Greece wins in turkey

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by Danth

Upon his death his pro german father took over and as a result for his favouring of the CP during the war Greece lost in antolia

If alekander had stayed on the throne the western powers would have continued to back Greece against turkey

No, Greece lost in Anatolia because they were trying to swallow WAAAAY more than they could chew in their demented pursuit of Megali Lebensraum. Greece lost because its logistics could not handle the sort of things that Greek generals were attempting. They lost because Greece had delusions of Colonial Empire that the Turks could and did slap down.

Neither Britain, nor France, nor Italy were committed to further dismantlement of Turkey when they had pressing issues much closer to home. Turkey had been neutralized and Greece's adventurism in Anatolia was always seen as an ultimately Greco-Turkish conflict, especially given the secure position of the Straits.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by Tongera

I love it when people write such detailed and excellent answers.

Why 'zank you, Soviet foreign policy is a bit of an obsession of mine .

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

No, Greece lost in Anatolia because they were trying to swallow WAAAAY more than they could chew in their demented pursuit of Megali Lebensraum. Greece lost because its logistics could not handle the sort of things that Greek generals were attempting. They lost because Greece had delusions of Colonial Empire that the Turks could and did slap down.

Neither Britain, nor France, nor Italy were committed to further dismantlement of Turkey when they had pressing issues much closer to home. Turkey had been neutralized and Greece's adventurism in Anatolia was always seen as an ultimately Greco-Turkish conflict, especially given the secure position of the Straits.

Damn you for summing up my position in two paragraphs .

[Danth]

Possible then that Greece wouldn't have tried to gain more land then and jut kept what it had already gained at least until ww2

[Podveleska Utoka]

That wouldnt stand either. Greeks have to (HAVE TO!!!) conquer all of Turkey and control it, because turks and especialy kemal are not going to accept any treaty that gives away turkish lands. The reason the ottoman empire fell and kemal gained power is because ottomans accepted what kemal wouldnt so they lost public suport.

ps:
I have seen a guy writting that they could only keep it by genocide, well I am not sure about genocide but greeks killed all turks they could lay their hands on (if allies arent wantching of course)
and that was one of the reasons they lost, the supply lines were stretched to the maximum, and they could have done fine with those lowland crops, farms and animals had they not killed the owners and burned it down :P

[Danth]

Well from what I can see then the monkeys only hastened and lengthened the the coming of war and the deaths involved

[Tongera]

They could make temporary gains in Anatolia (20 years or so), if the generals worked together and weren't replaced by incompetent generals, stability at home in Greece, no national schism and most importantly, didn't overextend themselves, badly. It would also help if the Soviets didn't send help in the form of weapons and ammunitions.

Note that it could be only temporary gains, nothing that can last to the modern day.

[Andreas]

The death of Alexandros I happened in 1920, not in 1921 or 1922. That means that

1. The Greek military lines were not overstrected yet
2. The flow of ammunition, weapons and other provisions from Europe was well maintained
3. Kemal was not yet the absolute lord of Anatolia, nor he had agreements with France and Italy
4. Venizelos was still in chief, and so the veteran officers of the Greek Army, who had fought in WWI, instead of company comanders leading brigades, as it happened after the elections IOTL.

(note that the Greek line in the map below is that of the end of 1920, i.e. after the attack lauched by the new government of Gounaris)

Nevertheless, it was not only the death of Alexandros that led to the elections of October 1920 and the defeat of the Venizelist party. But, if Alexandros did not die, that could give Venizelos up to a year more in power, and that could change things slightly considering the Greek presence in Ionia. The same could happen if Venizelos still loses the elections, but Alexandros stays on the throne: that at least would lead to more stability within the Army.

Nevertheless, Geography is a ruthless bitch. That means that if Greece and Turkey could not come to terms until mid 1921, the Greek Ionian territories would be lost sometime sooner or later. There is no way that Greece could keep Ionia without the acceptance of Turkey, unlikely Thrace, no matter how much this area would be fortified.

Anyway, if Alexander did not die and this fact gave Venizelos some more months in power and the Army some stability, I can see Greece keeping Eastern Thrace, which means that the International Straits Region would be maintained at least for the next three or four decades. That means that Turkey would be left with no european territories, with concequences like i) stronger islamic element, ii) no way of Turkey-EU game of membership, iii) less Turkish influence in the Balkans and more in Middle East, iv) no Turkish "games" during WW II, etc

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Andreas

The death of Alexandros I happened in 1920, not in 1921 or 1922. That means that

1. The Greek military lines were not overstrected yet
2. The flow of ammunition, weapons and other provisions from Europe was well maintained
3. Kemal was not yet the absolute lord of Anatolia, nor he had agreements with France and Italy
4. Venizelos was still in chief, and so the veteran officers of the Greek Army, who had fought in WWI, instead of company comanders leading brigades, as it happened after the elections IOTL.

