WI the Hashemites don't get the short end of the stick post WWI?

SavoyTruffle

SavoyTruffle

WWI was an interesting time for the Middle East, with the Ottoman Empire losing control over the area in relatively quick succession and the British making significant gains in the Arabian front.

Notably, the British made not one, not two, but three crucial agreements or pronouncements in the region that would help shape its destiny. The McMahon-Hussein correspondence essentially boils down to the British recognizing Arab independence under the Hashemites in exchange for revolting against the Ottomans. Then in 1916 the Sykes-Picot agreement was done between Britain and France, splitting Ottoman Mesopotamia into British and French protectorates. And finally in 1917 the Balfour Declaration was made, promising British support towards a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Needless to say, the Hashemites weren't quite pleased with the latter two developments, and this soured their relationship to the point where the Brits pivoted towards the Saudi dynasty instead, leading to them becoming the pre-eminent power in Arabia by the mid 1920s.

What sort of PODs or developments need to happen so that the Hashemites aren't screwed over in the post-war settlement?
 

ahmedali

Banned
Simply put, it made France worse in the First World War, but it was still winning

It makes them in a weaker position to impose their hegemony on Syria and Lebanon

Therefore, the Hashemites do not feel that they have been deceived
 

yulzari1

It is important to be aware that the Hashemites of the day were not ignorant desert tribal leaders but sophisticated members of a global world. Brought up and educated in Istanbul with a wide ring of intelligence information. Remaining in touch with the Ottomans all through the war. They were aware of the assorted ’secret’ arrangements being made by the Allies. The popular myth that they were simple Bedouins deceived by Lawrence is far from the truth. Rather they deceived him and played him like a violin to seek their own aims. What they failed to do was secure Hejaz against the Wahabi Saud. They took their eye off the ball and kept looking at the goal.
 

David T

Henry Cabot Lodge argued that if the US ratified the Treaty of Versailles and joined the League, it might be compelled to support Hejaz under Article X! https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...di-wahabi-war-in-arabia.487187/#post-20449775 (Even Lodge admitted this unlikely, and of course in the end *neither* the US nor Hejaz ratified the Treaty. Of course given Hejaz's total dependence on the British for protection, Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi might have been wiser to swallow his pride and agree to the Treaty, but his obkections to it and the Mandate system were certainly understandable. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...of-the-kingdom-of-hejaz.488051/#post-20506969)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top