The Consequences of a Greek Victory in the 1919-22 Greco-Turkish War

[Yakman]

Psychological horror might be a good vague term for it, i suppose

Basically i write short stories (most are up to 10 pages) which are often centered on the hallucinations (or other special twists of thought) of a narrator who is isolated and estranged. They tend to have ominous forms or a sense of impeding catastrophe. So i am happy that i am published!

So... you are H.P. Lovecraft.

Instead of Providence, you are in Thessaloniki. Otherwise, the exact same... do you have a racial-insult cat?

 

[Abnninja]

Yerm,

I agree with your post. My post is strictly related to HoI and the outcomes I see through game play based on an alternate history where Greece wins their war with Turkey and becomes a (somewhat) more powerful nation both economically and militarily. Both of these outcomes and the alternate reality they bring with them are complete conjecture. As for what could/would have happened after the war...well, that's something I'll leave to Harry Turtledove.

 

[Yakman]

Back to topic:

Greece could have beaten Turkey, which was relying almost entirely on Ataturk's superb leadership to hold it together. Had he drank a bit too much whiskey one night...

Turkey instead of being a Mediterranean state would be an Anatolian one, and probably look a lot more like Syria (bad government, diverse and fractious population, not enough industry). I would imagine that the remaining modernists in the Turkish government would have been easy marks for the Bolsheviks. We would probably see an economically revitalized Greece making inroads yearly towards gaining suzerainty over Constantinople - the day this happens, the Greek government makes it their capital - while a Soviet-puppet state emerges in Turkey.

In WW2, Greece is much stronger than it was historically. I doubt Mussolini dares to attack it, thus avoiding the snare that it became. Hitler still has his paratroops, since they aren't massacred in Crete. Dunno if that makes much of a difference overall, but Greece isn't occupied by the Nazis, and probably remains neutral til near the end of the war, when it sides with the Allies after the war is already decided. Not being occupied, there is no Greek Civil War in the late 1940s, and its questionable what happens in terms of Greece joining NATO, although I suspect they become a member state, while Turkey remains left out. Greece annexes Cyprus in the 1970s and boots out the Turks, causing a massive Cold War crisis.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Abnninja]

This seems plausible. So, 1. saying that Greece had better leaders, 2. Kemal had a very bad couple of nights lost in raki (arak), and 3. Italy and France allowed this to happen by allowing supplies, reinforcements, and new units to the Greek army in Turkey we would probably have a world largely looking like today, with one more problem child (rump Turkey) and one fewer (possibly) nearly bankrupt country (Greece).

Perhaps Greece should have used their spies to deliver some hashish laden ouzo to Ataturk as a sort of modern Trojan Horse. After all, one should always beware a Greek bearing gifts!

 

[diegosimeone]

Back to topic:

Greece could have beaten Turkey, which was relying almost entirely on Ataturk's superb leadership to hold it together.

Well, one could argue that Greece was relying entirely on supplies from the British and French, too.

The internal politics of Greece in the aftermath of these events are very complicated and there's too much detail.


I think we all agree that WW2 would occur no matter what as this war's outcome has nothing to do with those events.
The biggest question is, is Turkey the only state coming out of the Ottoman Empire or does it get split into more pieces? If it's the second, history is completely altered and we cannot really assume anything. For discussions' sake, I think we're all assuming that Turkey is the one thing that pops out of that formerly vast empire.

Greece would probably consider going the opposite of Bulgaria and Italy in case of a war, though I think Italy would look for a friend in Greece in case Greece is the major player of the region.
Remember that Greece would still have 4 core regions it wanted for after WW2: Eastern Rumelia (Bulgaria), Northern Epirus(Albania), the Dodecanese (Italy) and Cyprus(UK). Greece would not go to war against the UK over Cyprus. It could simply march to Albania any time during the interwar period and take over its core region. I'm not sure what the population figures in Eastern Rumelia was at the time and how many Greeks live there, but it seems like an awfully big area to claim especially when Turkey still possesses eastern Thrace. In this timeline, Turkey would not possess Thrace and the Constantinople region would either be controlled by Greece or by the UK and France, meaning that it would actually be possible to gain these lands in a WW2 victory over Bulgaria among the rest. As for the Dodecanese, I think Italy would cede them back to Greece during the next 10-20 years no matter what happens during WW2 between them. Greece could gain the islands earlier in case of a victory over Italy. Just a reminder that those islands would be semi-surrounded by Greek soil in this reality.

 

[Yakman]

It really depends on how stupid the Greeks are.

They defeat the Ottomans, and take Ionia. An astonishing victory (And the premise for this alternate history).

IF they are smart, they shut up and take their win. But... this is the early 20th century. People are totally stupid, particularly in Europe. It's possible that freshly victorious Greece decides to bite off more than it can chew and invade Bulgaria and/or Albania, triggering a Third Balkan War - in which case, I suspect Greece not only loses in Europe, but loses its winnings in Ionia.

