US in Armenia / Brits in East / Itl in the south

trajen777

Banned
Ok been written before but let’s take a little different pitch on this:

A. First history::::

State
Entry
Exit
Combat Forces
Population
Losses
Greece
1919
1922
120000
5100000
30000
Turkey
1919
1922
450000
29000000
20000

The second war occurred after World War I, when the Greeks attempted to extend their territory beyond eastern Thrace (in Europe) and the district of Smyrna (Izmir; in Anatolia). These territories had been assigned to them by the Treaty of Sèvres, Aug. 10, 1920, which was imposed upon the weak Ottoman government. In January 1921 the Greek army, despite its lack of equipment and its unprotected supply lines, launched an offensive in Anatolia against the nationalist Turks, who had defied the Ottoman government and would not recognize its treaty. Although repulsed in April, the Greeks renewed their attack in July and advanced beyond the Afyonkarahisar-Eskisehir railway line toward Ankara. The Turks, however, commanded by the nationalist leader Mustafa Kemal (Kemal Atatürk), defeated them at the Sakarya River (Aug. 24-Sept. 16, 1921). A year later the Turks assumed control of Smyrna (September 1922) and drove the Greeks out of Anatolia. In Greece the war was followed by a successful military coup against the monarchy.

The Treaty of Lausanne, concluded on July 24, 1923, obliged Greece to return eastern Thrace and the islands of Imbros and Tenedos to Turkey, as well as to give up its claim to Smyrna. The two belligerents also agreed to exchange their Greek and Turkish minority populations.


2nd --- key players - Ataturk - put the independence party together that defeated Greeks. Greeks Eleftherios Venizelos the statesman behind the invasion.


The situation in 1919 - 1920

In return for the contribution of the Greek army on the side of the Allies, the Allies supported the assignment of eastern Thrace and the millet of Smyrna to Greece. This treaty ended the First World War in Asia Minor and, at the same time, sealed the fate of the Ottoman Empire. Henceforth, the Ottoman Empire would no longer be a European power.
On August 10, 1920, the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Sèvres ceding to Greece Thrace, up to the Chatalja lines. More importantly, Turkey renounced to Greece all rights over Imbros and Tenedos, retaining the small territories of Istanbul, the islands of Marmara, and "a tiny strip of European territory." The Straits of Bosporus were placed under an International Commission, as they were now open to all.
Turkey was furthermore forced to transfer to Greece "the exercise of her rights of sovereignty" over Smyrna in addition to "a considerable Hinterland, merely retaining a ‘flag over an outer fort’." Though Greece administered the Smyrna enclave, its sovereignty remained, nominally, with the Sultan. According to the provisions of the Treaty, Smyrna was to maintain a local parliament and, if within five years time she asked to be incorporated within the Kingdom of Greece, the provision was made that the League of Nations would hold a plebiscite to decide on such matters.
The treaty was never ratified by the Ottoman Empire[16][17] or Greece.[18]

Greek expansion (October 1920)
In October 1920, the Greek army advanced further east into Anatolia, with the encouragement of Lloyd George, who intended to increase pressure on the Turkish and Ottoman governments to sign the Treaty of Sèvres. This advance begun under the Liberal government of Eleftherios Venizelos, but soon after the offensive began, Venizelos fell from power and was replaced by Dimitrios Gounaris. The strategic objective of these operations was to defeat the Turkish Nationalists and force Kemal into peace negotiations. The advancing Greeks, still holding superiority in numbers and modern equipment at this point, had hoped for an early battle in which they were confident of breaking up ill-equipped Turkish forces. Yet they met with little resistance, as the Turks managed to retreat in an orderly fashion and avoid encirclement. Churchill said: "The Greek columns trailed along the country roads passing safely through many ugly defiles, and at their approach the Turks, under strong and sagacious leadership, vanished into the recesses of Anatolia."[19]


Ok so now here is the new POD
Britain - Italy - Greece decides to split up Turkey (much as in real world). The key things that kept this situation from occurring in real time was
- America Pulling out of control of the agreement to sponsor Armenia
- Italy / France / Britain fighting over spoils (mostly Italy & France vs. Britain and Greece)
- Greek depredations in the allied occupied zone unified the Turkish opposition
- Greek greed in invading Turkey
- USSR providing massive military weapons to Turkish army

So the key is how to over come these situations

Greece hires the Hearst family to propagandize the Armenian massacres and the opportunities and gets the populace to support the Armenia independence movement. At the same time the US is supportive of the southern war against the the USSR and see this as a base to work from.

