Rat_in_a_hat

Don’t forget there was also a schism on iconography, which I think was very early on? Can’t remember exactly

Check wikipedia and untwist your panties

Did I say that?

I can only speak about Kennan - basically his reports and telegrams from his time in Moscow basically convinced the US government that the USSR was expansionist and a danger to the US.

His reports were the primary driving force that led the US to have a negative attitude towards the USSR and that they needed to contain it. That basically kicked off the cold war and we continue to feel the effects of until today.

He then eventually changed his mind and became very vocal against US foreign policy towards the USSR (basically the same policies that he recommended).

I don’t know if “permitting different cultures” is how I’d phrase/frame it.

There always existed different cultures in the region and the Ottomans knew that. So they didn’t outlaw any culture or religion, but applied a dhimmi status - something nationalistic identities today try to misconceptualize - which actually translates to ‘protected persons’ who paid taxes to benefit from the Ottoman Muslim state protection and governance (not to be confused with full equality though). If you were happy to be under the Ottoman empire and pay tax, then you’re a part of it.

The primary influencers from Europe were Britain and France (they carved up the ottoman empire post WW1). They definitely had a hand in applying ‘soft power’ through minority groups such as those wanting more autonomy or who were disenfranchised by the Ottoman empire’s sub-par reforms and modernization (like pug mentioned).

But it wasn’t really one thing/person/imperial’s fault.

The Ottomans often benefited from limiting the development of competing political identities because maintaining imperial cohesion was important to the survival of a multi-ethnic empire. At the same time, there were competing factions within the Ottoman political establishment, each with different ideas about how the empire should be preserved and governed. So there were proponents who wanted to oppress, and others who didn’t.

The Europeans benefitted by carving it up because that was their colonial model (tried and proven in Africa and Asia). Whatever influence they exerted was generally part of the normal great-power competition of the era rather than direct control, and not necessarily of a kind that forced the Ottomans to respond with repression.

Like most things in history, the Ottoman legacy in the Middle East is a very mixed bag.

If you look at modern Middle Eastern countries, you’ll find people who admire the Ottoman Empire and others who absolutely don’t. A lot depends on which community (Kurds/Syrians/Lebanese - Christian/Muslim (Sunni vs Shia)/Druze/Jewish) and which period you’re talking about.

The Ottomans built the administrative and legal systems that governed much of the region for centuries. Some people argue that this provided a level of stability and local autonomy that helped different groups coexist under a common framework.

At the same time, there are plenty of accounts from places like Lebanon and Syria describing repression, unequal treatment, corruption, and crackdowns on dissent. How much of that was official Ottoman policy versus the actions of local governors or specific periods is still debated. That’s a different question from things like the Armenian genocide, which is much more clearly documented as a state-directed policy.

The Arab nationalist movement is a good example. A lot of early Arab nationalists weren’t necessarily trying to leave the empire—they wanted more representation and autonomy within it. Sometimes the Ottomans accommodated that, and sometimes they cracked down on it. Several countries in the Levant still have Martyrs’ Squares named after Arab activists the Ottomans executed during World War I. It can be argued that this repression and then later European colonialism completely (and purposefully) fragmented the Middle East until today.

So depending on who you ask, and the story continues to change even today (sometimes to fit a nationalist narrative), the Ottoman period was either a relatively stable imperial system that kept the region together or an empire that suppressed emerging national movements. There’s evidence for both views, but not one side fully.