A Saner Sykes-Picot

At least IMHO, many of the current problems that we see in the world can be linked back to the European powers improperly drawing borders and disregarding the ethnicities of the people affected. One of the most important instances of this can be found in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in which Britain and France partitioned the eastern Middle East between them. I'm aware that there were other agreements that developed along the same time, but for the sake of clarity let's try to group them all together.

WI the agreements between the Western powers partitioning the remnants of the Ottoman Empire between them gave more weight to cultural and ethnic concerns than imperialist agendas? Simply put, what if the borders drawn in the Middle East weren't just random lines drawn on a map? What would the Middle East look like, and how would this have affected history?
 
There aren't a lot of rational ways to split up what was a whole. It would have been saner to leave the Ottoman Empire intact. That would have avoided most of today's messes and prevented Saudi Arabia from happening.

At least IMHO, many of the current problems that we see in the world can be linked back to the European powers improperly drawing borders and disregarding the ethnicities of the people affected. One of the most important instances of this can be found in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in which Britain and France partitioned the eastern Middle East between them. I'm aware that there were other agreements that developed along the same time, but for the sake of clarity let's try to group them all together.

WI the agreements between the Western powers partitioning the remnants of the Ottoman Empire between them gave more weight to cultural and ethnic concerns than imperialist agendas? Simply put, what if the borders drawn in the Middle East weren't just random lines drawn on a map? What would the Middle East look like, and how would this have affected history?
 
What about a vast Arab state ruled by the Hashemites as Kalifs?

No way that's gonna happen. The British and French wanted a divided Middle East vulnerable to their control. Besides, I don't see why the Hashemites could have all of Arabia in any way.... A quite Randomid idea you have there, I'd say ;)
 
OK, lets say that shortly after the US enters WWI Wilson trips, falls down the stairs, and dies. Vice President Marshall has common sense and instead of sending our boys to France, he sends them to the Middle East to replace the British and French troops fighting the Ottomans and let them go back to defend France. We buy all the French and British interests in what was the Arab part of the Ottoman Empire.
We beat up the Turks (tough customers), hang around for a while and then go home because it's too hot.
What do the Arabs do when they wind up back in charge of their own country, with most of the world's low cost oil under their control?
 
There aren't a lot of rational ways to split up what was a whole. It would have been saner to leave the Ottoman Empire intact. That would have avoided most of today's messes and prevented Saudi Arabia from happening.

I doubt the Ottomans treated it as an unqualified whole. How did they subdivide? I can't find a coherent map of internal borders that isn't centuries out-of-date, but they must've had some way of dividing the land, right? Why don't the Europeans go on those lines?
Though wikipedia :):pause for eye-rolling::) seems to indicate that at least some territories were formed on religious lines, which is probably going to create more problems than it solves.
 
Recently, I have felt that the best outcome for British and French, would have been an approach of concession, and an abandonment of colonial rule in the wider context of the region.

I also feel that the creation of 'mixed' religion and or Christian states (with their purpose to represent a mixed or Christian community set out clearly) would serve the region, as well as possibly the world, better.

I set out a while back how I felt that all groups interests could be served by the following map. Please understand that the map is rough, as well as my poor supplementary information - but I have attempted to give you the gist of what fundamentals I am getting at ;) :

mideastpeacebritishpossdy7.png


Turkey: Their pride is left intact, and retain all of their national territory (which in OTL they eventually won back anyway).

Arabia: A large Arabia could avoid what is widely seen as a 'betrayal' of the Arabs by the British, and allow close ties to be maintained with Britain. Britain would also give this state Qatar.

Mesopotamia: Broadly based on Iraq, Mesopotamia would be a mixed ethnic and religious country (or possibly Christian), with perhaps an international commission formed from within the LoN to guarantee tolerance.

Jerusalem: Another mixed ethnic and religious country

Lebanon: Almost twice the size than OTL, Lebanon would be a Christian country, and a home for many Christian Arabs.

Oman: Trucial Oman would be given to the Omani sultanate, improving ties with Britain

Yemen: The Aden colony would be given to the Yemen, improving ties with Britain

British Territory: Britain would retain control only over Bahrain and Socotra.

Western interests, particularly those of Britain and France would be served through the ability to invest in the region in a safer and more friendly environment. Furthermore, the potential exists for these countries being useful allies in any future conflict. Division of the middle east would also still be a reality, but in a more acceptable format.
 
Last edited:
Recently, I have felt that the best outcome for British and French, would have been an approach of concession, and an abandonment of colonial rule in the wider context of the region.

