Why wasn't Hejaz and Yemen partitioned after WW1, and what if it was?

[fredinno]

Hejaz and Yemen were under the control of the Ottomans in WW1- and, revolted from the Ottoman Leadership. Unlike the the Arabs in the Fertile Cresent, who the British betrayed to expand both French and British holdings, the Hashemites remained in Hejaz.

Though the territory was technically within British SOI, I would assume the territory, if partitioned, would enter Italian control- if nothing else, to pacify them after the Treaty of Rome was broken (though the land was poor in resources and economic potential at the time.)

So why not, and what if it was?

 

[JodelDiplom]

Hejaz and Yemen were under the control of the Ottomans in WW1- and, revolted from the Ottoman Leadership. Unlike the the Arabs in the Fertile Cresent, who the British betrayed to expand both French and British holdings, the Hashemites remained in Hejaz.

Though the territory was technically within British SOI, I would assume the territory, if partitioned, would enter Italian control- if nothing else, to pacify them after the Treaty of Rome was broken (though the land was poor in resources and economic potential at the time.)

So why not, and what if it was?

Economic worthlessness, like you said? It's just a really, really desolate place with rough and warlike people inhabitating it. Plus, I think the local rulers did have good relationships with Britain.

 

[Geriander]

Maybe the British had enough sense not to directly annex Mecca. They had enough problems with muslim subjects without adding such an insult to the whole community.

 

[fredinno]

Maybe the British had enough sense not to directly annex Mecca. They had enough problems with muslim subjects without adding such an insult to the whole community.

They could just make it an LON 'free city', headed by the Hashemites.

Economic worthlessness, like you said? It's just a really, really desolate place with rough and warlike people inhabitating it. Plus, I think the local rulers did have good relationships with Britain.

No, they didn't. They just betrayed them when they partitioned the crescent.
And the idea was more to pacify Italy.

Yemen was more economically viable than Hedjaz- so at least they could give the Yemeni portion to Italy- being right off from Eritrea and all.

 

[Culise]

Well, on the one hand, the region was already ostensibly British in influence if not in official control, so I'm not sure they would have backed off and let the Italians in after the war. The British are in Aden directly; at the time of the negotiations at Versailles, their "trusted friends" already rule the Hejaz (Hashemites), Nejd (Saud), and Asir (Idrisids). The first wouldn't turn his coat until after the conference made it clear the British were not interested in Arabian independence, and likewise for the timing of the conquests of the second over the first and third. There was a bit of naivety around certain British actors in the region at this time (Lawrence, Gertrude Bell, and I believe Arnold Wilson as well) that the Arabs would not only meekly submit, but actually be pleased to accept a British paternalistic hold over their affairs. The region was not included in the mandatory territories because it was not of particular interest to the French, and thus not necessary to be partitioned in compromise. Moreover, the Hejaz was incontrovertibly promised to the sharif of Mecca already, where the Levantine coast, Baghdad, and Basra had been left more ambiguous as far as the British and French were concerned. Northern Yemen's position threatened to dominate the key British crown colony of Aden, and moreover, was dominated by the hostile Zaydi; inviting the Italians in would not have been strategically wise, even without foreknowledge of World War 2.

Besides, I'm not sure Italy would have been all that interested. At the peace table in 1919, it cannot be said the Arabian peninsula was of particular interest. In Africa, they were more concerned with British Somalia and Djibouti than Yemen, and were more willing to even make pretensions to bits of Egypt: territorial unity was the watchword for a single grand Italian colony uniting the Horn of Africa. Vague promises had been made and later disregarded about free access to Haifa and Acre in the Levant, but not as much regarding the Arabian shore of the Red Sea. Overall, they were much more concerned with Europe than Africa: Fiume, Trentino and Tyrol, Dalmatia, and the Dodecanese were of crucial interest to them. The tensions resulting from these European demands were quite enough to overthrow the Orlando government on June 19, 1919. It also made the British and French particularly unamenable to just giving the Italians anything. It's worth noting that scant years later, the two big losers in the transition from Sevres to Lausanne are going to be the Greeks and the Italians, and the three big winners the Turks, British, and French; this is not a coincidence. The British and French governments ended up thoroughly sick and tired of the Greeks and Italians over the course of these negotiations, and thus declined to take their considerations into account at the final treaty with Ataturk. They weren't likely to carve out chunks of their own regions of influence, even as indirect as the Arabian peninsula, to give to the Italians.

 

[DoomBunny]

Hejaz and Yemen were under the control of the Ottomans in WW1- and, revolted from the Ottoman Leadership. Unlike the the Arabs in the Fertile Cresent, who the British betrayed to expand both French and British holdings, the Hashemites remained in Hejaz.

The Hashemites also took power in Jordan and in Iraq, and in Hejaz were allowed to declare themselves King.

Though the territory was technically within British SOI,

The Arabian Peninsula was actually just straight up ignored; I assume because everyone regarded it as a massive blank space with no value in its partition.

I would assume the territory, if partitioned, would enter Italian control- if nothing else, to pacify them after the Treaty of Rome was broken (though the land was poor in resources and economic potential at the time.)

It wasn't going to Italy, because pretty much nothing was. France was set against giving Italy anything, Britain not keen on the idea either.

So why not, and what if it was?

Basically answered it above; the area was generally ignored.

No, they didn't. They just betrayed them when they partitioned the crescent.

The issue is a lot more complicated than this. If you look at what actually ended up happening, the Hashemites ended up with a lot of the territory they might have gained; both Jordan and Iraq fell under Hashemite rule. The latter is particularly interesting, because the first King was Feisal; the same man who had been promised Syria and had been kicked out by the French.

And the idea was more to pacify Italy.

Very few people were quaking in their boots over a nation which had, to the world's view, just spent three years in futile attempts to take out the laughing stock of Europe.

Yemen was more economically viable than Hedjaz- so at least they could give the Yemeni portion to Italy- being right off from Eritrea and all.

Much of Yemen was already under British influence. As for Italy, the same point is again raised; why?

There was a bit of naivety around certain British actors in the region at this time (Lawrence, Gertrude Bell, and I believe Arnold Wilson as well) that the Arabs would not only meekly submit, but actually be pleased to accept a British paternalistic hold over their affairs.

Lawrence was actively in favour of the Arabs, and tried his best to get Feisal installed as King of 'Greater' Syria (roughly comprising Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Northern Iraq).

Wilson was a paternalist through and through and felt the Arabs should just be ruled directly as any other colony, thereby experiencing the wonders of enlightened Western rule; suffice to say the Arabs were not of the same mind.

Bell veered between the two a bit, initially siding with Wilson (they were good friends) but then turning her back on him completely and pushing for greater independence for the Arabs when she saw the practical difficulties.

Yet another lobby in India was pushing for Mesopotamia/Iraq to be made into a colony of the Raj that could be settled with Indians from the sub-continent who would then perform essentially the same civilizing function as the British were meant to in other mandates (IIRC German East Africa was also the target of this sort of policy).

 

[Galaahd]

France and England didn't want to give Italy anything because they wanted everything for themselves, simply put.

The betrayal of the deal was a huge factor behind the rise of Fascism, which indirectly led to WW2. Italy wasn't a power capable of directly threatening France and the UK, but OTOH the UK and France clearly didn't like having yet another colonial competitor.

 

[fredinno]

The Arabian Peninsula was actually just straight up ignored; I assume because everyone regarded it as a massive blank space with no value in its partition.

...Which was why the British colonized Bahrain and Qatar.

Also, you could say the same with much of Africa during the Scramble. Yemen is probably more useful than, say, Italian Ethiopia, considering control of Yemen would give Italy some influence over shipping in the Red Sea. Though this is its own issue, since it would compete with British Influence.

France and England didn't want to give Italy anything because they wanted everything for themselves, simply put.

The betrayal of the deal was a huge factor behind the rise of Fascism, which indirectly led to WW2. Italy wasn't a power capable of directly threatening France and the UK, but OTOH the UK and France clearly didn't like having yet another colonial competitor.

And yet, the Italians were already competing with the French in N. Africa.

 

[DoomBunny]

...Which was why the British colonized Bahrain and Qatar.

These were protectorates, which served to help control the West of the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and the entrance to the Red Sea; they were also coastal extremities rather than expansive interiors, and ones acquired pre-1914.

Also, you could say the same with much of Africa during the Scramble. Yemen is probably more useful than, say, Italian Ethiopia, considering control of Yemen would give Italy some influence over shipping in the Red Sea. Though this is its own issue, since it would compete with British Influence.

This doesn't really contribute much when you already control Suez, Aden, and Somaliland. As said, the British and French really weren't interested in the area and pretty much ignored it.

And yet, the Italians were already competing with the French in N. Africa.

How well did that go? The Italians conquered Libya in a rather jerky fashion, then proceeded to expand it with gifts from the other two powers.