For Want of a Word – Stolypin endures

A Map of Europe & the Middle-East after the Paris Conference - March 1919

Paris Peace Conference - 1919.png

This seems a much more sustainable map in terms of enforcement post treaty than the previous one. The Greeks are still going to have to fight hard to hold Symrna but the Turks are starting from a weaker position. I still can't see the Italians succeeding in their zone, they've too few resources and too many problems at home even with an earlier and "better" end to the war. French Cilicia is going to be interesting, like the Greeks the balance of power might have changed enough compared to OTL to make is sustainable.
 
I am
Surprised Russia didn’t annexed Ruthenia but left it to Czechoslovakia. This would allow Russia direct contact w Hungary as well as separated Czechoslovakia from Romania. As such Romania would be more isolated from rest of Europe if we considere Romaniana. Ulgarian and Romanian Hungarian relations Leaving Romania border w Yugoslavia which will be very likely pro Russian.
 
I can't believe the people are following Wilson's lead, since he contributed little blood in the war comparatively.

The British even following with the train of thought on the matter, with the earlier agreements being in force must have tied their hands to support Russia.

If Russia feels irredentism from being stabbed in the back by the Western Europeans it would support German resurgence and leave the earlier treaties worthless if such was to happen.

How the hell did Britain support Greece vs Russia.
 
I am
Surprised Russia didn’t annexed Ruthenia but left it to Czechoslovakia. This would allow Russia direct contact w Hungary as well as separated Czechoslovakia from Romania. As such Romania would be more isolated from rest of Europe if we considere Romaniana. Ulgarian and Romanian Hungarian relations Leaving Romania border w Yugoslavia which will be very likely pro Russian.
Good point. Even Wilson would admit that Ruthenians are ethnically closer to Russians than Magyars or Slovaks. But more importantly, as you mentioned, controlling a pass through the Carpathians multiplies the power projection over Hungary and makes sure that Romania eventually becomes a satelite-state of Russia.

And it is not as if there was any other Entente power in the region that could put boots on Ruthenia before Brusilov who was only dozens of kilometers away.
 
Good point. Even Wilson would admit that Ruthenians are ethnically closer to Russians than Magyars or Slovaks. But more importantly, as you mentioned, controlling a pass through the Carpathians multiplies the power projection over Hungary and makes sure that Romania eventually becomes a satelite-state of Russia.

And it is not as if there was any other Entente power in the region that could put boots on Ruthenia before Brusilov who was only dozens of kilometers away.
Yes, but lets not forget that Masaryk spent the entire war in Russia and enjoyed a close relationship with many Russian décision-makers, especially Sazonov who is still Foreign Minister for the first half of the Paris Conférence.

Of course annexing Ruthenia down right is best, but barring that, Russia would reckon that the Czekos are going to be as subservient as needed, whatever their political persuasion, and wont be much of an obstacle to Russian power projection in the Balkans.

As for Wilson, after the treatment of Poland, he is certainly not going to support Russia on anything.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe the people are following Wilson's lead, since he contributed little blood in the war comparatively.

The British even following with the train of thought on the matter, with the earlier agreements being in force must have tied their hands to support Russia.

If Russia feels irredentism from being stabbed in the back by the Western Europeans it would support German resurgence and leave the earlier treaties worthless if such was to happen.

How the hell did Britain support Greece vs Russia.
Blood is not the only sinew of war.

Feeling reluctant about actually implementing treaties once the war is over is not the sole province of Princeton Presbyterians.

In virtually any TL, Britain supports Greece over Russia. The only variable is the level of support vs. risk of a protracted crisis.

The only scenario wherein Britain does not support Greece is the one where the Ottoman Empire stays neutral or joins the Allies.
 
I can't believe the people are following Wilson's lead, since he contributed little blood in the war comparatively.

The British even following with the train of thought on the matter, with the earlier agreements being in force must have tied their hands to support Russia.

If Russia feels irredentism from being stabbed in the back by the Western Europeans it would support German resurgence and leave the earlier treaties worthless if such was to happen.

