Arab Nationalism, a positive Development?

Was the rise of Arab nationalism in the Middle East a positive development in the region, or did it have negative reprecussions.

A further question, in most discussions here it is generally agreed that a surviving Ottoman empire will lead to a liberal, stable and democratic middle east. A far cry from the chaotic state OTL. Is there any support for this?
 
Was the rise of Arab nationalism in the Middle East a positive development in the region, or did it have negative reprecussions.

A further question, in most discussions here it is generally agreed that a surviving Ottoman empire will lead to a liberal, stable and democratic middle east. A far cry from the chaotic state OTL. Is there any support for this?
I think it was positive, but then again I am of Arab descent. It certainly did have negative repercussions. Secularism != democracy.

Yes. The modern Middle East is founded on divide-and-rule. Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq were artificially drawn with borders to make it easy for ethnic groups to fight. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine were all traditionally part of Syria before 1918, but in WWI they were promised to become one Kingdom of Syria (with maybe Iraq). They were led by the relatively liberal Hashemites (who still rule Jordan today) who were longtime rulers of the Hejaz (eastern Saudi Arabia). Very different from the House of Saud, which won't come to power as long as the Ottomans are around. Not for long, anyways. Under Ottoman rule, religious pluralism was tolerated and Arabs and Jews and Turks were all subjects of the Sultan.

So what would probably happen if the Middle East continued to be under a state with the prime geopolitic control of the straights and bridge of Eurasia with half of the world's oil? Let's go through the countries one by one:

  1. Turkey - OTL Secularist dictatorship recently democracy. ATL Leaders of the empire
  2. Syria - OTL Sectional dictatorship, planned economy, rump state. ATL includes Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and more economic development.
  3. Lebanon - OTL Sectional playground between Israel, Syria, and the Palestinians. Oh, and Hezbollah. ATL Part of Syria
  4. Palestine - OTL Under Israeli hegemony. ATL Part of Syria
  5. Jordan - OTL Small, resource poor state. ATL Part of Syria
  6. Iraq - OTL Sectional state recovering from civil war and an extremely brutal dictatorship. ATL No dictatorship.
  7. Arabia (The Hejaz, Najd and al-Hasa) - OTL Saudi Arabia. Wahbahism central. Sunni extremism central. ATL? Part of the religiously liberal Ottoman Empire.
  8. Kuwait - OTL Oil dictatorship. ATL Under the rule of someone who wasn't just recently a tribal chief. Note: It was in an Egypt situation, only declared independence from the Ottomans during WWI. Ottomans in the Entente probably keep it.
  9. Yemen - OTL Resource poor dictatorship in danger of anarchy. See a pattern?
Oh, and since the Sultan is the Caliph, he can easily condemn Islamic radicals.

Here's an Ottoman Empire that entered the Entente. Basically the Middle East consists of the Ottomans, Egypt, Iran, (South) Yemen / Aden, and Oman (which may or may not include the UAE and Bahrain).

1.png

With a butterfly net, the Ottomans would be the third most powerful country during the Cold War, and maybe the second during the '90s.

1.png
 
Last edited:
With a butterfly net, the Ottomans would be the third most powerful country during the Cold War, and maybe the second during the '90s.
I'd agree with a lot of this post, but I must take issue with this last part. The Ottomans would most defiantly surpass any European country with the exception of Russia in an world were the Ottoman survives (with pre-ww1 borders it looks like, with a few differences).

The Ottomans would still be a rising power for a few decades, with many countries still ahead of it economically and such. By the time the Ottomans have achieved that 3rd position, which is entirely possible, there is no guarantee that they will keep it for long. Japan will be rapidly rising throughout the 60's/70's, and will probably overtake the Ottomans before the collapse of the Soviet Union (Assuming as few butterflies as possible of course). And of course, China and India have a great "Natural Potential" if you will, then the Ottomans.

If you wanted to see the Ottomans in possibly their most positive survival scenario, you would have to use a POD before or during the Russo-Turkish war of 1877. This would leave a Ottoman empire in a much better position then one with a POD from WW1. The Ottomans would industrialize (not to a great extent, but much greater then OTL, imagine a kind of Italian style industrialization), which would have a number of advantages, not least having some capital for indigenous Ottoman development of their oil reserves. They would also have a much higher population, as they have a good chance of restoring their control over Egypt in the 1880's, leaving them with a much greater "natural potential" in the 20th century then the other scenario. Here, it is entirely possible to see the Ottomans as the 3rd or 2nd power for more then a few fleeting years.

Anyway, actually addressing the first poster, it seems to me that Arab nationalisms biggest failure was the '67 war. It mostly discredited the ideology in the eyes of the Arabs themselves, and left a void ideologically in the Middle East. To some extent, Islamism is filling that, but it doesn't exactly carry the spirit of optimism that pan-Arabism did. To answer the question, another one has to be asked. If Arab nationalism didn't emerge, what would have took its place?
 
