Comments on Part 1
The introduction is certainly interesting, tho I did begin to wonder what exact role the SRs had played in OTL's dumas and whether there was a historical analogue to your timeline's 2nd duma collapse. Probably I once knew these things, but my memory is degraded, and I do not remember
I liked your April Days, Sverdlov and the 'one year later' mention as well as 'future Georgian strongman' - they all made the retrospective historical article feel of this seem more real
Very interesting with no October/November 1917 revolution, Russia remaining under Kerensky and in conflict with the German Empire. Interesting that Kornilov's quashing of the rebellion comes from 'recent successes on the Eastern front' - I suppose Russia CAN fight through the Russian Winter if anyone can, and perhaps if not then recent refers to late Autumn the previous year. Interesting idea of Left-SDs terrorists for a decade, nicely sets the scene
- - -
Comments on Part 2
Very interesting, twisting a not-much campaign into a propaganda victory ! I also like your take on morale affecting the Battle of Riga
I am intrigued by a couple of things that maybe you get to later ? What is happening to the Romanovs - I assume throughout 1917 they remain in their semi-imprisonment, but as this goes on longer and the Kerensky government beds in, will people begin to wonder at them ? I mean both will people begin to plot to restore one (probably Michael) on the one hand, and on the other will people (Left-SDs ?) begin to think to kill them off ?
And in the longer term, if they remain around, what effect this would have on medium-term Russian history ? Especially if they do not go into exile
- - -
Comments on Part 3
Very interesting new take on Finland
There is evidence of a lot of research and knowledge here, on your part, but in a way it does make me aware of my complete ignorance, and I can't tell which parts have been retained from OTL as I don't recall enough about OTL (to be honest most of what I know of OTL in Finland was always from a German perspective and that has been completely deleted here)
Whilst I don't know if my methodology is any good, I probably would have written this slightly differently more from a 'Great Man' perspective to give it a focus and some personalities. Parties, organs of government, economic trends and strikes are fine, but without a sense that the struggle is personal it can get a bit confusing to an uninformed reader like myself
When a Finnish Prime Minister agrees for the continuance of a personal union with Russia, is this under Kerensky (and his successor) as PRESIDENT ?
I'm a little confused about the White-Red fighting - the Whites win in the SW then attack in the SE, without ever holding the South-central (where Helsinki is) so are they operating out of Central Finland ? Ah, looking at an atlas, I see Tampere is inland, and Vaasa on the Western coast... Is Viipuri Vyborg or somewhere that my atlas is not showing me ?
Interesting, I was wondering how the Germans would view events with Russia still in the conflict in 1918. You seem to have them decide to go with an all-out attack ni the West anyway, mainly due to worries about the Americans, regardless of not being able to withdraw large numbers of troops from the East
I think the food situation, whilst bad, is often exaggerated for Imperial Germany. But that's an IMVHO and I can't argue it
I guess if the Germans went off half-cocked in the West, lost heavily and faced a continuing two-front war then peace in June might make sense. However, its not a peace brought about by revolution etc, so the monarchies should remain intact and there should be no diktat. Let's see what you do
Your footnotes are very useful in this section, tho I didn't notice them until the end, oops !
- - -
Comments on Part 4
Who is Ridley Caplan ? (Had I an internet connection at home where I am reading this I could no doubt Google it, but I don't)
Similarly, who are Alash Orda ?
- - -
Comments on not Part 5
Oo, I'd not heard of Oskar von Hutier, I don't think
Very interesting knock-on effects you have !
- - -
Comments on Part 5
Very interestnig your Michael/George attacks
502000 men lost is a Hell of a number for the Germans, and I guess is the first time that their losses exceeded those of the Allies for any battle/campaign in the West
I am a bit confused by the grand strategic happenings here
-1- why the Germans want an armistice with the Russian Republic, when the Kornilov Doctrine is that Russia will not attack again, and one would have thought the Germans could have simply let them be
-2- why Kerensky would agree to such an armistice when he is supposed to stand by Britain and France in wanting a simultaneous end to the war
-3- why Austria-Hungary collapses so spectacularly that it begs an armistice in May 1918
I suppose with regard to the latter no victory at Caporetto means that the Italians are steadily, if slowly, on the advance in their South whilst no peace with Russia means that pressure in the East is unrelenting - though if Germany agrees an armistice in the East in April, one assumes this applies to Austria-Hungary too
Looking at the ATL Versailles discussion at this point, and without reading down any further, I would say that the major factor as to how it turns out is going to be Poland. Kerensky seems to have gone for a federalist post-imperial approach, as witnessed with Finland, so he's clearly not going to support an independent Poland. You seem to have hinted that he is premier only til the end of March 1918 so maybe his successor is more inclined, but I can't see him abandoning Russian Poland. Thus, I can't see any reason for Germany to lose German Poland since Russia is hardly going to claim it. Thus, Posen and West Prussia will remain German, and the German Empire will be contiguous with East Prussia.
Er, did I miss the birth of FUGA somewhere ? It suddenly launches itself into the discussion... Hmmm, no can't see it mentioned before Hnau's post of May 26th 07:56... Greater Austria ? Are we meaning Greater Austrian EMPIRE or greater Austrian KINGDOM ? The former would include Hungary still whilst the latter would be the rump Austria after Hungarian independence but without losing the Czech or Slovenian lands
I have to say I don't understand why any change is happening in Silesia at all. With no independent Poland, and no chance that a federalist SR Russia is going to try to annex German territories, why does it not simply remain where it is ?
About Hitler, he is at this point a FORMER Austrian in all practical purposes since he is in the Bavarian army within the Imperial German army
How come Steve is discussing FUGA too without it having been mentioned prior to the post I highlighted above ? Were the two of you communicating by PM and forgetting that other readers were not privy to this ?
- - -
Comments on Part 6
Oh... I thought you'd done away with Caporetto due to no influence of von Hutier
I was certainly assuming this was so when discussing above the pressure on Austria-Hungary from the South
I think I understand what you are saying about this ATL Caporetto - its an Italian defeat but NOT an Austrian victory
- - -
Comments on Part 7
I can't shake the thought that Kaiser Karl chucked in the towel long before he had to - sure there is low morale and a rise in anti-war feeling, but strategically the worst he is facing is stalemate on all fronts, with in addition no collapse in the Salonika front (which in OTL was the final straw that broke the camel's back)
Thus, he is putting dynastic and national (supra-national) politics above the alliance, and above the war. I can't deny his right to do this, nor that to do it is in Austria's interests, but it is a surprise that he can put this into operation without Berlin finding out
IIRC OTL his peace moves in ?1917 were betrayed by Clemenceau to the Germans because the Frenchman wanted to defeat all his enemies utterly and didn't want them to begin to make piecemeal peace that would leave the Allies with less than they might get by total victory.
I'm a bit perplexed as to what simply occupying the Sudetenland would achieve ? Its a borderzone, true it has industrial capacity but I don't think it was recognised as a strategic one. I would think that occupying Salzburg would be more of a shock to Vienna, or a move on Prague itself
Hmmm, I seem to have misremembered things, reading your footnotes - well hardly the first time, my memory is shit these days
I am surprised that your alternate Russian government is negotiating at Brest-Litovsk on the same terms as OTL. Having sorted out Finland in a federal way, I was assuming that they intended to keep Poland and Lithuania within the state of Russia, and to do this they can hardly demand additional annexations from Germany
- - -
Comments on Hnau's comments between Parts 5 and 6
I still don't know where this FUGA has come from or why the idea of Germany ceding Silesia to Austria makes any sense
So there is an independent Poland ? Russia agreed to this even though they did not agree to an independent Finland ? It could be argued that Finland had the greater recent autonomy by WW1 not Poland
Also, Yugoslavia ? What exactly IS the FUGA ? If its a greater Austrian Kingdom then surely Slovenia/Carniola is part of this. So is Yugoslavia more of a Serb-Bosnian-Croat state ? And what of Montenegro ? Does everyone still allow the Serbs to massacre all of the Montenegrin royalists ?
