From what I've read, the Sykes-Picot agreement really wasn't at all like the ultimate outcome in the Middle East post-WWI. The basic spheres of influence largely aligned (with some exceptions, ie. France getting Mosul) but at this point there were no plans regarding mandates and establishing such "artificial" countries as Iraq and Transjordan. Rather, there were plans to annex some territories (Lebanon and coastal Syria to France, southern and central Mesopotamia to UK) and the rest would be divided into "spheres of influence" within an "Arab state or confederation of Arab states." At this point, it sounds like the Entente powers did sort of intend to keep their pan-Arab promises, albeit in a limited manner that would still enable them to effectively control the region.
How would this look in practice? What would the implementation of this plan look like? To what extent would a pan-Arab state be formed; would it be a new caliphate under the Hashemites, or more of a loose federation of separate kingdoms (like the short-lived Hashemite Arab Federation of OTL)? Would the Entente powers go ahead and annex extra territories in spite of the agreement (as France did in Syria OTL) or, on the other hand, decide not to do so (as the British did in Iraq OTL)?
Two extra things:
- Assuming a total Entente victory (including Russia) what will Anatolia look like? Russia was promised Constantinople and the Straits zone (see Constantinople Agreement), and they were also promised the vilayets of Erzurum, Bitlis, Van, and Trebizond (up to an undetermined point west of the city of Trebizond). Italy was given vague promises about a colony of "Lycia" around Adalia; this was extended to all of southeastern Turkey in 1917, but that was after Russia dropped out, so IDK what this would look like. Finally, France was going to receive territories in Cilician Armenia and parts of Kurdistan for their "Greater Syria" colony; I have not found an actual description of the territories in question, but based on maps of Sykes-Picot it appears they would have receivee the vilayets of Adana, Diyarbakir, and Mamuret-al-Aziz, along with the individual sanjaks of Sivas and Marash. Of course, all of this looks good on paper, but it could easily become complicated post-war. What would Italian Lycia look like, and would it be sustainable in the long term? Would Greece be given any territory, ie. in Smyrna, if they joined at the last minute? And would we see a nationalist uprising like after OTL's (much less harsh) Treaty of Sevres? If so, would it succeed or would the presence of Russian forces in Anatolia be enough to crush it and uphold the new treaty? Is any of this sustainable in the long-term? I know the Russians and French had plans to resettle Armenians in their new territories, but a Turkey so thoroughly emasculated would be a powder-keg in the making, would it not? Any clarification on proposed/probable Russian and French borders in Armenia is also appreciated.
- The original Sykes-Picot called for an internationalized Palestine, or at least for an international agreement on what to do with it, how to settle interests, etc. What might this look like in practice? Would it be a long-term international occupation zone, or would it be given to Britain or the Hashemites in the end?
How would this look in practice? What would the implementation of this plan look like? To what extent would a pan-Arab state be formed; would it be a new caliphate under the Hashemites, or more of a loose federation of separate kingdoms (like the short-lived Hashemite Arab Federation of OTL)? Would the Entente powers go ahead and annex extra territories in spite of the agreement (as France did in Syria OTL) or, on the other hand, decide not to do so (as the British did in Iraq OTL)?
Two extra things:
- Assuming a total Entente victory (including Russia) what will Anatolia look like? Russia was promised Constantinople and the Straits zone (see Constantinople Agreement), and they were also promised the vilayets of Erzurum, Bitlis, Van, and Trebizond (up to an undetermined point west of the city of Trebizond). Italy was given vague promises about a colony of "Lycia" around Adalia; this was extended to all of southeastern Turkey in 1917, but that was after Russia dropped out, so IDK what this would look like. Finally, France was going to receive territories in Cilician Armenia and parts of Kurdistan for their "Greater Syria" colony; I have not found an actual description of the territories in question, but based on maps of Sykes-Picot it appears they would have receivee the vilayets of Adana, Diyarbakir, and Mamuret-al-Aziz, along with the individual sanjaks of Sivas and Marash. Of course, all of this looks good on paper, but it could easily become complicated post-war. What would Italian Lycia look like, and would it be sustainable in the long term? Would Greece be given any territory, ie. in Smyrna, if they joined at the last minute? And would we see a nationalist uprising like after OTL's (much less harsh) Treaty of Sevres? If so, would it succeed or would the presence of Russian forces in Anatolia be enough to crush it and uphold the new treaty? Is any of this sustainable in the long-term? I know the Russians and French had plans to resettle Armenians in their new territories, but a Turkey so thoroughly emasculated would be a powder-keg in the making, would it not? Any clarification on proposed/probable Russian and French borders in Armenia is also appreciated.
- The original Sykes-Picot called for an internationalized Palestine, or at least for an international agreement on what to do with it, how to settle interests, etc. What might this look like in practice? Would it be a long-term international occupation zone, or would it be given to Britain or the Hashemites in the end?