Diplomacy

- Greeks give Crete / Albania to Italy for support in S Turkey
- Greece gets America to remain in Armenia'
- Greece gets defendable land then builds a killing zone into eastern Anatolia
- Greece puts major effort in "free land" for Greeks coming back (they had lost 25% for their youth to emigration in the previous 10 years)
Eastern Front-
1919 - Hearst family supports the Armenian movement
- 1919 / 20 - US takes up the USSR struggle from the southern front on an aggressive basis. The flow of war materials from USSR to Turkey is reduced to a trickle if any at all. Armenian attacks (raids) across boarder into Turkey result in a tying down of Turkish forces in the Eastern Turkey.
Southern Front::
Italy has been given the southern portion of Turkey. To continue their active support in the war Greece has given southern Albania and Crete to Italy. In this way Italy actively has stayed in the war but more importantly have reassigned substantial 155 mm howitzers to the Greek army. As had been found in WW1 the number of troops way not anywhere near as important is the firepower produced. The Turkish army again must fight on the southern front unlike in real world 1920 -22. The Italian reliance of BB and heavy ordnance created massive Turkish losses in the few areas of where the Turks elected to fight.
Eastern front

The Greeks in the East use the Italian HA to devastate the Turkish defender then move on to the next mileage,
Use of turned over captured German aircraft (front Britain) to strafe and bomb areas in front of targeted invasion zones. This is meant for economic devastation and transportation hindrance, the use of firepower equals the numerical advantage of the Turks. Advances are based upon air power, tank and firepower and occupation of defendable areas in "Jumps" of 50 - 100 miles.

1922 - 23

The Americans are discouraged by the war and pull out of a semi independent Armenia. Turkish attacks force the Armenian government to crumble. By 1923 the Armenians had collapsed. Fearing Turkish retribution (1915 -1918 style) 45 % of the population was evacuated to the expanding Greek country. The US pulls out of Istanbul. Greece occupies the Constantinople.

In the South economic / war weariness collapse of Italian country left them to evacuate Turkey. In renege of their deal with Greece they left Crete but retained Albania. The Turkish troops rushed into the area. Greek residents flee to the Greek Anatolian occupied zones.

Violent Turkish counterattacks are driven off throughout the year.

With their country devastated and having successfully driven out the Italians - Russians - Americans - but lost 20% of Turkey to a heavily fortified Greek/ Armenian state, But looking northward to a hostile USSR and eastward to a hostile Greece.

With everyone exhausted and not at any way intreted in long term peace the war drags to an end with a peace signed in Oct 1923








 
The problem with your scenario is that if the Greeks and Armenians disliked anyone more than the Turks it was each other. There is no way the Greeks would allow the Armenian population of Anatolia to flee into their territory - that would result in there being more Armenians than Greeks there! Besides, how would they get there? The Greeks are West of the Turks, and the Armenians are East. Plus, your POD is after the entire Armenian population was gone from Anatolia. That would mean that they would have to return from the Caucasus, cross all the way from there to the Aegean, and travel by sea from destitute camps in Syria into a war zone elsewhere.

An important truism is that all the Christian communities of the empire hated the Ottomans (and some of the Muslims, too), but they hated each other more. If for some reason the empire had been destroyed early, the first to be liquidated would have been the Jews, for instance.

