The Assyrians fleeing en masse might actually be the best result for them in TTL. With the Armenians probably being by and large in Russian and possibly the British Cilician state we’ve discussed a few times, the Assyrians are going to be one of the main focuses of Ottoman rage in a post war environment. Fleeing to a potential French Lebanon, potential British Cilicia, Or Greece might be their best bets here. Cyprus could be another option even if it’s still in ottoman hands as they could likely find safe haven their among the Greeks. I can see it being a lot like the miracle at Dunkirk actually. Small Greek fishing vessels arriving in various ports or just along the coast in general to ferry people a few at a time to safety as best they can.
Pride Goes Before a Fall: A Revolutionary Greece Timeline
- Thread starter Earl Marshal
- Start date
First the Assyrians and for that matter Armenians have to reach the coast... At least the Greeks in OTL had that advantage that their Anatolian populations were generally near the sea, at least within two three days walking from it and the seas under Greek control. Where this calculation broke down like with the Pontic Greeks results and mortality were about similar with what the Armenians and Assyrians suffered.
If the Grand Duchy of Armenia is anything like how Russia treated Poland, I think Armenians would rather live in Greece. In Russian Poland, Russification policies meant the language could not even be taught. Way worse deal than what the Armenians would be getting under the Greeks.
Here's the population exchange proposal: roughly 3+ million Greeks/Armenians/Assyrians from Turkey and roughly 3+ million Turks from European Turkey + Western Anatolia. That leaves the Turks with a large population in western Anatolia but perhaps less than 50%. Historically only about 300,000 Turks left "European Turkey", so here there will be 10x as many fleeing Western Anatolia.
It IS ethnic cleansing, but on both sides. Greeks and Armenians will be forced to leave Turkish areas of Anatolia as well. Of course this is implying a scenario where "Turkey" is utterly defeated by Greece in a major war with significant European powers involvement on both sides. The fact that the Turks will try to massacre Greeks + Christian minorities in large numbers should be sufficient for whichever European power is supporting Greece to agree to punish them. OTL they didn't want to devote any resources to punishing the powerful Turkish state. But with a far stronger Greece TTL, Turkey stands to lose a LOT of land, react badly and then keep losing more land as a result.
If Greece only holds onto coastal areas, the situation will be even more unstable with Greco-Turkish wars going on forever + genocides. You either defeat the Turks so badly, they no longer pose a threat (in a major war). Or they will keep conspiring to retake all of Anatolia and making alliances with major powers to do so. Greece will be at war with Turkey for many generations. In this scenario, of course, Greco-Turkish tensions in western Anatolia would be tense and hostile potentially for decades. But still a happier scenario than OTL genocide of Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians and endless wars with a powerful Turkey in my view.
Here is an OTL pre-1910 map of ethnic populations and consider whether it is possible for Greece to take most of Western Anatolia.
Last edited:
The best way it should be done is during a large scale military occupation of Turkey with the help of some Great Power like UK, Russia, ect. That way a deal can be reached with Turkey to let them leave freely and they will have to honour it.
This is very true. I don’t see it as an easy or painless prospect. But it might be their best option Depending on how zealous the ottomans are
From the looks of it the Russians already took a majority of the Armenian population from the Turks, how do you propose them to flee to Greece? If Greece manages to retake the entirety of the northern lands up to Trebizond I think that's the one likely area where they will flee from Russia puppet Armenia. That effectively makes Turkey a landlocked area which is probably for the best for all sides.
If the British does take Cilicia too, I think that practically will save the Armenians from the fate of the OTl genocide. Maybe release the Kurds as a nation too? But the Russians will probably not like it too much, they dont want too much British/French influence on the middle east too.
Trust me, the Russians would actually prefer as many Armenians fled Armenia for Greece. If there was a massacre/genocide, they might not even stop it initially just to get more ppl to flee to Greek areas. After all, it helps them consolidate newly conquered lands. But it's also possible the Russian Empire collapses as it did OTL, which means the Turks take control of Armenia again...
I doubt the great powers would want Turkey to be weak and divided up into spheres of influence. Britain would want Turkey as a bulwark against further Russian expansion and they need ports to supply Turkey in times of war. With Russia and Greece threatening to swallow up Turkey, Britain and France would be on the side of the Turks. Such long indefensible borders would also be disadvantageous to Greece in the long run if Turkey ever recovered.
If Britain intends to ally with Turkey against Russia to halt their expansion, they would probably let the Turks have Cilicia. On the condition that they don't commit genocide. Which means the Armenians will have to leave.
Last edited:
Why the hell would the Russians want that? In the long run sure people with foreign beliefs leaving of their own volition so you could move in people of your native culture is better but Russia has literally a dozen other cultures that are more restless and anti Russian to deal with first, not to mention just Siberia in general. The Armenians can wait. So yeah I can’t see the Russians taking an anti Armenian stance in TTL. They don’t have a reason to, at least not anytime soon.
I'm merely responding to a scenario where Russia for some reason decides to annex more of Armenia (deep into OTL Turkey). If they don't and decide to establish a puppet state of sorts, whether the Armenian genocide could still happen would depend entirely on whether Russia avoids collapse like they did OTL (either during WW1 revolution or due to German WW2 invasion). It's pretty likely that at some point in this TL, the Russians will be seriously weak enough for the Turks to strike.
It must be noted that the Russians in the 18th and 19th century were encouraging Greek and Armenian immigration to the territories they captured from the Ottoman empire.
I don’t see a way to avoid a powerful Turkey that will be endlessly revanchist, honestly. If Greece takes interior Turkey, they take a barren, rural area full of Turks who won’t be easy to expel because many of them are nomadic. Moreover, the area will be far from Greek central control and directly bordering Turkey, who will support and supply rebels quite easily. It isn’t all that wealthy and useful either, quite frankly. All of this adds together to create a region that will be nothing but trouble for Greece and not worth the effort, especially since again Turkey will not give up on reclaiming it—it’s not like Germany losing its territories east of the Oder-Neisse line, Greece will not be able to absolutely redefine the balance of power in Anatolia like that. Turkey will be fighting ceaselessly to get its lands back, and since the interior will be basically a resource dump I don’t see why Greece should keep it.
Instead I propose Greece play to its strengths, namely its naval strength. Controlling the coast is easy because of Greece’s might at sea, and if Turkey tries to besiege any of the coastal cities resupply and reinforcement won’t be an issue. Contrast this with resupplying a besieged outpost at say Kütahya; the supply lines will be long and vulnerable to irregulars, the terrain will favor the locals, and Greece’s army is less dominant than its navy.
basically to make a long story short, Greece could probably hold the interior. But it wouldn’t be worth it.
Instead I propose Greece play to its strengths, namely its naval strength. Controlling the coast is easy because of Greece’s might at sea, and if Turkey tries to besiege any of the coastal cities resupply and reinforcement won’t be an issue. Contrast this with resupplying a besieged outpost at say Kütahya; the supply lines will be long and vulnerable to irregulars, the terrain will favor the locals, and Greece’s army is less dominant than its navy.
basically to make a long story short, Greece could probably hold the interior. But it wouldn’t be worth it.
So while everyone's been discussing how much Turkish clay that could be peeled off for Greece to claim, I've been wondering:
What exactly is gonna keep Turkey from being on a constant revanchist rampage trying to reclaim it? Because that's gonna happen. They are not gonna take the massive loss of that much land easily or well, so.....
Greece needs to do something, less Turkey just go full on Grudgement levels of hatred against them.
What exactly is gonna keep Turkey from being on a constant revanchist rampage trying to reclaim it? Because that's gonna happen. They are not gonna take the massive loss of that much land easily or well, so.....
Greece needs to do something, less Turkey just go full on Grudgement levels of hatred against them.
Assuming some sort of ttl Nato or a pan european alliance forms. Turkey might not be considered for membership if Greece controls the straits. That should be enough to hold back a revanchist Turkey provided that Greece can defend itself with help of a superpower like UK till the formation of such an organization
So... Greece come March 2021 closes 200 years of independence. Out of them Greece and Turkey were friendly for about 25. These prove that it's achievable but any policy maker in Athens that took an unfriendly Turkey for granted would be more likely than not to be correct... and this way you get self-fulfilling prophecies.
True, that protects them from an out and out attack. Nothing says Turkey can't go full on training camps and arms "falling off the back of a truck" to any angry young men who just happen to be fine patriots who are acting without official sanction, that is.
True, because they weren't planning on "annexing" those territories as some have proposed here they would if Turkey were seriously weakened.
You're assuming at this point that the Turks would be unified against Greek aggression and Turkish nationalist development would develop exactly as it did OTL. But that's far from certain. At this point even the term "Turk" was looked down upon by the Ottoman ruling class that called themselves "Osman". Historically, there was a great divide between the secular/socialist/nationalist Young Turk movement and the pious, conservative, rural Turks. If the Greeks can play this divide, they can win support from the latter and the Young Turk movement might be much less powerful/influential than historically speaking. Turkish nationalism would be badly divided and fail to win countryside support. I can certainly see the Greeks doing certain things like keeping Hagia Sophia a mosque that even the Young Turks weren't willing to do.
By the 20th century, this sort of naval advantage you are citing largely disappears. You don't see Britain able to hold coastal ports and cities in France from say Nazi Germany just because they dominated the seas for example. The geography has to be perfect for this advantage to hold (say Gibraltar).
Thus it is essential in the long run that Greece should hold the interior. And win over at least a portion of the Turkish population if you want them to hold any territory in Anatolia in the long run. Or they will probably be driven back into the sea every time a war with a powerful Turkey starts.
Last edited: