Who should Constantinople have been given to after WWI?

Who should Constantinople have been given to after WWI?


  • Total voters
    381
Geographical concerns - The Bosphorus is a sensible border, and makes it harder for either Greece or Turkey to invade each other in the future.
Bull. This would just produce more fighting and probably ethnic cleansing.
Historic justice - The Turkish theft of Constantinople in 1453 was unjust. This is a chance to right a longstanding historic wrong.
With another theft? It's been 4 and half centuries!
Religious significance - Constantinople is the headquarters of the Greek church
So? France doesn't get Rome, Turkey wasn't demanding Mecca.
Genocidal character of Turkey - Look what they did to the Armenians before the war. Mixed areas should go to the neighboring Christian states because of Turkey's track record.
Minor correction: the genocide was during the war.

The Greeks engaged in ethnic cleansing, and don't me started on the Russians.
 
Bull. This would just produce more fighting and probably ethnic cleansing.
Why? The numbers of displaced would be similar to IOTL, considering that even if Turks are more than Greek in Thrace, the number of both are still similar, is a couple hundred thousand more people what would really cause long term conflict?
 
Why? The numbers of displaced would be similar to IOTL, considering that even if Turks are more than Greek in Thrace, the number of both are still similar, is a couple hundred thousand more people what would really cause long term conflict?
Well I mean, assuming the Greeks do what they did IOTL, the Turks are being expelled.
 
Well compare that to the 600k people displaced from Thrace IOTL, is Greece waging a underground war or funding terrorism against the nation of Turkey nowadays? I don't think the opposite would be true either.
You would have the OTL ethnic cleansing plus expulsions.

I think occupying the Turkish capital will lead to long term war.
 
You would have the OTL ethnic cleansing plus expulsions.

I think occupying the Turkish capital will lead to long term war.
Well no, you would 600k less Greek/Christians expelled and 1 million more Turks expelled.

Well, they moved the capital shorty after, so I'm not sure about the symbolic importance, plus on top of that OTL Greeks and Orthodox are fine with the a Turkish and non-Christian state controlling it, so I still don't see why you think Turks would be more belligerent long-term, at least if you don't think Turks would react differently if confronted by similar conditions
 
maybe you lot already know this he posted multiple threads about greek clay he talks about one that Izmir should be greek, but here he talks about geographical argument of thrace being greek for nice borders. Is he not contradicting himself on the same issue in diferent threads as adding izmir makes no geographical sense?
 
Well no, you would 600k less Greek/Christians expelled and 1 million more Turks expelled.
I would call that a substantial difference.

Well, they moved the capital shorty after, so I'm not sure about the symbolic importance, plus on top of that OTL Greeks and Orthodox are fine with the a Turkish and non-Christian state controlling it, so I still don't see why you think Turks would be more belligerent long-term, at least if you don't think Turks would react differently if confronted by similar conditions
The Turks fought to maintain control of Smyrna IOTL, I don't see why they wouldn't for Istanbul.
 
I think occupying the Turkish capital will lead to long term war.

Very probably.

The Black Sea Straits have never formed a political frontier for any length of time since 334BC, and even before that only twice (547-513 and 386-334). Generally speaking whoever controlled one side soon went on to control the other as well.


Indeed I wished the Indians has given the Goans a referendum to decide their future, but I was using his own arguments on the matter.

Understood.
 
I would call that a substantial difference.
This is just ridiculous, 400k is not enough of a difference to justify this theory, Greeks did not fight on despite having 1.2 million people sent to their country and another 450-750k by the Ottomans in WW1 but somehow the Turks are going to react extremely differently for a quite smaller number of people involved?

The Turks fought to maintain control of Smyrna IOTL, I don't see why they wouldn't for Istanbul.
They fought because no one was there to help Greece annex all those lands given no one gave them all those land to begin with.
If we assume Greece takes those territories and a similar population exchanges happens, then there is no reason to assume long term hostilities of a nature different from what we see from Greece and Turkey IOTL, that's if one doesn't believe that the Turks specifically would react differently for a reason or another, which is the only real justification one can give.
 
This is just ridiculous, 400k is not enough of a difference to justify this theory, Greeks did not fight on despite having 1.2 million people sent to their country and another 450-750k by the Ottomans in WW1 but somehow the Turks are going to react extremely differently for a quite smaller number of people involved?


They fought because no one was there to help Greece annex all those lands given no one gave them all those land to begin with.
If we assume Greece takes those territories and a similar population exchanges happens, then there is no reason to assume long term hostilities of a nature different from what we see from Greece and Turkey IOTL, that's if one doesn't believe that the Turks specifically would react differently for a reason or another, which is the only real justification one can give.
You are familiar with the war of Turkish independence right?
 
You are familiar with the war of Turkish independence right?
Yes I am, we were not discussing plausibility before, are we now? I was assuming that we were talking about something after the border has been agreed on, which would still involve a similar war or conflict surely, but after that I don't think more conflict would happen in of itself.
 
An international / free city would make sense, however provisions would have to be made that the Russians would not gain access to the Med by travelling through the "free city".
Perhaps Constantinople could one day rise to the realm of Singapore?
 

Germaniac

Donor
A free city could be interesting. Maybe the headquarters of the league of nations? Still if a turkish state exists i cannot imagine it wont have retaking the city as its top priority.
 
Surely, you jest.

It should be El Salvador.
Give it to Tibet. The Dalai Lama would add some mystical class.
y8a92.jpg
 
Top