(note that the Greek line in the map below is that of the end of 1920, i.e. after the attack lauched by the new government of Gounaris)

Nevertheless, it was not only the death of Alexandros that led to the elections of October 1920 and the defeat of the Venizelist party. But, if Alexandros did not die, that could give Venizelos up to a year more in power, and that could change things slightly considering the Greek presence in Ionia. The same could happen if Venizelos still loses the elections, but Alexandros stays on the throne: that at least would lead to more stability within the Army.

Nevertheless, Geography is a ruthless bitch. That means that if Greece and Turkey could not come to terms until mid 1921, the Greek Ionian territories would be lost sometime sooner or later. There is no way that Greece could keep Ionia without the acceptance of Turkey, unlikely Thrace, no matter how much this area would be fortified.

Anyway, if Alexander did not die and this fact gave Venizelos some more months in power and the Army some stability, I can see Greece keeping Eastern Thrace, which means that the International Straits Region would be maintained at least for the next three or four decades. That means that Turkey would be left with no european territories, with concequences like i) stronger islamic element, ii) no way of Turkey-EU game of membership, iii) less Turkish influence in the Balkans and more in Middle East, iv) no Turkish "games" during WW II, etc

That's what I was on about however if this did happen then theirs a possibility that turkey would join the axis bad news

[miguelrj]

Originally Posted by Danth

What if the Greek king wasnt killed by monkeys (oh the comedy)

I fail to see the comedy of a happily married young man dying a painful death after defending his dog from an attack from raging animals. The pregnant wife didn't giggle.

Oh wait, I see... those animals are monkeys! Silly monkeys... Disregard the serious tone, it happened 92 years ago.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Danth

That's what I was on about however if this did happen then theirs a possibility that turkey would join the axis bad news

Actually, IMHO, Turkey allying with Axis is a good thing for Greece.
Turkey joining the Axis means that there's a possibility of a Balkan Front, and, surely a more prepared USSR military, thus no surpise Barbarossa.
Even if there's a succesful joined German-Bulgarian-Turkish attack, I assume that the final outcome of WW II is not butterflied, so, after the war Greece will get even more than she suffered during the Ocupation, surely the whole Cyprus, in the expense of Turkey. There's also the possiblility of Turkey being dismembered by the Allies after the WW II: USSR getting Van (incorporated to SR of Armenia) and Pontus (forming a SR with Ajaria), Syria getting Cilicia, Kurdistan gaining independence.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Actually, IMHO, Turkey allying with Axis is a good thing for Greece.
Turkey joining the Axis means that there's a possibility of a Balkan Front, and, surely a more prepared USSR military, thus no surpise Barbarossa.
Even if there's a succesful joined German-Bulgarian-Turkish attack, I assume that the final outcome of WW II is not butterflied, so, after the war Greece will get even more than she suffered during the Ocupation, surely the whole Cyprus, in the expense of Turkey. There's also the possiblility of Turkey being dismembered by the Allies after the WW II: USSR getting Van (incorporated to SR of Armenia) and Pontus (forming a SR with Ajaria), Syria getting Cilicia, Kurdistan gaining independence.

but their i the possibility of turkey screwing up all of the north africa campain by forcing the commonwealth to fight in the middle east as well

but if they are contained possibly by the troops in iraq-persia and the jews in palistine then what you said is a possibilty

i need to make this a timeline

[Grimm Reaper]

Or the British collapse after losing the Middle East, leaving the USSR alone against the Axis(now including Turkey and several Arab states), as this scenario leaves the Germans with a Turkish ally just as the British position in the Middle East is facing disaster in Iraq and in Syria...

I certainly don't see why the British, who will certainly have suffered more in this scenario, would give Cyprus up decades sooner.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Or the British collapse after losing the Middle East, leaving the USSR alone against the Axis(now including Turkey and several Arab states), as this scenario leaves the Germans with a Turkish ally just as the British position in the Middle East is facing disaster in Iraq and in Syria...