That was particularly true of the Greeks, because of their control over the Patriarchate and use of it to attempt to Hellenize everyone. Example, the seeds of Bulgarian nationalism weren't resistance to the Ottomans, they were resistance against the Greek Patriarchate - culminating the in the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate. The Greeks and Armenians occupied the same economic niches, so their mutual hostility had deep and old roots.

Also, there was no way the USA was ever, under any circumstances, going to get involved in Armenia! That would require a POD that totally changes the nature of America. It was a huge national conflict to annex Hawaii, let alone a nightmare like trying to run an Armenia for Armenians that aren't even there! Also, there was already truly enormous pro-Armenian propaganda in the USA in OTL - it had no effect on foreign policy, although it did certainly have a long-term effect on the perception of the situation.

Ok been written before but let’s take a little different pitch on this:

A. First history::::

State
Entry
Exit
Combat Forces
Population
Losses
Greece
1919
1922
120000
5100000
30000
Turkey
1919
1922
450000
29000000
20000

The second war occurred after World War I, when the Greeks attempted to extend their territory beyond eastern Thrace (in Europe) and the district of Smyrna (Izmir; in Anatolia). These territories had been assigned to them by the Treaty of Sèvres, Aug. 10, 1920, which was imposed upon the weak Ottoman government. In January 1921 the Greek army, despite its lack of equipment and its unprotected supply lines, launched an offensive in Anatolia against the nationalist Turks, who had defied the Ottoman government and would not recognize its treaty. Although repulsed in April, the Greeks renewed their attack in July and advanced beyond the Afyonkarahisar-Eskisehir railway line toward Ankara. The Turks, however, commanded by the nationalist leader Mustafa Kemal (Kemal Atatürk), defeated them at the Sakarya River (Aug. 24-Sept. 16, 1921). A year later the Turks assumed control of Smyrna (September 1922) and drove the Greeks out of Anatolia. In Greece the war was followed by a successful military coup against the monarchy.

The Treaty of Lausanne, concluded on July 24, 1923, obliged Greece to return eastern Thrace and the islands of Imbros and Tenedos to Turkey, as well as to give up its claim to Smyrna. The two belligerents also agreed to exchange their Greek and Turkish minority populations.


2nd --- key players - Ataturk - put the independence party together that defeated Greeks. Greeks Eleftherios Venizelos the statesman behind the invasion.


The situation in 1919 - 1920

In return for the contribution of the Greek army on the side of the Allies, the Allies supported the assignment of eastern Thrace and the millet of Smyrna to Greece. This treaty ended the First World War in Asia Minor and, at the same time, sealed the fate of the Ottoman Empire. Henceforth, the Ottoman Empire would no longer be a European power.
On August 10, 1920, the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Sèvres ceding to Greece Thrace, up to the Chatalja lines. More importantly, Turkey renounced to Greece all rights over Imbros and Tenedos, retaining the small territories of Istanbul, the islands of Marmara, and "a tiny strip of European territory." The Straits of Bosporus were placed under an International Commission, as they were now open to all.
Turkey was furthermore forced to transfer to Greece "the exercise of her rights of sovereignty" over Smyrna in addition to "a considerable Hinterland, merely retaining a ‘flag over an outer fort’." Though Greece administered the Smyrna enclave, its sovereignty remained, nominally, with the Sultan. According to the provisions of the Treaty, Smyrna was to maintain a local parliament and, if within five years time she asked to be incorporated within the Kingdom of Greece, the provision was made that the League of Nations would hold a plebiscite to decide on such matters.
The treaty was never ratified by the Ottoman Empire[16][17] or Greece.[18]

Greek expansion (October 1920)
In October 1920, the Greek army advanced further east into Anatolia, with the encouragement of Lloyd George, who intended to increase pressure on the Turkish and Ottoman governments to sign the Treaty of Sèvres. This advance begun under the Liberal government of Eleftherios Venizelos, but soon after the offensive began, Venizelos fell from power and was replaced by Dimitrios Gounaris. The strategic objective of these operations was to defeat the Turkish Nationalists and force Kemal into peace negotiations. The advancing Greeks, still holding superiority in numbers and modern equipment at this point, had hoped for an early battle in which they were confident of breaking up ill-equipped Turkish forces. Yet they met with little resistance, as the Turks managed to retreat in an orderly fashion and avoid encirclement. Churchill said: "The Greek columns trailed along the country roads passing safely through many ugly defiles, and at their approach the Turks, under strong and sagacious leadership, vanished into the recesses of Anatolia."[19]


