Political Crossfire Forums

[DSwain]

The opportunities for an anti-British intifada during the early stages of the Second World War were numerous - yet the Axis never effectively exploited them. One such episode was the fighting in Iraq between British and Iraqi forces that occurred in early 1941.

Iraq had been a British mandate from the end of WW1 until 1932 when Iraq was granted independence. However, Iraq remained a vassal state of Britain. With the defeat of France and the expected defeat of Great Britain, anti-British feeling in the Middle East was febrile. By 1941, an anti-British coup was staged in Baghdad, deposing the pro-British monarchy.

Iraqi forces attacked British installations throughout the country. The 'showdown' came at the RAF station at Habbaniya. Following days of fighting between Iraqi troops and RAF ground personnel, the Iraqis were beaten off. Within days units of the British Indian Army had reached Basra and relieved Habbaniya. British troops now marched on Baghdad, the coup was squashed and the pro-British Iraqi monarch re-installed.

At the beginning of the coup, the coup leaders had pleaded with Italy and Germany to supply troops, aircraft and supplies. Vichy France had been willing to co-operate by offering staging grounds to Axis forces for Iraq in Syria. A handful of Luftwaffe aircraft did reach Baghdad and did fight British forces in Iraq.

But my question is (finally!) What if the Axis had poured men and material into Iraq? Even a reinforced brigade of 5,000 men with supporting arms - easily within the capacity of Axis airlift - could have swung matters the coupsters' way. And with Iraq as an Axis ally, there might have been impetus for a wider intifada against the British throughout the Middle East, as was the dream of the Mufti of Jerusalem.

[battleax86]

I doubt it. For one, we would have to make the huge assumption that Hitler would be willing to send a brigade to Iraq that was desperately needed in Russia. Secondly, assuming Hitler did send this brigade and the coup was successful, it's unlikely that the British would have said, "Oh, they took out our government, so I guess Iraq is lost." It's obvious that the coup didn't have the full support of the Iraqi people and 5000 German troops wouldn't have made much of a difference when thousands more British troops began pouring in from India or other British colonies in the region. Even if it had knocked the Brits back on their heels a bit, it only would have been a matter of time before American troops showed up and helped Britain take care of business, like they did in North Africa.

So, besides the improbability that Axis control of Iraq would have lasted long, the lack of popular support for the intifada in the originating country makes it hard to imagine it spreading throughout the Middle East, even if it was temporarily successful in Iraq.

[DSwain]

battleax86 wrote: I doubt it. For one, we would have to make the huge assumption that Hitler would be willing to send a brigade to Iraq that was desperately needed in Russia. Secondly, assuming Hitler did send this brigade and the coup was successful, it's unlikely that the British would have said, "Oh, they took out our government, so I guess Iraq is lost." It's obvious that the coup didn't have the full support of the Iraqi people and 5000 German troops wouldn't have made much of a difference when thousands more British troops began pouring in from India or other British colonies in the region. Even if it had knocked the Brits back on their heels a bit, it only would have been a matter of time before American troops showed up and helped Britain take care of business, like they did in North Africa.

So, besides the improbability that Axis control of Iraq would have lasted long, the lack of popular support for the intifada in the originating country makes it hard to imagine it spreading throughout the Middle East, even if it was temporarily successful in Iraq.

Many thanks for your response, battleax86.

In one way I agree, 5,000 troops don't take a whole country. But if you look at when the coup happened - mid 1941 - it was a time for the Allies when there was scope for a collapse. Obviously Barbarossa was well under way, steamrollering the Russians. Hitler being willing to send 5,000 men into an uncertain situation is a big assumption, I agree. However I don't agree that the Germans couldn't have found 5,000 men - they could easily have taken the troops from garrisons in the West. 5,000 German troops + the Iraqi army would have been a tough proposition for British and Indian troops in southern Iraq. Which might have brought us to a 'tipping point' - Iraq teeters then what of British dominated Persia? And Palestine? And Egypt? Egyptian sentiment was at best ambiguous towards the British in 1941, at worst hostile and pro-Axis. Mid 1941 and Tobruk was still besieged with British efforts to relieve the port - Operation Battleaxe - foundering in the desert. Malta seemed to be threatened with airborne and seaborne invasion.

And as for a region-wide intifada - it wasn't that there was a lack of public support but rather caution to see which way the war was turning. The British Empire had been such a presence in the eastern Mediterrenean for so long that resident populations really couldn't believe that Britain would go down. But would failure - or at least stalemate - in Iraq have led people to that 'tipping point'? Where they began to feel that not only would the Axis win the war but that they offered the Middle East a better way ahead (an idea propagated by Berlin).

As for US intervention, while American material was already making a big difference, obviously the United States was still officially at peace. US troops wouldn't appear in North Africa for another 18 months.

[superskippy]

I think you underestimate the anti British sentiment in opposition to the Iraqi's relative passive view of the Germans. The Iraqi's who rose against the British were widely admired in Iraq and following Iraq's independence those Iraqi's became the head of the new Iraq and became not only it's leaders but the formers of it's major parties.

Given the oppertunity and the chance of victory in Iraq I think that without a doubt the Iraqi's would have in the very least went about their lives passivly definatly not taking up arms for the British, and many firebreathers and young idealists and independence supporters would have bolstered Iraqi divisions.

A 5,000 man well supplied and supported German contigent could have forced a few things. Either another minor front draining thousands of British troops and supplies from North Africa and the distinct possability of defeat if the expedition was not properly prepared.

Or the British religating it to a later date and withdrawing troops to defensive positions in their Middle East colonies. That seems the least likely choice as if Iraq fell or if the British failed to halt the uprising or were defeated by the German expeditionary force than the entire Middle East could be threatened by German forces and Arab revolt could have been more widespread as the British teetered in the Middle East.

[battleax86]

Well, I'm not going to argue this one. I honestly don't know that much about the subject and I don't have a great deal of time to research it. The only reason I even know the Middle East played a role in the war is because my grandfather was an aircraft mechanic stationed in Iraq.

[DSwain]

battleax86 wrote: Well, I'm not going to argue this one. I honestly don't know that much about the subject and I don't have a great deal of time to research it. The only reason I even know the Middle East played a role in the war is because my grandfather was an aircraft mechanic stationed in Iraq.

Nice to hear your opinions though battleax, cheers