|
|
Post by justiniano on Apr 17, 2024 16:16:53 GMT
What if after ww1 the French & British instead of betraying the arabs, by making Iraq, Syria & Jordan into Mandates, only do that for Palestine (which britain would need to honor it's agreement with the jews) and Lebanon (which France made sure was excluded from any deal made with the arabs) Making Jordan & the majority & plurality Arab parts of Iraq & syria an independent country? What does this mean for the history of this Hashemite ruled country, Israel & Palestine? Would this Hejaz-ruled country unify with Egypt like syria did? Would it wage a war with Iran around the same time of the Iran-Iraq war in OTL? What would most likely happen to Kurdistan immediately? I think that the creation of a larger, unified Arab state would have most likely, led to a stronger Arab identity and hopefully a more stable Middle East, given that the state would likely have been more homogeneous in terms of ethnicity and religion compared to the patchwork of mandates and countries that were actually created. I also imagine the British cooperating with this country to run Syrian-Iraqi Kurdistan like how the British got the Egyptians to help them administer the Anglo-Egyptian sudan until it gains independence. I also think that by honoring their agreements with the Arab leaders who participated in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, the British and French could have reduced the level of resentment and anti-colonial sentiment in the region. This might have led to a more cooperative relationship between the Western powers and the Arab world in the early 20th century.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 17, 2024 16:23:49 GMT
If it isn’t a mandate, then they will be protected states; note that Jordan did not exist as a separate entity at that point.
It would not unify with Egypt. No reason for it.
Anything further than a few decades into the future is very hard to map and anticipate occurring in the same way.
Welcome back.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Apr 17, 2024 16:57:45 GMT
Check my edit, I meant if they actually didn't betray the arabs and made this into a single independent country?
But Syria did, forming the United Arab Republic
Ty
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,447 
Likes: 12,051
|
Post by stevep on Apr 17, 2024 16:58:23 GMT
What if after ww1 the French & British instead of betraying the arabs, by making Iraq, Syria & Jordan into Mandates, only do that for Palestine (which britain would need to honor it's agreement with the jews) and Lebanon (which France made sure was excluded from any deal made with the arabs) What does this mean for the history of Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Israel & Palestine? Would this Hejaz-ruled country unify with Egypt? Would it wage a war with Iran around the same time of the Iran-Iraq war in OTL? What would most likely happen to Kurdistan immediately? I imagine britain has some sort of cooperation with the arabs to run it, like they had with the Egyptians ruling the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, until gaining independence sometime in the late 1940s-mid 1970s.
A lot would depend on the details but as far as I'm aware I think the Hashemite dynasty had the plan for a single state with its capital at Damascus which would rule all of Arabia including OTL Saudi state, Jordan, Iraq and Syria. If that was established, then as Simon said it would probably be a British protectorate and not sure what the status of the assorted of Kurdistan, Kuwait, Yemen, Trucial states and possibly Palestine would be. The British promise was a homeland inside Palestine, not of Palestine and it could be some agreement with the Hashemite dynasty that its part of their kingdom but with permission for Jewish settlement there.
Similarly its possible that Kurdistan could be hived off, say as a French protectorate - partly in compensation for them conceding the bulk of Syria? - although that would also depend on what's happened in Anatolia and is likely to exclude any Iranian territories.
I can't see any reason, at least while dynasties are in place, for a political union between such a state and Egypt, which has its own dynasty and a different culture and history.
Its likely that the dynasty would have problems with the Saudi Wahhabi tribes but under those circumstances its likely to get support from Britain and also have a lot more prestige and power so there's a good chance the Wahhabish would be defeated, although their likely to be a continual pain for the dynasty.
A lot would again depend on how things develop as to how close or not relations are with Britain and for how long but sooner or later its going to seek independent, assuming of course that it can stay united over such a large area, which hasn't been united to any degree for centuries, other than by the foreign Ottoman dynasty which was patchy in places.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Apr 17, 2024 17:14:57 GMT
A lot would depend on the details but as far as I'm aware I think the Hashemite dynasty had the plan for a single state with its capital at Damascus which would rule all of Arabia including OTL Saudi state, Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Well, I didn't mention that the Brits or french would conquer KSA, as it was neutral in ww1. Also, I meant this country would be an independent country I can't see any reason, at least while dynasties are in place, for a political union between such a state and Egypt, which has its own dynasty and a different culture and history.