Ok so now here is the new POD
Britain - Italy - Greece decides to split up Turkey (much as in real world). The key things that kept this situation from occurring in real time was
- America Pulling out of control of the agreement to sponsor Armenia
- Italy / France / Britain fighting over spoils (mostly Italy & France vs. Britain and Greece)
- Greek depredations in the allied occupied zone unified the Turkish opposition
- Greek greed in invading Turkey
- USSR providing massive military weapons to Turkish army

So the key is how to over come these situations

Greece hires the Hearst family to propagandize the Armenian massacres and the opportunities and gets the populace to support the Armenia independence movement. At the same time the US is supportive of the southern war against the the USSR and see this as a base to work from.

Diplomacy

- Greeks give Crete / Albania to Italy for support in S Turkey
- Greece gets America to remain in Armenia'
- Greece gets defendable land then builds a killing zone into eastern Anatolia
- Greece puts major effort in "free land" for Greeks coming back (they had lost 25% for their youth to emigration in the previous 10 years)
Eastern Front-
1919 - Hearst family supports the Armenian movement
- 1919 / 20 - US takes up the USSR struggle from the southern front on an aggressive basis. The flow of war materials from USSR to Turkey is reduced to a trickle if any at all. Armenian attacks (raids) across boarder into Turkey result in a tying down of Turkish forces in the Eastern Turkey.
Southern Front::
Italy has been given the southern portion of Turkey. To continue their active support in the war Greece has given southern Albania and Crete to Italy. In this way Italy actively has stayed in the war but more importantly have reassigned substantial 155 mm howitzers to the Greek army. As had been found in WW1 the number of troops way not anywhere near as important is the firepower produced. The Turkish army again must fight on the southern front unlike in real world 1920 -22. The Italian reliance of BB and heavy ordnance created massive Turkish losses in the few areas of where the Turks elected to fight.
Eastern front

The Greeks in the East use the Italian HA to devastate the Turkish defender then move on to the next mileage,
Use of turned over captured German aircraft (front Britain) to strafe and bomb areas in front of targeted invasion zones. This is meant for economic devastation and transportation hindrance, the use of firepower equals the numerical advantage of the Turks. Advances are based upon air power, tank and firepower and occupation of defendable areas in "Jumps" of 50 - 100 miles.

1922 - 23

The Americans are discouraged by the war and pull out of a semi independent Armenia. Turkish attacks force the Armenian government to crumble. By 1923 the Armenians had collapsed. Fearing Turkish retribution (1915 -1918 style) 45 % of the population was evacuated to the expanding Greek country. The US pulls out of Istanbul. Greece occupies the Constantinople.

In the South economic / war weariness collapse of Italian country left them to evacuate Turkey. In renege of their deal with Greece they left Crete but retained Albania. The Turkish troops rushed into the area. Greek residents flee to the Greek Anatolian occupied zones.

Violent Turkish counterattacks are driven off throughout the year.

With their country devastated and having successfully driven out the Italians - Russians - Americans - but lost 20% of Turkey to a heavily fortified Greek/ Armenian state, But looking northward to a hostile USSR and eastward to a hostile Greece.

With everyone exhausted and not at any way intreted in long term peace the war drags to an end with a peace signed in Oct 1923








 
I second most of what Abdul says, with a couple of minor quibbles:

1) Greeks v. Armenians -- while the two groups were often hostile, the relationship was more complex than simple animosity. Greeks and Armenians did not occupy exactly the same niches; Greeks were more likely to be bankers and merchants, Armenians were more likely to be artisans. There was also no Greek equivalent to the large rural population of Armenian small farmers in eastern Anatolia. And Greek nationalism, stupid and short-sighted as it was, did not extend to trying to Hellenize the Armenians.

