WI British Arabia
- Thread starter kernals12
- Start date
kernals12
Banned
We're talking about the Late 19th century. Hardly anyone lived there at the time, oil wasn't discovered until 1938, and colonialism was a big thing then so I don't know why nations would've united against them.
There would probably be a lot more Indians (including Bengalis/Pakistanis) in Arabia than today since the British would need labour to get the oil out of the ground. That said, how do they know there's oil there to begin with? Outside of a few ports like Aden, Muscat, etc., (which the British already owned) there isn't much worth colonising unless you happen to know the region is oil rich. And the British already had protectorates on the places you could infer to have oil (based on being across the Persian Gulf from oil rich parts of Persia) like the Trucial States.
There just isn't much point colonising most of Arabia.
It would've been pretty ineffective going by what happened in World War I when the Caliph declared a jihad on the British.
There just isn't much point colonising most of Arabia.
It would've been pretty ineffective going by what happened in World War I when the Caliph declared a jihad on the British.
kernals12
Banned
They discovered oil in Iran in 1908, maybe they would've wanted to protect the Strait of Hormuz, similarly, they would want to protect the Suez canal by taking both sides of the Red Sea.
Expect a lot of rebellion from Arabs. After all, even IOTL, the First Saudi State really hated everyone who disagreed then, seeing them as un-Islamic, raiding and destroying many shrines. The British would actually be un-Islamic and that would cause an even bigger reaction from the Arabs.
Which Muslim countries?Most of the Muslim world are already under the control of the European powers or are a part of the half dead Ottoman Empire.
Last edited:
I don't think Britain would be 'reluctant' to 'give up' British Arabia. Any more than they were reluctant to give up India. After WWII Britain had to decolonize, it was only a question of how fast, and what level of support they'd give the new nations. Even if Britain had somehow colonized Arabia with South Africa amounts of white people, they'd still have to grant independence.
On the other hand I don't think the level of Arab opposition to colonization would be that bad.
On the other hand I don't think the level of Arab opposition to colonization would be that bad.
kernals12
Banned
A big reason for Britain's decolonization was that the costs of the empire were becoming harder to justify. This colony would be a giant cash cow. For reference, it took the United States until 1977 to agree to give over control of the very profitable Panama Canal on December 31, 1999.
The United States also won WWII without breaking the bank.
Wasn't India Britain's 'cashcow', and yet it was like the first place to become independent? I guess Britain might go about Arabia independence slower, but I don't see them fighting a war over it- they weren't willing to continue a war over the Suez Canal, and that's a extremely valuable asset.
Alright- this is the worst-case 'brutal civil war' scenario I think is likely:
In 1882 Arabia is somehow included in the Anglo-Egyptian War, and also becomes a veiled protectorate. For some reason Britain sends Settler's there? I dunno why.... Penal transportation of convicts to replace Australia? Whatever the reason, they discover the oil quickly, and the white settlements grow and make up some sizable majority. Arabia starts to resemble Rhodesia a bit.
WWI and II still happen- Britain starts granting independence to its colonies. Because of Arabia's wealthy, and white settler reluctance, Britain takes it time with independence. The Arab's become restless and start some revolt, Britain sends aid. It could then go one of two ways (a) Britian puts down the revolt quickly enough, grants a quick independence and bows out, or (b) can't quickly put down the revolt, grants a quick independence and bows out.
If the Arab revolt is Soviet backed, maybe America gets dragged into this?
On second thought this is actually a fairly brutal civil war scenario... I just think its very unlikely, and Britain still isn't bogged down by it, or trying to force anyone to stay 'as happened IOTL to the French in Algeria and Indochina.'WWI and II still happen- Britain starts granting independence to its colonies. Because of Arabia's wealthy, and white settler reluctance, Britain takes it time with independence. The Arab's become restless and start some revolt, Britain sends aid. It could then go one of two ways (a) Britian puts down the revolt quickly enough, grants a quick independence and bows out, or (b) can't quickly put down the revolt, grants a quick independence and bows out.
If the Arab revolt is Soviet backed, maybe America gets dragged into this?
Arabia has a much smaller populatioon than India,not to mention,a large part of Britain’s forces in India were either Indian or Pakistani.