Indeed it's a mistake.How did Italy get Corsica? Is that a mistake?
A Map of Europe & the Middle-East after the Paris Conference - March 1919
Good point. Even Wilson would admit that Ruthenians are ethnically closer to Russians than Magyars or Slovaks. But more importantly, as you mentioned, controlling a pass through the Carpathians multiplies the power projection over Hungary and makes sure that Romania eventually becomes a satelite-state of Russia.I am
Surprised Russia didn’t annexed Ruthenia but left it to Czechoslovakia. This would allow Russia direct contact w Hungary as well as separated Czechoslovakia from Romania. As such Romania would be more isolated from rest of Europe if we considere Romaniana. Ulgarian and Romanian Hungarian relations Leaving Romania border w Yugoslavia which will be very likely pro Russian.
Yes, but lets not forget that Masaryk spent the entire war in Russia and enjoyed a close relationship with many Russian décision-makers, especially Sazonov who is still Foreign Minister for the first half of the Paris Conférence.Good point. Even Wilson would admit that Ruthenians are ethnically closer to Russians than Magyars or Slovaks. But more importantly, as you mentioned, controlling a pass through the Carpathians multiplies the power projection over Hungary and makes sure that Romania eventually becomes a satelite-state of Russia.
And it is not as if there was any other Entente power in the region that could put boots on Ruthenia before Brusilov who was only dozens of kilometers away.
Blood is not the only sinew of war.I can't believe the people are following Wilson's lead, since he contributed little blood in the war comparatively.
The British even following with the train of thought on the matter, with the earlier agreements being in force must have tied their hands to support Russia.
If Russia feels irredentism from being stabbed in the back by the Western Europeans it would support German resurgence and leave the earlier treaties worthless if such was to happen.
How the hell did Britain support Greece vs Russia.
I can't believe the people are following Wilson's lead, since he contributed little blood in the war comparatively.
The British even following with the train of thought on the matter, with the earlier agreements being in force must have tied their hands to support Russia.
If Russia feels irredentism from being stabbed in the back by the Western Europeans it would support German resurgence and leave the earlier treaties worthless if such was to happen.
How the hell did Britain support Greece vs Russia.
Actually, this looks much more sensible. Of course, I'm expressing strictly my own opinion and not necessarily one of your (as TL's author) Tsarist government.A Map of Europe & the Middle-East after the Paris Conference - March 1919
View attachment 622209
Notes:
- Russia gets only Constantinople, but extended to the defensive line (the previous map wasn't clear on that point);
- Thanks to British support and the growing antagonism between Russia vs. Britain-USA-Italy (with France desperately trying to square the circle), Greece receives all of Eastern Thracia and the Gallipoli Peninsula - Yes, from a strategic view point it's not ideal for Russia, but by that stage of the Paris Conference, with trouble brewing at home, Trepov is mainly interested in the symbolic, propaganda victory of achieving the age-old "historic ambition" of Russia.
Was Slovakia considered "Ruthenia"? Russia annexed Western Ukraine and Belorussia which fit the term. Romania at that moment is a close ally so why the effort should be spent on isolating it? Hungary on that map is already almost surrounded by the states which are either pro-Russian or have a good potential to fall within Russian orbit.I am
Surprised Russia didn’t annexed Ruthenia but left it to Czechoslovakia. This would allow Russia direct contact w Hungary as well as separated Czechoslovakia from Romania. As such Romania would be more isolated from rest of Europe if we considere Romaniana. Ulgarian and Romanian Hungarian relations Leaving Romania border w Yugoslavia which will be very likely pro Russian.
Czechoslovakia originally didn’t even want Ruthenia. Prague end up with it. And it was not small drain on finance. Later on strategic connection to Romania was its only plus but I believe infrastructure needed huge investments.Yes, but lets not forget that Masaryk spent the entire war in Russia and enjoyed a close relationship with many Russian décision-makers, especially Sazonov who is still Foreign Minister for the first half of the Paris Conférence.
Of course annexing Ruthenia down right is best, but barring that, Russia would reckon that the Czekos are going to be as subservient as needed, whatever their political persuasion, and wont be much of an obstacle to Russian power projection in the Balkans.
As for Wilson, after the treatment of Poland, he is certainly not going to support Russia on anything.
Depends how far Moscow want to push it. Even without Ruthenia (Zakrarpatska or Podkarpatska Rus), there was large population of Ruthens in Slovakia at northeastern Slovakia almost all the way along Polish border to area around Stara Lubovna.Was Slovakia considered "Ruthenia"? Russia annexed Western Ukraine and Belorussia which fit the term. Romania at that moment is a close ally so why the effort should be spent on isolating it? Hungary on that map is already almost surrounded by the states which are either pro-Russian or have a good potential to fall within Russian orbit.
And this is some foreshadowing - love the image. A bloody red cockerel is a pretty good visual metaphor for Fascism. So does this mean that the Empire, having vanquished the liberals, will now fall to revolution from the Right?For the Russian delegation, the last weeks of the Paris Peace Conference looked, in retrospect, like a dinner party in a wagon-restaurant about to derail. The setting is nice, the food is rich, there seems to be no bound to one’s appetite (even if other guests may mutter about the reach of your fork)… but gradually, imperceptibly, the rumbling of the train from an innocuous background noise grows deafening, the table shakes and rattles, cutlery is flying, red wine is all over the heretofore immaculate tablecloth, the rich and delicate foods that you were about to savour are now spread all over your shirt, and, as you look outside the window in the dark wide night, you realize that the train in is actually leaping into the abyss, and if you manage to see anything before crashing to your death, it is probably a red cockerel, blazing a frightful bright in the unforgiving vastness of the Russian plain.
The Russians have got Tsargrad - a large, potentially wealthy city inhabited by two groups of people neither of whom want them there - and a swathe of land in the North-East inhabited mostly by Turks and Armenian ghosts. Unless the Empire falls apart completely, keeping the Turks from conquering them back should be relatively simple - though low-level insurgency is likely to be an ongoing problem in Armenia - but making use of them is something else. Moving in settlers from Russian Armenia looks an obvious play - do they try to Russify the area as well? Ans what do they do with Tsargrad - the great Orthodox Holy City, inhabited by fellow-Orthodox who resent them, and Muslims who hate them outright? Try to make common cause with the Greeks? Encourage the Greeks to emigrate to Greece while styling themselves protectors of the Muslims? Rule the place as a colonial outpost and don't bother trying to build up local support?
Could it lead to the development of a far-right Turkish movement? Maybe even escalating to Turanism given Russia would be the primary opponent?I said the Turks would be utterly screwed and they have been. They may be too weak to contest it immediately, but the Turkish perspective this is a bayonet-point peace that leaves their state essentially destroyed and millions of Turks under foreign rule. The Ottoman Sultanate is finished, probably even if the Russians or someone try to prop it up as a bulwark against the nationalist hardliners. Following the surrender of Istanbul, the Sultan's prestige will be less than zero, and neither the government nor the army was listening to him anyway. I wouldn't be quite so quick to write off the Turkish army - we've been told TTL that the British pushed the Turks out of Syria/Iraq but not that the 4th, 7th and 8th Armies were destroyed as in OTL 1918, so they may have some cadre to rebuild around. Still, I agree that they're unlikely to be able to take on the Greeks, much less the Russians, without time to rebuild, or a lot of outside help.
In the longer run, Turkish nationalism, revanchism and possibly fundamentalism are going to be and ongoing issue. Anatolia & Thrace still contain a lot more Turks than they do Greeks, Armenians, Russians, Assyrians, Kurds or anyone else. If the Greek or Russians manage to force through "population exchange" based on the current borders, they could very easily setup a large scale "Palestinian" situation, with millions of Turks living in permanent "refugee camps", raising their children on stories of the homelands they were expelled from...
Talk about a rock and a hard place.The Greeks have bitten off a lot, maybe more than they can digest. There are a lot of Turks in Thrace, and while Smyrna itself is heavily Greek, the surrounding hinterland mostly isn't - and it's not really possible to hold the city without the hinterland. The Greek economy isn't strong - how long can they afford to stay on a war footing in Anatolia? As long as the Russian back them, they're fine - but is Russian support guaranteed? The Greeks have also taken on the previously Ottoman position of being the buffer between Britain and Russia in the Straits. Which is fine as long as the two don't quarrel and force you to pick a side. If the Greeks fall out with Russia, things could go downhill fast - but being a Russian puppet doesn't appeal either. And there are bound to be some nationalist hotheads who are still claiming Constantinople as the True Greek Capital.
Knowing the Russians, they'll likely try to go for Option #3 as @Thoresby said. Remove the Greeks to populate East Thrace, remove the Turks to their rump state, likely abuse the Jewish population to induce them to leave and populate it with Russians to ensure it is their city, as the inheritor's of the legacy of Rome. After all, the Romanov's will be perpetuating themselves as the true heirs to the Roman Empire through Byzantium.The Russians have got Tsargrad - a large, potentially wealthy city inhabited by two groups of people neither of whom want them there - and a swathe of land in the North-East inhabited mostly by Turks and Armenian ghosts. Unless the Empire falls apart completely, keeping the Turks from conquering them back should be relatively simple - though low-level insurgency is likely to be an ongoing problem in Armenia - but making use of them is something else. Moving in settlers from Russian Armenia looks an obvious play - do they try to Russify the area as well? Ans what do they do with Tsargrad - the great Orthodox Holy City, inhabited by fellow-Orthodox who resent them, and Muslims who hate them outright? Try to make common cause with the Greeks? Encourage the Greeks to emigrate to Greece while styling themselves protectors of the Muslims? Rule the place as a colonial outpost and don't bother trying to build up local support?
Would such a nationalist leader still come to power in Italy?The French and Italians have got large "special interest zones", which are mostly dirt-poor, underdeveloped and full of people who hate them. Expect the French to scale back and concentrate on Lebanon/Damascus once the costs and lack of benefits of holding Cilicia become obvious. The Italians might do the same, or some nationalist leader might decide that simply walking away from their conquests is politically unacceptable and throw resources into trying to turn it into a proper colony. Long-term, the best that's going to get them is their own version of the Algerian War, but they can mess up things quite a lot in the short term.
No, they aren't. The Armenian community of Constantinople was not eradicated during the genocide. The pre-war community is there, alive and relatively well.The Armenians are mostly dead
How did you come to this argument? The local Greeks in the city were pretty content with turkish muslim rule in OTL and didnt pose any problem at all until their final expulsion after the 1950s. Now that they are ruled by co religionists and have much more business opportunities they will change their whole view in the most radical manner compared to OTL? If anything they will be raising russian flags.inhabited by fellow-Orthodox who resent them,
I can see the tsarist regime abusing the Jewish community. But why expell loyal Greeks? This is tsarist, not stalinist Russia. The same I think goes for the Turks. Russia has more experience dealing with large muslim populations than the rest of Europe combined. The Constantinople Turks are an urban people after all, not raider tribals. I do believe that a major part of the turkish elite would depart, to become the rulling class in the rump turkish state. But a turkish baker would choose to depart? Unlikely. I think for the middle and lower class Turks to be expelled, a new war is needed. Otherwise, I doubt the imperial Russia will get a sudden case of stalinism.Knowing the Russians, they'll likely try to go for Option #3 as @Thoresby said. Remove the Greeks to populate East Thrace, remove the Turks to their rump state, likely abuse the Jewish population to induce them to leave and populate it with Russians to ensure it is their city,
That's always an interesting question given how politically loaded it was. What follows is my estimate from cross-checking Karpat, Alexandris and the data of the post war Greek and Turkish censuses, plus Petzopoulos and older sources. Take it with as much of a grain of salt as you'd like but to wear my engineering number crunching hat it fits the observable data better, than blindly following either side. (yes I'm proud of it )Why would the greek government would lure the Greeks to leave Tsargrad, something they didnt do even after horrid massacres and war?
On the matter of the demographics of Thracia and Smyrna Zone, I am not a good authority on the topic, Perhaps @Lascaris could provide us with info ?