NationStates Jolt Archive

If in WW1, the Ottomans, had given the arabs their independence, under Hejaz, Iraq, and Greater Syria, in exchange for not entering the war and used their troops to focus on Persia and Russia?

The Ottoman Army was pitiful and would have gotten its arse kicked by the Russians regardless. Its industry (even with income and resources from the Middle East, which it would have had to give up) wasn't able to supply weapons and ammunitions to actually equip its troops, and Ottoman units turned out useless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamis) in the colder climate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bitlis) and difficult terrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Erzurum_%281916%29) of the Caucasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Campaign). I don't think that even many more Turkish troops would have made a big difference to the Eastern Front. If all else failed, the Russians could just have built a defensive line in the mountains and no one in the world could have moved them out.

As for Persia, I know less about the options there. I would think that quite harsh terrain and long supply routes would have made it difficult to really do anything there, other than eventually capture some town and stay there until the war is over.

Another thing to consider might be that the Brits would have made a deal with the Arabs anyways and nothing much changed, except now Arab and British troops have a much easier path into Turkey.

But the real question I suppose is whether Israel would ever have appeared...that's hard to say. The British would still have been involved, and the Jewish and Muslim communities would still have been at each others' throats. I would think the Grand Mufti would still have made his impact and the Arabs would still have been more pro-Germany than pro-Allies. So my guess is that the British would sooner or later have sent troops to defeat the Arab states and Israel would have been established post-WWII either way.

Maybe the British would have started a campaign even before WWII in order to keep the connection between Egypt and India free of any trouble. It seems like the sort of stuff the interwar-Churchill-types would have had much enthusiasm for.

Another thing to consider might be that the Brits would have made a deal with the Arabs anyways and nothing much changed, except now Arab and British troops have a much easier path into Turkey.


The arabs would not get involved in the war, in exchange for what they wanted from britain

The Ottoman Empire wasn't known as "The Sick Man of Europe" for no reason...

The arabs would not get involved in the war, in exchange for what they wanted from britain
Okay, the rest of what I posted still stands.

The Ottoman Empire wasn't known as "The Sick Man of Europe" for no reason...

:), funny story, a history prof of mine (while coughing one day, as he was sick) commented that the dean of Europe called him the "Sick man of Europe" 'cause he was sick all the time. It made me smile then, and you reminded me of it, and that made me smile, and I'm smiling now.

On topic, The Ottoman Empire was in twilight, I seriously doubt much could have changed regarding their fate, or results.

More interesting to consider what would've happened in the war if the Lusitania had slipped past the Germans and never been sunk.

More interesting to consider what would've happened in the war if the Lusitania had slipped past the Germans and never been sunk.

True but i'm arab, i am more intrested in alternate history results in the ME

If in WW1, the Ottomans, had given the arabs their independence, under Hejaz, Iraq, and Greater Syria, in exchange for not entering the war and used their troops to focus on Persia and Russia?
Shredded wheat breakfast cereal would never have been invented.

It's called the Butterfly Effect.

Shredded wheat breakfast cereal would never have been invented.

Are you channeling LG?

True but i'm arab,

Kayfa Haaluka?



i am more intrested in alternate history results in the ME[

There'd still be war, death, poverty and suffering, due to religious schisms between Muslims, and also over the oil supplies. So not much would change, maybe some boundaries.

Are you channeling LG?
Haha, maybe. Or maybe I've just been driven out to that mental extreme where LG is king -- that place called "the end of my patience/tolerance/tether."

Kayfa Haaluka?


Walah meeneh, shtiqit la LG, kan daiman yi dahikni

Walah meeneh, shtiqit la LG, kan daiman yi dahikni

That had the word "LG" in it, so I have to ask for a translation.

Walah meeneh, shtiqit la LG, kan daiman yi dahikni

Okay, i am lost. :p What I said to you was like the only non-islamic arabic that I knew...So uh..yeah :p

If in WW1, the Ottomans, had given the arabs their independence, under Hejaz, Iraq, and Greater Syria, in exchange for not entering the war and used their troops to focus on Persia and Russia?

well i think it goes back a little further then that, to the origens of british imperialism, but i'll go with what if the ottoman's had never had, whatever the hell it was, i'm no sufficient student of the regeon's history to know the story behind that, that motivated them to genocide the armenians?

=^^=
.../\...

That had the word "LG" in it, so I have to ask for a translation.

(well i'm, good, but i miss LG, he always used to make me laugh)