How the hell did Britain support Greece vs Russia.

He basically hold the economy of the entire continent in his hand, even if he had less soft power than OTL is still considerable and frankly it has been downplayed a lot...for this reason everyone and i mean everyone at least need to take him seriously
 
A Map of Europe & the Middle-East after the Paris Conference - March 1919

View attachment 622209

Notes:


- Russia gets only Constantinople, but extended to the defensive line (the previous map wasn't clear on that point);
- Thanks to British support and the growing antagonism between Russia vs. Britain-USA-Italy (with France desperately trying to square the circle), Greece receives all of Eastern Thracia and the Gallipoli Peninsula - Yes, from a strategic view point it's not ideal for Russia, but by that stage of the Paris Conference, with trouble brewing at home, Trepov is mainly interested in the symbolic, propaganda victory of achieving the age-old "historic ambition" of Russia.
Actually, this looks much more sensible. Of course, I'm expressing strictly my own opinion and not necessarily one of your (as TL's author) Tsarist government. :winkytongue:

On the European side Russia gets a defensible perimeter, Asiatic side should not be a problem (unless Turkey goes suicidal), gone is Galipolli piece which would be, excuse my Polish (and possible problem with windows translator) "więcej śmierdzi niż przyjemności" x'D. Taking into an account a new Russian-Turkish border in Anatolia, the Bosporus area is almost within a spitting distance from "Trebizond" and if needed the military presence can be easily boosted both by land and by the sea. OTOH, the European side is not big enough to warrant a major permanent military presence and overly expensive fortifications. Strategically, situation is ideal for Russia and diplomatically it provides an opportunity for bitching and complaining about being betrayed by the ungrateful allies to boost interests of Greece which hardly contributed anything of substance to the issue (and whatever other PR blahblahblah that is convenient at the specific moment). Bulgaria may be happy to get easy from WWI (thanks to the "Big Slavic Brother") but how long would it take to start bitching about not getting the Eastern Tharce (OTL piece)? Of course, it would take a while and at least Russian friendly neutrality would be required but on your map this piece is rather difficult to defend: a narrow strip between it and the rest of Greece makes it easy to cut off the territory. One more "Balkan War" with no need of a further escalation... So soon enough the area is ready to become a small powder keg again even with Russia not moving a finger (*).

The main purpose of controlling Bosporus is achieved and and propaganda piece, Constantinople is in the Russian hands: Church-sponsored celebrations regarding putting the cross back of St. Sophia (documentaries are made and shown in all Russian cinemas), augmented with the abolishment of the prohibition are doomed to produce a huge enthusiasm (with a following hangover and its curing by drinking more, which is an important part of a process) in the masses and a good boost of the state income if government is not abolishing state monopoly immediately. For the educated classes, there could be the eyewitnesses' accounts gushing over the ceremony and the properly stimulated poets can add their hare: Mayakovski comes to mind as being both talented and not too expensive to buy but there can be some sincere voices as well, perhaps Gumilev, if he survives fighting, and who knows, maybe Block is going to find some mysterious meaning in the event. The lesser figures also would contribute (expenses on them would be minimal). Surely, "Alieshka" Tolstoy is available and willing to write a series of the short stories and then the whole book on the subject (he is slightly more expensive but not prohibitively so and has absolutely no scruples).

Probably some propaganda regarding the not-too-good Greeks has to be initiated but with a careful avoidance of the association with the Russian Greeks: relations with Britain are as always getting sourced (even if neither side can clearly explain over what exactly) and Greece is the British client and is getting too ambitious so perhaps it is time to start balancing it by not allowing to oppress too much the poor Turks. IIRC, in OTL Italy also had some issues with Greece. Are they gone in your TL?

___________
(*) As it was in "Rui Blas": I did not touch Carlos [while he was robbed] just was helping with an advice....
 
