1920: Fully Independent Egypt-Sudan & British Sinai

[Deleted member 109224]

I found a thread on the idea that following WWI, the British considered annexing Sinai as a Crown Colony (severing its administration from Egypt). Apparently the local Bedouin also preferred autonomy to being ruled from Cairo. In another thread, a poster floated the following: Egypt was still nominally Ottoman until Sevres in 1920; though in 1914 Egypt's status was changed such that the same Pasha was in charge but the sovereign to which the Pasha paid fealty to swapped from the Sultan to King George - Egypt was still not independent and did not yet have internationally recognized boundaries. The Treaty of Sevres would give Britain an opportunity to sever Suez and Sinai (perhaps with a 20 mile buffer west of the Canal) from Egypt with little cost.

By Eric C Johnson
The severance of the Suez Protectorate would be highly unpopular in Egypt, but the timing of August 1920 is excellent from the British point of view. The Wafd Independence Movement launched an open rebellion in March-April 1919 which was crushed by the some 400,000 British Commonwealth troops awaiting demobilization and transport home. Virtually all Egyptian nationalists were in British jails or exile. The remaining Egyptian leadership was polarized and ineffective. The British, especially Field Marshal Edmund Allenby who was serving as High Commissioner in Egypt were aware the 400,000 troops had now gone home, and any future revolt would strain resources. Thus preparations for unilateral grant of Egyptian independence on 28 February 1922 were well underway. One major influence on FM Allenby’s actions was his belief that with modern communications, Cairo had lost much of its importance to Great Britain.

It was quite possible to tie Egyptian independence and the Suez Protectorate into the final draft of the Treaty of Sevres. The Egyptians have a choice between rejecting both, or accepting an independence that is unexpected. In the power vacuum existing in Egypt in the summer of 1920, I believe Pasha Fuad would accept independence and elevation to the status of king. Acceptance via the Treaty of Sevres also gives the Egyptians the legal right to force the withdrawal of British forces from Egypt. This is quite acceptable, the British garrison of three brigades – Cairo Cavalry, Cairo Infantry and Canal infantry is just adequate to protect the Suez. The floating drydocks and stores at Alexandria can be moved to Port Said or Haifa.

The Suez Canal Concession will be terminated, although the revenues due to the Pasha from the Suez Canal Company will continue. Eventually, King Fuad can legally force a dissolution of the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium in the Sudan, acquiring the Arab West and North and leaving the British with the Black African East and South.

I don't see why King Fuad would have to settle for just half of Sudan, to be frank. But that's neither here nor there. If anything, handing full control of Sudan over to Egypt would be a decent way to get the Egyptians to drop claims to the British zone later on; likely in conjunction with having to pledge some share of the revenues to the Egyptians though (in a similar way that they had to promise the Turks a slice of the Iraqi oil moneys to get them to accept the loss of Mosul).

In 1927 the Encyclopedia Britannia (courtesy of poster Eric C Johnson) says that the population of this Suez region was 88,000 in 1920 (excluding the Bedouin). 15% of the population was European, including Greeks, Cypriots, French, British, Maltese, and Italians; though British military personnel (of which there were about 400,000 in the region at the time) aren't included in these figures. There'd likely be immigration from the usual places (White Commonwealth, Malta, Greece, India, etc.) with the educated being fairly British. If Nasser still pops up TTL, a big chunk of the folks he displaced (West Europeans, about 50,000 Armenians, about 400,000 Greeks, 60,000 Jews, etc) might end up there.

It'd probably be a big cross between Ceuta & Melilla, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, and Gibraltar.

The British probably garrison Sinai more in the interwar period than OTL, rather than have troops in Egypt. If Italy makes a move on the Suez canal, it's invading an independent neutral country rather than a nation occupied by the British. On the other hand, Italy might just convince Egypt to join the Axis here. Or the Egyptians use WWII as an opportunity to negotiate a full cession of Sudan (and a better cut of canal revenues?) in exchange for neutrality.

 

[ArtosStark]

In regards to Sudan, the recent breakaway of South Sudan kind of show the faults in the region, and until 1947 the British had treated them as separate colonies. To quote the Wikipedia article on the Juba conference:

Britain organised the conference to combine northern and southern Sudan into one political entity. Until then, the two sectors were essentially treated by the British as two separate colonies because of ethnic, religious and cultural differences. Northern Sudan was heavily Arabized and had a fairly well-structured political and economic infrastructure. Northerners practiced Islam and were relatively well-educated. Southern Sudan was mainly composed of various Nilotic tribes who practiced a mixture of Christian and traditional beliefs. Economically, it did not possess the organization of northern Sudan.

