Historically, the Treaty of Sevres was the treaty initially enforced on Turkey after WW1. However, due to the Turkish War of Independence, it proved to be stillborn, replaced with the Treaty of Lausanne, but what if the Turkish War of Independence was a defeat for the Turks? What happens afterwards? How does the Middle East develop in such a scenario?
Aftermath of an enforced Treaty of Sevres
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
I wonder what the goals of this fascist Turkey would look like? I could see some radicals call for the restoration of the borders of the Ottoman Empire pre-WW1 at the very least.
Probably just a total reclamation of the borders, but at the same time, depends on who takes over. Someone smart could easily just go for a smaller set of territory, a still massive increase over their current status, but not totally unmanagable.
So, what would be the maximum goal of this Axis Turkey? I could see pragmatic factions pushing for OTL Turkey+some border regions while radical factions would push either for Pan-Turanism or reclaiming Ottoman-era borders.
I'd say OTL Turkish borders, with maybe some cleaned up areas towards Russia and Greece.
The thing is, this to them is less a matter of new land, as it is revenge. Turkey's been called the Sick Man of Europe for centuries, and when they try to stand up and show that they're not, they get slapped down.
This time, they'll prove their detractors wrong. They'll probably spend the entire period leading up to '39 prepping for it. Training, observing, taking everything into account this time. Maybe they won't bother with the stupid focus on oppressing ethnicities, bring up that no matter what a man worships or where he comes from, if he stands alongside you and fights, he's a Turk.
That's not happening as Christians and Jews weren't considered Turks
Kurds like otl will likely be considered as mountain Turks by the Turkish government
Well, that is what I see the pragmatists pushing for. The radicals would probably push for some vague notion of "Turkic unity" or reclaiming the borders of the Ottoman Empire.
trajen777
Banned
So treaty in place..
1 population exchange .. Usa supports Armenia nation..
2 turkey joins axis .. Greece Armenia conquored
3 gb fights more defensive war in Africa defending me from Turks
4 axis loses but maybe in 46 .. Can't see Turks having sufficient forces to do much vs ussr, but german forces can cause some havoc
5 Greece regains land in turkey .. Plus Constantinople , and Thrace (defence able) with allied base
6 independent kurd land, Armenia, turkeish population moved partly to ussr
1 population exchange .. Usa supports Armenia nation..
2 turkey joins axis .. Greece Armenia conquored
3 gb fights more defensive war in Africa defending me from Turks
4 axis loses but maybe in 46 .. Can't see Turks having sufficient forces to do much vs ussr, but german forces can cause some havoc
5 Greece regains land in turkey .. Plus Constantinople , and Thrace (defence able) with allied base
6 independent kurd land, Armenia, turkeish population moved partly to ussr
My take is a sort of dysfunctional republic of oligarchs is more likely. Assorted factions of the wealthy squabbling over this residual impoverished Turkish state. Some sort of facist party or doctrine may emerge, but I cant see this state as of any practical attraction to Germany or Italy in any major way.
I'm also looking at the potential for Greece in this. First off there is the cost of asorbing the Ionian refugees in the 1920s waived away. Second there is the economic benefit of owning Iornia. The net gain from these two is large in the context of the Greek economy in the 1920s. It makes Greece ultimately stronger, and may even waive away a Italian attack in 1940, thus extending Greek neutrality through WWII. If the Italians do attack their defeat may be such British intervention is unneeded & there is still a possibility of a neutral Greece during the war.
A third item affecting Greece is the status of Constantinople through to 1940 & beyond. It is not impossible Greece can gain control of that territory later in the 1920s or thirties.
Then there is the situation of the other territories sectioned off in the Severes treaty. Who retains control of those through the 1930s? In 1941 who controls the Chromium mines, & other critical mineral deposits in modern Turkey?
So, would the Turkish fascists which arise after Sevres being enforced be relatively level-headed in their expansionist ambitions or would Pan-Turanism or reclaiming Ottoman borders be part of their expansionism or a mixture of both with relatively moderate factions pushing for the former and radical factions pushing the latter?
thaddeus
Donor
seems the most straightforward (realistic) change would be Greece could hold E. Thrace/European Turkey and (British) International Zone over Constantinople? (with the Turks glaring across the Straits)
with all parties exhausted none of the other aspects survive? that more closely mirrors historical situation?
I can see that as a likely outcome. I have now doubt the Greeks would make plans to secure the Constantinople region. But, the ability to execute any plans is a large variable. Very situational.