Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RomanByzantineAltHist Re: Roman-Byzantium Club

Expand Messages
  • richard_roper <richard_roper@yahoo.com>
    Well, again we are far from Rome-Byzantium. You Americans, you won WWI now. But for American economic aid by WW on a grand scale, peace negotiations would have
    Message 1 of 20 , Mar 1 5:50 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, again we are far from Rome-Byzantium.

      You Americans, you won WWI now.

      But for American economic aid by WW on a grand scale, peace
      negotiations would have begun in 1915.

      British historians are now openly saying that WWI was the supreme
      disaster and should have been avoided. A sub-view says Britain should
      have remained neutral.

      It was a pyrhhic victory to end all for Britain and without it the
      British Empire would have remained intact.

      There would have been no Russian Revolution.

      But there's just one problem. Perhaps the War of 1928 would have
      actually taken place - with Imperial Germany as the ally of the
      British Empire.




      --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim <jamescolex@a...>"
      <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
      > Oops I meant surrender to Germany...
      >
      >
      > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
      <jamescolex@a...>"
      > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
      > > Oh I must be mistaken... You are quite correct without US Support
      > in
      > > WWI Britain and France could and most likely would have
      > surrendered
      > > to France. Anything less then German surrender would have been
      > seen
      > > as a German Victory.
      > >
      > > Intersting idea... Germans Win WWI...
      > >
      > > HeadLine London Times 1915 --- "Peace in Our Time"
      > > - Terms of Treaty
      > > - Germany keeps Lorraine
      > > - Austria Keeps Serbia
      > > - Russia remains dismembered
      > > - Turkey regains control of all Middle Eastern Provinces up to
      > Egypt
      > > - Italy Gains North African concessions
      > > - France licks wounds
      > >
      > > Headline New York 1916
      > > - US begins massive Navaql build up to offset imbalance in power
      > in
      > > Europe
      > > Headline 1915-1925 "Riots Rack - Pick British contolled colony"
      > > - Due to Britains loss of prestige world wide, many colonies
      > choose
      > > this period to break awway from the Empire. Britsih forces
      > stretched
      > > to the breaking point lose control of many vital colonies, and are
      > > forced to withdraw far earlier then in our current timeline.
      > >
      > >
      > > Headline Moscow (sometime in 20s) - Soviet Forces return from
      > Ukraine
      > > -real headline elsewhere Soviet aggression was turned back a s
      > > German backed Ukrainina forces defeated the Soviet invasion force.
      > >
      > > Headline Vienna - 1919 "Serbia becomes third Jewel in Monarchy"
      > > - Empire changes it's name to Austro-Serbo-Hungarian Emipire
      > >
      > > Headline Rome - Anytime "Trains still late"
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "richard_roper
      > > <richard_roper@y...>" <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
      > > > In my absence we again appear to have gone off down an O.T.
      line.
      > > >
      > > > We in Europe did not not "barely escape WWI" because of US
      > > > involvement. We had to put up with it because of involvement by
      > > > Woodrow Wilson and the US. government. Had they not openly
      > > supported
      > > > Britain with material aid on a vast scale then peace would have
      > > broken
      > > > out in 1915 with a negotiated peace.
      > > >
      > > > It was the Soviet Union and the red Army which essentially
      > defeated
      > > > the Wehrmacht as Churchill said, and not the US.
      > > >
      > > > There was a real possibility of an American Zone of Occupation _
      > > > Armenia - in 1918 whatever may now be said.
      > > >
      > > > There was in any case a real chance of Turkey entering on the
      > side
      > > of
      > > > the Axis. However, if the boundaries of the Sevres treaty
      > existed,
      > > the
      > > > Turks would have had to advance across an Armenia and a
      Kurdistan
      > > > before getting anywhere further east.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
      > > <jamescolex@a...>"
      > > > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
      > > > > Ok let me respond to your point that Turkey would not have
      > > entered
      > > > > WWII. Had the allies Italy, Britain and France tried to
      > enforce
      > > the
      > > > > treaty, it is very likely that Germany could have fed on
      > Turkish
      > > > > Pride ( demonstrated quite nicely by Mr. Piccone) and drawn
      > them
      > > > into
      > > > > WWII with the enticement that they could have any land they
      > could
      > > > > retake. Like the Free City of Istanbul etc.
      > > > >
      > > > > I will be blunt Europe barely escaped WWI and only becasue of
      > US
      > > > > involvement. It survived WWII because of US involvement and
      > > becasue
      > > > > Russia was given time to recover from the almost crushing blow
      > > > > delivered by the Germans. Imagine a fully mobilized and ticked
      > > off
      > > > > Turkey plunging head long into Central Russia. This surely
      > would
      > > > > have spelt doom for Communist Russia. With Russia either
      under
      > > > > occupation or knocked out like WWI by a treay of surrender to
      > the
      > > > > Axis. The Liberation of France would have been far more
      > costly,
      > > if
      > > > > it would succeed at all.
      > > > >
      > > > > Also Imagine Rommel running loose in Africa with Turkish
      forces
      > > > > pushing down the through Lebanon on Egypt. Britain would have
      > > been
      > > > > stretched to the breaking point.
      > > > >
      > > > > Finally France could be counted on to do diddly squat. If
      they
      > > were
      > > > > not going to gain territory for their empire, they would have
      > > seen
      > > > no
      > > > > need to start a War in 1922 with Turkey. What could the
      > possible
      > > > > gain? Unless England was offering part of Egypt(fat chance in
      > > > hades).
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > If they couldn't be counted on to stand up to Germany what
      > makes
      > > you
      > > > > think they would have been willing to stand up to the Turks or
      > > for
      > > > > that matter stand against the Turks, whom for the most part of
      > > the
      > > > > past 400 years had been one of France's closest allies.
      > > > >
      > > > > As for Post WWI US owning a Zone of Turkey. Bah we weren't
      > even
      > > > > willing to be part of a toothless orgqanization like the
      League
      > > of
      > > > > Nations, what makes you think the citizens or the Congress
      > would
      > > > have
      > > > > allowed troops to be deployed in Turkey, which it would have
      > > taken
      > > > to
      > > > > enforce peace. More then likely that zone and the French
      Zone
      > > > would
      > > > > have been truned over to Attaturk right away, with Italies
      > > following
      > > > > shortly behing as the Fascists take over.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > I hate to agree with John, but this an untenable situation
      > which
      > > was
      > > > > avoided.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, Richard Roper
      > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
      > > > > > Well this has little to do with Rome-Byzantium, but we
      > > > > > appear to be dealing with an alternative version of
      > > > > > history in which the Armenian Genocide doesn't takr e
      > > > > > place and other nationaliies other than Turks aren't
      > > > > > expelled from Asia Minor.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > The Kemalists had to expel other nationalities if they
      > > > > > were to create a state based on nationalism and
      > > > > > nationality.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > The Greeks were not in fact in a minority neither did
      > > > > > they "seize" it, it being intended by the Allies to
      > > > > > divide Asia Minor on ethnic lines, it was just Atatuk
      > > > > > wanted territory far in excess of what he was
      > > > > > entitled.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > There was a real possibility of action by the British,
      > > > > > which would have meant the Italians and French would
      > > > > > have been involved, and it was not because of the
      > > > > > overwhelming victory of Ataturk that prevented it.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- "John Piccone <jpiccone@y...>"
      > > > > > <jpiccone@y...> wrote:
      > > > > > > Yes, the Ottomans invaded in the 1300s, and before
      > > > > > > that the Bulgars,
      > > > > > > Slavs, Magyars, and countless others invaded. So
      > > > > > > what? By 1914, all
      > > > > > > that was left of the Ottoman Empire was
      > > > > > > overwhelmingly Muslim, and
      > > > > > > the government had done nothing to expell
      > > > > > > minorities. The Armenians
      > > > > > > were expelled for military reasons, not due to
      > > > > > > nationalist
      > > > > > > ideological reasons.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > The Greeks are not being irridentist anymore,
      > > > > > > because their attempt
      > > > > > > was crushed. The Greeks attempted to seize
      > > > > > > territory where they were
      > > > > > > in a minority, and in most of it, a very small
      > > > > > > minority. The
      > > > > > > nationalism of the Kemalists was not really
      > > > > > > nationalism as we would
      > > > > > > think of it today, as the concept of a "Turk" was
      > > > > > > pretty sketchy back
      > > > > > > then; Kemal's program was to establish a state that
      > > > > > > was not based on
      > > > > > > religion; the term "Turk" included people we would
      > > > > > > call Kurds,
      > > > > > > Circassians, Laz, and many other groups. It is
      > > > > > > notable that the Jews
      > > > > > > were strongly encouraged to stay, and did - it was
      > > > > > > the peoples that
      > > > > > > had actively revolted and tried to seize territory
      > > > > > > that were
      > > > > > > expelled, and even then, the Powers decided the
      > > > > > > Greeks should go.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Britain did not withdraw for domestic reasons, they
      > > > > > > withdrew because
      > > > > > > with the total victory of the Kemalists, their
      > > > > > > position was
      > > > > > > untenable, unless they wnated to maintain a huge
      > > > > > > fleet in the Straits
      > > > > > > and a large garrison among a hostile population;
      > > > > > > this was impossible
      > > > > > > for impoverished post-war Britain. To eliminate the
      > > > > > > threat, it would
      > > > > > > have been necessary to penetrate to central
      > > > > > > Anatolia, which was
      > > > > > > beyond Britain's capabilities. If the Russians
      > > > > > > couldn't do it,
      > > > > > > Britain certainly couldn't.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com,
      > > > > > > Richard Roper
      > > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
      > > > > > > > It was the Ottomans who invade Europe and
      > > > > > > southeast
      > > > > > > > Europe, creating an Islamic empire there. It was
      > > > > > > only
      > > > > > > > by the invention of Britain that the Ottomans were
      > > > > > > not
      > > > > > > > entirely expelled from Europe at the end of the
      > > > > > > 19th
      > > > > > > > century.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > The Greeks are by no means being irredentist.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Clearly given the nationalism of the Kemalists any
      > > > > > > > assignment of the Symrna area to Turkey would lead
      > > > > > > to
      > > > > > > > the expulsion of the Greek and Christian
      > > > > > > population,
      > > > > > > > as was the case with Armenia.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Britain withdrew in 1922 for purely domestic
      > > > > > > reasons.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > However we are a long way from Rome-Byzantium.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > --- "John Piccone <jpiccone@y...>"
      > > > > > > > <jpiccone@y...> wrote:
      > > > > > > > > Constantinople was a Roman/Byzantine city until
      > > > > > > > > 1453, after which it
      > > > > > > > > became Istanbul, an Ottoman/Turkish city, which
      > > > > > > it
      > > > > > > > > has remained
      > > > > > > > > since. Irredentist claims of Greece, which is
      > > > > > > by no
      > > > > > > > > means the
      > > > > > > > > successor state to Byzantium, are irrelevant and
      > > > > > > > > frankly silly. I
      > > > > > > > > suggest you study some "recent" history of the
      > > > > > > city;
      > > > > > > > > I am a bit taken
      > > > > > > > > aback by your claim that Istanbul is not a
      > > > > > > Turkish
      > > > > > > > > city, since my
      > > > > > > > > mother's family has lived there since 1453 and I
      > > > > > > > > have spent a lot of
      > > > > > > > > time there. Is Egypt A Roman/Greek country?
      > > > > > > How
      > > > > > > > > about Israel and
      > > > > > > > > Jordan? Why not Bulgaria, Serbia, Libya,
      > > > > > > Tunisia,
      > > > > > > > > Italy, etc. as
      > > > > > > > > well?
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Izmir need not have had all the Greeks expelled
      > > > > > > in
      > > > > > > > > order to "give it
      > > > > > > > > back" to Turkey - the Ottomans had ruled it
      > > > > > > since
      > > > > > > > > some time before
      > > > > > > > > the conquest of Constantinople, and some number
      > > > > > > of
      > > > > > > > > Greeks had lived
      > > > > > > > > there for most of that time; also, the Pontic
      > > > > > > Greeks
      > > > > > > > > (Black Sea coast
      > > > > > > > > around Trebizond) had lived contimuously in that
      > > > > > > > > region since
      > > > > > > > > antiquity, and had lived quite well and happily
      > > > > > > > > under centuried of
      > > > > > > > > Ottoman rule.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > The population exchange was mandated by the
      > > > > > > Great
      > > > > > > > > Powers in the
      > > > > > > > > Treaty of Lausanne, and this was a result of the
      > > > > > > > > Greek invasion, not
      > > > > > > > > any action by the Turks, so I'm not sure what
      > > > > > > you
      > > > > > > > > mean.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > A British campaign in Asia Minor would have had
      > > > > > > the
      > > > > > > > > same result as
      > > > > > > > > the Greek campaign, which is why the British
      > > > > > > didn't
      > > > > > > > > try it. There
      > > > > > > > > was this little thing called "Gallipoli" that
      > > > > > > didn't
      > > > > > > > > go too well from
      > > > > > > > > them, and on the Anatolian plateau they wouldn't
      > > > > > > > > have the Royal Navy
      > > > > > > > > aavailable for support.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com,
      > > > > > > > > Richard Roper
      > > > > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
      > > > > > > > > > Constaninople was a Greek/Roman city and not a
      > > > > > > > > Turkish
      > > > > > > > > > one.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Also the Symrna area could not be returned to
      > > > > > > the
      > > > > > > > > > Turks without the expulsion of the Greek, (and
      > > > > > > > > > Armenian), population.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > It doesn't follow had the Great Powers
      > > > > > > insisted
      > > > > > > > > that
      > > > > > > > > > the Treaty of Sevres was upheld that Turkey
      > > > > > > would
      > > > > > > > > have
      > > > > > > > > > entered WWI, Ataturk being very loath to get
      > > > > > > > > involvrd.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > But such action would not necessarily mean
      > > > > > > Axis
      > > > > > > > > > victory, a British campaign in Western Asua
      > > > > > > Minor
      > > > > > > > > > would have been much more sucessful than
      > > > > > > Greece or
      > > > > > > > > > Crete, and Russia might have become involved
      > > > > > > in
      > > > > > > > > alarm,
      > > > > > > > > > through a much enlarged Armenia.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > __________________________________________________
      > > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
      > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign
      > > > > > > up
      > > > > > > > > now.
      > > > > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
      > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
      > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
      > > > > > > now.
      > > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > __________________________________________________
      > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
      > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
      > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
    • Jim <jamescolex@attbi.com>
      Richard, I am not saying we won it alone. But surely you can not deny that the stalemate would have conitnued if not for the fresh bodies thrown into the
      Message 2 of 20 , Mar 3 10:33 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Richard,