 

[Abnninja]

Would Greece go after those four core areas after WW II or do you think they might try after WW I? I ask this because had they actually beaten Turkey in 1922 or 23 they would have been hugely emboldened.

 

[Abnninja]

Yakman,

You are so spot on with your last post. I think they are emboldened and emboldened too soon. By that I mean before they can digest what they already won.

 

[diegosimeone]

It really depends on how stupid the Greeks are.

They defeat the Ottomans, and take Ionia. An astonishing victory (And the premise for this alternate history).

IF they are smart, they shut up and take their win. But... this is the early 20th century. People are totally stupid, particularly in Europe. It's possible that freshly victorious Greece decides to bite off more than it can chew and invade Bulgaria and/or Albania, triggering a Third Balkan War - in which case, I suspect Greece not only loses in Europe, but loses its winnings in Ionia.

I agree on principle. But I don't think Greece walking into Albania in 1930something triggers any war. Bulgaria and Turkey would not be interested, I'm not sure Yugoslavia would care that much about the rest of Albania. Italy is the only contestant I see there and Mussolini was sort of a pacifist until the mid 1930s. I doubt Italy cares about a Greek expedition in Albania unless Yugoslavia also enters so that they have a reason to go for Istria etc.

Greece moving to land owned by Bulgaria is not something that Greece would do in the interwar, only during a potential WW2 conflict between the two.

 

[diegosimeone]

Would Greece go after those four core areas after WW II or do you think they might try after WW I? I ask this because had they actually beaten Turkey in 1922 or 23 they would have been hugely emboldened.

I think only Albania would have been the choice in a non-massive scale global/european warfare environment. Greek politicians might have been proven unworthy in the aftermath of the 1922 events, but in case of a victory, the Greeks would have a more competent political scene imo. Greece had semi-competent politicians but also have many that only cared about themselves in the first 100 years of the newly formed state. The latter took entirely over after what came to be known as the destruction at Anatolia.

What is definite, is that Greece would probably still not have a stable political system so everything goes really. But I trust that there would be an end to the 'greediness' of war. Greece has been in war constantly since the late 19th century mind you. Realpolitik would eventually struck. The war we're discussing was make or break for the modern Greek state. What we're seeing in Greece for almost 100 years is the result of that war. For example, Greece would be less centralized (not half the people living in Athens), the urban centers would have been more in numbers and less crowded. Greece politically would have been a bigger regional player.

I think it'd be interesting to show on a map what Greece might have looked like in the case of a victory over the Ottoman/Turks. I might try and get a map to illustrate what I have in mind.

 

[Abnninja]

I agree on principle. But I don't think Greece walking into Albania in 1930something triggers any war. Bulgaria and Turkey would not be interested, I'm not sure Yugoslavia would care that much about the rest of Albania. Italy is the only contestant I see there and Mussolini was sort of a pacifist until the mid 1930s. I doubt Italy cares about a Greek expedition in Albania unless Yugoslavia also enters so that they have a reason to go for Istria etc.

Greece moving to land owned by Bulgaria is not something that Greece would do in the interwar, only during a potential WW2 conflict between the two.

How interesting. So, in this alternate history Greece goes after part of Albania, Yugoslavia takes offense and mobilizes, Italy sees an opportunity and attacks Yugoslavia as Greece's ally. Now wouldn't be a turn.

 

[diegosimeone]

How interesting. So, in this alternate history Greece goes after part of Albania, Yugoslavia takes offense and mobilizes, Italy sees an opportunity and attacks Yugoslavia as Greece's ally. Now wouldn't be a turn.

Well, I just think that's the only scenario where a Greek aggression post-1922 and pre-1939 means that there's a bigger conflict in the picture. Italy had claims on Yugoslav soil. Fiume/Rijeka for example was a big thing in Italy in the mid-20s. Italy also had its eyes set on Albania and iirc had some sort of protectorate there for a while. There was also the element of an Italian "betrayal" in Greek sentiments about the northern Epirus situation back in WW1 (check "Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus"). We're talking about a region that Greece has sought after for decades and the population there spoke and felt Greek, at least in majority. It's the only target realistic for Greece in the interwar.

Now, I was simply replying to Yakman's suggestion that a 3rd Balkan war could be triggered in the interwar period. I don't think that happens in a Greco-Albanian conflict that would be settled in days. Only Italy would intervene and that's not really possible unless the Yugoslavs also see an opportunity to gain more land. If that means that the Bulgarians would react, I don't really know as it's all hypothetical. What I do know is that the new Turkish nation is far away from the Balkans in any scenario regarding this, so Balkan wars with Turkey involved in the interwar following a Turkish defeat is not possible. Not sure what Romania's and Austria's stance would be, but I don't think Balkan war is an option if Greece sees external reactions to annexing northern Epirus, which was a justifiable claim. It also depends on when this happens, so let's just say it's within 10 years at the most. So by 1932. I don't think anyone other than Italy believes to be ready to go to any sort of war.

