AHC: The Greco-Turkish War Ends in a Stalemate.

[Basileus_Komnenos]

What sort of circumstances would it take for the Greco-Turkish war which essentially was won by Turkey and was a catastrophic defeat for Greece, to more or less end in a stalemate?

I'm thinking Greece keeps East Thrace and keeps some of the hinterland surrounding Smynra in the region (a much reduced "Ioania") and the Straits are effectively made an international zone.

What would be the political aftermath of the war ending this way in both Greece and Turkey? How would this impact WWII?

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Have Kemal die in WW1.

 

[Pauh the federalist]

What sort of circumstances would it take for the Greco-Turkish war which essentially was won by Turkey and was a catastrophic defeat for Greece, to more or less end in a stalemate?

I'm thinking Greece keeps East Thrace and keeps some of the hinterland surrounding Smynra in the region (a much reduced "Ioania") and the Straits are effectively made an international zone.

What would be the political aftermath of the war ending this way in both Greece and Turkey? How would this impact WWII?

Unless you plan on a earlier POD the latest possible POD to force a stale mate would be the British deciding to intervine at the "buzzer" by using thier navy and troops to prevent turkish troops from crossing the straits into Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanak_Crisis

Assuming despite being abandoned by thier allys the British stay to bail out the Greeks with enough troops to force a stalemate like you are asking with a nearly equal combined British-Greek force of 28214 defending against 28000 turkish who will need to conduct a successful amphibious assault to cross the straits in opposition likley British naval interfere of troop transports. The British forces still in anitolia stationed in Canakkle without the straits as a natural barrier may still be forced out and need to retreat to Gallipoli but aside from that without being able to breach the straits the front likley stalls and with a combination of time and the British possibly using thier navy to enforce a blocade of turky (a blockade outside of the straits to prevent troop crossings is unessisary but brings the turks to the nagotiating table quicker) to prevent them from receiving overseas military/economic aid (this will not stop soviat overland aid) with the intent of eventually bringing the turks begrudgingly to the nagotiating table to formalize the fronts as the new post war border.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Replace Harington at Chanak / Cannakale with Hubert Gough - an aggressive general with points to prove.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

The Greeks should have consolidated their positions in Ionia and remained in the original allocation instead of driving deep into the Anatolian heartland.

 

[Pauh the federalist]

Replace Harington at Chanak / Cannakale with Hubert Gough - an aggressive general with points to prove.

If the British somehow hold on to Cannakle even if it's just the coast in order to control both sides of the straits that would leave Troy in Greek control which outside of controling the straits would also be a important archeological and cultural land mark for the greeks. Troy is about 6 kilometers from the coast so in theory close enough that the British navy could support defenders since naval fire support could function around 2 to 4 times that distance in this era (obviously the British cant fire on the ruins of Troy but the naval range gives us a idea of how hard inland they might be able to retain control if they need to lean on naval support to hold thier position on the Anatolian side of the straits)

Troy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Naval artillery - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Naval gunfire support - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Have Kemal die in WW1.

What about this, how about both Mustafa Kemal and King Constantine both die at Sakarya. The battle was called the "Officers' Battle" due to the high rate of casualties among them. With both the key leadership of the military dead and both armies in disarray, would either side be willing or able to escalate the fighting?

With Constantine's death I can imagine that instead being blamed for the catastrophe, he becomes a sort of martyr since he died in battle like what Empress Eugenie wanted for Napoleon III who got captured at Sedan.

I can imagine what's left of the Greek Army holds a defensive line in Ionia, though how much they control would be debatable.

If the British somehow hold on to Cannakle even if it's just the coast in order to control both sides of the straits that would leave Troy in Greek control which outside of controlimg the straits would also be a important archeological and cultural land mark for the greeks.

Troy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

View attachment 891916

I can imagine the British with Constantine dead, would be more amenable to helping the Greeks. And even if Venizelos does return, I don't expect the monarchy to be overthrown per se, but to still be ruling in a somewhat tenous and shaky position.

What do you think @Lascaris?

The Greeks should have consolidated their positions in Ionia and remained in the original allocation instead of driving deep into the Anatolian heartland.

That would be an option, but part of the reason why they advanced was because they were being raided by hostile turkish forces.

