I was recently looking at a historical atlas of the US, and it included one map showing the proposed American mandates in Turkey following WWI. The British and French solidly supported the plan, and it was only Senate isolationism that killed the project (and a guy named Kemal had something to say about it, too). So here's the What-If: Wilson manages not to have a stroke, and twists enough arms in Congress to get approval for the plan. The US assumes governmental authority over Turkish Armenia, including a chunk of what is now Georgia, roughly centered on Kars and including Trabzon. A second proposal called for America to administer the coastal strip along the Black Sea east of Istanbul, extending about to Sinope. Would the US have wound up fighting Ataturk's nationalists, or would they have recognized his government and pulled out of the western mandate early? And would there be a strongly US-influenced democratic Armenia wedged between Russia and Turkey? Consider what that would have done in WWII: If US relations with Turkey were no worse than in OTL, there's still an American ally right on Stalin's doorstep. The US might have gotten involved in the European war first. And if the American colonial presence poisoned relations with Turkey, then Ataturk might have gone over to the Axis side, raising the threat of Panzer divisions slashing down the valley of Mesopotamia to seize the Gulf oilfields. What would the Armenians themselves have made of a US mandate? Rejoicing over finally getting independence? Rebellion against yet another foreign overlord -- this one with weird ideas about women voting and Prohibition? The Philippines is the only other example of an American possession which wasn't treated as a potential state; US-Filipino relations have generally been friendly. Any Armenia experts out there? Richard Gadsden wrote: > > In <5ngeh7$jna@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, on 9 Jun 1997 08:23:03 GMT, > bs925@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Tucker) wrote in > soc.history.what-if: > > > > >"G.E.W. Williams" (GEWW1@le.ac.uk) writes: > >[quoting my earlier post] > >>>Another problem with having a US mandate on the Black Sea east of > >>>Istanbul, is the difficulty of reaching it via the Bosporus (the > >>>narrow water passage into the Black Sea controlled by the guns > >>>at Istanbul). One of Mustafa Kemal's first actions was to expell > >>>the Allies from Constantinople. To mark the Turkish success, > >>>Constaninople became Istanbul and Kemal became Ataturk, the "great > >>>Turk." > >>> > >>>How would the US supply the mandate if it could not use the > >>>Bosporus? > >> > >> I haven't got my Atlas to check, but couldn't you do it through > >> adjacent British Empire territories? Addmittedly you've got the Caucusus > >> in the way... > > > >An atlas is very helpful for the AH game. If you consult one you will > >find a very large mountainous region (Anatolia) between the Black Sea > >mandate of this AH and the nearest British protectorate (Iraq). The > >independent nation of Armenia was to occupy the NE part of Anatolia. It was > >to have been separated from the Iraqi border by Turkish controlled SE Anatolia. > > > With a medium-sized dose of luck you'd have an independent Kurdistan > bordering Armenia and Iraq/Irak. Given as they both have lots of > enemies (autonomous Irak/q, Turkey, USSR) I'd expect Armenia and > Kurdistan to be very friendly to one another so you have a supply > route. > > Alternatively, Greece could win the Greco-Turkish war and the > Bosporous would be in different hands. > -- Did the proposed American-Armenian Protectorate by any chance include Cilicia [sometimes known as Lesser Aremenia] on the Mediterranean coast around Tarsus? This would make an Armenian state much more viable, and there were large Armenian populations there [at least, before the massacres]. The scenario of a Kurdish-Armenian alliance is hard to imagine -- the Kurds frequently attacked Armenian refugees driven south into Syria, Iraq and Lebanon during 1915. I think the Greco-Turkish war, with Greece successfully seizing Constantinople is very reasonable, with a third or more of Turkey lost to the Armenians, I think the Greeks would take the entire Aegean coast. How would a Turkey shrunk to central Anatolia fare? They would, IMHO, almost *have* to incite rebellions