I recently polled my people and this is what they wanted me to write about. Fortunately I can use declassified CIA documents for most of my research.
There were multiple huge crises in the Middle East in 1958 that seemed like they were going to lead the world into war. There was even a major deployment of US troops there. But you never hear about them. Why? Because there wasn't a war. I'm going to tell you some stories about what scared the heck out of everyone in the USA and the Middle East but they managed to get it under control. Think of it as the anti-Chernobyl.
Buddy Holly - Peggy Sue. Yeah, those were the days.
Syria
The first big crisis of the year, the one that got everything rolling, was Syria's admission to the United Arab Republic. Or to say it another way, Syria being annexed by Egypt. Every state in the region and the superpowers had been expecting something like this to happen eventually since World War II. Now it seemed that the balance of power had been overturned and all of the pent-up conflicts in the Middle East were about to blow up.
I'm guessing it wasn't really a 99.99% vote in favor of it because Nasser had grave misgivings about this and could barely be persuaded to.
Syria was the most failed "failed state" that you could imagine. It owes its existence to the French demand at the end of World War I that after all their sacrifices they deserved their own chunk of the Ottoman Empire. In 1946 it gained its independence but it didn't have much of a national identity other than being the land that France used to own. It was widely expected that it would soon be absorbed into a larger Arab state with Iraq and Jordan. But for extremely complicated reasons this didn't happen and little Syria survived.
Notice how everything he mentions being in "Syria" is in what we call "Lebanon" now.
Soon it wished it hadn't survived. After independence Syria had about one successful coup every two years and countless failed ones. By 1958 most of the factions had been purged from political life and it was Ba'athists who held a tenuous grip on power. They couldn't even trust their fellow Ba'athists, and worse, the Communists were becoming dangerously powerful. And nobody likes a commie. In order to make sure they didn't seize control, in January 1958 Syria's leaders came up with a creative strategy: Become part of Egypt.
One of the main factions that briefly held power there in the early 1950s was the batshit crazy SSNP. I heard the British were supporting them back then.
Egypt
This was pretty crazy but not as crazy as it sounds. There was a strong desire across the region to unite into one Arab nation. What is the heart of the Arab nation? Egypt. And its leader Nasser was the only one who could do this. Two years earlier in the Suez Crisis, Eisenhower ordered Britain and France back into their cucksheds and forbid them to invade other countries anymore. But Arabs saw this as a great victory where Nasser stood up to the colonial powers and defeated them, which at least had a kernel of truth to it. Many people across all the Arab world considered him to be their leader and were annoyed that their country hadn't joined him yet.
Some of the most extreme cope I've ever seen. British troops withdrawing in humiliation from Egypt under American orders, never to return.
The only problem is, how do you get Nasser onboard? He wants to to unify the Arabs, but he doesn't want to start out by being responsible for this basket case country that doesn't have its shit together. Eventually he agrees on a few conditions: The Syrian people have to vote for him. All political parties will be dissolved. The army will get out of politics.
The conservative monarchies are not about to take this lying down. The Saudis try to arrange a coup before unification can happen, but it is terribly inept. The King of Iraq, who kinda hoped he was gonna be the one to annex Syria and lead the Arab world, proposes merging with Jordan. It's another pro-British monarchy ruled by his brother so it makes sense in these dangerous times. The problem is, the Saudis are afraid of Nasser but they're also afraid of Iraq and Jordan getting too powerful, so they have trouble coordinating a response.
This is what the government of Iraq was like in the 1950s. I wonder what will happen to them...
The UAR
On February 22 Egypt and Syria join together as the United Arab Republic.
The kings of Iraq and Jordan are worried that this will lead the many Nasserists among their own people to overthrow them.
King of Saudi Arabia is too busy dealing with getting overthrown by his brother to do much.
President Chamoun of Lebanon is extremely alarmed. The domestic situation is already really screwed up and the last thing he needs is Nasserists on 80% of the country's border.
Israel doesn't really care since both Egypt and Syria are already hostile to them. Their only problem is if Iraq and Jordan merge because Iraq would be the senior partner and they are not fans of the whole Zionism thing.
The British are desperate to keep alive the Arab monarchies they set up after WWI. Their whole imperial plan was to build these up and now they only have Iraq and Jordan left.
The USA is ambivalent. Nasser is hard to deal with, but at least he kept the commies out of the region.
The Soviets are probably as mad as Boris Badenov when one of his plots fails.
Epilogue
Nasser soon sends Egyptians to take over key government positions away from Syria. The Ba'athists are understandably butthurt as they're the ones who invited the Egyptians to come and now they're getting pushed out of power and having their newspapers shut down. The Egyptians probably figure that if these people are so incapable of running their own lives that they ask us to take over their country, they can't be trusted in leadership roles. There's also less obvious divisions, like business people being butthurt about how the Egyptians don't understand that their economy is different. These tensions were already obviously before the year was out. In 1961, a coup topples the Egyptians. Like so many others who tried to control Syria in this era, they lasted about two years.