Unless you plan on a earlier POD the latest possible POD to force a stale mate would be the British deciding to intervine at the "buzzer" by using thier navy and troops to prevent turkish troops from crossing the straits into Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanak_Crisis

Could this end up with Constantinople being split? The Eastern half in Asia minor would stay in Turkey's hands while Greece would probably end up taking control of East Thrace and eventually the European half.

I guess "Istanbul" assuming its even called that, would be referring tot he Asian half. I'm guessing the Turkish state would do this to try and mitigate the impact of such a loss of face.

 

[Lascaris]

What about this, how about both Mustafa Kemal and King Constantine both die at Sakarya. The battle was called the "Officers' Battle" due to the high rate of casualties among them. With both the key leadership of the military dead and both armies in disarray, would either side be willing or able to escalate the fighting?

Constantine never commanded in Asia Minor. He did visit Smyrna at the time of the summer offensive but that's about the size of it.

With Constantine's death I can imagine that instead being blamed for the catastrophe, he becomes a sort of martyr since he died in battle like what Empress Eugenie wanted for Napoleon III who got captured at Sedan.

To die in battle he would actually have to be in the battle. And if you have Constantine actually commanding in summer 1921 despite his decrepit health you change too many things. Papoulas, the actual commander of the Army of Asia Minor had no proper military education, he wasn't even a graduate of the military academy and his last active command when he was put in charge was a regiment back in 1912-13. BUT despite the complete lack of credentials or for that matter talent he was a confidant of Gounaris, the leading anti-Venizelist politician. Constantine for all his other faults might had not been a great commander but was a solid one who had led armies in three wars. And if your aim is a stalemate you don't want a solid commander on the Greek side on the strategically decisive battles around Kutahya when the Turkish army came close to disaster with the Greeks led by the the incompetent Papoulas.

I can imagine what's left of the Greek Army holds a defensive line in Ionia, though how much they control would be debatable.

I can imagine the British with Constantine dead, would be more amenable to helping the Greeks. And even if Venizelos does return, I don't expect the monarchy to be overthrown per se, but to still be ruling in a somewhat tenous and shaky position.

The British were short of willing to provide a loan even with Constantine around by 1922. But anyway. The goal here is for the Greeks to fail to defeat the Turkish army but for the Greek army to not be decisively defeated in August 1922 as well. And this unlike what one might have expected is... reasonably easy to do. How so? Just to list errors off the top of my head, The Greeks

1. When pulling back from Sakarya in 1921 and have the initiative in selecting the defensive line to hold, fail to keep tactically important heights right on the line with seriously detrimental effects when the Turkish offensive comes.
2. They fail to properly dig in despite having a year to do so. The results are visible during the actual offensive with the not properly dug in IV Infantry division getting smashed and the properly dug in 5th Infantry Regiment of the I Infantry Division at Hassan Bel beating back all attacks, by the Turkish 57th Infantry Division.
3. In the chosen defensive position in the Afyon salient, place all 8 divisions on the line with NO operational reserves.
4. Stick to the Afyon salient in the first place when operationally the defensive line to hold would be in Dumlu Pinar further to the west, which is shorter and stronger. When Papoulas gets sacked in summer 1922 the new commander Hatzianestis proposes doing just that. The Turkish offensive comes before.
5. Actually pull out 5 Infantry regiments in summer 1922 because the new commander Hatzianestis fears... the Bulgarians in Thrace. If 5 regiments do not sound much, the Greek army of Asia Minor has 12 infantry divisions ie... 36 regiments. This while the same Hatzianestis is correctly insisting he has no reserves.
6. Continue to f$%^ up by the numbers their command arrangements. The proven incompetent Papoulas remains in command till summer 1922 and at that point is replaceded by Hatzianestis. The poor man probably was not crazy as later histories say... but for certain had been sacked from command of his division in 1915. His next command? Why the entire Army of Asia Minor seven years later. Just for good measure, at the corps level Hatzianestis removes the joint command of the Greek A and B corps at Afyon preffering to lead them directly... from Smyrna. Oh and the recently promoted Trikoupis in command of one of the two corps has been the least successful divisional commander in 1921.

