WI:Treaty of Sèvres implemented

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.

Ethnic cleansing would simply be replaced by minority rule (colonies or the untenable super-Armenia) plus high-handed interference in "Turkey"'s internal affairs, and the same kind of systematic destruction of state institutions we saw in colonies the world over. Plus, still ethnic cleansing, and probably even more of it should the Greeks get greedy or something. Why not, it's not like the Turks would be able to resist after a while.

And again, this treaty would only work if the Turks were beaten into submission. That'd totally be a bloodless process. No concentration camps or massacres here.
 
Last edited:
Ethnic cleansing would simply be replaced by minority rule (colonies or the untenable super-Armenia) plus high-handed interference in "Turkey"'s internal affairs, and the same kind of systematic destruction of state institutions we saw in colonies the world over. Plus, still ethnic cleansing, and probably even more of it should the Greeks get greedy or something. Why not, it's not like the Turks would be able to resist after a while.

And again, this treaty would only work if the Turks were beaten into submission. That'd totally be a bloodless process. No concentration camps or massacres here. Lastly, do you think there'd have been as much ethnic cleansing of Greeks if they hadn't done their damnedest to act like invaders?

Do you not realize how deeply shocking what you write is? Kemal Ataturk was a genocidal maniac. What makes you think the Turks have more value than other people? The areas given to the Greeks had a majority of Greeks and the areas given to the Armenians used to have it before the genocidal young Turks massacred them in the Armenian genocide. To let the Turks keep those areas were the same as accepting that might is right. What you are doing is to defend Turkish Lebensraum.
 
Do you not realize how deeply shocking what you write is? Kemal Ataturk was a genocidal maniac. What makes you think the Turks have more value than other people? The areas given to the Greeks had a majority of Greeks and the areas given to the Armenians used to have it before the genocidal young Turks massacred them in the Armenian genocide. To let the Turks keep those areas were the same as accepting that might is right. What you are doing is to defend Turkish Lebensraum.

I'm saying that both sides accepted that might makes right, so it's silly to look at the matter any other way. And more importantly, that also goes for the Western powers that were taking advantage of all of this. Did Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds deserve their own nations? Yes, yes they did. But it was only going to happen on British/French/Italian terms, and for the Kurds, at least, that probably meant no real nation at all. Armenia would probably have become an economic satellite as well, in time. I'm surprised you singled out that post of mine to quote, though, and not the one before, since this one is clearly more concerned with the implications of the "zones of influence" that you've been glossing over. And that's the ugly context that mars your righteous fury here - the only "justice" that could be done for the Turks' victims would primarily benefit nations with even more blood on their hands than the Turks, and probably would have turned the oppressed into oppressors, at least in certain areas. There was no justice to be had in these circumstances because nobody cared about justice.
 
Lastly, do you think there'd have been as much ethnic cleansing of Greeks if they hadn't done their damnedest to act like invaders?

Yes. The deliberate ethnic cleansing against Ottoman Greeks started before WWI and Greece's invasion of Anatolia.

It's also useful to look at the fate of the Armenians, the Ottoman Empire's "most loyal millet" (minority).
 
I guess West Armenia should have been returned to Armenian control. Transport the local Turks across the border to Turkey. Although having a lower population density , it would be safer without Turks
 
In the long run those areas of independence would have disappeared anyway. I agree that the treaty was not perfect, but it was far better than the ultimate result. The areas given to Greece was in no way to large compared to the amount of Greeks living in Asia Minor. The best would of course have been that no matter where the borders were put, each state accepted minority rights and that everyone were allowed to stay were they already lived. When that was not possible, it was reasonable that the areas were given to the groups that had most people staying there. As for the Kurds, their chance for eventually becoming independent would probably have been better if they had been controlled by some other power than Turkey (they could hardly have been smaller).
 
Yes. The deliberate ethnic cleansing against Ottoman Greeks started before WWI and Greece's invasion of Anatolia.

It's also useful to look at the fate of the Armenians, the Ottoman Empire's "most loyal millet" (minority).

Point taken. Even so, colonial rule would have simply meant the elevation of new ruling classes to be the new oppressors, so I still don't see it as an improvement.
 
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.

And large areas of Greece had Muslim populations who spoke only Greek, but because they were adherents of the Islamic faith they were deemed "Turks" and were thus forced out of their homes. As well as many others. As much as I like Greece, it was built on ethnic cleansing of people that did not quite "fit" the pseudo-phihellene Western European conception of what Greece should be, and the Greek people have suffered tremendously because of it. In effect, it continues the stereotype of the Balkans as being built on genocide and ethnic cleansing. The end result was brilliantly analyzed in the book The Misfortune of Being Greek.

So, implementing the Treaty of Sevres, keeping that in mind, would have been a total disaster. Iraq and Syria would have been much more unstable than they were IOTL. We already know that Greece treated much of its population in Anatolia very badly (particularly if one was anti-Venizelist), and the expansion into Anatolia was not supported by Greeks as a whole, so the catastrophe would be much greater. All one ends up doing is setting the place up not just for territorial revanchism on the part of the Turks, but also making the place ripe for a potential Soviet takeover - which would not go down well, indeed. So this woyld be a disaster waiting to happen and make Bosnia seem like child's play in comparison. And let's be honest - do we really want that? I wouldn't.
 
And large areas of Greece had Muslim populations who spoke only Greek, but because they were adherents of the Islamic faith they were deemed "Turks" and were thus forced out of their homes. As well as many others. As much as I like Greece, it was built on ethnic cleansing of people that did not quite "fit" the pseudo-phihellene Western European conception of what Greece should be, and the Greek people have suffered tremendously because of it. In effect, it continues the stereotype of the Balkans as being built on genocide and ethnic cleansing. The end result was brilliantly analyzed in the book The Misfortune of Being Greek.