- - -
Comments on Part 6
I would think that Germany has contiguous territory with Rumania, or has Russia held on enough in Bukovina to prevent Germany in Poland from having a common border ? If so, I would expect the Germans both in Poland AND Rumania to launch immediate offensives to reconnect with each other. Don't forget, Mackensen is in Rumania, more or less as military governor, but if necessary he can take control of the armies and use his excellent military skill to achieve the seemingly impossible
I think you mean Tsar Ferdinand is content if BULGARIA can hold onto the Southern Dobruja
Except I don't understand how Rumania gets it back here... Sorry, am getting confused !
I am not sure, but I think you are under-estimating the German presence in both Rumania and Salonika. If there remains the potential to reconnect to Germany via Poland, then the German units will fight tooth-and-nail to hold on, and maximum pressure be brought to bear on Bulgaria to stay in the fight
- - -
Comments on comments after Part 6
Yes, as well as Paul I am confused as to what Poland is
Transylvania is integral to the Hungarian half of the dual monarchy (tho pre-1848 it had been independent of Hungary as a crown-administered principality). It really depends on what exactly FUGA is (I still see no explanation) and whether it includes Hungary
IIRC Croat nationalists are in Italy demanding independence from Austria-Hungary and if the major POD for this ATL is from 1917 onwards, then I think they are already in operation
Hmmm, one point regarding Rumania is that the Western Allies are not going to be in a position to give it any aid at all if push comes to shove - one assumes the Ottomans in this timeline won't collapse so severely that we see British and French warships in the Black Sea, so Rumania is surrounded by powers who have varying degrees of animosity towards the West. I think it is going to have to bargain for itself - I'm still not sure how you gave it back the S Dobruja, but if Bulgaria does make peace and Mackensen's attempts to recreate a contiguity of territory with German-occupied Poland fails, then I can see Rumania re-emerge as an independent player, tho King Ferdinand is going to have to do this carefully and by siding with one of his presumed enemies or other. One supposes this is Russia, giving up any claim to Bessarabia, in turn for Russian support for gains against Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary (a partition of Transylvania does indeed seem likely at this point). I don't see him putting his faith in far-away allies when he is surrounded by potential enemies - he is going to have to make one of those potential enemies his friend
- - -
Comments on Part 7
Intriguing
So despite no formal civil war in Russia, Semenov is able to create a state-within-a-state out East when nobody is paying much attention to his actions. When the government finally decides to sort this out, his deputy jumps ship with a load of hangers-on... but into Manchuria ? Are you sure ? Is it not in a large part Japanese-occupied at this time ? OTL he went in Mongolia, did he not ?
Hmm, if Sternberg is at Chita I am thinking you DO mean Mongolia and not Manchuria
Yes, I am thinking reading the whole chapter that Manchuria was just a typo on your part since I know from your maps for me that you know this area of the world very well !
- - -
Comments on Part 8
So Victor Chernov has succeeded Kerensky as Russian head of state ? I'm not sure you actually made this clear before. If you did, very sorry!
Bit confused about Boroevic - when you call him Serbian, do you mean he is Austrian but ethnically a Bosnian Serb ? Again were I online at home I could look this up, but as I am not, I can't as I write this
Interesting use of von Hutier - I think you have a historical soft spot for this guy, like I am prone to use several distinct characters in my various timelines
Interesting how this German-Austrian mini-conflict leads to Germany ending up making peace with the Allies
- - -
Comments on comments after Part 8
I don't think the Ottomans are going to be in anywhere near the crisis of OTL - Kemal only really rose to pre-eminence due to his leading the defence of Anatolia against the Greek invasion, and more or less because the official commanders were hamstrung by the emperor/caliph's agreement to Allied terms.
