Republic Turkey including Armenia, Azerbaijan, all of Thrace and Northern Iraq

I was thinking of Russia ending up in total anarchy for at least 10 years... So until 1928. Russia is even more crippled and until then, this Turkey needs a fair deal with the British at least. it does not guarantee Turkish rule over Azerbaijan but it does help them to use their time right.

In that case, here's an idea: If we push the POD far enough before WW1, even if it means going into pre-1900, then we'd have to make Marxism of the RSDLP type (particularly the Bolshevik sub-type) more of a major thing in Ottoman nationalist circles. This would also need a split in the CUP to make it work. Once the ball gets rolling, what we end up having is the eventual replacement of the Ottoman Empire by a Communist state before Russia, so instead of Moscow as the center of international Communism we'd have Konstantiniyye as the center instead. So instead of a Soviet Union we'd have instead a Shuravite Union (since IOTL the term "shura" was used in Central Asia as one way to translate the Russian word "soviet"). It would also help that for many of the ethnic minorities most of their nationalist parties were leaning towards the progressive/socialist end of things anyway, so it would not be that hard to make the leap.
 
The biggest problem isn't the lenguage (south french patois were even more distant from Paris french), but the centuries of political and religious separation. They would want a special status. To have their autonomies and unity of their territory under their own local state government, something like Bavaria in the German Empire if every other state of it were prussian provinces and if Bavaria spoke a different german lenguage like the swiss.

A federal state is a must if this were to be achieved.

Alevi Turks did not ask for their own country, nor did the Balkan emigres... Or a special status for that matter. You're both going on in a really weird way.

On the language question... Even today if you find a villager, especially older than 30, in the half of Turkey past Sivas, or a Yörük or Manav from anywhere in the country, they speak more like Azerbaijani Turks than Istanbulites. This is after years of language reform on both sides and imposition of different dialects. 1920 the Anatolian and Azerbaijani villager have no problems understanding each other. Today it takes a little attention than normal.

then we'd have to make Marxism of the RSDLP type (particularly the Bolshevik sub-type) more of a major thing in Ottoman nationalist circles. This would also need a split in the CUP to make it work.

While I don't know the exact type, some sort of farmer-friendly marxism was a huge thing in Anatolia during the Independence War. They were prevented from taking command barely. Enver also made an unrelated attempt at bringing some sort of Bolshevism which almost happened.
 
While I don't know the exact type, some sort of farmer-friendly marxism was a huge thing in Anatolia during the Independence War. They were prevented from taking command barely. Enver also made an unrelated attempt at bringing some sort of Bolshevism which almost happened.

Hmm, farmer-friendly would bring it close to the SRs. Put two and two together - especially if it's the pro-Bolshevik SR faction that's ascendant in Anatolia - and there we go.
 
Alevi Turks did not ask for their own country, nor did the Balkan emigres... Or a special status for that matter. You're both going on in a really weird way.



While I don't know the exact type, some sort of farmer-friendly marxism was a huge thing in Anatolia during the Independence War. They were prevented from taking command barely. Enver also made an unrelated attempt at bringing some sort of Bolshevism which almost happened.

The Alevites are spread over Central and Eastern Anatolia making only a majority in Tunceli. The Balkan Emigres were also spread out over North West Anatolia, Thrace and Aegean. They had hardly any backing nor desire to ask for a federal state. Azerbaijan however was an established state in 1918, much before the Ottoman troops arrived. And they are mostly Shia. Hardly comparable with smaller Alevites or Refugees from the Balkans, Crimea and Caucasus.
 