I also feel that the creation of 'mixed' religion and or Christian states (with their purpose to represent a mixed or Christian community set out clearly) would serve the region, as well as possibly the world, better.

I set out a while back how I felt that all groups interests could be served by the following map. Please understand that the map is rough, as well as my poor supplementary information - but I have attempted to give you the gist of what fundamentals I am getting at ;) :

mideastpeacebritishpossdy7.png


Turkey: Their pride is left intact, and retain all of their national territory (which in OTL they eventually won back anyway).

Arabia: A large Arabia could avoid what is widely seen as a 'betrayal' of the Arabs by the British, and allow close ties to be maintained with Britain. Britain would also give this state Qatar.

Mesopotamia: Broadly based on Iraq, Mesopotamia would be a mixed ethnic and religious country (or possibly Christian), with perhaps an international commission formed from within the LoN to guarantee tolerance.

Jerusalem: Another mixed ethnic and religious country

Lebanon: Almost twice the size than OTL, Lebanon would be a Christian country, and a home for many Christian Arabs.

Oman: Trucial Oman would be given to the Omani sultanate, improving ties with Britain

Yemen: The Aden colony would be given to the Yemen, improving ties with Britain

British Territory: Britain would retain control only over Bahrain and Socotra.

Western interests, particularly those of Britain and France would be served through the ability to invest in the region in a safer and more friendly environment. Furthermore, the potential exists for these countries being useful allies in any future conflict. Division of the middle east would also still be a reality, but in a more acceptable format.

Decent idea, and thanks for the map, but I don't know how well it would work in the real world. I, for one, can see Arabia, Jerusalem, Lebanon, and Mesopotamia imploding (or exploding) the farther on we go in this TL.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
The Sykes-Picot agreement

Map_Sykes-Picot.jpg

1. Sir Edward Grey to Paul Cambon, 15 May 1916 I shall have the honour to reply fully in a further note to your Excellency's note of the 9th instant, relative to the creation of an Arab State, but I should meanwhile be grateful if your Excellency could assure me that in those regions which, under the conditions recorded in that communication, become entirely French, or in which French interests are recognised as predominant, any existing British concessions, rights of navigation or development, and the rights and privileges of any British religious, scholastic, or medical institutions will be maintained.


His Majesty's Government are, of course, ready to give a reciprocal
assurance in regard to the British area. 2. Sir Edward Grey to Paul Cambon, 16 May 1916 I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of the 9th instant, stating that the French Government accept the limits of a future Arab State, or Confederation of States, and of those parts of Syria where French interests predominate, together with certain conditions attached thereto, such as they result from recent discussions in London and Petrograd on the subject.


I have the honour to inform your Excellency in reply that the acceptance of the whole project, as it now stands, will involve the abdication of considerable British interests, but, since His Majesty's Government recognise the advantage to the general cause of the Allies entailed in producing a more favourable internal political situation in Turkey, they are ready to accept the arrangement now arrived at, provided that the co-operation of the Arabs is secured, and that the Arabs fulfil the conditions and obtain the towns of Homs, Hama, Damascus, and Aleppo.


It is accordingly understood between the French and British Governments---


1. That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States in the areas (A) and (B) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (A) France, and in area (B) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (A) France, and in area (B) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States.


2. That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States. 3. That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of the Shereef of Mecca.


4. That Great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and Acre, (2) guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigris and Euphrates in area (A) for area (B). His Majesty's Government, on their part, undertake that they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to any third Power without the previous consent of the French Government.


5. That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British Empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by railway through the blue area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the red area, or (B) area, or area (A); and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect against British goods on any railway or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.


That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the blue area, area (A), or area (B), and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway, or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.


6. That in area (A) the Baghdad Railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (B) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway connecting Baghdad with Aleppo via the Euphrates Valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two Governments.


7. That Great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (B), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times.


It is to be understood by both Governments that this railway is to facilitate the connexion of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French Government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the polygon Banias-Keis Marib-Salkhab Tell Otsda-Mesmie before reaching area (B).


8. For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as in areas (A) and (B), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversion from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement between the two Powers.


There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above-mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the administration of the area of destination.


9. It shall be agreed that the French Government will at no time enter into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such rights in the blue area to any third Power, except the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States without the previous agreement of His Majesty's Government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the French Government regarding the red area.


10. The British and French Governments, as the protectors of the Arab State, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to a third Power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula, nor consent to a third Power installing a naval base either on the east coast, or on the islands, of the Red Sea. This, however, shall not prevent such adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of recent Turkish aggression.


11. The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the two Powers.

12. It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the Arab territories will be considered by the two Governments.


