Let’s say the battle of Maysalun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maysalun turn on a total disaster for the French with most of the army killed or captured something like the battle of Annual the Pod isn’t really important but would be something like Faisal more determined to fight and achieve more mobilization and Yusuf al Azma being an excellent commander and the French making some mistake . How would this victory impact the colonization of Syria ? Could a disaster impact the French opinion enough to make them abandon the colonization of Syria and content of Lebanon ? Could Faisal pull a Mustafa Kemal in the sense he succefully defend Syria from the colonial power ? I expect that after this victory there would be a lot of volunteer tribal leader and regional one to rally to him . What would be the effect on both France and Syria ? And the effect of a independent Syria on British colonialism in Irak , Egypt and particularly Jordan Palestine ?
 
Let’s say the battle of Maysalun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maysalun turn on a total disaster for the French with most of the army killed or captured something like the battle of Annual the Pod isn’t really important but would be something like Faisal more determined to fight and achieve more mobilization and Yusuf al Azma being an excellent commander and the French making some mistake . How would this victory impact the colonization of Syria ? Could a disaster impact the French opinion enough to make them abandon the colonization of Syria and content of Lebanon ? Could Faisal pull a Mustafa Kemal in the sense he succefully defend Syria from the colonial power ? I expect that after this victory there would be a lot of volunteer tribal leader and regional one to rally to him . What would be the effect on both France and Syria ? And the effect of a independent Syria on British colonialism in Irak , Egypt and particularly Jordan Palestine ?
Unfortunately for Syria, the disparity of forces as Maysalun was pretty drastic. The French were fielding veteran Algerian and Senegalese troops, well equipped and backed up by artillery, tanks and fighter-bomber aircraft. The Syrians has about half their numbers and were equipped with multiple calibers of rifles (supposedly some they didn’t have The right ammunition for) and limited ammunition. The situation with their machine guns and artillery was apparently equally dire. It might have helped if Faisal had to planned on fighting from the start rather than when the French demanded more, but even then I doubt they could win it.

More importantly to the OP I don’t think the French would stop even if they lost one battle. They had insisted on Syria being in the French sphere throughout various attempts by Britain to clarify or modify the agreement on the Middle east. They had been willing to come to agreement with Britain about the region on the condition of a free hand in Syria. In other words, they wanted it, and I don’t think the Arabs would be able to stop them from getting it. Their best bet would be France and Britain not coming to agreement and British trips remaining in place. Or maybe the US being willing to throw its weight around. Both would require a lack of a San Remo conference and its agreements.

If they somehow do manage to remain independent, it actually might be good for the British. In Iraq, the Shia majority may see the British as at least acceptable shields against the Sunni Syrian Arabs. Which might give them more local support. Alternatively, Iraq could just want both of them out. There is more than one way that could go.

I could actually see the British eventually transferring modern day Jordan to Faisal eventually. Though the French relationship was ultimately worth more the British did see Faisal as a good working partner. And they didn’t really want to be holding Iraq and Palestine, they just wanted some of the economic benefits of it and to keep the other great powers from having it. So if they could be assured of their economic interests in the region, they likely would prefer to not have to pay to administer it. The region covered by modern Israel would likely still be divided off, and thry may want a formal acceptance of the Balfour declaration as the price of transferring “Jordan” to Syria. This would definitely be a sticking point but it might be possible
 
Unfortunately for Syria, the disparity of forces as Maysalun was pretty drastic. The French were fielding veteran Algerian and Senegalese troops, well equipped and backed up by artillery, tanks and fighter-bomber aircraft. The Syrians has about half their numbers and were equipped with multiple calibers of rifles (supposedly some they didn’t have The right ammunition for) and limited ammunition. The situation with their machine guns and artillery was apparently equally dire. It might have helped if Faisal had to planned on fighting from the start rather than when the French demanded more, but even then I doubt they could win it.
Yes a Syrian victory here would be very difficult to achieve . But that wouldn’t be the first time that veteran and better equipped colonial troop got defeated by their opposent . Would 1920 aircraft and tank be useful to fight a small battle like that ? I was more thinking that they were more adapted for big prolonged operation . Honestly Faisal planning to fight from the start would have definititely helped to mobilize a larger army the armament problem and possible renforcement with Abdullah and Sultan Al Atrash. Not sure if that still worked in that period but do successful night raid and Harassment tactic help ? Poisoning the water source in their path considering Gouraud comment on Saladin it will be ironic if the same tactic that helped Saladin beat the crusader cause his final demise but I guess for a Syrian victory there should be extreme confusion and panic say Gouraud and Goybet die after a difficult and hard fought advance where the Syrian used scorched earth tactic harassment night raid etc the leaderless French army break in a catastrophic retreat where more die and are captured than in the battle itself is there any problem with that scenario ?
More importantly to the OP I don’t think the French would stop even if they lost one battle. They had insisted on Syria being in the French sphere throughout various attempts by Britain to clarify or modify the agreement on the Middle east. They had been willing to come to agreement with Britain about the region on the condition of a free hand in Syria. In other words, they wanted it, and I don’t think the Arabs would be able to stop them from getting it. Their best bet would be France and Britain not coming to agreement and British trips remaining in place. Or maybe the US being willing to throw its weight around. Both would require a lack of a San Remo conference and its agreements.
Honestly I have been possibly a bit optimistic here
But I hoped that a victory here would allow to do something akin to Mustafa Kemal consolidating his hold on the country creating alliance with tribal and local leader thank to his succes , prestige and more determined attitude to create a unified Syrian army between say 30 000 - 50 000 troop that would help the Hananu and alawite revolt it will put a level of resistance that the French could still defeat but ask more effort than they are willing to do in the immediate aftermath of WW1 after say some more month of skirmishes the French abandon the idea of directly controlling and conquering Syria because of internal pressure (especially with the shock of the defeat) the Syrian are obligated to do some economical and diplomatic concession (be in the French sphere of influence) but remain independant and become a member of the League of Nation assurely that would be the best case scenario possible for Syria but even less successful one are interesting on the possible effect of a victory would have in Syria and the Middle East

If they somehow do manage to remain independent, it actually might be good for the
British. In Iraq, the Shia majority may see the British as at least acceptable shields against the Sunni Syrian Arabs. Which might give them more local support. Alternatively, Iraq could just want both of them out. There is more than one way that could go.
Would the Iraqi Shia really be afraid of Syrian Sunni takeover ? Honestly I would see a colonial defeat at Maysalun and Syria managing to retain independence emboldening them and serving as an example . Possibly making making the British giving them more autonomy and independence earlier . But now i’m asking myself who the British would use as puppet king of Iraq would Abdullah accept the proposition of king here (would they even propose it to him if he help Faisal fight the French in Syria ) ? Another Hashemite brother ? What would happen in Jordan ? And the effect of an independent Syria in the partition plan
I could actually see the British eventually transferring modern day Jordan to Faisal eventually. Though the French relationship was ultimately worth more the British did see Faisal as a good working partner. And they didn’t really want to be holding Iraq and Palestine, they just wanted some of the economic benefits of it and to keep the other great powers from having it. So if they could be assured of their economic interests in the region, they likely would prefer to not have to pay to administer it. The region covered by modern Israel would likely still be divided off, and thry may want a formal acceptance of the Balfour declaration as the price of transferring “Jordan” to Syria. This would definitely be a sticking point but it might be possible
I agree I could that happening anyway thank for your long and detailed post
 
Last edited:
Yes a Syrian victory here would be very difficult to achieve . But that wouldn’t be the first time that veteran and better equipped colonial troop got defeated by their opposent .
True, but it usually requires an equalizer or two. Extremely good positioning by the disadvantaged force, terrain being in their favour, extreme overconfidence or incompetence on the part of the larger force. To the best of my knowledge none of that was present here, or any real basis for it, for that matter.