2) No Armenians left -- If somehow a large Armenian state had been created in eastern Anatolia, even in 1920, it would quickly have been ethnically cleansed of Turks and Kurds and repopulated with Armenians. OTL, the regions that are now northeastern Turkey, Armenia, Nakhichevan and Karabakh went through complex changes of population in 1915-20, often including multiple waves of ethnic cleansing. By 1919-20 the whole region had been somewhat depopulated. Almost half the population of the young Armenian Republic consisted of refugees, who could quickly have been shunted into (or, in many cases, back into) newly acquired territories.

Otherwise, agreement.


Doug M.
 
I second most of what Abdul says, with a couple of minor quibbles:

1) Greeks v. Armenians -- while the two groups were often hostile, the relationship was more complex than simple animosity. Greeks and Armenians did not occupy exactly the same niches; Greeks were more likely to be bankers and merchants, Armenians were more likely to be artisans. There was also no Greek equivalent to the large rural population of Armenian small farmers in eastern Anatolia. And Greek nationalism, stupid and short-sighted as it was, did not extend to trying to Hellenize the Armenians.

2) No Armenians left -- If somehow a large Armenian state had been created in eastern Anatolia, even in 1920, it would quickly have been ethnically cleansed of Turks and Kurds and repopulated with Armenians. OTL, the regions that are now northeastern Turkey, Armenia, Nakhichevan and Karabakh went through complex changes of population in 1915-20, often including multiple waves of ethnic cleansing. By 1919-20 the whole region had been somewhat depopulated. Almost half the population of the young Armenian Republic consisted of refugees, who could quickly have been shunted into (or, in many cases, back into) newly acquired territories.

Otherwise, agreement.


Doug M.

I largely agree with your quibbles, except for some sub-quibbles:

1) Your distinctions between Greeks and Armenians are traditional, but largely dissolved by WWI, to no small extent because of the Greek Revolt, when Armenians moved into a lot of occupational turf that had been exclusive preserves of the Greeks. There were as many Armenian Galata bankers as Greeks, although they had approached banking from different directions (the Armenians usually started off as sarafs [money changers]. There was actually some equivalent to Armenian small farmers along the Aegean coast by the late empire as excess Greek population from the Islands had moved into Anatolia.

2) I'm not sure there were a whole lot of available Armenians to move into Eastern Anatolia - it's a little different than Caucasian Armenia where Armenians were already about half the population; but in 1920 there was no real potential to exert any power into Turkey - that didn't stop them from trying, but the Nationalists basically ignored them as a minimal threat and the effort exhausted Armenia's incredibly limited resoures and led them to more or less Sovietize without resistance. It's one thing to want to ethnically cleanse a place, and another to actually do it. There is no source of military power available to accomplish this in this scenario, as it would have to come from a Western power. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure you could take starving refugees and move them again in an area with very limited communications infrastructure - it would require a massive logistical effort to feed them until they could begin productive agriculture.

As it was, a large part of the Armenian tragedy was that Russia wouldn't allow any Armenians to move back home after they had occupied the region, condeming hundreds of thousands to starve to death, because they planned to settle the area with Russians and Cossacks. Russia in this scenario is no more likely to have any enthusiasm for an Armenian state, especially not a really large one.

It's also hard to imagine how an uber-Armenia could even survive - it would have a small population trying to control a massive area; while the Turkish population can be liquidated fairly easily, the Kurds will just move off and return with a vengeance.

In OTL if Armenia had maintained it's friendship treaty with Turkey instead of invading it, it might have had a happier 20th c history.
 

trajen777

Banned
Hello Abdul - i have watched your comments about Byz / Ott and other mideast comments.

