An Independent Assyria

DaHound22

Banned
The Assyrian/Aramaen/Syriac people are a pre-Arab, pre-Islam, pre-Kurdish group of Semitic, Aramaic-speaking Christians native to the northern areas of Syria and Iraq. They have a population of roughly 3-3.5 million people, most of them still living in and around their native homeland. The question? What would be the best way to get an ATL in which these Assyrian people established an independent state of their own?

Recent events in the Syrian Civil War and the rise of ISIS have led me to believe that an event where Iraq and/or Syria split along multiple ethnic lines (Assyria, Ezidkhan, Kurdistan etc.) would be the most logical option for working in an Assyrian state. I imagine this state being a Christian Republic and a safehaven for Middle Eastern Christians, very conservative, western allied (probably very strongly with Israel and maybe even the Saudi's depending on what happens in Iran), and, much like Israel, very militaristic for its own survival. It seems to me that the best time to get this done would be either:

1. 1949-1954 when Iraq is just a budding flower to young to keep control

2. 1990-1995 with a clear PoD of the US taking Saddam out in 91.

So, my questions to you all are 1.) What do you think ive what i have so far? 2.) Do you see any other eras where an establishment of an Assyrian nation-state is possible? 3.) Do you have any in depth analysis that could help me develop a proper and coherrant PoD? 4.) Once we have Assyria established, what is your view on how this nation looks?
 
I believe the idea of an independent Assyria was discussed around 1918 - that may also be the best time to establish it, really.
 
Wikipedia show this map of Assyrian populated areas

Assyria_Map.jpg


The question are how much of the population was Assyrian in this area after WWI. But I would suggest that a solution could be that the Iraqi and Syrian part was set up as a Assyrian state after WWI and then made Turkey and Assyria agreed to a population exchange.
 
Yup. Around that time would be best, as OTL a large percentage of their population was killed during and after the war.

The biggest question is where, as they are rather spread out and don't have a single majority in a concentrated region. Then again, Lebanon was majority Christian when it was founded, but that has changed in the intervening near century, so even a temporary Christian majority doesn't guarantee it will remain so.

Your best bet, likely, is to have the Treaty of Sevres to hold by any means and for the Kurdish to receive their state. The British viewed the Assyrians as being Christian Kurds, essentially, and OTL ignored their desires for a homeland (whether independent or autonomous). Only when, after the British pulled out of Iraq, the Iraqis started expelling the Assyrian population (or killing those returning from French Syria, from which they had been expelled as the French didn't want them).

If the Assyrians are lumped together with a Kurdistan, and then there is ethnic strife, it might be easier then to cut the region in two and have Assyria in one part and the Kurds in the other.

The other option is to have the larger French Syria encourage migration of the remaining Christian population to Syria, where they carve out an autonomous homeland. OTL, there were attempts to settle the Khabur (in Al Hasaka) and around Ghab in western Syria, but the Syrian Arabs did not appreciate the settlement OTL (to put it lightly).

WholeRegionSevres.gif


I'd say... have the Greco-Turkish War be a win for the Greeks and (combined with the Allies being more involved), the terms end up being a bit more thorough. Not only is Armenia kept Independent, but Kurdistan is as well.

As the British dearly want to keep Mosul in Mesopotamia, and not cede the Kurdish sections to this Kurdistan, they encourage migration (especially as that Kurdistan has significant Turkish minorities). At the same time, to essentially replace the population, Assyrian refugees from Turkey are encouraged to settle on the strip in northeastern Syria and Northwestern Iraq. The Assyrians are dependent upon the British for protection, and so the British know they will be loyal and Mosul will be secure. This autonomous region eventually develops into an independent country somewhere down the line.
 
Last edited:

DaHound22

Banned
Yup. Around that time would be best, as OTL a large percentage of their population was killed during and after the war.

The biggest question is where, as they are rather spread out and don't have a single majority in a concentrated region. Then again, Lebanon was majority Christian when it was founded, but that has changed in the intervening near century, so even a temporary Christian majority doesn't guarantee it will remain so.

Your best bet, likely, is to have the Treaty of Sevres to hold by any means and for the Kurdish to receive their state. The British viewed the Assyrians as being Christian Kurds, essentially, and OTL ignored their desires for a homeland (whether independent or autonomous). Only when, after the British pulled out of Iraq, the Iraqis started expelling the Assyrian population (or killing those returning from French Syria, from which they had been expelled as the French didn't want them).

If the Assyrians are lumped together with a Kurdistan, and then there is ethnic strife, it might be easier then to cut the region in two and have Assyria in one part and the Kurds in the other.

The other option is to have the larger French Syria encourage migration of the remaining Christian population to Syria, where they carve out an autonomous homeland. OTL, there were attempts to settle the Khabur (in Al Hasaka) and around Ghab in western Syria, but the Syrian Arabs did not appreciate the settlement OTL (to put it lightly).

