Who signs the Treaty of Sevres on Turkey's behalf? The Nationalists after being beaten, or the Communists, a la Brest-Litovsk, after putting down the Nationalists?
The Sultan signs the treaty of course. The Nationalists and the Communists that succeed them are rebels against the Sultan's rightful rule (a view that OTL only changed with Lausanne).
So all the zones of influence and possibly Kurdistan would likely remain part of the "Ottoman Empire", while Communist Turkey would probably just sign a treaty with the Sultan with the two being forced to mutually recognize what the other holds.
Whoever signs away the territory bears the onus of the defeat, I'd think. If the Nationalists signed, the Communists need not respect the resulting boundaries at all; it becomes a matter of whether they can muster enough local support for their regime allied with the USSR to discourage the foreigners from trying to hang on. I agree the Greeks will probably hang on tenaciously, and if the Communists have torn up Sevres will probably be encouraged by Britain to take as much more as they can--vice versa in that case if the Communists can defend the extra land and muster the force to invade the ceded territories, the Greeks might possibly not be able to hold them.
Why would Britain encourage the Communists to take as much as they can? Britain was strongly anti-Turk and anti-Communist at this point.
And I doubt that either Turkey or the USSR would have the ability or desire to fight any longer. The Turks had been fighting just about non-stop since 1911, when the Italians invaded them, and the Soviets had just finished one of the worst civil wars in history and a bruising war with Poland.
And so perhaps that is Sevres. If it is the Communists who sign this treaty, I daresay the concessions will stand, and the zones of influence/demilitarization will stand at least in the case of the British and French zones. Also, we might not be able to write off Italy if the Italians have not left by the time Mussolini takes power, anti-Bolshevik as he was.
Italy seems to have been very disinterested in the zone of influence they were granted in Turkey - I've yet to find out exactly why though.
Presumably Armenia will be encouraged to stay out of the USSR, and perhaps Entente troops will be offered to help them stay out--depending on how popular that is. With the Turks Soviet allies, the Armenians might be considerably less pro-Soviet. Creating Kurdistan seems like a pretty obvious strategy for the Entente to try; it serves as another buffer against Turkey, and it is also something to threaten Iran with, since the Kurdish zone of settlement overlaps that country too--if the Iranians are pleasing to London and Paris, then they will be protected from pan-Kurdism, otherwise--the Kurds can take what they can grab, with graduated degrees of Anglo-French support.
Armenia became part of the Soviet Union in 1920 - so keeping Armenia independent requires some PoD that makes the Turkish war of independence move much faster or start much earlier. Without that the Entente are no-where near where they need to be to be able to offer Armenia any help against the Soviets or Turks. So Armenia goes Soviet long before the Communists are anywhere near power in Turkey. Also, Armenia was seen by both the Armenians themselves and by the Western powers as naturally a part of the Russian sphere, so as soon as the Soviets show themselves to still be willing to treat the Armenians as "civilized Russians", then the door is opened for the return to pro-Russian sentiment. And keep in mind that the Entente had very ambivalent feelings about the Soviets - on the one hand there was red fear on the other the Soviets were their Russian allies. All in all, the preponderance of impulses are likely to mean Armenia becomes an SSR in almost every way this can play out.
Iran was not at all favored by the British, and what the British say goes in their case. There's no need to threaten Iran with Kurdistan though. Iran was already under British occupation.
Kurdistan is likely to be in effective existence after the dust settles - they may exist as part of a pretty much fictional Ottoman Empire though. Alot of ways that could play out. Much of it depending on if the Nationalist or Communist Turkish regimes renounce the Caliph.
All of that put together suggests to me Red Turkey will indeed be limited; the government might be permitted to rule in the "zones of influence" but not deploy any force there, meaning the coercive methods the Bolsheviks resorted so readily to will not be available to them there. However I daresay the third or so of the country left uncontested would be a stronghold, where the Turks could accumulate a proper army. Maintaining influence over the zones of influence would have to happen by positive means, and would be stronger to the extent the foreign occupations cause resentment.
Even if the zones of influence don't remain part of the "Ottoman Empire" there is no way they would be allowed to be governed by the Communists! I see these as being the alternatives, in order of likelihood:
1) the zones of influence are part of an Ottoman Empire that is pretty much completely a front for the British, with the French being allowed a bit of a say too and the actual Ottomans next to none.
2) the zones of influence become completely controlled British and French mandates (again, only, if France stays in the fight).
3) the zones of influence are nominally ruled by a puppet Nationalist regime, with the Ottoman Sultan being reduced to the ruler of Constantinople.