I am
Surprised Russia didn’t annexed Ruthenia but left it to Czechoslovakia. This would allow Russia direct contact w Hungary as well as separated Czechoslovakia from Romania. As such Romania would be more isolated from rest of Europe if we considere Romaniana. Ulgarian and Romanian Hungarian relations Leaving Romania border w Yugoslavia which will be very likely pro Russian.
Was Slovakia considered "Ruthenia"? Russia annexed Western Ukraine and Belorussia which fit the term. Romania at that moment is a close ally so why the effort should be spent on isolating it? Hungary on that map is already almost surrounded by the states which are either pro-Russian or have a good potential to fall within Russian orbit.
 
Yes, but lets not forget that Masaryk spent the entire war in Russia and enjoyed a close relationship with many Russian décision-makers, especially Sazonov who is still Foreign Minister for the first half of the Paris Conférence.

Of course annexing Ruthenia down right is best, but barring that, Russia would reckon that the Czekos are going to be as subservient as needed, whatever their political persuasion, and wont be much of an obstacle to Russian power projection in the Balkans.

As for Wilson, after the treatment of Poland, he is certainly not going to support Russia on anything.
Czechoslovakia originally didn’t even want Ruthenia. Prague end up with it. And it was not small drain on finance. Later on strategic connection to Romania was its only plus but I believe infrastructure needed huge investments.
 
Was Slovakia considered "Ruthenia"? Russia annexed Western Ukraine and Belorussia which fit the term. Romania at that moment is a close ally so why the effort should be spent on isolating it? Hungary on that map is already almost surrounded by the states which are either pro-Russian or have a good potential to fall within Russian orbit.
Depends how far Moscow want to push it. Even without Ruthenia (Zakrarpatska or Podkarpatska Rus), there was large population of Ruthens in Slovakia at northeastern Slovakia almost all the way along Polish border to area around Stara Lubovna.
 
Thanks for the map. Maps always make treaties and similar much clearer than lists of territories.

We seem to have wound up with the classic peace that satisfies nobody. Well, I imagine the British are fairly satisfied - they've got what they came for - Sykes-Picot plus friendly control of the Dardanelles, while staying well clear of the snake-pit of Anatolia.

I said the Turks would be utterly screwed and they have been. They may be too weak to contest it immediately, but the Turkish perspective this is a bayonet-point peace that leaves their state essentially destroyed and millions of Turks under foreign rule. The Ottoman Sultanate is finished, probably even if the Russians or someone try to prop it up as a bulwark against the nationalist hardliners. Following the surrender of Istanbul, the Sultan's prestige will be less than zero, and neither the government nor the army was listening to him anyway. I wouldn't be quite so quick to write off the Turkish army - we've been told TTL that the British pushed the Turks out of Syria/Iraq but not that the 4th, 7th and 8th Armies were destroyed as in OTL 1918, so they may have some cadre to rebuild around. Still, I agree that they're unlikely to be able to take on the Greeks, much less the Russians, without time to rebuild, or a lot of outside help.

In the longer run, Turkish nationalism, revanchism and possibly fundamentalism are going to be and ongoing issue. Anatolia & Thrace still contain a lot more Turks than they do Greeks, Armenians, Russians, Assyrians, Kurds or anyone else. If the Greek or Russians manage to force through "population exchange" based on the current borders, they could very easily setup a large scale "Palestinian" situation, with millions of Turks living in permanent "refugee camps", raising their children on stories of the homelands they were expelled from...

The Greeks have bitten off a lot, maybe more than they can digest. There are a lot of Turks in Thrace, and while Smyrna itself is heavily Greek, the surrounding hinterland mostly isn't - and it's not really possible to hold the city without the hinterland. The Greek economy isn't strong - how long can they afford to stay on a war footing in Anatolia? As long as the Russian back them, they're fine - but is Russian support guaranteed? The Greeks have also taken on the previously Ottoman position of being the buffer between Britain and Russia in the Straits. Which is fine as long as the two don't quarrel and force you to pick a side. If the Greeks fall out with Russia, things could go downhill fast - but being a Russian puppet doesn't appeal either. And there are bound to be some nationalist hotheads who are still claiming Constantinople as the True Greek Capital.