The collapse of the central powers in late Spring/early Summer 1918 actually leaves the Ottomans in a better position since the collapse and advance of the Allies is not nearly so bad. In addition, it seems far less likely that anyone is seriously going to give the Greeks carte blance to invade Anatolia
The emperor who was in power when the war began is just about dying now, and Vahdettin can cast himself as a new man for a new situation, personally blameless and the man to move the empire forward in peace
- - -
Comments on Part 9
Oo, what does 'Koba' mean ?
Cool, Georgian independence with Ottoman friendship !
I can accept a partition of some degree of the Ottoman Empire, but I don't think that they would fight on alone for long - not least because Britain is not going to have the will once Germany has given up. Thus the preliminary peace feelers by Istanbul are likely to bring instant reaction, and Britain will abandon its allies if necessary to get a peace to end the final conflict
What you might, oddly enough, get from this is a unified Hashemite state including Hejaz, Transjordan and Palestine. The British haven't got into Syria, and their advances in Mesopotamia are not, I think, conclusive in this time period.
France might get a quasi-independent Lebanon out of this, perhaps, but it would be under Ottoman suzerainty
Perhaps Basra province would end up independent
But European Turkey, Anatolia, Syria, Kurdistan and Baghdad should all remain within the Ottoman Empire
So, you have a war between a strong Georgia and a loose Azeri-Armenian alliance, which can only last as long as they see the common enemy as worse than each other. I reckon Georgia will win what it has (I don't know if this is different than OTL, since in OTL they include minorities such as Abkhazia and S Ossetia). The others though might win their independence.
What this means might depend on the relations between Britain and France on the one hand and SR Russia on the other. If they remain allied but not friendly, then Lord Dunsterville might end up supporting Azeria and Armenian states, and the British will to see this through might well be higher than in OTL since the slaughter of Summer-Autumn 1918 never happened and the intervention in force in Russia neither, so a smallish but strategically significant force in the S Caucasus could be allowed full play, fish 'jam' not withstanding
- - -
Most intrigued as to where this is going, or where it can go...
IMHO a lot of things remain in the balance
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
The introduction is certainly interesting, tho I did begin to wonder what exact role the SRs had played in OTL's dumas and whether there was a historical analogue to your timeline's 2nd duma collapse. Probably I once knew these things, but my memory is degraded, and I do not remember
I liked your April Days, Sverdlov and the 'one year later' mention as well as 'future Georgian strongman' - they all made the retrospective historical article feel of this seem more real
Very interesting with no October/November 1917 revolution, Russia remaining under Kerensky and in conflict with the German Empire. Interesting that Kornilov's quashing of the rebellion comes from 'recent successes on the Eastern front' - I suppose Russia CAN fight through the Russian Winter if anyone can, and perhaps if not then recent refers to late Autumn the previous year. Interesting idea of Left-SDs terrorists for a decade, nicely sets the scene
- - -
Comments on Part 2
Very interesting, twisting a not-much campaign into a propaganda victory ! I also like your take on morale affecting the Battle of Riga
I am intrigued by a couple of things that maybe you get to later ? What is happening to the Romanovs - I assume throughout 1917 they remain in their semi-imprisonment, but as this goes on longer and the Kerensky government beds in, will people begin to wonder at them ? I mean both will people begin to plot to restore one (probably Michael) on the one hand, and on the other will people (Left-SDs ?) begin to think to kill them off ?
And in the longer term, if they remain around, what effect this would have on medium-term Russian history ? Especially if they do not go into exile
- - -
Comments on Part 3
Very interesting new take on Finland
There is evidence of a lot of research and knowledge here, on your part, but in a way it does make me aware of my complete ignorance, and I can't tell which parts have been retained from OTL as I don't recall enough about OTL (to be honest most of what I know of OTL in Finland was always from a German perspective and that has been completely deleted here)
Whilst I don't know if my methodology is any good, I probably would have written this slightly differently more from a 'Great Man' perspective to give it a focus and some personalities. Parties, organs of government, economic trends and strikes are fine, but without a sense that the struggle is personal it can get a bit confusing to an uninformed reader like myself
When a Finnish Prime Minister agrees for the continuance of a personal union with Russia, is this under Kerensky (and his successor) as PRESIDENT ?
