Shouldn't you have included a "never" option?
1919-23 is the least unlikely, but in hindsight it was a pretty long shot even then.
What was Greece’s best chance to reclaim Constantinople?
- Thread starter Chungus Maximus
- Start date
Shouldn't you have included a "never" option?
1919-23 is the least unlikely, but in hindsight it was a pretty long shot even then.
But even if they won, what were they going to do with that land in the middle of Anatolia, populated 95 % with hostile Turks? Did they have a plan?
Pretty sure they're just going to enforce Sevres, possibly some buffer in Smyrna and even take the entire Black Sea coast to connect with Pontic Greeks in Trabzon. Beyond that, there's no reason or way for them to hold the Anatolian interior. They'll probably withdraw and leave that in the rump-rump Turkish Republic.
As for the lands they do hold, well... if they don't settle the Turkish minority in a population exchange, they'll certainly settle it in blood.
They should have just focused on occupying the lands they were given in Sèvres. That was already a really favorable deal for them.
Well, it wasnt as if Ataturk was going to let them, and the Entente was not interested in fighting any longer.
The Black sea coast was too Turkish to do anything with it, only the enclaves of Samsun and Siran had a majority Greek population and the latter is not even on the coast, overall the Canik Sanjak had about 25% Greeks which is not a lot relatively speaking(all this is from the Ottoman sources, I guess we can assume it's more skewed towards Muslims)
Also Kastamonu is overwhelmingly Muslim too, 90+%.
Greek conquests in Anatolia almost certainly required Great Power backing to survive. Turkey is an intrinsically more powerful state that Greece due to sheer numbers, with a powerful homeground advantage in Anatolia. Genocide could change this, with massive foreign support, but otherwise it’s going to be a Turkish victory. The wisest Greek policy was certainly to pursue permanent gains in Thrace and perhaps international city status for Constantinople.
I think they had a chance to defend East Thrace and the Smyrna region, particularly the former. But going on the offensive into the heart of Anatolia was too much.
Why did we enter a discussion on Anatolia? The conquest of Anatolia is virtually impossible with a 20th century POD to say the last.
I imagine that a Greek winning in Anatolia would mean the creation of a larger Armenian state, a Kurdish protectorate and securing of of Izmir and Thrace+Constantinople, that alone would make Greeks pretty satisfied, maybe?
I imagine that a Greek winning in Anatolia would mean the creation of a larger Armenian state, a Kurdish protectorate and securing of of Izmir and Thrace+Constantinople, that alone would make Greeks pretty satisfied, maybe?
What were the actual objectives of the Greeks, surely they were not trying to annex everything?
At that point Greece had kind of a victory disease, they had won Balkan war 1 and 2 and were on the Victor's side on ww1 their territory double and the ottomans were shattered, so they thought that now was a chance to defeat the Turks for good.
I don't think they wanted full annexation, but to shatter them for some time, take as much land as they could.
Yeah,
the same plan the Turks had. Kill everyone or kick them out.
The only great power who would be willing to back Greek conquests in Anatolia would probably be a surviving Tsarist Russia. In this case Greece won't be having Constantinople, with it most likely going to Russia. Britain or France backing Greek gains down the line, 10, 20 years later
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
That's something what happens when you are on an alternate history forum. Most alternate history fans root for Byzantium. Not that this is an excuse for ethnic cleansing.
Ban Kulin
Banned
In which case you can expect Great Britain and France to support Turkey. They'd rather have a middling Turkey cliented to them than Istanbul belonging to Russia.
After WWI. It's actually not that difficult. The odds were against the Turkish forces at the start, and if the war goes right it's very possible for Greece to get not only what they got in Sevres, but the whole peninsula + Istanbul, the area around Iznik (Nicaea), the whole Aegean coast, and possibly much of the Black Sea coast up to and beyond Sinop.
Of course, to keep it Greece will have to carry out one of the worst ethnic cleansings in history, and a hostile Turkey would still be there waiting to align with whoever looks like a threat to Greece.
Of course, to keep it Greece will have to carry out one of the worst ethnic cleansings in history, and a hostile Turkey would still be there waiting to align with whoever looks like a threat to Greece.
Dementor
Banned
There are no Muslims in Crete because they were exchanged in the Turkish demanded population exchange of 1923. Of course the existence of this exchange seems to be a serious argument against the idea that Greece would always carry out a genocide.
As for Thessaly, the Muslim population there wasn't particularly large, which contributed to their rapid emigration, though doubtlessly the Greek attitude also contributed. But calling that genocide would stretch the term beyond breaking point.
Since the Armenians are not actually Eastern Orthodox, Greece never had any issues with tolerating them. Especially when they are useful as allies against the Ottomans.
They still outnumber Bulgarians in many places and for a long time their domination was even more significant. Expelling the Turks - even if that had actually been a Bulgarian aim - is therefore not a sufficiently good argument why this region is in Bulgaria.
More like an isolated region, from both the main Muslim populated areas and much of the coast.
So Greece gets Thrace and Constantinople, population exchange removes the Turkish population, many Bulgars leave in responce to Greece's policy of harassment and assimilation.
Greece now has a lot of flat farmland which is unoccupied. That's a position the modern Greek state has never been in. What would the economic and demographic effects of having, what amounts to, a colonial frontier? Could it abate Greece's emigration rate or encourage a baby boom?
Greece now has a lot of flat farmland which is unoccupied. That's a position the modern Greek state has never been in. What would the economic and demographic effects of having, what amounts to, a colonial frontier? Could it abate Greece's emigration rate or encourage a baby boom?
Or (irony of ironies) imported labour? The idea of Turks or Bulgarians, now dispossessed of land, coming to Greece to work land now held in larger estates by Greeks has echos of the modern US - but assuming there aren't enough Greeks, nor enough hardware to work it for a few years, it makes some sense to import some labour. I suppose Turks wouldn't be ideal, but they're the ones with the cheapest labour around, I'd expect.