So i guess what i was trying to do is have a tri part division of Turkey.
- Spread out the turkish forces so they cannot combine against the Greeks.
- Have Armenians again divert forces from the Greek forces - agree that the they would have a difficult survival rate as a country - wihout outside help (ala America) - I don't believe America could not have stayed in for short time / but only for a short time - that is why I see Armenia falling apart- As to Armenia / Greece merging (you are prob right but I still believe that that their fear of a more powerful state could have kept them in loose alliance. Also wiht Armenia in place the vast amounts of war material would not have gotten to the Turkish lines
- have a limited Greek advance with stong HA support in a tough defensive line would have made recapture difficult for the Turks
 
I'm not sure there were a whole lot of available Armenians to move into Eastern Anatolia - it's a little different than Caucasian Armenia where Armenians were already about half the population.

In very round numbers, the Armenian Republic of 1918-1920 had about 700,000 people: about 300,000 native Armenians, 100,000 non-Armenians (Azeris, Kurds, some Russians and Greeks), and 300,000 refugees from the genocide.

On one hand, that's probably not enough to take over all of "Wilsonian Armenia". On the other, they could easily have occupied and populated all of the old Russian territories west of the Araxes, and plenty more territory beyond. Northeastern Anatolia, as noted, had been partially depopulated already -- ethnic Turks and Kurds fleeing the Russians, then Armenians fleeing the Turks -- and it wasn't very densely populated to begin with.


the effort exhausted Armenia's incredibly limited resoures and led them to more or less Sovietize without resistance.

...actually, there was a fair amount of resistance; the war was brief, but casualties were surprisingly high.

Subsequent Soviet historiography downplayed this. But note that a few months later, when the Soviets were distracted by the war in Georgia, there was a major rebellion in Armenia. The Communist government had to flee, Yerevan wasn't retaken for almost a month, and it ended up taking three Red Army divisions to put it down.

So, not really without resistance.


It's one thing to want to ethnically cleanse a place, and another to actually do it.

OTL, the Armenians did an excellent job of ethnically cleansing Zangezur -- the southern provinces that today are the "tail" of the Armenian tadpole. These areas had been almost 50% Muslim, mostly Kurds but a few Azeris; by 1920 all those people were, pfft, gone, dead or fled.

They also got a good start on cleansing Karabakh. They had to abandon the job before they were quite finished, which is why Karabakh retained an Azeri minority around Shushi. However, the Armenians under Andranik did drive out all of Karabakh's Kurds, and cut the Azeri population by around 50%. (Meanwhile, at the same time the Azeris and Turks were vigorously cleansing Nakhichevan -- it used to have a large Armenian minority, but by the 1920s the Armenian population had almost entirely disappeared. Those three areas used to be very ethnically mixed, but by 1921 that was no longer the case.)

Point being, when the Armenians were motivated, they did a pretty good job of ethnic cleansing in the areas they could reach. "Good" not meaning 'good', of course.


As it was, a large part of the Armenian tragedy was that Russia wouldn't allow any Armenians to move back home after they had occupied the region, condeming hundreds of thousands to starve to death, because they planned to settle the area with Russians and Cossacks.

Interesting. Cite for this?


In OTL if Armenia had maintained it's friendship treaty with Turkey instead of invading it, it might have had a happier 20th c history.

Well, Armenians say that the war of late 1920 broke out because Turkey chose to take an attack on ethnic Turkish bandits along the Georgian-Armenian border as a _casus belli_.

Whether that's true or not, I note that the Turkish Republic also had a treaty with independent Georgia. That didn't stop them from rolling into Georgia in spring 1921 in the wake of the Soviet attack -- "to protect local Muslim populations".

One strongly suspects they'd have done the same thing once the Soviets attacked Armenia, and with much the same excuse. While the Republican government didn't dream of marching to Baku, or entertain the pan-Turanist fantasies of 1918, they inherited the Ottoman interest in rolling back the 1877 boundary and establishing a defensible frontier that made some strategic and ethnic sense.

As for Armenia having a happier 20th century, I doubt it -- once Azerbaijan fell, Armenia was clearly the next domino.


Doug M.
 
Top