Damascus, 1950s. According to some redditor.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I actually learned a bit about this while reading up on Egyptian history. Nasser's brief union with Syria ended up galvanizing Syrian nationalism since they didn't like being controlled entirely by Egypt with little representation. Another problem was that other leaders like Gaddafi also wanted to unite and centralize the Arab world under their leadership, so Nasser could only hope for loose alliances with them at best.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's how so many of these countries formed a national identity. We all got oppressed by that other country. Like how Lebanon has become a real nation now because getting fricked over by Syria and Israel is a common experience that everyone shares.
I don't blame Nasser for this. You see what they did when they were left to their own devices.
This is the whole point of me writing this!
They were not contemporaries. Gaddafi took over in 1969. Nasser died in 1970, but the dream of him as the Arab defender of the faith died in one day in 1967 when all his planes got blown up on the ground by the Israelis at the start of that war.
After 1967 everything changed. These countries get new leaders (Sadat, Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein). It's like two different worlds.
My point here in writing this is to try to get across to people that half of the Cold War was totally different from what boomer media and boomer education has taught you expect. There was stuff going on like a pro-British King of Iraq. That was considered normal at the time. !historychads
Also btw Gaddafi was never taken seriously as an Arab leader by anyone except himself. People just sucked up to him to get money. But the fight over who would establish themself as the leader of Islam in the 1970s-1980s... there will be a lot to say about that someday.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Admittedly I get the time periods of the leaders mixed up I guess Nasser really did come before almost everyone else
Sadat and Gaddafi did try to create the Federation of Arab Republics shortly after Nasser's era, so there was a brief period where Libya worked with Egypt to try and continue those earlier ideas.
I'm not really disagreeing with you about anything btw I'm just spitballing things I remember
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm not trying to be a peepee about this, but Nasser coming first and then dying and leaving this huge power vacuum is really important to everything that happens everywhere later.
There's two crucial differences here:
People actually gave a shit when Nasser spoke on Radio Cairo about freeing us from eurotrash domination or whatever. Nobody in the street cared about some piece of paper that probably won't amount to anything (and they were right).
Gaddafi is fricking insane. No hyperbole. This guy is fricking nuts. He just throws out semtex to everyone he meets from around the world.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
@Arran thanks for downmarseying me. It reminded me I skipped over a really important part: The Israelis didn't really give a shit about this. There's all these huge events happening in neighboring countries around them but whatever the outcome is, it's all the same to them. That's not supposed to be a criticism, I mean it really won't matter so the wisest course of action is to just sit back and watch. (Which is what they did, so Israel will not be mentioned much in these stories.)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I love how just a few years of domination by France and Britain could cause an entire region so much lasting damage....
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
These places were already incredibly fricked up. Like the reason why France first got an excuse to intervene is they were massacring each other already in the 1860s. But yeah, just breaking off a chunk of a country, that can't be helpful. And Lebanon is totally artificial. It's designed to have a lot of minorities who can't get along, like some kind of sick social experiment.
Most of the countries that fell under the British sphere of influence are doing relatively okay now. The French on the other hand...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You could probably justify an Arab Christian state in the area in and around Lebanon but the nature of its current existence is a bit harder to.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's really tough because the different groups are so mixed up with each other, where do you draw the border? But the French managed to do a particularly bad job, like including the big Sunni city of Tripoli.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Oh you haven't heard? Everything can be solved with population exchanges.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Arab Nationalist unification was the best hope for prosperity in the region, too bad none of the dictators were competent enough to make it happen, Nasser was close i guess but he really fumbled this.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't think so. It would have always ended up like this. There's a lot more differences between them than they were willing to admit back in the 1940s-1970s.
As for Nasser, I don't know him well enough to judge him, but I doubt you could find anyone who was that charismatic, ruthless enough to get into power and stay there, and also be really good at making policy decisions at the same time.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
So, Three Mile Island, then?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Tldr?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In the 1950s Syria was so fricked up that they begged Egypt to annex them. That scared other countries.
I know what you're going to say.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What do you think I was going to say?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You know exactly what you bastard!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
First of all, the downmarsey was completely uncalled for . Rectify that IMMEDIATELY
Second, and I'm gonna be honest with you, I actually don't know lol. Can't say tldr again or too many words because the tldr is actually a tldr (it's short).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I assumed it was gonna be the "too long, didn't read" one. Come on, be honest, that's what you were thinking.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why would I be honest with a dramatard? That's just r-slurred of you.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I swear I wasn't
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My crystal ball told me it was you. Who should I trust between you and my crystal ball?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I've got a Krystal Ball right here for you pal
And you didn't take back your downmarsey. Frickin , why won't you believe me
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results.
-- Machiavelli
Snapshots:
gained its independence:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
for extremely complicated reasons:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
getting overthrown by his brother:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
a coup:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context