Turkey Loses More Territory After WWI - Effects on the Middle East/Caucasus?

Deleted member 1487

Would a more embittered Turkey have allied with the Axis in WW2 then, if offered back the territory it lost in the treaty? Especially if Italy and Germany take Greece and Istanbul with it, they'd have major carrots and would want a lot more Turkish raw materials.
 
Would a more embittered Turkey have allied with the Axis in WW2 then, if offered back the territory it lost in the treaty? Especially if Italy and Germany take Greece and Istanbul with it, they'd have major carrots and would want a lot more Turkish raw materials.

It seems reasonable to the extend that this was what happened with Hungary, Bulgaria and Germany itself. Besides assuming a Turkey that by the mid 30s is run mostly by the nationalists even with the sultan as a figurehead the obvious question is who's running the show. Ismet will be out of the picture, ATL he's the man that lost the decisive battles in 1920-21. Which means probably Recep Peker running the show by 1939...
 
@Lascaris - you're saying that there's absolutely no way for Armenia to claim all the land set aside for them in Sevres, or for the Kurds in Turkey to gain independence, even in the Turkish military fails decisively in 1919?
 
What would happen to the Armenians living in Cilicia and the Levant? The had lived in those regions for centuries. Would they move back to Armenia or stay where they were?
 
@Lascaris - you're saying that there's absolutely no way for Armenia to claim all the land set aside for them in Sevres, or for the Kurds in Turkey to gain independence, even in the Turkish military fails decisively in 1919?
Armenia was basically a failed state that ended up essentially welcoming Soviet occupation. Even if the Turks falter badly in 1919 Armenia will not have the means to hold that territory without being propped up by another power. Armenia securing its Sevres borders would require foreign troops and being reduced to a Soviet, British, or French client state.
 
Armenia was basically a failed state that ended up essentially welcoming Soviet occupation. Even if the Turks falter badly in 1919 Armenia will not have the means to hold that territory without being propped up by another power. Armenia securing its Sevres borders would require foreign troops and being reduced to a Soviet, British, or French client state.

Okay - is it possible that, if the Turks badly bungle their end of things (which is the whole point of this scenario), that the Soviets end up annexing the whole of Wilsonian Armenia? Again, how comfortable would the British and French be with the Soviet Union's borders extending right up to their spheres of influence in Anatolia? Would they do anything about it, or grit their teeth and move on, at least initially?
 
@Lascaris - you're saying that there's absolutely no way for Armenia to claim all the land set aside for them in Sevres, or for the Kurds in Turkey to gain independence, even in the Turkish military fails decisively in 1919?

I don't see it failing decisively in 1919. The only one with the troops on the ground to do this is the Greeks. But the Greeks are kept on a leash by Britain and France till mid 1920. And even then they can't directly take on Karabekir''s army.
 
I think realistically the most you could achieve is a larger Greece taking Constantinople along with independent Kurdistan
I disagree, I don't think Greece would get Constantinople, atleast right away, because this wasn't planned in the treaty. Originally Constantinople was supposed to go to Russia, but since they dropped out of the war Constantinople got stuck in this sort of limbo situation where it became an "international zone" de facto occupied by the British. Greece got the rest of Thrace and Smyrna, but not Constantinople as per the terms of the treaty.

Now considering Greece's location, if they are successful they could probably annex a larger portion of Anatolia (in the Italian and Turkish zones) than is stipulated in the treaty. Which could give them alot of leverage in getting Constantinople in the future. Although this depends entirely on how successful the Greek army would be.

The same is the case with Kurdistan, who were promised some sort of autonomy but would most likely become a colony or dependency. I don't think they would gain full independence until decolonization, if this POD doesn't butterfly that entirely. The best situation I could see for the Kurds here would probably be a Egypt or Iraq situation, where they are nominally independent, but are ruled by a puppet king.
 
@Lascaris - you're saying that there's absolutely no way for Armenia to claim all the land set aside for them in Sevres, or for the Kurds in Turkey to gain independence, even in the Turkish military fails decisively in 1919?

