What if more ethnic homelands were created

Cook

Banned
An armenia was conqoured by the russians...
It was a bit more convoluted than that. The Post-Revolutionary intrigues of the Caucasus make the Balkans look positively organised.
For instance:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4860537&postcount=1
Just how many peoples tried to get independent at the Paris Peace Conference? Looks like the Assyrians, Kurds, and Vietnamese all did so.
The Croatians and Slovenians were seriously considered for statehood but the Serbian army was already fanning out on the ground and Britain, France and the United States were demobilising their armies so the Serbs got the territory they wanted, temporarily.

An independent Rhineland was considered.

The Koreans set out overland from Siberia and had only reached Archangel when the Peace Conference was winding up.

If we go beyond World War Two to post-Colonial Africa, Biafra made a good try at independence as an ethnic homeland and Indonesia looked like Balkanising into various smaller nations for years.
 
Last edited:
Is there any scenario where Utah could have remained an officially Mormon state, either totally sovereign or in some relationship with the US? Could the Mormons have realistically created an enduring independent state somewhere else (post-Nauvoo)?
 
There are not enough Assyrians concentrated enough to make it work.

Which hasn't stopped many other countries from being formed. It's possible, if the British are willing to support the Assyrian community early on. It wouldn't be a very wealthy country but it's not implausible. There are several million Assyrians: many of them continue to live in northeastern Syria and northwestern Iraq.
 
Which hasn't stopped many other countries from being formed. It's possible, if the British are willing to support the Assyrian community early on. It wouldn't be a very wealthy country but it's not implausible. There are several million Assyrians: many of them continue to live in northeastern Syria and northwestern Iraq.
Problem is, any Assyrian state created wouldn't be very viable. It would be surrounded by neighbors who may have had people of their ethnicity ethnically cleansed from the region to make way for the Assyrians. Naturally, they would not be happy. An Assyrian state is only likely to be small as well, so that just makes things worse for them.
 
It would be more or less around the size of Kuwait. The area more or less corresponds to the Assyrian Triangle where they still hold a plurality of the population. It's safe to say that their percentage has decreased due to the brutalities of the Baathist regime in Iraq and emigration abroad. I wouldn't say it's on the same level of plausibility as Wilsonian Armenia. And population exchanges can't happen peacefully? Syriac Christians in Syria going to the Assyrian state while Muslims going to either Syria or Iraq?

Feel free to disagree though.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=assy...&w=470&h=470&ei=icmITqCwL4nv0gH2u6zIDw&zoom=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Assyrian_state_proposed_during_World_War_I.jpg
 
It's interesting how the post-WWI planners didn't bother to think through this plan alongside the Kurdish proposal, given the overlap between those two hypothetical homelands.
 
The only way that would happen in 1919 is at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. The result would be Greater Greece in the East, local Moldavias formed from what was once Turkey by the UK and France, super-Armenia and Kurdistan in the East.....plus a very sharp decline in the Turkish population of Anatolia resulting in multiple little Western settler-states as a probable outcome of a successful Sevres. By the 21st Century I'm not sure what would happen to the Turks but it'd be a very unpleasant experience.
 
The Treaty of Sevres was a stupid idea anyway. Giving huge amounts of Eastern Anatolia to Armenia where Armenians hadn't been the Majority for centuries (and in some cases, never). Creating a Kurdish state (Which would be governed by who exactly, the Kurds didn't have a significantly educated state, and at any rate, the state would be dominated by the Brits. Then theres giving non-Greek areas to Greece. It was an especially harsh treaty and it was a good thing it was overturned.

Plus both French and British spheres of influence (probably meaning Middle Eastern Rhodesias) in Anatolia itself. Sevres makes Brest-Litovsk look like a pat on the head. :rolleyes::eek:
 
A more workable Sevres would have been nice if it focused on helping Kurds, Armenians, and others... though I don't see why they didn't have the Ottomans paying reparations to the Armenian and Assyrian communities.
 
Sort of a side point: one other existing example of an Israel/Armenian-type state is actually Greece. Prior to the early 19th century, much of the territory that is now Greece was majority non-Greek, and even areas where Greeks had a majority or a plurality were ethnically quite mixed. Lots of Turks, Sephardic Jews, Bulgarians, Albanians, of multiple faiths and traditions.

Greeks were actually spread throughout the empire and throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Many were in Russia, too, around the Black Sea basin. Moreover "Greek" was really just a religious term, attributed to adherents of the Greek Orthodox Church without regard to language or other cultural traditions. Various "Greek" dialects were mutually unintelligible, and many spoke Albanian, Armenian, Aramaic, Arabic, or dialects of Turkish.

The establishment of a Greek state in the historic "Greek homeland," the acquisition of territory through war, the immigration of millions of Greeks, and the reestablishment of a standardized Greek language all bear similarities with Israel.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Pontus

Any chance that the Triple Entente and the Greek government could recognize the independence of a Pontic Greek state right around in the northeastern part of Turkey? There was a significant presence of Pontic Greeks along the coast though Turks had made up the majority of the population so it would had required population transfers or (more likely) ethnic cleansing on the part of the Pontic Greeks and its backers among the Entente to achieve independence for such a state though there were plans to make it an autonomous state within some greater Armenian state (which itself is rather implausible).

There are perhaps other ideas for "ethnic" homelands if you want to stretch the meaning of ethnic such as granting the Alawite or the Druze communities their own independent states. The French-created State of Damascus lost four sub-districts (corresponds to South Lebanon and the Biqa' valley) that were mainly populated by a mix of Shia and Sunni Muslims with small Christian minorities to the Maronite-dominated Mount Lebanon to create the State of Greater Lebanon. Population transfers would leave a lot more homogenous states. Lebanon would be smaller but it would have a bigger Maronite majority making the politics of the area very much different than in OTL. The Hatay State I suppose can become independent as well or join the State of Damascus and Aleppo into forming a predominately Muslim Arab state.

Don't attack me please!
 
Could Germay end up so dismembered after World War I that the Sorbians and Kashubians end up with states?

What if instead of a Communist revolution, Russia completely collapses giving most of its concentrated ethnicities a chance at statehood?
 
Top