WholeRegionSevres.gif


I'd say... have the Greco-Turkish War be a win for the Greeks and (combined with the Allies being more involved), the terms end up being a bit more thorough. Not only is Armenia kept Independent, but Kurdistan is as well.

As the British dearly want to keep Mosul in Mesopotamia, and not cede the Kurdish sections to this Kurdistan, they encourage migration (especially as that Kurdistan has significant Turkish minorities). At the same time, to essentially replace the population, Assyrian refugees from Turkey are encouraged to settle on the strip in northeastern Syria and Northwestern Iraq. The Assyrians are dependent upon the British for protection, and so the British know they will be loyal and Mosul will be secure. This autonomous region eventually develops into an independent country somewhere down the line.


I like the 2nd idea a lot, seems very feasible to work with. Im imagining already a situation as follows; the Greeks win the Greco-Turkish war with signifigant Allied help and as such the Treaty of Lausanne or its ATL equivelent is basically a rewritten Treaty of Sevres. The Kurds establish a nation-state, an independent Kurdistan in the Kurdish inhabited areas, and being under ethinc and religious persecution as well as having their land in the possession of enemies, the Assyrians rally around a strong, Christian, Assyrian nationalist, probably Malik Khoshaba and a few church Patriarchs.

On that same note, one could create a POD in the so-called "Assyrian war for Independence". Malik Khoshaba and a few others put up one of the most brilliant campaigns ive ever seen during WWI, defeating the Turks and Kurds consistently despite absolutely overwhelming odds. They were being funded by both Russians and British, who both promised them an Assyrian state if they were successful. And the thing is, they almost were. Twice. First during the initial stages of the war (summer of 1915 to be exact) Assyrian General Dawid (i believe) held off a much larger Turkish/Kurdish force for almost the whole summer before finally being forced out by artillery and overwhelming numbers. If the Assyrians can hold this line just a little longer, long enough for the arrival of Russian reinforcements, then not only would they win the campaign, they'd avoid a great deal of slaughter as well. Second, in 1917, Agha Petros and esspecially Malik Khoshaba were consistently beating on the Turkish forces, and it seemed like their promised state was right around the corner, as well as victory over the Ottomans.. then of course the Russian Revolution and what not. So in this case, if Khoshaba can have his soldiers established in victory well enough that statehood seems iminent before the Russian Revolution, then a potential for Assyrian statehood arises.
 
I like the 2nd idea a lot, seems very feasible to work with. Im imagining already a situation as follows; the Greeks win the Greco-Turkish war with signifigant Allied help and as such the Treaty of Lausanne or its ATL equivelent is basically a rewritten Treaty of Sevres. The Kurds establish a nation-state, an independent Kurdistan in the Kurdish inhabited areas, and being under ethinc and religious persecution as well as having their land in the possession of enemies, the Assyrians rally around a strong, Christian, Assyrian nationalist, probably Malik Khoshaba and a few church Patriarchs.

On that same note, one could create a POD in the so-called "Assyrian war for Independence". Malik Khoshaba and a few others put up one of the most brilliant campaigns ive ever seen during WWI, defeating the Turks and Kurds consistently despite absolutely overwhelming odds. They were being funded by both Russians and British, who both promised them an Assyrian state if they were successful. And the thing is, they almost were. Twice. First during the initial stages of the war (summer of 1915 to be exact) Assyrian General Dawid (i believe) held off a much larger Turkish/Kurdish force for almost the whole summer before finally being forced out by artillery and overwhelming numbers. If the Assyrians can hold this line just a little longer, long enough for the arrival of Russian reinforcements, then not only would they win the campaign, they'd avoid a great deal of slaughter as well. Second, in 1917, Agha Petros and esspecially Malik Khoshaba were consistently beating on the Turkish forces, and it seemed like their promised state was right around the corner, as well as victory over the Ottomans.. then of course the Russian Revolution and what not. So in this case, if Khoshaba can have his soldiers established in victory well enough that statehood seems iminent before the Russian Revolution, then a potential for Assyrian statehood arises.

That might work: especially presenting it as a fate accompli. If this Assyrians state assists in the Greco-Turkish war in maintaining order, than there might be the chance to expand and recoup their claims. (re Mosul, etc). That's especially if, on top of that maintaining de facto control over the land, the British could understand that having a nation-state in control of the major oil fields that would be dependent on Britain for defence would be important. Doubly so if the French make a bid to support the Assyrians in hopes that in the Alt-Treaty of Laussane, they are assigned it anyway but have the French as their benefactor.

Nothing helps minor powers than their de facto suzerein being worried that another nation might steal them away.

Also, expanding the population transfers of Lausanne elsewhere would also assist in the creation of a unitary state.
 
Top