Greater Greece after World War I

archaeogeek

Banned
Why doesn't anyone want to liberate Peloponnese from Achaean occupation?

I'm not sure about the Pelopponese, but holding on too dearly to Thrace may well lead to rebels kindly deciding to liberate the aegean islands along, maybe with Macedon and the like...

Greece, in 1920, has 5 million inhabitants
Turkey, in 1920, has 13 million inhabitants
Thrace itself has about 2 million. Not even 10% are greeks. Istanbul itself has a million people. Basically what the Megali idea entails would lead to a genocide on the scale of the armenian genocide at its worst claimed figures.

This is no liberation, this is a massacre.
 
I think a problem with the board sometimes regarding this question is that they associate "Can there be a greater Greece after WWI?", with, "A Greater Greece after WWI (or ever) is a bad thing."

Yes all the Greco-wanks are now discredited and we all recognize that Greater Greece isn't something we want. But. Theoretically with a lot of foreign support and some luke there could have been a Greater Greece. Genocide and ethnic cleansing aside.

Why does there have to be genocide?

I think this whole thing depends entirely on the POD, is it during WWI? The yes I agree with most that is being said. Or is it any point between Greek independence & WWI? Cause that can give Greece enough time, and enough butterflies to completely change its development.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Why does there have to be genocide?
Because the Greeks wanted an ethnically pure country. There was never the slightest pretense of allowing non-Greeks to stay on--it's either deportation or outright massacre. And often they didn't even wait for the former to carry out the latter.
 
I tried a timeline based on this. Venizelos wins the parliamentary battle and Constantine abdicates mid-1915 and Greece joins the war. It is enough to go into southern Albania, help the Serb army and a lot of refugees to retreat (and conveniently establish control over southern Albania). The Greeks get stuck in Trace and Macedonia against the Bulgarians though. The Gallipoli forces are retreated to Thessalonika and add to the Greek war effort.

IOTL, the Entente promised anything off the Ottoman Empire the Greeks wanted. We all know that a mountain of promises become a mole-hill of actual results, but it will probably be better than what the Greeks got OTL since they are fully in the war a lot earlier.

The war against Bulgaria ends 2-3 months earlier, but the Greek army is in much better shape. Not only have they had support from the Serb army and the Entente Salonika forces, but also some Italian troops (that were landed in Albania IOTL).

My idea is that Wrangel's southern Russian white and a lot of Russian refugees end up in Greece (brothers in faith, closer to Russia to go back etc). The Greeks also have very good relations with the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes due to helping the Serb army and refugees (some of which stayed behind) during the war. Entente supplies and extra infrastructure built by them during the war to supply their and the Greek and Serb forces in Greece also means Greece has a better infrastructure and industrial situation. Most of the rich Russian whites end up in Greece and Greek Anatolia instead of Paris, London and Yugoslavia, giving the Greeks some more resources.

The Greeks, with the aid of Wrangel's White Russians and a legion of Serb volunteers and supplied by the Entente go to war with the Turkish Republic. They have better positions from the start and a much larger navy. No monkey-bite either.

The Italians also try to force their part of Turkey, but are defeated and withdraw 1921-1922, which contributes to the fascist takeover. However, the Turks have less men to face the Greeks and White Russians with, and the Greeks win. They take Ionia, from Nicea to Smyrna, the straits and Istanbul as well as Turkish Thrace.

Yes, ethnic cleansing happens. It happened OTL too, called a "population exchange". Atatürk will force Armenians and Pontic Greeks to the Greek part of the country, while the Greeks expel Turks and give the land to Greeks and Russians. It will be much more severe in this timeline, but the grand powers did not give a damn about the same thing when it happened to the Turks and Muslims all over the Balkans after the Balkan Wars, why would they care now?

Greece becomes a junior Entente partner, more or less a client state for British interests in the eastern Med. As a reward, they are given Cyprus (the British had a habit of giving away land they did not really need to loyal small allies, they gave Greece Corfu and the British Ionian islands in 1862), but of course the British maintain a 200-year full basing rights contract, but the Greeks can draft troops and levy taxes from Cyprus.

