Es Geloybte Aretz Continuation Thread

Famously, the first outbreak of international war in Europe since 1908 came not in the heavily militarised states of Mitteleuropa or the tense Rhine frontier, but in the Eastern Mediterranean. Here, Field Marshal Baudissin later famously said, the match was lit that would explode the maelstrom of war. The Greek invasion of Crete and the Dodecanese in 1941 was motivated at least as much by the domestic unrest that threatened King George II as by any real desire or urgency to gain territory. In effect, Greece had already established all but complete control over the nominally Ottoman Cretan State and there was little in the Dodecanese worth having. The patriotic fervour that an invasion produced, however, proved short-lived. In the justified expectation that both Austria-Hungary and Germany were preoccupied with internal affairs (the fallout from the disastrous 1937 Ausgleich and the cabinet crisis leading to the 1941-42 cycle of Reichstag election, respectively) and that Britain would not oppose the move too strenuously, the Greek navy despatched a cruiser force to close the Straits to Ottoman vessels while troops were landed on Crete and Rhodes. Neither operation was initially met with significant opposition. The Ottoman navy, comprised almost entirely of old, slow vessels, stayed in port. But the Porte had no intention of surrendering meekly.


If Athens had hoped for a repetition of the Italian experience in Cyrenaica, a rude awakening was due. Thwarted at sea, the Ottoman Empire mobilised its armies to take the war on land. The Greek army meanwhile moved to force a surrender by attacking Salonika and Edirne, certain that they would not be allowed to threaten the straits, but confident that an attack would move Britain and France to enforce a favourable peace. October found them bogged down in the siege of Salonika with an Ottoman relief army edging closer by the day. Hastily expanded trench networks forced a stalemate, but the Greek attack had failed. A brutal winter campaign in the mountains of Thrace and Macedonia added to the drain that sustaining a counterinsurgency campaign resupplied by sea represented. By the spring of 1942, it was clear that Greek finances would run out well before manpower or ammunition.


The Greek spring offensive was the counsel of desperation, a brutal attempt to break through the Ottoman lines and take Salonika and Edirne as bragaining chips. Despite the liberal use of gas supplied by French manufacturers, it failed. The Greeks once more invested Salonika, but had not taken the city by July when the efforts of Russian secret diplomacy came to fruition.


Bulgaria and – in open violation of the peace treaty – Serbia joined the war, trapping Ottoman forces that had threatened Greece from the northwest and breaking up their defenses in Thrace from behind. The situation had escalated from embarrassing to dramatic within a few short weeks, and frantic diplomatic efforts ensued. Britain, unwilling to allow any Russian client control of the Straits, took the lead in early negotiations. France and Italy took a pro-Greek stance while Germany, late to the table, supported the Ottoman position, though without much conviction. Russian diplomats suggested a division of the spoils giving Greece its original war aims while most of European Turkey would be divided between Bulgaria and Serbia. This overreach proved fatal as it drove a wedge between uneasy co-belligerents and allowed British negotiators to force very limited territorial cessions. Meanwhile, the Ottoman government had succeeded in mobilising Albanian troops in numbers sufficient to threaten Serbia, effectively taking it out of the war. The late autumn froze fronts in place through mutual exhaustion. Ceasefire was declared in November and the peace conference in Berne apportioned gains and losses.


Greece walked away with Crete and the Dodecanese which it agreed to buy from Turkey using a bond issue it could ill afford. It signally failed to gain the 'heroic city' of Salonika, a symbolic victory that the Ottoman government played for all it could. Bulgaria received lands along its border, though nowhere near as much as it had hoped, while Serbia came away empty-handed. The Porte also agreed to the creation of a nominally subordinate, but de-facto independent Albanian state that would slip into the Italian orbit in short order. The Ottoman Empire, though again defeated, had acquitted itself surprisingly well and many considered the successful defense of Salonika and Edirne as akin to a victory. Nonetheless, the losses rankled.


Among the great powers, the events had put Russia back on the global stage. Britain and France, once arbiters of the Mediterranean, had been hesitant to intervene, allowing the situation to spiral out of control, but ultimately asserted their respective wills in a striking display of diplomatic unanimity. There was never the slightest suggestion that London and Paris might come to blows over what was, after all, a serious confrontation in a sensitive region. The threat of an Anglo-French war that had hung over the 1910s and 1920s was increasingly a distant memory.