 

[Yakman]

I agree on principle. But I don't think Greece walking into Albania in 1930something triggers any war. Bulgaria and Turkey would not be interested, I'm not sure Yugoslavia would care that much about the rest of Albania. Italy is the only contestant I see there and Mussolini was sort of a pacifist until the mid 1930s. I doubt Italy cares about a Greek expedition in Albania unless Yugoslavia also enters so that they have a reason to go for Istria etc.

Greece moving to land owned by Bulgaria is not something that Greece would do in the interwar, only during a potential WW2 conflict between the two.

The stupidity and grasping nature of Balkan nationalists is one thing that should never be underestimated.

 

[diegosimeone]

The stupidity and grasping nature of Balkan nationalists is one thing that should never be underestimated.

Indeed. Btw, do you think that if Greece wins this war it keeps the Muslim/Turkish populace or is there a population exchange at place? Most of the rest of the Greek population was centered around the Pontus region: Trabzon, Samsun, Sinop etc. Some of those areas, Trabzon in particular, may have been given to Armenia as well so a new Turkish nation would be sort of trapped in such a scenario imo. This was in the Sevres treaty btw.

 

[Yakman]

Indeed. Btw, do you think that if Greece wins this war it keeps the Muslim/Turkish populace or is there a population exchange at place? Most of the rest of the Greek population was centered around the Pontus region: Trabzon, Samsun, Sinop etc. Some of those areas, Trabzon in particular, may have been given to Armenia as well so a new Turkish nation would be sort of trapped in such a scenario imo. This was in the Sevres treaty btw.

Honestly, I think the expel the Turks but leave the Pontic Greeks where they are as a means to keep a fifth column or a pretext for a future war in place. The Ottomans would likely be in such a chaotic disarray that they might go in for another genocide, triggering a second invasion from the victorious Greek Army.

Who knows?

But I'm pretty sure the Greeks were in for the ethnic cleansing (in their own lands) from the get go.

 

[diegosimeone]

But I'm pretty sure the Greeks were in for the ethnic cleansing (in their own lands) from the get go.

That's obviously true, they at least wanted a significant majority (70% or more, not a total annihilation unless it had to come to that). But the issue was that there was confusion as to who was ethnically Greek. Church supporters only wanted Greek speaking Christians while others such as Ion Dragoumis for example weren't as discriminitive. People like Dragoumis were in command at the time, Venizelos was similar and had supported what came to be known as Hellenoturkism.

 

[krieger11b]

It would have had quite an effect on WW2 if Greece had some of the areas that Turkish tungsten was coming from and helping Germany keeping their tungsten core penetrators in their armor piercing ammunition. Plus have jet engines that lasted more than 20 hours or so before either being removed and recycled or exploding while the plane was still in flight.

 

[Minodrin]

Would a Greek win in 1922 necessarily make it stronger? Bigger does not always equal stronger.
Because now, even with a sea between Greece and Turkey, they are hostile to each other. Wouldn't a Turkey that lost in 1922 be very, very interested in winning that land back? And Greece would know this.
So I predict that Greece has an even bigger siege mentality than now, and spends its' wealth on useless military things. And a military victory like this won't make the Greeks good tax-payers either; so the Greek economy won't be stronger than it would have been in our world. After all, wasn't much of the Anatolian greek population in any case moved to Greece; so the amount of population would be pretty much the same.

 

[SorelusImperion]

Taking back Anatolia would allow Greece to pick the "reform Byzantium" decision and restore the Themes as well. So no question bigger is better. Sooner or later The Mamel... ehm Egypt could be used as ally to wipe out whatever turkish remnant remains. Today Constantinople Tomorrow Alexandria.

 

[diegosimeone]

Would a Greek win in 1922 necessarily make it stronger? Bigger does not always equal stronger.
Because now, even with a sea between Greece and Turkey, they are hostile to each other. Wouldn't a Turkey that lost in 1922 be very, very interested in winning that land back? And Greece would know this.
So I predict that Greece has an even bigger siege mentality than now, and spends its' wealth on useless military things. And a military victory like this won't make the Greeks good tax-payers either; so the Greek economy won't be stronger than it would have been in our world. After all, wasn't much of the Anatolian greek population in any case moved to Greece; so the amount of population would be pretty much the same.

The tax-paying thing is a post-1974 or post-1981 thing, not an inherent mentality of Greeks. The birth of that mentality came with this 1922 loss. First, the vast numbers of refugess (population grew by 50% or something overnight), then the WW2 resistance and its aftermath ('Nationals' vs 'Reds' war) and those who claimed pensions for 'resistance' being x3 times more than the actual figure but by the 60s and early 70s Greeks were mostly law abiding citizens. The fall of the junta regime and the lack of a justice system since the late 40s was essential for this mentality that Greece has now. A 1922 victory is a catalyst to what we live today. It completely ruined Greece, it was make or break as I said in a previous post.