I have further the honour to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, His Majesty's Government are proposing to the Russian Government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your Excellency's Government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will be communicated to your Excellency as soon as exchanged.

I would also venture to remind your Excellency that the conclusion of the present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of the claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of Turkey in Asia, as formulated in article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the Allies.

His Majesty's Government further consider that the Japanese Government should be informed of the arrangement now concluded.
The agreement offers a lot of options for a more peaceful settlement than concluded(?) historically.

For example:

  • A Kurdish state could be established within this agreement.
  • A Jewish state could have been sanctioned south of Palestine (31deg 10' 35" north, River Jordan, 33deg 40' east) with religious access to Jerusalem via the Dead Sea. Ports on the Med and Red seas.
  • Secular constitutions for Lebanon and Palestine that preserve rights of freedom of religion.
  • A greater Iraq (minus Kurdistan) that includes Kuwait and the 'Persian Gulf' coast down to Dhahran.

Edit to correct the definition of Jewish state (Sinai-Negev) and add clarifying map.

Sykes-Picot_arab_pennisula.GIF
 
Last edited:
The agreement offers a lot of options for a more peaceful settlement than concluded(?) historically.

For example:

  • A Kurdish state could be established within this agreement.
  • A Jewish state could have been sanctioned south of Palestine (57th parallel, River Jordan, Canal Zone) with religious access to Jerusalem via the Dead Sea. Ports on the Med and Red seas.
  • Secular constitutions for Lebanon and Palestine that preserve rights of freedom of religion.
  • A greater Iraq (minus Kurdistan) that includes Kuwait and the 'Persian Gulf' coast down to Dhahran.

This is just as bad, and pastes disparate regions together. There was really no way to accomplish the partition in a way that would work other than creating one large Arab state, and even that would entail a lot of problems. For one thing, it would probably be too weak to keep the Saudis in check, and it would have limited sovereignty due to imperial domination. If the whole Ottoman Empire didn't enjoy full sovereignty, it's pieces have little chance. Turkey had the military power, rough terrain, and lack of resources that anyone wanted to enable them to achieve independence. The Arabs have virtually no chance.
 
I doubt the Ottomans treated it as an unqualified whole. How did they subdivide? I can't find a coherent map of internal borders that isn't centuries out-of-date, but they must've had some way of dividing the land, right? Why don't the Europeans go on those lines?
Though wikipedia :):pause for eye-rolling::) seems to indicate that at least some territories were formed on religious lines, which is probably going to create more problems than it solves.

There were as far as I know no Ottoman provinces that were created along religious lines. The autonomous sub-province of Mount Lebanon was Maronite-majority, but it was consituted with a multli-sectarian unit with a balance of representation for everyone.

With regard to your main point, of course the Ottomans subdivided, but the aim was to create provinces of roughly equal size, and they were not based on ethnicity or religion (especially not the latter, since by 1914 there were no provinces without Muslim majorities). If you had to divide it:

- "Syria" might have worked as a unit, to broadly but not exactly comprise today's Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan

- "Iraq" could have worked, minus the Mosul province, and maybe combined with Kuwait and the Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia.

- Asir should have gone with Yemen

- "Syria might have been strong enough to retain the Hijaz, especially with "Iraq" as I have it, and especially if the Hijaz Railway is restored.

- I would leave northern Iraq with Turkey, to which it was more closely linked than it was to Mesopotamia.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
This is just as bad, and pastes disparate regions together. There was really no way to accomplish the partition in a way that would work other than creating one large Arab state, and even that would entail a lot of problems. For one thing, it would probably be too weak to keep the Saudis in check, and it would have limited sovereignty due to imperial domination. If the whole Ottoman Empire didn't enjoy full sovereignty, it's pieces have little chance. Turkey had the military power, rough terrain, and lack of resources that anyone wanted to enable them to achieve independence. The Arabs have virtually no chance.

The Saudis have no oil. In check.
Turkey loses Armenia and Kurdistan (not marked on my map, sorry).
Iraq is big enough (especially with oil) to stand up to Iran.

As for imperial domination, ask the Americans when that will end.
I'd like to see an EU that embraces Turkey, North Africa, the Middle East and Arabia.

Hijaz Railway should continue on to Jiddah and Mecca then east to Riyadh and link up to Dhahran, Kuwait and Al Basrah with a branch coming off at Al Hufuf to Doha and Abu Dhabi
 
Last edited:
The Saudis have no oil. In check.
Turkey loses Armenia and Kurdistan (not marked on my map, sorry).
Iraq is big enough (especially with oil) to stand up to Iran.

