Alternate history is one of my favorite topics, and I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

  • freebee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Not necessarily. The divisions in middle east today have roots to end of WW1 and collapse of Ottoman empire and decline of British empire. There would still be a shit load of oil in middle east. There would still be limited amount of water… It could be very different, which countries ally, what kind of regimes etc, but not necessarily more peaceful region as a whole.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      In a world where the axis won, they would have taken a sizable portion of the middle east to secure oil for the war, so the region would look very different.

      • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Germany was not interested in the Middle East. They wanted Lebensraum in Eastern Europe and Russia. The Gulf Monarchies would have sold them oil in the same way they have been doing to the US as hegemon. There may have been joint ventures like Saudi Aramco but there wouldn’t have been CIA coups and regime changes because there would be no Soviet threat.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Germany was actively trying to get some level of control over middle east oil during the war. Their failure to secure reliable and plentiful oil is a big reason they lost. The campaigns in north Africa were largely about control of Egypt and the Suez canal. Part of the invasion to Soviet lands was also opening a route to the middle east.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          The Gulf Monarchies would have sold them oil in the same way they have been doing to the US as hegemon.

          And the USA has significantly intervened in Middle East politics.

          It is likely that Nazi Germany would intervene in the Middle East to secure its oil; the various nation-states were still forming and borders were somewhat volatile. Germany would likely intervene to ensure that the oil flows.

          Also, after a while, the German state would need another infusion of money and cheap Arab oil would be a perfect resource to bring under control of the Nazi state.

    • dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      On top of that, Jews fleeing from Europe would still need a place to live and there is a decent chance that the British would still give up Palestine to form Israel. Maybe a few years later and with a few details changed but overall not much of a difference.

      • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Israel exists due to US support for Heganah and similar groups, and global guilt following the public awareness of the Holocaust.

        Britain being defeated would probably led to a loss of empire, and with Palestine outside British control the “memo to aid in creation of a Jewish state” would cease, there’d still be Jewish terrorists groups, but it’d go very differently without US power projection and Nazi sphere of influence.

      • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        The British handed over Palestine to the UN. There would be no UN if Germany won. The UK might have just handed over Palestine to a local friendly Arab monarchy like Jordan

    • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Literally every problem in the Middle East stems from the Zionist colony established by the Western imperialists and the subsequent Cold War between the US and Soviet Union.

      Assuming the Sykes Picot division held and pro Western monarchies in Iraq, Egypt and Iran remained in power, what reason would there be for military coups to depose Western monarchs? Without Soviet support and the threat of Israel, what would be propelling Arab nationalism in the 1950s?

      The axis powers had very little interest in the Middle East prior to 1939. Hitler wanted Lebensraum in Russia and Italy was interested in Africa. There’s no reason to believe they would start wars in the region if the Gulf Monarchies were willing to sell them oil.

      In this hypothetical reality, I’d imagine the Middle East would largely be run by monarchies, with deep ties to Germany and Italy.

      • dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Literally every problem in the Middle East stems from the Zionist colony established by the imperialists

        The Middle East has had problems for thousands of years before the state of Israel got established. Its strategic location between Africa and Asia caused Palestine to be conquered by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, European crusaders, Arabs again, Ottomans and the British Empire. Three major religions see Jerusalem as a sacred place and have fought wars over it.

        Zionism is definitely a major reason for the problems we have in our timeline but assuming there would be no problems at all seems overly simplistic.

        Also, the Axis winning the war does not guarantee that Israel won’t get established. There would still be hundreds of thousands of Jews who flee from Europe and need somewhere to live. The Axis, being the cause of the problem, wouldn’t be interested in solving it and the rest of the world has basically the same options as in our timeline.

        The axis powers had no interest in the Middle East prior to 1939 and there’s no reason to believe they would start wars in the region if The Gulf Monarchies were willing to sell them oil.

        I could very well see them trying to stay mostly neutral and selling oil to everyone. Profit is more important than ideology, especially if food and water are scarce. But even in real life, that hasn’t kept superpowers from finding excuses to attack oil-rich nations.

        • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          It’s easy to think that the Middle East is chaotic because of what’s going on now but the region was at peace for over 500 years under Ottoman Rule.

          Western Imperialism and Israel are the reason the region is a mess.

          • dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            It’s easy to think that the Middle East is chaotic because of what’s going on now but the region was at peace for over 500 years under Ottoman Rule.

            No doubt on that point.

            But the Ottoman Empire ended a solid 30 years before Israel got established. To prevent the problems the region has now, different choices would have been necessary after WW1, not just WW2. For the purpose of a “What happens if WW2 ends differently” thread, that chance has already passed. The British Mandate has been established and there are already enough Jewish immigrants to have caused the 1936-39 Arab revolt and hundreds of thousands of Jews have already fled Europe. The Axis winning WW2 would probably put even more pressure on the Allies to let Jewish refugees live in Palestine because sending them back to Europe is not just an unattractive option, it’s outright impossible.