Probably not, as pointed out, the straits! The British might indeed go so far as to reinstate the Sultan and demand the permanent cession of the southern strait shores and Istanbul to him as a condition of their withdrawal from the south.
The British don't need to restore the Sultan, since they've just defeated the attempt to overthrow him.
Supposing it settles like that, what happens in the 30s depends on whether the Turks can in some fashion keep up with Soviet industrialization drives. Considering the brutal methods Stalin used and the precarious position Turkey is in, I doubt they can do it just the same way--no mass forced collectivization, no mass arrests or purges. But between Soviet subsidies (in the form of materials and advisors) and the positive appeal of socialist modernization, I would think Turkey would wind up more industrialized than OTL anyway, if not quite keeping pace with Soviet rates of modernization--indeed it might modernize in a more balanced fashion, involving a greater share of increased productivity going to raise the standard of living generally. But not too much--the claims of a strong military will be evident and respected.
The Turks had a deep cooperation with the Soviets in OTL from the mid 20s right up until the end of WW2, when the Soviets returned to the old Russian habit of trying to take their clay. (Ob WI: Molotov never demands Kars from Turkey - does Turkey remain a Soviet ally in the cold war?)
This included lots of Soviet aid, advisers, and the adoption of Soviet methods. There were no Soviet style mass purges, starving of peasants etc. so I doubt that Communist Turkey would be any different.
So I don't see the material prosperity of the Communist Turkey being any greater than that of Nationalist Turkey. Unless of course, Constantinople was a burden to them in OTL - though I doubt it.
What we may see is a pair of major ports and a good railroad built between them. One port on the Black Sea, one port on the Med (or just an upgrade of the Georgian railway system and railroad overland all the way to the Med), meaning the Russians can bypass the straits completely for only a little expense.
What happens then if Stalin decides as OTL to cut a deal with Hitler? Turkey will be in a tight spot then, with the British on two borders, the French joining them on the south, the Armenians and Kurds both willing to fight with their Entente supporters, the Greeks present on the ground alongside the British...It would be tricky to avoid an invasion intent on partitioning Turkey again, with the rump going to the Sultan. If they try, I daresay Turkey becomes a quagmire for the invaders, especially if the Reds were at all successful with building the nation up--the Turks will fight for the regime that has benefited them, and fight with better weapons, organization and training then they had OTL. But I don't think Stalin will intervene on their behalf.
Hmm, now there is an interesting point. Plus, we may see the Ottoman Sultan trying to restore himself to effectiveness by reuniting the remains of his country. He may even succeed, since if he manages to rouse popular support, the allies may voluntarily withdraw from much of the areas they've occupied AND give weapons and funding. Then might we see an attempt to reconstruct the Ottoman Empire even more during the era of decolonization? Now that could be fun!
It does require a real live hero to end up becoming Sultan between 1920 and 1939 though. And it requires a quick defeat of Communist Turkey. Personally, I think they have about an even chance of holding out until Barbarossa.
Perhaps if the Turkish forces are strong enough, and the government is conciliatory enough, the Entente will let them be. They'd be tempted to intervene again when Stalin invades Finland. But if we suppose Turkey can get past this crisis, and avoid being ordered by Stalin to actively support the Fascists in invading Greece--Hitler's certain invasion of the USSR will also change Turkey's status. Unlike OTL, there is no way Red Turkey will remain neutral--they will surely rally to support the Soviets, and therefore in the circumstances to join the Allies. This means that if Red Turkey were problematic in stirring up trouble in Syria or Iraq, that will stop for the most part. It means Turkish forces will immediately turn on any Axis ones that come within their range.
Stalin might even encourage Communist Turkey to follow a more neutralist course - even use them as a back channel to continue building bridges between the Communist and Allied camps, just in case Hitler backstabs him...
The British, under the circumstances, would be badly strained trying to maintain the occupation of the Straits, and would probably agree to reduce their support for the Sultan to token levels, freeing up those forces for service elsewhere, on the theory that Stalin and the Turkish Politburo or whatever they call themselves will keep agreements to defend those lands without trying to absorb them. Which they will for the most part, at least as long as the Soviets need Western aid--this would be a test case in how popular the Red government is with Turks versus the Sultan--if the latter has reigned over stagnation and backward poverty, then his grip on the territory the British gave him would be weak and the stage might be set for genuine populist agitation for the Straits to rejoin the greater Turkish nation.
I would bet that British occupied Turkey would enjoy stunningly good economic growth during the late 20s, have a bad great depression, then have a good mid to late 30s. The problem is, inequality might be an issue and there is the whole "occupied by the British" irritant. Most likely these both would mean that the Communists have a good chance of appealing in the rump Ottoman Empire. Maybe part of the deal would include the Communist party being allowed to stand in elections in rump Ottomania and the Communists then win enough seats along with the remnants (probably reorganized since the civil war) of the Nationalists that a democratic re-union eventually occurs.
