the rivalries between the Shia and Sunni strands of Islam and with minority ethnic groups such as the Kurds.

(Shortform note: The division between Shia and Sunni Muslims goes back thousands of years. Following Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632, a dispute arose over his successor. Shiites wanted the next leader to be from within Muhammad’s family, whereas Sunnis preferred selecting the most capable leader from the community.)

Fromkin explains how, after World War I, Mesopotamia became more strategic thanks to its oil reserves. At the same time, it was becoming more difficult for the British to govern it. The population often rose up against the British occupation, resulting in violent confrontations. In 1921, the British government handpicked the first Iraqi king so they could stop governing the region directly while still protecting their commercial interests. However, they chose a Sunni king, which made the Sunni minority into a ruling elite over the Shiite majority population.

(Shortform note: Some argue that US interventions in Iraq mirrored Britain’s actions. After “liberating” Mesopotamia from the Ottomans, Britain’s imposed proxy government in Mesopotamia lacked legitimacy, requiring frequent intervention. Decades later, the US dismantled local rule to “free” Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, exacerbating sectarian divides. Critics suggest British and American interventions led to violence and weakened national unity, contradicting their alleged goals of liberation and nation-building.)

During the postwar decision-making period, Europe decided not to facilitate a Kurdish kingdom. Fromkin writes that the discussions on the subject didn’t materialize into any decision, which effectively left the Kurds without a state of their own. (Shortform note: The Kurds are an ethnic group comprising several languages and religions. Today, the Kurdistan Region is an autonomous territory within Iraq, but Kurds live throughout Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran.)

Saudi Arabia and Transjordan (Jordan)

Britain shaped today’s Arabian Peninsula in two ways. They made the Palestinian region of Transjordan into a separate state, and they backed a leader of Transjordan in opposition to the rising leadership of Ibn Saud in today’s Saudi Arabia. We’ll discuss both actions in more detail.

Fromkin explains that Britain’s administrative actions in Transjordan eventually led to the creation of Jordan. To control anti-French and anti-Zionist movements without overextending resources, Britain elevated Abdullah I bin Al-Hussein of the Hashemite royal family to lead Transjordan. This move contradicted Britain’s policy against Jewish settlement near territories led by Arabian leaders, so they separated Transjordan from Palestine to bypass this policy.

Fromkin argues that Britain’s support for Abdullah divided the desert Arabs and created lasting questions about Jordan’s legitimacy. Britain backed Abdullah in the west but tacitly approved Arab political leader Ibn Saud in the east. Ibn Saud embraced Wahhabism, a conservative Islamic movement, to expand his territory, threatening Abdullah’s control.

(Shortform note: Wahhabism is a movement within Sunni Islam that advocates for a conservative practice of Islam. For example, it follows the Koran strictly and forbids smoking and alcohol. Advocates of Wahhabism refer to themselves as Salafis, and they view the term Wahhabi as derogatory since it was coined by its opponents.)

With British military backing, Abdullah retained some land, but Ibn Saud expanded across Arabia without confronting Britain directly. This rivalry led to the modern borders between Saudi Arabia and Jordan. According to Fromkin, it also encouraged Jordan’s critics to question its legitimacy, since it arguably could not have survived without Britain’s support.

(Shortform note: While Fromkin views Jordan as a British creation, others argue that British and Arab interests, especially the Hashemites, were equally influential in creating it. In addition, they claim that if Britain had allowed the Arab population to decide for themselves how to organize politically after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the region would’ve been engulfed in violent fighting between different royal families and sectarian interests. They cite evidence that tribal rivalries like the Sauds and Hashemites existed before British involvement. In addition, while Fromkin argues that Jordan’s reliance on British support contributed to the questioning of its legitimacy, others argue that Jordan’s support for Israel is at the root of the illegitimacy claims.)

Syria and Great Lebanon (Lebanon)

According to Fromkin, France’s decision to divide Syria-Lebanon into autonomous regions led to conflicts and bloodshed. Arab nationalists opposed French rule and declared Syria-Lebanon independent in 1920. But France was determined not to lose Syria-Lebanon, which was theirs according to Sykes-Picot, and they invaded Damascus.

Between 1920 and 1923, France consolidated its control over the region through military conquest and administrative division. In 1923, the League of Nations confirmed the French Mandate over Syria-Lebanon. During their administration of the region, the French implemented a policy of divide and rule to weaken nationalist movements by worsening sectarian and regional differences. They broke up the region into different administrative areas, making it difficult for the different groups resisting them to collaborate and successfully reject the French.

