AHC: No More Turks

  • Thread starter Deleted member 172985
  • Start date

Deleted member 172985

If the Treaty of Sevres was enforced and there was no Turkish national movement, Turkey would of reduced to a small rump state.
Untitled.jpg

The Turkish population upon the founding of the Republic in 1923 numbered 14 million, with a sizeable minority of that number being Kurds. I find this number remarkable as I didn't realise Turkey had such a low population upon it's founding, with the people stretched across such a large chunk of land. If we assume that the Treaty of Sevres was enforced and we see the ethnic cleansing of Turks in Greece, Armenia, Kurdistan and some in the Italian zone, I could see the population of this rump state going as low as 10 million.

Moreover, if this treaty were to go ahead then fascism would never rise in Europe, preventing WW2. This is because there would be no Atatürk to inspire Italian fascism and the Italians themselves would be more satisfied with their gains following the war with this large chunk of Anatolian land, preventing the rise of Italian nationalistic ideologies in the first place. This also means no Nazis.

From here, what events could occur which could see the eradication of a Turkish identity or perhaps reduce the Turkish people to a small minority displaced across Anatolia? Perhaps the rise of Communism? I ask this not out of hate for Turkey or its people. It would just be an interesting tragedy to learn about in alternate history textbooks - that there used to be a Turkish people who ruled a huge chunk of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, but now no longer exist.
 
Fascism would still be around, it would just have a different name. Hitler wasn’t going to go away just because the Italians were happy.
 
Moreover, if this treaty were to go ahead then fascism would never rise in Europe, preventing WW2. This is because there would be no Atatürk to inspire Italian fascism and the Italians themselves would be more satisfied with their gains following the war with this large chunk of Anatolian land, preventing the rise of Italian nationalistic ideologies in the first place. This also means no Nazis.
i think you're right for the very wrong reason- if italy got a sizeable chunk of anatolia and became a dominant poewr in the eastern medeterranean, their revaunchism would be less prone to exploding out into fascism like it did. but yeah blaming ataturk for being a nationalist and defending his country from foreign invaders (like, for real, not just in the way actual fascists believe he did) is silly at best
 
Moreover, if this treaty were to go ahead then fascism would never rise in Europe, preventing WW2. This is because there would be no Atatürk to inspire Italian fascism and the Italians themselves would be more satisfied with their gains following the war with this large chunk of Anatolian land, preventing the rise of Italian nationalistic ideologies in the first place. This also means no Nazis.
It wouldn't be called fascism if Italy was happier since that came from the bundle of sticks that symbolized authority in ancient Rome, but some form of German revanchism is likely to take root, though it may or may not be led by Hitler or even the Nazis.
 

Deleted member 172985

Pretty sure hanging fascism on Atatürk is a Bridge Too Far.
Ataturk's building of the Turkish state inspired the Italians to create fascism. This is a fact. Hitler and Mussolini idolised Ataturk. It was Ataturk that inspired Mussolini to do the March on Rome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 172985

i think you're right for the very wrong reason- if italy got a sizeable chunk of anatolia and became a dominant poewr in the eastern medeterranean, their revaunchism would be less prone to exploding out into fascism like it did. but yeah blaming ataturk for being a nationalist and defending his country from foreign invaders (like, for real, not just in the way actual fascists believe he did) is silly at best
When did I say Ataturk was wrong for being a nationalist and defending his country? I think Ataturk was a brilliant statesman. It is undeniable, however, that his actions were essential in inspiring Mussolini and fascism as an ideology. That doesn't mean he was a fascist.
 
I don’t think the Turkish people would just take this lying down, and the ethnic cleansing of Anatolia would probably fail (or at best be only partially implemented). If anything, I can see this making their political scene more revanchist and prone to what we know as fascism.

However, leaving that aside, I was under the impression that the French, British, and Italian zones were areas of influence rather than outright colonies? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
 
Ataturk's building of the Turkish state inspired the Italians to create fascism. This is a fact. Hitler and Mussolini idolised Ataturk. It was Ataturk that inspired Mussolini to do the March on Rome.

Millions of Germans are still going to be angry over Versailles and want revenge. They’ll still be worried about the Soviets. They’ll still be ripe for a totalitarian when the depression makes their lives worse. Hitler or someone just like him is taking over eventually.
 

Deleted member 172985

I don’t think the Turkish people would just take this lying down, and the ethnic cleansing of Anatolia would probably fail (or at best be only partially implemented). If anything, I can see this making their political scene more revanchist and prone to what we know as fascism.