The British also pilfer away some older ships to the Greeks as the Washington treaty starts. The Greeks are not part of it, but are so much in the Entente/Allied camp that the Brits can count on them in any confrontation in the eastern Med anyway. They probably get HMS Erin and HMS Agincourt and some cruisers. They were supposed to get the Turkish navy in the peace, but Yavuz was sunk by the Turks rather than captured, so they get the ex-Turkish dreadnoughts instead. The Greeks also have the General Alexiev battleship - the white Russians sell or give their ships to the Greeks in exchange for land in Greek Anatolia to establish themselves as rural gentry again.

The total population of Greece in 1925 is something like;

6,5 million Greeks
0,75 million Russians and other whites.
1 million Turks that stayed behind despite ethnic cleansing
0,5 million Armenians
0,1 million Albanians
0,05 million Serbs

This scenario probably means an axis Turkey thirsting for revenge, a hostile Italy and Bulgaria but a very friendly Yugoslavia, Britain and France.

My scenario may very well be ASB, but I think it is the most likely Megali scenario. Post-ww1 is the only time the Ottoman Empire or Turkey was really weak enough for the Greeks to challenge it and get something out of it. At the same time, my scenario makes Greece much stronger and much more supported. It might not be enough anyway, but I think it makes one of the likliest scenarios.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Except it still wasn't weak enough, even with the tattered army bits that would come with Wrangel, Turkey is better led, better equipped and has more men and better positions (most greek positions in Asia Minor are undefendable).

And with 2 million turks involved (ethnic cleansing here will most certainly not mean "population exchange"), this is exactly when France and the UK will let Greece take the fall: they did IOTL. Greece, especially, doesn't have the population to take a guerilla campaign in the Balkans.
 
Last edited:
This scenario has a much better Greek army (supplied and equipped by the Entente since autumn 1915) and more and better economic resources for Greece. The White Russian army might have been in tatters, but they had a big fleet, lots of refugees and the exile white Russian community commanded quite a bit of economic resources.

The Turks also have to deal with the Italians.

I know the scenario is probably close to ASB, but I still hold it is the most likely one to net the Greeks more land than they got OTL. Until the next war, that is.
 
In the following post, see entry #32, vended most helpfully posted actual population statistics from the time:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=164981&highlight=sevres&page=2

The Turkish population was four times the Greek population of the area Greece wanted. The province of Izmir/Smyrna alone had more Turks then the number of Greeks existing in the entire Ottoman Empire.



von Adler, the ASB was a million Turks remaining in Greece. The Greeks were quite consistent from the moment they were separated from the Ottomans by the major powers.

1) Start war with the Ottomans.

2) Obtain new territory, generally by British or Russian meddling rather than actual Greek victories.

3) Kill/expel all Turks in the area. Kill/expel all other Muslims in the area. Other ethnic groups also to be considered for similar treatment.

Now, as to why either the British or French, with all their other problems, feel this is the time to wreck relations with Italy...
 
Greece needs to understand what is defensible and what is not.

Going for Smyrna is a bad idea.

Taking Eastern Thrace, a couple more Aegean islands and securing the European bank of the Straits (including Instanbul) should have been the objectives. If the Greeks ask for these from the Allies, after joining WWI on their side, they may very well get those.

This would require deportation of Turks, it may also mean some sort of ethnic cleansing, but the distances involved are not huge.
In OTL the Greek Pontiacs had to travel back to Greece from the Turkish Black Sea coast (often through Ukraine and go all the way around down Romania and Bulgaria back to Greece).
This time the Turks will only have to evacuate Eastern Thrace and make their way over the Straits to Asia minor.

The Greek strikes a deal with Turkey negotiating an ordinary population exchange, getting Greek refugees from all over Turkey and sending back Turks. The Greek refugees settle in Istanbul and Eastern Thrace.
 