        I am not saying we won it alone. But surely you can not deny that
        the stalemate would have conitnued if not for the fresh bodies thrown
        into the grinder by th US and the importance of the Economic support
        provided by the US?

        As for the war ending in 1915 had Britain and France negotiated a
        Peace with Germany, it would have been at German terms. They were
        winning and while they may not have had a total victory, they were
        fighting in allied territory not vice versa.

        AS for the war of 1928 I have not clue what you are referring to.

        And yes we are way off topic, I tried to return us to it over two
        weeks ago...

        Jim


        --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "richard_roper
        <richard_roper@y...>" <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
        > Well, again we are far from Rome-Byzantium.
        >
        > You Americans, you won WWI now.
        >
        > But for American economic aid by WW on a grand scale, peace
        > negotiations would have begun in 1915.
        >
        > British historians are now openly saying that WWI was the supreme
        > disaster and should have been avoided. A sub-view says Britain
        should
        > have remained neutral.
        >
        > It was a pyrhhic victory to end all for Britain and without it the
        > British Empire would have remained intact.
        >
        > There would have been no Russian Revolution.
        >
        > But there's just one problem. Perhaps the War of 1928 would have
        > actually taken place - with Imperial Germany as the ally of the
        > British Empire.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
        <jamescolex@a...>"
        > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
        > > Oops I meant surrender to Germany...
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
        > <jamescolex@a...>"
        > > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
        > > > Oh I must be mistaken... You are quite correct without US
        Support
        > > in
        > > > WWI Britain and France could and most likely would have
        > > surrendered
        > > > to France. Anything less then German surrender would have been
        > > seen
        > > > as a German Victory.
        > > >
        > > > Intersting idea... Germans Win WWI...
        > > >
        > > > HeadLine London Times 1915 --- "Peace in Our Time"
        > > > - Terms of Treaty
        > > > - Germany keeps Lorraine
        > > > - Austria Keeps Serbia
        > > > - Russia remains dismembered
        > > > - Turkey regains control of all Middle Eastern Provinces up
        to
        > > Egypt
        > > > - Italy Gains North African concessions
        > > > - France licks wounds
        > > >
        > > > Headline New York 1916
        > > > - US begins massive Navaql build up to offset imbalance in
        power
        > > in
        > > > Europe
        > > > Headline 1915-1925 "Riots Rack - Pick British contolled colony"
        > > > - Due to Britains loss of prestige world wide, many colonies
        > > choose
        > > > this period to break awway from the Empire. Britsih forces
        > > stretched
        > > > to the breaking point lose control of many vital colonies, and
        are
        > > > forced to withdraw far earlier then in our current timeline.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Headline Moscow (sometime in 20s) - Soviet Forces return from
        > > Ukraine
        > > > -real headline elsewhere Soviet aggression was turned back a
        s
        > > > German backed Ukrainina forces defeated the Soviet invasion
        force.
        > > >
        > > > Headline Vienna - 1919 "Serbia becomes third Jewel in
        Monarchy"
        > > > - Empire changes it's name to Austro-Serbo-Hungarian Emipire
        > > >
        > > > Headline Rome - Anytime "Trains still late"
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "richard_roper
        > > > <richard_roper@y...>" <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
        > > > > In my absence we again appear to have gone off down an O.T.
        > line.
        > > > >
        > > > > We in Europe did not not "barely escape WWI" because of US
        > > > > involvement. We had to put up with it because of involvement
        by
        > > > > Woodrow Wilson and the US. government. Had they not openly
        > > > supported
        > > > > Britain with material aid on a vast scale then peace would
        have
        > > > broken
        > > > > out in 1915 with a negotiated peace.
        > > > >
        > > > > It was the Soviet Union and the red Army which essentially
        > > defeated
        > > > > the Wehrmacht as Churchill said, and not the US.
        > > > >
        > > > > There was a real possibility of an American Zone of
        Occupation _
        > > > > Armenia - in 1918 whatever may now be said.
        > > > >
        > > > > There was in any case a real chance of Turkey entering on the
        > > side
        > > > of
        > > > > the Axis. However, if the boundaries of the Sevres treaty
        > > existed,
        > > > the
        > > > > Turks would have had to advance across an Armenia and a
        > Kurdistan
        > > > > before getting anywhere further east.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
        > > > <jamescolex@a...>"
        > > > > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
        > > > > > Ok let me respond to your point that Turkey would not have
        > > > entered
        > > > > > WWII. Had the allies Italy, Britain and France tried to
        > > enforce
        > > > the
        > > > > > treaty, it is very likely that Germany could have fed on
        > > Turkish
        > > > > > Pride ( demonstrated quite nicely by Mr. Piccone) and drawn
        > > them
        > > > > into
        > > > > > WWII with the enticement that they could have any land they
        > > could
        > > > > > retake. Like the Free City of Istanbul etc.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I will be blunt Europe barely escaped WWI and only becasue
        of
        > > US
        > > > > > involvement. It survived WWII because of US involvement
        and
        > > > becasue
        > > > > > Russia was given time to recover from the almost crushing
        blow
        > > > > > delivered by the Germans. Imagine a fully mobilized and
        ticked
        > > > off
        > > > > > Turkey plunging head long into Central Russia. This surely
        > > would
        > > > > > have spelt doom for Communist Russia. With Russia either
        > under
        > > > > > occupation or knocked out like WWI by a treay of surrender
        to
        > > the
        > > > > > Axis. The Liberation of France would have been far more
        > > costly,
        > > > if
        > > > > > it would succeed at all.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Also Imagine Rommel running loose in Africa with Turkish
        > forces
        > > > > > pushing down the through Lebanon on Egypt. Britain would
        have
        > > > been
        > > > > > stretched to the breaking point.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Finally France could be counted on to do diddly squat. If
        > they
        > > > were
        > > > > > not going to gain territory for their empire, they would
        have
        > > > seen
        > > > > no
        > > > > > need to start a War in 1922 with Turkey. What could the
        > > possible
        > > > > > gain? Unless England was offering part of Egypt(fat chance
        in
        > > > > hades).
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > If they couldn't be counted on to stand up to Germany what
        > > makes
        > > > you
        > > > > > think they would have been willing to stand up to the Turks
        or
        > > > for
        > > > > > that matter stand against the Turks, whom for the most part
        of
        > > > the
        > > > > > past 400 years had been one of France's closest allies.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > As for Post WWI US owning a Zone of Turkey. Bah we
        weren't
        > > even
        > > > > > willing to be part of a toothless orgqanization like the
        > League
        > > > of
        > > > > > Nations, what makes you think the citizens or the Congress
        > > would
        > > > > have
        > > > > > allowed troops to be deployed in Turkey, which it would
        have
        > > > taken
        > > > > to
        > > > > > enforce peace. More then likely that zone and the French
        > Zone
        > > > > would
        > > > > > have been truned over to Attaturk right away, with Italies
        > > > following
        > > > > > shortly behing as the Fascists take over.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I hate to agree with John, but this an untenable situation
        > > which
        > > > was
        > > > > > avoided.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, Richard Roper
        > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
        > > > > > > Well this has little to do with Rome-Byzantium, but we
        > > > > > > appear to be dealing with an alternative version of
        > > > > > > history in which the Armenian Genocide doesn't takr e
        > > > > > > place and other nationaliies other than Turks aren't
        > > > > > > expelled from Asia Minor.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > The Kemalists had to expel other nationalities if they
        > > > > > > were to create a state based on nationalism and
        > > > > > > nationality.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > The Greeks were not in fact in a minority neither did
        > > > > > > they "seize" it, it being intended by the Allies to
        > > > > > > divide Asia Minor on ethnic lines, it was just Atatuk
        > > > > > > wanted territory far in excess of what he was
        > > > > > > entitled.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > There was a real possibility of action by the British,
