WI: Kuwait-Najd War extended
- Thread starter Alarabi98
- Start date
First, welcome to the thread, haven't seen ya around much.
Second, I might need a bit more info on the Najd, because when I searched on Google what I got was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najdi_sheep
and I don't think that's what you're talking about.
Second, I might need a bit more info on the Najd, because when I searched on Google what I got was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najdi_sheep
and I don't think that's what you're talking about.
First, welcome to the thread, haven't seen ya around much.
Second, I might need a bit more info on the Najd, because when I searched on Google what I got was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najdi_sheep
and I don't think that's what you're talking about.
Well for starters, this is more AH. IRL the Uqair Protocol took place but with Saudi Arabia gaining land. But in the TL The British assisted the Kuwaitis in destroying the Ikhwan and secured Kuwait. But what if Kuwait, with western weapons, continued and attacked Saudi in retaliation, destroying the threat in the south. So try searching Uqair Protocol instead.
First, welcome to the thread, haven't seen ya around much.
Second, I might need a bit more info on the Najd, because when I searched on Google what I got was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najdi_sheep
and I don't think that's what you're talking about.
I think he means Nejd, the part of the Arabian Peninsula ruled as a kingdom by the Saudis before they kicked out the Rashidis and Hashemites and created Saudi Arabia.
Thande
Donor
Yeah, it's transliterated both ways in English depending on the source (nobody agrees on how to render Arabic vowels).
A decisive defeat like this would probably cripple the House of Saud, meaning that the Hashemites would keep Mecca, Kuwait would become the globally influential petrostate that Saudi Arabia became ITTL, and 'Asir might break away from Ibn Saud's control and become a separate state. There would be a considerably more divided Arabian peninsula. Beyond that... without the prestige of controlling the holy sites and the money from the oil wells, Saudi-style Wahhabism will have a much less successful twentieth century.
Out of curiosity, why would the British decide to support Kuwait instead of Ibn Saud?
Well Kuwait is a protectorate of the British Empire, while Ibn Saud's Kingdom isn't. Also that Kuwait is strategically place in the Persian Gulf and if Kuwait gains Saudi coast, it would benefit the Brits greatly.
I guess, then, the question is why Britain didn't support Kuwait IOTL: what advantage did they see in throwing their protectorate under the bus and supporting the Saudi claims?
The people formerly known as "Orientalists" do, but typographers, Anglo and French journalists, and, critically, MS Word and Google developers tend to refuse to follow their lead, so that I sometimes spend afternoons correcting the damn things for consistency.
However, in scientific rendition, it's Najd.It was because Sir Percy Cox, who ruled the mandate of Iraq, was actually buddies with Ibn Saud, so when the Uqair Protocol happened, he gave some northern land of KSA to Iraq, in exchange for 2/3s of Kuwait and to stop raiding the North and Kuwait, Of course the Saudis agreed, and the Kuwaitis had no say in this, which started Anti-British sentiment for the loss of land.
Funnily enough, I'm reading that at the moment on my Kindle........very messy.
I will try to make one in another thread, but it will have its mistakes one way or another. But I will attempt it.