Would 1920 aircraft and tank be useful to fight a small battle like that ? I was more thinking that they were more adapted for big prolonged operation .
Definitely. For Scouting and disruption if nothing else. In OTL they were possibly the decisive advantages. I would recommend a look at this (https://books.google.ca/books?id=vU...CAkQAg#v=onepage&q=maysalun topography&f=true). I just found it but it is a pretty detailed but concise summary of the battle (including the use of aircraft and tanks) as well as the state of the Syrian Army.

Honestly Faisal planning to fight from the start would have definititely helped to mobilize a larger army the armament problem and possible renforcement with Abdullah and Sultan Al Atrash
A larger army, definitely but I don't know if it would be better equipped. As per the source I listed above, the Royal Syrian Army had all of 9000 troops and 700 officers at the end of WW1. By 1920 they had managed to add another 8000 troops and 2 classes of officer recruits. Assuming no losses that would imply a total fighting force of 17,000 men. That is about the size of two French Divisions. Of that, about 5000 were in Damascus, with 3000 in both Der'aa and Aleppo. In 1918 they only had about "15,600 rifles and pistols of various calibers and models" by 1920 they had managed to get a hold of 3000 more (no word on the split between rifles and pistols). They had all of 200 machine guns with 10,000 rounds and 54 cannons with 50 rounds a piece.

All told more troops may be helpful but they are still likely to suffer from supply issues.

Poisoning the water source in their path considering Gouraud comment on Saladin it will be ironic if the same tactic that helped Saladin beat the crusader cause his final demise
AIUI the French Troops were moving from one water source that they already held to another and the Syrians were blocking them from it. So to a certain degree Saladin's strategy was used. But in this instance the "crusaders" had more men, more mobility and better information, rather than the other way around. For poisoning the water to work, the Syrians would have to withdraw further into Syria while poisoning the wells near Khan Maysalun. This could cause the French grief if they cannot easily make it to another water source in time, but there I don't know if it would stop them.

but I guess for a Syrian victory there should be extreme confusion and panic say Gouraud and Goybet die after a difficult and hard fought advance where the Syrian used scorched earth tactic harassment night raid etc the leaderless French army break in a catastrophic retreat where more die and are captured than in the battle itself is there any problem with that scenario ?
It possible. You are basically describing a guerilla campaign prior to a set piece battle. The main problem was that the Syrians were on the strategic defensive. They would have had to gather their men from about 18 July at the earliest and get them organized and in place to preform this guerilla campaign and the main battle before the French, who are better prepared, get there. And you have to get lucky with killing Goybet (Gouraud wasn't at the battle, he was still in Lebanon. However, loss of commander was not unheard of in WW1, and all the Allies, including the French, learned how to have a pretty stable chain of command to take over in the event a senior commander is put out of action. I am not sure if Goybet's death would stop them.

Basically it would take a very well planned and executed campaign, and a lot of luck.

Honestly I have been possibly a bit optimistic here
But I hoped that a victory here would allow to do something akin to Mustafa Kemal consolidating his hold on the country creating alliance with tribal and local leader thank to his succes , prestige and more determined attitude to create a unified Syrian army between say 30 000 - 50 000 troop that would help the Hananu and alawite revolt it will put a level of resistance that the French could still defeat but ask more effort than they are willing to do in the immediate aftermath of WW1 after say some more month of skirmishes the French abandon the idea of directly controlling and conquering Syria because of internal pressure (especially with the shock of the defeat) the Syrian are obligated to do some economical and diplomatic concession (be in the French sphere of influence) but remain independant and become a member of the League of Nation assurely that would be the best case scenario possible for Syria but even less successful one are interesting on the possible effect of a victory would have in Syria and the Middle East
To the best of my knowledge it is not impossible. But I don't know enough about the players in the French camp to say with any authority. I am not even sure when or why it was that they decided to rule the Mandate directly rather than by proxy. So I can't say what it would take to reverse that decision. I do know that Syria was important to France. Even besides its possible resources(including, it was thought, oil) and the geopolitical concerns of having territory in the Middle East, holding territory that Oil from Mosul would have to flow through was a part of the French bargaining position in getting a portion of that oil. The 1917 oil crisis had shown all the European Allies how vulnerable they were if they could not get the oil they needed to fuel their armies. And they did not want to be left out. In theory then, if Faisal was to give them what they needed to get a portion of the Mosul oil, and secure their economic interests, they may be amenable to ruling through him?

Would the Iraqi Shia really be afraid of Syrian Sunni takeover ? Honestly I would see a colonial defeat at Maysalun and Syria managing to retain independence emboldening them and serving as an example . Possibly making making the British giving them more autonomy and independence earlier . But now i’m asking myself who the British would use as puppet king of Iraq would Abdullah accept the proposition of king here (would they even propose it to him if he help Faisal fight the French in Syria ) ? Another Hashemite brother ? What would happen in Jordan ? And the effect of an independent Syria in the partition plan
Well, Syria was basically founded on Pan-Arabism and called itself the "Kingdom of the Arabs". Iraq was considered a part of that greater Arab area at the time. Whether the Iraqi's would see Britain as a protector against Sunni domination or be encouraged to rebel against them I am not qualified to say. However, they were already rebelling in 1920, and the majority of British troops had left by 1922, so I am not sure how much would change there. The British were fairly concerned about the cost of administering the area. There were a lot of suggestions thrown around for the British to leave it at various points as it was not paying for itself at the time. They eventually economized by reducing their troops in the area to basically just the RAF and defending the region with that. If things get too hot (and therefore expensive) there, it is possible that they decide to withdraw.

Abdullah was seriously considered in OTL, along with Faisal. However, part of the reasoning against Faisal at the time was that it might antagonize the French. If Abdullah has actively fought against the French he might be considered too provocative a choice. It would depend on the French position. If not him, maybe Zeid? IIRC he was the Regent of Iraq during the war and the British seemed to think well of him.

I am not qualified to speak for Jordan but my guess is one of the brothers who is not ruling Iraq would be Emir there. I also can't say for sure how this would affect the partition, but if the players within Palestine are the same I have doubts if the end result will be much different. A united Syria might change things when fighting breaks out, but that is not guaranteed, as even in OTL the Arab nations looked like the obvious winner in that fight.
 