among the Turks in Armenia [and in any Greek-occupied territories], trying to get the land back. How long would the American protectors be content to put up with this? Might this scenario result in the rest of Anatolia being partitioned between Armenia and Greece? [My grandfather was an Armenian from Sivas, quite far west in Anatolia, so there could be an Armenian claim there.] Then, a movement to return the Turks to their *historic* homeland, in Central Asia. "Turkestan for the Turks!" -- Robert E. Lewis In <5ngeh7$jna@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, on 9 Jun 1997 08:23:03 GMT, bs925@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Tucker) wrote in soc.history.what-if: > >"G.E.W. Williams" (GEWW1@le.ac.uk) writes: >[quoting my earlier post] >>>Another problem with having a US mandate on the Black Sea east of >>>Istanbul, is the difficulty of reaching it via the Bosporus (the >>>narrow water passage into the Black Sea controlled by the guns >>>at Istanbul). One of Mustafa Kemal's first actions was to expell >>>the Allies from Constantinople. To mark the Turkish success, >>>Constaninople became Istanbul and Kemal became Ataturk, the "great >>>Turk." >>> >>>How would the US supply the mandate if it could not use the >>>Bosporus? >> >> I haven't got my Atlas to check, but couldn't you do it through >> adjacent British Empire territories? Addmittedly you've got the Caucusus >> in the way... > >An atlas is very helpful for the AH game. If you consult one you will >find a very large mountainous region (Anatolia) between the Black Sea >mandate of this AH and the nearest British protectorate (Iraq). The >independent nation of Armenia was to occupy the NE part of Anatolia. It was >to have been separated from the Iraqi border by Turkish controlled SE Anatolia. > With a medium-sized dose of luck you'd have an independent Kurdistan bordering Armenia and Iraq/Irak. Given as they both have lots of enemies (autonomous Irak/q, Turkey, USSR) I'd expect Armenia and Kurdistan to be very friendly to one another so you have a supply route. Alternatively, Greece could win the Greco-Turkish war and the Bosporous would be in different hands. "G.E.W. Williams" (GEWW1@le.ac.uk) writes: [quoting my earlier post] >>Another problem with having a US mandate on the Black Sea east of >>Istanbul, is the difficulty of reaching it via the Bosporus (the >>narrow water passage into the Black Sea controlled by the guns >>at Istanbul). One of Mustafa Kemal's first actions was to expell >>the Allies from Constantinople. To mark the Turkish success, >>Constaninople became Istanbul and Kemal became Ataturk, the "great >>Turk." >> >>How would the US supply the mandate if it could not use the >>Bosporus? > > I haven't got my Atlas to check, but couldn't you do it through > adjacent British Empire territories? Addmittedly you've got the Caucusus > in the way... An atlas is very helpful for the AH game. If you consult one you will find a very large mountainous region (Anatolia) between the Black Sea mandate of this AH and the nearest British protectorate (Iraq). The independent nation of Armenia was to occupy the NE part of Anatolia. It was to have been separated from the Iraqi border by Turkish controlled SE Anatolia. In OTL Independent Armenia did not last long (1918 to 1921). It was one of the first parts of pre-WW I Turkey that was reconquered by the Turkish nationalists to construct the new nation state of Turkey. The Armenian diaspora in Canada and other countries still bears a grudge against the Turks for the "Armenian genocide" following the reconquest. The Caucasus separates Anatolia from Russia in the NE. The only possible supply route for the Black Sea mandate would have been through Iran, and Independent Armenia, but you would have to change history in this AH by ensuring that northern Iran was not in the Russian "sphere of influence" after WW I. In OTL the British had southern Iran as a sphere of influence. The strip between the the two spheres of influence was neutral. James Cambias (cambias@heliograph.dontkeepthis.com) writes: > I was recently looking at a historical atlas of the US, and it included > one map showing the proposed American mandates in Turkey following WWI. > The British and French solidly supported the plan, and it was only Senate > isolationism that killed the project (and a guy named Kemal