Challenge - Create A Greater Syria

As im sure most of us know, after the Arab revolt in World War 1, which was a Hashemite lead effort, Feisal al-Hashemi tried to build up support amongst the British in paticular for a Arab state encompassing the Arab lands of the former Ottoman empire. However, the British decided that allowing their French allies to have their spoils of war was more important then rewarding Feisal's efforts during the war. The French occupied Syria and defeated Fesial when he tried to resist militarily.

So the challenge is, to give Feisal control of the Levent by 1930, with any POD from January 1st 1915. Bonus points if this Greater Syrian state has Mesopotamia and is not subordinate to Britain in some way (such as Mandate, ect).
 
Well, if Feisal comes to an agreement to have a similar regime with regards to Iraq with the French (Kingdom under influence), then Abdullah would be bumped up to Iraq as was planned, and it is a reasonable possibility that at the very least Transjordan would be incorporated into Syria (though possibly not Palestine). A bit of fiddling around with Lebanon could get it incorporated into Syria, and if either family has a similar incident to that in Iraq, then the other is in a much stronger position to claim the throne and set up a united Arab Kingdom than Abdullah II was IOTL.
 
As im sure most of us know, after the Arab revolt in World War 1, which was a Hashemite lead effort, Feisal al-Hashemi tried to build up support amongst the British in paticular for a Arab state encompassing the Arab lands of the former Ottoman empire. However, the British decided that allowing their French allies to have their spoils of war was more important then rewarding Feisal's efforts during the war. The French occupied Syria and defeated Fesial when he tried to resist militarily.

So the challenge is, to give Feisal control of the Levent by 1930, with any POD from January 1st 1915. Bonus points if this Greater Syrian state has Mesopotamia and is not subordinate to Britain in some way (such as Mandate, ect).

Nassirisimo

The obvious might be that Gallipoli works but hard liners fight on from the interior of Anatolia. This is fairly trivial for the allies as they are isolated and the allies have control of the straits and a secure position in the Balkans as Greece and probably Bulgaria will join the allies. However it does mean that the continued opposition causes problems and possibly Townsend still fouls up in Mesopotamia. Hence the British see a need to support the Arabs, who are encouraged by the serious defeats the Ottomans have suffered. Coupled with anger at the Armenian massacres opinion is that the Turks must to punished so the desire is to remove their Arabic lands. Against a weaker opposition British & Arab forces occupy most of the region as of OTL 1918 but by say 1917 when this war ends.

Because of the improved position in the east Russia doesn't fall and France is in a better condition. Hence the powers are able to agree a more stable peace in Europe. France wants some say in Syria, where it historically had interests but with pro-British Arabs already in place this is traded away for something somewhere else.

I can't see the new Arab state not being under a British 'Protectorate' at least unofficially if not formally. Say the sort of situation as with Egypt before the war but with less British open presence because it doesn't have the same significance - at the time anyway.

This would also have the advantage that the Hashemites would then have a more powerful position militarily and in terms of prestige and almost certainly get British support, if it was needed, to keep the Saudis in control. It might not be a single unified state, if only because of the size but you might have a serious of Hashemite states, with one, say Syria, being the senior line.

Other than keeping order and the discovery of oil in the east the area would be largely unimportant as far as the wider world was concerned so it would probably have increasing independence and with say a government in Britain cutting back on commitments, having both de-facto and de-juro independence by 1930.

You might get a similar path with an unsuccessful Gallipoli but that does make for a longer and more bitter war and gives more time for France to want to get involved. Also if the war is that much closer and especially if Russia falls into the Bolshevik coup, the situation in Europe is that much more unstable so Britain needs France more.

Anyway, my initial thoughts, for what their worth.;)

Steve
 
As im sure most of us know, after the Arab revolt in World War 1, which was a Hashemite lead effort, Feisal al-Hashemi tried to build up support amongst the British in paticular for a Arab state encompassing the Arab lands of the former Ottoman empire. However, the British decided that allowing their French allies to have their spoils of war was more important then rewarding Feisal's efforts during the war. The French occupied Syria and defeated Fesial when he tried to resist militarily.

So the challenge is, to give Feisal control of the Levent by 1930, with any POD from January 1st 1915. Bonus points if this Greater Syrian state has Mesopotamia and is not subordinate to Britain in some way (such as Mandate, ect).
Ok... have the French cave in in 1918 before the Germans do, so the French don't need to be rewarded, by which point most of the Syrian territory has been lost by the OE. This of course assumes that the Germans let Britain tear up their ally rather then backing the OE up... rather unlikely given the German designs on building a railway into Mesopotamia, and (presumably) having the Ottomans as a semi-client state/arm in Asia and Africa. So it really comes down to whether the British care enough to try and tear off those territories from the OE, and whether Germans care enough to stop them.
 
Shouldn't this be moved to the After 1900 forum?
Yes, it should. My mistake :eek:.

Also, I reckon that the Hedjaz would stay under Hussain until his death, after which it might pass to Feisal. The Hashemites should have enough strength if Greater Syria is created to stop Saudi incursions.
 
Yes, it should. My mistake :eek:.

Also, I reckon that the Hedjaz would stay under Hussain until his death, after which it might pass to Feisal. The Hashemites should have enough strength if Greater Syria is created to stop Saudi incursions.

It wouldn't pass to Feisal but to Hussein's first son Ali bin Hussein who lived until 1935 OTL. His son was killed in the Iraqi Revolution along with most of the Hashemites other than Abdullah of Jordan, but if Syria is in Hashemite hands and possibly Hedjaz this becomes very unlikely.
 
I suspect that the British might try to keep Hejaz free from the Saudis or the "Syrians" in this timeline.
 
Top