What if the Sykes–Picot Agreement goes into effect?

Hello, and good morning. Before I begin, I apologise if this has been discussed before, I have horrible researching skills so I decided to ask.

I became interested in the Syles-Picot agreement. And was wondering, what would the effects be like if first, Ataturk did not rise up and commence the Turkish war of independence. So he is out of the picture. All the conditions and policies which have been written in the original agreement goes into effect.

What long term consequences would happen in the middle east? how different would the middle east be? Would it be worst? or better? if worst, please explain, and if better also, please explain.

I apprieciate your time!
 
First thought is the Greeks retain a population in Anatolia, & a Greek restoration movement for Constantinople remains viable. After that maybe the Kurds and Armenians have a shot at some sort of independent state?
 
Um, all those little, semi-independent ports around the Adriatic might still be multi-ethnic. As it was, the 'Young Turks' ordered out the Greeks who'd been there since the ruddy Bronze Age. That diaspora scattered them to Athens, the Greek islands, Black Sea's Varna and far, far beyond.

If you follow through the consequences, the Communists may have hung onto Athens after WW2, and a very different me might be writing this...
 

Deleted member 94680

8_B02445_E-_B785-4_A5_D-8843-753_FEE6_CDC8_D.jpg


Well, for one, it brings WWII slap bang into Turkey. The Italian area, bordering the French area, is an area ripe for conflict.

Do we assume the Russians (Soviets?) have their areas as well? The International Zone as well?

Removing Ataturk is relatively easy, the man led somewhat of a charmed life during WWI...
 
Not sure how accurate this is but it looks like there should be a third name to the agreement.

The partition of the Ottoman Empire was not settled bilaterally by two British and French diplomats in 1916, but rather at a multinational peace conference in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1923, following a conflict that had lasted nearly twelve years going back to the Italian invasion of Ottoman Tripoli (Libya) in 1911 and the two Balkan Wars of 1912– 13. Neither Sykes nor Picot played any role worth mentioning at Lausanne, at which the dominant figure looming over the proceedings was Mustafa Kemal, the Turkish nationalist whose armies had just defeated Greece and (by extension) Britain in yet another war lasting from 1919 through 1922. Even in 1916, the year ostensibly defined for the ages by their secret partition agreement, Sykes and Picot played second and third fiddle, respectively, to a Russian foreign minister, Sergei Sazonov, who was the real driving force behind the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire, a Russian project par excellence, and recognized as such by the British and French when they were first asked to sign off on Russian partition plans as early as March– April 1915. None of the most notorious post-Ottoman borders— those separating Palestine from (Trans) Jordan and Syria, or Syria from Iraq, or Iraq from Kuwait— were drawn by Sykes and Picot in 1916. Even the boundaries they did sketch out that year, such as those that were to separate the British, French, and Russian zones in Mesopotamia and Persia, were jettisoned after the war (Mosul in northern Iraq, most famously, was originally assigned to the French, until the British decided they wanted its oil fields). After the Russians signed a separate peace with the Germans at Brest-Litovsk in 1918, the entire zone assigned to Russia in 1916 was taken away and thereafter expunged from historical memory. To replace the departed Russians, the United States (in a long-forgotten episode of American history) was enjoined to take up the broadest Ottoman mandates, encompassing much of present-day Turkey— only for Congress to balk on ratifying the postwar treaties. With the United States and Communist Russia bowing out of the game, Italy and Greece were invited to claim their share of the Ottoman carcass, only for both to later sign away their territorial gains to Mustafa Kemal entirely without reference to the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Nor was there so much as a mention in the 1916 partition agreement of the Saudi dynasty, which, following its conquest of the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina, has ruled formerly Ottoman Arabia since 1924.

McMeekin, Sean. The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution and the Making of the Modern Middle East, 1908-1923 (Kindle Locations 140-147). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
 
Not sure how accurate this is but it looks like there should be a third name to the agreement.

The partition of the Ottoman Empire was not settled bilaterally by two British and French diplomats in 1916, ...

I think you missed the point of the OP. Getting rid of Kemal & presumably effective 'Turkish' resistance to occupation of Anatolia leaves the approximate conditions of the Sykes-Picott agreement & the occupation zone in place when a final treaty comes, at Lausanne in 1923 or earlier. A settlement as originally conceived by the Europeans is a major game changer from the start , and more so from 1939 through today.
 