Yet most striking was the impotence of Austria-Hungary, caught up in internal squabbles and unable to formulate a coherent policy position even in the face of Serbian defiance. Germany, long accustomed to leaving the southern flank to its ally, was wrong-footed by this inaction and failed to adequately support the Ottomans, concerned over its inability to conduct operations in the Balkans if the veto of the Hungarian government neutralised the Habsburg monarchy and worried about the potential of the war to spread to greater powers, leaving it exposed to French and Russian hostilities. This show of weakness would embolden Moscow to the point of taking excessive risk, bringing the eventual confrontation to the brink of war and beyond.
 
Wait korea was not annexed by japan?

Oh, no. Korea is a glorious, sovereign state, an Empire ruled by a wise and august divine Emperor whose loving brother the Japanese emperor has agreed in a selfless effort to increase harmony and peace in the region to assist with the development of the realm and graciously accepted support in the mutual defense of their shared interests... sorry. You try saying it with a straight face.
 
@carlton_bach We obviously know what fate has in store for Iron Felix, and we've seen a bit of Trotsky and Stalin, but what happens to Communism in general and the communist leaders? In the 21st century do anyone other than historians know the names Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao & Castro?
 
Wait ottomans lose more? Albania gone along with crete what did Bulgaria take? Legitimaly the fact the empire even exist is a miracle. They took another loss, hopefully this led to a purge in the ottoman officer corps get ride of the too politicial and shitty officers and the glorius ultrnationalist turks you cant blame armenians when you been in power 20 years and still get your ass handed to you.

Really wonder if balkans join the second russo war, i see no reason they don't the ottomans are literal bird, along with austria on fire. Theres no reason for them to not do it. Hopefully ottomans military can actually prove itself there, as i have no belief they could even think of trying to fight the russians successfully.

I legitimaly have no understanding how pan-Turkish politics survived this? They lost again they lost all credibility, yet somehow they still habe power how?
 
Wait ottomans lose more? Albania gone along with crete what did Bulgaria take? Legitimaly the fact the empire even exist is a miracle. They took another loss, hopefully this led to a purge in the ottoman officer corps get ride of the too politicial and shitty officers and the glorius ultrnationalist turks you cant blame armenians when you been in power 20 years and still get your ass handed to you.

Really wonder if balkans join the second russo war, i see no reason they don't the ottomans are literal bird, along with austria on fire. Theres no reason for them to not do it. Hopefully ottomans military can actually prove itself there, as i have no belief they could even think of trying to fight the russians successfully.

I legitimaly have no understanding how pan-Turkish politics survived this? They lost again they lost all credibility, yet somehow they still habe power how?

Well, they don't. The Pan-Turkish moment (such as it was) came after the revolution, when they managed to win victories. It was not just the Caucasus gains in the war, it was for years afterward when Ottoman-supported insurgents all around the Caspian Sea managed to establish their fiefdoms in what used to be Russian controlled. For a while, Turks could believe that their new Empire reached as far as Mongolia. A fair number of more extreme politicians even suggested it would be a good thing to abandon Europe and focus on Asia. That was the honeymoon period, but of course it did not last.

In the intervening years, the Ottoman state needed to make peace with its minorities, especially the Levantine, Greek and armenian Christians who so dominated its busioness world. It needed to appease local interests and found that it was not and could not be an ethnic nation state while it held its territories. Still, only extremists suggested abandoning ethnically 'wrong' territories for a 'pure' Turkish state. Ottomanism was formally embraced, but it proved as weak as it had before. Basically, things went on in the absence of external threats.

The war was a massive shock to the system. Despite the relatively good military performance, it would have destroyed the Empire if it had not been held up by external powers. Britain and France cannot agree on how to carve it up, and Germany and Auistria-Hungary are invested in its continued existence, that is basically how it survives this. The losses are a reflection of relative German weakness and a reassertion of Russian strength. They are not as massive as they seem - Crete was only formally Ottoman at all, Albania similarly a nearly independent entity within the Empire. The territory ceded to Bulgaria is comparatively small (the government is deeply disappointed). But the outcome still is serious loss of face to the reformist centre and a gain to the periphery. The future, such as it is, belongs to political religion, not secular nationalism.
 

yboxman

Banned
Famously, the first outbreak of international war in Europe since 1908 came not in the heavily militarised states of Mitteleuropa or the tense Rhine frontier, but in the Eastern Mediterranean. Here, Field Marshal Baudissin later famously said, the match was lit that would explode the maelstrom of war. The Greek invasion of Crete and the Dodecanese in 1941 was motivated at least as much by the domestic unrest that threatened King George II as by any real desire or urgency to gain territory.
Since the 1896 war was not averted I'm frankly having a hard time believing Greece would launch this war without pre-coordination with Serbia and Bulgaria via Russian mediators as occured in OTL in 1911. Especially given that the relative balance of power should have shifted in the Ottoman direction by the 1940s.

