Independent Kurdestan
- Thread starter Norman
- Start date
http://www.hri.org/docs/sevres/map1.html
As I recall there was some talk about the possibility of doing so, that was what the plebescite area in the southeast of anatolia was for. If there was a Kurdish state though it would probably have been a British mandate, but perhaps not.
The best PoD I can think of is greater success for the Greeks in the Greco-Turkish war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919-1922)
That would keep Sevres enforced, which would mean a plebescite in the Kurdish areas. Of couse it would also mean Greece will have taken a fair bit of land from the Turks, maybe even to the point of pulling off the Megali Idea.
Turkish Armenia keeping it's independence might also have an effect of the Soviet-held portion of Armenia, creating even more butterflies. Armenian independence could potentially remove the Holocaust, as part of Hitler's reasoning was that no action was taken in response to the Ottoman massacres of Armenians in World War I. Not too likely, but it would be a nice thought.
Assuming Turkish Kurdistan goes independent in the plebescite (fairly likely I would imagine) the British would combine it with Mesopotamian Kurdistan to make a British mandate out of it. The Persian portion of Kurdistan could probably be obtained with a combination of threats and bribery by the British.
Armenia would likely maintain close ties with Greece due to shared religion and a common enemy in the Turks. Britain would also be an important ally. Relations with the Soviet Union and Turkey would be strained.
Greece would be a stronger force in the Balkans, and the monarchy would survive. With the Megali idea fulfilled Greece will be much larger in terms of both population and territory, and may move on to ambitions of dominating the rest of the Balkans and perhaps even dreams of restoring themselves to the borders of the Byzantine Empire. Conflict with the Soviet Union over the Straits will be an issue that may well drive Greece into an alliance with the Axis, as well as ambitions on Cyprus. The issue of Italian ownership of the Dodecanese might be a problem on getting Greece to join the Axis though, and perhaps Britain would gain Greek allegiance by offering a plebescite in Cyprus.
The Turkish remnant state is going to be extremely revanchist. A Soviet backed Communist regime is a good possibility, as the Turkish state will be desperately seeking a powerful benefactor to help them recover from the massive setback they have suffered.
Best way I can see for Greece to win the war is for the Liberal government to stay in power so that Greek forces are lead by competent commanders instead of political appointees. Having Kemal killed/removed from power might also be neccesary to give Greece a victory.
Of course, this ATL ends up being a lot more about Greece than Kurdistan. Kurdistan would likely end up much like the other British mandates in the Middle East, a somewhat secular regime ruled over by either a king or a dictator who bases his power on tribal ties.
As I recall there was some talk about the possibility of doing so, that was what the plebescite area in the southeast of anatolia was for. If there was a Kurdish state though it would probably have been a British mandate, but perhaps not.
The best PoD I can think of is greater success for the Greeks in the Greco-Turkish war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919-1922)
That would keep Sevres enforced, which would mean a plebescite in the Kurdish areas. Of couse it would also mean Greece will have taken a fair bit of land from the Turks, maybe even to the point of pulling off the Megali Idea.
Turkish Armenia keeping it's independence might also have an effect of the Soviet-held portion of Armenia, creating even more butterflies. Armenian independence could potentially remove the Holocaust, as part of Hitler's reasoning was that no action was taken in response to the Ottoman massacres of Armenians in World War I. Not too likely, but it would be a nice thought.
Assuming Turkish Kurdistan goes independent in the plebescite (fairly likely I would imagine) the British would combine it with Mesopotamian Kurdistan to make a British mandate out of it. The Persian portion of Kurdistan could probably be obtained with a combination of threats and bribery by the British.
Armenia would likely maintain close ties with Greece due to shared religion and a common enemy in the Turks. Britain would also be an important ally. Relations with the Soviet Union and Turkey would be strained.
