Enver Pasha's Turkic State

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Pasha#Pan-Turkism_and_death.2C_1921-22

WI during this time, the Red Army fails to capture Enver Pasha and he survives? He manages to lead the Basmachi movement to victory in driving the Bolsheviks out of Central Asia. In realization of his Pan-Turkic dreams he founds his own Turkic state, Turkestan, which would be made up of significant parts of Central Asia. The Bolsheviks decide to focus on retaking Poland and sign a peace with Enver, allowing his state to survive into the near future.

So how would things play out in such a TL? And what kind of relationship would exist between Enver's Turkestan and Kemal's Turkey?
 
He manages to lead the Basmachi movement to victory in driving the Bolsheviks out of Central Asia.
Basmachi had as much chances to defeat Red Army past 1920 as Pancho Villa's gangs had to annihilate Pershing's troops in pitched battle, march to SF and Houston and re-annex everything from Texas to California back to Glorious State of Mexico.
 
Basmachi had as much chances to defeat Red Army past 1920 as Pancho Villa's gangs had to annihilate Pershing's troops in pitched battle, march to SF and Houston and re-annex everything from Texas to California back to Glorious State of Mexico.

Lenin wanted to negotiate a peace with Enver, but the latter, as usual, overreached. If he had settled, he would have had time to organize a real state which would have had an army, etc, not just irregulars. It still would have had no chance against the Red Army, but if it had been recognized by the British and or Chinese, it would be a lot more complicated for the Soviets than mere conquest.
 
Lenin wanted to negotiate a peace with Enver
Enver's whole Turkestan adventure lasted from Nov. 1921 to Aug. 1922. When did Lenin want to sign a truce? Besides, it wasn't above Lenin to establish quasi-independent border states until opportunity comes. See Far Eastern Republic. And BTW, China wasn't in a position to help anyone in Turkestan in 1922. It was height of warlordism, remember?
 
Enver's whole Turkestan adventure lasted from Nov. 1921 to Aug. 1922. When did Lenin want to sign a truce? Besides, it wasn't above Lenin to establish quasi-independent border states until opportunity comes. See Far Eastern Republic. And BTW, China wasn't in a position to help anyone in Turkestan in 1922. It was height of warlordism, remember?

I don't remember off the top of my head, but the offer was made, and it wasn't just a truce. The location of Enver's state would have been of great interest to Britain, which is the more important factor. Central Asia is a lot more important than the Far East of Siberia for its implications for India.
 
I don't remember off the top of my head, but the offer was made, and it wasn't just a truce.
Whatever it was, count on Reds to break it at earliest convenience. Bolsheviks viewed himself by 1920 as rightful rulers of everything within old Russian Imperial borders, so any agreements with regimes incapable to protect themselves military (like Poles did) generally did not worth paper those agreements were written on.

The location of Enver's state would have been of great interest to Britain, which is the more important factor. Central Asia is a lot more important than the Far East of Siberia for its implications for India.
Hmm, yes, but Enver would need to be strong enough to be a threat on his own (British would be extatic to support him, but they wouldn't go a-fighting for him). And at the peak of his success he was defeated by freaking Bashkir Cavalry Brigade. Do you have any idea how many brigades Red Army had? :)
 
Whatever it was, count on Reds to break it at earliest convenience. Bolsheviks viewed himself by 1920 as rightful rulers of everything within old Russian Imperial borders, so any agreements with regimes incapable to protect themselves military (like Poles did) generally did not worth paper those agreements were written on.

Hmm, yes, but Enver would need to be strong enough to be a threat on his own (British would be extatic to support him, but they wouldn't go a-fighting for him). And at the peak of his success he was defeated by freaking Bashkir Cavalry Brigade. Do you have any idea how many brigades Red Army had? :)

Well, you take enough chances and one will backfire on you. If he had time, he could have built up a respectable military establishment and government.

The Bolsheviks have so many higher priorities than some corner of Asia they never really wanted in the first place that you could see some sort of state surviving there - look how long it took them to get around to invading Afghanistan. Most likely though, Enver's ambitions would get the better of him and he would force a confrontation. Otherwise, I think you have an interesting situation.
 
And what kind of relationship would exist between Enver's Turkestan and Kemal's Turkey?

I would assume one that was hostile - Atatürk hated İsmail Enver's ideas about a pan-Turkic state (even if Atatürk used some of them for reforming the Turkish language). In this scenario, I guess Atatürk would probably base his reforms (if they do exist in TTL) more on European languages instead of Old Turkic and the "Sun Language Theory", so as a result, Turkish could look like a language belonging to the Balkan linguistic union. Atatürk could probably side with the USSR on this one.
 
If he had time, he could have built up a respectable military establishment and government.
I don't see anyone building country in this region which would be able to withstand Red Army. It isn't Enver's personal shortcomings, it is Turkestan being undeveloped agricultural backward.

The Bolsheviks have so many higher priorities than some corner of Asia they never really wanted in the first place that you could see some sort of state surviving there - look how long it took them to get around to invading Afghanistan.
Well, in all fairness it isn't like USSR spent half century preparing to invade Afghanistan. And, if some regions (Pamir, for example) really were "useless far-off wasteland" (and even Pamir was important as source of water vital for agriculture in the region), some others were extremely important (cotton). Generally, you would be surprised how closely Russian holdings in Turkestan followed natural borders.
 
As others have stated above, probably the best way to do this would be to keep the Bolsheviks occupied elsewhere, either through a protracted civil war that would allow Turkestan to consolidate and strenghten itself or through the defeat of the Bolsheviks themselves. I don't see much chance of this new Turkestan surviving against a unified new Russian empire, be it Bolshevik, White or otherwise-for Turkestan to survive, we need a divided Russia.

So you would have the Russian Civil War turn against the Bolsheviks, perhaps through White victories that resulted in a partitioned European Russia or nationalist revolts that keep places like the Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan independent.

As well, Turkestan could look elsewhere for benefactors in a number of scenarios. If you did this in a TL where the Central Powers won, they could look to Germany. If you stick with OTL until a different POD, perhaps a combination of Japan and Britain would back Enver. Britain would provide money and arms through India and Afghanistan while Japan would provide direct assistance through its support of the Far Eastern Republic and perhaps a greater Japanese role in Mongolia and Siberia.

I would agree with Dan1988 that Ataturk and the pan-turkic state would not be the obvious alliance they might seem - again, Turkestan might have to look elsewhere for its friends.

I would also wonder about the health of Enver's Turkestan long-term. I would see the supporters of the Basmachi Revolt as more conservative, more in line with traditional Islam. Give them a decade or two in power and perhaps more reform-minded, modernist Muslims overthrow the government. Or a military coup by Ataturk-like officers from the large army that Turkestan would have to create to protect itself from its neighbors. Above all, Turkestan's future depends on whatever happens to Russia. A strong, united Russia might easily move to conquer the region or at least dominate it Putin-style.

Fun scenario: An earlier Afghanistan-style war, say in the 40s or 50s, where a smaller Soviet Union/revived Russian empire attempts to invade and take over an independent Turkestan. They win militarily but then are bogged down in a decade-long guerilla campaign that turns into a jihad and their ultimate defeat.
 
I would assume one that was hostile - Atatürk hated İsmail Enver's ideas about a pan-Turkic state (even if Atatürk used some of them for reforming the Turkish language). In this scenario, I guess Atatürk would probably base his reforms (if they do exist in TTL) more on European languages instead of Old Turkic and the "Sun Language Theory", so as a result, Turkish could look like a language belonging to the Balkan linguistic union. Atatürk could probably side with the USSR on this one.

I don't think there would be much contact. Kemal was hostile to the idea of pan-Turkish because he didn't think it was realistic and there were much more important and pressing practical realities to deal with, like not having all the Turks of the Ottoman Empire exterminated. In this period the Kemalist regime was fairly friendly with the Soviets, so there's no question of Enver getting any assistance or even good will from the Turkish government.
 
I don't see anyone building country in this region which would be able to withstand Red Army. It isn't Enver's personal shortcomings, it is Turkestan being undeveloped agricultural backward.

Well, in all fairness it isn't like USSR spent half century preparing to invade Afghanistan. And, if some regions (Pamir, for example) really were "useless far-off wasteland" (and even Pamir was important as source of water vital for agriculture in the region), some others were extremely important (cotton). Generally, you would be surprised how closely Russian holdings in Turkestan followed natural borders.

The backwardness is a defense as well. One of the principal reasons why the Ottoman Empire survived is that the amount of troops Russia could attack it with were severely limited by logistics. Likewise, the ability of the Red Army to operate in large numbers in the far reaches of Turkistan are limited. The Red Army is not as impressive in this period as you may be building it up to be. Poland kicked it's ass. Likewise, Enver and his cadre of veteran officers were capable of developing (and did) an efficient fighting force.

I'm aware of the nature of the borders of the region. It's true that there are natural borders present, but that's mostly with China. In the South it's a lot messier with complicated historical interactions between the Persians, Afghans and Central Asian states and statelets.

The area Enver controlled were hard to reach and impossible to cut off the supply to arms to. There's no question that a concerted effort by the USSR would be successful, but I'm not convinced that this would necessarily be forthcoming. The USSR was content to give up a lot of territory to Poland, etc., and there are too many things to worry about to be futzing around in the middle of nowhere. Even in OTL it took four years after Enver was killed to defeat the Basmachi Revolt.