The Juba Conference agreed that northern and southern Sudan would constitute one state and that a Legislative Assembly would represent the entire colony. However, southern Sudanese representatives had several reservations about the resolutions, largely because they were in an inferior position in regards to their region's lack of educational and political experience.

Their apprehension was realised when 800 administrative posts were vacated by the British in preparation for Sudanese "self-rule"; only four of the government posts went to Southerners. In discussions to determine the future of the modern state of Sudan, the southern provinces were largely excluded from the political process.

This disparity lead to the First and Second Sudanese Civil Wars, eventually resulting, in 2011, in the Southern provinces becoming an independent state, the Republic of South Sudan.

So a split with the Arabized and predominantly Islamic North going to Egypt and the Christian and less organized South remaining a British colony or a part of Uganda is not totally unreasonable.

I believe that the British suggested such a division at some point prior to the Juba conference but Egypt wanted to leave Britain with no reason to stay there, so they pushed for a unitary state and ended their own claim on the region. But I may be misremembering that.

In regards to the OP, I remember the original post and found it interesting at the time. Even if Britain took this path though I am not sure that they would leave Egypt entirely. It would not be impossible to maintain the right to base troops there for some years to come.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Even if Britain took this path though I am not sure that they would leave Egypt entirely. It would not be impossible to maintain the right to base troops there for some years to come.

Britain would still want control of the canal zone for as long as possible.

 

[ArtosStark]

Britain would still want control of the canal zone for as long as possible.

True, but presumably a separate Suez would include the Canal Zone. Otherwise there is no real incentive to separate it from Egypt.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

British Sinai would include the Suez Canal Zone (including the western bank of the canal, including Ismaila, Suez, and Port Said) since the British are trying to keep the canal and a buffer zone west of it.

In regards to Sudan, the recent breakaway of South Sudan kind of show the faults in the region, and until 1947 the British had treated them as separate colonies. To quote the Wikipedia article on the Juba conference:

So a split with the Arabized and predominantly Islamic North going to Egypt and the Christian and less organized South remaining a British colony or a part of Uganda is not totally unreasonable.

I believe that the British suggested such a division at some point prior to the Juba conference but Egypt wanted to leave Britain with no reason to stay there, so they pushed for a unitary state and ended their own claim on the region. But I may be misremembering that.

In regards to the OP, I remember the original post and found it interesting at the time. Even if Britain took this path though I am not sure that they would leave Egypt entirely. It would not be impossible to maintain the right to base troops there for some years to come.

It's not implausible that Britain splits Sudan, but the practice of administering Sudan as de facto two separate colonies only started in 1924. If the price of Egypt giving up its claim on Sinai is British withdrawal from Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, this would include the south.

 

[ArtosStark]

It's not implausible that Britain splits Sudan, but the practice of administering Sudan as de facto two separate colonies only started in 1924. If the price of Egypt giving up its claim on Sinai is British withdrawal from Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, this would include the south.

Maybe, but I doubt that Egypt would be that concerned about getting all of Sudan. Historically it was generally more trouble for them than it was worth. I can see having the economically well off and Muslim majority North being a benefit but the South is unlikely to bring much to Egypt except instability when the Christian majority begin to dislike feeling marginalized. I can't say that Egypt would not go for it, but I think it would be a net negative to them if they did.

In any case, my reading of the situation is more that independence and Fuad getting to be an independent monarch is the the compensation to Egypt for the loss of Suez (along with the continuation of their share of the dividends from the operation of the canal). North Sudan would be more of a sweetener to assuage Egyptian resentment. I am not sure it would work as it would still likely be seen as Britain stealing Egyptian territory, but North Sudan would almost certainly be more contributory towards Egyptian economic health than Suez would be.

EDIT: I mistook who would be the King of Egypt at the time, in spite of it being posted twice further upthread! fixed

 

[Karelian]

The El-Arish plan supported by Edmond de Rothschild pre-war might now gain more attention, considering the Balfour Declaration and the messy actual situation in Palestine?

 

[Osman Aga]

I found a thread on the idea that following WWI, the British considered annexing Sinai as a Crown Colony (severing its administration from Egypt). Apparently the local Bedouin also preferred autonomy to being ruled from Cairo. In another thread, a poster floated the following: Egypt was still nominally Ottoman until Sevres in 1920; though in 1914 Egypt's status was changed such that the same Pasha was in charge but the sovereign to which the Pasha paid fealty to swapped from the Sultan to King George - Egypt was still not independent and did not yet have internationally recognized boundaries. The Treaty of Sevres would give Britain an opportunity to sever Suez and Sinai (perhaps with a 20 mile buffer west of the Canal) from Egypt with little cost.