(Shortform note: Historians explain that the leaders of Syria-Lebanon planned to take a cue from the US by governing as a federation rather than using France’s policy of divide and rule. Their proclamation of independence had the support of Muslim, Jewish, Christian, and Greek Orthodox communities. In addition, they planned for Greater Syria to be an independent state in federation with the Kingdoms of Arabia and Iraq. In defending their plan, Syrian leaders argued that it was crucial for major powers to recognize smaller nations’ right to self-determination to avoid more conflict and war. Regardless of their proclamation, France invaded Syria and the coalition disintegrated, leading to continuing divisions between liberal and Islamist Syrians.)

France divided Syria-Lebanon into several autonomous regions, including Great Lebanon—a precursor to modern-day Lebanon. Fromkin claims that redrawing Lebanon’s borders led to bloodshed in the 1970s and 1980s due to conflicts between the majority Muslim population and the minority Christian groups which were brought together artificially.

(Shortform note: Fromkin is referring to Lebanon’s 15-Year War, which includes the Lebanese Civil War, Syrian interventions, the Israeli invasion and Lebanese resistance, the War of the Camps, and the Presidential Crisis. Analysts argue that in addition to differences between religious communities, intersecting factors such as economic inequality and international pressures also contributed to the conflict. For example, although Lebanese Christian and Muslim communities both had gaping economic inequality, Christians were more likely to be wealthy and Muslims were more likely to be working class. Christians were also more likely to hold political power as a result of the policies the French instituted during their mandate.)

Palestine and Israel

In Palestine and Israel, the British government’s decision not to follow through on their promises to either Arabs or Zionists led to a still-unresolved dispute. The British administration committed itself to creating a Jewish home in Palestine without specifying what that meant. Fromkin argues that many British leaders believed it meant an expanded Jewish community within a multinational Palestine under British rule, not a Jewish state. However, the British had given the impression to their Zionist allies that they’d establish a full-blown Jewish state.

Fromkin explains that Zionist leaders felt constrained by the British administration’s wavering stance. They believed that if the British made it clear that the Balfour Declaration was non-negotiable and would be enforced, Arabs would be forced to accept it and even see its potential benefits, like increased economic development in the region.

According to Fromkin, the main obstacle to negotiations among the British, the Jewish settlers, and the Palestinians was the Palestinian delegation’s uncompromising stance. They were worried about losing their land. Some Palestinian groups responded to the increasing Jewish immigration with violence. Deadly anti-Zionist riots broke out against incoming Jewish settlers, leading Britain to suspend Jewish immigration into Palestine temporarily. In addition, Fromkin writes that the British officers in Palestine—not politicians but rank-and-file members of the army—sided with the Palestinians, doing little to suppress the violence. When the British army didn’t react quickly enough to restore order, Jewish militias took up arms to protect themselves.

Finally, Fromkin highlights Britain’s White Paper for Palestine, which Churchill wrote to bring order to the region. The document reiterated support for a Jewish national home in Palestine without making it into a Jewish state. It left Palestinian and Zionist leaders dissatisfied: Zionists wanted more support for their project, while Palestinians wanted to end the project entirely.

Tragedies of British Rule in Palestine

Churchill’s 1922 document was the first of three White Papers on Palestine, continuing Britain’s wavering stance on whether Palestine should be a multinational territory under British rule, a Jewish state, or an Arab state. Like earlier British policies, these papers heightened tensions and affected both Jews and Palestinians for generations.

In addition to causing the conflicts Fromkin describes, the 1922 White Paper affirmed the Balfour Declaration and Jewish rights in Palestine but restricted Jewish immigration and excluded Transjordan from Jewish settlement. To this day, some elements of Israel’s political leadership argue that Jordan should be part of Israel.

The 1930 White Paper followed the 1929 Arab riots. The riots erupted after a group of Jewish settlers raised the Zionist flag in the Western Wall (a sacred site for both Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem). However, the discontent of the local Arab population ran deeper, including fears about losing political and economic independence. In response to the hostilities, the 1930 White Paper further restricted Jewish settlement, though these restrictions were later eased following complaints from Zionist leaders.

Finally, the 1939 White Paper had tragic consequences. It outlined plans for Palestine to become an independent state, which never came to fruition. The Arab Higher Committee expressed their concerns about the White Paper’s vagueness immediately after its publication, arguing that the plan was too vague to be implemented. They also demanded that the government stop transferring Arab-owned lands to incoming Jewish settlers.

The 1939 White Paper also limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 over five years and made that immigration contingent on Arab consent. With the simultaneous rise of Adolf Hitler’s murderously antisemitic regime in Germany, the new British policy had the effect of closing one of the few escape routes for Jews seeking to flee Europe on the eve of the Holocaust.