I have always found the amount of apologism for the Turks on this forum to be intriguing, if puzzling, mostly because I find the idea of advocating the continued subjugation of free and independent peoples under foreign rule to be rather repugnant and evident of a double standard on a normally very straight-laced and liberal forum.

In other words, I view Arab nationalism, and in particular pan-Arabism, as a good development for Arab people so tragically fragmented by internal divisions, strife, and just plain old instability. Was the grab bag for Ottoman possessions after the Great War any good for the Arabs? No. Was the eventual independence of the Middle East from European rule good? Yes.
 
I'd agree with a lot of this post, but I must take issue with this last part. The Ottomans would most defiantly surpass any European country with the exception of Russia in an world were the Ottoman survives (with pre-ww1 borders it looks like, with a few differences).

The Ottomans would still be a rising power for a few decades, with many countries still ahead of it economically and such. By the time the Ottomans have achieved that 3rd position, which is entirely possible, there is no guarantee that they will keep it for long. Japan will be rapidly rising throughout the 60's/70's, and will probably overtake the Ottomans before the collapse of the Soviet Union (Assuming as few butterflies as possible of course). And of course, China and India have a great "Natural Potential" if you will, then the Ottomans.

If you wanted to see the Ottomans in possibly their most positive survival scenario, you would have to use a POD before or during the Russo-Turkish war of 1877. This would leave a Ottoman empire in a much better position then one with a POD from WW1. The Ottomans would industrialize (not to a great extent, but much greater then OTL, imagine a kind of Italian style industrialization), which would have a number of advantages, not least having some capital for indigenous Ottoman development of their oil reserves. They would also have a much higher population, as they have a good chance of restoring their control over Egypt in the 1880's, leaving them with a much greater "natural potential" in the 20th century then the other scenario. Here, it is entirely possible to see the Ottomans as the 3rd or 2nd power for more then a few fleeting years.

Anyway, actually addressing the first poster, it seems to me that Arab nationalisms biggest failure was the '67 war. It mostly discredited the ideology in the eyes of the Arabs themselves, and left a void ideologically in the Middle East. To some extent, Islamism is filling that, but it doesn't exactly carry the spirit of optimism that pan-Arabism did. To answer the question, another one has to be asked. If Arab nationalism didn't emerge, what would have took its place?
That's true. I think that the Ottomans would surpass Japan for a short time before being eclipsed by China and then India. Looking back I realize that wasn't clear.

The rest of the post is correct.

I have always found the amount of apologism for the Turks on this forum to be intriguing, if puzzling, mostly because I find the idea of advocating the continued subjugation of free and independent peoples under foreign rule to be rather repugnant and evident of a double standard on a normally very straight-laced and liberal forum.

In other words, I view Arab nationalism, and in particular pan-Arabism, as a good development for Arab people so tragically fragmented by internal divisions, strife, and just plain old instability. Was the grab bag for Ottoman possessions after the Great War any good for the Arabs? No. Was the eventual independence of the Middle East from European rule good? Yes.
The Ottomans didn't rule the Arabs like a colony. That was the Europeans. The sad fact is that the Middle East would have been better off united than not, just like Yugoslavia is preferable to a bloody Balkanization.

I view both the Ottoman Empire and Arab Nationalism in a positive light, the Ottomans because the Middle East was better off under them, and Arab nationalism because it tried to salvage the shit the Europeans left on the Middle East with a positive goal.
 
I have always found the amount of apologism for the Turks on this forum to be intriguing, if puzzling, mostly because I find the idea of advocating the continued subjugation of free and independent peoples under foreign rule to be rather repugnant and evident of a double standard on a normally very straight-laced and liberal forum.

In other words, I view Arab nationalism, and in particular pan-Arabism, as a good development for Arab people so tragically fragmented by internal divisions, strife, and just plain old instability. Was the grab bag for Ottoman possessions after the Great War any good for the Arabs? No. Was the eventual independence of the Middle East from European rule good? Yes.
When you talk about the Ottoman rule of the Middle East, you have to keep in mind that they weren't colonial occupiers. The Arabs accepted the government as legitimate, as the Ottoman ruler was also the Khalif, the ruler of all Muslims (at least theoretically). The Ottoman state had also ruled the Middle East for centuries, which gave them a certain amount of legitimacy. And the Arabs were quite loyal to the Ottomans. The Ottomans never had to use the divide and conquer strategy about the Arabs, and they were fine with Arab lands being garrisoned with Arab soldiers rather then Turks. It should also be noted that in the brief times that the Ottomans had a representative government, the Arabs were allowed to vote just like everyone else was.

I cannot really understand why anyone would think that the Ottoman rule of the Arab lands was actually that bad, other then a kneejerk reaction to multi-ethnic states.
 
Oh oh oh! Someone write a TL where an Ottoman Empire survives, but is confronted by the Arab Spring!
 
I have an essay where I have to argue against Arab nationalism. Are there any such points that argue against it?

What about the fact that Arab nationalism led to brutal dictatorships such as the Assads, Saddam Hussein etc.
 
Top