I don't see why King Fuad would have to settle for just half of Sudan, to be frank. But that's neither here nor there. If anything, handing full control of Sudan over to Egypt would be a decent way to get the Egyptians to drop claims to the British zone later on; likely in conjunction with having to pledge some share of the revenues to the Egyptians though (in a similar way that they had to promise the Turks a slice of the Iraqi oil moneys to get them to accept the loss of Mosul).

In 1927 the Encyclopedia Britannia (courtesy of poster Eric C Johnson) says that the population of this Suez region was 88,000 in 1920 (excluding the Bedouin). 15% of the population was European, including Greeks, Cypriots, French, British, Maltese, and Italians; though British military personnel (of which there were about 400,000 in the region at the time) aren't included in these figures. There'd likely be immigration from the usual places (White Commonwealth, Malta, Greece, India, etc.) with the educated being fairly British. If Nasser still pops up TTL, a big chunk of the folks he displaced (West Europeans, about 50,000 Armenians, about 400,000 Greeks, 60,000 Jews, etc) might end up there.

It'd probably be a big cross between Ceuta & Melilla, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, and Gibraltar.

The British probably garrison Sinai more in the interwar period than OTL, rather than have troops in Egypt. If Italy makes a move on the Suez canal, it's invading an independent neutral country rather than a nation occupied by the British. On the other hand, Italy might just convince Egypt to join the Axis here. Or the Egyptians use WWII as an opportunity to negotiate a full cession of Sudan (and a better cut of canal revenues?) in exchange for neutrality.

1. Armenians: Yes, the alternative is Soviet Armenia, I don't know how much of the ethnic Armenians are willing to move there
2. Greeks: Even with Sinai controlled by the British, the Greeks would likely prefer (and be asked) to move to Greece
3. Jews: There is Israel. Unless the Sinai becomes Israel, the Jews will move to Israeli controlled area.

The Sinai is pretty worthless. The Canal ain't much. I don't see much people settle in a desert region when the alternative is much better.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

1. Armenians: Yes, the alternative is Soviet Armenia, I don't know how much of the ethnic Armenians are willing to move there
2. Greeks: Even with Sinai controlled by the British, the Greeks would likely prefer (and be asked) to move to Greece
3. Jews: There is Israel. Unless the Sinai becomes Israel, the Jews will move to Israeli controlled area.

The Sinai is pretty worthless. The Canal ain't much. I don't see much people settle in a desert region when the alternative is much better.

1. Alternatives might be Lebanon, France, or Britain.
2. Maybe?
3. Sure, but if there's a richer place right next door it'd attract a few folks.

If the British are building up an urban population along the canal, I imagine there'd be a few folks moving there. I don't see why cities on the coast in a mostly desert country is any less viable in Sinai than in Dubai.

 

[Eric C Johnson]

Very courteous of Jackson Lennok to resurrect this thread, and note my contribution to it. One minor clarification. While the British Commonwealth forces numbered 400,000 in 1919, by 1922 the garrison was reduced to just above 10,000 for the entire country, subject to reinforcement in times of crisis. I do not believe this garrison would be reduced at all, just relocated to the Suez Colony. With regard to King Fuad wanting all of the Sudan, I would quite agree, but his position is far too weak to obtain more.

Back to my description of a modified Treaty of Sevres. It establishes the independence of Egypt, and concurrently Fuad as the sovereign of Egypt. The treaty establishes Egypt's eastern border as a line 20 miles west of the Suez Canal and its southern border along the split of the Sudan Condominium. It is very hard for Fuad, or any of his successors to argue against any provisions of the treaty without undermining the case for Egyptian sovereignty and independence. Therefore I don't see any Egyptian moves against British Sudan until the general decolonization movements of the 1950s and 1960s. Then things become much more unpredictable. Given Nasser's attempts to send troops to Yemen to export his Pan-Arab Nationalism, I believe an attempt to seize at least the Red Sea coast of British Sudan to be highly likely. Not sure how Britain would react - open to comments.

As for the Sinai not being worth much - I suppose that depends on point of view. To the British merchant fleet well into the 1960s it was vital. The British would move decisively to defeat any attempt by Egypt to conquer the Suez Colony. As for the British Suez as a destination for those expelled by Nasser, I am inclined to agree with Jackson Lennock. In distance alone, it would be the most economical destination, if only as a way station. And yes, cities on the Sinai coast would not be any less viable than Dubai. Or Tel Aviv. Or Alexandria, Benghazi, etc.