The Alevites are spread over Central and Eastern Anatolia making only a majority in Tunceli. The Balkan Emigres were also spread out over North West Anatolia, Thrace and Aegean. They had hardly any backing nor desire to ask for a federal state. Azerbaijan however was an established state in 1918, much before the Ottoman troops arrived. And they are mostly Shia. Hardly comparable with smaller Alevites or Refugees from the Balkans, Crimea and Caucasus.
Also political separation for centuries. Is like comparing southern france with romandie. Religion is a bigger generator of identity than lenguage but above all State and politics are the biggest factors in how a group perceives themselves. The northern azeris are quite compact in their territory, the more then 100 years of separation of Iran has made them grow distant with Teheran and grow a national consciousness. They would pick anybody over Moscow and seeing how Iran is doing in this period (persianification policies both on lenguage and identity, general chaos caused by great powers) they could look towards Istanbul if they are the ones to free them from Russia. But they are not gonna let Ankara rule them like some backwater province in eastern anatolia, in this period they were discoveriong their nationalism just like the ottoman turks. Also they would demand the money of their oil, it could become a case of a peripherical nationalism activated by economical resources.
 
A thousand year's to 600 years worth of Turkish land... Shaky ground? Come on.

It was never Turkish, it was ruled by Turkey, but it was never ethnically or culturally Turkish. Britain ruled Ireland almost that long, but that doesn’t make it rightfully theirs.

The Gümrü treaty with Armenia before USSR incorporated Armenia was something very close to this. Turkey was basically given free access over Armenia.

That’s a terrible treaty. Armenia deserves independence.
 
It was never Turkish, it was ruled by Turkey, but it was never ethnically or culturally Turkish. Britain ruled Ireland almost that long, but that doesn’t make it rightfully theirs.



That’s a terrible treaty. Armenia deserves independence.
Except all those muslim mayority regions they lost anyway like western Thrace. Or all those regions were muslims either had a plurality or where a big minority. Not only the Ottoman Empire lost those lands also the great majority of the muslims living there were either killed or were "cleansed" of the land to turkey. Heck if the Ottomans had resettled the millions of refugees they had in eastern rumelia and Macedonia the region would be overwhelmingly mayority muslim.
 
Except all those muslim mayority regions they lost anyway like western Thrace. Or all those regions were muslims either had a plurality or where a big minority. Not only the Ottoman Empire lost those lands also the great majority of the muslims living there were either killed or were "cleansed" of the land to turkey. Heck if the Ottomans had resettled the millions of refugees they had in eastern rumelia and Macedonia the region would be overwhelmingly mayority muslim.

The entirety of Thrace was hugely ethnically mixed. Turkey was lucky they got as much as they did.
 
In theory, how would Turkey turn out between 1930 and 2020 if it included Armenia (to be connected with Azerbaijan), Azerbaijan (for the extra Turkish population and oil), Western Thrace (for defensive purposes) and Northern Iraq (for the oil). Would it be a crucial state for the participants in WWII? A Russia/USSR without Azerbaijani oil is radically different in military. How would

Extra information:
- Syria remains independent with/without Hatay
- Georgia is independent with the Russian/Soviet border on the Caucasus mountains

With whom is the risk of war higher? Russia/USSR or Nazi Germany? Would it be a state as developed as Spain or even Italy?

Go nuts.
Mosul is possible ?
 
Except all those muslim mayority regions they lost anyway like western Thrace. Or all those regions were muslims either had a plurality or where a big minority.
And Turkey kept quite a few regions that wеre Christian majority, like eastern Thrace. It's hardly of case of the Turks being just a victim here.

Not only the Ottoman Empire lost those lands also the great majority of the muslims living there were either killed or were "cleansed" of the land to turkey.
Except in the case of the Greece, after the population exchange this isn't really the case. The existing Muslim populations simply doesn't bear out this claim.

Heck if the Ottomans had resettled the millions of refugees they had in eastern rumelia and Macedonia the region would be overwhelmingly mayority muslim.
Without the refugees who fled the pre-Balkan War European territory of the Ottoman Empire, there are probably only about a million refugees, and this includes the whole period from 1858 to 1912. And in OTL the Ottomans tried to do exactly that and even after also a significant Christian emigration they had still at most (depending on sources) reached about 50% of the population.
 
Top