While i'm far from knowledgeable in that area, it seems that scholarship on the 1917-1919 Famine is sorely lacking. The main text appears to be The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919 by Mohammad Gholi Majd. However, Majd's thesis has taken some hits, according to reviewer Willem Floor, Majd makes three assertions:
“the 1917-18 famine in Iran was caused by British intervention in Iran”
“as a result 40 percent or 9 million of the population died”
“the subject of the famine and the resulting genocide has been ignored by scholars so far”
To begin, Majd goes to great lengths to pick and choose his sources, ignoring sources within the British archives and over-relying on US sources, and those British sources he does use (the diaries of the British generals whom he blames the famine on) work against his theory that the British government acted to exacerbate the famine. It seems far more likely that the famine was caused by a combination of Russo-Turkish fighting and foraging in Iran, poor harvests, and bad weather conditions in the grain producing regions of Persia. Additionally, in rural areas, the famine was aggravated by the presence of those hoarding grain whose effect was minimized in places such as Tehran when local authorities took control of the food supply and dispersed it as necessary.
On the second point, Majd’s choice of 9 million is likely inaccurate as he picks and chooses his census data, ignoring more accurate numbers taken from demographer Bharier:
“The author rejects the population figures for 1914 as calculated by Bharier using the backward regressive analysis, which is a standard demographic tool. Majd does not explain why he faults the methodology and assumptions used by Bharier. He only states that Bharier failed to mention the occurrence of the famine and therefore his data are wrong. Moreover, the US consul stated that in 1914 the population of Iran was 20 million, a figure that is credible given that the number of votes in the Tehran elections also shows that the population of Tehran was in the order of 400,000. Majd does not cite or discuss any other estimates by contemporaries that offer much lower, and in my estimation, more realistic figures. In 1919, the population of Tehran was 200,000 and the population of Iran as a whole was 11 million, according to Bharier. Ergo, a genocide of 9 million people. Majd does not explain why he has confidence in Bharier's 1919 population figure (p. 52) but not in his 1914 figure”
The Cambridge History of Iran Vol. 7 agree with Bharier’s numbers and Dr. Mahmood Messkoub writes in Social Policy in Iran in the Twentieth Century "Majd claims that the famine of 1917-1919 killed half the population, an exaggeration surely that does not tally well with the evidence provided in his otherwise useful overview of famine in that period."
Floor tentatively agrees with Majd’s third point stating: “It is true that so far few historians have dealt with the 1917-18 famine, and after having read this book I think there is a real need that somebody does. Majd's objective is not to understand why the famine happened and why its impact was so devastating... for he only wants to show Albion's perfidy and assign blame. “
Sources
Avery, P. Cambridge History of Iran Vol. 7 p. 609 Footnote 8.
Floor, Willem. Review of: The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919 by Mohammad Gholi Majd. Iranian Studies, Vol. 38, No. 1, Iran Facing the New Century (Mar., 2005), pp. 192-196
Messkoub, Mohammed. Social Policy in Iran in the Twentieth Century p.228 Footnote 5
So, I was curious because this was high on my front page and there were no answers, so I did a quick search. I found a paper discussing the effects that the 1918 flu pandemic had on Iran, and it included some background about the effect of WWI on the Iranian populace as well. A lot of this post is taken directly from this article, either verbatim or slightly paraphrased. (The citation is : Amir Afkhami. "Compromised Constitutions: The Iranian Experience with the 1918 Influenza Pandemic." Bulletin of the History of Medicine 77, no. 2 (2003): 367-392. https://muse.jhu.edu/)
So Iran declared its neutrality during WWI, but despite this the great powers used Iran as a battlefield at times. Russia and Britain both had imperialist designs on Iran for various reasons, interfering with its internal politics to try and secure their own interests, and as a result it became a target during the war. Some of the incidents during the war include: the Ottomans chasing the Russians into northwestern Azerbaijan in 1914; In 1915 Wilhelm Wassmuss organized a revolt among the Qashghai tribesman in southern Iran against the British who controlled oilfields in the area; The Russians counterattacked the Ottomans allowing the British to recover control of Southern Iran by 1916; A revolutionary Iranian group called the Jangalis emerged to control the countryside of Gilan in 1917-1918; Britain also tried to use Iran as a springboard to attack Russia in an attempt to reverse the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the new Soviet Union responded by annexing parts of northern Iran.
As a result of the warfare occurring in Iran, there was damage to Iran's economic, industrial and agricultural power. The occupying armies forcefully requisitioned or looted supplies. This led to widespread famine and the spread of disease. Iran's government was also essentially a protectorate surviving at the whims of whichever power was present and winning at the time, leaving them with little ability to actually help their own people. In addition, Ahmad Shah Qajar, the ruler of Iran at the time, was a weak ruler with little influence in his own government. The populace resented his father for authoritarian policies, and in an attempt to address this, Ahmad Shah tried to appoint only the best ministers, but he was unable to control their actions. In the face of the great powers of WWI using their country as a battlefield, and the threat of the Soviet Invasion and their humiliating demands, the populace resented the government's weakness, contributing to the political instability.
While political instability and warfare can lead to famines, the biggest cause is often climatic. 1916 and 1917 were both years with very dry summers, leading to crop failures. This, coupled with the foreign armies seizing what food they could, resulted in widespread famine, which was worsened by hoarders and speculators. When the influenza pandemic broke out in the spring of 1918, grain supplies had hit a low point, prices had doubled from six months before, (which had reached a ten-year peak). In addition, there were outbreaks of bubonic plague, cholera, malaria and typhus. The British were also building up for their attack on the Soviet Union, and sponsoring a native military contingent known as the "South Persia Rifles", making long-term contracts with large landowners for grain to feed the troops, adding to the scarcity.
F.A.C. Forbes-Leith describes the situation in what I assume is a memoir, Checkmate: Fighting Tradition in Central Persia. (I haven't read the actual book and am using a citation from Afkhami's article).
"The country was in a terrible state and the peasantry was in the last stages of starvation. Every time I was forced to stop my car, I was surrounded by hundreds of near-skeletons who screamed and fought for such scraps as I was able to spare. In a single day's journey of fifty-six miles between the towns of Kirind and Kermanshah, I counted twenty-seven corpses by the roadside, most of them those of women and children, and the general condition of life amongst the peasants was so frightful that I was ashamed to eat my simple rations in their presence."
So the Iranian famine of 1917-1918 was primarily a man-made catastrophe exacerbated by climatic conditions in which there was also an influx of infectious diseases. The wikipedia listing states that Majd's initial population estimate of 19 million is called into question with other estimates only being 11 million. Afkhami's article says that Iran's projected population at the beginning of 1918 was 11 million, so it may be that the 19 million number comes from before WWI broke out, and after the famine it had hit 11 million, at which point the influenza pandemic hit, killing a further 8% to 21% of the population according to Afkhami. (0.8 to 2.3 million). Although Afkhami's footnotes say that the population in 1918 was not too different from the population in 1913, before the war, which I am not sure whether to believe or not, given the effects of famine prior to the flu's arrival.
For those who are curious about what was deleted here (and to answer the polite question in modmail from /u/MILKB0T) ... Of the 114 comments at 10:15 p.m. AKDT Thursday:
There were 21 comments commenting about the lack of comments
22 comments consisting of one link or a short list of links without context, analysis, criticism or synthesis
nine comments relying only upon Majd's book without criticism, context, analysis or synthesis
eight child comments on deleted parents that make no sense without the parent
eight one-line or short-paragraph comments about the 1918 influenza pandemic
seven comments replying to the comments about the lack of comments
six followup questions
four compliments
three useful comments incorporating multiple sources, context and synthesis (all kept and not deleted)
three one-line or short-paragraph comments about Wikipedia
Two soapboxing comments written using biased, ahistorical sources
two answers to followup questions
two comments by moderators (not counting this one)
one apology for an error
one racist comment (resulting in ban)
one joke comment (resulting in warning)
one joke comment (not resulting in warning)
10 uncategorized comments
This indexing took 26 minutes and cannot be done for every thread due to a lack of resources and time. Furthermore, these types of indexes distract from OP's question. Every upvote this comment receives proves that point. Please bring meta questions to modmail or to a separate thread.
