Afghanistan joins the CPs in WWI; do the Entente sponsor a separatist movement there?

Considering Britain and Russia’s history with the Great Game it’s possible they’d just divide it if not leave it be to maintain a buffer state. Its possible though they could sponsor the hazara’s to revolt or maybe even the Tajiks, although i imgine the russians might have issue with the latter.
 

The Avenger

Banned
Considering Britain and Russia’s history with the Great Game it’s possible they’d just divide it if not leave it be to maintain a buffer state. Its possible though they could sponsor the hazara’s to revolt or maybe even the Tajiks, although i imgine the russians might have issue with the latter.
A Hazara rebellion would be very interesting. Of course, the Hazaras are landlocked and would thus need to: A) annex some non-Hazara areas; B) have Russia annex some northern Afghan territory to create a land connection between them and the new Hazara state.

linguistic.jpg


I think that Tajik and Uzbek rebellions are unlikely since Russia has significant numbers of both of these ethnic groups. Russia certainly wouldn't want its own Tajiks and Uzbeks rebelling and demanding independence (to join their brothers across the border), now would it?

If a Hazara rebellion does break out, though, is it likely to be successful?
 
Were there any seperatist movements at that time? Did the speakers of different languages such as Tajik or Uzbek consider themselves to be their own nations?
 
A Hazara rebellion would be very interesting. Of course, the Hazaras are landlocked and would thus need to: A) annex some non-Hazara areas; B) have Russia annex some northern Afghan territory to create a land connection between them and the new Hazara state.

linguistic.jpg


I think that Tajik and Uzbek rebellions are unlikely since Russia has significant numbers of both of these ethnic groups. Russia certainly wouldn't want its own Tajiks and Uzbeks rebelling and demanding independence (to join their brothers across the border), now would it?

If a Hazara rebellion does break out, though, is it likely to be successful?

In all honesty I can’t see it being succesful unless Afghanistan was completely balkanized, otherwise the pashtuns would just put the slam down on them. Afterall Hazarastan is and has been the poorest part of Afghanistan for centuries. Without proper support for the Entente I can’t see it succeeding.

Perhaps, like you said, if Russia occupied northern Afghanistan (giving them more turkic people’s under their thumb) it’d be a proper lifeline for Hazarastan. Without it It’d probably end up like the last time the Hazara’s revolted; which is to say an utter failure.
 

The Avenger

Banned
In all honesty I can’t see it being succesful unless Afghanistan was completely balkanized, otherwise the pashtuns would just put the slam down on them. Afterall Hazarastan is and has been the poorest part of Afghanistan for centuries. Without proper support for the Entente I can’t see it succeeding.

Perhaps, like you said, if Russia occupied northern Afghanistan (giving them more turkic people’s under their thumb) it’d be a proper lifeline for Hazarastan. Without it It’d probably end up like the last time the Hazara’s revolted; which is to say an utter failure.
Does Russia have the logistics to penetrate deep into Afghanistan, though?

Also, what you're saying is that after Russia drops out of the war, the Pashtuns are able to crush the Hazara rebellion and Britain decides not to help the Hazaras?
 
If Habibullah Khan (the emir of Afghanistan during the Great War) allied with the Central Powers, he might employ his forces in support of the Wazari tribes which, in the 1917 of our time line, made war upon the King-Emperor. If the experience of the Third Anglo-Afghan War suggests that the initiative would end badly for Habibullah. At the very least, he would lose his subsidy.

At the same time, the British might find it difficult to convince the Russians to refrain from using the fight against Afghanistan as a pretext for annexing the areas inhabited by Turkmen and Uzbek people.
 

The Avenger

Banned
If Habibullah Khan (the emir of Afghanistan during the Great War) allied with the Central Powers, he might employ his forces in support of the Wazari tribes which, in the 1917 of our time line, made war upon the King-Emperor. If the experience of the Third Anglo-Afghan War suggests that the initiative would end badly for Habibullah. At the very least, he would lose his subsidy.

I suspect that he'd lose a lot more than just his subsidy. Then again, though, maybe not--after all, his son remained in power after waging war against the British in 1919.