Even if you insist it's a single british mandate, treated like a protectorate. Then why not after it gains independence like Syria did? A lot would again depend on how things develop as to how close or not relations are with Britain and for how long but sooner or later its going to seek independent, assuming of course that it can stay united over such a large area, which hasn't been united to any degree for centuries, other than by the foreign Ottoman dynasty which was patchy in places.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Apr 17, 2024 17:18:28 GMT
A lot would again depend on how things develop as to how close or not relations are with Britain and for how long but sooner or later its going to seek independent, assuming of course that it can stay united over such a large area, which hasn't been united to any degree for centuries, other than by the foreign Ottoman dynasty which was patchy in places. Well, I mean, considering foreigners had ruled the fertile crescent since before Christ, I don't see why not, just with a lot of regional autonomy |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,447
Likes: 12,051
|
Post by stevep on Apr 17, 2024 18:42:17 GMT
A lot would depend on the details but as far as I'm aware I think the Hashemite dynasty had the plan for a single state with its capital at Damascus which would rule all of Arabia including OTL Saudi state, Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Well, I didn't mention that the Brits or french would conquer KSA, as it was neutral in ww1. Also, I meant this country would be an independent country I can't see any reason, at least while dynasties are in place, for a political union between such a state and Egypt, which has its own dynasty and a different culture and history.
Even if you insist it's a single british mandate, treated like a protectorate. Then why not after it gains independence like Syria did? A lot would again depend on how things develop as to how close or not relations are with Britain and for how long but sooner or later its going to seek independent, assuming of course that it can stay united over such a large area, which hasn't been united to any degree for centuries, other than by the foreign Ottoman dynasty which was patchy in places.
I wasn't talking about anyone conquering the KSU so not sure what your referring to here? If your saying the suggested Arabian kingdom wouldn't look to Britain for support, at least initially I think that's unlikely as Britain was the major power which was most closely linked with the establishment of the state.
In terms of a political union I did say while the two dynasties were in place. OTL the Arab Union between Egypt and Syria was after the overthrow of both dynasties. How much that was a real union is somewhat debatable but its possible that such a union here might be more stable in that the proposed Arabian kingdom would not be dwarved by Egypt as Syria was. Although with the population base of Egypt and the oil of the Arabian kingdom there could be tension over the sharing of resources.
Yes the area has been controlled by multiple foreign powers for centuries, but often contested between two or moire. However for most of the last couple of millennia the Arabs who have been the dominant demographic group have been politically divided and how unified they would be would be unclear. Its noticeably that Arab unity has been more of a myth than a reality in the last century. I'm not saying that such a unified state wouldn't succeed and I think it would have a better chance than OTL but its not certain.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Apr 17, 2024 20:38:01 GMT
I wasn't talking about anyone conquering the KSU so not sure what your referring to here? I was referring to when you said this which would rule all of Arabia including OTL Saudi state If your saying the suggested Arabian kingdom wouldn't look to Britain for support, at least initially I think that's unlikely as Britain was the major power which was most closely linked with the establishment of the state. No, just that it would be independent, and not a protectorate. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,447
Likes: 12,051
|
Post by stevep on Apr 17, 2024 22:45:44 GMT
I wasn't talking about anyone conquering the KSU so not sure what your referring to here? I was referring to when you said this which would rule all of Arabia including OTL Saudi state If your saying the suggested Arabian kingdom wouldn't look to Britain for support, at least initially I think that's unlikely as Britain was the major power which was most closely linked with the establishment of the state. No, just that it would be independent, and not a protectorate.
ah I think you misunderstood me. I said that the Saudi Wahhabi tribes would be a threat to the state but that in this position, with it being much stronger as it controlled the much richer lands of Syria and Iraq and also with Britain having a clear interest in supporting it that the Saudis are unlikely to take most of Arabia as OTL. Their likely to be a pain because their viewpoint will appeal to frustrated Arab Muslims, especially those who see the Hashemite dynasty as too friendly to non-Muslims but hopefully they will never get anything like the resources they have OTL.