Also, please stop upvoting questions to /r/all. :)
It was a bit frustrating to see this on the front page without any answers, so I've decided to do a little research of my own ^with ^the ^help ^of ^Google.
From what I gather, there has not been much scholarly work on the topic. The most-cited book I found was Mohammad Gholi Majd's The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran (available in preview mode on Google Books).
You can also have a look at Iran and Its Place Among Nations, which provides a summary of Majd's argument.
One of the little known calamities of World War I and its aftermath in Iran is the widespread famine that the war engendered across the country. The most significant treatment of this subject is the book by the agricultural economist Mohammed-Gholi Majd, The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919. [...] Majid quotes the American charge d'affaires in Persia at the time, Wallace Smith Muray, as having claimed that in 1917-1918, up to one-third of Iran's population was wiped out by famine and disease.
To be sure, the exact causes of the devastating famine are difficult to grasp. Majd blames the British who, after the Russian revolution of 1917, had become the main foreign power in Iran. Having isolated farmers from their customers inside Iran the British, Majd claims, made it impossible for the country's fertile regions in its north and northwest to remain connected to the rest of the country. At the same time, according to Majd, a significant amount of the grains produced in Iran were forcibly acquired for British troops in the country and shipped abroad to other British troops in the region.
Majd concludes that, unbeknownst to most, one of the main genocides of the twentieth century occured in Iran during and immediately after World War I.
However, the authors also point out:
It is difficult for rigorous academic research to corroborate these figures. The word "genocide" implies the willful killing of large numbers of noncombatants. The historical record in this area is murky. A more extensive scholarly treatment of this subject would have to utilize "triangulation" and provide evidence from others, including British, Russian, and Ottoman sources, to show the extent of the famine and the ways in which it was affected by the war and its aftermath.
And, if you have access to JSTOR, you can also find another review of Majd's argument by Persia scholar Willem Floor. He is very critical of Majd - going as far as sarcasm:
So good were the British in concealing that there even had been a famine that the document tabled by the official Persian delegation to the Versailles peace treaty trivialized the famine and obscured its causes [...] The scheme worked so well that scholars dealing with Iran, even if they did know about, did not write about it, until now.
The thrust of Floor's argument is that Majd's estimate of the Iranian population is far too high and that he has it out against the British. He suggests reading James Barton's Story of Near East Relief 1915-1930 for a overview of the difficulties of famine-relief in the broader region.
Barton points to light snowfall in the winter, spring drought and the breakdown of the irrigation system as partially responsible for famine in Iran's Kermanshah and Hamadan provinces.
So, as you can see, there's some debate around this famine. I'm surprised there is no Wikipedia article about it.
I have taken several courses on the history of the ME, but this topic in particular is highly politicized; original documents are highly biased depending on whether they are written by those sympathetic to British or Iranian interests. The most informative piece of work on this topic is probably Mohammad Gholi Majd's 2013 book.
Generally speaking, there was a famine in the area, exacerbated by British, Russian, and Ottoman forces fighting for control of the area.
In more detail:
Some documents show that the population of Iran was 12 million in 1900, 15 million in 1910, and projections put it at 18-20 million in 1920. But, census records in 1920 put the population at 10 million, suggesting that "8-10 million" people died, per Mohammad Gholi Majd.
Edit: Another user has commented on the veracity of these numbers and, while s/he notes that they are inaccurate, I believe his/her net assessment of the casualties results in a similar conclusion to the one I reach in the following paragraph.