        > > > > > > which would have meant the Italians and French would
        > > > > > > have been involved, and it was not because of the
        > > > > > > overwhelming victory of Ataturk that prevented it.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- "John Piccone <jpiccone@y...>"
        > > > > > > <jpiccone@y...> wrote:
        > > > > > > > Yes, the Ottomans invaded in the 1300s, and before
        > > > > > > > that the Bulgars,
        > > > > > > > Slavs, Magyars, and countless others invaded. So
        > > > > > > > what? By 1914, all
        > > > > > > > that was left of the Ottoman Empire was
        > > > > > > > overwhelmingly Muslim, and
        > > > > > > > the government had done nothing to expell
        > > > > > > > minorities. The Armenians
        > > > > > > > were expelled for military reasons, not due to
        > > > > > > > nationalist
        > > > > > > > ideological reasons.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > The Greeks are not being irridentist anymore,
        > > > > > > > because their attempt
        > > > > > > > was crushed. The Greeks attempted to seize
        > > > > > > > territory where they were
        > > > > > > > in a minority, and in most of it, a very small
        > > > > > > > minority. The
        > > > > > > > nationalism of the Kemalists was not really
        > > > > > > > nationalism as we would
        > > > > > > > think of it today, as the concept of a "Turk" was
        > > > > > > > pretty sketchy back
        > > > > > > > then; Kemal's program was to establish a state that
        > > > > > > > was not based on
        > > > > > > > religion; the term "Turk" included people we would
        > > > > > > > call Kurds,
        > > > > > > > Circassians, Laz, and many other groups. It is
        > > > > > > > notable that the Jews
        > > > > > > > were strongly encouraged to stay, and did - it was
        > > > > > > > the peoples that
        > > > > > > > had actively revolted and tried to seize territory
        > > > > > > > that were
        > > > > > > > expelled, and even then, the Powers decided the
        > > > > > > > Greeks should go.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Britain did not withdraw for domestic reasons, they
        > > > > > > > withdrew because
        > > > > > > > with the total victory of the Kemalists, their
        > > > > > > > position was
        > > > > > > > untenable, unless they wnated to maintain a huge
        > > > > > > > fleet in the Straits
        > > > > > > > and a large garrison among a hostile population;
        > > > > > > > this was impossible
        > > > > > > > for impoverished post-war Britain. To eliminate the
        > > > > > > > threat, it would
        > > > > > > > have been necessary to penetrate to central
        > > > > > > > Anatolia, which was
        > > > > > > > beyond Britain's capabilities. If the Russians
        > > > > > > > couldn't do it,
        > > > > > > > Britain certainly couldn't.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com,
        > > > > > > > Richard Roper
        > > > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > It was the Ottomans who invade Europe and
        > > > > > > > southeast
        > > > > > > > > Europe, creating an Islamic empire there. It was
        > > > > > > > only
        > > > > > > > > by the invention of Britain that the Ottomans were
        > > > > > > > not
        > > > > > > > > entirely expelled from Europe at the end of the
        > > > > > > > 19th
        > > > > > > > > century.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > The Greeks are by no means being irredentist.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > Clearly given the nationalism of the Kemalists any
        > > > > > > > > assignment of the Symrna area to Turkey would lead
        > > > > > > > to
        > > > > > > > > the expulsion of the Greek and Christian
        > > > > > > > population,
        > > > > > > > > as was the case with Armenia.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > Britain withdrew in 1922 for purely domestic
        > > > > > > > reasons.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > However we are a long way from Rome-Byzantium.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > --- "John Piccone <jpiccone@y...>"
        > > > > > > > > <jpiccone@y...> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > Constantinople was a Roman/Byzantine city until
        > > > > > > > > > 1453, after which it
        > > > > > > > > > became Istanbul, an Ottoman/Turkish city, which
        > > > > > > > it
        > > > > > > > > > has remained
        > > > > > > > > > since. Irredentist claims of Greece, which is
        > > > > > > > by no
        > > > > > > > > > means the
        > > > > > > > > > successor state to Byzantium, are irrelevant and
        > > > > > > > > > frankly silly. I
        > > > > > > > > > suggest you study some "recent" history of the
        > > > > > > > city;
        > > > > > > > > > I am a bit taken
        > > > > > > > > > aback by your claim that Istanbul is not a
        > > > > > > > Turkish
        > > > > > > > > > city, since my
        > > > > > > > > > mother's family has lived there since 1453 and I
        > > > > > > > > > have spent a lot of
        > > > > > > > > > time there. Is Egypt A Roman/Greek country?
        > > > > > > > How
        > > > > > > > > > about Israel and
        > > > > > > > > > Jordan? Why not Bulgaria, Serbia, Libya,
        > > > > > > > Tunisia,
        > > > > > > > > > Italy, etc. as
        > > > > > > > > > well?
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > Izmir need not have had all the Greeks expelled
        > > > > > > > in
        > > > > > > > > > order to "give it
        > > > > > > > > > back" to Turkey - the Ottomans had ruled it
        > > > > > > > since
        > > > > > > > > > some time before
        > > > > > > > > > the conquest of Constantinople, and some number
        > > > > > > > of
        > > > > > > > > > Greeks had lived
        > > > > > > > > > there for most of that time; also, the Pontic
        > > > > > > > Greeks
        > > > > > > > > > (Black Sea coast
        > > > > > > > > > around Trebizond) had lived contimuously in that
        > > > > > > > > > region since
        > > > > > > > > > antiquity, and had lived quite well and happily
        > > > > > > > > > under centuried of
        > > > > > > > > > Ottoman rule.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > The population exchange was mandated by the
        > > > > > > > Great
        > > > > > > > > > Powers in the
        > > > > > > > > > Treaty of Lausanne, and this was a result of the
        > > > > > > > > > Greek invasion, not
        > > > > > > > > > any action by the Turks, so I'm not sure what
        > > > > > > > you
        > > > > > > > > > mean.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > A British campaign in Asia Minor would have had
        > > > > > > > the
        > > > > > > > > > same result as
        > > > > > > > > > the Greek campaign, which is why the British
        > > > > > > > didn't
        > > > > > > > > > try it. There
        > > > > > > > > > was this little thing called "Gallipoli" that
        > > > > > > > didn't
        > > > > > > > > > go too well from
        > > > > > > > > > them, and on the Anatolian plateau they wouldn't
        > > > > > > > > > have the Royal Navy
        > > > > > > > > > aavailable for support.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com,
        > > > > > > > > > Richard Roper
        > > > > > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > Constaninople was a Greek/Roman city and not a
        > > > > > > > > > Turkish
        > > > > > > > > > > one.
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > Also the Symrna area could not be returned to
        > > > > > > > the
        > > > > > > > > > > Turks without the expulsion of the Greek, (and
        > > > > > > > > > > Armenian), population.
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't follow had the Great Powers
        > > > > > > > insisted
        > > > > > > > > > that
        > > > > > > > > > > the Treaty of Sevres was upheld that Turkey
        > > > > > > > would
        > > > > > > > > > have
        > > > > > > > > > > entered WWI, Ataturk being very loath to get
        > > > > > > > > > involvrd.
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > But such action would not necessarily mean
        > > > > > > > Axis
        > > > > > > > > > > victory, a British campaign in Western Asua
        > > > > > > > Minor
        > > > > > > > > > > would have been much more sucessful than
        > > > > > > > Greece or
        > > > > > > > > > > Crete, and Russia might have become involved
        > > > > > > > in
        > > > > > > > > > alarm,
        > > > > > > > > > > through a much enlarged Armenia.
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
        > > > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
        > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign
        > > > > > > > up
        > > > > > > > > > now.
        > > > > > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
        > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
        > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
        > > > > > > > now.
        > > > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > __________________________________________________
        > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
        > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
        > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
      • richard_roper <richard_roper@yahoo.com>
        Well, no. But for the massive loans and industrial aid given 1914-17 the stalemate would have been broken by peace negotiations. WW had the good reason for
        Message 3 of 20 , Mar 3 11:54 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, no. But for the massive loans and industrial aid given 1914-17
          the stalemate would have been broken by peace negotiations. WW had the
          good reason for going to war because the massive British loans would
          not have been repaid had Germany won.

