What if Britain let France drag out the Levant crisis instead of decisively ending it?

[ahmedali]

If the British are doing this much out of spite of France, why don't they just help the Syrians against the French in the first place.

But if the French so align with the Zionists and the British correspondingly align with the non-Syrian Arabs and things polarize that way, is the probable outcome that the British and the Arab Legion with greater initial influence on the ground and potential manpower win and defeat the Zionists? Or are the Zionists somehow surviving with French support because somehow (possibly American and Soviet pressure, or their own fatigue and poverty) the British are not providing their own full measure of potential support to the Arab side.

Whatever happens to the Zionists, whether they live or die...


...you think the French can keep trying to hold down the Syrian cauldron for 17 years from 1945 to 1962? And all factions except Sunni Islamists will run out of replacements?

Islamist independent Syria may expel, ethnically(or religiously) cleanse, or genocide its minorities, but will be anti-communist because of religion, and the west will accept it as an anticommunist ally like Saudi Arabia. [and since Israel might not exist, it won't be a complicating factor being aligned with a west that seems pro-Israeli?]

Yes, I see the British supporting the Arabs (the Biafra war, for example, the British supported the Nigerian government against France-supported Biafra)

If this happens, I doubt that Israel will survive

Yes, and the Islamists will basically be the ones left as the only alternative if the leftists are so persecuted and the moderates are unpopular because they are so friendly to France.

Yes, and you may do like Algeria and expel them

Yes, it will be a Western ally because it is strongly anti-communist

 

[Genkou]

Why did Britain do that to France?

 

[ahmedali]

Why did Britain do that to France?

Because de Gaulle is an anti-British prick

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

Because de Gaulle is an anti-British prick

If you read "A line in the Sand" by James Bar, you'll see that it's just a continuation of the middle eastern policies of the Interbellum for both countries.

 

[ahmedali]

If you read "A line in the Sand" by James Bar, you'll see that it's just a continuation of the middle eastern policies of the Interbellum for both countries.

And de Gaulle tried to get rid of it by following a third path

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

And de Gaulle tried to get rid of it by following a third path

I think you misunderstood me. Both France and England before the war were constantly undermining each others position in their respective mandate by aiding movements that strove to independence of their nations in the territory of the other. So both de Gaulle and Churchill are just continuing this.

 

[ahmedali]

I think you misunderstood me. Both France and England before the war were constantly undermining each others position in their respective mandate by aiding movements that strove to independence of their nations in the territory of the other. So both de Gaulle and Churchill are just continuing this.

In the end, the Soviets and the United States undermined them

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Why did Britain do that to France?

There was always a strong pro Arab faction in the Foreign Office.

 

[raharris1973]

Any opinions on this @Tanc49 or @La Rouge Beret - you both seem to know a good bit about French colonialism.

what about you @Nathan Bernacki , you often have opinions on the 20th century Middle East?

@David Flin @Riain @gaitskellitebevanite - any further perspectives from the British POV?

 

[ahmedali]

If the British are doing this much out of spite of France, why don't they just help the Syrians against the French in the first place.

But if the French so align with the Zionists and the British correspondingly align with the non-Syrian Arabs and things polarize that way, is the probable outcome that the British and the Arab Legion with greater initial influence on the ground and potential manpower win and defeat the Zionists? Or are the Zionists somehow surviving with French support because somehow (possibly American and Soviet pressure, or their own fatigue and poverty) the British are not providing their own full measure of potential support to the Arab side.

Whatever happens to the Zionists, whether they live or die...


...you think the French can keep trying to hold down the Syrian cauldron for 17 years from 1945 to 1962? And all factions except Sunni Islamists will run out of replacements?

Islamist independent Syria may expel, ethnically(or religiously) cleanse, or genocide its minorities, but will be anti-communist because of religion, and the west will accept it as an anticommunist ally like Saudi Arabia. [and since Israel might not exist, it won't be a complicating factor being aligned with a west that seems pro-Israeli?]

If the British sided with the Arabs, Israel would not have been established, and Zionism would receive a fatal blow

Yes, they can continue to control the Syrian cauldron for another seventeen years, because Syria is very flat

Islamists will become popular because France will crush the Arab left so badly and the moderate liberal option will become unpopular

Expulsions just won't stand the world's reaction against them

 

[David Flin]

@David Flin @Riain @gaitskellitebevanite - any further perspectives from the British POV?

Not my period.

I can talk about the region in the 1970s, not in the immediate post-war period.