I'm a little confused about the White-Red fighting - the Whites win in the SW then attack in the SE, without ever holding the South-central (where Helsinki is) so are they operating out of Central Finland ? Ah, looking at an atlas, I see Tampere is inland, and Vaasa on the Western coast... Is Viipuri Vyborg or somewhere that my atlas is not showing me ?
Interesting, I was wondering how the Germans would view events with Russia still in the conflict in 1918. You seem to have them decide to go with an all-out attack ni the West anyway, mainly due to worries about the Americans, regardless of not being able to withdraw large numbers of troops from the East
I think the food situation, whilst bad, is often exaggerated for Imperial Germany. But that's an IMVHO and I can't argue it
I guess if the Germans went off half-cocked in the West, lost heavily and faced a continuing two-front war then peace in June might make sense. However, its not a peace brought about by revolution etc, so the monarchies should remain intact and there should be no diktat. Let's see what you do
Your footnotes are very useful in this section, tho I didn't notice them until the end, oops !
- - -
Comments on Part 4
Who is Ridley Caplan ? (Had I an internet connection at home where I am reading this I could no doubt Google it, but I don't)
Similarly, who are Alash Orda ?
- - -
Comments on not Part 5
Oo, I'd not heard of Oskar von Hutier, I don't think
Very interesting knock-on effects you have !
- - -
Comments on Part 5
Very interestnig your Michael/George attacks
502000 men lost is a Hell of a number for the Germans, and I guess is the first time that their losses exceeded those of the Allies for any battle/campaign in the West
I am a bit confused by the grand strategic happenings here
-1- why the Germans want an armistice with the Russian Republic, when the Kornilov Doctrine is that Russia will not attack again, and one would have thought the Germans could have simply let them be
-2- why Kerensky would agree to such an armistice when he is supposed to stand by Britain and France in wanting a simultaneous end to the war
-3- why Austria-Hungary collapses so spectacularly that it begs an armistice in May 1918
I suppose with regard to the latter no victory at Caporetto means that the Italians are steadily, if slowly, on the advance in their South whilst no peace with Russia means that pressure in the East is unrelenting - though if Germany agrees an armistice in the East in April, one assumes this applies to Austria-Hungary too
Looking at the ATL Versailles discussion at this point, and without reading down any further, I would say that the major factor as to how it turns out is going to be Poland. Kerensky seems to have gone for a federalist post-imperial approach, as witnessed with Finland, so he's clearly not going to support an independent Poland. You seem to have hinted that he is premier only til the end of March 1918 so maybe his successor is more inclined, but I can't see him abandoning Russian Poland. Thus, I can't see any reason for Germany to lose German Poland since Russia is hardly going to claim it. Thus, Posen and West Prussia will remain German, and the German Empire will be contiguous with East Prussia.
Er, did I miss the birth of FUGA somewhere ? It suddenly launches itself into the discussion... Hmmm, no can't see it mentioned before Hnau's post of May 26th 07:56... Greater Austria ? Are we meaning Greater Austrian EMPIRE or greater Austrian KINGDOM ? The former would include Hungary still whilst the latter would be the rump Austria after Hungarian independence but without losing the Czech or Slovenian lands
I have to say I don't understand why any change is happening in Silesia at all. With no independent Poland, and no chance that a federalist SR Russia is going to try to annex German territories, why does it not simply remain where it is ?
About Hitler, he is at this point a FORMER Austrian in all practical purposes since he is in the Bavarian army within the Imperial German army
How come Steve is discussing FUGA too without it having been mentioned prior to the post I highlighted above ? Were the two of you communicating by PM and forgetting that other readers were not privy to this ?