The Russians have got Tsargrad - a large, potentially wealthy city inhabited by two groups of people neither of whom want them there - and a swathe of land in the North-East inhabited mostly by Turks and Armenian ghosts. Unless the Empire falls apart completely, keeping the Turks from conquering them back should be relatively simple - though low-level insurgency is likely to be an ongoing problem in Armenia - but making use of them is something else. Moving in settlers from Russian Armenia looks an obvious play - do they try to Russify the area as well? Ans what do they do with Tsargrad - the great Orthodox Holy City, inhabited by fellow-Orthodox who resent them, and Muslims who hate them outright? Try to make common cause with the Greeks? Encourage the Greeks to emigrate to Greece while styling themselves protectors of the Muslims? Rule the place as a colonial outpost and don't bother trying to build up local support?

The French and Italians have got large "special interest zones", which are mostly dirt-poor, underdeveloped and full of people who hate them. Expect the French to scale back and concentrate on Lebanon/Damascus once the costs and lack of benefits of holding Cilicia become obvious. The Italians might do the same, or some nationalist leader might decide that simply walking away from their conquests is politically unacceptable and throw resources into trying to turn it into a proper colony. Long-term, the best that's going to get them is their own version of the Algerian War, but they can mess up things quite a lot in the short term.

For the Russian delegation, the last weeks of the Paris Peace Conference looked, in retrospect, like a dinner party in a wagon-restaurant about to derail. The setting is nice, the food is rich, there seems to be no bound to one’s appetite (even if other guests may mutter about the reach of your fork)… but gradually, imperceptibly, the rumbling of the train from an innocuous background noise grows deafening, the table shakes and rattles, cutlery is flying, red wine is all over the heretofore immaculate tablecloth, the rich and delicate foods that you were about to savour are now spread all over your shirt, and, as you look outside the window in the dark wide night, you realize that the train in is actually leaping into the abyss, and if you manage to see anything before crashing to your death, it is probably a red cockerel, blazing a frightful bright in the unforgiving vastness of the Russian plain.​
And this is some foreshadowing - love the image. A bloody red cockerel is a pretty good visual metaphor for Fascism. So does this mean that the Empire, having vanquished the liberals, will now fall to revolution from the Right?
 
The Russians have got Tsargrad - a large, potentially wealthy city inhabited by two groups of people neither of whom want them there - and a swathe of land in the North-East inhabited mostly by Turks and Armenian ghosts. Unless the Empire falls apart completely, keeping the Turks from conquering them back should be relatively simple - though low-level insurgency is likely to be an ongoing problem in Armenia - but making use of them is something else. Moving in settlers from Russian Armenia looks an obvious play - do they try to Russify the area as well? Ans what do they do with Tsargrad - the great Orthodox Holy City, inhabited by fellow-Orthodox who resent them, and Muslims who hate them outright? Try to make common cause with the Greeks? Encourage the Greeks to emigrate to Greece while styling themselves protectors of the Muslims? Rule the place as a colonial outpost and don't bother trying to build up local support?

Of Tsargrads four communities one (the Greek) is going to have a neighbouring government luring them to leave, Thrace needs to be repopulated after all the Turks have been sent across the Bosporus. The next is also likely to be expelled or at least heavily encouraged to leave, all the Russian schemes for the City involved the Turks leaving one way or the other. As for the Jews the Tsarists record on Jews is fairly clear, they will be oppressed and mistreated but not out right expelled. The Armenians are mostly dead but the few survivors are fairly pro Russian so they are probably encouraged to stay but that still leaves a very empty city. If the Russians want to make Tsargrad anything other than an echoing theme park they are going to have to do a Kaliningrad and import a substantial number of Russians, which isn't impossible but they don't have Stalin's toolkit.
 