At the same time, the British might find it difficult to convince the Russians to refrain from using the fight against Afghanistan as a pretext for annexing the areas inhabited by Turkmen and Uzbek people.

Don't forget the Tajiks!

Also, is an Entente sponsorship of a Hazara separatist rebellion realistic?
 
I suspect that he'd lose a lot more than just his subsidy. Then again, though, maybe not--after all, his son remained in power after waging war against the British in 1919.

Don't forget the Tajiks!

Also, is an Entente sponsorship of a Hazara separatist rebellion realistic?

In our time line, the Third Anglo-Afghan War ended after the successful defense of several frontier forts by units of the Indian Army. According to the treaty which restored the peace, Emir Amanullah (successor of Habibullah) lost his subsidy, but retained his throne. He also gained the right to an independent foreign policy, which the Afghan state at lost in the Second Anglo-Afghan War.

The government of the Raj declined to exploit its defensive victories by going on the offensive against the forces of Amanullah. The reasons for this were
  • the state of the Indian Army, the best units of which were still overseas
  • the restlessness of the Pashtun tribes on the Northwest Frontier
  • the "strikes" by men of the Territorial Force serving in India, who, having volunteered to serve in the war against Germany, saw their employment in post-war conflicts as a breach of contract
Nonetheless, agents of the Raj did their best to undermine Amanullah. In 1929, these bore fruit in the overthrow of Amanullah by Nadir Shah.

As far as either the Tajiks or the Hazara are concerned, I suspect that both the British and the Russians would be willing to subsidize any group that was willing to fight against a central government allied to the Central Powers. In other words, agents of the Entente powers would be more interested in distracting, punishing, and, if possible, overthrowing the monarch who had made common cause with their enemies than in laying the groundwork for any post-war settlement. (T.E. Lawrence, please call your answering service!)
 

The Avenger

Banned
In our time line, the Third Anglo-Afghan War ended after the successful defense of several frontier forts by units of the Indian Army. According to the treaty which restored the peace, Emir Amanullah (successor of Habibullah) lost his subsidy, but retained his throne. He also gained the right to an independent foreign policy, which the Afghan state at lost in the Second Anglo-Afghan War.

Correct.

Also, it's interesting that Britain didn't strip Afghanistan of any territory after this war. Ofc, if any territory was to be stripped from Afghanistan, it would be in the northern half of Afghanistan (since that's where most of Afghanistan's ethnic minorities live)--and Britain might have feared that Bolshevik influence would spread there if it separated these territories from Afghanistan.

The government of the Raj declined to exploit its defensive victories by going on the offensive against the forces of Amanullah. The reasons for this were
  • the state of the Indian Army, the best units of which were still overseas
This would still be true in this TL.

  • the restlessness of the Pashtun tribes on the Northwest Frontier
This would also still be true in this TL.

  • the "strikes" by men of the Territorial Force serving in India, who, having volunteered to serve in the war against Germany, saw their employment in post-war conflicts as a breach of contract
This won't be a factor in this TL since Afghanistan is fighting in this TL's WWI.

Thus, we have 2 out of the same 3 factors going against us in this TL. Question is--is that enough for Afghanistan to still get a status quo ante bellum peace in terms of its borders in this TL?

Also, if so, might it encourage other Central Powers states to likewise demand peace based on the status quo ante bellum (when they are already losing the war, that is)?

Nonetheless, agents of the Raj did their best to undermine Amanullah. In 1929, these bore fruit in the overthrow of Amanullah by Nadir Shah.

Correct.

As far as either the Tajiks or the Hazara are concerned, I suspect that both the British and the Russians would be willing to subsidize any group that was willing to fight against a central government allied to the Central Powers. In other words, agents of the Entente powers would be more interested in distracting, punishing, and, if possible, overthrowing the monarch who had made common cause with their enemies than in laying the groundwork for any post-war settlement. (T.E. Lawrence, please call your answering service!)

That makes sense. That said, though, as I wrote above, Russia might not want an independent Tajik or Uzbek state since it could encourage Russia's Tajiks and Uzbeks to push for secession from Russia so that they could join their brethren across the border. The Hazara are probably a different matter, though. Ofc, the only way to reach the Hazara is to conquer a large part of Afghanistan from either the north or the south.
 
Top