AHC: Kurdistan

The challenge: with a POD after the Congress of Berlin, have an independent Kurdistan come into existence, that looks at least roughly like this.
 
Probably doable in the aftermath of World War I, created in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, though the trick is getting the Kurds noticed by the Great Powers. It likely wouldn't be independent at first (League of Nations mandate?) but could gain independence later on.
 
If you check out my timeline Dead By Dawn, there is a Kurdistan in 1975. Wont be around for much longer but its there right now.
 
Probably doable in the aftermath of World War I, created in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, though the trick is getting the Kurds noticed by the Great Powers. It likely wouldn't be independent at first (League of Nations mandate?) but could gain independence later on.

The Treaty of Sevres envisioned a Kurdish state in half of present-day Turkish Kurdistan. (See this map-the dark yellow striped area below Wilsonian Armenia. The western half was to be a French mandate, the eastern half a British mandate)

So, what if the treaty survives? Just pulling this off the top of my head, but lets say Ataturk gets butterflied. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I seem to remember a passage in A Peace to End all Peace by David Fromkin where the European powers, when devising the mandate system, seriously considered giving America a mandate over Wilsonian Armenia, but this was rejected by Wilson, who knew that the American political situation would never allow such a thing.

Now, lets say that Wilson still rejects it (don't see the American political class really wanting a colony in northeast Anatolia), but the idea of a Wilsonian Armenia mandate survives, and eventually it goes to Britain. Britain initially expects to give it to Armenia, but it soon becomes clear that most of it is majority non-Armenian and this won't work. Meanwhile, the treaty's original, truncated Kurdish territory is created, with France having jurisdiction over the western half and Britain controlling the eastern half.

However, Britain ultimately decides on a three-way partition of the Armenian mandate-some territory along the border to the Armenians, the southern half (including Van) to the Kurds, the northern half to the Turks. In the 1920's, Kurds in French Syria and British Iraq revolt and, as a concession, their territories are transfered to, respectively, French and British Kurdistan. The result is a British mandate of East Kurdistan and a French mandate of West Kurdistan which together include all the Kurdish-majority areas outside Iran. Britain grants its half self-rule at the same time as Iraq, under a puppet monarch (wonder who this would be? Did Kurdistan have anything resembling royalty?). During WWII, French Kurdistan gains independence along with Syria, and chooses to merge with British Kurdistan. You now have most of the Kurds outside Iran in one state.

Just came up with it now, so feel free to poke holes in it. Also, this discussion is probably going to veer into post-1900 territory, so any mods can move this thread if they see fit.
 
(wonder who this would be? Did Kurdistan have anything resembling royalty?).

No, atleast none left. If you really want to you could say Saladin and the Ayyubids where Kurdish royalty but they really didn't stay Turkish for very long. They could still put a wildly inapropriate unrelated king in though.
 
A Kurdish state comprised of Iraqi Kurdistan, Syrian Kurdistan and the contiguous (and near contiguous) parts of Turkish Kurdistan would be possible following WWI, though you'd never get the entirety of Turkish Kurdistan unless you intended on committing mass genocide and it's unlikely Iranian Kurdistan would be added without things really going badly.

In other words something roughly like this;

Turko-Iraqi Kurdistan.png
 
Last edited:
In 1880, a few years after the Congress of Berlin, Sheikh Obeidullah lead a revolt by ethnic Kurds. That revolt failed because he ended up fighting both the Ottomans and the Persians. Now let's say the revolt ends up differently. Perhaps the Persians or Ottomans screw up, or Obeidullah makes better decisions, or just gets lucky during the battles. End result is either an independent state, or perhaps an autonomous region within the Ottoman Empire - perhaps by combining the Kurdish areas of the Persian Empire within the Ottoman.

In either case, it would help protect an incipient Kurdish nationalism as ethnic tensions rise in the twenty years afterwards as a result of the Young Turks attempting to establish a centralized state based on ethnic Turkish identity.

This would give you a core area of nationalist aspiration and a leader who could negotiate with the British and French at or after the end of World War I. Then in the period of November 1918 and June 1919 when the time was most favorable for the creation of a Kurdish state, there would be a leadership clique who could achieve it. IOTL, effective national leadership had not yet occurred. ITTL, with an existing Kurdish lead satapry as a result of the 1880 revolt, there would be such.

The Kurdish leader is able to impose effective control over much of the Kurdish area. The British in particular are receptive and recognize Kurdish independence as do the French. Confronted with the Allies, Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds, the Turkish leaders accept the Kurdish claims. Britain does not attempt to place southern Kurdistan (Mosul/Kirkuk area) into Iraq, and recognizes it as part of Kurdistan. Since the Kurdish areas of Persia already became part of Ottoman Empire back in 1880, even this region is part of the new state.
 
In 1880, a few years after the Congress of Berlin, Sheikh Obeidullah lead a revolt by ethnic Kurds. That revolt failed because he ended up fighting both the Ottomans and the Persians. Now let's say the revolt ends up differently. Perhaps the Persians or Ottomans screw up, or Obeidullah makes better decisions, or just gets lucky during the battles. End result is either an independent state, or perhaps an autonomous region within the Ottoman Empire - perhaps by combining the Kurdish areas of the Persian Empire within the Ottoman.

In either case, it would help protect an incipient Kurdish nationalism as ethnic tensions rise in the twenty years afterwards as a result of the Young Turks attempting to establish a centralized state based on ethnic Turkish identity.

This would give you a core area of nationalist aspiration and a leader who could negotiate with the British and French at or after the end of World War I. Then in the period of November 1918 and June 1919 when the time was most favorable for the creation of a Kurdish state, there would be a leadership clique who could achieve it. IOTL, effective national leadership had not yet occurred. ITTL, with an existing Kurdish lead satapry as a result of the 1880 revolt, there would be such.

The Kurdish leader is able to impose effective control over much of the Kurdish area. The British in particular are receptive and recognize Kurdish independence as do the French. Confronted with the Allies, Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds, the Turkish leaders accept the Kurdish claims. Britain does not attempt to place southern Kurdistan (Mosul/Kirkuk area) into Iraq, and recognizes it as part of Kurdistan. Since the Kurdish areas of Persia already became part of Ottoman Empire back in 1880, even this region is part of the new state.

I like that idea-a little less complicated than mine, actually.

Hmm, from a quick wiki scan, it seems Sheikh Obeidullah's undoing came when he attacked Persia. Maybe have him realize (like the modern-day Kurdish nationalist parties in Iraq have) that he can't fight two enemies at once and not attack the Persians. Better yet, have him be really pragmatic and court Persian support against the Ottomans (figuring he can turn against them whenever the situation is right). Also, have Russia throw some arms/money at him to hurt the Ottomans.

Anyway, Obeidullah is more successful and manages to get himself recognized as the lord of a Kurdish autonomous area (maybe Diyabakir, Bitlis, and Van vilayets on this map) and pass it on to his son. Due to tensions with the Young Turks, he sides with the British during WWI and fights a guerilla war the Ottomans, and afterwards his principality (enlarged to include all the Kurdish-majority areas of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria) becomes a British mandate.

One thing that occurred to me-with a British Kurdistan, the Kurds and Armenians will be allied during WWI, and Kurdistan and Armenia will probably border each other. This might allow the Brits to prevent Armenia and Georgia from falling to the Soviets. (This assumes Armenia doesn't try to attack Kurdistan, but they'd have been allied in WWI and Kurdistan is quite clearly a British protectorate.)
 
Top