Which raises the question - assuming that the Greeks are barred from blockading the straits and/or entering the sea of Marmara, how the heck aren;t they curbsomped by the OE?by the 1940s the OE should have nearly ten times the population, its railway network should be consturcted and presumably the modernists have not been entirely been marking time in terms of millitary organization and economic development. Even with factionalism, multiehtnic paralysis and (presumably) some manner of IMRO fifth column in Macedonia, Greece launching a solo war on the OE and maintaining a stalemate is not much more plausible than Serbia doing the same to AH. Even with Serbia and Bulgaria piling up on the OE (why would they be doing this if Greece is on the ropes? they didn;t in 1896) have no option but cede territory for peace.

Also, don't the Ottomans have any submarines? The Greek navy may be superior to the Ottoman, but that won;t help them if the the Ottomans start sinking Grain, oil and coal shipments to Athenes -stuff the Greek citizens, as well as millitary, are completely reliant on imports for.
 
Last edited:
Britain, unwilling to allow any Russian client control of the Straits, took the lead in early negotiations.
Legitimaly the fact the empire even exist is a miracle.
Despite the relatively good military performance, it would have destroyed the Empire if it had not been held up by external powers. Britain and France cannot agree on how to carve it up, and Germany and Auistria-Hungary are invested in its continued existence, that is basically how it survives this.
In the intervening years, the Ottoman state needed to make peace with its minorities, especially the Levantine, Greek and armenian Christians who so dominated its busioness world. It needed to appease local interests and found that it was not and could not be an ethnic nation state while it held its territories. Still, only extremists suggested abandoning ethnically 'wrong' territories for a 'pure' Turkish state. Ottomanism was formally embraced, but it proved as weak as it had before. Basically, things went on in the absence of external threats.


For some reason I was brought to mind of that old 19th century quip - I can no longer recall who it was, but I am tempted to say it was Salisbury - that much of Britain's trouble in the Great Game lay in certain gentlemen looking at maps on too small a scale.

It is astonishing to see the Ottoman corpse still walking around in the 1940's, but then as we know, it wouldn't even have seen the 20th century without Great Powers (especially Britain) propping it up in the interests of containing Russian power. If that much is possible, I can hardly say that a 20th century where the 1912-13 Balkan Wars are butterflied and the Porte still has effective Great Power support makes this implausible.

It's closer call on averting the growing Turkish appetite for some comprehensive ethnic and sectarian cleansing. I can certainly see certain European capitals warning and lobbying Constantinople against it as part of the price of its continued existence. But this doesn't mean that other factions in the army will get the message. I see a fair chance that some cleansing could occur against a background of weak leadership and control by the Porte. Perhaps even combined with additional uprisings, and not just in the Balkans and Armenia, either.
 
Since the 1896 war was not averted I'm frankly having a hard time believing Greece would launch this war without pre-coordination with Serbia and Bulgaria via Russian mediators as occured in OTL in 1911. Especially given that the relative balance of power should have shifted in the Ottoman direction by the 1940s.

Which raises the question - assuming that the Greeks are barred from blockading the straits and/or entering the sea of Marmara, how the heck aren;t they curbsomped by the OE?by the 1940s the OE should have nearly ten times the population, its railway network should be consturcted and presumably the modernists have not been entirely been marking time in terms of millitary organization and economic development. Even with factionalism, multiehtnic paralysis and (presumably) some manner of IMRO fifth column in Macedonia, Greece launching a solo war on the OE and maintaining a stalemate is not much more plausible than Serbia doing the same to AH. Even with Serbia and Bulgaria piling up on the OE (why would they be doing this if Greece is on the ropes? they didn;t in 1896) have no option but cede territory for peace.