True, but it usually requires an equalizer or two. Extremely good positioning by the disadvantaged force, terrain being in their favour, extreme overconfidence or incompetence on the part of the larger force. To the best of my knowledge none of that was present here, or any real basis for it, for that matter.
Yes seem that for a Syrian victory here we will need a PoD to create someerror/ problem/ division inside the French army with someone less competent than Goybet as their leader . Or just make the French send less troop in the first place and them being badly lead.
Definitely. For Scouting and disruption if nothing else. In OTL they were possibly the decisive advantages. I would recommend a look at this (https://books.google.ca/books?id=vU...CAkQAg#v=onepage&q=maysalun topography&f=true). I just found it but it is a pretty detailed but concise summary of the battle (including the use of aircraft and tanks) as well as the state of the Syrian Army.
Thank for the link interesting read help to see thing in their context it seem I gravely underestimated French preparation and the utility of aircraft and tank of the era .The more I read the more I understand the how a syrian victory here would be miraculous and unlikely
A larger army, definitely but I don't know if it would be better equipped. As per the source I listed above, the Royal Syrian Army had all of 9000 troops and 700 officers at the end of WW1. By 1920 they had managed to add another 8000 troops and 2 classes of officer recruits. Assuming no losses that would imply a total fighting force of 17,000 men. That is about the size of two French Divisions. Of that, about 5000 were in Damascus, with 3000 in both Der'aa and Aleppo. In 1918 they only had about "15,600 rifles and pistols of various calibers and models" by 1920 they had managed to get a hold of 3000 more (no word on the split between rifles and pistols). They had all of 200 machine guns with 10,000 rounds and 54 cannons with 50 rounds a piece.
So in best case scenario the Syrian army could number around 17 000 ? I’m assuming the 6 000 man lacking are either demobilized with his brother Abdullah or other leader like Sultan al Atrash who supposed to have contribuer of 1300 man during the revolt and was gathering his troop too help fight the French but didn’t manage to do anything because of the quinck defeat here a Faisal determined to fight from the start would probably gather his troop and warn his Allie to prepare their force and join him to fight the French . Not sure if they can gather all the 17 000 for the ATL battle honestly but even if it’s only around this number it will drastically improve their chances of winning

All told more troops may be helpful but they are still likely to suffer from supply issues.


AIUI the French Troops were moving from one water source that they already held to another and the Syrians were blocking them from it. So to a certain degree Saladin's strategy was used. But in this instance the "crusaders" had more men, more mobility and better information, rather than the other way around. For poisoning the water to work, the Syrians would have to withdraw further into Syria while poisoning the wells near Khan Maysalun. This could cause the French grief if they cannot easily make it to another water source in time, but there I don't know if it would stop them.
I see thank for the information how about the water source they held being already poisoned ? Honestly I wasn’t expecting that to stop them I was just hopping that would exhaust them enough with the guerilla tactic and night raid to cause a breakdown collapse of the army with more than half of them being massacred in something similar to the battle of Annual one year latter but the two situation are obviously different with the French army being infinitely better than the Spanish one i guess i’m going to go for a more moderate defeat .
It possible. You are basically describing a guerilla campaign prior to a set piece battle. The main problem was that the Syrians were on the strategic defensive. They would have had to gather their men from about 18 July at the earliest and get them organized and in place to preform this guerilla campaign and the main battle before the French, who are better prepared, get there. And you have to get lucky with killing Goybet (Gouraud wasn't at the battle, he was still in Lebanon. However, loss of commander was not unheard of in WW1, and all the Allies, including the French, learned how to have a pretty stable chain of command to take over in the event a senior commander is put out of action. I am not sure if Goybet's death would stop them.

Basically it would take a very well planned and executed campaign, and a lot of luck.
In that scenario they would probably start gather the 14 July with the French ultimatum but yeah completely they will need both good planning and execution capability and a unnatural amount of luck .
To the best of my knowledge it is not impossible. But I don't know enough about the players in the French camp to say with any authority. I am not even sure when or why it was that they decided to rule the Mandate directly rather than by proxy. So I can't say what it would take to reverse that decision. I do know that Syria was important to France. Even besides its possible resources(including, it was thought, oil) and the geopolitical concerns of having territory in the Middle East, holding territory that Oil from Mosul would have to flow through was a part of the French bargaining position in getting a portion of that oil. The 1917 oil crisis had shown all the European Allies how vulnerable they were if they could not get the oil they needed to fuel their armies. And they did not want to be left out. In theory then, if Faisal was to give them what they needed to get a portion of the Mosul oil, and secure their economic interests, they may be amenable to ruling through him?
Possibly like the British if they are faced with strong resistance and realized the problem of ruling directly they will prefer rule by proxy too ?
Well, Syria was basically founded on Pan-Arabism and called itself the "Kingdom of the Arabs". Iraq was considered a part of that greater Arab area at the time. Whether the Iraqi's would see Britain as a protector against Sunni domination or be encouraged to rebel against them I am not qualified to say. However, they were already rebelling in 1920, and the majority of British troops had left by 1922, so I am not sure how much would change there. The British were fairly concerned about the cost of administering the area. There were a lot of suggestions thrown around for the British to leave it at various points as it was not paying for itself at the time. They eventually economized by reducing their troops in the area to basically just the RAF and defending the region with that. If things get too hot (and therefore expensive) there, it is possible that they decide to withdraw.
From what I understand the Arab kingdom of Syria if Panarabist never claimed territory in Irak and looked exclusively at the Levant even if I wouldn’t be surprised to see some wanting a big Arab confederation .
Abdullah was seriously considered in OTL, along with Faisal. However, part of the reasoning against Faisal at the time was that it might antagonize the French. If Abdullah has actively fought against the French he might be considered too provocative a choice. It would depend on the French position. If not him, maybe Zeid? IIRC he was the Regent of Iraq during the war and the British seemed to think well of him.

I am not qualified to speak for Jordan but my guess is one of the brothers who is not ruling Iraq would be Emir there. I also can't say for sure how this would affect the partition, but if the players within Palestine are the same I have doubts if the end result will be much different. A united Syria might change things when fighting breaks out, but that is not guaranteed, as even in OTL the Arab nations looked like the obvious winner in that fight.
I agree with your guess on the Hashemite on the different throne but I disagree that the Arab nation looked like the obvious winner most of the people with knowledge of the situation there expected an Israeli victory and Hashemite Syria lead by Faisal I completely change the situation Syria army OTL was the worst one of the Arab coalition because of French rule , fear of Military coup , Quwatli being a dumbass . Faisal as king of Syrian will probably take care of building a « great army » like he did OTL in Irak and probably won’t be afraid of military take over and there won’t be that weird distrust between Syria and Jordan if they are not united but under two Hashemite king
 
how about the water source they held being already poisoned ?
I could be wrong but I think their original position was still within what was the French occupation zone at the time.


From what I understand the Arab kingdom of Syria if Panarabist never claimed territory in Irak and looked exclusively at the Levant even if I wouldn’t be surprised to see some wanting a big Arab confederation .
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Book_of_the_Independence_of_Syria_(ذكرى_استقلال_سوريا).jpg
Territory claimed by the Arab kingdom of Syria Iraq wasn’t included and its border go less est than the modern one .
I think it was definitely a secondary concern to Syria/Jordan/Hejaz. But in the original McMahon-Hussein correspondence the sharif basically assumed that Iraq/Mesopotamia would be included in an Arab state. And the source you sites mentioned a desire to combine Greater Syria and Iraq several times. Granted this was when both had Hashemite rulers. But it seems like it was on the radar for a combined Arab state, but probably fell behind Syria and Jordan in importance.