I said the Turks would be utterly screwed and they have been. They may be too weak to contest it immediately, but the Turkish perspective this is a bayonet-point peace that leaves their state essentially destroyed and millions of Turks under foreign rule. The Ottoman Sultanate is finished, probably even if the Russians or someone try to prop it up as a bulwark against the nationalist hardliners. Following the surrender of Istanbul, the Sultan's prestige will be less than zero, and neither the government nor the army was listening to him anyway. I wouldn't be quite so quick to write off the Turkish army - we've been told TTL that the British pushed the Turks out of Syria/Iraq but not that the 4th, 7th and 8th Armies were destroyed as in OTL 1918, so they may have some cadre to rebuild around. Still, I agree that they're unlikely to be able to take on the Greeks, much less the Russians, without time to rebuild, or a lot of outside help.

In the longer run, Turkish nationalism, revanchism and possibly fundamentalism are going to be and ongoing issue. Anatolia & Thrace still contain a lot more Turks than they do Greeks, Armenians, Russians, Assyrians, Kurds or anyone else. If the Greek or Russians manage to force through "population exchange" based on the current borders, they could very easily setup a large scale "Palestinian" situation, with millions of Turks living in permanent "refugee camps", raising their children on stories of the homelands they were expelled from...
Could it lead to the development of a far-right Turkish movement? Maybe even escalating to Turanism given Russia would be the primary opponent?

The Greeks have bitten off a lot, maybe more than they can digest. There are a lot of Turks in Thrace, and while Smyrna itself is heavily Greek, the surrounding hinterland mostly isn't - and it's not really possible to hold the city without the hinterland. The Greek economy isn't strong - how long can they afford to stay on a war footing in Anatolia? As long as the Russian back them, they're fine - but is Russian support guaranteed? The Greeks have also taken on the previously Ottoman position of being the buffer between Britain and Russia in the Straits. Which is fine as long as the two don't quarrel and force you to pick a side. If the Greeks fall out with Russia, things could go downhill fast - but being a Russian puppet doesn't appeal either. And there are bound to be some nationalist hotheads who are still claiming Constantinople as the True Greek Capital.
Talk about a rock and a hard place.

The Russians have got Tsargrad - a large, potentially wealthy city inhabited by two groups of people neither of whom want them there - and a swathe of land in the North-East inhabited mostly by Turks and Armenian ghosts. Unless the Empire falls apart completely, keeping the Turks from conquering them back should be relatively simple - though low-level insurgency is likely to be an ongoing problem in Armenia - but making use of them is something else. Moving in settlers from Russian Armenia looks an obvious play - do they try to Russify the area as well? Ans what do they do with Tsargrad - the great Orthodox Holy City, inhabited by fellow-Orthodox who resent them, and Muslims who hate them outright? Try to make common cause with the Greeks? Encourage the Greeks to emigrate to Greece while styling themselves protectors of the Muslims? Rule the place as a colonial outpost and don't bother trying to build up local support?
Knowing the Russians, they'll likely try to go for Option #3 as @Thoresby said. Remove the Greeks to populate East Thrace, remove the Turks to their rump state, likely abuse the Jewish population to induce them to leave and populate it with Russians to ensure it is their city, as the inheritor's of the legacy of Rome. After all, the Romanov's will be perpetuating themselves as the true heirs to the Roman Empire through Byzantium.

The French and Italians have got large "special interest zones", which are mostly dirt-poor, underdeveloped and full of people who hate them. Expect the French to scale back and concentrate on Lebanon/Damascus once the costs and lack of benefits of holding Cilicia become obvious. The Italians might do the same, or some nationalist leader might decide that simply walking away from their conquests is politically unacceptable and throw resources into trying to turn it into a proper colony. Long-term, the best that's going to get them is their own version of the Algerian War, but they can mess up things quite a lot in the short term.
Would such a nationalist leader still come to power in Italy?
 
The Armenians are mostly dead
No, they aren't. The Armenian community of Constantinople was not eradicated during the genocide. The pre-war community is there, alive and relatively well.


inhabited by fellow-Orthodox who resent them,
How did you come to this argument? The local Greeks in the city were pretty content with turkish muslim rule in OTL and didnt pose any problem at all until their final expulsion after the 1950s. Now that they are ruled by co religionists and have much more business opportunities they will change their whole view in the most radical manner compared to OTL? If anything they will be raising russian flags.

