TheSlovakPatriot
Banned
What if the Treaty of Sèvres was implemented and the borders set there would have been respected and lasted at least until WW2?
What if the Treaty of Sèvres was implemented and the borders set there would have been respected and lasted at least until WW2?
In fairness the terms of Sevres are actually pretty similar to those imposed on Germany after WWII.It was implemented, enforcement simply failed. Really, its chances weren't any better than an attempt at colonizing Germany would have been.
In fairness the terms of Sevres are actually pretty similar to those imposed on Germany after WWII.
Well would the Armenian Genocide and Seyfo perpetrators be punished? If so, would the holocaust be prevented?
For vastly different (I.e., greedier) reasons.
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 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.
What about the resulting ethnic cleansing of Turks?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.
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?
You tell me, old boy, you're the one who's suggesting a carve-up of Turkey with the resulting forced population displacements.Does one groups have more value than the others?
Quite. It's saying something that after more than half a millennium of Ottoman rule there were so many thriving minorities in Anatolia.In many areas other groups than the Turks were in the majority.![]()
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.