I disagree that the Arab nation looked like the obvious winner most of the people with knowledge of the situation there expected an Israeli victory and Hashemite Syria lead by Faisal I completely change the situation Syria army OTL was the worst one of the Arab coalition because of French rule , fear of Military coup , Quwatli being a dumbass . Faisal as king of Syrian will probably take care of building a « great army » like he did OTL in Irak and probably won’t be afraid of military take over and there won’t be that weird distrust between Syria and Jordan if they are not united but under two Hashemite king
http://joshualandis.oucreate.com/Syria_1948.htm
A Hashemite Syria will definitely change the war of 1948
First of all, thanks for the source! Very interesting. I will bow to your knowledge on that one as my knowledge of the 1948 war is spotty. However, from reading your source, I am not sure there will be a 1948 war ITTL. If Faisal (or Ghazi I suppose) ends up in a similar political position to Abdullah IOTL, he may accept a partition with the Palestinian areas being added to his expanded kingdom. Especially if gaining Jordan required a more formal and clear acceptance of the Balfour declaration.

If Greater Syria is involved in a 1948 war against Jewish fighters though, then yes, that would likely change things.
 
First of all, thanks for the source! Very interesting. I will bow to your knowledge on that one as my knowledge of the 1948 war is spotty. However, from reading your source, I am not sure there will be a 1948 war ITTL. If Faisal (or Ghazi I suppose) ends up in a similar political position to Abdullah IOTL, he may accept a partition with the Palestinian areas being added to his expanded kingdom. Especially if gaining Jordan required a more formal and clear acceptance of the Balfour declaration.

If Greater Syria is involved in a 1948 war against Jewish fighters though, then yes, that would likely change things.
Honestly I could see it going either way but Faisal I or Ghazi I will still face huge pressure to war an independent Israel would be see as a loss of a Islamic , Arab and Syrian/Levantine land for century it also depend on how much the military scenario changed Syrian army in this TL will assuredly be a bigger threat to Israel than OTL being more numerous better trained and equipped , with Irak and Jordan with them as a more unified bloc . Now I could also see them accepting the partition fearing Egypt profiting of a war to take the western part of the Palestinian side or Faisal doing like Abdullah and try to convince Israel leader to just be part of an automous Jew region that probably has better chance than OTL with a more intimidating greater Hashemite Syria and with more Faisal Jew leader contact since he remain based on Syria I doesnt think it will work but I don’t know about Zionism enough to really know . Now that I think about it what will be the effect of a independent Syria during WW2 ? And posssiby we have different israel Palestine partition than OTL .
Also now that I think about it with an Hashemite Syria , Irak and Jordan could the British back down Hussein against the Saudi or that still a no (possible butterfly here is him keeping a little better relation with the British if Syria isn’t directly controlled by the French or foreigners like he said OTL) a surviving kingdom of Hejaz with him and his successor claiming the title of Caliph will be interesting .
 

formion

Banned
I think @ArtosStark has nailed it: I really dont see how a hodge-podge army, most of them without proper training and with few rifles of various calibers can defeat 10 battalions of veteran colonial infantry supported by tanks and aircraft.

The Arabs cannot pull a Kemal. Kemal could depend on a veteran officer corps of very good quality and a state apparatus.
 
Last edited:
I think @ArtosStark has nailed it: I really dont see how a hodge-podge army, most of them without proper training and with few rifles of various calibers can defeat 10 battalions of veteran colonial infantry supported by tanks and aircraft.

The Arabs cannot pull a Kemal. Kemal could depend on a veteran officer corps of very good quality and a state apparatus.
Honestly i could only see it only happening by a succussion of unbelievable luck ( say the aircraft and tank having mechanical problem a little before the battle etc ..) and bad decision from the French and some pretty good commander on the Syrian side . In a ATL were Syrian won the victory would be rightfully considered a miracle . I don’t really like doing that but if for one battle I can do it .
I agree that doing a Kemal wouldn’t seem plausible completely fighting off France here I would rely more on war exhaustion on the french side and the French colonial authority reversing their decision and rule by proxy after seeing how much Faisal is established in Syrian there won’t be multiple year of war like turkey just some month of resistance and no total independence sure that not the much realistic scenario but still a possibility
 
Honestly I could see it going either way but Faisal I or Ghazi I will still face huge pressure to war an independent Israel would be see as a loss of a Islamic , Arab and Syrian/Levantine land for century
That is true, but if neither he nor his government are actively fanning those flames they may not be quite so hot, and the kingdoms government structure would allow him a little more leeway in the way that he responds to those demands.

it also depend on how much the military scenario changed Syrian army in this TL will assuredly be a bigger threat to Israel than OTL being more numerous better trained and equipped , with Irak and Jordan with them as a more unified bloc
Almost certainly they would be more of a threat to Israel, but as IOTL, Israel is not the only threat for Greater Syria. It is likely, ITTL, that Saudi Arabia and Egypt would form a bloc to oppose the Hashemites in the Arab sphere. The Syrians spending their military fighting what would still be a formidable Jewish opponent while also likely annoying Britain would probably be exactly what the Saudi's and Egyptians would want. It is likely, even ITTL, that Britain would be the main external power broker in the region at this time. The chance to gain the Palestinian lands and become official Muslim protector of Jerusalem without having to fight for it would, I think, be a tempting offer. And probably improve Syria's status as the dominant Arab state more than a war for all of Palestine. It could certainly go either way, but I think there are sufficient drivers for negotiation to be an attractive option.

Now I could also see them accepting the partition fearing Egypt profiting of a war to take the western part of the Palestinian side or Faisal doing like Abdullah and try to convince Israel leader to just be part of an automous Jew region that probably has better chance than OTL with a more intimidating greater Hashemite Syria and with more Faisal Jew leader contact since he remain based on Syria I doesnt think it will work but I don’t know about Zionism enough to really know .
AIUI that was Faisal's position in OTL. I think the early Jewish leaders may have accepted the possibility but I am not sure if the post-WW2 leaders would do so. This is not my area of expertise either but post-Holocaust, I believe there was a certain amount of belief that the Jews could not trust a non-Jewish authority to have dominion over them. However I am, as I said, speaking outside my areas of knowledge.

Now that I think about it what will be the effect of a independent Syria during WW2 ?
Well, it would probably be a boon for the Allies. My guess would be that Syria is an Allied friendly neutral. I doubt Syria would go Axis without significant proof that the Allies were losing. And unless they allow Vichy airfields then the Germans support for an Iraqi coup is unlikely. This may butterfly the Iraqi coup entirely. If it does happen, then perhaps Greater Syria does what Jordan did in OTL and send troops along with the British to remove the coup from power. Not then having to invade Syria to remove the Vichy troops would give the British about 34,000 troops in the region that they could use for Operation Battle-axe, going on at the same time. There were only 25,000 men involved in Battle-axe so maybe the extra troops see Tobruk relieved and Archie Wavell remaining in command in North Africa?

Also now that I think about it with an Hashemite Syria , Irak and Jordan could the British back down Hussein against the Saudi or that still a no (possible butterfly here is him keeping a little better relation with the British if Syria isn’t directly controlled by the French or foreigners like he said OTL) a surviving kingdom of Hejaz with him and his successor claiming the title of Caliph will be interesting .
That would be interesting. But I am not sure Hussein would change his mind. If ITTL the French are "ruling by proxy" through Faisal then the Mandate system (which AIUI was what Hussein was against) was still in place. And the Balfour Declaration is still a thing. My guess would be that he would still refuse to sign a treaty with the British which would likely lead to the same result as OTL.
 