 

[Tanc49]

Any opinions on this @Tanc49 or @La Rouge Beret - you both seem to know a good bit about French colonialism.

what about you @Nathan Bernacki , you often have opinions on the 20th century Middle East?

@David Flin @Riain @gaitskellitebevanite - any further perspectives from the British POV?

Seen, am in Vietnam this week, but anticipating boring day tomorrow so will have a look. I know more about pre WWII but still interesting to look at

 

[raharris1973]

Expulsions just won't stand the world's reaction against them

? Islamist expulsions? Some kind of world reaction? Don’t know what you’re trying to say.

 

[ahmedali]

? Islamist expulsions? Some kind of world reaction? Don’t know what you’re trying to say.

I mean, Islamists will not commit genocide against minorities, just expel them

 

[Riain]

Any opinions on this @Tanc49 or @La Rouge Beret - you both seem to know a good bit about French colonialism.

what about you @Nathan Bernacki , you often have opinions on the 20th century Middle East?

@David Flin @Riain @gaitskellitebevanite - any further perspectives from the British POV?

I don't know anything about it, in fact I tend to avoid the first few postwar years like the plague, they're so chaotic you might as well flip a coin as make a plan. Sorry.

 

[Tanc49]

I'm currently trying to keep my stomach in vaguely working order and trying to... keep my dignity in a HCMC Starbucks (I know, but after a week of local experience, I needed western safety and comfort in a... trying time) so here are a few thoughts. I hope they make sense

Britain relied a great deal on cooperation with France post-WWII

And vice versa. I'd hold the opposite to be more true. The UK didn't lose any colony, was not occupied... France was reliant on allied good will to be considered among the Victor's and not endure an allied occupation.

What if, out of this general valuation of France, Britain went wobbly on France in Syria and let it try its takeover in 1945 and beyond?

France managed to fight in Vietnam until 1954, I wouldn’t be surprised if France would be fighting in Syria for years.

How did it manage to hold that long though? The Americans were paying for it. The whole French war effort ended up being bankrolled by the US in the name of anti-communism.
The French were, IIRC (and given my current state it's a big if, and I don't have my books), initially not permitted to reoccupy Indochina and it was UK intervention to the US which made it possible.
The US didn't want the old powers to have their old colonies, surely out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they were now the Hyperpower.
If the UK had not supported France, things would have gone sour.
This means Syria could actually blow up with a revanchist France trying to "restore its honour" against Perfidious Albion. It'd be a good way to let old grudges die, and not sure the US would intervene on an internecine colonial dispute. Depends when exactly it happens I guess.

Now specifically in that region, while both countries had an interest in seeing the other one gone, I'd imagine it's a tight rope as you want to stoke fires just enough to see the other one gone, without endangering your own position. Hence why nationalism in a shared colonial sphere is dangerous

DeGaulle, attributed it to something else, more materialistic: saying that, "the whole thing stank of oil".

It's what I remember from "A line in the sand". Fields were suspected or even discovered in Syria by then. I'd recommend double checking before taking me at my word on this one though

 

[thenextgui]

[and since Israel might not exist, it won't be a complicating factor being aligned with a west that seems pro-Israeli?]

Modern Zionism originated in the 19th century, long before the POD. Israel should still exist ITL.

 

[mike of mass]

If the British sided with the Arabs, Israel would not have been established, and Zionism would receive a fatal blow

Yes, they can continue to control the Syrian cauldron for another seventeen years, because Syria is very flat

Islamists will become popular because France will crush the Arab left so badly and the moderate liberal option will become unpopular

Expulsions just won't stand the world's reaction against them

History seems to indicate that the British did side with the Arabs : training and supplying officers for the Arab legion, handing over strategic forts to Arab forces during the withdrawal, the arms embargo on the Zionists, preventing Jewish immigration. so clearly British opposition to the Zionists was not a death blow to the movement

 

[ahmedali]

History seems to indicate that the British did side with the Arabs : training and supplying officers for the Arab legion, handing over strategic forts to Arab forces during the withdrawal, the arms embargo on the Zionists, preventing Jewish immigration. so clearly British opposition to the Zionists was not a death blow to the movement

In fact, I am talking about direct support, similar to what happened in the Biafra war

When the United Kingdom sided with the Nigerian government directly against French-backed Biafra

 

[mike of mass]

In fact, I am talking about direct support, similar to what happened in the Biafra war

When the United Kingdom sided with the Nigerian government directly against French-backed Biafra

Could they do it so close after a world war ? The British public was war weary. They dumped Churchill. I think this is why they used the arab armies as proxies .