          The American offensive was intended for 1919.

          The War of 1928 would have been between Britain and the US> and there
          was a probability of it occurring.


          --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim <jamescolex@a...>"
          <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
          > Richard,
          >
          > I am not saying we won it alone. But surely you can not deny that
          > the stalemate would have conitnued if not for the fresh bodies
          thrown
          > into the grinder by th US and the importance of the Economic support
          > provided by the US?
          >
          > As for the war ending in 1915 had Britain and France negotiated a
          > Peace with Germany, it would have been at German terms. They were
          > winning and while they may not have had a total victory, they were
          > fighting in allied territory not vice versa.
          >
          > AS for the war of 1928 I have not clue what you are referring to.
          >
          > And yes we are way off topic, I tried to return us to it over two
          > weeks ago...
          >
          > Jim
          >
          >
          > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "richard_roper
          > <richard_roper@y...>" <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
          > > Well, again we are far from Rome-Byzantium.
          > >
          > > You Americans, you won WWI now.
          > >
          > > But for American economic aid by WW on a grand scale, peace
          > > negotiations would have begun in 1915.
          > >
          > > British historians are now openly saying that WWI was the supreme
          > > disaster and should have been avoided. A sub-view says Britain
          > should
          > > have remained neutral.
          > >
          > > It was a pyrhhic victory to end all for Britain and without it the
          > > British Empire would have remained intact.
          > >
          > > There would have been no Russian Revolution.
          > >
          > > But there's just one problem. Perhaps the War of 1928 would have
          > > actually taken place - with Imperial Germany as the ally of the
          > > British Empire.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
          > <jamescolex@a...>"
          > > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
          > > > Oops I meant surrender to Germany...
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
          > > <jamescolex@a...>"
          > > > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
          > > > > Oh I must be mistaken... You are quite correct without US
          > Support
          > > > in
          > > > > WWI Britain and France could and most likely would have
          > > > surrendered
          > > > > to France. Anything less then German surrender would have
          been
          > > > seen
          > > > > as a German Victory.
          > > > >
          > > > > Intersting idea... Germans Win WWI...
          > > > >
          > > > > HeadLine London Times 1915 --- "Peace in Our Time"
          > > > > - Terms of Treaty
          > > > > - Germany keeps Lorraine
          > > > > - Austria Keeps Serbia
          > > > > - Russia remains dismembered
          > > > > - Turkey regains control of all Middle Eastern Provinces up
          > to
          > > > Egypt
          > > > > - Italy Gains North African concessions
          > > > > - France licks wounds
          > > > >
          > > > > Headline New York 1916
          > > > > - US begins massive Navaql build up to offset imbalance in
          > power
          > > > in
          > > > > Europe
          > > > > Headline 1915-1925 "Riots Rack - Pick British contolled
          colony"
          > > > > - Due to Britains loss of prestige world wide, many colonies
          > > > choose
          > > > > this period to break awway from the Empire. Britsih forces
          > > > stretched
          > > > > to the breaking point lose control of many vital colonies, and
          > are
          > > > > forced to withdraw far earlier then in our current timeline.
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > Headline Moscow (sometime in 20s) - Soviet Forces return from
          > > > Ukraine
          > > > > -real headline elsewhere Soviet aggression was turned back a
          > s
          > > > > German backed Ukrainina forces defeated the Soviet invasion
          > force.
          > > > >
          > > > > Headline Vienna - 1919 "Serbia becomes third Jewel in
          > Monarchy"
          > > > > - Empire changes it's name to Austro-Serbo-Hungarian Emipire
          > > > >
          > > > > Headline Rome - Anytime "Trains still late"
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "richard_roper
          > > > > <richard_roper@y...>" <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
          > > > > > In my absence we again appear to have gone off down an O.T.
          > > line.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > We in Europe did not not "barely escape WWI" because of US
          > > > > > involvement. We had to put up with it because of involvement
          > by
          > > > > > Woodrow Wilson and the US. government. Had they not openly
          > > > > supported
          > > > > > Britain with material aid on a vast scale then peace would
          > have
          > > > > broken
          > > > > > out in 1915 with a negotiated peace.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > It was the Soviet Union and the red Army which essentially
          > > > defeated
          > > > > > the Wehrmacht as Churchill said, and not the US.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > There was a real possibility of an American Zone of
          > Occupation _
          > > > > > Armenia - in 1918 whatever may now be said.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > There was in any case a real chance of Turkey entering on
          the
          > > > side
          > > > > of
          > > > > > the Axis. However, if the boundaries of the Sevres treaty
          > > > existed,
          > > > > the
          > > > > > Turks would have had to advance across an Armenia and a
          > > Kurdistan
          > > > > > before getting anywhere further east.
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
          > > > > <jamescolex@a...>"
          > > > > > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
          > > > > > > Ok let me respond to your point that Turkey would not have
          > > > > entered
          > > > > > > WWII. Had the allies Italy, Britain and France tried to
          > > > enforce
          > > > > the
          > > > > > > treaty, it is very likely that Germany could have fed on
          > > > Turkish
          > > > > > > Pride ( demonstrated quite nicely by Mr. Piccone) and
          drawn
          > > > them
          > > > > > into
          > > > > > > WWII with the enticement that they could have any land
          they
          > > > could
          > > > > > > retake. Like the Free City of Istanbul etc.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > I will be blunt Europe barely escaped WWI and only becasue
          > of
          > > > US
          > > > > > > involvement. It survived WWII because of US involvement
          > and
          > > > > becasue
          > > > > > > Russia was given time to recover from the almost crushing
          > blow
          > > > > > > delivered by the Germans. Imagine a fully mobilized and