- - -
Comments on Part 6
Oh... I thought you'd done away with Caporetto due to no influence of von Hutier
I was certainly assuming this was so when discussing above the pressure on Austria-Hungary from the South
I think I understand what you are saying about this ATL Caporetto - its an Italian defeat but NOT an Austrian victory
- - -
Comments on Part 7
I can't shake the thought that Kaiser Karl chucked in the towel long before he had to - sure there is low morale and a rise in anti-war feeling, but strategically the worst he is facing is stalemate on all fronts, with in addition no collapse in the Salonika front (which in OTL was the final straw that broke the camel's back)
Thus, he is putting dynastic and national (supra-national) politics above the alliance, and above the war. I can't deny his right to do this, nor that to do it is in Austria's interests, but it is a surprise that he can put this into operation without Berlin finding out
IIRC OTL his peace moves in ?1917 were betrayed by Clemenceau to the Germans because the Frenchman wanted to defeat all his enemies utterly and didn't want them to begin to make piecemeal peace that would leave the Allies with less than they might get by total victory.
I'm a bit perplexed as to what simply occupying the Sudetenland would achieve ? Its a borderzone, true it has industrial capacity but I don't think it was recognised as a strategic one. I would think that occupying Salzburg would be more of a shock to Vienna, or a move on Prague itself
Hmmm, I seem to have misremembered things, reading your footnotes - well hardly the first time, my memory is shit these days
I am surprised that your alternate Russian government is negotiating at Brest-Litovsk on the same terms as OTL. Having sorted out Finland in a federal way, I was assuming that they intended to keep Poland and Lithuania within the state of Russia, and to do this they can hardly demand additional annexations from Germany
- - -
Comments on Hnau's comments between Parts 5 and 6
I still don't know where this FUGA has come from or why the idea of Germany ceding Silesia to Austria makes any sense
So there is an independent Poland ? Russia agreed to this even though they did not agree to an independent Finland ? It could be argued that Finland had the greater recent autonomy by WW1 not Poland
Also, Yugoslavia ? What exactly IS the FUGA ? If its a greater Austrian Kingdom then surely Slovenia/Carniola is part of this. So is Yugoslavia more of a Serb-Bosnian-Croat state ? And what of Montenegro ? Does everyone still allow the Serbs to massacre all of the Montenegrin royalists ?
- - -
Comments on Part 6
I would think that Germany has contiguous territory with Rumania, or has Russia held on enough in Bukovina to prevent Germany in Poland from having a common border ? If so, I would expect the Germans both in Poland AND Rumania to launch immediate offensives to reconnect with each other. Don't forget, Mackensen is in Rumania, more or less as military governor, but if necessary he can take control of the armies and use his excellent military skill to achieve the seemingly impossible
I think you mean Tsar Ferdinand is content if BULGARIA can hold onto the Southern Dobruja
Except I don't understand how Rumania gets it back here... Sorry, am getting confused !
I am not sure, but I think you are under-estimating the German presence in both Rumania and Salonika. If there remains the potential to reconnect to Germany via Poland, then the German units will fight tooth-and-nail to hold on, and maximum pressure be brought to bear on Bulgaria to stay in the fight
- - -
Comments on comments after Part 6
Yes, as well as Paul I am confused as to what Poland is
Transylvania is integral to the Hungarian half of the dual monarchy (tho pre-1848 it had been independent of Hungary as a crown-administered principality). It really depends on what exactly FUGA is (I still see no explanation) and whether it includes Hungary
IIRC Croat nationalists are in Italy demanding independence from Austria-Hungary and if the major POD for this ATL is from 1917 onwards, then I think they are already in operation
Hmmm, one point regarding Rumania is that the Western Allies are not going to be in a position to give it any aid at all if push comes to shove - one assumes the Ottomans in this timeline won't collapse so severely that we see British and French warships in the Black Sea, so Rumania is surrounded by powers who have varying degrees of animosity towards the West. I think it is going to have to bargain for itself - I'm still not sure how you gave it back the S Dobruja, but if Bulgaria does make peace and Mackensen's attempts to recreate a contiguity of territory with German-occupied Poland fails, then I can see Rumania re-emerge as an independent player, tho King Ferdinand is going to have to do this carefully and by siding with one of his presumed enemies or other. One supposes this is Russia, giving up any claim to Bessarabia, in turn for Russian support for gains against Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary (a partition of Transylvania does indeed seem likely at this point). I don't see him putting his faith in far-away allies when he is surrounded by potential enemies - he is going to have to make one of those potential enemies his friend
- - -
Comments on Part 7
Intriguing
So despite no formal civil war in Russia, Semenov is able to create a state-within-a-state out East when nobody is paying much attention to his actions. When the government finally decides to sort this out, his deputy jumps ship with a load of hangers-on... but into Manchuria ? Are you sure ? Is it not in a large part Japanese-occupied at this time ? OTL he went in Mongolia, did he not ?