Also, don't the Ottomans have any submarines? The Greek navy may be superior to the Ottoman, but that won;t help them if the the Ottomans start sinking Grain, oil and coal shipments to Athenes -stuff the Greek citizens, as well as millitary, are completely reliant on imports for.

It is a different world. That especially applies to the Ottomans. ITTL, the disparity in population is less important (or so people believe - the tipping point comes later). The Empire still exists largely because Anglo-German interests maintain it. It has modernised to a degree, but its victories were against a collapsing Russian power, in parts of the world where geography favoured guerilla forces and there was very little modern weaponry. Not least, it is a world where the prestige of the 'Western power' is unbroken. Greece, for all its weaknesses, considers itself a Western power. THe Ottomans are not.

Militarily, it was a gamble, but not an unreasonable one. Greece has a real navy, capable of bottling up in port anything the Ottomans can launch. Its army has more modern artillery, more and better tanks (really basically tankettes, but still better) and far superior air cover. Since the war aims were all islands, the idea was that a quick naval operation would secure them. The expectation of winning a land war was questionable,but not unreasonable.

But no, the Ottomans don't have submarines. THey have not invested heavily in their navy lately, in part because tax revenues are needed to pacify local powerbrokers and in part because foreign powers still largely administer their finances. THis is not the Turkish Republic. It's a much more rickety structure.
 
@carlton_bach We obviously know what fate has in store for Iron Felix, and we've seen a bit of Trotsky and Stalin, but what happens to Communism in general and the communist leaders? In the 21st century do anyone other than historians know the names Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao & Castro?

Right - complex issue. Obviously, history will remember Leninism and the Bolheviks, but it will remember them much as it does the Paris Commune or turn-of-the-century anarchism. Nobody but a handful of specialists remember Stalin (died in Ottoman exile) or Mao (a minor intellectual and would-be revolutionary who spent much of his time wriing and plotting in the Shanghai treaty zone). Trotski is remembered and honoured by Marxists to this day.

Orthodox Communism ITTL is never the orthodoxy. Without the power of the USSR, there is a far broader variety of ideological stances and Lenin is widely considered an interesting theoretician, but discredited by events. His vision of vanguard party revolution was tried and failed. At the same time, Socialism in much of the Western world is not under pressure to distance itself from any Marxist orthodoxy, so Communism, such as it is here, remains influential and alive in many places. Even German Social Democracy, the party of Bernstein and Noske, has its powerful Marxist wing, and the Socialist International remains a far more revolutionary and less respectable organisation. In a way, Communism benefits intellectually from its early defeat.
 
Right - complex issue. Obviously, history will remember Leninism and the Bolheviks, but it will remember them much as it does the Paris Commune or turn-of-the-century anarchism. Nobody but a handful of specialists remember Stalin (died in Ottoman exile) or Mao (a minor intellectual and would-be revolutionary who spent much of his time wriing and plotting in the Shanghai treaty zone). Trotski is remembered and honoured by Marxists to this day.

Orthodox Communism ITTL is never the orthodoxy. Without the power of the USSR, there is a far broader variety of ideological stances and Lenin is widely considered an interesting theoretician, but discredited by events. His vision of vanguard party revolution was tried and failed. At the same time, Socialism in much of the Western world is not under pressure to distance itself from any Marxist orthodoxy, so Communism, such as it is here, remains influential and alive in many places. Even German Social Democracy, the party of Bernstein and Noske, has its powerful Marxist wing, and the Socialist International remains a far more revolutionary and less respectable organisation. In a way, Communism benefits intellectually from its early defeat.

Is the twentieth century going to see any major Communist revolutions/insurgencies? I think the absence of the USSR and Communist China, combined with the world being much more multi-polar, will encourage the rise of more Nasser and Sukarno type figures, rather than Mao and Lenin type figures (that is, leaders/revolutionaries in the developing world will be more populist and nationalist, rather than explicitly Marxist). Without the USSR and Communist China being such potent boogeymen, the great powers ITL will likely deal with figures like Nasser and Sukarno rather than trying to depose leaders as soon as they pursue land reform or limited wealth redistribution.
 
Is the twentieth century going to see any major Communist revolutions/insurgencies? I think the absence of the USSR and Communist China, combined with the world being much more multi-polar, will encourage the rise of more Nasser and Sukarno type figures, rather than Mao and Lenin type figures (that is, leaders/revolutionaries in the developing world will be more populist and nationalist, rather than explicitly Marxist). Without the USSR and Communist China being such potent boogeymen, the great powers ITL will likely deal with figures like Nasser and Sukarno rather than trying to depose leaders as soon as they pursue land reform or limited wealth redistribution.