If Enver had set realistic goals and played a smarter game diplomatically, something could possibly have been retrieved.
 
In this period the Kemalist regime was fairly friendly with the Soviets, so there's no question of Enver getting any assistance or even good will from the Turkish government.

That's what I'm thinking - even if Turkey establishes relations with Turkestan at all (which is doubtful, at best), it's going to be hostile.
 
As others have stated above, probably the best way to do this would be to keep the Bolsheviks occupied elsewhere, either through a protracted civil war that would allow Turkestan to consolidate and strenghten itself or through the defeat of the Bolsheviks themselves.
There were no "other" side in Civil War who could let Turkestan go. Whites would be even quicker in re-establishing control.
I don't see much chance of this new Turkestan surviving against a unified new Russian empire, be it Bolshevik, White or otherwise-for Turkestan to survive, we need a divided Russia.
Not just Russian Empire, but it's any part bordering Turkestan would be enough to exterminate all possible Envers there. IOTL Turkestan wasn't primary, secondary or even tertiary theater of war - it was forgotten periphery and Bolsheviks won there with bits and pieces they could scrap (although they had very capable top general, M. Frunze). So, anything more than 1/5 of IOTL Russian Federation would have enoough military power to deal with Enver.

So you would have the Russian Civil War turn against the Bolsheviks, perhaps through White victories that resulted in a partitioned European Russia or nationalist revolts that keep places like the Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan independent.
Azerbaijan put up as much fight as it possibly could, Georgia (for all today's bluff about Red Conquest) and Armenia made a choice between becoming read or becoming dead (Kemalists were advancing).

As well, Turkestan could look elsewhere for benefactors in a number of scenarios. If you did this in a TL where the Central Powers won, they could look to Germany.
So basically, Enver himself has no role as history-maker, it is that certain combination of stars could make Turkestan independent. Yes, this is plausible scenario (after all, it describes OTL 'Stans suddenly becoming independent in 1991), but what does it have to do with Enver???

I would also wonder about the health of Enver's Turkestan long-term. I would see the supporters of the Basmachi Revolt as more conservative, more in line with traditional Islam. Give them a decade or two in power and perhaps more reform-minded, modernist Muslims overthrow the government. Or a military coup by Ataturk-like officers from the large army that Turkestan would have to create to protect itself from its neighbors.
You hinted on perennial problem of this ASBish creation - it is absolutely devoid of loyal educated class. Whatever indigenous educated group Turkestan did possess, they were leaning toward Russia, if they weren't outright Bolsheviks. Enver could import Turks, but that would likely create all sorts of frictions between Turks and Uzbeks (and don't get me started on feelings of Iranian-speaking population, which included majority of urban population and tradesmen).

Fun scenario: An earlier Afghanistan-style war, say in the 40s or 50s, where a smaller Soviet Union/revived Russian empire attempts to invade and take over an independent Turkestan. They win militarily but then are bogged down in a decade-long guerilla campaign that turns into a jihad and their ultimate defeat.
This is pretty much IOTL description of Western Ukraine in 1945-1955, but guerillas can't inflict Afghanistan-comparable losses on regular army of the day in arid country before RPG and Stinger become ubiquitous. Shturmoviks will hunt guerillas down and turn them into mincemeat.

In this period the Kemalist regime was fairly friendly with the Soviets, so there's no question of Enver getting any assistance or even good will from the Turkish government.
C'mon, Enver was bloody sent by Reds to Turkestan, he was their best friend. I have no doubt that, would his hare-brained plan work, he would have no problem securing alliance with Kemal if Kemal would see it as beneficial.

The backwardness is a defense as well. One of the principal reasons why the Ottoman Empire survived is that the amount of troops Russia could attack it with were severely limited by logistics.
Yes, but Turkestan had several railroads crisscrossing it at this point and, once built, railroad is pretty hard to demolish completely. So I wouldn't bet on Enver's ability to hold Northern Turkestan (basically anything north of Pamir).
Likewise, the ability of the Red Army to operate in large numbers in the far reaches of Turkistan are limited. The Red Army is not as impressive in this period as you may be building it up to be. Poland kicked it's ass.
Well, it isn't superb, but local recruitment base Enver could rely on is absolutely miserable. So, it isn't question of Red Army's strength, it is Enver's built-in weakness.
Likewise, Enver and his cadre of veteran officers were capable of developing (and did) an efficient fighting force.
Successfull gang completely destroyed by SINGLE cavalry brigade. There's a difference between this type of force and anything capable of establishing permanent control over a region. Somebody should fire field pieces, built fortifications, establish field signal system. Where would Enver get those specialists?
The area Enver controlled were hard to reach and impossible to cut off the supply to arms to. There's no question that a concerted effort by the USSR would be successful, but I'm not convinced that this would necessarily be forthcoming. The USSR was content to give up a lot of territory to Poland, etc., and there are too many things to worry about to be futzing around in the middle of nowhere. Even in OTL it took four years after Enver was killed to defeat the Basmachi Revolt.

