WI:Treaty of Sèvres implemented

It was implemented, enforcement simply failed. Really, its chances weren't any better than an attempt at colonizing Germany would have been.
 
Not sure WWII would happen, it's a pretty big change. But let's say the train run on schedule, you make Turkey a massive ally of any version of a resurgent Germany. Not sure how much they could actually do but such a rump state could probably still be a nuisance in the Black Sea
 
What if the Treaty of Sèvres was implemented and the borders set there would have been respected and lasted at least until WW2?

The question should rather be how to enforce it. Besides this would create butterflies, so who knows whether WW2 would happen at all in this scenario? Your question also is a bit vague.
 
sevres.png
 
Well would the Armenian Genocide and Seyfo perpetrators be punished? If so, would the holocaust be prevented?

Holy convergence, Batman. You'd be lucky to see Nazis take power at all. And again, the Turks had literally no reason to accept this "settlement", so the leaders behind those crimes would either die in battle or get off Scot free if (when) enforcement failed.
 
You got to explain that better.

I do? Germany was occupied to prevent further wars, and to keep it out of Soviet hands. Turkey would have been occupied Because Colonies. They weren't worried about a Turkish threat to them later, they just wanted to expand their empires.
 
I do? Germany was occupied to prevent further wars, and to keep it out of Soviet hands. Turkey would have been occupied Because Colonies. They weren't worried about a Turkish threat to them later, they just wanted to expand their empires.

I agree when it comes to the zones of influence, but it was fair that Greece and Armenia got areas in Asia Minor, as Greeks and Armenians had been living there for millennia. The Kurds should also have gotten a separate state.
 
I agree when it comes to the zones of influence, but it was fair that Greece and Armenia got areas in Asia Minor, as Greeks and Armenians had been living there for millennia. The Kurds should also have gotten a separate state.

The scale of those was way too large given population distribution, though. And there's no point in crediting it for a Kurdish state it didn't create.
 
The scale of those was way too large given population distribution, though. And there's no point in crediting it for a Kurdish state it didn't create.

Why was it too large? No reason to credit the Turks for genocide. As far as I understand, the treaty had an opening for a possible Kurdish state, but of course the treaty should have
given it to the Kurds unconditionally. Still, the treaty was far better than the ultimate result.
TreatyOfSevres_%28corrected%29.PNG
 
Last edited:

MrP

Banned
I agree that Sevres was unenforceable short of the Entente powers committing to a long and messy war, and the political will wasn't there in the wake of WW1. It's one thing to draw lines on a map, it's another to make them a reality.

I agree when it comes to the zones of influence, but it was fair that Greece and Armenia got areas in Asia Minor, as Greeks and Armenians had been living there for millennia.
What about the resulting ethnic cleansing of Turks?
 
I agree that Sevres was unenforceable short of the Entente powers committing to a long and messy war, and the political will wasn't there in the wake of WW1. It's one thing to draw lines on a map, it's another to make them a reality.


What about the resulting ethnic cleansing of Turks?

Does one groups have more value than the others? In many areas other groups than the Turks were in the majority.
AsiaMinor1910.jpg
 

MrP

Banned
Does one groups have more value than the others?
You tell me, old boy, you're the one who's suggesting a carve-up of Turkey with the resulting forced population displacements.

In many areas other groups than the Turks were in the majority.
AsiaMinor1910.jpg
Quite. It's saying something that after more than half a millennium of Ottoman rule there were so many thriving minorities in Anatolia.

Compare this map with that one:

balkans1877popc2-1.png


That's a lot of European Turks who were no longer there a generation later.
 
Why was it too large? No reason to credit the Turks for genocide. As far as I understand, the treaty had an opening for a possible Kurdish state, but of course they treaty should have
given it to the Turks unconditionally. Still, the treaty was far better than the ultimate result.

The treaty was so bad it didn't even stop the war. That's pretty much by definition the worst possible treaty. And honestly, I don't care if they had provisions for Kurdistan, because they had no more intention of allowing a Kurdish "nation" then they did an Iraqi or Syrian one, i.e., they would be colonial boundaries and nothing more. I mean, a big part of the reason they couldn't agree on Kurdish borders was because they overlapped with territory that had already been claimed by them or the Armenians. As for the latter, it doesn't count as apologism to acknowledge that they had become a minority with their own proposed borders, if they weren't already one before the genocide.

More than anything, though, the treaty had no underlying ethics beyond might makes right. The fact that its provisions aren't in force anymore is proof enough that the underlying arrangements weren't stable ones. And if they had been forced into "working", modern Turkey would be worse than Iraq or Syria.
 
The treaty of Sevres would have implied a lot less ethnic cleansing than what happened in OTL. Large parts of the coastal areas of Turkey had a majority of Greeks, and they were expelled.
 
Top