However, leaving that aside, I was under the impression that the French, British, and Italian zones were areas of influence rather than outright colonies? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
French and British were not colonies, but I believe the Italians intended to settle some of Anatolia. The British mandate primarily consists of Kurds while the French will have some Turks, but likely lots of the Turks in the French mandate will move to the rump state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the Treaty of Sevres was enforced and there was no Turkish national movement, Turkey would of reduced to a small rump state.
View attachment 751873
The Turkish population upon the founding of the Republic in 1923 numbered 14 million, with a sizeable minority of that number being Kurds. I find this number remarkable as I didn't realise Turkey had such a low population upon it's founding, with the people stretched across such a large chunk of land. If we assume that the Treaty of Sevres was enforced and we see the ethnic cleansing of Turks in Greece, Armenia, Kurdistan and some in the Italian zone, I could see the population of this rump state going as low as 10 million.

Where would those ethnic Turks (and other Muslims, too) have gone? If we are talking of a mass death scenario, a sort of retaliatory genocide, I would suggest among other things that the success of such a scenario would not do good things. It would be a tactic that succeeded, after all.

Moreover, if this treaty were to go ahead then fascism would never rise in Europe, preventing WW2. This is because there would be no Atatürk to inspire Italian fascism and the Italians themselves would be more satisfied with their gains following the war with this large chunk of Anatolian land, preventing the rise of Italian nationalistic ideologies in the first place. This also means no Nazis.

It is deeply questionable that the absence, or failure, of Ataturk in early 1920s Anatolia would do much to alter the trajectory of European politics. Italy might perhaps feel less cheated out of victory if it got to keep a large chunk of Anatolia, but the much nearer and more important irredenta on the eastern shore of the Adriatic will remain unfulfilled.

I do not see Germany being affected at all by the liquidation of its former Ottoman allies, at least in the sense of veering away from fascism. If anything, it might be worse: The consent of the international community in liquidating Turkey might indeed be taken as providing an example. In this timeline, rather than questioning who would remember the Armenians, Nazis might ask the same of the Turks and condemn them from not being radical enough.
 
i think you're right for the very wrong reason- if italy got a sizeable chunk of anatolia and became a dominant poewr in the eastern medeterranean, their revaunchism would be less prone to exploding out into fascism like it did. but yeah blaming ataturk for being a nationalist and defending his country from foreign invaders (like, for real, not just in the way actual fascists believe he did) is silly at best

I am not at all sure about that. Anatolia was much less important in the Italian imagination than Dalmatia, say, or other territories claimed by Italian nationalists. I could equally make the case that an Italian Anatolia, something that the OP suggests would be achieved in the face of massive suffering on the part of Turks, might well incite Italian nationalists to favour more aggressive campaigns against nearer neighbours.
 
Ataturk's building of the Turkish state inspired the Italians to create fascism. This is a fact. Hitler and Mussolini idolised Ataturk. It was Ataturk that inspired Mussolini to do the March on Rome.


There may certainly have been Turkish influence, but the suggestion that without Ataturk and a successful War of Turkish Independence we would not have had fascism in Europe is implausible. Italy and Germany were each very imperfect democracies, each trying to grasp with the failure of previous imperial efforts and each increasingly inclined to blame an imperfect liberalism for the failures. Beyond that, the example of the Communists in the former Russian Empire is a demonstration of a highly effective one-party state, a veritable model.
 
I am not at all sure about that. Anatolia was much less important in the Italian imagination than Dalmatia, say, or other territories claimed by Italian nationalists. I could equally make the case that an Italian Anatolia, something that the OP suggests would be achieved in the face of massive suffering on the part of Turks, might well incite Italian nationalists to favour more aggressive campaigns against nearer neighbours.
fair enough, but even if anatolia is less appealing to the nationalist narrative than dalmatia or the croatian coast, the fact it allows italy massive dominance over greece, Bulgaria, etc, and letting them have a bigger slice of the balkan pie would help.
 
fair enough, but even if anatolia is less appealing to the nationalist narrative than dalmatia or the croatian coast, the fact it allows italy massive dominance over greece, Bulgaria, etc, and letting them have a bigger slice of the balkan pie would help.

Letting Italy move more into the Balkans would, I think, be if not a second POD then a consequence of the POD. If it plausibly cut-and-paste the tactics used to take Anatolia to Yugoslavia, for instance, the rest of would be mass atrocities in a noteworthy European war of aggression. This would not moderate Italian politics, not at all.
 