So, implementing the Treaty of Sevres, keeping that in mind, would have been a total disaster. Iraq and Syria would have been much more unstable than they were IOTL. We already know that Greece treated much of its population in Anatolia very badly (particularly if one was anti-Venizelist), and the expansion into Anatolia was not supported by Greeks as a whole, so the catastrophe would be much greater. All one ends up doing is setting the place up not just for territorial revanchism on the part of the Turks, but also making the place ripe for a potential Soviet takeover - which would not go down well, indeed. So this woyld be a disaster waiting to happen and make Bosnia seem like child's play in comparison. And let's be honest - do we really want that? I wouldn't.

There were far more people expelled from what became Turkey than the other way around. I don´t defend neither, but that is a fact. As for Syria and Iraq, those areas were implemented according to the plan. I don´t see how things happening in Asia Minor should have any great effect on that. Soviet takeover? Why should this give the Soviet Union any greater power? I don´t really see the logic of you argument.
 
Point taken. Even so, colonial rule would have simply meant the elevation of new ruling classes to be the new oppressors, so I still don't see it as an improvement.

I actually agree that the Treaty of Sevres was unfair towards the Turkish population and highly undesirable.
Just wanted to point it out, as I think there's a not quite accurate stereotype of savage, violent Balkan nations vs peaceful, tolerant Ottomans.
 
I actually agree that the Treaty of Sevres was unfair towards the Turkish population and highly undesirable.
Just wanted to point it out, as I think there's a not quite accurate stereotype of savage, violent Balkan nations vs peaceful, tolerant Ottomans.

Why was it unfair?
 
Quasi-colonial "zones of influence"; also Armenia should have been larger than it ended up in OTL but not - I think - that large.

The area given to Armenia was possibly a bit to large, but not so with the area given to Greece. I cannot recall the exact numbers, but the number of Greeks expelled from Turkey was a lot larger than the other way around.
 
The area given to Armenia was possibly a bit to large, but not so with the area given to Greece. I cannot recall the exact numbers, but the number of Greeks expelled from Turkey was a lot larger than the other way around.

That's because the population exchanges required by the Treaty of Lausanne were not based on ethnicity (hence why there were Greeks that survived and allowed to remain in Turkey, primarily in Istanbul), but on religion. Basically, all Orthodox Christians were deemed "Greek" - whether or not they were of Greek ethnicity (indeed, a good portion of them were actually Turks) - while all Muslims were deemed "Turkish" - whether or not they were of Turkish ethnicity (and indeed, a good portion of them, as was demonstrated throughout Greek history every time they conquered new territory and went ahead with ethnic cleansing, were actually Greeks, Arvanites, and the like). You can imagine the problems with something like that.
 
The areas that ended up on each side would probably have been more fair if Orthodox Turkish speakers were considered Turks and were allowed to stay in Turkey. The result in OTL was that far more people were expelled from Turkey to Greece than the other way around. Of course, the best would be that no one had been expelled and that both states had protected minority rights, but the areas that Turkey ended up with were far too large considering how ethnicity was defined (that is on religion).
 
Some more limited bits might be possible - giving Greece the bits of Thrace and Asia Minor they had pluralities in, and maybe Constantinople as well, and Armenia a bigger chunk of their portion, and MAYBE carve off some more Kurds for the British and French.

Beyond that though, the Turks would reclaim the rest, but it would still make Greece and Armenia more powerful.
 
That's because the population exchanges required by the Treaty of Lausanne were not based on ethnicity (hence why there were Greeks that survived and allowed to remain in Turkey, primarily in Istanbul), but on religion.

That depends on how you define ethnicity...IMO the core aspect is a sense of vague solidarity and common identity. And that common identity in the Balkans was based on religion as much as on language, and often more so than on language. Pan-Islamic and Pan-Orthodox common currents were much stronger than the relations between Christians and Muslims who speak the same language. By 1922 that was much less the case, but there was still some truth to it. So the decision to include all Orthodox and all Muslims in the population exchange was not much weirder or more problematic then a purely linguistic population exchange would have been.
 
That depends on how you define ethnicity...IMO the core aspect is a sense of vague solidarity and common identity. And that common identity in the Balkans was based on religion as much as on language, and often more so than on language. Pan-Islamic and Pan-Orthodox common currents were much stronger than the relations between Christians and Muslims who speak the same language. By 1922 that was much less the case, but there was still some truth to it. So the decision to include all Orthodox and all Muslims in the population exchange was not much weirder or more problematic then a purely linguistic population exchange would have been.

But why then were Orthodox people living in Asia Minor speaking Turkish considered Greek? Couldn't they just as well have been considered Bulgarian, Serb or Romanian? It is especially strange that religion was considered so important, since the new Turkish state was supposed to be secular.

I started a related thread about whether Greece could have been given Cyprus in the treaty of Lausanne (as compensation for territories lost in Asia Minor): https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...n-to-greece-in-the-treaty-of-lausanne.391497/

This thread about Constantinople is also relevant for the discussion about the breakup of the Ottoman Empire: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/orthodox-constantinople-by-1950.362541/
 
But why then were Orthodox people living in Asia Minor speaking Turkish considered Greek? Couldn't they just as well have been considered Bulgarian, Serb or Romanian? It is especially strange that religion was considered so important, since the new Turkish state was supposed to be secular.

Well, there were actual Orthodox Greeks in Asia Minor, but little to no Bulgarians, Serbs and such. The Turkish-speaking Orthodox used the Greek alphabet, and they often considered themselves "Romans" or "Greeks".
 
Top