Major anti-British uprisings in the Middle East in late 1940

[jmc247]

An anti-British uprising starts in September 1940 in say Transjordan then Iraq and is poorly handled and spreads across the region and within a couple weeks large portions of the Middle East are in flames. What would be the impact on the wider war of Britain having to spread more its forces thinner across the Middle East and North Africa in late 1940-1941?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Why does this happen? What's the PoD apart from handwave/Britscrew?

Guessing roughly, North Africa goes largely as OTL and then the Commonwealth Forces push on back through to Iraq and Transjordan. If the forces there haven't dealt with the uprisings already.

 

[thaddeus]

think there is some affinity between the Nazi regime and Arab Nationalists (maybe a little overblown?) however Italy, Vichy France, and even Turkey and Spain have interests across all of N.Africa and Middle East and are of more importance as allies?

 

[jmc247]

think there is some affinity between the Nazi regime and Arab Nationalists (maybe a little overblown?) however Italy, Vichy France, and even Turkey and Spain have interests across all of N.Africa and Middle East and are of more importance as allies?

That is what would make it unlikely for them to receive any serious support outside support and back then the understood rules of war were different meaning once Britain has enough forces brought to theater they would be crushed.

But, it would also likely cause them to rob from North Africa and perhaps Asia a bit. Certainly they wouldn’t have forces for the Greek adventure.

What I can see as potential outcomes is a delayed sending of German troops to North Africa or an even more modest force of advisers and no German intervention in the Italian-Greek debacle.

 

[thaddeus]

think there is some affinity between the Nazi regime and Arab Nationalists (maybe a little overblown?) however Italy, Vichy France, and even Turkey and Spain have interests across all of N.Africa and Middle East and are of more importance as allies?

That is what would make it difficult and at the end of the day unlikely for them to receive any serious support and back then the understood rules of war were such once Britain has enough forces brought to theater they would be crushed.

But, it would also likely cause them to rob from North Africa and perhaps Asia a bit. Certainly they wouldn’t have forces for the Greek adventure.

What I can see as potential outcomes is a delayed sending of German troops to North Africa or an even more modest force of advisers and no German intervention in the Italian-Greek debacle.

Germany did have the Berlin to Baghdad railway, not impossible they extend their cooperation with USSR for a time (no Barbarossa) and try to impose themselves in Syria and Iraq?

historically the Nazi regime pressed Vichy regime to allow the Japanese into Indochina, which soured their relations, maybe they could have used that card in Syria for themselves instead?

 

[RPW@Cy]

Depending on the timing, I suspect the main effect is the cancellation of Operation Compass as the forces assigned to it are scattered over the Middle East to restore order. This has interesting knock on effects - no Italian disaster means Rommel is not sent to Africa to repair the situation before Barbarossa starts (at which point I suspect he'll be too busy) and the war in North Africa remains mainly a British-Italian affair as the British gradually build up and rather less dramatically start pushing back.

The other interesting side effect of a major Arab revolt will be the impact on the Jewish community in Palestine - I doubt they will be too thrilled at the sight of a major pro-Nazi Arab revolt - with the British in turn going all in on supporting them in the later years of the war and immediately afterwards. Israel in this TL may well start out with pretty much everything between the Jordan and the sea.

 

[RPW@Cy]

Germany did have the Berlin to Baghdad railway, not impossible they extend their cooperation with USSR for a time (no Barbarossa) and try to impose themselves in Syria and Iraq?

historically the Nazi regime pressed Vichy regime to allow the Japanese into Indochina, which soured their relations, maybe they could have used that card in Syria for themselves instead?

They did OTL.

In May 1941, Admiral François Darlan on behalf of Vichy France signed the Paris Protocols, an agreement with the Germans. The protocols granted Germany access to military facilities in Vichy-controlled Syria. The protocols remained unratified, but Charles Huntziger, the Vichy Minister of War, sent orders to Henri Dentz, the High Commissioner for the Levant, to allow aircraft of the German Luftwaffe and Italian Regia Aeronautica to refuel in Syria. Marked as Iraqi aircraft, Axis aircraft under Fliegerführer Irak landed in Syria, en route to the Kingdom of Iraq during the Anglo-Iraqi War. The Germans also requested permission from the Vichy authorities to use Syrian railways to send armaments to Iraqi nationalists in Mosul. General Archibald Percival Wavell, the Commander-in-Chief of Middle East Command, was reluctant to intervene in Syria, despite government prodding, because of the situation in the Western Desert, the imminent German attack on Crete and doubts about Free French pretensions.

This led to a British invasion of Syria pretty much as soon as the aforementioned Anglo-Iraqi War was concluded and the colony being handed over to the Free French.

 

[thaddeus]

Germany did have the Berlin to Baghdad railway, not impossible they extend their cooperation with USSR for a time (no Barbarossa) and try to impose themselves in Syria and Iraq?

historically the Nazi regime pressed Vichy regime to allow the Japanese into Indochina, which soured their relations, maybe they could have used that card in Syria for themselves instead?

They did OTL.

This led to a British invasion of Syria pretty much as soon as the aforementioned Anglo-Iraqi War was concluded and the colony being handed over to the Free French.

yes but you noticed my speculation was for no Barbarossa? and no mention of Iraq? historically it was a comedy of errors, when the British invaded Syria, French reinforcements were stranded in Greece waiting for German air transport.

a totally different scenario to try and fortify themselves in Syria (which as an aside could reasonably expected to have oil reserves itself, and that would prove to be a correct expectation) and from there fan the flames of Arab Nationalists in both Iraq and Palestine.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The British are old hands at putting down such uprisings - I do not see the principle ops such as Compass being cancelled or fighting in East Africa

I do see other obligations not taken on eg Greece and Reinforcement of Malaya + Hong Kong (and Ambon etc) - depending on the actual timing

Again depending on when we might see far less support for Greece in 1941 - W Force is retained in North Africa and not sent to Greece.

Its possible if this happens in 1941 then some units that ended up in Malaya are instead sent to the middle east.

So some of the below units instead end up in the Middle East in 1941 to suppress said uprisings instead of Malaya

8th Australian ID
9th Indian Division (2 Brigades)
11th Indian Division
Hong Kong Garrison (2 Brigades including C-Force)
17th Indian Division (Burma)
18th British ID
44th Indian Brigade
45th Indian Brigade

While many of those units are but one step up from Militia and in many cases poorly trained and led they would likely be far more of a match for whatever an uprising could throw at them

Maybe more of the 20+ British divisions in the UK at the time - of which at least 10-12 where trained and equipped at the time are sent to the Middle East earlier than OTL

So there are options for the British to move troops around - the downside being that Hong Kong is not defended as robustly, Malaya and the various locations such as Ambon Timor etc that they tried to defend OTL are easier to overrun by the IJA/IJN ITTL.

The upside being that most of those troops went into the bag by Feb 1942 OTL.

There are probably other units in the British Indian Army that while not fit to fight a modern army at the time would serve as a garrison force in the Middle East.

Perhaps Australia might be prepared to leverage more of its Militia (1st to 5th Divisions) for overseas service.

This was a Hot Potato at the time as only Volunteers for the 2nd AIF could serve overseas - those in the Militia could not be forced to - this would of course change in time.

Other Commonwealth nations might be more willing to contribute more earlier

Canada like Australia had political limitations on numbers of soldiers serving overseas but they might have been able/willing to do more if there was more pressure such as this POD?