A lot of byzantophilesI don't understand why so many people voted Greece.
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.
A reliable third party with no conflicting interests. Yes, of course, I speak of Swedish Constantinople.
A reliable third party with no conflicting interests. Yes, of course, I speak of Swedish Constantinople.
Surely, you jest.
It should be El Salvador.
Swisstanbul!
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.
Turks which are the descendants of the native Anatolian and Balkan populations same stock as the Greeks of the city.
It was never originally Greek as the first settlement was by Thracians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Istanbul#Lygos
So, in your opinion, should we give Europe back to the Sardinians, who are mostly descended from the oldest humans of Europe?
That's because the locals were cultural assimilated and merged with the newly arrived TurksTurks came from Central Asia in medieval times, which is why their language is similar to Kazakh and Uzbek, and not to Armenian or Greek.
I don't understand why so many people voted Greece.
That's because the locals were cultural assimilated and merged with the newly arrived Turks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki..._hypothesis_in_Anatolia,_Caucasus_and_Balkans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people
There absolutely should be a debate. Greeks were 1/3 of the population, it was the center of their church, and it was widely seen as their rightful and historic capital (like Rome for Italians or Jerusalem for Jews, both of which eventually came to be in OTL)There shouldn't be a debate about this. Obviously Turkey. If you really want, give the residents a plebiscite. Then it will be obviously Turkey but now with democratic proof.
How this relevant when talking about descendants ?And a lot of the European/Asia Minor DNA in Turks comes from kidnapping, enslavement, and rape of Christians during the Ottoman Empire. (look up Devshirme).
How does being mixed negate being descendants of native Anatolian and Balkan populations. Not to mention not every Turk has same amount of Central Asian dna so does mean some Turks are more indigenous then others ?(where many live to this day on military bases), but less than Irishmen are to Ireland.
There absolutely should be a debate. Greeks were 1/3 of the population, it was the center of their church, and it was widely seen as their rightful and historic capital (like Rome for Italians or Jerusalem for Jews, both of which eventually came to be in OTL)
Greece should have gotten Northern Epirus, Eastern Thrace, the Smyrna Zone, Cyprus, and Constantinople. Turkey should have kept the Asian side of the Bosphorus.
A lot of the Internet has a hatred of Turkey, some justified (the Armenian Genocide) and others... less so (like this thread). It is common for the Internet to make ridiculous claims like saying the Megali Idea was a remotely acceptable idea.I don't understand why so many people voted Greece.
It's important to note that the Greek population in Constantinople (and pretty much everywhere else in the Ottoman Empire) grew faster than the Muslim population in the 19th century, so if we're talking about historical trends, no, it shouldn't go to Greece. The 1478 Ottoman census shows that the city (~150,000 inhabitants at that time) was 60% Turkish, 11% Jewish, and only 21.5% Greek.Greeks were about 1/3 of Constantinopolitans in 1920
It is also the historic Turkish capital. The Turks reconstructed the city which had been completely ruined following 1204. They have a "moral claim" to it just as much as the Greeks.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.
If the city and environs of Cracow had been 60% German for five hundred years, yes, a German state should get it.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.
Most Turks are descended from Islamized Greeks and Anatolians. Certainly they have a far stronger claim to the area than Spaniards have to Granada, where the 1492 inhabitants were outright expelled.Turks came from Central Asia in medieval times, which is why their language is similar to Kazakh and Uzbek, and not to Armenian or Greek.
I'm not sure what bizarro timeline you come from where 1) the tiny Devshirme elite were so many that they made a huge impact on Turkish DNA and 2) the Devshirme were subject to rape.And a lot of the European/Asia Minor DNA in Turks comes from kidnapping, enslavement, and rape of Christians during the Ottoman Empire. (look up Devshirme).
And where are the non-Greeks of Salonik today? The Great Powers should just as well (according to your logic) intervened in the Balkan Wars to prevent the ethnic cleansing of the many Muslim majorities in the eastern Balkans.Because Greece had a rock-solid claim on it, and giving it to Turkey in OTL led to ethnic cleansing and pogroms against Greeks/Christians.
Yes and that worked so amazingly well. In fact, it worked so amazingly well that we should do it again! Let's start off by giving England, I mean, Britannia back to the Welsh! The English can fuck off to Denmark or wherever they came from!A better analogy is Jews reconquering Jerusalem and making it their capital after centuries/millennia of exile, which did happen in OTL.
While I support the Turkish Constantinople option, your suggestion of Portugal acting as watchman seems to be the best case scenario that creates the least bloodshed.Now that is a creative idea.
Not sure if it's possible (would Sweden have the troops and money to manage it, and more importantly would Sweden want it, as it's a burden and a source of potential conflict with Russia), but I like the idea.
Sweden is probably unrealistic, but what about Portugal ?
Portugal works as a third party that leaves everyone equally unsatisfied, though how to convince Portugal to accept (ie. what Portugal really gains from this), I'm not sure. Portugal gains prestige, sure, but beyond that... Maybe it can turn Constantinople into a profitable venture ?
- Entente member since 1915 (though it did little fighting)
- Small enough that no one important feels threatened (Portugal can't be a threat to French, British or Russian interests)
- Isn't in a serious rivalry with anyone about anything at the time, which fits the "neutral" criterion (Entente during the war, but neutral in the power play between former Entente members). Can't be bullied or threatened at home by Italy or Russia (in contrast with Sweden which lives too close to Russia...).
- Catholic, so not too biased in the Muslim/Orthodox relationship in the city (might be biased towards Orthodox as fellow Christians, but still less biased than an actually Orthdox power)
- Already has colonies and a decent navy, and medium-sized country, so can project some power (and might have the will, as Portugal is still an empire and sees itself as such)
- Can easily access the Med
Tell us more about how Goa was majority Portuguese and the capital of Portugal.I think if you come from the standpoint that 400 years is long enough to immunize against revanchism, then I am sure you also ardently support Portugal's claim to Goa