As for imperial domination, ask the Americans when that will end.
I'd like to see an EU that embraces Turkey, North Africa, the Middle East and Arabia.

Hijaz Railway should continue on to Jiddah and Mecca then east to Riyadh and link up to Dhahran, Kuwait and Al Basrah with a branch coming off at Al Hufuf to Doha and Abu Dhabi

Barwhoop! Barwhoop! Volatile materials! Volatile materials! Prepare to evacuate thread!

Armenia is not, and has never been, a part of Turkey. Turkey giving up Armenia is therefor impossible. The plight of the large Armenian minority in eastern Anatolia during WW1 was dreadful, sure, but no way does that justify annexing those areas to the Armenian state. In 1914, there was, I believe, only a narrow Armenian majority in the area immediately around lake Van. In 1918, there were basically no Armenians left, and an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

I have no idea what you mean about Iraq. Persia (as it was then) was a complete joke. and not going to be messing around anywhere abroad.

Imperial domination will end, sure. But it leaves lingering problems.

Your EU scheme is really not practical, and I'm not in Euroskeptic mode as I say this. This is a diverse group of peoples, many with hereditary rivalries, irreentist and ethnic disputes, and religious differances. Not to mention that I don't trust them to use their scary oil monopoly responsibly.

Railways are great, I love railways! But...

Railways do verry little to prevent ethno-religious strife. However, this may be something to do with the Saudis taking over Hijaaz? Of that I am ignorant, so maybe more railway will help.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I Blame Communism wrote:
Barwhoop! Barwhoop! Volatile materials! Volatile materials! Prepare to evacuate thread!

Armenia is not, and has never been, a part of Turkey. Turkey giving up Armenia is therefor impossible. The plight of the large Armenian minority in eastern Anatolia during WW1 was dreadful, sure, but no way does that justify annexing those areas to the Armenian state. In 1914, there was, I believe, only a narrow Armenian majority in the area immediately around lake Van. In 1918, there were basically no Armenians left, and an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

I don't think that the Russians really care how many Armenians are left.

No EU scheme is practical. The idea is to cut across the realpolitik and start getting on with each other for mutual benefit.

More railway will help trade, dialogue and the Hajj. The four countries with capitals around Haifa may well form some political grouping.
 
I don't think that the Russians really care how many Armenians are left.

No EU scheme is practical. The idea is to cut across the realpolitik and start getting on with each other for mutual benefit.

More railway will help trade, dialogue and the Hajj. The four countries with capitals around Haifa may well form some political grouping.

I certainly agree about Russia, but for some reason I thought that the idea of a "just and stable peace" for the ME was supposed to extend to Russia as well. Doh.

I think your first and second points are argued from opposite angles. In the first you point out, quite rightly, that this thread is not an ASB utopia in the Middle-East, but an exploration of the actual consequences of differant Sykes-Picot agreements. And that means that the realpolitik of both the imperialists and the locals will prevail for the time being, so no MEU. If he was saying that he wants an MEU now, my point stands.

You make sound points about the railway.
 
As I recall the Hashemites couldn't even hold the vast majority of what the British handed them on a silver platter and failed miserably at taking more.

Just have someone give the Russians a good slapping on the grounds that their miserable performence against Germany and Austria-Hungary leaves absolutely no sane basis for attacking yet another country and the British and French will have nothing to do with such a plan.

The Ottomans declare themselves neutral, become rich as did so many other neutrals off the new trade and commerce prospects, and keeps Russia in the war by allowing free passage of needed supplies through the Straits. In all likelihood Bulgaria also sits out the war and Germany can do nothing without attacking a whole series of additional nations.
 
If the Allies had set as their only war aim--

to get the Ottomans to quit fighting on Germany's side, no harm, no foul.how soon could they have achieved it?

The thing is, unlike the idea outlined in Grimm's post, which makes it sound as if the Allies warred against the Ottoman's at Russia's suggestion, it was the Ottomans who declared war on the Allies.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
As I recall the Hashemites couldn't even hold the vast majority of what the British handed them on a silver platter and failed miserably at taking more.
Lol what? Hejaz was lost to the Al Saud, whose backers were the British after the Hashemite Sheik declared himself Caliph of Islam and kept pissing off his not so beneficial benefactors. Syria was lost due to the French kicking out the Syrian King, who left to Iraq and his family became the Royal Family. the Iraqi King then left to the Transjordan and started raiding French ruled Syria. the British then stepped in and gave him the TransJordan, which was a pitiful place at the time. So please tell me Grimm what in the hell was given to them on a silver platter, that was not eventually taken away by the same people?
 
Top