Last edited:
That is true, but if neither he nor his government are actively fanning those flames they may not be quite so hot, and the kingdoms government structure would allow him a little more leeway in the way that he responds to those demands.
Honestly he would probably need a face saving action the population press and other government official would all be asking for action especially since the army would seem capable to do it . Not doing it would seem like a betrayal for the population to the Palestinian Pan Arabism upon wich the legitimacy of the kingdom is build and Islam and nearly everyone will be asking for war . The prestige of winning Maysalun and not being seen as quiet colonial proxy would do good to the population . I agree with you that they more leeway for avoiding the war but the king should have a save facing thing for him to be able to say we did something or the situation in Palestine is better thank to our action . Would the Sionist be willing to abandon some territory they get in the partition say like the Negev ? Or something about the Doom of the rock
Almost certainly they would be more of a threat to Israel, but as IOTL, Israel is not the only threat for Greater Syria. It is likely, ITTL, that Saudi Arabia and Egypt would form a bloc to oppose the Hashemites in the Arab sphere. The Syrians spending their military fighting what would still be a formidable Jewish opponent while also likely annoying Britain would probably be exactly what the Saudi's and Egyptians would want. It is likely, even ITTL, that Britain would be the main external power broker in the region at this time. The chance to gain the Palestinian lands and become official Muslim protector of Jerusalem without having to fight for it would, I think, be a tempting offer. And probably improve Syria's status as the dominant Arab state more than a war for all of Palestine. It could certainly go either way, but I think there are sufficient drivers for negotiation to be an attractive option.
Agree . There are definitely room for negotiation and Syrian wouldn’t want to do something alone and not sure they would do something at many either because even if victory Gaza and other territory possibly taken in partition would go to Egypt . And Egypt and Saudi can attack the Hashemite on taking no action and being colonial puppet but that wouldn’t get them far if they don’t take as well .
AIUI that was Faisal's position in OTL. I think the early Jewish leaders may have accepted the possibility but I am not sure if the post-WW2 leaders would do so. This is not my area of expertise either but post-Holocaust, I believe there was a certain amount of belief that the Jews could not trust a non-Jewish authority to have dominion over them. However I am, as I said, speaking outside my areas of knowledge.
I hold the same opinion post WW2 they probably wouldn’t accept but what would be the effect of more contact with Faisal in Syria during the British mandate perio. Also what was the cause of Faisal heart attack could he have lived for longer ?

That would be interesting. But I am not sure Hussein would change his mind. If ITTL the French are "ruling by proxy" through Faisal then the Mandate system (which AIUI was what Hussein was against) was still in place. And the Balfour Declaration is still a thing. My guess would be that he would still refuse to sign a treaty with the British which would likely lead to the same result as OTL.
Yep seem like the most likely even if I liked the idea of a Caliphate or at least a Caliphate claimant existing in modern time . Anyway that Middle East would be interesting and we still didn’t talked of possible butterfly and situation in Iran Turkey and Lebanon . And how the Middle East will evolve without war with israel in 1948 and a possible negotiation instead the Middle East will probably be a more peaceful place with less military coup than OTL even if there will be problem . Would like to do a TL about it .
Also what AIUI mean ?
 
Honestly he would probably need a face saving action the population press and other government official would all be asking for action especially since the army would seem capable to do it . Not doing it would seem like a betrayal for the population to the Palestinian Pan Arabism upon wich the legitimacy of the kingdom is build and Islam and nearly everyone will be asking for war . The prestige of winning Maysalun and not being seen as quiet colonial proxy would do good to the population . I agree with you that they more leeway for avoiding the war but the king should have a save facing thing for him to be able to say we did something or the situation in Palestine is better thank to our action
This does beg the question, how did Abdullah get away with it? He also was ruling an Arab nation, right next door to Palestine. Yet he appeared to be set to more or less peacefully take over the Arab designated areas with relatively little protest until the Syrian smear campaign. Was this considered an acceptable method of protecting the Palestinians? Or did he keep this secret enough that he didn't face backlash? If so, what did he have to do to appear to be supporting an Arab Palestine while preparing to take over the area?

Would the Sionist be willing to abandon some territory they get in the partition say like the Negev ? Or something about the Doom of the rock
Well again, I have little research in this area, but my guess would be that the Jewish Authorities would be willing to work something out in regards to control of the Al-Aqsa and the Dome. I don't know the details but I am guessing that this was part of the original deal of Partition. The Jewish Authorities at the time seemed to have the goal of gaining a Jewish state (some might have been amenable to good terms in a multi-ethnic state but I am not sure of that), not controlling access to or destroying Muslim Holy sites. So maybe recognition of Palestinian rights in Jewish areas and vise versa as well as free access to all Muslim Holy sites with Greater Syria being the recognized Muslim protector of all said sites?

Also what was the cause of Faisal heart attack could he have lived for longer ?
Officially it was stress and smoking. There are theories that he may have been poisoned but I don't know how credible they are:

"King Faisal died on 8 September 1933, at the age of 48. The official cause of death was a heart attack while he was staying in Bern, Switzerland, for his general medical checkup. He was succeeded on the throne by his oldest son Ghazi. Many questions arose from his sudden death, as Swiss doctors assured that he was healthy and nothing serious was with him. His private nurse also reported signs of arsenic poison before his death. Many of his companions noticed that day that he was suffering from pain in the abdomen (sign of poisoning) and not chest (a typical sign of heart attack). His body was quickly mummified before performing a proper autopsy to find the exact result of death, a normal procedure in such situations.[10] "

Anyway that Middle East would be interesting and we still didn’t talked of possible butterfly and situation in Iran Turkey and Lebanon
Well, I am not sure Iran would go much differently. It is both much more important to the British and much closer to India than Iraq.

I assume that Faisal or Ghazi would still try and form an understanding or treaty with Turkey as Abdullah did IOTL. The Turks would likely prefer a more divided southern Arab neighbor, so they may make sounds of support for Egypt/Saudi Arabia but I don't think they have any desire, or ability, to greatly influence the Arab sphere.

Lebanon could be interesting. France was already holding Lebanon and the Syrian coastline as an occupation zone. If they agree to allow Faisal to rule Syria, I am not sure when, or if, they would give back the coastal areas. I think they would likely still create "Greater Lebanon" so the demographics probably have not shifted overmuch. By the same token I don't think they would add significantly more to it as the Muslim population would probably start to drown out the Christian one. I don't think Faisal is adding Lebanon to Greater Syria. That seems a step too far for the French to allow. I could see the Muslim population agitating for joining a more Pan-Arabist Syria but still having a Christian majority at this time and being of more interest to European powers, I think it would remain independent.

I could see France still creating the Alawite state ITTL and in this case in would be treated as independent of Syria. Likely they join the Kingdom of Syria whenever France relaxes control over them.

The Sanjak of Alexandretta (State of Hatay) would also be an interesting one. I am guessing a relatively powerful Arab state next door may protest the Turks ejecting Alawi Arabs and Armenians from a territory in which they were previously the majority. I am not sure how prepared any of the players would be to push the issue though. It could go exactly as OTL or there could be an interesting diplomatic crisis there in 1938. Which I suppose somewhat invalidates what I earlier said about Turkish relations.

