In the aftermath of WW1, Syria had a very strong independence movement, and for about 4 months, it was even its own country (Faisal's
Arab Kingdom of Syria). Of course, in OTL, the French crushed the Arab Kingdom and set up the mandate of Syria in its place.
My question is this: What happens if the French instead recognize Syria as an independent country in 1920? Possibly they either do this through holding a plebiscite in the area (as the Americans wanted them to) or war exhaustion simply convinces the government in France that Syria is not worth fighting for, and recognize the Arab Kingdom as being the legal government of the region.
My own thoughts:
*Faisal was seen by the French as being a British puppet, but while Britain does seem to have given him some support, this seems to have been more a ploy to scare the French into giving up their claim on the oil of Mosul than any desire to back the Arab Kingdom. I suspect that the British would soon fall out with Faisal. Particularly since the Arab Kingdom claimed present day Jordan and Palestine.
*This throws a big spanner in the works of the Middle Eastern mandate system. Instead of the former Ottoman territories being shared between Britain and France, only Britain ends up with any Ottoman territory. OTL the British were able to use the French as a scapegoat to some small degree with their new Arab subjects, with no French mandate, this will not be possible. Also, the idea that the mandates are destined for real independence (as opposed to being destined to be "independent" protectorates or "allies") will get a big boost from the French action (particularly if they hold a plebiscite in Syria).
*This may also weaken the basis of the African and Pacific mandates. I am somewhat doubtful though - the world was still an awfully racist place.
*It would improve Franco-American relations and weaken Franco-British relations. At least in the short term - in the medium term, relations between France and both English-speaking powers may converge towards their OTL levels, as America sinks into isolationism and Britain finds her interests converging with French interests. However, if it lead to a lasting shift in relations with either or both countries, the 1920s could be very different.
*The Arab Kingdom of Syria would also have territorial disputes with the Republic of Turkey. I wonder if this might lead to a Syrian intervention in the Turkish War of Independence? The British were looking for allies to support their intervention in the war. Perhaps the British offer the Syrians weapons and support for their claims against the Turks in exchange for the Syrians recognizing the Jordanian and Palestinian mandates?
*Would Syria fall into civil war in the 1920s? Faisal doesn't seem to have been a popular figure in Syria, and there does seem to be genuine desire for an Arab republic in 1920 and 1921. I can also see the French supporting a republican movement due to their antipathy towards Faisal. And what role would the Alawites, Lebanese Christians and Druze play? I could see the Alawites and Lebanese trying to make a push for independence or voting to be part of a smaller French mandate. I could see the Druze ending up as the leading group in whatever Syrian state emerges from the chaos as well.
*Might the Republic of Turkey manage to reconquer Syria? Personally I don't think it too likely.
*The French poured a goodly amount of blood and treasure into Syria between the wars. What might the French do with those resources instead?
*What happens to the French investments in Syria? (Apparently they were considerable - the reason the French wanted the Syrian mandate in the first place. I've never been able to find any references to what exactly those were though.) Can the French protect the property of their businessmen without military boots on the ground?
What do other people think?
fasquardon