Different Battle of Sakarya

Supposing Mustafa Kemal is killed after taking personal command and attacking the Greek position at Mount Chal in September 1921 and the battle tyrns into (a) a mild victory for Greece or (b) a crushing defeat for Turkey, what might the Greeks gain (or at least not lose) and what might the region look like today?
 
Supposing Mustafa Kemal is killed after taking personal command and attacking the Greek position at Mount Chal in September 1921 and the battle tyrns into (a) a mild victory for Greece or (b) a crushing defeat for Turkey, what might the Greeks gain (or at least not lose) and what might the region look like today?

The whole strategic scope of the operation on the Greek side was forcing the Nationalists to terms. A Greek victory at Sakarya particularly one coupled with the death of Kemal probably accomplishes this between the loss of Ankara, heavy casualties and the death of Kemal on top of it. Soo how does the final peace treaty look? Greece is the simpler part I think, they are confiirmed to Eastern Thrace and the Sevres zone (possiibly somewhat expanded) plus a voluntary exchange of populations ala Neuilly that doesn't turn so voluntary and that's about it.

Beyond this Armenia is gone but the Soviets probably push again to the 1914 Russo-Turkish border, the French I think stick to the part of Cilicia they still hold with the Nationalists defeated, though otherwise the Turkish-Syrian border is similar to OTL, Cnstantinople gets some kind of free city arrangement, under League protection but owned by Turkey. Which leaves the question of the Italians since the both had an ocupation zone and supported the nationalists. I suspect they do stick to the coast opposite the Dodecanesse in one capacity or another.

What the region looks today, much richer Greece for one but you first get to determine how WW2 went exactly. Did alt-Turkey join the Axis or not? The clever thing with hindsight available would be not to join it. But in 1940 whoever runs the show in Ankara or Bursa doesn't have hindsight and the fall of France will be looking awfully tempting.
 
That might be a way to get Greek ownership of a large part if Anatolia and perhaps part of Bulgaria in 1945...
 
That might be a way to get Greek ownership of a large part if Anatolia and perhaps part of Bulgaria in 1945...

I can see the Italian zone, assuming there was one, being passed on to Greece along with the Dodecanese it would be relatively thinly populated and a goodly part of its population would had been Greek. (I presume Italy would had ended post Sakarya with a fraction or all the modern Mugla province at most). Much more than that looks unlikely. For Bulgaria, the Soviets will be protecting it at Paris just as they did OTL. The big territorial losses if alt-Turkey joined ww2 would be likely east. The Soviets wouldn't had been amused for being invaded in 1941 to put it mildly, border would had gone to Serves Armenia most likely. And the British wouldn't had felt any reason not to unleash the SOE among the Kurds for a repeat of the Arab revolt, ending up with a Kurdish state by 1945.
 
This does make Greece a bit more formable come 1940. Enough to dissuade Mussolini from attacking Greece? If he does can the Allies hold onto either Ionia, or alternately Crete past 1941 due to the dissipation of Axis forces and demands of the Eastern Front. Are there similar knock on effects for Lybia & the Western Desert in Egypt?
 
This does make Greece a bit more formable come 1940. Enough to dissuade Mussolini from attacking Greece? If he does can the Allies hold onto either Ionia, or alternately Crete past 1941 due to the dissipation of Axis forces and demands of the Eastern Front. Are there similar knock on effects for Lybia & the Western Desert in Egypt?

Not only that, if Greece acquires the Straits and part/all of the Italian area, does the Axis try to take the straits and reinforce the southern arm of Barbarossa? More over, would they get access to the chromium and oil et al in/around Turkey? And what might Greece look like after WWII...?
 
This does make Greece a bit more formable come 1940. Enough to dissuade Mussolini from attacking Greece? If he does can the Allies hold onto either Ionia, or alternately Crete past 1941 due to the dissipation of Axis forces and demands of the Eastern Front. Are there similar knock on effects for Lybia & the Western Desert in Egypt?

I'd argue a lot more formidable, defeat and the refugee wave cost Greece something like half her GDP plus costs of about 80 million pounds up to 1932 to resettle the refugees, by comparison The Metaxas line cost a little below 3 million to build and arms purchases in 1924-40 amounted to roughly 25 million IMS. Would that deter Mussolini? Given the farcical way he decided to invade I think not. Holding onto Crete under the circumstances is I think highly probable and onto southern Greece decently so, depending on how the Albanian campaign goes.
 
I'd argue a lot more formidable, defeat and the refugee wave cost Greece something like half her GDP plus costs of about 80 million pounds up to 1932 to resettle the refugees, by comparison The Metaxas line cost a little below 3 million to build and arms purchases in 1924-40 amounted to roughly 25 million IMS. Would that deter Mussolini? Given the farcical way he decided to invade I think not. Holding onto Crete under the circumstances is I think highly probable and onto southern Greece decently so, depending on how the Albanian campaign goes.

Greece was already making inroads into Albania in OTL, this might be enough to push the Italians out before Germany can really move into Russia and delay Barbarossa by a year if the Balkan trouble goes long enough. Post-war Greece might take Epirus and a chunk of Axis Bulgaria along with pushing the frontier to the (Ceyhan or Asi river in the South and) Kizilirmak or Kelkit Cayi rivers.
 
Greece was already making inroads into Albania in OTL, this might be enough to push the Italians out before Germany can really move into Russia and delay Barbarossa by a year if the Balkan trouble goes long enough. Post-war Greece might take Epirus and a chunk of Axis Bulgaria along with pushing the frontier to the (Ceyhan or Asi river in the South and) Kizilirmak or Kelkit Cayi rivers.