. And how the Middle East will evolve without war with israel in 1948 and a possible negotiation instead the Middle East will probably be a more peaceful place with less military coup than OTL even if there will be problem
Probably but there are still going to be some pretty big tension points. Even if the Syrian state absorbs the Palestinian areas, the State of Israel is likely to be a sore spot in the Middle East. IOTL Abdullah was assassinated by a Palestinian Nationalist. If there is a negotiated settlement there may be less revanchist feeling among the Palestinians but there is still likely to be a fair bit. And that may cause some instability. It also depends on how Faisal would sell his acceptance of partition. Without Republican Syria smearing his name as they did to Abdullah IOTL it may be that he gets through it ok. Or Egypt and Saudi Arabia may do the same ITTL.

In addition, you now have at least 3 major Arab states in 2 major blocs looking to be the predominant one. And Israel sitting at the crossroads of all three. If they are more or less accepted by Syria (and by extension Iraq) that removes a lot of the conflict, and I don't know if Saudi Arabia would actually do much themselves as they seemed to prefer to not be the main player on the Arab side. That does leave Egypt though. They will likely try to paint themselves as the champion of the Palestinians in juxtaposition to Syria who they will say is under the thrall of Imperialists and consorts with Zionists. It is a good distraction from Egypt's own issues for the countries rulers. Eventually they may, as OTL grant recognition, but it will be a while.

One thing that could be interesting. The very different conditions in TTL may butterfly the 14 July Revolution in Iraq. For starters, Abdullah or Zeid are likely to rule the country somewhat differently than Faisal and his Heirs did. I understand that Abdullah was considered to be the better diplomat of the two, so he may be able to build a powerbase as a neutral arbiter between different people groups and rely less heavily on putting local Sunnis and Syrian ex-pats in positions of authority. Second, he is unlikely to be bringing in as many elites from Syria in the first place since that is now an Arab kingdom and an ally. Third, there is probably not a United Arab Republic between Syria and Egypt ITTL. So Iraq could conceivably remain a monarchy to the present day. Possibly in federation with Greater Syria, possibly not. The pair of them are still likely to be a fairly strong local power bloc.

Also what AIUI mean ?
As I understand it. Sorry, this site has a lot of its own acronyms.
 
This does beg the question, how did Abdullah get away with it? He also was ruling an Arab nation, right next door to Palestine. Yet he appeared to be set to more or less peacefully take over the Arab designated areas with relatively little protest until the Syrian smear campaign. Was this considered an acceptable method of protecting the Palestinians? Or did he keep this secret enough that he didn't face backlash? If so, what did he have to do to appear to be supporting an Arab Palestine while preparing to take over the area?
My guess would be the fact that Jordania at the time was more « backward » with less urban life and big urban center were backlash could happen , less political opinion in the population with the Arab nationalism not being as influential as in syria and tribal identity and personal allegiance to the king being more important .
Well again, I have little research in this area, but my guess would be that the Jewish Authorities would be willing to work something out in regards to control of the Al-Aqsa and the Dome. I don't know the details but I am guessing that this was part of the original deal of Partition. The Jewish Authorities at the time seemed to have the goal of gaining a Jewish state (some might have been amenable to good terms in a multi-ethnic state but I am not sure of that), not controlling access to or destroying Muslim Holy sites. So maybe recognition of Palestinian rights in Jewish areas and vise versa as well as free access to all Muslim Holy sites with Greater Syria being the recognized Muslim protector of all said sites?
Yep possibly that was in the original partition deal I really doesn’t know . If Faisal could get a relatively worthless territory for Israel like the Negev dessert it would greatly help make accepte the partition something like we managed to get take back Arab land and territory we modified the world partition plan by our own force and get land back to the Palestinian etc ... that in the end the situation is better than in the start and they re gained something of the partition .
Officially it was stress and smoking. There are theories that he may have been poisoned but I don't know how credible they are:

"King Faisal died on 8 September 1933, at the age of 48. The official cause of death was a heart attack while he was staying in Bern, Switzerland, for his general medical checkup. He was succeeded on the throne by his oldest son Ghazi. Many questions arose from his sudden death, as Swiss doctors assured that he was healthy and nothing serious was with him. His private nurse also reported signs of arsenic poison before his death. Many of his companions noticed that day that he was suffering from pain in the abdomen (sign of poisoning) and not chest (a typical sign of heart attack). His body was quickly mummified before performing a proper autopsy to find the exact result of death, a normal procedure in such situations.[10] "
Oh si there is a decent possibility of making him live longer would help for the scenario and make accept the partition as the hero of the Arab revolt and Maysalun
Well, I am not sure Iran would go much differently. It is both much more important to the British and much closer to India than Iraq.

I assume that Faisal or Ghazi would still try and form an understanding or treaty with Turkey as Abdullah did IOTL. The Turks would likely prefer a more divided southern Arab neighbor, so they may make sounds of support for Egypt/Saudi Arabia but I don't think they have any desire, or ability, to greatly influence the Arab sphere.
Iran I was more thinking in long term possible butterfly but most of the OTL country issues would still be here .
For Turkey I was thinking on how they would react to the French defeat but they’re probably won’t push their luck further south into Syria and how a semi independent Syria affect them . For the raktion with Turkey I agree technically the Kingdom claimed some part of the OTL northern frontier traditionally considered as part of Syria in Cilicia Edessa with some territory being arab speaking but Faisal would lack the power and the will to go to for it and he have bigger more important target for his Syria he would probably confirm the border and try to have good relation Hatay May be a point of conflict for the two country but Turkey wouldn’t try to get it post WW2
Lebanon could be interesting. France was already holding Lebanon and the Syrian coastline as an occupation zone. If they agree to allow Faisal to rule Syria, I am not sure when, or if, they would give back the coastal areas. I think they would likely still create "Greater Lebanon" so the demographics probably have not shifted overmuch. By the same token I don't think they would add significantly more to it as the Muslim population would probably start to drown out the Christian one. I don't think Faisal is adding Lebanon to Greater Syria. That seems a step too far for the French to allow. I could see the Muslim population agitating for joining a more Pan-Arabist Syria but still having a Christian majority at this time and being of more interest to European powers, I think it would remain independent.
For Lebanon I was thinking of Faisal lobbying during the colonial period to have Tripoli and other Sunni area to be part of Syrian in the division the French assurely won’t accept a Syrian greater Lebanon if there a unification between Lebanon and Syria it will happen later in the post colonial time . But for the future I was thinking at either Christian Mount Lebanon border with Syria the rest being integrated at Syria or the maronite area being integrated as a automous region like in the King Crame commission
I could see France still creating the Alawite state ITTL and in this case in would be treated as independent of Syria. Likely they join the Kingdom of Syria whenever France relaxes control over them.

The Sanjak of Alexandretta (State of Hatay) would also be an interesting one. I am guessing a relatively powerful Arab state next door may protest the Turks ejecting Alawi Arabs and Armenians from a territory in which they were previously the majority. I am not sure how prepared any of the players would be to push the issue though. It could go exactly as OTL or there could be an interesting diplomatic crisis there in 1938. Which I suppose somewhat invalidates what I earlier said about Turkish relations.
For the Alawite state France still didn’t controlled all the land of the Alawite at the time of the Pod and the Alawite resistance would still last for one year OTL with the Syrian victory at Maysalun they would probably get a moral and some military support but I could still see an Alawite state happening just because I don’t see the French leaving the coastal are that they have taken to Faisal but still not integrating them to Lebanon . The Alawite state would probably do as you say .