had something > to say about it, too). > > So here's the What-If: Wilson manages not to have a stroke, and twists > enough arms in Congress to get approval for the plan. The US assumes > governmental authority over Turkish Armenia, including a chunk of what is > now Georgia, roughly centered on Kars and including Trabzon. A second > proposal called for America to administer the coastal strip along the > Black Sea east of Istanbul, extending about to Sinope. > > Would the US have wound up fighting Ataturk's nationalists, or would they > have recognized his government and pulled out of the western mandate > early? What would be the motive for the US to fight Ataturk? Turkish Armenia did not have oil. The main value would be as a base to keep an eye on what was happening in the Soviet Union. But why would the US bother? By 1921 the Allies had lost in their efforts to support the anti-communist counter revolutionary armies in Russia. Another problem with having a US mandate on the Black Sea east of Istanbul, is the difficulty of reaching it via the Bosporus (the narrow water passage into the Black Sea controlled by the guns at Istanbul). One of Mustafa Kemal's first actions was to expell the Allies from Constantinople. To mark the Turkish success, Constaninople became Istanbul and Kemal became Ataturk, the "great Turk." How would the US supply the mandate if it could not use the Bosporus? What would have happened if the Greeks had been able to grab quite a large chunk of Turkey in 1922, if Ataturk had been defeated and thus no Greek expulsion from Turkey ? By default it probably would have led to the survival of an independent Armenia. Also, Turkey probably would have never existed as an independent nation ; the Kurds would have assuredly had their own state and probably the European colonial powers would have taken chunks of Turkey. Of course there also exists a possibility of Russia being involved. Also, at the risk of sounding like Serdar Argic, WI the Armenians had killed the Turks instead of the other way around ? I wonder.. - Magnus Octane This post represents my opinion only and not that of my friend who has given me permission to use his account nor any other person, company, or organization of any sort. 1. A-H : annex. of Bosnia, Novi Pazar, Macedonia Serbia was at the time firmly under A-H influence in real history too. 2. Britain : Egypt. Cyper, Rodos, Kreta, South Arabia, Kuweit 3. Germany : Iraq, Syria, Lebanon 4. Russia : Straits, Armenia, North Central Anadolia 5. France : Libia, South Anatolia ( granted Morocco ) 6. Greece : Epir, Thessalia, western coast of Anadolia 7. Italy : ( granted Abyssinia ) I was reading AJP Taylor's _The Struggle for Mastery in Europe_ & he asserts that the powers actually came close to partitioning the OE in 1896. The Russians were for it, and the Austrians would have gone along, except the pro-partition PM (or whatever) got booted out of office for an unrelated controversy. So, what if the partition did take place. I can see the goodies being divvied up like this: Constantinople (now Istanbul :)) and the Straits: Russia. The leaders of the UK, having a formidable military presence in Malta and Egypt, were no longer hysterical about keeping the Russians away from the Med. Egypt (still formally under the Sultan): UK. France would have to swallow their pride and admit that the Battle of the Pyramids was a _long_ time ago. Libyia, Syria and Mesopotamia: France. Italy's Tripoli project is frozen out. Arabia: Italy (compensation for not getting Libya & no one knew about the oil, anyway). Palestine/Transjordan: UK, both as a presige thing and to guard the approaches to the Sinai. Turkey-in-Europe: this is the tricky part. Austria would be afraid of the over-aggrandizement of the smaller Balkan powers & would want some more for themselves. Russia, somewhat eager to placate pan-Slav sentiment, but happy because they are getting what they coveted for many years, takes a middling-hard line, insisting that Austria is not openly given Slav territory. Serbia thus gets nothing but Greece may be able to swing Macedonia. Any ideas on how this changes history? I can still see WW1 breaking out over "some damn thing in the Balkans", given that nobody will be totally happy with the division. With control over the Straits, however, imperial Russia has a much better chance for survival.