 

[Pelranius]

The British are most likely going to use Egyptians for the working classes of the Sinai-Suez.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

The British are most likely going to use Egyptians for the working classes of the Sinai-Suez.

Not entirely. I wouldn't be surprised if the workforce would just be imported from India.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Not entirely. I wouldn't be surprised if the workforce would just be imported from India.

This was the case in South Africa, East Africa, Aden, and Malaya so it seems likely.

Very courteous of Jackson Lennok to resurrect this thread, and note my contribution to it. One minor clarification. While the British Commonwealth forces numbered 400,000 in 1919, by 1922 the garrison was reduced to just above 10,000 for the entire country, subject to reinforcement in times of crisis. I do not believe this garrison would be reduced at all, just relocated to the Suez Colony. With regard to King Fuad wanting all of the Sudan, I would quite agree, but his position is far too weak to obtain more.

Back to my description of a modified Treaty of Sevres. It establishes the independence of Egypt, and concurrently Fuad as the sovereign of Egypt. The treaty establishes Egypt's eastern border as a line 20 miles west of the Suez Canal and its southern border along the split of the Sudan Condominium. It is very hard for Fuad, or any of his successors to argue against any provisions of the treaty without undermining the case for Egyptian sovereignty and independence. Therefore I don't see any Egyptian moves against British Sudan until the general decolonization movements of the 1950s and 1960s. Then things become much more unpredictable. Given Nasser's attempts to send troops to Yemen to export his Pan-Arab Nationalism, I believe an attempt to seize at least the Red Sea coast of British Sudan to be highly likely. Not sure how Britain would react - open to comments.

As for the Sinai not being worth much - I suppose that depends on point of view. To the British merchant fleet well into the 1960s it was vital. The British would move decisively to defeat any attempt by Egypt to conquer the Suez Colony. As for the British Suez as a destination for those expelled by Nasser, I am inclined to agree with Jackson Lennock. In distance alone, it would be the most economical destination, if only as a way station. And yes, cities on the Sinai coast would not be any less viable than Dubai. Or Tel Aviv. Or Alexandria, Benghazi, etc.

Sure, but an Independent Egypt during WWII might be able to negotiate the British out of Sudan entirely in exchange for assistance or neutrality.

If Egypt isn't involved in the 47-49 Palestine war (since the British in Sinai are sitting in between Egypt and the Mandate) would that save Fuad? Fuad would be avoiding an embarrassing situation here (getting beaten by the Zionists).

An Egyptian Sinai probably has knock-ons for the 47-49 war. Israel probably performs better and grabs the Gaza Strip and Hebron.

 

[Osman Aga]

1. Alternatives might be Lebanon, France, or Britain.
2. Maybe?
3. Sure, but if there's a richer place right next door it'd attract a few folks.

If the British are building up an urban population along the canal, I imagine there'd be a few folks moving there. I don't see why cities on the coast in a mostly desert country is any less viable in Sinai than in Dubai.

But Sinai is closer than France or Britain. Lebanon is granted... The Maronites could use local allies.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

But Sinai is closer than France or Britain. Lebanon is granted... The Maronites could use local allies.

Oh, I thought you were arguing that the Lebanese would be more likely to go to Soviet Armenia than to Sinai. My mistake.

I just figured that if Sinai isn't an option, Lebanon, France, and Britain seem like the next most likely contenders rather than to Soviet Armenia.

 

[Chris Nation]

Not entirely. I wouldn't be surprised if the workforce would just be imported from India.

This seems both utterly plausible and a new twist on the Middle East conflict. A Hindu-plurality state sandwiched between Egypt and Israel certainly makes the 20th century Middle East a more interesting place. I would guess that this state would probably be pro-British as well as pro-Israel.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

This seems both utterly plausible and a new twist on the Middle East conflict. A Hindu-plurality state sandwiched between Egypt and Israel certainly makes the 20th century Middle East a more interesting place. I would guess that this state would probably be pro-British as well as pro-Israel.

My guess it'd remain a British overseas territory and friendly with Conservative Arab monarchies and Israel, but having iffy relations with Egypt who'd view it similarly to how Spain views Gibraltar, Argentina views Falklands, or Morocco views Ceuta and Melilla.

 

[Eric C Johnson]

Sure, but an Independent Egypt during WWII might be able to negotiate the British out of Sudan entirely in exchange for assistance or neutrality.

I think there are two major hurdles between 1920 and 1939 that weakens the Egyptian negotiating position.