Yep that would be an interesting diplomatic crisis the French will be torn between assuring Turkish neutrality and angering their automous protectorate possibly creating a rebellion at the eve of WW2 . A thing that could influence could the French accorded independence to this Syria in the same way the British did to Irak in the Interwar period ? France will be have a hard time giving a territory they do not really posses or really control
Probably but there are still going to be some pretty big tension points. Even if the Syrian state absorbs the Palestinian areas, the State of Israel is likely to be a sore spot in the Middle East. IOTL Abdullah was assassinated by a Palestinian Nationalist. If there is a negotiated settlement there may be less revanchist feeling among the Palestinians but there is still likely to be a fair bit. And that may cause some instability. It also depends on how Faisal would sell his acceptance of partition. Without Republican Syria smearing his name as they did to Abdullah IOTL it may be that he gets through it ok. Or Egypt and Saudi Arabia may do the same ITTL.

In addition, you now have at least 3 major Arab states in 2 major blocs looking to be the predominant one. And Israel sitting at the crossroads of all three. If they are more or less accepted by Syria (and by extension Iraq) that removes a lot of the conflict, and I don't know if Saudi Arabia would actually do much themselves as they seemed to prefer to not be the main player on the Arab side. That does leave Egypt though. They will likely try to paint themselves as the champion of the Palestinians in juxtaposition to Syria who they will say is under the thrall of Imperialists and consorts with Zionists. It is a good distraction from Egypt's own issues for the countries rulers. Eventually they may, as OTL grant recognition, but it will be a while.
Agree that would be a complex but interesting situation . Now i’m thinking on how the butterfly would affect the Egyptian monarchy and Nasser . The Egyptian would probably play the Palestinian card as you say but I don’t see them taking action alone now the monarchy already seemed in a bas-bad shape in 1945 with a big loss of legitimacy now how a lack of military defeat and israelian victory would affect them Nasser have an harder time to do is coup and have to respect more the state institution / be less dictatorial ? Now Saudi and Egypt will probably smear the Hashemite name like OTL but it would probably be far less effective if that Faisal who have lead the Arab against the Ottoman imperialism and the French one at Maysalun and actively unit Syria against imperialist wish and bring a political victory from Palestine and them sitting her doing nothing
One thing that could be interesting. The very different conditions in TTL may butterfly the 14 July Revolution in Iraq. For starters, Abdullah or Zeid are likely to rule the country somewhat differently than Faisal and his Heirs did. I understand that Abdullah was considered to be the better diplomat of the two, so he may be able to build a powerbase as a neutral arbiter between different people groups and rely less heavily on putting local Sunnis and Syrian ex-pats in positions of authority. Second, he is unlikely to be bringing in as many elites from Syria in the first place since that is now an Arab kingdom and an ally. Third, there is probably not a United Arab Republic between Syria and Egypt ITTL. So Iraq could conceivably remain a monarchy to the present day. Possibly in federation with Greater Syria, possibly not. The pair of them are still likely to be a fairly strong local power bloc.


As I understand it. Sorry, this site has a lot of its own acronyms.
An Abdullah Irak with an Hashemite Syria as neighbor defintively sound interesting (doesn’t know enough of Zeid to say ) and a lot of the grievance angainst the monarchy would be butterflyed here . A longer lasting Hashemite Syria and Irak standing side by side is a beautiful vision .

Thank for explaining it to me there no reason to excuse
 
Oh si there is a decent possibility of making him live longer would help for the scenario and make accept the partition as the hero of the Arab revolt and Maysalun
That would make the negotiated settlement that we have been talking about much easier. Ghazi seems much less likely to take a softer course. Faisal surviving would probably have to assume that he was actually poisoned (which, as I said, has only circumstantial evidence to support), and that whoever poisoned him would not do so ITTL or would not succeed.

Interestingly, TTL would kind of completely change the reign of the Hashemite monarchs. Faisal, if he does not die in 1933, could conceivably live into the 1950's or early 60's. Though the "stress and smoking" thing might actually get him anyway. And if he follows more or less Abdullah's OTL playbook he could be assassinated in 1951.

Ghazi is the one with probably the most possible scenarios:

1. Faisal dies on schedule as does Ghazi.
In this instance, Ghazi's anti-British stance could well make the British hold on to Jordan (if they have not already transferred it to Faisal). It is also possible that ITTL Ghazi's ire is more directly turned on the French which could make him seek help from the British during WW2, or just eject any remaining French influence. It is also possible that the politics of the nation are broadly the same as Iraq IOTL, with some players changed and Ghazi's desire for taking over Kuwait replaced with one for union with Jordan. If this is the case, then we may see something broadly similar to OTL with Abd al-Ilah being named regent and Nuri al-Said being PM. This could also lead to a more pro-German element coming to power in the government. Active pro-German action on their part would likely lead to an Allied invasion of Syria. Possibly (though not guaranteed) supported by a Abdullah led Iraq and/or Zeid led Jordan depending on the circumstances.

2. Faisal dies on schedule but Ghazi does not.
Ghazi's death in an auto accident could possibly be prevented. If it was an accident, then at the very least he is driving a sports car too fast on different roads, which might save his life. If, as was the conspiracy theory at the time, Nuri al-Said had him assassinated then the different politics of Syria ITTL compared to Iraq IOTL could either have al-Said feel he doesn't need to commit regicide or not be in a position to do so in the first place. In this instance, many of the same things could happen as above. Ghazi's anti-British stance in OTL could be translated to an anti-French stance which causes Syria to align with the British against Vichy France to some degree. Or it could cause him to reach out to Nazi Germany which could lead to an Allied invasion of Syria. The main difference might be that Nuri al-Said would likely not have much influence as it was mostly his connection with the British that kept him around when his influence in the army started to dry up. That might not be there in a slightly more independent Syria. On the other hand, his connection with the British is also what destroyed the last of his popularity, so who knows? Either way though, the Monarchy would have some issues to deal with soon. The Communist, Pan-Arabist, Arab Nationalist and Islamist forces of OTL are all likely to be around to some extent even ITTL, and the relationship with foreign powers is always a difficult one. And on the whole I am less impressed with what I know of Ghazi's abilities than those of his father's.

3. Faisal lives till at least 1951 but Ghazi dies in 1939.
Honestly, this might be the best option for Syria in the long term. Faisal was not guaranteed to succeed, but he had a lot of prestige going for him and was pretty good at playing the political game. He probably has the best chance of anyone of threading the needle between Pan-Arabist demands, shifting internal politics and religious concerns, and the interests of foreign powers. He is also the most likely to be allowed to absorb Jordan by the British, keep from being invaded in WW2, and navigate the Palestine issue without making everything fall apart. If he manages all that, and Ghazi dies on schedule, then Faisal will have some influence in the life of Faisal II. If he manages to impart some of his political ability to Faisal II before he dies that would certainly be good for Syria and the monarchy. If Faisal I is assassinated in 1951 Faisal II has two years of regency left, which could be significant depending on who is chosen, and who holds political power at the time. If Faisal lives into the late 50's/early 60's then he hopefully would have been able to navigate much of the instability that came from the Egyptian revolt, Suez, etc. and may leave an older and more experienced Faisal II a fairly stable and prosperous nation. Still, the more I look into this, the more opportunities I find for things to get messy, as well.