I short of doubt Adolf would delay his nice ideological war east for Greece. He probably sticks to the original operations plan if needs be capturing northern Greece and letting Italians, Bulgarians and Turks to finish the job... after all he can take care of what remains of Greece and the British in the Eastern Mediterranean next spring after the Soviet Union has fallen. Insert oops when the Soviets fail to roll over.

But you might get Rommel in the Balkans !
 
I short of doubt Adolf would delay his nice ideological war east for Greece. He probably sticks to the original operations plan if needs be capturing northern Greece and letting Italians, Bulgarians and Turks to finish the job... after all he can take care of what remains of Greece and the British in the Eastern Mediterranean next spring after the Soviet Union has fallen. Insert oops when the Soviets fail to roll over.

But you might get Rommel in the Balkans !

Would attacking through or around the Caucasus a year later give Germany an advantage, esp. with the extra resources?
 
Would attacking through or around the Caucasus a year later give Germany an advantage, esp. with the extra resources?

Only a single track railroad to the Sovet border in OTL whhich was built post-POD. At a guess it's going to be nasty but not fatal for the Soviets. Better for the Iranians though, the armies that invaded it OTL will be fighting against Turkey instead.
 
Only a single track railroad to the Sovet border in OTL whhich was built post-POD. At a guess it's going to be nasty but not fatal for the Soviets. Better for the Iranians though, the armies that invaded it OTL will be fighting against Turkey instead.

That railway seems to have been very inadequate. When the Persian railway was rebuilt to Abadan on the Gulf in 1941-42 the Soviet transport services took most of the material from the railway to ferries across the Caspian Sea, rather than by the railroad through the Caucasian region. I've seen opinions the entire railway net in that region was very low capacity. Perhaps the cargo ship supply across the Black sea might be better, if operating a army into Anatolia?
 
That railway seems to have been very inadequate. When the Persian railway was rebuilt to Abadan on the Gulf in 1941-42 the Soviet transport services took most of the material from the railway to ferries across the Caspian Sea, rather than by the railroad through the Caucasian region. I've seen opinions the entire railway net in that region was very low capacity. Perhaps the cargo ship supply across the Black sea might be better, if operating a army into Anatolia?

Cutting off the Soviets in the Caucasus early would also let the Germans at the Baku oil fields, potentially without going through Stalingrad...
 
The Anatolia route looks good on the map, but all the transportation problems there work both ways. Despite all the OTL development of the Turkish railways they still constituted a thin & not high capacity system in 1940. Cargo ships on the Black Sea were a better option, as long as the ports on the eastern end have the capacity and inland connections. Some did not.

In this alternate Greece dominated Anatolia would the Turks have had the funds to modernize their railways as much as OTL ? Or would there be a sharp decline in capacity when departing Greek provinces.
 
The Anatolia route looks good on the map, but all the transportation problems there work both ways. Despite all the OTL development of the Turkish railways they still constituted a thin & not high capacity system in 1940. Cargo ships on the Black Sea were a better option, as long as the ports on the eastern end have the capacity and inland connections. Some did not.

In this alternate Greece dominated Anatolia would the Turks have had the funds to modernize their railways as much as OTL ? Or would there be a sharp decline in capacity when departing Greek provinces.

Lets assume the railroad is still there, after all there will be sound strategic reasons to build it ahead of other lines. It still will barely suffice to keep in supply the Turkish 3rd army alone. I don't see how the Germans can keep in supply more than a corps on top of that.
 
Lets assume the railroad is still there, after all there will be sound strategic reasons to build it ahead of other lines. It still will barely suffice to keep in supply the Turkish 3rd army alone. I don't see how the Germans can keep in supply more than a corps on top of that.

One rule of thumb for logisticians in European armies of that era was a "average' single track railway could supply 100,000 men. The reality varies widely depending on how sustained any combat is, and on the amount of corps/army overhead. For sustained offensive action by typical European infantry divisions of the 1930s, with horse drawn artillery and mostly horse distributed supplies, with a nominal division strength of 14,000 to 18,000 men then 600 tons per day per div HQ would be in the ballpark for a 100,000 man army, including the overhead units. The ability of a single rail line to reliably deliver 4,000 tons daily depends on the efficiency of the supply service in running railway, and the condition of the road itself. Also the more sidings, marshaling yards, spur lines and loading docks there are the easier it is to keep up two way or high volume traffic. French, German, Italian, Hungarian, Cezch, Swiss, Belgian, Dutch railways among others serviced a dense industrial landscape, had lots of options for routing and loading/unloading & were kept in good condition. Railways in less industrialized regions were not at the same capacity.
 
There are a lot of consequences long before World War II or anything like it.

To begin with, Turkey is wrecked, and stays wrecked. Besides the massive loss of territory, Turkey has lost the key personality in its transition to a modern country. The sultanate lingers on.

Constantinople will be up for grabs; the rump of Turkey can't hold it very long IMO against Greek pressure (economic, political, diplomatic).

The Kurds will be more restive.

Italy holding onto its zone in the SW may affect Mussolini's seizure of power, as the incumbent government will have more prestige.

It will certainly affect Italy's operations in Libya, both areas being Moslem former Ottoman territory.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of consequences long before World War II or anything like it.

To begin with, Turkey is wrecked, and stays wrecked. Besides the massive loss of territory, Turkey has lost the key personality in its transition to a modern country. The sultanate lingers on.

Constantinople will be up for grabs; the rump of Turkey can't hold it very long IMO against Greek pressure (economic, political, diplomatic).

The Kurds will be more restive.

Italy holding onto its zone in the SW may affect Mussolini's seizure of power, as the incumbent government will have more prestige.

It will certainly affect Italy's operations in Libya, both areas being Moslem former Ottoman territory.

Suppose the Greeks can claim Constantinople - would they try for the Italian section of Anatolia if Mussolini leaves or after world war ii?
 
Top