A Greater Syria is created after the end of WWI

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,742
SoCal
#1
What if Britain and France would have put their egos aside after the end of WWI and thus created a Greater Syria along these lines? :



What would Greater Syria's history over the last 100 years have looked like and how would the rest of the region and the rest of the world be affected by its creation and existence over the last 100 years?
 
Mar 2016
1,116
Australia
#2
In this scenario, is Mesopotamia still ruled by the British? If so, there's no way the French would ever agree to give up control in Syria. They did not want to be excluded from the Middle East while Britain swallowed everything up.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,742
SoCal
#3
In this scenario, is Mesopotamia still ruled by the British? If so, there's no way the French would ever agree to give up control in Syria. They did not want to be excluded from the Middle East while Britain swallowed everything up.
Actually, I was thinking of also having an independent Mesopotamia in this scenario.
 
Mar 2016
1,116
Australia
#4
Actually, I was thinking of also having an independent Mesopotamia in this scenario.
That would never happen, period. The entire reason the British spent so much time invading and conquering Mesopotamia was because they wanted it - or at least the most important bits of it - for themselves. Imagining a scenario where the European powers decide to suddenly be altruistic and create genuinely independent states in the Middle East after WWI is pure fantasy and has basically no connection to the reality of the political situation at the time. The European colonial empires were not the same as Wilson's idealistic US, they were not interested in giving peoples self-determination. They were realpolitik to the core.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,742
SoCal
#5
That would never happen, period. The entire reason the British spent so much time invading and conquering Mesopotamia was because they wanted it - or at least the most important bits of it - for themselves. Imagining a scenario where the European powers decide to suddenly be altruistic and create genuinely independent states in the Middle East after WWI is pure fantasy and has basically no connection to the reality of the political situation at the time. The European colonial empires were not the same as Wilson's idealistic US, they were not interested in giving peoples self-determination. They were realpolitik to the core.
Maybe we should have Wilson threaten not to send US troops to Europe (or to withdraw US troops from Europe if they're already sent there) if the Europeans will refuse to fully accept his 14 Points.
 
Mar 2016
1,116
Australia
#6
Maybe we should have Wilson threaten not to send US troops to Europe (or to withdraw US troops from Europe if they're already sent there) if the Europeans will refuse to fully accept his 14 Points.
I'm no expert on Wilson or his policies, but I doubt he would pull such a sudden volte-face and abandon the war just because the French and British don't give independence to Syrians or Iraqis. Wilson was more interested in destroying the Old World empires and asserting US influence in Europe, not so much universally supporting democracy (despite his own assertions). He would protest and rant about the colonial empires, but he wouldn't take direct action against them. He didn't do so when Turkey was being partitioned by European powers after the war.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,742
SoCal
#7
I'm no expert on Wilson or his policies, but I doubt he would pull such a sudden volte-face and abandon the war just because the French and British don't give independence to Syrians or Iraqis. Wilson was more interested in destroying the Old World empires and asserting US influence in Europe, not so much universally supporting democracy (despite his own assertions). He would protest and rant about the colonial empires, but he wouldn't take direct action against them. He didn't do so when Turkey was being partitioned by European powers after the war.
I was talking about accepting his 14 Points in general--not only in regards to the Middle East.

Also, Yes, this might require a personality change on Wilson's part.
 
Likes: Black Horse
Dec 2018
103
Australia
#9
What if the Ottoman Empire didn't collapse in Syria in 1917-18?
And the mandates were not given out in the Treaties after WWII?
Could these states become semi-independent with a 5-10 year deadline for independence?
 
Likes: Futurist

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,178
Las Vegas, NV USA
#10
What if the Ottoman Empire didn't collapse in Syria in 1917-18?
And the mandates were not given out in the Treaties after WWII?
Could these states become semi-independent with a 5-10 year deadline for independence?
The Ottoman Empire sided with Germany so it was lucky to survive as an independent Turkey. As far as Syria goes, I wonder why Syria and Lebanon were all France got. Britain retained its protectorate over Egypt and got Transjordan (including Palestine), Iraq (Mesopotamia) and Kuwait under the mandate. This was more and better than what France got. The oil reserves of the British mandate would have been useful in dealing with Britain's postwar debt.

The United Kingdom and the Iraqi oil industry - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions