20th Century Greek Anatolia

[Basileus444]

This scenario of mine came up in the 'When does Turkish Anatolia become irreversible' thread in pre-1900. One of the posters said 1923, in that a Greek victory in the Greco-Turkish war could result (after much ethnic cleansing admittedly) in a Greek Anatolia. I was thinking about if there was any way a Greek victory was possible, and I came up with this:

Greece joins the Allies willingly and decisively during the Gallipoli campaign, turning it into a resounding success that ends with the Greeks controlling Constantinople (since they have by far the most boots on the ground). With the Ottomans reeling, Romania joins the Allies earlier and since Russia is in better shape with the Black Sea open, Romania doesn't get steamrolled but instead the Romanians, Greeks, and Anzacs knock Bulgaria out of the war.

The Ottomans are militarily weaker, and so they don't have the forces to carry out as thorough an Armenian genocide, and WW1 ends with the Allies really liking Greece because of its contributions, while Greece has a more experienced army that has also benefited from Allied know-how. Meanwhile the Turks have taken heavier than OTL casualties (including Ataturk who's dead somewhere in Gallipoli), so in the Greco-Turkish war the Greeks are able to grab a good piece of western Anatolia (maybe the old Byzantine Optimatic, Opsician, and Thracesian themes or some such-Greece grabbing all of Anatolia at this time is definitely, absolutely ASB).

The Greeks do drive out/kill the Turks in their new territories, which burns off a lot of their goodwill. But they have a lot because of WW1, and they make some back when they offer room to Armenian refugees (of which there are a lot more because of the weaker genocide attempt), a policy inspired by Byzantine romanticism caused by the fall of Istanbul. The end result, a Greco-Armenian (aka Byzantine) western Anatolia.

As for the central plateau, maybe when WW2 rolls along Greece seizes that while the great powers smash each other. Or even assuming an OTL style Cold War, Greece could take it with American approval in the name of 'forestalling the threat of Turkish communists'.

This is well out of my expertise zone, and likely ASB. But I am interested in what others who know more about this time period think.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Re-hellenized Anatolia

This scenario of mine came up in the 'When does Turkish Anatolia become irreversible' thread in pre-1900. One of the posters said 1923, in that a Greek victory in the Greco-Turkish war could result (after much ethnic cleansing admittedly) in a Greek Anatolia.

That was me. Yeah, it's a stretch. But then, the rejudization of Palestine was a stretch - and so was the polonization of Prussia. But they happened.

Greece joins the Allies willingly and decisively during the Gallipoli campaign, turning it into a resounding success that ends with the Greeks controlling Constantinople (since they have by far the most boots on the ground).

1) I don't see how the Greeks could contribute much to the Gallipoli operation, other that logistical support (the use of Greek islands as bases).

2) The Great Powers would not give Constantinople to Greece, at least not initially. Russia wanted it, Britain didn't want Russia to get it, but they're allies at the moment.

With the Ottomans reeling, Romania joins the Allies earlier and since Russia is in better shape with the Black Sea open, Romania doesn't get steamrolled but instead the Romanians, Greeks, and Anzacs knock Bulgaria out of the war.

If the Allies win at Gallipoli, Bulgaria will join the Allies, not the Central Powers. When Allied ships can get through the Dardanelles, Bulgaria will jump in on the Allied side to grab as much of Thrace as possible, and even try for Constantinople.

The Ottomans are militarily weaker

Dead, IMO. They've lost their capital, lost all support from Germany, and Russia is steamrollering from the east. The British are in Mesopotamia. (OTL that campaign failed badly, but ATL the Turks fall apart.)

... WW1 ends with the Allies really liking Greece because of its contributions, while Greece has a more experienced army that has also benefited from Allied know-how. Meanwhile the Turks have taken heavier than OTL casualties (including Ataturk who's dead somewhere in Gallipoli),

Almost certainly less than OTL casualties, because Turkey's OTL casualties were horrendous - proportionately the highest of any belligerent except Serbia. Really. Look it up.

Turkey being knocked out early would save them a lot of fighting. However killing Kemal is useful.

so in the Greco-Turkish war the Greeks are able to grab a good piece of western Anatolia (maybe the old Byzantine Optimatic, Opsician, and Thracesian themes or some such-Greece grabbing all of Anatolia at this time is definitely, absolutely ASB).

The Greeks do drive out/kill the Turks in their new territories, which burns off a lot of their goodwill. But they have a lot because of WW1, and they make some back when they offer room to Armenian refugees (of which there are a lot more because of the weaker genocide attempt), a policy inspired by Byzantine romanticism caused by the fall of Istanbul. The end result, a Greco-Armenian (aka Byzantine) western Anatolia.

Armenian refugees coming west is demographically useful, but if the Allies defeat Turkey, Armenia will be under Russian protection and there won't be any refugees.

Unless...

If Russia goes down anyway, a resurgent Turkish rump state could become a headache for the Allies. This could inspire the Allies to a course similar to OTL: put a Greek army in Asia Minor to deal with rump Turkey.

Meanwhile the main Allied forces are all tied up supporting Serbia and Romania against Austria and trying to salvage something from the wreck of Russia.

As for the central plateau, maybe when WW2 rolls along Greece seizes that while the great powers smash each other. Or even assuming an OTL style Cold War, Greece could take it with American approval in the name of 'forestalling the threat of Turkish communists'.

More plausible, IMO, is that either

Turkey joins the Axis and is penalized for the benefit of Greece after Allied victory

or Greece joins the Axis and gets a slice of loot following Axis victory.

 

[Nietzsche]

2) The Great Powers would not give Constantinople to Greece, at least not initially. Russia wanted it, Britain didn't want Russia to get it, but they're allies at the moment.

Err, you're going to need to rewrite nearly two or so centuries of British foreign policy for them to allow the Bosporus to change hands. They'd take it themselves and make it similar to a LoN Mandate before giving it to either Greece or Russia.

They're not just going to give up the ability to strangle Russia's ability for power-projection in the Med, and they sure as hell aren't going to fork it over to some upstart balkan state they can't trust so far as they could throw.

Greece isn't getting Istanbul, not without fighting Britain for it.

 

[evgenia]

I too think that UK would keep the marmara strains for quite some time..However,at the end of the day,like they gave them to Turkey,they would give them to Greece or any other country holding the surrounding areas.A split of Anatolia would definitely be possible if it wasnt for Kemal to unite the Turks and change their image.

 

[Michael B]

The Ottomans are militarily weaker, and so they don't have the forces to carry out as thorough an Armenian genocide,

They are still going to have more boots on the ground than the Greeks.

WW1 ends with the Allies really liking Greece because of its contributions, while Greece has a more experienced army that has also benefited from Allied know-how.

To benefit from Allied know how they are going to obtain tanks, fast aircraft and heavy artillery and have received the training to effectively use them. They are only really going to get the last of the three.

More generally, if the Armenians had been more successful (for example the Soviets had not got involved), the British had been less obstructive (eg allowing blockade of Turkey) and the French got more stuck in over Syria they might have had a chance. However, all their "allies" let them down.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

The end result would be Greece suddenly ruling a lot of Turks who don't want to be ruled by them. Not pretty.

 

[miguelrj]

If the Turks are kicked out of Thrace and Anatolia where are they supposed to go? Back to Central Asia? Packed into Kurdistan? A reeeeeeealy thorough genocide?

 

[Tongera]

The Greeks could only have parts of Anatolia, too many Turks and i doubt the allies would let them have Eastern Thrace and Constantinople and the Eastern side of the Bosphrous. But i think the Greeks could have the Western of Anatolia and maybe south and north as well. Although ethnic cleansing should be expected and probably will happen.

 

[Snake Featherston]

This can only work if Greece is willing to implement a genocide that'd be a blueprint for Generalplan Ost. And if Greece has the capability to win a war with Turkey by itself as nobody else in Europe will willingly sign up with a genocidal state in this particular situation.

 

[Snake Featherston]

That was me. Yeah, it's a stretch. But then, the rejudization of Palestine was a stretch - and so was the polonization of Prussia. But they happened.

In both cases they required the actions and will of outside powers. The British Empire made Israel, not the Zionist Kibbutzim, or more technically the Mufti of Jerusalem picked one of the most idiotic imaginable times to raise the flag of revolt, got smashed, and a decade later Zionist WWII veterans were far superior to Arab states and to what was left of the Palestinians' leadership. The Polonization of Prussia was solely due to Stalin's fiat, not due to anything about the Poles.

 

[rohala]

a)There is no intention, neither a need for genocide. Minority populations are the norm in the balkan states. Greece had a substantial muslim population.
b)Greece had no intention to revive the Byzantine empire. All pseudo-romanticisms aside, Greece's intention was to capture the prosperous coastal regions of Anatolia. Recognizing the interrelation of coastal propseority with the anatolian interior's production, Venizelos had pledged to give privileged access to the port of Smyrna to Turkey (like the case of Salonica and Serbia/Yugoslavia).
c)During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the increasing propseprity of Anatolia had drawn many Greek immigrants. Anatolia was being peacefully re-hellenized. Immediately after the Young Turk reviolution of 1908, Venizelos had openly contemplated in the Greek parliament the possibility of Greece re-uniting with the Ottoman Empire on the basis that with equal treatment, the vigorous Greek nation would come to dominate. The possibility of a Greco-Turkish federation remained in discussion even after the Balkan Wars.

 

[Snake Featherston]

a)There is no intention, neither a need for genocide. Minority populations are the norm in the balkan states. Greece had a substantial muslim population.
b)Greece had no intention to revive the Byzantine empire. All pseudo-romanticisms aside, Greece's intention was to capture the prosperous coastal regions of Anatolia. Recognizing the interrelation of coastal propseority with the anatolian interior's production, Venizelos had pledged to give privileged access to the port of Smyrna to Turkey (like the case of Salonica and Serbia/Yugoslavia).
c)During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the increasing propseprity of Anatolia had drawn many Greek immigrants. Anatolia was being peacefully re-hellenized. Immediately after the Young Turk reviolution of 1908, Venizelos had openly contemplated in the Greek parliament the possibility of Greece re-uniting with the Ottoman Empire on the basis that with equal treatment, the vigorous Greek nation would come to dominate. The possibility of a Greco-Turkish federation remained in discussion even after the Balkan Wars.

1) Minority, yes, but in this case it's the Greeks that are the minority in "Greece." Which means either genocide or apartheid.

2) Greece will never treat Turkey as an equal, Turkey neither fears nor hates Greeks enough to consider much difference from OTL. Greece was never going to take over Anatolia, nor were the Ottomans going to give dominance to nation that had broken away from them and wished re-admission on grounds of their controlling the state they loved so much they seceded from to start with.

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

Err, you're going to need to rewrite nearly two or so centuries of British foreign policy for them to allow the Bosporus to change hands. They'd take it themselves and make it similar to a LoN Mandate before giving it to either Greece or Russia.

They're not just going to give up the ability to strangle Russia's ability for power-projection in the Med, and they sure as hell aren't going to fork it over to some upstart balkan state they can't trust so far as they could throw.

Greece isn't getting Istanbul, not without fighting Britain for it.

Well, why can't they fight Britain for it, especially if they promise the Russians unhindered access to the Bosporus? With a faster collapse of the Ottomans alongside a faster end to the European war (maybe early American entry?), wouldn't an Anglo-Russian rivalry resurrect itself rather quickly? I could see the British supporting Turkish nationalist insurgents in Anatolia against an alliance of the Orthodox ethnic groups in the region, backed by Russia.

 

[Nietzsche]

Well, why can't they fight Britain for it, especially if they promise the Russians unhindered access to the Bosporus? With a faster collapse of the Ottomans alongside a faster end to the European war (maybe early American entry?), wouldn't an Anglo-Russian rivalry resurrect itself rather quickly? I could see the British supporting Turkish nationalist insurgents in Anatolia against an alliance of the Orthodox ethnic groups in the region, backed by Russia.

Sure they could fight Britain for it. They would think the very gates of Tartarus had opened up, turning Greece into little more than a wonderful example of geography.

Geography found on the Moon, mind you. Fighting the most powerful state in the world will never end well. Especially not for a fourth-rate power who's mere existence is by said state's mercy.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

a)There is no intention, neither a need for genocide. Minority populations are the norm in the balkan states. Greece had a substantial muslim population.
b)Greece had no intention to revive the Byzantine empire. All pseudo-romanticisms aside, Greece's intention was to capture the prosperous coastal regions of Anatolia. Recognizing the interrelation of coastal propseority with the anatolian interior's production, Venizelos had pledged to give privileged access to the port of Smyrna to Turkey (like the case of Salonica and Serbia/Yugoslavia).
c)During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the increasing propseprity of Anatolia had drawn many Greek immigrants. Anatolia was being peacefully re-hellenized. Immediately after the Young Turk reviolution of 1908, Venizelos had openly contemplated in the Greek parliament the possibility of Greece re-uniting with the Ottoman Empire on the basis that with equal treatment, the vigorous Greek nation would come to dominate. The possibility of a Greco-Turkish federation remained in discussion even after the Balkan Wars.

Can you explain this please? I'm very curious.

 

[evgenia]

I think that British were actually the only Big Power that offered Greece the chance to get a lot of areas back(Cyprus,Gallipoli,etc).The British even gave the Eptanese for free(!!) to Greece.On the other hand,the Russians,despite claiming "brotherhood" due to common Orthodox Religion,they helped the Turks more,by providing military help and expertise.The Italians were the worst(karma is a bitch though,they "payed" in a humilating defeat in Epirus in WW2).Germany,never really gave a damn about Greece,they did send Otto I,thougheek:).So,siding with the British would actually be the safest way to go!!!

 

[Nietzsche]

I think that British were actually the only Big Power that offered Greece the chance to get a lot of areas back(Cyprus,Gallipoli,etc).The British even gave the Eptanese for free(!!) to Greece.On the other hand,the Russians,despite claiming "brotherhood" due to common Orthodox Religion,they helped the Turks more,by providing military help and expertise.The Italians were the worst(karma is a bitch though,they "payed" in a humilating defeat in Epirus in WW2).Germany,never really gave a damn about Greece,they did send Otto I,thougheek:).So,siding with the British would actually be the safest way to go!!!

All those areas do not equal the Bosporus. Greek will be only spoken in Hades before Britain gives it to them.

 

[rohala]

Sure they could fight Britain for it. They would think the very gates of Tartarus had opened up, turning Greece into little more than a wonderful example of geography.

Geography found on the Moon, mind you. Fighting the most powerful state in the world will never end well. Especially not for a fourth-rate power who's mere existence is by said state's mercy.

When Kemal brought his forces in front of Canakkale in 1922 what exactly did "the most powerful state in the world" do? "Tartarus" you say? Hmm...

Can you explain this please? I'm very curious.

The Young turk revolution brought enthusiasm to the Greeks and the other Balakn populations because it brought a consitution and a representative palriament. Consider that a)more Greeks lived in the Ottoman empire than the little Kingdom of Greece, b) that the Ottoman empire was Greece's bigest economic partner, and c) that many Greeks were immigrating to flourishing Anatolia, it made sense that Greece merge with a democratic well-run Ottoman state.

I think that British were actually the only Big Power that offered Greece the chance to get a lot of areas back(Cyprus,Gallipoli,etc).The British even gave the Eptanese for free(!!) to Greece.On the other hand,the Russians,despite claiming "brotherhood" due to common Orthodox Religion,they helped the Turks more,by providing military help and expertise.The Italians were the worst(karma is a bitch though,they "payed" in a humilating defeat in Epirus in WW2).Germany,never really gave a damn about Greece,they did send Otto I,thougheek:).So,siding with the British would actually be the safest way to go!!!

The Bolsheviks were Turkey's biggest ally. France and Italy came to terms with Kemal, but generally were indifferent. Britain supported Greece ...morally, but that was it. Germany was defeated. Otto was a Bavarian. There was no Germany at the time.

 

[Nietzsche]

When Kemal brought his forces in front of Canakkale in 1922 what exactly did "the most powerful state in the world" do? "Tartarus" you say? Hmm...

That was after the war, and after Britain had demobilized. Greece would be trying this during the war, or not long after. It's like picking a fight with a marine while he is asleep. Of course you'll win, the other guy isn't fighting.

 

[Uruk]

So you are saying that the UK while fighting Germany would be willing to risk another war but when they only had a rebel army to face they didnt?