What if the Sykes–Picot Agreement goes into effect?

Would it be too much for the Russians / Soviets to gain Tunceli and a few other neighboring areas with a significant number of Alevis to turn into an Alevi ASSR / SSR?

Depends on the circumstances. I was imagining a division between Turkey and the USSR, so some of the western parts would go to Turkey. if it's USSR annexing a Wilsonian Armenia, or larger one, then it is possible that it could be established as an ASSR within a part of Armenia.
 
Depends on the circumstances. I was imagining a division between Turkey and the USSR, so some of the western parts would go to Turkey. if it's USSR annexing a Wilsonian Armenia, or larger one, then it is possible that it could be established as an ASSR within a part of Armenia.

I see. On the other hand such areas from Tunceli southwards would probably end up being part of Kurdistan or even Zazastan.
 
Last edited:
I see. On the other hand such areas from Tunceli southwards would probably end up being part of Kurdistan or even Zazastan.

Possibly. Hakkari Valley might could be included with this Armenia (the borders aren't exactly final at this point), which could be made into an Assyrian ASSR (granted, the Turks and the Kurds slaughtered nearly all the Assyrians in the valley, but the region was majority Assyrian, and there probably were more of them than there were Laz)

However, there is no Kurdistan under this treaty. What would be Kurdistan is either part of the French possession or it is part of the two component Arab states.

Why would the Soviets magically be involved?

A decade or so later, with the British and French probably pulling out of the area, and the Soviets might try to move in and fill in the gap mid-20s. if the Britis and French did not, in the end, successfully contest against the Turks, don't see them stopping the Soviets from marching into Armenia if they so desire to.

Especially if it's in a joint action with the Turks to reclaim land. There's no resistance at first to the occupation, but it doesn't mean there couldn't/wouldn't be later opposition to the colonial powers.
 

Deleted member 94680

A decade or so later, with the British and French probably pulling out of the area, and the Soviets might try to move in and fill in the gap mid-20s. if the Britis and French did not, in the end, successfully contest against the Turks, don't see them stopping the Soviets from marching into Armenia if they so desire to.

Especially if it's in a joint action with the Turks to reclaim land. There's no resistance at first to the occupation, but it doesn't mean there couldn't/wouldn't be later opposition to the colonial powers.

But with the Russians removed from the Sykes-Picot divisions of territory in the imeadiate post-War period, why would the British or the French claim Armenia? Neither of them showed any interest in the region OTL, it went to Russia because Russia wanted to absorb the ‘whole’ of Armenia into it’s borders. Therefore, minus Russia, come the end of the War ATL, Armenia would remain Turkish territory.

The British and the French have even less reason to withdraw from the region in this ATL compared to OTL if we have a supplicant Turkish power compared to Ataturk’s resistance and independence. They retained Syria and Jordan well into the post-WWII period OTL, why would that change now?
 
...
The British and the French have even less reason to withdraw from the region in this ATL compared to OTL if we have a supplicant Turkish power compared to Ataturk’s resistance and independence. They retained Syria and Jordan well into the post-WWII period OTL, why would that change now?

For the most part the Brit & French governments of the era were imperialist, and anti Communist. I don't know enough about the French popular Front government of the mid 1930s, but I am unaware of Blum & Co executing a withdrawal from any of the French 'protectorates' or colonies.
 
But with the Russians removed from the Sykes-Picot divisions of territory in the imeadiate post-War period, why would the British or the French claim Armenia? Neither of them showed any interest in the region OTL, it went to Russia because Russia wanted to absorb the ‘whole’ of Armenia into it’s borders.

Where did I ever say that the British or the French were claiming Armenia? There's difference between them claiming the region and having a friendly buffer state that is independent and later could be conquered by a resurgent power, at a point of time where the British/French Empires are in no mood to act against such revanchism.

Therefore, minus Russia, come the end of the War ATL, Armenia would remain Turkish territory.

Why is that? It wasn't the case OTL, and nothing has changed here to alter that. OTL, minus Russia, come the end of the war, Armenia was independent. They simply lost the resulting conflict to Turkey, losing most of their territory, and were absorbed into the USSR afterwards. There's nothing inherent in the PoD that would have the Armenians failing to secure independence, especially with Turkey suffering a catastrophic failure to its fortunes.

Armenia will become independent in the post war just as it did OTL. Without Turkey managing to reconquer their old territory, then the Armenian Republic will actually survive, without being reconquered.

The British and the French have even less reason to withdraw from the region in this ATL compared to OTL if we have a supplicant Turkish power compared to Ataturk’s resistance and independence. They retained Syria and Jordan well into the post-WWII period OTL, why would that change now?

I would hardly say supplicant, as we would certainly have plenty of revanchist sentiments that are present, just suppressed due to the constant failures. After all, the failure of Ataturk does not remove the general sentiment behind his actions. Also, I never said they'd be withdrawing from any of their claims (just as I never said that they claimed Armenia). They'd likely maintain their claims, deal with low-grade rebellion, while what is left of the Turkish state manages to recover and organize.

And, historically the politics of the Arabian Peninsula are far different from Turkey, mostly due to the Arab's general opposition, in many cases, to Turkish rule (which lead to many aligning with the Entente). Compare to the Turks, which have gone from being the majority in the empire to being divided into multiple different statelets and colonies, and you'll find that they are more opposed.

Opposed enough for the Entente to withdraw? I would doubt it if they're this successful in establishing and keeping it. It would, however, be a constant undercurrent for the Turks.

-

My point is that Armenia would likely maintain their independence, but has a decent chance of losing it to the USSR in the mid 1920s if the USSR comes and tries to reconquer the territory. Once Stalin or Molotov comes to power, they might press against the Armenians and try to incorporate them. It depends on how stable Armenia is to see if that happens, or if they become another Bulgaria or Romania.

For the most part the Brit & French governments of the era were imperialist, and anti Communist. I don't know enough about the French popular Front government of the mid 1930s, but I am unaware of Blum & Co executing a withdrawal from any of the French 'protectorates' or colonies.

True. If the USSR is successful in regaining control of itself, and a land border is maintained between French Cilicia and Independent Armenia, there might actually be more support for them TTL, just because they serve a purpose: to act as a buffer zone.
 

Deleted member 94680

... snip...

Ah, yeah, my bad. I’d completely forgotten Armenia managed to gain independence OTL. I was concentrating more on the regions within Turkey marked as Russian claims under the Sykes-Picot map I posted.

I suppose the real question is quite why Sykes-Picot manages to remain in force. Is it because the pro-Sultan forces in Turkey manage to remain in control? Is it because the WAllies exert more force to ensure its implementation?

The reason behind S-P being enforced would shape the following TL as to the various player’s reactions to it depend on how it comes about.
 
The more likely course. Waiving away Ataturk is the simplistic route to a weak or passive Turkish state.

In such a scenario were there any aligned or influenced individuals who could have potentially succeeded from a significantly less successful Ataturk, possibly later on leading some form of a diminished ATL Republic of Turkey?

Or notwithstanding the potential overlap, even have this diminished ATL Turkish state end up experiencing its own 3-way+ (e.g. Nationalist / ATL-Kemalist, Communist, National Socialist, Sultanist, Islamist / Caliphatist, warlords, etc) decade or more Turkish equivalent of the Chinese Civil War or Spanish Civil War down the road.
 
In such a scenario were there any aligned or influenced individuals who could have potentially succeeded from a significantly less successful Ataturk, possibly later on leading some form of a diminished ATL Republic of Turkey? ...

Short answer is yes, but they lacked his energy, charisma, vision, intelligence, leadership skill, political instincts ...
 
Top