Who should Constantinople have been given to after WWI?

Who should Constantinople have been given to after WWI?


  • Total voters
    393

Hierosolyma

Banned
I've included all of the nations that I think had a plausible claim on it and/or tried to acquire it.

* Greece - their historic capital, headquarters of their church, largest ethnicity in the city
* Turkey - their formal imperial capital, but lacks religious significance, and not solidly Turkish ethnically
* Bulgaria - close geographically, Orthodox religion, minority presence in the city
* Russia - "Third Rome" philosophy, warm-water port
* Free City/International Zone - what the Allies tried to do in OTL
 
I've included all of the nations that I think had a plausible claim on it and/or tried to acquire it.

* Greece - their historic capital, headquarters of their church, largest ethnicity in the city
* Turkey - their formal imperial capital, but lacks religious significance, and not solidly Turkish ethnically
* Bulgaria - close geographically, Orthodox religion, minority presence in the city
* Russia - "Third Rome" philosophy, warm-water port
* Free City/International Zone - what the Allies tried to do in OTL

Are you sure, that, the largest ethnic group in Constantinople was the Greeks? Do you have any evidence of that?
 
The United States, duh.

Seriously, a free city makes sense. Parts of OTL Turkish Thrace could go to Greece and/or Bulgaria though, and I could see leaving the Asian side with Turkey.
 
A free city in Constantinople ends up having the same problems as the ones on Triest and Danzig had - rejection by the population.

So... how about Argentina?
 
A free city in Constantinople ends up having the same problems as the ones on Triest and Danzig had - rejection by the population.

So... how about Argentina?
As a far away place for the local population to migrate? You know, to run away from the obviuos future ethnic conflicts of the region.
 
Istanbul had been majority Turkish for the past four hundred years by 1914 (we know it was majority Muslim for almost the entire Ottoman period), and @Hierosolyma's claim about Greek plurality is openly false.

Saying Istanbul should have been given to Greece is worse than trying to give Granada to Morocco.
 

Hierosolyma

Banned
Istanbul had been majority Turkish for the past four hundred years by 1914 (we know it was majority Muslim for almost the entire Ottoman period), and @Hierosolyma's claim about Greek plurality is openly false.

Saying Istanbul should have been given to Greece is worse than trying to give Granada to Morocco.

Greeks were about 1/3 of Constantinopolitans in 1920, I've seen no evidence that Turks (as opposed to Muslims in general, which contains non-Turkish groups as well) were a majority.

Plus, it was the historic Greek capital that was occupied and settled by the Turks during their imperialistic era...Greece had a more solid moral claim to it, since it was originally theirs.

Imagine that Austria-Hungary had tried to Germaninze Cracow, to the point were it was 40% Austrian/German, 35% Polish, 15% other Western Europeans, and 10% Jewish.

Poles would still have the strongest claim on it, since historically it was theirs, and since the demographics only shifted because of conquest and occupation.
 

VadisDeProfundis

Gone Fishin'
We are talking about international politics, how could morality come into this? No one "deserves" it. First of all, we need to set some standards: *why* should anyone get Constantinople/Istanbul? Well, in my view, our goal should be to try and minimize conflicts, deaths or wars.

So it definitely shouldn't go to Turkey, that pogromed Greeks and Armenians in the 1950s, as well as before that. People were evicted, I don't think we should give it to them.

At the same time, and I say this as a Greek, under no circumstances should it be given to Greece; we would have done the exact same thing, just look at Greek Macedonia and Thrace to find all those Bulgarian or Slavic populations; Greece also had a nasty view towards minorities.

Now, Russia? The same Russia that is in a multi sided civil war, with the likely winners being totalitarian radicals, or, through extensive butterflies, authoritarian military dictators? Let's not.

That leaves us with two options: Free City, or Bulgaria. I have absolutely no idea, what Bulgarian policies on minorities were, other than having heard that they took care of Jews in World War Two, though I definitely haven't checked that with any sources. However, Bulgaria was also on the wrong side of the war, wasn't it? Wouldn't it be politically difficult for a member state of the Central Powers, to actually gain territory after the War, without having fought for it? As I understand it, the Bulgarian Army was on the brink of collapse as it was, it would hardly be able to fight Turkey and Greece and the odd great power for Istanbul/Constantinople.