MUC, and when the Turks refuse and make clear any action forced is under duress and shall be reversed at the earliest convenient opportunity?
 
MUC, and when the Turks refuse and make clear any action forced is under duress and shall be reversed at the earliest convenient opportunity?

The main point here is that by taking all of Eastern Thrace including Istanbul, while not going for Smirna, the Greeks avoid having a land border with Turkey.
This is turn means, that any attack by Turkey against Greece would be a lot tougher to pull off.


There were ten time less pontic greeks than there were thracian turks.
You do realise, that:
1. I did not say that only Pontic Greeks were exchanged for Thracian Turks but Greeks from all over Turkey would be exchanged for Thracian Turks.
2. A lot of Turks would not have to be exchanged, but would simply be deported by the advancing Greek Army or simply flee over the Straits.
?
 
Greece had more than enough territory by the end of WWI. Constantinople isn't going to be theirs by a long shot. And Izmir is going to be overruned.
 
MUC, so many/most of the millions of Turks involved will be murdered or expelled before formal deportation proceedings can start.

Since this scenario has Italy, Albania, Turkey and Bulgaria all outraged over Greek offenses Athen's military position is worse as it is now forced to guard against multiple nations on a permanent basis and carries even more baggage if and when France or Great Britain ponder alliances.

Nor is Turkey likely to forget or forgive the ethnic cleansing of Istanbul. The question is not whether Turkey will attack Greece in the future but whether it will be a localized war or part of a larger effort.



I also would add that on the subject of foreign aid to Greece no minor power nation, even ones more trusted than Greece, received anything like the arms, support, battleships(!) and so forth Greece would need to have an outside chance for this. What do London or Paris gain in return for enmity in Sofia, Tirane, Ankara and Rome?
 
MUC, so many/most of the millions of Turks involved will be murdered or expelled before formal deportation proceedings can start.
I stated exact the same thing in post 133. I hope you read it.

Since this scenario has Italy, Albania, Turkey and Bulgaria all outraged over Greek offenses Athen's military position is worse as it is now forced to guard against multiple nations on a permanent basis and carries even more baggage if and when France or Great Britain ponder alliances.
True. Noone said it would be easy.

Nor is Turkey likely to forget or forgive the ethnic cleansing of Istanbul. The question is not whether Turkey will attack Greece in the future but whether it will be a localized war or part of a larger effort.
Turkey will probably join the Axis in WWII and attack Greece.

I also would add that on the subject of foreign aid to Greece no minor power nation, even ones more trusted than Greece, received anything like the arms, support, battleships(!) and so forth Greece would need to have an outside chance for this. What do London or Paris gain in return for enmity in Sofia, Tirane, Ankara and Rome?
This is a Greece which has (united) joined the Entente in this ATL in WWI and has done all it had to do to help its causes. This is a Greece with much closer ties to Britain & France than the OTL Greece. A Greece which has also fought together with the British and French during the Russian Civil War.
 
MUC, yes, I read your post. Generally it is recognized that a response to a particular post made means that the responder read that post.

As to how it helps Greece, or Great Britain and France for that matter, if they face a new and larger Axis in 1941...



As for your final part in your post, I can only repeat that no nation which joined the Entente in WWI received anything like the aid, support and territorial conquests you imagine being handed to Greece, and some of those nations joined far earlier or gave far more(or both) to the cause. Neither did any nation which provided support during the Russian Civil War receive much in the war of aid, even ignoring that Greece would have little to offer as an ally if there was a simultaneous war and mass ethnic cleansing going on in European Turkey.

Do you intend to offer anything to explain why all of these changes in policy and assistance take place in London and Paris, or why either nation wishes to seriously damage relations with several other nations, including Italy, a far more powerful and valuable ally during the war?
 
Plus to mention, if the Greeks managed to push through their Megali Idea, one can imagine how the Turks would react to it. They would probably feel that they lost pretty much everything and most of the blame would be placed on the Greeks and other non-Turkish minorities.
 
Top