If Enver had set realistic goals and played a smarter game diplomatically, something could possibly have been retrieved.
So, you're talking tiny little chieftaindom, forgotten among some of tallest mountains on Earth and playing very nice and friendly with neighbouring Soviet Turkestan (to avoid devastating punitive expedition it couldn't protect itself against), aren't you? That MIGHT fly, but why did you call it "Turkestan"?
 
C'mon, Enver was bloody sent by Reds to Turkestan, he was their best friend. I have no doubt that, would his hare-brained plan work, he would have no problem securing alliance with Kemal if Kemal would see it as beneficial.

Do you have a source for that? From what I read, Atatürk was not a big fan of İsmail Enver's plans (you could say that it would have interfered with Atatürk's plans for Westernizing Turkey).

So, you're talking tiny little chieftaindom, forgotten among some of tallest mountains on Earth and playing very nice and friendly with neighbouring Soviet Turkestan (to avoid devastating punitive expedition it couldn't protect itself against), aren't you?

Because that's the most likely scenario. If İsmail Enver needs help, it has to come from the British, not from the Russians, whether White or Red.

That MIGHT fly, but why did you call it "Turkestan"?

İsmail Enver's idea, not his.
 
C'mon, Enver was bloody sent by Reds to Turkestan, he was their best friend. I have no doubt that, would his hare-brained plan work, he would have no problem securing alliance with Kemal if Kemal would see it as beneficial.

Maybe, but Kemal wouldn't see it as beneficial. He was dependent upon Soviet support to prevail. There is no way that the interests of a personal enemy in the middle of nowhere could possibly trump preventing the extermination of his people.

Yes, but Turkestan had several railroads crisscrossing it at this point and, once built, railroad is pretty hard to demolish completely. So I wouldn't bet on Enver's ability to hold Northern Turkestan (basically anything north of Pamir).Well, it isn't superb, but local recruitment base Enver could rely on is absolutely miserable. So, it isn't question of Red Army's strength, it is Enver's built-in weakness.Successfull gang completely destroyed by SINGLE cavalry brigade. There's a difference between this type of force and anything capable of establishing permanent control over a region. Somebody should fire field pieces, built fortifications, establish field signal system. Where would Enver get those specialists?So, you're talking tiny little chieftaindom, forgotten among some of tallest mountains on Earth and playing very nice and friendly with neighbouring Soviet Turkestan (to avoid devastating punitive expedition it couldn't protect itself against), aren't you? That MIGHT fly, but why did you call it "Turkestan"?

You keep saying that. Enver was killed after being militarily ground down by the Red Army because he didn't make peace - not when he was at the height of his success. His location was also betrayed and he was ambushed. By this point it was far too late for him to accomplish anything.

Enver did have specialists with him, and success breeds success - it would have been possible to get additional volunteers, even from Turkey - there were plenty of people that didn't care much for Kemal or his emerging order.

Enver's territory wasn't really "tiny" - but in any case I wasn't talking about the Northern areas that are now Kazakhstan - he had pretty much no chance of ever getting that region unless something really horrible happened to the Reds elsewhere.
 
Maybe, but Kemal wouldn't see it as beneficial. He was dependent upon Soviet support to prevail.
There's no real way of knowing it (how would Kemal see Enveristan). Dynamic of relationships in this TL would be wastly different from OTL. All I was saying that I don't believe that previous animosity would keep Kemal from befriending Enveristan. Soviet support is a powerful factor, but personal animosity isn't.
Enver did have specialists with him, and success breeds success - it would have been possible to get additional volunteers, even from Turkey - there were plenty of people that didn't care much for Kemal or his emerging order.
Enver could only recruit privates and NCOs from locals for a "proper" army, and only for infantry and cavalry. He'll need to import everyone else (machine gunners, artillerists, officers from company level up, combat engineers, signal corps, tacrail, truck drivers, medical corps). So we're talking tens of thousands veterans (hunders of thousands new settlers, taking into account their families).
Enver's territory wasn't really "tiny" - but in any case I wasn't talking about the Northern areas that are now Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan + Uzbekistan + Turkmenistan. His potential territory is within mountain country of Tajikistan and Kirgizstan (but awful lot of it is controlled by Iranian speakers, who harbour no warm feelings toward Pan-Turkism).
 
Top