Greece would be a stronger force in the Balkans, and the monarchy would survive. With the Megali idea fulfilled Greece will be much larger in terms of both population and territory, and may move on to ambitions of dominating the rest of the Balkans and perhaps even dreams of restoring themselves to the borders of the Byzantine Empire. Conflict with the Soviet Union over the Straits will be an issue that may well drive Greece into an alliance with the Axis, as well as ambitions on Cyprus. The issue of Italian ownership of the Dodecanese might be a problem on getting Greece to join the Axis though, and perhaps Britain would gain Greek allegiance by offering a plebescite in Cyprus.
The Turkish remnant state is going to be extremely revanchist. A Soviet backed Communist regime is a good possibility, as the Turkish state will be desperately seeking a powerful benefactor to help them recover from the massive setback they have suffered.
Best way I can see for Greece to win the war is for the Liberal government to stay in power so that Greek forces are lead by competent commanders instead of political appointees. Having Kemal killed/removed from power might also be neccesary to give Greece a victory.
Of course, this ATL ends up being a lot more about Greece than Kurdistan. Kurdistan would likely end up much like the other British mandates in the Middle East, a somewhat secular regime ruled over by either a king or a dictator who bases his power on tribal ties.
Hmmm., maybe the Kurds with their own independent country after WWI could become pretty pro-British, with the tough Kurdish PESHMERGA as another potential Gurkha-style force to be recruited by the British Army ?
BTW, when I wrote my thesis I came across an article in MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF INT'L LAW from approx 1995/96 about the int'l legal and political ramifications of an independent Kurdish nation-state.
BTW, when I wrote my thesis I came across an article in MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF INT'L LAW from approx 1995/96 about the int'l legal and political ramifications of an independent Kurdish nation-state.
So the Greeks win the Greco-Turkish War, probably with significant help from Western Europe, maybe England. As a result, they are granted the European portions of Turkey, including Constantinople, which they immediately rename.
Turkish Armenia is split from Turkey and joined to the rest of Armenia.
In addition, England determines that the Kurdish regions of Turkey should be joined with those of Norther Iraq.
Maybe an Armenian-Kurdish Federal State, I have no dubt it would eventually break up, but maybe at first????
Under these conditions the Turks will fester the injustice of it all, and by 1938 have allied themselves to the Germans and Italians.
WWII comes along and the Italians invade Greece, but are rebuffed, at the same time, Turkish forces invade from the East. Only the presence of German observers keeps the Turks from engaging in a massacre of the Greeks.
However, Turkish hatred is directed at the Greeks, and the Armenians and Kurds are left largely alone.
Does any of this make sense???
Turkish Armenia is split from Turkey and joined to the rest of Armenia.
In addition, England determines that the Kurdish regions of Turkey should be joined with those of Norther Iraq.
Maybe an Armenian-Kurdish Federal State, I have no dubt it would eventually break up, but maybe at first????
Under these conditions the Turks will fester the injustice of it all, and by 1938 have allied themselves to the Germans and Italians.
WWII comes along and the Italians invade Greece, but are rebuffed, at the same time, Turkish forces invade from the East. Only the presence of German observers keeps the Turks from engaging in a massacre of the Greeks.
However, Turkish hatred is directed at the Greeks, and the Armenians and Kurds are left largely alone.
Does any of this make sense???
Norman said:
I dare suggest that behaviour would be out of character, though, in the case of Greeks, explicable.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Sigh. For the last time, Hitler never made any comment about Armenians. The famous quote is a fabrication, as there are two transcripts of the speech in question, neither of which mention Armenians, and the speech was regarding Poland anyway, not the Jews. The quote was attached to an English translation later.
Turkish Armenia had zero Armenians in it, so its hard to see how Armenia had any chance of holding it. Historically, they were beaten back by very minor local Turkish forces while the entire Turkish military was facing the Greeks.
As far as plebicites go, you are most incorrect. The British squashed a plebicite because the Kurds overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the Ottoman Empire, which would have threatened British control of the Mesopotamian oilfields.