Deleted member 172985

There may certainly have been Turkish influence, but the suggestion that without Ataturk and a successful War of Turkish Independence we would not have had fascism in Europe is implausible. Italy and Germany were each very imperfect democracies, each trying to grasp with the failure of previous imperial efforts and each increasingly inclined to blame an imperfect liberalism for the failures. Beyond that, the example of the Communists in the former Russian Empire is a demonstration of a highly effective one-party state, a veritable model.
A combination of Italy getting more land in WW1 and Ataturk not providing an example of nationalists reclaiming land against 'foreign occupiers' would have a huge effect on the development of fascism, in my opinion. People underestimate how crucial a figure Ataturk was in growing nationalist sentiment in Italy and Germany. I do not believe Italy would become a nationalist dictatorship given what has been established in the scenario. A case may be made that Germany would become a nationalist dictatorship but it would certainly not be under a Nazi-like ideology. They would likely push for Austria but nothing more then that, and it would likely be focused towards revenge against France/Britain rather then lebensraum and settling Eastern Europe.
 
A combination of Italy getting more land in WW1 and Ataturk not providing an example of nationalists reclaiming land against 'foreign occupiers' would have a huge effect on the development of fascism, in my opinion.

Why? If anything the war as you described, in which the Turks would be made to disappear as an ethnic group with suggestions that their population would drop to ten million from 14, would appear much more likely to justify aggressive war. Turks were subjected to a genocide to imperial powers and smaller neighbours could satisfy their maximal claims. It is not exactly Generalplan Ost, your scenario, but it comes close.
 

Deleted member 172985

Where would those ethnic Turks (and other Muslims, too) have gone? If we are talking of a mass death scenario, a sort of retaliatory genocide, I would suggest among other things that the success of such a scenario would not do good things. It would be a tactic that succeeded, after all.



It is deeply questionable that the absence, or failure, of Ataturk in early 1920s Anatolia would do much to alter the trajectory of European politics. Italy might perhaps feel less cheated out of victory if it got to keep a large chunk of Anatolia, but the much nearer and more important irredenta on the eastern shore of the Adriatic will remain unfulfilled.

I do not see Germany being affected at all by the liquidation of its former Ottoman allies, at least in the sense of veering away from fascism. If anything, it might be worse: The consent of the international community in liquidating Turkey might indeed be taken as providing an example. In this timeline, rather than questioning who would remember the Armenians, Nazis might ask the same of the Turks and condemn them from not being radical enough.
If we assume the Kurds numbered 1 million then there were 13 million Turks. You could have 2 million spread across French/British/Italian zones of influence with 500 thousand to 1 million dying from ethnic cleansing.

Ataturk was a huge figure in the growth of radicalisation in European politics, especially in Germany, and he was a huge inspiration in developing the fascist ideology. He provided inspiration to nationalists that with populist support they can 'reclaim' lost lands and become strong.
 

Deleted member 172985

Why? If anything the war as you described, in which the Turks would be made to disappear as an ethnic group with suggestions that their population would drop to ten million from 14, would appear much more likely to justify aggressive war. Turks were subjected to a genocide to imperial powers and smaller neighbours could satisfy their maximal claims. It is not exactly Generalplan Ost, your scenario, but it comes close.
The population of the rump state would be ten million, but the total Turkish population would be larger with them being spread across the French/British/Italian spheres of influence. I'll attach a short podcast detailing how important Ataturk was to the growth of radicalisation in Europe but I'm sure I've summarised it in other replies.

 
If we assume the Kurds numbered 1 million then there were 13 million Turks. You could have 2 million spread across French/British/Italian zones of influence with 500 thousand to 1 million dying from ethnic cleansing.

So, to be perfectly clear, we have just created a scenario where it has become entirely acceptable to liquidate a country the size of Romania or Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia, inflicting genocidal levels of casualties upon the victims.

How is this supposed to discourage, again, the rise of totalitarianisms and aggressive nationalism in interwar Europe? You have just created a scenario where mass atrocities are accepted as normal; secondarily, of course, you have created very good incentives for European nation-states to be very harsh towards ethnic minorities for fear that they might destroy their countries. You also have not created a scenario that would discourage imperialism (if anything, you have shown that it is a viable tactic) and have done nothing to make interstate war or totalitarianism unappealing.
 
Top