Hmm, if Sternberg is at Chita I am thinking you DO mean Mongolia and not Manchuria
Yes, I am thinking reading the whole chapter that Manchuria was just a typo on your part since I know from your maps for me that you know this area of the world very well !
- - -
Comments on Part 8
So Victor Chernov has succeeded Kerensky as Russian head of state ? I'm not sure you actually made this clear before. If you did, very sorry!
Bit confused about Boroevic - when you call him Serbian, do you mean he is Austrian but ethnically a Bosnian Serb ? Again were I online at home I could look this up, but as I am not, I can't as I write this
Interesting use of von Hutier - I think you have a historical soft spot for this guy, like I am prone to use several distinct characters in my various timelines
Interesting how this German-Austrian mini-conflict leads to Germany ending up making peace with the Allies
- - -
Comments on comments after Part 8
I don't think the Ottomans are going to be in anywhere near the crisis of OTL - Kemal only really rose to pre-eminence due to his leading the defence of Anatolia against the Greek invasion, and more or less because the official commanders were hamstrung by the emperor/caliph's agreement to Allied terms.
The collapse of the central powers in late Spring/early Summer 1918 actually leaves the Ottomans in a better position since the collapse and advance of the Allies is not nearly so bad. In addition, it seems far less likely that anyone is seriously going to give the Greeks carte blance to invade Anatolia
The emperor who was in power when the war began is just about dying now, and Vahdettin can cast himself as a new man for a new situation, personally blameless and the man to move the empire forward in peace
- - -
Comments on Part 9
Oo, what does 'Koba' mean ?
Cool, Georgian independence with Ottoman friendship !
I can accept a partition of some degree of the Ottoman Empire, but I don't think that they would fight on alone for long - not least because Britain is not going to have the will once Germany has given up. Thus the preliminary peace feelers by Istanbul are likely to bring instant reaction, and Britain will abandon its allies if necessary to get a peace to end the final conflict
What you might, oddly enough, get from this is a unified Hashemite state including Hejaz, Transjordan and Palestine. The British haven't got into Syria, and their advances in Mesopotamia are not, I think, conclusive in this time period.
France might get a quasi-independent Lebanon out of this, perhaps, but it would be under Ottoman suzerainty
Perhaps Basra province would end up independent
But European Turkey, Anatolia, Syria, Kurdistan and Baghdad should all remain within the Ottoman Empire
So, you have a war between a strong Georgia and a loose Azeri-Armenian alliance, which can only last as long as they see the common enemy as worse than each other. I reckon Georgia will win what it has (I don't know if this is different than OTL, since in OTL they include minorities such as Abkhazia and S Ossetia). The others though might win their independence.
What this means might depend on the relations between Britain and France on the one hand and SR Russia on the other. If they remain allied but not friendly, then Lord Dunsterville might end up supporting Azeria and Armenian states, and the British will to see this through might well be higher than in OTL since the slaughter of Summer-Autumn 1918 never happened and the intervention in force in Russia neither, so a smallish but strategically significant force in the S Caucasus could be allowed full play, fish 'jam' not withstanding
- - -
Most intrigued as to where this is going, or where it can go...
IMHO a lot of things remain in the balance
Best Regards
Grey Wolf