AHC: Have Greek-Turkish relations be as hostile as Pakistan-India relations

[Aaaaasima]

While relations between Greece and Turkey are pretty hostile they are good friends compared to Pakistan and India. The latter two have nukes which are ready to use in case of war, which shows how hostile the relations are between the two.

But how could you make Greek-Turkish relations be as bad as Pakistan-India relations? Would it make sense for Greece and Turkey to make a nuclear bomb if that is the case? Since both are NATO members I wonder how the US would react.

 

[fredinno]

Pakistan-India was exacerbated by competing territorial claims.

Keep the Greeks in Anatolia, and have them fight a few wars over Constantinople, and the Agean islands close to Anatolia.

The population transfer in the 20s effectively ended Greek-Turkish hate on the long run, for the same reason Stalin ended German-Polish hate on the long run by moving the Polish Border west.

 

[Alexander the Average]

Maybe throw in having the Greeks go Communist during the Cold War. Having them on opposite sides of the Cold War could help up the tension between them.

 

[TimTurner]

Maybe throw in having the Greeks go Communist during the Cold War. Having them on opposite sides of the Cold War could help up the tension between them.

This plus no population exchanges would do it easily.

 

[water123]

Have the Greeks get to Constantinople. That would... really make things... not good between the two countries, because the traditional Turkish capital will have just been taken (and, unfortunately, probably rather thoroughly ethnically cleansed) by Greeks, and the Greeks would see this as a opportunity to establish themselves as both a middle power, and to perhaps be able to one day take more coastal regions.

 

[Luminous]

(and, unfortunately, probably rather thoroughly ethnically cleansed)

Constantinople was still Greek majority (or, at least, extremely large Greek minority) until the population exchange OTL.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Constantinople was still Greek majority (or, at least, extremely large Greek minority) until the population exchange OTL.

It was... complicated. The City Formerly Known as Byzantium was very cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic: the Armenian and Jewish quarters were certainly quite large.

Though, I don't think that's the best site for long-standing tensions, considering you'd have a strong geographic barrier (The Straits) and a greater desire and ease (due to the small geographic area and infastructure) to pull off the kind of social engineering needed to limit the minority problem. I'd actually go for the Turks retaining more territory in the Balkans/Western Thrace, with more blurry lines between what area is Turkish and Greek populated (Mountains and rural villages and the like; one valley could be Greek, the next Turkish, ect.) More grounds for both national and international vaugeries.

 

[Ritos]

Pakistan-India was exacerbated by competing territorial claims.

Keep the Greeks in Anatolia, and have them fight a few wars over Constantinople, and the Agean islands close to Anatolia.

The population transfer in the 20s effectively ended Greek-Turkish hate on the long run, for the same reason Stalin ended German-Polish hate on the long run by moving the Polish Border west.

Those situations are not comparable, the 50 year occupation of Germany and the enforced "de-nazification" is what ended that hate, the border was nearly purely Germans at that point, if anything, it would just be another friction point without the occupation and "de-nazification"

Don't equate population exchanges with genocide.