Deleted member 94680

The Sykes-Picot vs Sykes-Picot-Sazonov argument is all well and good, but the Russian Revolution removed Moscow from the deal. Originally, the Russians were involved, but the Soviet regime decried any involvement in “imperial diplomacy” and were excluded anyway by the Anglo-French after 1917. Hence the more famous name, with just the two diplomats being mentioned. In that case, I shouldn’t have asked about the Soviet zones, I suppose.

As @Carl Schwamberger points out, if we are merely discussing the absence of Ataturk and the Turkish War of Independence, then everything is OTL up until, say, May 1919? Using the map above, the Russian area bordering Russia proper stays as part of Turkey and the Straights are, what? Greek instead?
 
As @Carl Schwamberger points out, if we are merely discussing the absence of Ataturk and the Turkish War of Independence, then everything is OTL up until, say, May 1919? Using the map above, the Russian area bordering Russia proper stays as part of Turkey and the Straights are, what? Greek instead?

The area delegated to Russia in the east corresponds, roughly, with Wilsonian Armenia and parts of Assyria. It's likely that without Ataturk, the Armenians manage to hold onto the majority of their territory (especially with the French that deep into Anatolia).

The straits themselves would be devolved into an international zone, most likely, without Russian involvement. The Greeks want it, but I think the other powers don't want the others to have it more. So, for the immediate aftermath, it would remain international.
 
My take is the Greeks would instigate some sort of annexation movement within the international zone of the straits region. At some point they'd seriously consider supporting that with military action. That might not fall out that way, but it would be part of their playbook, and a fear on the part of the Turks and a few others. If the Brits or French don't get behind this the Greeks are liable to seek support from Facist Italy or Germany.
 

Deleted member 94680

My take is the Greeks would instigate some sort of annexation movement within the international zone of the straits region. At some point they'd seriously consider supporting that with military action. That might not fall out that way, but it would be part of their playbook, and a fear on the part of the Turks and a few others. If the Brits or French don't get behind this the Greeks are liable to seek support from Facist Italy or Germany.

Surely that’d be the best way to lose British support for their expansionism in the Smyrna region? Leaving the International Zone as a Legue of Nations project would benefit them in the long run, surely?
 
Surely that’d be the best way to lose British support for their expansionism in the Smyrna region? Leaving the International Zone as a Legue of Nations project would benefit them in the long run, surely?

Thing is, Ionia seems to be delegated straight to the Italians in Sykes-Picot, and none of it goes to the Greeks.

Some sort of expedition like he described might be a good way to put pressure on the British to try and get the Italians to give up a portion of Ionia.
 

Deleted member 94680

Thing is, Ionia seems to be delegated straight to the Italians in Sykes-Picot, and none of it goes to the Greeks.

Some sort of expedition like he described might be a good way to put pressure on the British to try and get the Italians to give up a portion of Ionia.

The Italians signed away their claims to Lycia in the face of Turkish opposition, so that’s possible. OTL the Chanak Crisis showed the British weren’t up to militarily contesting changes to Sèvres, so Greek aggression in the absence of Turkish resistance might yield results I suppose.
 
The Italians signed away their claims to Lycia in the face of Turkish opposition, so that’s possible. OTL the Chanak Crisis showed the British weren’t up to militarily contesting changes to Sèvres, so Greek aggression in the absence of Turkish resistance might yield results I suppose.

True, but was just pointing out on paper that the Greeks have no other route outside of the majority of Eastern Thrace.

And if France and britain are claiming those large regions for themselves, it's more likely that Italy would have kept some of their claims as well. Sykes-Picot level borders, if maintained, show that the British are capable of contesting it, unlike OTL.
 
Thing is, Ionia seems to be delegated straight to the Italians in Sykes-Picot, and none of it goes to the Greeks.

Some sort of expedition like he described might be a good way to put pressure on the British to try and get the Italians to give up a portion of Ionia.

The Italian leaders took on what they did in the heat of the moment 1919. After some months they were somewhat relieved to handover Ionia to the Greeks OTL. In those days it was heavily populated with Greek speaking Orthodox Christians.
 
