Hmm... that is true, and with Baathism/Arab National-Socialism both compromised ideologically by the war and clearly linked to Germany their options are lessoned. Although from the sound of it, there's still quite a few diehard ex-SS roaming around isn't there?
The former NCOs in this group come mostly from Balkans and Caucasus. Many re-enlisted solely because they felt persecuted in their postwar civilian life - after all, they had fought for a power that had promised to grand independence and better treatment for local Muslim populations and then broke these promises (with the sole exception of Albania).
The veterans who were recruited from the Middle-East were lured in by the Baathist propaganda apparatus that sought to portray the conflict as a justified religious war of defense against the Western imperialists and their Zionist masters. The outcome of Istanbul Conference has left them equally bitter, as they have realized that the Reich merely used their religious zeal to promote it´s own agenda.
Think them as a mixture of those few OTL post-WWII SS-veterans who enlisted to Foreign Legion or moved to Africa to work as mercenaries and local
mujahideen, unified by their religion and feeling of being used and betrayed.
I have a feeling the Monarchies regardless of intent will be seen as decadent and pro-Western.
I see little reason why things would go unlike in OTL in this regard.
Turkey's neutrality is a desirable option particularly if coupled with secular (kinda)democracy, however Turkey has the advantage in that respect of being a large mountainous country with no oil and its prime geopolitical hotspot - the Bosphorus Straits - has faded from importance. After WWII and the conquest of Russia, no-one has any need to bloody itself to control the Turks.
Oil rich, flat nations around the Persian Gulf however will have a problem.
The Anatolian Peninsula still retains much of it´s former geopolitical importance. But you are right, the tripolar Cold War ensures that Turkish leadership can play the opposing forces against one another and thus retain it´s own independence.
And for the Saudis and smaller states in the Gulf the increased Western activity and control changes very little - British imperial control is still daily reality for much of southern Arabian Peninsula and Gulf area, and granting them even formal independence is rather slow process.
This leaves Islamism as the dark horse candidate for "Saviour of the Arab World".
If all the superpowers and their ideologies are merely turning fellow Muslims against one another, why not seek alternatives from elsewhere?
Is there a non-aligned movement?
At least the current leadership of Egypt would certainly like to think so. But globally the different role the United Nations has when compared to OTL will have serious impact when it´s combined to the needs of United States export markets - the loss of trade with Europe has to be replaced somehow, and countries like Indonesia and India have thus some interesting new options.
I don't know. Forcing democratization on a people is three steps too sophisticated for 1950's western democracies.
Personally I think it is three steps too sophisticated for Western democracies even today.
How many times did the US in its interventions in central america actually impose successful democracies, and how many times did they just overthrow the government, install some loyal stooges in their stead and left? I think the latter one was more common. And it would be the pattern adopted by 1950s western democracies under this setting too, if you apply realistic expectations.
So far it has also been just like that. Palestine is a UN projectorate, the rest of the Arab-populated Middle-East under Western sphere of influence still has either Hashemite and Saudi monarchs or direct British colonial administration ruling the locals.
This is not the idealistic world of Kennedy and Johnson and the Berlin wall. Great society and democracy/freedom throughout the world and so on. This is just us vs. them.
But wouldn´t the confrontation with the realities of a New Order in Europe simply force Western democracies to offer serious alternatives to the authoritarian monster created by Berlin? The way democracy failed in post-Versailles Europe is clearly remembered both inside and outside the continent, and it will have impact on postwar thinking. If you want to read one book about the subject I recommed Mark Mazower and his
Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century.
In the early 1950s (real history) the social reform thing wasn't even half way through within the USA itself, British people were still thinking of Arabs as colonial populations best ruled by divide & conquer, and the French were fighting a war because they couldn't bring themselves to make Algerian muslims citizens even if the Algerians were willing to learn French, sing the Marseillaise and die happily in France's wars. (That's more than is asked from Algerian immigrants even today.) How pray tell would Americans and British politicians go about spreading democracy in the Muslim world of all places?
Well, granting Palestinian Arabs the right to vote for their representatives in local-level Provisional Councils is one thing, and rather different from the anacronistic notion of "spreading democracy", especially because we are still talking about the world of 1950´s as you correctly pointed out. It is also quite true that Algeria and the rest of the Free-French controlled colonies will witness some dramatic changes.
Oh no, you misunderstand me. I think the US will be more weary of strongmen in TTL because of militarist/fascist tendencies that could see them slide towards Germany. I get what you mean but the CIA wont be too confidant about propping up regimes that bare an uncanny resemblance to Berlin, particularly if the Germans have strong influence in the region. In OTL, the more right-wing the better really, it meant they were that more 'safe' at least in their eyes. Here though...
This is true to a certain extent - but then again authoritarian right-wing government and outright fascist dictatorship are two different things - and not all fascists are willing to align themselves with Berlin. Not that US public would be as indifferent towards possible alliances with fascist regimes as in OTL in any case.
Let's just say America and the Allies might suffer a few "Saddam" style turn arounds a lot earlier if they take the conventional route. It all depends on how much ideology and realpolitik mingles in the M.East in TTL, and who holds dominance in the region. The US certainly has the upperhand but that only makes them "Imperialist Pig-Dog" no. 1 in the eyes of Arab nationalists.
Say your the dictator of a Mid East country with strong ties to the USA. Your facing protests in the street etc. based on Arab nationalism calling for an end to American domination. Would you stick to your guns or contact Berlin and set up a weapons-for-oil programme?
Does one really have the German card to play after the outcome of the Middle-Eastern War? Berlin will be much more cautious in it´s near future foreign policy, and it would be really bold move from a local strongman to try this approach - The West interfered last time, so why not now? Especially since all METO member states have governments that are more or less afraid of their own people and thus eager to subdue all signs of rebellion in their neighbouring countries in order to prevent them from spreading.
They're just going to arm the guys who will keep selling them oil, and prop up the monarchies. Just my 2 cents
And to arm them primarily against their own people as long as the real foreign military threat in the region remains as low as it´s currently is.
