If the West hadn't got involved in the Middle East...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bravo_Bravo, Sep 3, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Very much agree.

    And the Brits' concerns were ignored even at the pre-planning stages.

    So also was Colin Powell's comment "You break it, you own it".
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  2. People can dream can't they? Or has that now been banned too?
     
  3. Can't say for sure, but I expect the Marshall Plan went towards paying for just about everything to help rebuild Germany.

    Re Japan have a look at Google where it mentions the USA did give aid after the war.
     
  4. But if we'd not had the BD then its very likely come 47/48 we wouldn't have had a presence in Palestine ergo no war with the terrorists of the Hagana etc.
    I'd also postulate that the establishment of an arab state in line with TE's ideas & proposals during 1917/18 that this 'may' have provided some basis for the arabs of their different denominations to have that homeland that they wanted albeit not necessarily Palestine - however Palestine itself was home to both arabs & jews living relatively peacefully. Maybe a jewish homeland could then have been born from peace rather than in the midst & subsequent aftermath of war. Its an interesting 'what if' although one with too many possibilities to come to any reasonable hypothesis imo.
     
  5. This is off the cuff so I'm probably going to make errors.
    The British presence was due to the mandate, not the Balfour Declaration-which was made under the mandate. British presence would remain until the future disposition of the territory was decided and that was not likely to happen in the 1930s regardless of what promises Balfour made. Or was it? If Britain completely pulls out of the area before WW2...I can't parse that one now, so I'll assume the mandate would continue in the context of the developing situation in Europe.
    The growing Arab/ Jewish conflicts of the 1930s would also have happened with or without the Balfour Declaration as it was very much a settler struggle for land and an eventual Jewish state regardless of British agreement. So unless a Palestinian state was created in the area in 1945/6, which then opposed and prevented Jewish immigration, you would still be in the same position.

    Given that there is no shortage of Arab states and ignoring a Jewish homeland for the moment (a project/dream dating back to the 19th century), the decision for Britain would be either a Palestinian state west of the Jordan or (unlikely) give the land to Jordan with a significant and increasing Jewish minority which would then become that state's problem and might have resulted in a Kurdish type situation, with no solid basis for international support for a Jewish state as given by the BD.
    So no Israel, but perhaps a conflict in a Palestine that wouldn't have the resources to totally prevent Jewish immigration? I think we can't ignore the huge impetus the Holocaust gave to both Jewish immigration and Jewish nationalism or the growing conflict.
     
  6. Marshall plan started in 1948 3 years AFTER the boxheads gave up. I dont see anywhere where the US & UK paid the defeated troops their pay earned while fighting us?
     
  7. IIRC German forces were disbanded after VE Day apart from some military police units kept active until 1946, and some naval units used to remove mines. They were under allied command, in uniform so I guess they were paid. All German forces officially abolished in August 1946.
    Edit: Interesting bit on the minesweeping from the hivemind...
    German Mine Sweeping Administration - Wikipedia

    And didn't Britain use Japanese troops to keep order in Indochina for a few months too?
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2017
  8. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    The Turks had no reason to play ball, in fact every reason to keep onside with the Iraqis, after all they suppressed those uppity Kurds who are a real PITA (as the cousins like to say) if you have a Turkish point of view (which I don't).
    Admittedly they didn't interfere with the humanitarian and protective ops in N Iraq immediately after GW1 so perhaps someone had leaned on them?
     
  9. Oh this is fun.

    All German and Japanese forces ordered to surrender on x and y date, effective when they encounter the nearest allied unit...September 1945 in the case of a German weather station in Svalbard and 1974 for some poor Japanese oke. Pay for POWs is a matter for the home government, or the imprisoning power if used for labour. The German government gets arrested but not formally abolished, Cold War ensues and so the Third Reich goes into legal limbo as an entity without institutions or authority until German reunification!
    Forced labour therefore ensues, apart from the MPs and the minesweepers who got paid.
    The Japanese government is never actually abolished but abolishes its own armed forces in 1947...but between 1945 and then the British use 35,000 Japanese, under Japanese officers, in combat in Southeast Asia, even recommending one battalion CO for an OBE!
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  10. AIUI the Japanese Army worked under Allied control post surrender. Not sure if they were paid or not but they may well have had POW status. And they'd been vanquished during a total war.

    Regardless, that was over 70 years ago and the Allies put systems in place to ensure the rule of law was maintained post surrender. The de Ba'athification of Iraq without having anything in its place was a disaster. It just allowed the competing factions to fight each other and the remaining coalition troops.

    As indicated in the OP, having a Strong Man in charge might not be the ideal situation to our Western eyes, but the removal of Strong men, plus the imposition of Western mores has been a recipe for chaos.

    Heavily armed chaos...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  11. Why should they?
     
  12. The fundamental difference between post war Germany & Iraq was the allied powers, once they'd put ex-Nazi govt officials through the 'de-nazifcation' process, they were then able to get jobs within the new hierarchy. That didn't occur post Iraq invasion except at very low level (see Rory Stewarts book on his governship role for some background). The US CPA was a joke with what it was trying to do in a very short tine using no UN assistance or middle east specialists input or advice - in cases where experts were consulted their advice was ignored. The CPA was very much a republican organisation wholly political in its outlook & as a result, its aims. There were staffers there in their early 20's who hadn't left the US before in their lives but were being given roles in creating a country from the ground up from scratch. It was utterly stupid of the US & especially Rumsfelt to attempt such a futile task & the resultant civil unrest & insurgency was inevitable.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 3
  13. Yes, the Japanese were used by the British postwar in Malaya and Indochina prior to the French return. Primarily to ensure the Communists didn't get in. They kept their weapons, ammo and accomodation. This rather annoyed the Communists who had often been the only resistance to the Japanese, and who had been disarmed by the British at war's end. They felt that no real change was now likely.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. jrwlynch

    jrwlynch LE Book Reviewer

    Direct experience reported here - Iraq Inquiry - Major General Tim Cross
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    We employed defeated Japanese in our and French Colonies as security forces until we had brought in sufficient replacements. Demob of Japanese and German PoWs and troops took place over a period of months and years, not near instantaneously as in Iraq
     
    • Informative Informative x 1