Armenia was between Turkish hammer and Soviet anvil, with little on the way of outside support, by the time Britain, France and Greece understood it's peril it was too late. Frex in fall1920 Greece prepared to send over something in the order of 40,000 rifles and assorted equipment. Had it reached the Armenians in 1919 it would had turned the tide against Karabekir and next year the Armenians would be matching the invading Soviet 11th army in numbers. In late 1920 when conceived it was too late. So without some early POD it's too difficult. Can you get the provisional government getting every Armenian unit to the Caucasus front in 1917, with the Armenians taking over the front? That would help.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
One of the problems with Wilsonian Armenia is that the DRA never really controlled that area, and basically decided to neither really officially back the claims, nor the deny them, hoping to be able to use it as a leverage for negotiations with Turkey. But of course the main reason they didn't control it they lacked the resources to take control over it. Some of the territory was dominated by Armenian militias, but not all of it. The DRA was preoccupied with their northern frontier to even consider claims in the south, with hostile relations with Azerbaijan, cold relations with Georgia and bad relations with various Russian factions, reds within the Caucasus etc.

Turkey and the Red Army both closing in were inevitable, and if the Turks had been to weak to move, the Reds would have taken all they could get (But the Entente might gulf up Wilsonian Armenia, and the Kurds might also have taken a slice before the Reds get there).
 
One of the problems with Wilsonian Armenia is that the DRA never really controlled that area, and basically decided to neither really officially back the claims, nor the deny them, hoping to be able to use it as a leverage for negotiations with Turkey. But of course the main reason they didn't control it they lacked the resources to take control over it. Some of the territory was dominated by Armenian militias, but not all of it. The DRA was preoccupied with their northern frontier to even consider claims in the south, with hostile relations with Azerbaijan, cold relations with Georgia and bad relations with various Russian factions, reds within the Caucasus etc.

Turkey and the Red Army both closing in were inevitable, and if the Turks had been to weak to move, the Reds would have taken all they could get (But the Entente might gulf up Wilsonian Armenia, and the Kurds might also have taken a slice before the Reds get there).

Accepting that the Armenian state was rather dysfunctional at this time, if the Turkish military was in such shambles that they could not press their advantage against the Armenians at this time, is it possible that the USSR annexes the entirety of Wilsonian Armenia, including the areas stipulated in the map?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Accepting that the Armenian state was rather dysfunctional at this time, if the Turkish military was in such shambles that they could not press their advantage against the Armenians at this time, is it possible that the USSR annexes the entirety of Wilsonian Armenia, including the areas stipulated in the map?
I'd think the Entente would take it for themselves then, before the Reds get that far south, and the Kurds might try to take some.
 
I'd think the Entente would take it for themselves then, before the Reds get that far south, and the Kurds might try to take some.

What would they do with such territory, aside from that taken by the Kurds? Just give it back to the Turks? Perhaps, given the scenario, cede Trabazon to the Greeks?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
What would they do with such territory, aside from that taken by the Kurds? Just give it back to the Turks? Perhaps, given the scenario, cede Trabazon to the Greeks?
Why were they taking territory in Anatolia anyway. They had no particular reason, they did it because they won. So it's not like it's foreign to them to claim Wilsonian Armenia, especially if it's to make sure the Reds don't get it. Maybe they can set up some Armenian Regime in Exile there, but considering that the Genocide kind of had made sure most Armenians weren't left there that could be hard. Or they just start to slowly cede territories back to Turkey. if Turkey get a government they can accept.
 
Why were they taking territory in Anatolia anyway. They had no particular reason, they did it because they won. So it's not like it's foreign to them to claim Wilsonian Armenia, especially if it's to make sure the Reds don't get it. Maybe they can set up some Armenian Regime in Exile there, but considering that the Genocide kind of had made sure most Armenians weren't left there that could be hard. Or they just start to slowly cede territories back to Turkey. if Turkey get a government they can accept.

What do you mean by "they"? The Armenians? The Greeks? The Western European powers? All of the above?
 
Top