4. Faisal and Ghazi are both alive until at least 1951
Hard to say on this one. ITTL Faisal has been the one navigating WW2 and the 1948 war. At this point Ghazi's views may be more accepted by foreign powers and are a little less likely to get Syria invaded (though it is not impossible). On the other hand, Ghazi has come to the thrown in an unstable time period where Arab kings are being overthrown in places and, as I mentioned, I don't have a ton of belief in his political ability.

For Lebanon I was thinking of Faisal lobbying during the colonial period to have Tripoli and other Sunni area to be part of Syrian in the division the French assurely won’t accept a Syrian greater Lebanon if there a unification between Lebanon and Syria it will happen later in the post colonial time . But for the future I was thinking at either Christian Mount Lebanon border with Syria the rest being integrated at Syria or the maronite area being integrated as a automous region like in the King Crame commission
In this you run into problems arising from the Great Famine. Lebanon wanted food security, which led them to campaign for areas that were breadbaskets even if they did not have a Maronite population. ITTL, some of those areas would probably be in a Hashemite Syria, but some would still be within Frances occupation zone. At the least, I would expect that those areas would still be added to Lebanon. The Lebanese majority generally resisted being added to Syria in OTL, even when Pan-Arab sentiment was at its peak. I am not sure if that would change ITTL.

Agree that would be a complex but interesting situation . Now i’m thinking on how the butterfly would affect the Egyptian monarchy and Nasser . The Egyptian would probably play the Palestinian card as you say but I don’t see them taking action alone now the monarchy already seemed in a bas-bad shape in 1945 with a big loss of legitimacy now how a lack of military defeat and israelian victory would affect them Nasser have an harder time to do is coup and have to respect more the state institution / be less dictatorial ?
I am not sure on that one. As you say, the monarchy was not doing great by 1948. No Israeli war may help, but I can't really say.
 
That would make the negotiated settlement that we have been talking about much easier. Ghazi seems much less likely to take a softer course. Faisal surviving would probably have to assume that he was actually poisoned (which, as I said, has only circumstantial evidence to support), and that whoever poisoned him would not do so ITTL or would not succeed.

Interestingly, TTL would kind of completely change the reign of the Hashemite monarchs. Faisal, if he does not die in 1933, could conceivably live into the 1950's or early 60's. Though the "stress and smoking" thing might actually get him anyway. And if he follows more or less Abdullah's OTL playbook he could be assassinated in 1951.
He might be a little less stressed if he remain in Syria with not having to calm sectarian conflict and a more educated panarabist population in Syria and his authority more respected .
Ghazi is the one with probably the most possible scenarios:

1. Faisal dies on schedule as does Ghazi.
In this instance, Ghazi's anti-British stance could well make the British hold on to Jordan (if they have not already transferred it to Faisal). It is also possible that ITTL Ghazi's ire is more directly turned on the French which could make him seek help from the British during WW2, or just eject any remaining French influence. It is also possible that the politics of the nation are broadly the same as Iraq IOTL, with some players changed and Ghazi's desire for taking over Kuwait replaced with one for union with Jordan. If this is the case, then we may see something broadly similar to OTL with Abd al-Ilah being named regent and Nuri al-Said being PM. This could also lead to a more pro-German element coming to power in the government. Active pro-German action on their part would likely lead to an Allied invasion of Syria. Possibly (though not guaranteed) supported by a Abdullah led Iraq and/or Zeid led Jordan depending on the circumstances.

2. Faisal dies on schedule but Ghazi does not.
Ghazi's death in an auto accident could possibly be prevented. If it was an accident, then at the very least he is driving a sports car too fast on different roads, which might save his life. If, as was the conspiracy theory at the time, Nuri al-Said had him assassinated then the different politics of Syria ITTL compared to Iraq IOTL could either have al-Said feel he doesn't need to commit regicide or not be in a position to do so in the first place. In this instance, many of the same things could happen as above. Ghazi's anti-British stance in OTL could be translated to an anti-French stance which causes Syria to align with the British against Vichy France to some degree. Or it could cause him to reach out to Nazi Germany which could lead to an Allied invasion of Syria. The main difference might be that Nuri al-Said would likely not have much influence as it was mostly his connection with the British that kept him around when his influence in the army started to dry up. That might not be there in a slightly more independent Syria. On the other hand, his connection with the British is also what destroyed the last of his popularity, so who knows? Either way though, the Monarchy would have some issues to deal with soon. The Communist, Pan-Arabist, Arab Nationalist and Islamist forces of OTL are all likely to be around to some extent even ITTL, and the relationship with foreign powers is always a difficult one. And on the whole I am less impressed with what I know of Ghazi's abilities than those of his father's.

3. Faisal lives till at least 1951 but Ghazi dies in 1939.
Honestly, this might be the best option for Syria in the long term. Faisal was not guaranteed to succeed, but he had a lot of prestige going for him and was pretty good at playing the political game. He probably has the best chance of anyone of threading the needle between Pan-Arabist demands, shifting internal politics and religious concerns, and the interests of foreign powers. He is also the most likely to be allowed to absorb Jordan by the British, keep from being invaded in WW2, and navigate the Palestine issue without making everything fall apart. If he manages all that, and Ghazi dies on schedule, then Faisal will have some influence in the life of Faisal II. If he manages to impart some of his political ability to Faisal II before he dies that would certainly be good for Syria and the monarchy. If Faisal I is assassinated in 1951 Faisal II has two years of regency left, which could be significant depending on who is chosen, and who holds political power at the time. If Faisal lives into the late 50's/early 60's then he hopefully would have been able to navigate much of the instability that came from the Egyptian revolt, Suez, etc. and may leave an older and more experienced Faisal II a fairly stable and prosperous nation. Still, the more I look into this, the more opportunities I find for things to get messy, as well.

4. Faisal and Ghazi are both alive until at least 1951
Hard to say on this one. ITTL Faisal has been the one navigating WW2 and the 1948 war. At this point Ghazi's views may be more accepted by foreign powers and are a little less likely to get Syria invaded (though it is not impossible). On the other hand, Ghazi has come to the thrown in an unstable time period where Arab kings are being overthrown in places and, as I mentioned, I don't have a ton of belief in his political ability.
All interesting and plausible scenario if I have to go with one it will be the 3 or 4

In this you run into problems arising from the Great Famine. Lebanon wanted food security, which led them to campaign for areas that were breadbaskets even if they did not have a Maronite population. ITTL, some of those areas would probably be in a Hashemite Syria, but some would still be within Frances occupation zone. At the least, I would expect that those areas would still be added to Lebanon. The Lebanese majority generally resisted being added to Syria in OTL, even when Pan-Arab sentiment was at its peak. I am not sure if that would change ITTL.
I agree that Lebanon would have most of the breadbasket area wanted I thinked of Tripoli because I read that it was a late and easily butterflyed addition but I can’t re found the source so I can’t confirm it . I think that TTL Syria would stand a decent chance of attracting Sunni and Shia or Druze to some extent now I think the whole of Lebanon is not likely but it being reduced by a more prestigious and stable Syria to something like Mutasarrifate Mount Lebanon in the 60s 70s is a possibility
 
Last edited:
Top