Whether or not it is formally independent, like Egypt was after 1922 the Arabian kingdom is likely to be closely aligned to Britain for a while and probably seen by most others as dependent on its support. Especially since at this point its likely to be internally somewhat fragile and have minimal resources to compete with developed powers. Even Iran or Turkey is likely to be militarily more powerful in the short term at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Apr 17, 2024 22:49:50 GMT
[tr][td class="content"][article] Whether or not it is formally independent, like Egypt was after 1922 the Arabian kingdom is likely to be closely aligned to Britain for a while and probably seen by most others as dependent on its support. Especially since at this point its likely to be internally somewhat fragile and have minimal resources to compete with developed powers. Even Iran or Turkey is likely to be militarily more powerful in the short term at least. Is it plausible that in practice this arabian kingdom would be an independent country by the end of ww1? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,447
Likes: 12,051
|
Post by stevep on Apr 18, 2024 18:38:24 GMT
[tr][td class="content"][article] Whether or not it is formally independent, like Egypt was after 1922 the Arabian kingdom is likely to be closely aligned to Britain for a while and probably seen by most others as dependent on its support. Especially since at this point its likely to be internally somewhat fragile and have minimal resources to compete with developed powers. Even Iran or Turkey is likely to be militarily more powerful in the short term at least. Is it plausible that in practice this arabian kingdom would be an independent country by the end of ww1?
I think it depends on how you define independent. Its possible that it could be formally an independent state but its likely to be reliant on connections with or aid/political support from one or more other powers. Just as nowadays many states rely on others for some aspects of their security. Those aren't just poor and under-developed states as for instance Taiwan, S Korea and even Israel are reliant on western support, especially but not solely from the US. Similarly many formally independent and developed western states in Europe are vulnerable to tensions with neighbours which disrupt economic activity. Britain after leaving the EU and facing the hostility of that organisation - as well as gross corruption and mis-leadership inside Britain by the establishment is an example of this as even economically large states have limits on their independence of action in real life.
The kingdom would be poorly developed and lack much in the way of strong governmental structure, either overall or, with the collapse of the Ottoman empire in local regions and furthermore areas have been damaged by warfare. While a number at least of the people will be eager for an Arabian state to unite all Arabs, at least east of Sinai others, especially assorted regional leaders may not want a new national government dictating what they do and threatening their own powers and interests. Building up clear national structures, both human and physical will take time and effort as well as money and will need agreement among assorted groups as to what policies to follow. Talking here about internal groups, although some foreign - not just western - factors will have interests. Hopefully the kingdom will establish stability and a sense of identity which most of its people accept but it could go any number of ways, including at worse becoming a failed state collapsing into civil war and chaos.
What I'm trying to say is that for at least a couple of decades the kingdom will have quite a lot of constraints on their actions and will have to come to agreements with both internal and external groups. Of which in the short term the UK is likely to be the most important foreign player. It could be seen as a better alternative to be too close to say Turkey or Iran or something like the USSR for instance. Britain tended to have a hands off system of interaction with de-facto protectorates as long as their fairly peaceful and stable and British governments will have a lot of other things on their plate which will have a higher priority than interfering with events in Arabia providing that events there don't seem to be threatening important British interests.
Arabia can look for other patrons and you could see say France or the US seeking to play such a role, possibly also Italy and also do some playing off of great powers against each other but in the early years the basic situation will mean that Britain will be the largest player in terms of external influence in the Kingdom of Arabia.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Apr 19, 2024 2:18:49 GMT
I think it depends on how you define independent. Free from outside meddling. Not a protectorate, protected state, colony, mandate, crown colony, or dominion. A sovereign, self-ruling country |
|
