Greek Victory 1922

Jlinker613

Banned
Let's suppose that Italy, wanting to ensure its sphere of influence in southwest Turkey, supports Greece in the 1919-1922 war against Turkey.

Greece: Keeps all occupied lands and a little extra on the Black Sea
Turkey: Secures its independence for the most part
Armenia: Keeps the land it was promised
Italy: Gains a smaller sphere of influence than promised, but captures Phaselis
Kurds: They get a small state in the southeast of modern Turkey.

Turkey Expels most Greeks, remaining Armenians, and almost all Kurds, to their respective countries. They all kick out almost all Turks.

Greece and Italy maintain a close relationship after this.

So how would this affect the timeline from this point on?

Untitled.png
 
Last edited:
How and why would Turkey have a close relationship with a much more powerful Greece sitting on lots of "rightfully Turkish land". This is a recipe for revanchism.
 
The problem is that Turkey is a far more populous nation and has more resources than Greece, even if you have the mass ethnic cleansing outlined in your scenario you are going the have the basis for future ethnic conflict. People in that part of the World have long memories, at some point the Turks are going to want to reclaim what they consider to be theirs, apparently their wasn't ever an Armenian majority in the part of Turkey shown in your map and sooner or later the Turks and the Russians would gang up on them as IOTL.

There have been discussions in the past on this subject, the consensus is that Greece could certainly have conquered and held East Thrace, Constantinople would have been more difficult but anything across the Straits couldn't have been held for any length of time unless one of the Great Powers was standing behind Greece. Perhaps if King Alexander doesn't get bitten by that monkey and die paving the way for the restoration of Constantine I who was reviled by the Allies for his pro-German stance during the War then support for the Greeks might have continued.
 
Last edited:
No chance of Armenia getting the borders shown no matter what effort Italy is willing to make...and Italy abandoned the sphere of influence it was offered in Turkey OTL so why Greece or Armenia would suddenly be so much more important to Rome is unclear.
 

Cook

Banned
Armenia: Keeps the land it was promised
There was never really much hope of that happening. Wilson’s Armenia was enormous, the Americans were disengaging from Europe and any thought of the League and it was beyond the scope of any other major powers sphere of interest.
 
None of the other European powers are going to accept this. Not even Britain and France, while absorbing the Turk's Arabian territories, were interested in weakening Turkey to the extent outlined in the OP.
 

Jlinker613

Banned
Constantinople was only just a little over half Turkish. The rest was Greek, Jewish, and Armenia. Also I point out that the Turks are expelled from the surrounding countries: Greece, Armenia, and Kurdistan. I admit that Wilsonian Armenia is a bit of a stretch, but leaving Armenia alone could be a term of the armistice at the end of the war.

Britain historically had historically used Greece to its advantage in the region. Having more loyal Greece control the Strait of Marmara as opposed to untrustworthy Turkey would have been a good idea. Especially considering how Turkey was Britain's enemy in WW1.

If King Alexander didn't die the likelihood of Greece getting British support would also have been far more likely. And Italy would keep Greece stable and war ready so it can keep its coastal enclave and Anatolian sphere of influence in "Lycia".

Turkish ethnic nationalism could lead Turkey on a path that would align it closer to Ultra-nationalist Fascist Germany, perhaps even a Fascist movement in Turkey. That's something which would entail Greece's ally Italy to keep its distance from Germany.
 
Last edited:
Constantinople was only just a little over half Turkish. The rest was Greek, Jewish, and Armenia. Also I point out that the Turks are expelled from the surrounding countries: Greece, Armenia, and Kurdistan. I admit that Wilsonian Armenia is a bit of a stretch, but leaving Armenia alone could be a term of the armistice at the end of the war.

Britain historically had historically used Greece to its advantage in the region. Having more loyal Greece control the Strait of Marmara as opposed to untrustworthy Turkey would have been a good idea. Especially considering how Turkey was Britain's enemy in WW1.

If King Alexander didn't die the likelihood of Greece getting British support would also have been far more likely. And Italy would keep Greece stable and war ready so it can keep its coastal enclave and Anatolian sphere of influence in "Lycia".

Turkish ethnic nationalism could lead Turkey on a path that would align it closer to Ultra-nationalist Fascist Germany, perhaps even a Fascist movement in Turkey. That's something which would entail Greece's ally Italy to keep its distance from Germany.
In this case, however, it is clearly Italy pushing their agenda: Britain would not want that. Greece would also be very friendly with the Russians, something the Brits didn't want happening, ally or not, and Turkey never had this problem. And without a strong Turkey, who's to say communism couldn't creep into Armenia and then Turkey itself?
 
Top