          > ticked
          > > > > off
          > > > > > > Turkey plunging head long into Central Russia. This
          surely
          > > > would
          > > > > > > have spelt doom for Communist Russia. With Russia either
          > > under
          > > > > > > occupation or knocked out like WWI by a treay of surrender
          > to
          > > > the
          > > > > > > Axis. The Liberation of France would have been far more
          > > > costly,
          > > > > if
          > > > > > > it would succeed at all.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Also Imagine Rommel running loose in Africa with Turkish
          > > forces
          > > > > > > pushing down the through Lebanon on Egypt. Britain would
          > have
          > > > > been
          > > > > > > stretched to the breaking point.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Finally France could be counted on to do diddly squat. If
          > > they
          > > > > were
          > > > > > > not going to gain territory for their empire, they would
          > have
          > > > > seen
          > > > > > no
          > > > > > > need to start a War in 1922 with Turkey. What could the
          > > > possible
          > > > > > > gain? Unless England was offering part of Egypt(fat
          chance
          > in
          > > > > > hades).
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > If they couldn't be counted on to stand up to Germany what
          > > > makes
          > > > > you
          > > > > > > think they would have been willing to stand up to the
          Turks
          > or
          > > > > for
          > > > > > > that matter stand against the Turks, whom for the most
          part
          > of
          > > > > the
          > > > > > > past 400 years had been one of France's closest allies.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > As for Post WWI US owning a Zone of Turkey. Bah we
          > weren't
          > > > even
          > > > > > > willing to be part of a toothless orgqanization like the
          > > League
          > > > > of
          > > > > > > Nations, what makes you think the citizens or the Congress
          > > > would
          > > > > > have
          > > > > > > allowed troops to be deployed in Turkey, which it would
          > have
          > > > > taken
          > > > > > to
          > > > > > > enforce peace. More then likely that zone and the French
          > > Zone
          > > > > > would
          > > > > > > have been truned over to Attaturk right away, with Italies
          > > > > following
          > > > > > > shortly behing as the Fascists take over.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > I hate to agree with John, but this an untenable situation
          > > > which
          > > > > was
          > > > > > > avoided.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, Richard
          Roper
          > > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
          > > > > > > > Well this has little to do with Rome-Byzantium, but we
          > > > > > > > appear to be dealing with an alternative version of
          > > > > > > > history in which the Armenian Genocide doesn't takr e
          > > > > > > > place and other nationaliies other than Turks aren't
          > > > > > > > expelled from Asia Minor.
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > The Kemalists had to expel other nationalities if they
          > > > > > > > were to create a state based on nationalism and
          > > > > > > > nationality.
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > The Greeks were not in fact in a minority neither did
          > > > > > > > they "seize" it, it being intended by the Allies to
          > > > > > > > divide Asia Minor on ethnic lines, it was just Atatuk
          > > > > > > > wanted territory far in excess of what he was
          > > > > > > > entitled.
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > There was a real possibility of action by the British,
          > > > > > > > which would have meant the Italians and French would
          > > > > > > > have been involved, and it was not because of the
          > > > > > > > overwhelming victory of Ataturk that prevented it.
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > --- "John Piccone <jpiccone@y...>"
          > > > > > > > <jpiccone@y...> wrote:
          > > > > > > > > Yes, the Ottomans invaded in the 1300s, and before
          > > > > > > > > that the Bulgars,
          > > > > > > > > Slavs, Magyars, and countless others invaded. So
          > > > > > > > > what? By 1914, all
          > > > > > > > > that was left of the Ottoman Empire was
          > > > > > > > > overwhelmingly Muslim, and
          > > > > > > > > the government had done nothing to expell
          > > > > > > > > minorities. The Armenians
          > > > > > > > > were expelled for military reasons, not due to
          > > > > > > > > nationalist
          > > > > > > > > ideological reasons.
          > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > The Greeks are not being irridentist anymore,
          > > > > > > > > because their attempt
          > > > > > > > > was crushed. The Greeks attempted to seize
          > > > > > > > > territory where they were
          > > > > > > > > in a minority, and in most of it, a very small
          > > > > > > > > minority. The
          > > > > > > > > nationalism of the Kemalists was not really
          > > > > > > > > nationalism as we would
          > > > > > > > > think of it today, as the concept of a "Turk" was
          > > > > > > > > pretty sketchy back
          > > > > > > > > then; Kemal's program was to establish a state that
          > > > > > > > > was not based on
          > > > > > > > > religion; the term "Turk" included people we would
          > > > > > > > > call Kurds,
          > > > > > > > > Circassians, Laz, and many other groups. It is
          > > > > > > > > notable that the Jews
          > > > > > > > > were strongly encouraged to stay, and did - it was
          > > > > > > > > the peoples that
          > > > > > > > > had actively revolted and tried to seize territory
          > > > > > > > > that were
          > > > > > > > > expelled, and even then, the Powers decided the
          > > > > > > > > Greeks should go.
          > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > Britain did not withdraw for domestic reasons, they
          > > > > > > > > withdrew because
          > > > > > > > > with the total victory of the Kemalists, their
          > > > > > > > > position was
          > > > > > > > > untenable, unless they wnated to maintain a huge
          > > > > > > > > fleet in the Straits
          > > > > > > > > and a large garrison among a hostile population;
          > > > > > > > > this was impossible
          > > > > > > > > for impoverished post-war Britain. To eliminate the
          > > > > > > > > threat, it would
          > > > > > > > > have been necessary to penetrate to central
          > > > > > > > > Anatolia, which was
          > > > > > > > > beyond Britain's capabilities. If the Russians
          > > > > > > > > couldn't do it,
          > > > > > > > > Britain certainly couldn't.
          > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com,
          > > > > > > > > Richard Roper
          > > > > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
          > > > > > > > > > It was the Ottomans who invade Europe and
          > > > > > > > > southeast
