AHC: Kurdistan becomes an internationally-recognized state
- Thread starter danteheadman
- Start date
I believe there was supposed to be Kurdish state for the partition of the Ottman empire but like many other agreements they signed in the middle east at the time they broke it
You probably can't count on Britain or France to even bother with immediately creating an independent Kurdistan, considering that they weren't really interested in creating a united Arabia either. Perhaps during the Interwar period, a Kurdish nationalist movement grows powerful and becomes influential enough (similarly to Zionism in British Palestine) that by the time decolonization occurs, a Kurdish state is formed out of chunks of Iraq and Syria, whether by peaceful and/or violent means.
Kurdish state won't form from violent means as it is surrounded by hostile powers
I wouldn't completely discount the possibility of a violent secession succeeding. Israel managed to form against the wishes of the British, Palestinians, and several neighboring Arab countries. If the Kurds became united by nationalist fervor and were organized well enough, it is possible that they can exploit post-WW2 chaos and decolonization to create Kurdistan.
Israel had a coastline to bring in Arms, Kurdistan does not. No matter how well organized they are, They can't fight without any guns or ammo. Not to mention Turkey and Iran will help against any Kurdish state.
Would it have helped matters if Russia managed to avoid being the weak-link in the run-up to WW1 with the area of Western Armenia and Kurdistan becoming part of the Russian zone of influence, so the Sazonov part of the Sykes-Picot agreement is as well remembered as the latter two?
Additionally what could motivate the Soviet Union to invade the Turkish part of Kurdistan in the same period it also invaded Armenia in OTL?
Additionally what could motivate the Soviet Union to invade the Turkish part of Kurdistan in the same period it also invaded Armenia in OTL?
@Masked Grizzly Indeed if, for example, a Republican Russia after Feb17, but without Oct17 emerged from WW1, without a civil war, they might push for a Kurdish buffer state between "their" Armenia and British and French protectorates. Maybe a Russian LoN Mandate? Then full independence at some later date.
It was an agreement and sure they didn’t sign on it but they basically sign on it until turkey got there shit together
The problem is that they hardly honoured any of their many internally conflicting promises to various parties. You would have to make France and Britain see it as in their self-interest to make a Kurdish state. I am not sure how you could do that. Generally, they saw it as in their interest to put various groups up against each other by putting them in thye same state, creating conflicting interests.
-
Yah but if they decide not to be assholes and honor there agreement then it could happen like if turkey feel apart and the treaty like serves with a Kurdish state like the Original happened
Lots of things could happen if people changed their mindset totally. The question, though, is if this is realistic. Even today, politicians are cynics when it comes to international affairs.
Exactly this. Colonial empires are not going to "liberate" people and give them their own countries out of generosity. Their first priority is finding pieces of land that are excellent for economic exploitation and furthering their geopolitical policies. Decolonization happened because they no longer viewed holding onto distant territories inhabited by rebellious subjects to be worth the hassle anymore. But while they were ruling these places, divide-and-conquer was in their best interest to decrease the likelihood of unified rebellions. The way that Britain and France carved up pretty much the entirety of Africa and the Middle East (plus South Asia) shows how little they cared about the eventual ramifications.