Kurdish-Turkish issues are quite recent, and stem from a huge Turkish overreaction to the Kurdish Marxist PKK, which was sponsored by the USSR and was separatist - and given the history of the later Ottoman Empire, this was a particularly scary topic for them.
As is not generally known by the unbelievable distortion spouted by virulently anti-Turkish groups, Kurds mix freely with Turks, everybody gets along well, and Kurds have occupied and do occupy many of the highest positions, including the Presidency - Turgut Ozal, Prime Minister and President for over ten years, was a Kurd. Several current ministers are Kurds.
In any case, the Kurds at the end of WWI were still largely nomadic, very tribal, and did not get along with each other. The creation of an independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria would have been a huge genocidal mess of tribal and ethnic conflict, and probably would have led to a union with Turkey in the end anyway.
It is a frequent error to assume that large areas are entirely inhabited by a single ethnicity. This is not the case. Even prior to WWI Turkish Armenia was about 80% Muslim, and "Kurdistan", while containing a Kurdish majority, still contains a very large number of Turks, Arabs, and other groups.
Also, half of Turkish Kurds do not live in the southeast, but rather in large urban centers like Istanbul, although this was less the case in 1918.
Finally, one of the hardest tasks the Ottomans faced was keeping the Armenians and Greeks from wiping each other out. Far from being friendly due to common religion, they hated each others' guts. The Greeks are Orthodox, and the Armenians heterodox - and interfaith doctrinal differences usually engender much greater hostility than an entirely different religion.
Turkish Armenia had zero Armenians in it, so its hard to see how Armenia had any chance of holding it. Historically, they were beaten back by very minor local Turkish forces while the entire Turkish military was facing the Greeks.
As far as plebicites go, you are most incorrect. The British squashed a plebicite because the Kurds overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the Ottoman Empire, which would have threatened British control of the Mesopotamian oilfields.
Kurdish-Turkish issues are quite recent, and stem from a huge Turkish overreaction to the Kurdish Marxist PKK, which was sponsored by the USSR and was separatist - and given the history of the later Ottoman Empire, this was a particularly scary topic for them.
As is not generally known by the unbelievable distortion spouted by virulently anti-Turkish groups, Kurds mix freely with Turks, everybody gets along well, and Kurds have occupied and do occupy many of the highest positions, including the Presidency - Turgut Ozal, Prime Minister and President for over ten years, was a Kurd. Several current ministers are Kurds.
In any case, the Kurds at the end of WWI were still largely nomadic, very tribal, and did not get along with each other. The creation of an independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria would have been a huge genocidal mess of tribal and ethnic conflict, and probably would have led to a union with Turkey in the end anyway.
It is a frequent error to assume that large areas are entirely inhabited by a single ethnicity. This is not the case. Even prior to WWI Turkish Armenia was about 80% Muslim, and "Kurdistan", while containing a Kurdish majority, still contains a very large number of Turks, Arabs, and other groups.
Also, half of Turkish Kurds do not live in the southeast, but rather in large urban centers like Istanbul, although this was less the case in 1918.
Finally, one of the hardest tasks the Ottomans faced was keeping the Armenians and Greeks from wiping each other out. Far from being friendly due to common religion, they hated each others' guts. The Greeks are Orthodox, and the Armenians heterodox - and interfaith doctrinal differences usually engender much greater hostility than an entirely different religion.
Chengar Qordath said:
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
You will note that the Ottoman Empire was multi-ethnic, and contained millions of Greeks up to the Balkan Wars, whereas Greece was entirely Greek. That is because the Greeks slaughtered or expelled everyone labelled non-Greek, whereas the Ottomans tolerated their minorities.
When Greece invaded Turkey after the war, they immediately began massacring the Turkish population of lands they held, and when they retreated, they viciously burned everything in their path.
The Turks upon retaking territory, did not reply in kind, and the Greek population only left when this was mutually agreed upon by treaty, and they left peaceably.
