Lt Colonel Ataturk Is Killed at Gallipoli - Where Does That Leave 'Turkey' Today?

Obviously this towering giant of Turkish politics ( and military genius ) was the prime mover in the modernisation of Turkey with principles which became known as Kemalism. Without him what would have happened the Ottoman Empire? Would we have a Turkey today? What sort of Turkey - secular/non secular, even today it's fractured? What would the whole Middle East be like in this dispensation? Would the position of Israel be any different, traditionally, up until recently, Turkey, was its greatest ally in the region?
 
Well Anatolia was pretty diverse, kind of like the Balkans, right up to the establishment of a Turkish national identity brought on by the Republic.
 
For better or worse the Greeks take back Constantinople and a large chunk of Anatolia, and the Armenians take another large chunk, leaving a rump Turkish state. So we have the Byzantine Commonwealth Redux, with the addition of Bolshevism in Greater Armenia. Will the King of Greece then take the title of "Emperor"? No matter the answer to this question, the Greeks would be advised to start building a powerful navy and air force FAST.
 
I doubt the Greeks had the capacity to take back Constantinople or hold onto western Anatolia. Here's a thread and another discussing the topic with Abdul's wise Turkish/Ottoman musings. There were clearly other candidate leaders that could've taken his place that would result in a different Turkey, but not necessarily one doomed to the clichés of post-WWI AH ;).
 
Last edited:
Pretty much OTL, another would fill his shoes. Think of it this way, you are in an ATL were Emilio Mola survived and led the nationalists to victory. The world would likely progress almost exactly as OTL, so you post on an anologue of this site "what if Emilio Mola had died?" well being from OTL we know that Franco would assume the leadership position and things would be more or less the same. This is what would have happened in Turkey if Mustafa had died.
 
Probably much like most of the new Arab states in OTL--occupied by Britain for a few decades with arbitrarily-drawn borders, given independence in the late 1940s, and completely reliant on either the Soviet Union (most likely) or the West for all of its military and daily needs for its first 30-40 years.
 
I think Turkey as an identity and nation would still exist as per otl. Interesting to see if the Caliph survives in some fashion. I know butterflies would abound but this could potentially have important effects on terrorism if you have an established islamic religious leader calling for calm and condemning terrorism.
 
Does anybody know what kind of a Communist Party Turkey had around this time in OTL? I can definitely see it being a lot stronger and more influential in TTL, without Ataturk.
 
Assuming Ottoman armies still get pushed back into Anatolia, and Sevres happens, Turkey isn't really butterflied away. Mustafa Kemal didn't create his philosophy out of whole cloth. Although it takes it's form because of his actions and views, a similar ideology could take place under someone else.
 
Impact Of All This On Israel?

What would happen to Israel/Palestine with a vastly different Turkey or none at all as a unitary state (Turkey).
 
There was a cadre of competent military commanders involved with the Young Turk movement and all prominent "Ataturks", I am sure one of them will step into Kemal's shoes. One of the Vehib brothers, perhaps?
 
There was a cadre of competent military commanders involved with the Young Turk movement and all prominent "Ataturks", I am sure one of them will step into Kemal's shoes. One of the Vehib brothers, perhaps?

But they surely won't have all of the same ideas.
 
Kemal was certainly a very capable military leader, but it is as a political leader that he becomes "exceptional". Another officer might have risen to lead the Turkish nationalist opposition against Sevres, but Kemal did many things that another general might not do.

During the Turkish War of Independence, would another, like Kazim Karabekir, have openly defied the Sultan, or be even able to hold the rather disparate Turkish national movement together? Kemal's charisma, perseverance and nerve even in the face of defeat were an important factor in the final victory.

And assuming that the war did go as IOTL, questions like the abolition of the Caliphate, the language and alphabet reforms or the one-party state would certainly be dealt with differently by anyone else. Kemal was probably exceptionally western-oriented, even among his peers. Under another, the general thrust towards modernization and Westernization would have remained, but the tempo would most likely have been slower and more gradual. Ironically, this would probably be all more the case if the alt-Ataturk allowed a real, multi-party system. On the other hand, Kemal ran the country not as a general, but as a politician (albeit an authoritarian one). Someone else might have opted for an even more pronounced army role, or an outright military dictatorship a la Franco, or perhaps become another Reza Shah.
 
Top