For decades the local Greeks had close ties to the thriving mercantile greek communities of the russian Black Sea ports. Their kin and business partners were pretty happy under tsarist rule.

Dont forget that even the Ww1 greek nationalists didnt raise an objection for russian rule in Constantinople.

Why would the greek government would lure the Greeks to leave Tsargrad, something they didnt do even after horrid massacres and war?

On the matter of the demographics of Thracia and Smyrna Zone, I am not a good authority on the topic, Perhaps @Lascaris could provide us with info ?
 
Knowing the Russians, they'll likely try to go for Option #3 as @Thoresby said. Remove the Greeks to populate East Thrace, remove the Turks to their rump state, likely abuse the Jewish population to induce them to leave and populate it with Russians to ensure it is their city,
I can see the tsarist regime abusing the Jewish community. But why expell loyal Greeks? This is tsarist, not stalinist Russia. The same I think goes for the Turks. Russia has more experience dealing with large muslim populations than the rest of Europe combined. The Constantinople Turks are an urban people after all, not raider tribals. I do believe that a major part of the turkish elite would depart, to become the rulling class in the rump turkish state. But a turkish baker would choose to depart? Unlikely. I think for the middle and lower class Turks to be expelled, a new war is needed. Otherwise, I doubt the imperial Russia will get a sudden case of stalinism.


That being said, the population will be certainly reduced, by a small exodus of Jews and Turks. This segment mau be replaced by Russians and gradually increase the russian population as the city's economy flourishes over the decades. But nothing as drastic as suggested. OTL policies and examples do not support this view.

The notion that all of a sudden Constantinople will be treated as east Prussia in 1945 is more than problematic.
 
With the return of Constantinople to Orthodox hands would future coronation ceremonies now be held in St Sofia? Also how was Tsargrad chosen as the new name for Constantinople or was that the traditional Russian term for the city?
 
Why would the greek government would lure the Greeks to leave Tsargrad, something they didnt do even after horrid massacres and war?

On the matter of the demographics of Thracia and Smyrna Zone, I am not a good authority on the topic, Perhaps @Lascaris could provide us with info ?
That's always an interesting question given how politically loaded it was. What follows is my estimate from cross-checking Karpat, Alexandris and the data of the post war Greek and Turkish censuses, plus Petzopoulos and older sources. Take it with as much of a grain of salt as you'd like but to wear my engineering number crunching hat it fits the observable data better, than blindly following either side. (yes I'm proud of it :p )

West Thrace: Muslim majority. All sources agree to that. ~185,000 from the Greek 1920 census. ~103,000 of these perhaps a bit more are Muslim.
East Thrace: Greek Majority. ~519,000 people per the Greek 1920 census. ~290,000 Greek, ~187,000 Muslim plus about 42,000 Jews and Armenians. Circa 50,000 Bulgarians there before 1914 had been already exchanged with about as many Muslims by 1914. Karpat puts the total number of Greeks lower at about 224,000 in 1914 and Muslim numbers similarly higher but both the Greek and Turkish censuses of 1927 and 1928 support the figures here.
Smyrna zone: That's a more difficult question. Petzopoulos based on older sources gave a clear Greek majority (about 550,000 Greeks IMS). Karpat a clear Turkish majority. (again from memory about 320,000 Greeks). First number is too high, second too low. As far as I can say there was a much less pronounced Greek plurality, of somewhat more than 450,000 Greeks, a bit fewer Turks and about 108,000 Armenians, Jews and foreign nationals. Geography is pretty crucial here as well. There are large Greek concentrations in Smyrna itself and the coastal areas, Kydonies/Aivali for example is over 90% Greek, the reverse the further inland you go.

If I was a betting man, I'd say the Greeks and Turks will be signing a "voluntary" population exchange in the not too distant future TTL. I just can't see the Greeks in the parts of Anatolia still under Ottoman control feeling very welcome at the moment...
 
Top