Do we then make it a Free City? Well, wasn't that what the Treaty of Sevres tried to do, and failed utterly? A Free City would need constant backing from at least one great power that would be willing to involve itself in a war over it. Ideally, in my view, a Free City would be best, but you would need a great power backing it, as well as the people supporting it. That would also be quite difficult.

So here's a radical idea: make it the new seat of the LoN, and force every great power to station troops and a fleet or two there. Put it under the direct jurisdiction of a LoN-created body, maybe not a democratic body, that would ensure life would go on in a multicultural environment, without pogroms, ethnic cleansing or the lot. That would open up huge questions of course, but I can't for the life of me find a better solution.
 
Not all Muslims in Constantinople were Turks, just like not all Orthodox Christians in Constantinople were Greeks.
Expect the Muslims in Constantinople were considered and did consider themselves to be Turkish and most importantly would want Turkey to rule over the city.

Plus, it was the historic Greek capital that was occupied and settled by the Turks during their imperialistic era...
Turks which are the descendants of the native Anatolian and Balkan populations same stock as the Greeks of the city.

.Greece had a more solid moral claim to it, since it was originally theirs.
It was never originally Greek as the first settlement was by Thracians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Istanbul#Lygos
 
Put it under the direct jurisdiction of a LoN-created body, maybe not a democratic body, that would ensure life would go on in a multicultural environment, without pogroms, ethnic cleansing or the lot. That would open up huge questions of course, but I can't for the life of me find a better solution.

Nope. Just perpetuial governance by a forgein,non-represenative administration will huge swaths of area turned over the militaries of every nation. Dosent sound very good to me. Look, tearing off the band-aid might hurt, but just letting the wound fester is far worse in the long run.

Hold a plebicite, create a LoN resettlement fund that offers (not mandates) compensated resettlement with a grace period of say 10 years to losing parties.
 

VadisDeProfundis

Gone Fishin'
Nope. Just perpetuial governance by a forgein,non-represenative administration will huge swaths of area turned over the militaries of every nation. Dosent sound very good to me. Look, tearing off the band-aid might hurt, but just letting the wound fester is far worse in the long run.

Hold a plebicite, create a LoN resettlement fund that offers (not mandates) compensated resettlement with a grace period of say 10 years to losing parties.

But how would anyone be sure of that actually happening, and how would anyone prevent the winners of such a scenario from simply scaring off the losers? And that's not even going into the terms of a referendum: how would, e.g. Greece or Turkey be prevented from simply getting bus loads of their countrymen to the city to vote, or having militias or agents terrorize the other side? Don't get me wrong, your idea is very sound, but I think the mechanics could be a bit iffy, that's why I proposed that no one gets it forever. Or at least until the Second World War destroys any concept of the LoN and the city probably becomes a war zone, but I'm not sure how any other choice would prevent that.
 
I don't get why this is even a thing. I mean it's one thing to argue how Istanbul could have gone to someone else, but to debate who "should" have gotten it sounds pointless, and seems to only invite nationalist bickering.
 
Greeks were about 1/3 of Constantinopolitans in 1920, I've seen no evidence that Turks (as opposed to Muslims in general, which contains non-Turkish groups as well) were a majority.

Plus, it was the historic Greek capital that was occupied and settled by the Turks during their imperialistic era...Greece had a more solid moral claim to it, since it was originally theirs.

Imagine that Austria-Hungary had tried to Germaninze Cracow, to the point were it was 40% Austrian/German, 35% Polish, 15% other Western Europeans, and 10% Jewish.

Poles would still have the strongest claim on it, since historically it was theirs, and since the demographics only shifted because of conquest and occupation.

So, in your opinion, should we give Europe back to the Sardinians, who are mostly descended from the oldest humans of Europe?
 
Top