If Hitler invades Greece, or Mussolini does so more successfully than OTL, then oddly the Anatolian part around Smyrna might be the only part of Greece that stays secure! It seems unlikely to me the Turks could take it back, because doubtless the Greeks have ethnically cleansed it by then. Once Barbarossa is underway, the border there would be secured by the mutual agreement of each country's patrons, so Greek Anatolia would remain on the map.
Hmm. Or Communist Turkey invades as part of the Axis partition of Greece. Wasn't Greece invaded when the Nazi-Soviet pact was still in force?
I agree that Smyrna would be cleansed - most likely more brutally than it was in OTL.
Could be interesting if Communist Turkey sets up a Greek Communist government in their occupation zone.
Postwar, I imagine the Turks would quite voluntarily cooperate with the Soviet Union's foreign policy and participate in Soviet economic plans, at least to the degree that it doesn't seem dubious to them. If Greece has gone Communist too, then the Straits are a lost cause and the Sultan would have to find some other residence fast. Perhaps neither Greece nor the Straits are inclined to go Communist? In that case of course Turkey will again be a frontline of Western confrontation, with Armenia and Kurdistan on her borders and the British and French still in occupation of the lands to the south as well as perhaps returning to the Straits. But Syria, Lebanon and Iraq would also be more amenable then ever to Turkish subversion along lines of Islamic Communism, assuming the Red Turks have not adopted an atheist line.
Definitely sounds like an "interesting" world. And the Red Turks may not take up atheism as a policy - OTL Islamic Communism was fairly theist for a long time. And steering clear of atheism means that Kurdistan is robbed of legitimacy (the Nationalist Turks going atheist and overthrowing the Caliphate was what alienated the Kurds OTL - and it is notable that the Nationalists didn't make those moves until after they'd won the war).
Regarding Greece and/or the Strait Sultanate, I don't see any of the postwar western leaders fighting on a Korea-like scale there, strongly as they do feel about control of the Straits and containment of Communism--if aiding the pro-Western conservatives there is not sufficient and they fall to mass populist demand for leftist government, then that's that, the Russians have access to the Med full stop, and Armenia is pretty damn isolated, alone on the Black Sea.
By this point I would bet that Armenia would be unable to avoid getting dragged into the Soviet sphere, even if they had been pro-western before WW2.
And if the West do have a friendly regime on the straits, I could see it being very worthwhile to maintain. It is a great base to threaten the SU from, as well as being a thumb against a major Soviet trade artery.
Might Turkey be dislodged from Soviet alliance, as Yugoslavia went? Well, that depends on if Stalin ever tried to utterly dominate the country or not. If he kept hands off and the alliance has hitherto been voluntary, I daresay it will stay that way and nothing short of invasion, or the possible eventual collapse of either the Turkish or Soviet communist regime will change it.
Given the key location of Turkey, it may be that the West tries to woo Communist Turkey into their camp. Though since in OTL's cold war such things only happened years after the SU alienated a country, a Western attempt at wooing may come too late - after the country had turned into an Afghanistan style quagmire, for example.
One would think Israel would be far worse off, except one should also remember that OTL Stalin supported the creation of that state as much as the Western nations did, if not more so--many Americans strongly supported Israel morally, and some did so with donations, but the government restricted itself largely to kind words, not deeds; this did not change until the 1970s. Stalin's support was also mainly moral and political; it wasn't until the late 50s when his successor tried to court various Arab nations that the Soviet line regarding Israel cooled. By then the Israelis had pretty strongly reinforced their own defenses and of course eventually picked up the USA as a very strong ally indeed. That might happen earlier ITTL I guess, with Turkey on the other side. Then again, Eisenhower might be even more careful than he was OTL to avoid scaring off the Arabs, knowing they might well go Red with greater likelihood than OTL
But why would Red Turkey be anti-Israeli? Unless Red Turkey was trying to recreate the Ottoman Empire, they are natural allies. And even if Red Turkey is trying to build an Islamo-Communist block, they might see Israel as a friend. Early Israel was much, much more left wing than modern Israel is. Who knows, maybe this world would see an Islamo-Judean Communist block covering OTL Turkey, Greece, Kurdistan, Syria, Iraq and Israel.
Thanks for your thoughts! Your ideas on how the cold war might develop were particularly interesting.
fasquardon
But that all depends on the level of enthusiasm for an intervention in another state's sovereign affairs; the precedent in Russia is none too appealing.