When Greece invaded Turkey after the war, they immediately began massacring the Turkish population of lands they held, and when they retreated, they viciously burned everything in their path.
The Turks upon retaking territory, did not reply in kind, and the Greek population only left when this was mutually agreed upon by treaty, and they left peaceably.
Norman said:
What about Smyrna ?
Abdul Hadi Pasha, not wanting to negage in a flamewar, but what about the Smyrna crisis in 1922 and the atrocities committed in the Turkish reconquest of Anatolia ?
As for your observations re the Kurds and mutual animosity within them, yes that's true, I do recall reading in the MICH J INT'L L articles of the huge heterogeneity and internecine rivalry amongst different Kurdish factions in Iraq, Turkey, and Syria.
Abdul Hadi Pasha, not wanting to negage in a flamewar, but what about the Smyrna crisis in 1922 and the atrocities committed in the Turkish reconquest of Anatolia ?
As for your observations re the Kurds and mutual animosity within them, yes that's true, I do recall reading in the MICH J INT'L L articles of the huge heterogeneity and internecine rivalry amongst different Kurdish factions in Iraq, Turkey, and Syria.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Melvin Loh said:
Read the reports of British and American commissioners present. All agree that the Turks tried to combat the fires that burned Izmir, but the water mains had been severed by the retreating Greeks and Armenians. As for Turkish atrocities, there are always going to be some in war, but the Allies also all agreed that the Turkish army behaved well. And remember that the Turks had just run the Greeks over the formerly most prosperous provinces of Turkey only to find mass graves and burned Muslim villages.
The Greeks on the other hand, were roundly condemned even by their British allies for their vicious murders and destruction of Turkish property.
I'm not at home so I can't remember everybody's name but the American commissioner was Admiral Mark Bristol, who was pretty anti-Turkish, but still agreed that the Turks did not burn Smyrna/Izmir.
As for the Kurds, they and the Armenians are the most ancient enemies in the Mid East - most massacres of Armenians in WWI were actually carried out by the Kurds (whom were the initial target of the Armenian rebellion, bit were found too heavily armed), and the Kurds were also particularly ruthless to Turkish refugees. As nomads, they tended to victimize whomever was weak enough for them to get away with it. With all the military age men away at the front, or in Armenian terror bands, the civilian population of Eastern Anatolia was an easy target, especially when fleeing.
Leo Caesius
Banned
It's my task to give a talk at the NACAL conference in Philadelphia next Friday, and I'll be discussing language death in Mandaic. This is relevant to this topic as the Mandaeans who dwelled in Iran maintained their language until the present day whereas the Mandaeans in Ottoman territories completely assimilated to the local population. Now, one might argue that means that the Ottomans forced this religious minority to assimilate, but the historical evidence indicates quite the opposite.Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
The Mandaean accounts are full of tales of persecution and even ethnic cleansing in Iran, whereas the Mandaeans appeared to have led a comparatively peaceful life in Ottoman Mesopotamia. Nasreddin Shah's chief architect Najm al-Mulk went on a trip through the south of Iran in 1881, and reports that the Mandaeans of that territory for the most part have fled from Iran to the Ottoman empire. Nasreddin himself sacked the local authorities who were responsible for persecuting religious minorities such as Zoroastrians and Mandaeans, which was a rare kindness - for this reason Nasser is a very common name among the Mandaeans of our grandparents' generation (1920s).
It seems, I conclude, that Mandaic was actually killed by kindness in the Ottoman Empire; they were so well-integrated into the local society that they became caught up in the throes of Arab Nationalism that wracked those regions of the Ottoman Empire in the last few generations of its existence... whereas the fact that they were often persecuted in Iran only strengthened their resolve to separate themselves from the local population and preserve their identity.
As regards the Kurds, nearly every Kurd with whom I've spoken has pledged to me that the first thing they'd do, if Kurdestan were to become independent, is move themselves and their familes to Turkey.