I don't foresee many hardline Communist insurgencies because of simple economics: IOTL, the one way of getting cash, arms, training and logistical support for your revolution was to embrace Marxism-Lenininsm. ITTL, a Lenininst revolutionary is just as out on his own as a Bakuninist, a democrat, an Islamist or a fascist. (In fact, the Russian government considered support for nationalist/Integralist anticolonial revolts, but never took it beyond Eastern Europe in practice). Revolts get covert support according to the interests of great powers, which means that once the Chinese establish themselves and the Ottomans control their oil wealth, there is a source of consistent anticolonial funding. But by then, most of the hard slog is already done.

However, Socialism and Communism does play a significant role in anticolonial resistance. It is the only political movement in the 'mother country' that seriously advocates self-determination and equality for colonial populations, after all. Even seriously conservative activists from the colonies (the Herero are organised around landowners' associations, you don't get more conservative than that) coming to the metropole find an open ear from Social Democrats, Radicales gauche, Labour - Socialists. And Socialism also looks like an attractive proposition to colonial peasant farmers and the urban poor. A lot of the postcolonial governments that either depend on elections or needed mass support to come to power will embrace Socialist policies to some degree or other. And this will, obviously, not be happening in a Cold war context, though obviously it will still be opposed - sometimes quite brutally. Colonial powers retain an active interest in the economic assets their citizens have in the newly independent states. Especially where compromises were made early, that is going to translate into serious meddling.

So in some places, you will see Tito-like figures embracing Communist principles to solidify power over disparate populations or Nasser-analogues using Socialism to buttress nationalist systems. 'Nation' in many colonial context is quite fluid, after all. In other places, Social democratic policies will be embraced as part of a democratic government.

BTW, the concept that this gets framed in ITTL is the distinction between 'Anglo' (monetarist, supply-side) and 'German' (interventionist) economics. This is not exactly a reflection of national rivalries. France is a leading expobent of 'Anglo' economics ITTL, and Britain and Germany get along better than most great powers. but it is a real and significant distinction. The failure of many ambitious postcolonial economic schemes is celebrated in Chicago and Manchester as the 'final collapse of the German delusion'. A German economist cast the problem as one of a misunderstanding: The British school thinks of a national economy as a steam engine. To function, it requires coal (i.e. money), and coal of a high grade. Controlling its supply requires a degree of control over 'natural money' - gold, silver or, in as pinch, other universally desirable natural resources. the German school thinks of it as a machine tool. The source of the power input is immaterial (anything can be money if you say it is), but precise calibration at every transmission point is vital. Many postcolonial schemes took a shoveling-coal approach to a machine-tool scheme.
 
The defining problem of almost all global policy in the early 1940s – quite against expectations – was the return of an increasingly assertive Russia to the global stage. In a world just emerging from a deep economic funk and still accustomed to thinking of diplomacy in terms of Anglo-French opposition, Russia was an unexpected factor, and much of its early success was owed to the fact that both Austria-Hungary and Germany, the powers with the greatest interest in keeping Moscow on a short leash, were preoccupied with internal problems.


Much has been made retrospectively of the grand schemes of Russian diplomacy, a plan to replace Germany as the anchoring power of continental Europe and Japan as arbiter of East Asia, but a closer study of surviving records suggests that almost all such initiatives were opportunistic rather than systematic. Following the death of Grand Prince Nikolai Nikolaevich, Russian policy lacked unifying principles, and though several politicians emerged to briefly fill the position of helmsman, none proved able to build up a Bismarckian position. It has been argued that precisely this fluidity led to competition among political leaders promising the greatest possible gains, incentivising risky ventures and eventually leading to a war that, though universally expected, had been desired by almost no-one at the time.


The first diplomatic offensive was the effort to re-establish Russia over Greece as the protecting power of the Eastern Orthodox churches. This allowed Russian diplomats to interfere in internal Ottoman affairs, scoring points off German military and educational advisers and hampering their efforts to integrate the Empire further into their sphere of influence. At this point, a rapprochement with France was attempted, leading to fears of a Franco-US-Russian bloc in London. Paris, though happy to further Russia's interest in the Ottoman sphere, was hesitant to commit to any formal alliance. As a result, Russian diplomats approached London with suggestions for a generous division of the Ottoman Empire and Central Asia. This, too, was rebuffed, though not before news of the negotiations caused consternation in Berlin and Tokyo.