I have not verified whether the census methodologies were consistent, nor have I attempted to vet the records noted by Gholi Majd in his book for internal consistency. The urban statistics suggest a somewhat more modest reduction in net population. In wartime, and during famine, there is usually a disproportionate reduction in urban population density relative to rural areas (Bradley Thayer, 2009; Alex de Sherbinin, 1995), and Tehran's population fell from 500,000 to 200,000 in this period (again, per Gholi Majd). This isn't conclusive, but I would estimate gross casualties at ~5-7 million based on this figure. Also important to note: the famine occurred some years prior to 1920, so using a 1920 population estimate to back-calculate a death toll from 1917-1918 or 1919 is going to give an inflated number. In short, the author's "8-10 million" figure is almost certainly too high.
Regardless, it looks as though we can be certain that somewhere between 3 and 10 million people died, and the figure is likely towards the middle to upper end of that spectrum.
As to why it happened: there would have been a famine in Iran due to poor harvests, without any wars. But, fighting between the occupying British, Russian, and Ottoman forces significantly exacerbated the problem. Per Gholi Majd, British military grain and rice purchases from within Iran for the period were in excess of 500,000 tons (Russian & Ottoman figures not noted). This was seen as a savvy move, as the grain would otherwise have required importation from ~India, and it saved British shipping capacity for the Atlantic theatre. The British and Russian (and Ottoman?) armies destroyed grain reserves in towns that they thought might be occupied by the other side(s) in the future. The author also notes that the acting Iranian government saw an extreme reduction in revenue as a result of the conflict, and was unable to alleviate the famine. He blames this on Britain's manipulation of currency re. oil exports, but I can't comment on the accuracy of this claim without extensive additional research. Gholi Majd goes into much greater detail re. a number of British military decisions and policies that exacerbated the famine locally.
Contemporary documents say that the famine ended in 1918, but Gholi Majd suggests that it continued into 1919. This is politically relevant, because fighting between Britain and Russia had ended by early 1918. I don't want to get into the details, but, if the famine continued into 1919, post-war British policy may have been responsible for some of the casualties.
Contemporary media commented on the fact that the Russian army looted and contributed to the shortage as well, but Gholi Majd downplays their influence by suggesting that "famine already stalked the land." It's odd, because the exact same could be said for Britain's responsibility for the situation. As best I can tell, Gholi Majd has a particular bone to pick with Britain. If you read between the lines, it sounds as though the author is angry that Britain chose to feed its armies with locally-sourced grain, as opposed to using additional resources to import it. Russia (apparently?) lacked similar logistic capabilities, so he sees them as less culpable. This gets kind of wishy-washy, because the author uses historical facts to try to explore how the situation could have been avoided and devotes an entire chapter to explicitly address who should be blamed. He very clearly holds Britain accountable.
There is also ~no mention of the Ottoman army/actions beyond some sparse notes regarding the timeline of their fighting with Britain well into 1918. As best I can tell, Gholi Majd ~ignores the actions of the Russians and Ottomans, in preference to those of the British. But, again, I'm not sifting through other original sources.
I also don't know what proportion of the grain consumed by Britain or Russian (or Ottoman) forces would have made its way to the Iranian people, so it's hard for me to blame either party for a set proportion of the final death toll. They are responsible for some number of the dead. Possibly millions. Probably not as many as 8-10 million.
TL;DR There was a famine and a war being fought by outside parties. 3-10 million people died, mostly of starvation. The fighting between Britain and Russia is to blame for at least some of the deaths.
Edit: formatting, some details
Hello everyone,
In this thread, there have been a large number of incorrect, speculative, or otherwise disallowed comments, including many asking about the deleted comments, which merely compounds the issue. As such, they were removed by the mod-team. Please, before you attempt answer the question, keep in mind our rules concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses. Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed.
This thread is trending high in the subreddit, but those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and it can often take time for a good answer to be written. We know that it can be frustrating to come in here from your front page and see only [removed] and this post, but we ask for your patience and understanding. If you are looking for some interesting content in the mean time, we hope you will check out our Twitter, the Sunday Digest, or the Monthly "Best Of" feature.
Additionally, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with off topic conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!
