In 1963, there were coups in both Syria and Iraq, bringing the Ba'ath Party to power. What is the latest PoD that could have prevented both of these coups? Is it plausible that said movement does not come to power anywhere else, at least for another decade? And in any case, what would be the effects?
 
In 1963, there were coups in both Syria and Iraq, bringing the Ba'ath Party to power. What is the latest PoD that could have prevented both of these coups? Is it plausible that said movement does not come to power anywhere else, at least for another decade? And in any case, what would be the effects?
1. Either Britain and France invest more money into strengthening Iraqi and Syrian leaders to suppress opposition. 2. Syria refuses to become part of the United Arab Republic and focuses on strengthening national pride, limiting Baathist sentiment and potentially influencing Iraq to do the same. 3. Britain and France control Iraq and Syria respectively for longer than OTL, which would draw strong criticism but they could suppress the Baathists. Or 4. Iraq and Syria are influenced by America to become democratic.

The first option is possible, but it depends on Britain and France's interest in funding. But if it is done, Iraq and Syria could potentially remain their original governments, albeit rather unstable and highly repressive.

The second option depends on limiting pan-Arabism. The idea of a grand Arab state sounded great on paper, but was a mess in execution. Simply have Syrian leaders rethink their actions and remain independent to restrengthen itself. And have Iraq be openminded and follow suit, though it would have to be quick because Iraq became Baathist the same year Syria merged with Egypt.

The third option is less likely but it could still be done. Though Britain was humiliated by the Suez Crisis and France was struggling in Algeria. Have them focus on the Middle East and be less active in Africa. This is still stretching it, because Britain and France would under serious criticism from America and the Soviet Union for continuing colonialism.

The fourth option, though, is the least likely of all. Iraq and Syria were not the places for democracy, primarily because of how Britain and France divided the Middle East. Sunnis and Shiites were grouped into the same state at horrifying proximity. Iraq in particular was infested with ethnic tension. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, he at least united Iraq under his regime by suppressing any dissent. The ethnic tension was actually brought into light when Saddam was overthrown. Elections were held, and the feud between Sunnis and Shiites grew ugly, and this majorly contributes to the civil war in Iraq. No doubt would this be mirrored if Iraq and Syria became democracies, albeit with 'slightly' less hostility.

Bottom line, keeping Baathists out of power is very difficult, but it can be done.

Note: Iraq had its coup in 1958 while Syria had it in 1961.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line, keeping Baathists out of power is very difficult, but it can be done.
Preventing the move toward unification in 1958 does sound promising. If we go with that as our PoD*, what would be the effects?
Note: Iraq had its coup in 1958 while Syria had it in 1961.
AIUI, those were coups that overthrew the Iraqi Monarchy and took Syria out of the UAR respectively; the coups in 1963 were the beginning of each state being dominated by the Baathists.

*remember, OP said we just need the latest possible PoD to make it work, so it can be even earlier if needed
 
You could have a more successful united Arab republic with iraq and sudan joining it
But wouldn't it have the same issues as OTL? Nassar was unable to strengthen the Syrian economy in line with the Egyptian. Combine that with handling the Iraqi and Sudanese economies and you'd have a mess. And, despite claims that it was a federation, in reality, Egypt overshadowed Syria, because of its stronger stability. Not to mention, there was a ton of Syrian nationalism leading up to the coup, particularly in the military. No doubt would be similarly played out in Iraq and Sudan. Egypt would easily be the strongest of the four and it would impose its economy and politics on the other nations. All this led to Syria splitting from the UAR and becoming a Baathist state like Iraq. Nationalism is perhaps the biggest factor as to why the United Arab Republic failed and why such a concept would genuinely never work.
 
Didn't the baathists in Iraq receive help from cia to fight the influence of the communists and nasserites?

Distract the cia long enough abd the kgb would have allowed a communist Iraq.
 
Combine that with handling the Iraqi and Sudanese economies and you'd have a mess. And, despite claims that it was a federation
Sudan and Iraq could balance out Egyptian dominance over the union and with more autonomy to the different members would have helped greatly

Nationalism is perhaps the biggest factor as to why the United Arab Republic failed and why such a concept would genuinely never work.
no They were pissed off at lack of power sharing and the poor economy
 
Distract the cia long enough abd the kgb would have allowed a communist Iraq.
Would it have been communist per se in this case, or more likely Nasser-ist?
Sudan and Iraq could balance out Egyptian dominance over the union and with more autonomy to the different members would have helped greatly
Actually, that brings up an interesting question -- Nasserism and Baathism, both being manifestations of Arab Socialism, have so much in common, would it there be much difference if Syria and/or Iraq was the former instead of the latter? Googling the differences online, the impression I get is that Baathism was a real ideology, and Nasserism was pretty much about Nasser and the Egyptian government itself. Does this mean we need to curb Arab Socialism outside of Egypt in general in order to effectively curb Baathism?
 
Top