I certainly don't see why the British, who will certainly have suffered more in this scenario, would give Cyprus up decades sooner.

no they wouldnt give it up sooner but when they do it would become and stay greek
also you forget that turkey wouldnt win in the middle east becasue the jews would defend palistine like men possesed so to gain the britiah favour of an isreali state

[Podveleska Utoka]

Originally Posted by Danth

no they wouldnt give it up sooner but when they do it would become and stay greek
also you forget that turkey wouldnt win in the middle east becasue the jews would defend palistine like men possesed so to gain the britiah favour of an isreali state

Jews in palestine before the end of WWII were quite different jews from the ones we see in Israel today. They were merchants, bankers and farmers, living alongside arabs

[Grimm Reaper]

Except that the Jews have no military, no equipment and no way to get equipment as the British are themselves desperately short, and the British have already decided that the goodwill of tens of millions of Arabs is vastly more important than that of a few hundred thousand Jews.

[Danth]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewis...tance_Movement. This would have happened earlier if the Turks did win

Also their was a strong but small Jewish force that would have fought the weakened Turks but their name suppases me I'm afraid

[Arkocento]

If any one has read the Russians taking Warsaw thread, that gives the Best Pod.
1. The Soviets end up dealing with the Germans, so less (if any) supplies to turkey during the War.
2. with the Soviets on the rise, there is going to be far greater amounts of paranoia, so no soldier is allowed to bring a Monkey to work....
3. with Greece with a Pro-entente King, and with the world looking on as the Red menace grows, they will probably look at Turkey as a future Puppet to the Ussr, and will do everything to make that Puppet weak (maybe)

and Guys, Smyrna isnt actually that hard of a place to get, it was nearly 40% Greek, and to make things worse the ottomans had called it "infidel Smyrna" if anything the city was the last real enclave in anatolia with a Greek Majority.
So lets say that the Greeks win the 1st battle of Inou, the turks stagger back to Sakyhara, their defenses less organized, the defeat turns into a rout, and the Greeks storm Ankara, following this the Turkish government will have to deal with all sorts of Hardliners (Kemal) and will either collapse, or attempt to find peace. IE Severs is brought back, or something on that level, but less disastrous.

Im honestly quite mortified at what would occur if the Greeks took Ankara, there would be an Iconic massacre of the Turkish population that could be a new rallying cry for the defeated Turks, that would be far worse for everybody. so lets assume, for the turks to actually want peace, that the Greeks enter the city quite peacefully, save the random angry soldier, and this in turn shows the world that the Vengence of Greece or something is over, and that they are simply demanding that the Turks accept the Treaty they had broke....ahem Severs.

[Grimm Reaper]

What treaty had Turkey broken to begin with? Sevres was a diktat and if it could not/would not be enforced had no validity in the first place.

Imposing only those portions of Sevres as applied to Greece involves the area around Smyrna and all of European Turkey being ceded to Greece along with the inevitable ethnic cleansing of the Turkish majority in those areas.

Turkey will accept this in the sense of 'accept' meaning 'wait until we rearm and can come back for revenge'.

[Arkocento]

This is Alternate History

Imposing only those portions of Sevres as applied to Greece involves the area around Smyrna and all of European Turkey being ceded to Greece along with the inevitable ethnic cleansing of the Turkish majority in those areas.

This is what happened here

Not Imposing Sevres as applied to Greece involves the area around Smyrna and all of European Turkey being ceded to Turkey along with the inevitable ethnic cleansing of the Greek minority/ Local Majority in those areas.

No matter what happens, someone is going to be fucked over. Population exchange anyone? only this time, the Greeks still retain an enclave in Turkey, and with the possibility of the populations being traded, the Turks lose a legitimate claim to the land they have lost. IE: Greek Revanchism, becomes Turkish Revanchism

[Tongera]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

What treaty had Turkey broken to begin with? Sevres was a diktat and if it could not/would not be enforced had no validity in the first place.

Imposing only those portions of Sevres as applied to Greece involves the area around Smyrna and all of European Turkey being ceded to Greece along with the inevitable ethnic cleansing of the Turkish majority in those areas.

Turkey will accept this in the sense of 'accept' meaning 'wait until we rearm and can come back for revenge'.

What oppurtunity could the Turks have? When could they re-arm sufficiently enough to fight the Greeks? If the Turks start re-arming, then Greece will start re-arming as well. I would also assume Greece would fortify the shit out of their part of Anatolia, making it a lot harder to attack.