The assertive role Russia took in the aftermath of the Greco-Ottoman war signalled to the governments of Europe that Moscow was intent on resuming its accustomed role, and many in France and Britain were resigned to allowing it. With Austria-Hungary riven by internal conflict and many in the Hungarian leadership openly welcoming Russia's presence as a wedge between Vienna and its Slavic subjects, the Balkan states reevaluated their stances. Bulgaria and Serbia openly flirted with Moscow as their new protector while Romania, after a brief attempt at precarious neutrality, sought guarantees of support from Berlin. Surprisingly generous Russian diplomatic overtures to Ruthenia were rebuffed roundly, but repeated with a dogged insistence that suggests they may have been meant seriously.


By 1942, Russian troops had taken up position in many of the formerly demilitarised regions along the southern border and the government declared its intent to act as protector to the Armenian population, claiming the right to garrison Kars, Batumi, and Erivan. Denied by the Ottoman government, these demands were partly enforced over Berlin's objections at the 1943 Monaco Conference on the Balkan question. The presence of significant Russian forces on nominally Ottoman territory proved a continuing irritant and, once war broke out, a serious threat to German oil supplies from Mesopotamia.


Similar demands were forwarded against China in view of the at best tentative control that the imperial government had over Mongolia. Once more, Moscow found that the great powers proved unwilling to face the risk of a serious confrontation to deny them what had very recently been theirs, and drew the conclusion that the threat of violence made an excellent negotiating tool. Bereft of British support and under pressure from the United States, Japan agreed on a formal division of spheres of influence along the Chingan Mountains. In a secret codicil, the establishment of a Mongolian state under Russian protection analogous to Manchuria was expressly permitted and Tokyo committed itself to supporting such an initiative. Britain was approached with the offer to allow a similar arrangement for Tibet which Moscow would formally acknowledge. The Chinese government, still putting its core territories back into a semblance of order after three decades of internecine war, was not consulted at this stage, though the intent was clear. In the autumn of 1943, Russian troops on a self-declared 'humanitarian mission' in defense of civilisation, entered Ulan Bator and arrested the Chinese governor on charges of opium trading. Cavalry forces under the command of General Chang Hsuehliang escorted their supply train. The success of the operation surprised even its most ardent proponents.


With the experiences of these triumphs informing policy decisions, Russian troops were concentrated north of the Pripyet as Moscow informed the Helsingfors government of its intention to address certain unresolved border issues arising from interpretations of the Peace of Baden-Baden. Nominally concerned with fisheries in the White Sea and some areas northeast of Lake Onega, the aim was to force Finland to allow a Russian naval base in Muurman. Recent tensions between Sweden and Finland over trade relations (Finland was a serious competitor for many Swedish export industries) and Baltic fisheries had led to a fracturing in the formerly close relations, and it was widely considered uncertain on which side Berlin would come down. Moscow expected the question to be resolved in its favour without an armed confrontation and was correspondingly disappointed when the V and VI Armeekorps were moved into eastern Poland for 'friendly maneuvers'. We know today that Czar Mikhail II favoured a climbdown, but could ultimately not enforce his will on the crown council. Wavering in the face of German hesitation and buoyed by success in Mongolia, he eventually decided to raise the stakes by landing troops in Muurman. Berlin lodged a formal protest and called for international negotiations, but took no immediate military action. Finally convinced that his opponents would not stand up to a sufficiently aggressive posture, Mikhail conferred with his general staff to formulate further demands.
 
Lol ottomans got occupied legit i know i keep bringing it up but serious how is there politicial discourse between turkish nationalists and islamists, they will have to go the way of arab nationalists, they have been emasculated just as bad if not worse than the secular arab states otl, this should breal the back of Turkish nationalism forever. will Istanbul hang the the young turk leadership from lamp posts now?

Im surpised china won't join the second war but loses mongolia? Wouldn't china be wanting it back a nuked russia would much easier to roll over.

Main question you said the reason for keeping the qing around was due to the fact it would be hard to come up with a new dynasty but you already have that chinese officer you created who the military could rally behind?
 
Top