The Italian leaders took on what they did in the heat of the moment 1919. After some months they were somewhat relieved to handover Ionia to the Greeks OTL. In those days it was heavily populated with Greek speaking Orthodox Christians.

I'm aware. Just pointing out that a more successful occupation by the French and the British might lead the Italians to remaining in their region as well. Though, them making the handover as they did OTL definitely sounds plausible. Especially if, as part of the deal, the Greeks in Italian territories are encouraged to leave (especially in the Dodecanese).
 
Greek, Italian, French, British, Armenian, Turk states, and a Constantinople international Zone all packed into Anatolia are going to be a nasty witches brew come June 1940...
 
Greek, Italian, French, British, Armenian, Turk states, and a Constantinople international Zone all packed into Anatolia are going to be a nasty witches brew come June 1940...

Depending on how it goes... I could definitely see, in a period of five years or so down the line, with British and French support waning to manage the International Zone (especially with Jerusalem likely being annexed by Britain), Italy might end up supporting Greece launching a takeover of a region where they already have an extensive plurality. And, prior to this, Greece and Italy might make a deal over Ionia, with Greece ceding claims to the Dodecanese in response to securing control over Ionia. Probably acceptable, as with that, and tacit control over the straits, Greece would attempt to cut off Turkey from the Aegean sea in total, making that a Greek lake. And, of course, both Italy and Greece would be leaning on each other to support their claims, with Greater Greece being supplied more and more by the Italians.

I could see a Yugoslav-Greek-Italian bloc forming just because of similar interests. Italy and Greece over Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia over Bulgaria, and all three over Albania (which likely ends up partitioned at some point as well). This could push Romania closer to Poland (threatened a bit more by the strong Yugoslav and Greek, along with puppet Bulgarian, nations) furthering another Eastern European alliance as well.

Of course, the British are slightly alarmed, but so long as Italy is dependent upon Britain for many imports, and they take an anti-communist stance (going more into fascism, but who knows if they'll do as much OTL) that they might allow it with tacit support. Of course, Italian responsibilities in Turkey may prevent them from launching the 1936 war against Abyssinia. Would be interesting if that ended up butterflied due to that.

A big question: does Italy have her Treaty of London borders and is she satisfied with her eastern claims, or does she have the revanchist feelings as of OTL?

About Armenia, she will lean towards whatever nation will protect her the most, be it from the Soviets or the Turks. If that means the Italian alliance, then possibly. if it means another, then that. It's still iffy if they'll survive the interwar period, but if they survive into Stalin's rule (until the late 20s/early 30s), they might end up larger within the USSR, if losing a few chunks to Georgia...

1200px-USSR_territorial_claims_to_Turkey_1945-1953.png
 
Quite like the like of an ATL Armenia SSR that reaches the Black Sea, with an ATL Lazistan (via much of Western Lazistan from Giresun to Samsun) being established as a separate SSR from the Georgian SSR. The only thing missing is an Alevi state or SSR.
 
Last edited:
Quite like the like of an ATL Armenia SSR that reaches the Black Sea, with an ATL Lazistan (via much of Western Lazistan from Giresun to Samsun) being established as a separate SSR from the Georgian SSR. The only thing missing is an Alevi state or SSR.

More than likely, in that case, is that Armenia gets most of the inland region while reaching the sea in Girusen. And, in that case, either the Lazistan ASSR would spread across both SSR of Georgia and Armenia, or you might see a Pontic ASSR and a Lazistan ASSR (without the population exchanges, a substantial Pontic Greek population may remain in Armenia).
 
More than likely, in that case, is that Armenia gets most of the inland region while reaching the sea in Girusen. And, in that case, either the Lazistan ASSR would spread across both SSR of Georgia and Armenia, or you might see a Pontic ASSR and a Lazistan ASSR (without the population exchanges, a substantial Pontic Greek population may remain in Armenia).

Interesting.

Would it be too much for the Russians / Soviets to gain Tunceli and a few other neighboring areas (e.g. Sivas, Erzincan, Bingöl) with a significant number of Alevis to turn into an Alevi ASSR / SSR or would such areas end up being part of some form of Kurdistan?

Alevis.png
 
Last edited:
Top