WI Arab Independence After WWI

I'm bumping this forward from Post 12 because I think it shows how independent Hashemite Arabia would be IMHO.
They won't withdraw completely. They will want commercial concessions including the oil and railways, air bases for the Imperial Air Route to India and the Far East, RAF bases such as were retained in Iraq and Jordan well into the 1950s IOTL, the right of British forces to cross Arabian territory and last but not least the Arab Army trained by the British Army.
On the subject of the railways I hope that it meant that they were developed to a much greater extent. What immediately spring to mind are:
  1. That the line along the Levant coast is completed in the 1930s instead of the 1940s. With no Arab-Israeli conflict this line should have been in continuous use for the last 80 years or more.
  2. The Berlin-Baghdad Railway was completed sooner. Plus it is extended into Kuwait, which AFAIK hasn't been done.
  3. The proposed Baghdad-Haifa Railway was built at the same time as the pipeline.
 
Last edited:
Well, that runs counter to the OP doesn't it? If it's a British Protectorate, then it isn't independent as the OP suggested.
Which is why I think a form of anti-British Arab Nationalism similar to the form that existed in OTL Iraq would develop. There could have been an equivalent to what happened in Iraq in 1941 IOTL and the 1950s overthrow of the monarchy.
 

Deleted member 94680

Which is why I think a form of anti-British Arab Nationalism similar to the form that existed in OTL Iraq would develop. There could have been an equivalent to what happened in Iraq in 1941 IOTL and the 1950s overthrow of the monarchy.

But the OP was that the WAllies honour their original promise to the Sharif and set up Arabia as an independent nation. Fair enough if you think it wouldn't happen (I don't really think it would either, minus some other POD to explain the lack of Sykes-Picot) but to push on with a different scenario is outside the bounds of this discussion unless the OP wants to change it.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
I think that if Turkish Arabia was turned into a single state at the end of World War One the British (and the French for that matter) would want so many concessions that it would be an British protectorate (or an Anglo-French condominium) in all but name.

Concessions on Oil exploration and extractions, military and naval bases, and British control of railroad ?

It might still benefit Arabs/Hashemite to agree to any British Request to get this super-large Arabia state. its not like Arabia can govern tribes and regional leader without British support anyway.
 
Concessions on Oil exploration and extractions, military and naval bases, and British control of railroad?

It might still benefit Arabs/Hashemite to agree to any British Request to get this super-large Arabia state. It's not like Arabia can govern tribes and regional leader without British support anyway.
If it's British control they would be railways not railroads. However, I suspect that many Arabs would think they have swapped Turkish overlords for British ones in all but name.

Though it is an excuse to post this...
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...D7DE97D1B397B7086C70D7DE9&fsscr=0&FORM=VDQVAP
 
But the OP was that the WAllies honour their original promise to the Sharif and set up Arabia as an independent nation. Fair enough if you think it wouldn't happen (I don't really think it would either, minus some other POD to explain the lack of Sykes-Picot) but to push on with a different scenario is outside the bounds of this discussion unless the OP wants to change it.
Points taken.

On the subject of Sykes-Picot perhaps the British and French do some horse trading. That is the French get all of the Cameroons and Togo in exchange for the British having Lebanon and Syria. I admit that it won't look like a fair exchange to the French though.
 

Deleted member 94680

Points taken.

On the subject of Sykes-Picot perhaps the British and French do some horse trading. That is the French get all of the Cameroons and Togo in exchange for the British having Lebanon and Syria. I admit that it won't look like a fair exchange to the French though.

Horse trading by all means but I can't see the French giving up Lebanon - their main justification for getting involved in the ME was gaining control over the Christian Levant.
 
Horse trading by all means but I can't see the French giving up Lebanon - their main justification for getting involved in the ME was gaining control over the Christian Levant.
TBH neither can I.

The only thing I can think of that might keep them out is that AFAIK it was British Empire and Arab forces that actually fought the war in the Levant and Mesopotamia. Therefore the British might go back on their word by saying that as the French played no part in the campaign they were not going to surrender any of the conquered territory to France.

Though I really want France to take all of the Cameroons and the British all of Togo. That's so that modern Ghana would be formed from the Gold Coast and Togo.
 

Deleted member 94680

Maybe a limited, "coastal strip" French Protectorate to cover the Lebanese Christian areas, leaving the main of Syria to the Hashemites and concessions in another area? Perhaps British backing of the French claim to Cilicia, for example. Otherwise, maybe allowing the French to gain more in Northern Africa - all of the Cameroon for instance?
 
Maybe a limited, "coastal strip" French Protectorate to cover the Lebanese Christian areas, leaving the main of Syria to the Hashemites and concessions in another area? Perhaps British backing of the French claim to Cilicia, for example. Otherwise, maybe allowing the French to gain more in Northern Africa - all of the Cameroon for instance?
Such as...
On the subject of Sykes-Picot perhaps the British and French do some horse trading. That is the French get all of the Cameroons and Togo in exchange for the British having Lebanon and Syria. I admit that it won't look like a fair exchange to the French though.
Togo was divided between the British and French too so that could be thrown into the deal as well ITTL.
 

Deleted member 94680

Such as...Togo was divided between the British and French too so that could be thrown into the deal as well ITTL.

Sorry man, I was wolfing lunch down at work and didn't read your post properly (obviously!). Yeah, I think in the post-WWI scenario, outside of the Middle East, the ex-German Colonies are the only real chips the British can bargain with, realistically. Anything else that the French might want, you're not really going to see the British readily give up. OTL, the Cilicia thing was a pipe dream once Ataturk got his act together - it would require a level of military commitment the French aren't able to provide. If the British negotiate an "alt-Sykes Picot" that promises the bulk of the German African Empire to the French in exchange for the French relenting on their Syria plans, there might be a chance of gaining an agreement. Meanwhile, the British would be cutting deals for oil and railway concessions with the Hashemites, obviously.
 
Top