As Allenby anticipated, Egypt soon ran into the troubles inherent in the Middle East and was forced to seek British aid. In March 1926, Italian troops took advantage of the undefined boundary between Libya and Egypt and captured the oasis of Siwa from its small Egyptian garrison. Fuad I is forced to appeal for help, and London invited France, Italy and Egypt to a conference in Malta. British diplomats then forged an agreement that established the historical border between Libya and French Algeria and Tunisia in exchange for French cession of the Fezzan to Italy. Great Britain then ceded the Juba River Valley from Kenya to Italian Somaliland. Historical borders were negotiated between Egypt and Libya. Each got what they wanted. France gained the boundaries desired in Tunisia and Algeria, the Italians gained the prestige of additional territory, the Egyptians gained an internationally recognized western border, and the British gained stability in the Mediterranean.

If the British Suez Colony and British Sudan existed in 1926, then I believe the British negotiators would use the opportunity to add recognition of the status-quo boundaries by all parties.

The second hurdle is the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, which exposed the fragility of of the independence of African nations. The Egyptians wanted the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Alliance more than the British, and the Egyptian negotiators masterfully played British sentiments about collective security and their concerns regarding very real threats to the Suez Canal. The Egyptians got a treaty that committed Britain to fight and defeat any invasion of Egypt without committing Egypt to defending itself. Not a bad pre-nuptual agreement.

Egypt starts out neutral upon the outbreak of war between Great Britain and Italy. If it does not defend itself against the Italian invasion, it may be more likely Great Britain will regard Egypt as a co-belligerent state, and not one to be bought with concessions. In addition, it is likely Italy will attempt to annex significant Egyptian territory, especially in order to obtain a land connection to Italian East Africa. If Egypt does resist the Italians, then British aid and troops on Egyptian soil are welcome. Any Egyptian compensation would like likely be at the expense of Libya. If Italy does not invade, then the British are content with a neutral buffer state. If Egypt attacks the Suez Colony without Italian aid, its forces will be roundly defeated.

This all leads me to pose a question. What if Italy invades Egypt independent of events in the Second World War, or perhaps instead of sending massive amounts of troops and equipment to Spain in return for very little from Franco in return? At what point between the end of the campaign in Ethiopia in May 1936 and June 1940 would be most opportune? What if Italy attacked Egypt, but did not declare war on France and Great Britain?

What thinkest all in cyberland?

 

[ArtosStark]

This all leads me to pose a question. What if Italy invades Egypt independent of events in the Second World War, or perhaps instead of sending massive amounts of troops and equipment to Spain in return for very little from Franco in return? At what point between the end of the campaign in Ethiopia in May 1936 and June 1940 would be most opportune? What if Italy attacked Egypt, but did not declare war on France and Great Britain?

What thinkest all in cyberland?

If the goal is to grab Egypt without escalating the conflict to one against Britain, I don't think there is a good time. As you say, the Invasion of Ethiopia worried the British, and it seems likely that the 1936 treaty with Egypt would happen ITTL as well. So it seems like this invasion would very likely bring the British in regardless. If the goal is to hopefully grab most of Egypt before the British can get a significant force there, then earlier is better. The British started rearmament in 1936, so the sooner the Italians act the better. On the whole though, this seems like a poor move for the Italians. Though the Germans might benefit.

AIUI Italian help was pretty critical to getting the Nationalist forces from Africa to Spain. If that is not offered, and that means that the Army of Africa is stranded on the wrong side of the strait, it seems like the Republicans win the Civil war.

 

[Eric C Johnson]

There is not much in this superb analysis that I would disagree with. Particularly Republican victory in Spain.

I am of the opinion that any war after 1936 would catch Italy woefully unprepared. This begs the question, if Italy were decisively beaten in a war with Great Britain between May 1936 and Summer 1938, how would that affect the Munich Pact and later events?

Personally, I consider British rearmament to have begun with the abandonment of the Ten-Year rule in 1932, but I understand why 1936 was such a pivotal year. There was a huge increase in the Naval Estimates - two battleships, reconstruction of two battleships, two aircraft carriers, five light cruisers, etc. The Army received funding for its first armoured division, and mass replacement of horse by motor transport. RAF aircraft orders for all production types exceeded 100 for the first time since 1918. It had taken four years too build this head of steam, but 1936 was the first year results became apparent. War with Italy would also accelerate most actions preparatory for war taken in 1938-9.

Abandonment of the Ten-Year Rule meant a Britain fully prepared for war in 1942. Events in September 1939 upended that plan. Details.

As an aside, I would hope the British would not be so stupid as to sign such a one-sided alliance with Egypt.