          > > > > > > > > > Europe, creating an Islamic empire there. It was
          > > > > > > > > only
          > > > > > > > > > by the invention of Britain that the Ottomans were
          > > > > > > > > not
          > > > > > > > > > entirely expelled from Europe at the end of the
          > > > > > > > > 19th
          > > > > > > > > > century.
          > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > The Greeks are by no means being irredentist.
          > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > Clearly given the nationalism of the Kemalists any
          > > > > > > > > > assignment of the Symrna area to Turkey would lead
          > > > > > > > > to
          > > > > > > > > > the expulsion of the Greek and Christian
          > > > > > > > > population,
          > > > > > > > > > as was the case with Armenia.
          > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > Britain withdrew in 1922 for purely domestic
          > > > > > > > > reasons.
          > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > However we are a long way from Rome-Byzantium.
          > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > --- "John Piccone <jpiccone@y...>"
          > > > > > > > > > <jpiccone@y...> wrote:
          > > > > > > > > > > Constantinople was a Roman/Byzantine city until
          > > > > > > > > > > 1453, after which it
          > > > > > > > > > > became Istanbul, an Ottoman/Turkish city, which
          > > > > > > > > it
          > > > > > > > > > > has remained
          > > > > > > > > > > since. Irredentist claims of Greece, which is
          > > > > > > > > by no
          > > > > > > > > > > means the
          > > > > > > > > > > successor state to Byzantium, are irrelevant and
          > > > > > > > > > > frankly silly. I
          > > > > > > > > > > suggest you study some "recent" history of the
          > > > > > > > > city;
          > > > > > > > > > > I am a bit taken
          > > > > > > > > > > aback by your claim that Istanbul is not a
          > > > > > > > > Turkish
          > > > > > > > > > > city, since my
          > > > > > > > > > > mother's family has lived there since 1453 and I
          > > > > > > > > > > have spent a lot of
          > > > > > > > > > > time there. Is Egypt A Roman/Greek country?
          > > > > > > > > How
          > > > > > > > > > > about Israel and
          > > > > > > > > > > Jordan? Why not Bulgaria, Serbia, Libya,
          > > > > > > > > Tunisia,
          > > > > > > > > > > Italy, etc. as
          > > > > > > > > > > well?
          > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > > Izmir need not have had all the Greeks expelled
          > > > > > > > > in
          > > > > > > > > > > order to "give it
          > > > > > > > > > > back" to Turkey - the Ottomans had ruled it
          > > > > > > > > since
          > > > > > > > > > > some time before
          > > > > > > > > > > the conquest of Constantinople, and some number
          > > > > > > > > of
          > > > > > > > > > > Greeks had lived
          > > > > > > > > > > there for most of that time; also, the Pontic
          > > > > > > > > Greeks
          > > > > > > > > > > (Black Sea coast
          > > > > > > > > > > around Trebizond) had lived contimuously in that
          > > > > > > > > > > region since
          > > > > > > > > > > antiquity, and had lived quite well and happily
          > > > > > > > > > > under centuried of
          > > > > > > > > > > Ottoman rule.
          > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > > The population exchange was mandated by the
          > > > > > > > > Great
          > > > > > > > > > > Powers in the
          > > > > > > > > > > Treaty of Lausanne, and this was a result of the
          > > > > > > > > > > Greek invasion, not
          > > > > > > > > > > any action by the Turks, so I'm not sure what
          > > > > > > > > you
          > > > > > > > > > > mean.
          > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > > A British campaign in Asia Minor would have had
          > > > > > > > > the
          > > > > > > > > > > same result as
          > > > > > > > > > > the Greek campaign, which is why the British
          > > > > > > > > didn't
          > > > > > > > > > > try it. There
          > > > > > > > > > > was this little thing called "Gallipoli" that
          > > > > > > > > didn't
          > > > > > > > > > > go too well from
          > > > > > > > > > > them, and on the Anatolian plateau they wouldn't
          > > > > > > > > > > have the Royal Navy
          > > > > > > > > > > aavailable for support.
          > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com,
          > > > > > > > > > > Richard Roper
          > > > > > > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
          > > > > > > > > > > > Constaninople was a Greek/Roman city and not a
          > > > > > > > > > > Turkish
          > > > > > > > > > > > one.
          > > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > > > Also the Symrna area could not be returned to
          > > > > > > > > the
          > > > > > > > > > > > Turks without the expulsion of the Greek, (and
          > > > > > > > > > > > Armenian), population.
          > > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't follow had the Great Powers
          > > > > > > > > insisted
          > > > > > > > > > > that
          > > > > > > > > > > > the Treaty of Sevres was upheld that Turkey
          > > > > > > > > would
          > > > > > > > > > > have
          > > > > > > > > > > > entered WWI, Ataturk being very loath to get
          > > > > > > > > > > involvrd.
          > > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > > > But such action would not necessarily mean
          > > > > > > > > Axis
          > > > > > > > > > > > victory, a British campaign in Western Asua
          > > > > > > > > Minor
          > > > > > > > > > > > would have been much more sucessful than
          > > > > > > > > Greece or
          > > > > > > > > > > > Crete, and Russia might have become involved
          > > > > > > > > in
          > > > > > > > > > > alarm,
          > > > > > > > > > > > through a much enlarged Armenia.
          > > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
          > > > > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
          > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign
          > > > > > > > > up
          > > > > > > > > > > now.
          > > > > > > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
          > > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
          > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
          > > > > > > > > now.
          > > > > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
          > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
          > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
          > > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
        • Jim <jamescolex@attbi.com>
          The War of 1928 is way off topic. But for my 2 cents, America was not the America of 1812. Britain may have enjoted early successes, but by the end of the
          Message 4 of 20 , Mar 4 12:15 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            The War of 1928 is way off topic. But for my 2 cents, America was
            not the America of 1812. Britain may have enjoted early successes,
            but by the end of the War they would have lost far more then they
            ever could have gained.


