Alternate Partition of the Ottoman Empire

Short & simple:

Everything north of the Sea of Marmara, including Constantinople, goes to Greece, as does the OTL Greek enclave around Smyrna. Population swap between the Muslim inhabitants of Thrace, Constantinople and Smyrna and Greek inhabitants of the rest of the Ottoman Empire.

OTL demilitarized zone south of the Marmara Sea is given to the Armenians, who are to evacuate Armenia proper via the Black Sea ports of Trebizond and Batumi aboard Entente ships. Armenians in Cilicia also to be relocated on the Marmara coast.

Ottoman Empire receives Russian Armenia (now with no Armenians) and Azerbaijan, both of which it was already mostly occupying anyway. If feasible, they can also get the Crimea.

France and Italy are told to stuff it, cos' they ain't gettin anything.

How feasible is this?

Partition_of_Ottoman_Empire_%28Anatolia%29.png

OTL plan for reference
 

Deleted member 97083

That would be a terrible idea.

First of all, everyone in Armenia being forced to leave, and then trekking through a land that hates them (or stuffed on an overcrowded voyage) to settle some coast on the other side of Anatolia would probably have a higher death toll than the Armenian Genocide.

Secondly, France and Britain were the only ones (other than Greece locally) who actually would have been able to enforce terms on the Ottoman Empire. If France gets nothing, they won't support it. And the British and French already made the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Furthermore, there is no way that an Ottoman Empire that has lost Constantinople is going to be able to survive intact, let alone hold Crimea from the Soviets.
 
First of all, everyone in Armenia being forced to leave, and then trekking through a land that hates them (or stuffed on an overcrowded voyage) to settle some coast on the other side of Anatolia would probably have a higher death toll than the Armenian Genocide.

Let's not get carried away here. They would only have to travel a short distance to the Black Sea ports, probably under the protection and with the support of the British Army. Nobody would be actively trying to kill and/or starve them. The Armenian Genocide was mass murder first and foremost, not an organized movement of peoples.


Secondly, France and Britain were the only ones (other than Greece locally) who actually would have been able to enforce terms on the Ottoman Empire. If France gets nothing, they won't support it. And the British and French already made the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
The British could reason that control of the Straits was of vital strategic importance (which it was), and thus push for it. The French would need to realize that they couldn't control southern Anatolia with only a handful of Armenians, and thus be content with staying in Syria.

Furthermore, there is no way that an Ottoman Empire that has lost Constantinople is going to be able to survive intact, let alone hold Crimea from the Soviets.
Well, true, it wouldn't be the Ottoman Empire, but almost certainly the Republic of Turkey. Crimea is not really important to this thread, more of an afterthought, but that too could be kept pretty handily if the British Navy was ordered to continue providing fire support against the Bolsheviks on the Crimean Isthmus.

Again though, that's more of an afterthought. Main idea is the Turkish state (whatever it may call itself) gets to keep land in the east as compensation, and the Greeks are kept on a tight leash.
 

Deleted member 97083

Let's not get carried away here. They would only have to travel a short distance to the Black Sea ports, probably under the protection and with the support of the British Army. Nobody would be actively trying to kill and/or starve them. The Armenian Genocide was mass murder first and foremost, not an organized movement of peoples.
But not all the Armenians were in modern Armenia, and most of them would have to travel some ways through Anatolia to get to the Black Sea ports. During that time they would be attacked by Turkish and Ottoman forces and pogroms.

Even if all made it peacefully to Trabzon, there is no way the British have enough ships to transport 3 million people in a timely manner, let alone supply adequate food and water.

Also, if every Turk in the Marmara coastal region has left, then resettling the area will be chaotic and lead to starvation and fighting over the allocation of land.

The British could reason that control of the Straits was of vital strategic importance (which it was), and thus push for it. The French would need to realize that they couldn't control southern Anatolia with only a handful of Armenians, and thus be content with staying in Syria.
If the Greeks have Constantinople and the Hellespont, then Britain already controls the straits. There's not much of a need to control both sides.

For the French, it would make more sense to annex the Sykes-Picot land and then settle it with Anatolian Armenians and Syrian Arabs.

Well, true, it wouldn't be the Ottoman Empire, but almost certainly the Republic of Turkey. Crimea is not really important to this thread, more of an afterthought, but that too could be kept pretty handily if the British Navy was ordered to continue providing fire support against the Bolsheviks on the Crimean Isthmus.

Again though, that's more of an afterthought. Main idea is the Turkish state (whatever it may call itself) gets to keep land in the east as compensation, and the Greeks are kept on a tight leash.
Turkey wouldn't care about the land in the east which was never Turkish, they would want the rest of Asia Minor and to reconquer Constantinople.
 
Why would the powers want to give the Ottomans Azerbaijan's oil reserves? It sounds like they're very much in control of the situation.

Even the Azeris wouldn't be exactly happy with this solution, I think. Most of them were disappointed and annoyed at the Ottoman occupation in 1918. Ditto for Crimea, where the Tatars were just a minority.

As for Armenians, it's not like there's no reason for relocation, but it sounds like a logistical nightmare.
 
Why would the powers want to give the Ottomans Azerbaijan's oil reserves? It sounds like they're very much in control of the situation.
The alternative was letting the Soviets have it.

As for Armenians, it's not like there's no reason for relocation, but it sounds like a logistical nightmare.
Nobody says they have to do it overnight. It can be done in a 1-2 year time frame. Population swaps did occur at the time, including this one between Greece and Turkey right after the war, supervised by the League of Nations, which moved ~2 million people.
 
Top