If I was writing such a comedy of errors in an alternate history I would be told it was ASB.

Could this end up with Constantinople being split? The Eastern half in Asia minor would stay in Turkey's hands while Greece would probably end up taking control of East Thrace and eventually the European half.

Technically per Sevres Greece got East Thrace. Sans a complete collapse of the Greek army in Anatolia like OTL its exceedingly unlikely the Greeks can be pushed out of it given geography and complete naval superiority. Would exchanging withdrawal from Smyrna for Greece annexing everything up to the Bosporus be plausible? One must note that as Lloyd George correctly pointed by 1922, the Allied occupation of Constantinople effectively amounted to the Allies protecting the nominal Turkish capital from Greek occupation at a time they ostensibly were at war with Turkey and Greece was fighting in their name.

 

[Hungry-Owl]

Assuming French and British troops remain in Constantinople/Istanbul during the interwar years, how would they react once France surrenders in June 1940? the city provides a valuable base that can be used to bomb oil fields in Romania but it hasn't joined the war just yet. I think British troops would be evacuated following Dunkirk, they are needed elsewhere and can't really hold the city if a) Bulgaria allows German troops to pass through and b) their French allies refuse to fight. This gives Greece and Turkey a chance to try and seize the city, restarting the war. One of them might end up joining the Axis.

This would also have consequences for the Italian invasion of Greece. If Greece can successfully integrate the conquered territories in the 1920s-1930s, they will be a lot stronger than they were historically and Italy might not invade them. On the other hand, most of their military will probably be deployed to the Turkish border in preparation for a continuation of the war, and the Albanian border might be left undefended.

And...
Once WW2 ends, assuming the Allies re-occupy the straits, it would be interesting to see Istanbul/Constantinople develop as an independent city-state.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Assuming French and British troops remain in Constantinople/Istanbul during the interwar years, how would they react once France surrenders in June 1940? the city provides a valuable base that can be used to bomb oil fields in Romania but it hasn't joined the war just yet.

I mean both Greece and Turkey probably haven’t joined sides yet with both essentially probably hedging their bets. Though once news of the defeat at Dunkirk and France's fall spreads, I'm betting that Turkey would be gunning to join the Axis powers as Greece would be seen as leaning pro-Western Allies. Hitler would be likely to accept such an alliance as he'd want Turkey to help obtain the Russian oil fields in the Caucuses.

Turkey also weakened by the war, might have lost some territory to the soviets who might have been pressing their claims. Either way, if they don't press their claims during the interwar years, Stain is going to probably press it in the aftermath of WW2 where you'd probably see bouts of ethnic cleansing similar to what happened to Lwow in otl where Polish Galicia was ethnically cleansed of its population and East Germany lost its Eastern lands.

Then again, Italy would probably be somewhat hesitant to take on Greece compared to otl, as they might seem a lot stronger than in our timeline. So after the fall of France, I expect Greece to immediately send missives to London warning of an imminent Turkish attack. Greece no doubt would be a theatre of major importance to the allies in Europe.

Once WW2 ends, assuming the Allies re-occupy the straits, it would be interesting to see Istanbul/Constantinople develop as an independent city-state.

I doubt "Istanbul" would end up as an independent city state. Greece has historic claims on it and after shedding blood to help defend against Axis Tyranny there would be a strong case to take the city.

During the aftermath of the British defeat in France, I could see Greece ally closely with Yugoslavia. Greece might just straight up annex the European part of the city as the British evacuate the city, and with their navy, they'd be able to cut off the Turks from the straits.

Though they'd also have the issue of Smyrna as that would face unrest from local turks and the Turkish army trying to take it.

 

[sarahz]

What sort of circumstances would it take for the Greco-Turkish war which essentially was won by Turkey and was a catastrophic defeat for Greece, to more or less end in a stalemate?

I'm thinking Greece keeps East Thrace and keeps some of the hinterland surrounding Smynra in the region (a much reduced "Ioania") and the Straits are effectively made an international zone.

What would be the political aftermath of the war ending this way in both Greece and Turkey? How would this impact WWII?

Given that a different outcome here could stop the 1922 Committee forming and leave the British coalition Government of L-G in charge at least for some time its going to have more butterflies than just in the Balkans.......