            As for loans, only one country in the history of both World Wars has
            repaid its war debt to the United States. And that was Finland.
            Though I suppose you could argue the ongoing presence of US troops on
            bases in Britain is repayment.



            --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "richard_roper
            <richard_roper@y...>" <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
            > Well, no. But for the massive loans and industrial aid given 1914-
            17
            > the stalemate would have been broken by peace negotiations. WW had
            the
            > good reason for going to war because the massive British loans
            would
            > not have been repaid had Germany won.
            >
            > The American offensive was intended for 1919.
            >
            > The War of 1928 would have been between Britain and the US> and
            there
            > was a probability of it occurring.
            >
            >
            > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
            <jamescolex@a...>"
            > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
            > > Richard,
            > >
            > > I am not saying we won it alone. But surely you can not deny
            that
            > > the stalemate would have conitnued if not for the fresh bodies
            > thrown
            > > into the grinder by th US and the importance of the Economic
            support
            > > provided by the US?
            > >
            > > As for the war ending in 1915 had Britain and France negotiated
            a
            > > Peace with Germany, it would have been at German terms. They
            were
            > > winning and while they may not have had a total victory, they
            were
            > > fighting in allied territory not vice versa.
            > >
            > > AS for the war of 1928 I have not clue what you are referring
            to.
            > >
            > > And yes we are way off topic, I tried to return us to it over two
            > > weeks ago...
            > >
            > > Jim
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "richard_roper
            > > <richard_roper@y...>" <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
            > > > Well, again we are far from Rome-Byzantium.
            > > >
            > > > You Americans, you won WWI now.
            > > >
            > > > But for American economic aid by WW on a grand scale, peace
            > > > negotiations would have begun in 1915.
            > > >
            > > > British historians are now openly saying that WWI was the
            supreme
            > > > disaster and should have been avoided. A sub-view says Britain
            > > should
            > > > have remained neutral.
            > > >
            > > > It was a pyrhhic victory to end all for Britain and without it
            the
            > > > British Empire would have remained intact.
            > > >
            > > > There would have been no Russian Revolution.
            > > >
            > > > But there's just one problem. Perhaps the War of 1928 would
            have
            > > > actually taken place - with Imperial Germany as the ally of the
            > > > British Empire.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
            > > <jamescolex@a...>"
            > > > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
            > > > > Oops I meant surrender to Germany...
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
            > > > <jamescolex@a...>"
            > > > > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
            > > > > > Oh I must be mistaken... You are quite correct without US
            > > Support
            > > > > in
            > > > > > WWI Britain and France could and most likely would have
            > > > > surrendered
            > > > > > to France. Anything less then German surrender would have
            > been
            > > > > seen
            > > > > > as a German Victory.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Intersting idea... Germans Win WWI...
            > > > > >
            > > > > > HeadLine London Times 1915 --- "Peace in Our Time"
            > > > > > - Terms of Treaty
            > > > > > - Germany keeps Lorraine
            > > > > > - Austria Keeps Serbia
            > > > > > - Russia remains dismembered
            > > > > > - Turkey regains control of all Middle Eastern Provinces
            up
            > > to
            > > > > Egypt
            > > > > > - Italy Gains North African concessions
            > > > > > - France licks wounds
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Headline New York 1916
            > > > > > - US begins massive Navaql build up to offset imbalance
            in
            > > power
            > > > > in
            > > > > > Europe
            > > > > > Headline 1915-1925 "Riots Rack - Pick British contolled
            > colony"
            > > > > > - Due to Britains loss of prestige world wide, many
            colonies
            > > > > choose
            > > > > > this period to break awway from the Empire. Britsih forces
            > > > > stretched
            > > > > > to the breaking point lose control of many vital colonies,
            and
            > > are
            > > > > > forced to withdraw far earlier then in our current timeline.
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Headline Moscow (sometime in 20s) - Soviet Forces return
            from
            > > > > Ukraine
            > > > > > -real headline elsewhere Soviet aggression was turned
            back a
            > > s
            > > > > > German backed Ukrainina forces defeated the Soviet invasion
            > > force.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Headline Vienna - 1919 "Serbia becomes third Jewel in
            > > Monarchy"
            > > > > > - Empire changes it's name to Austro-Serbo-Hungarian
            Emipire
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Headline Rome - Anytime "Trains still late"
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > --- In
            RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "richard_roper
            > > > > > <richard_roper@y...>" <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
            > > > > > > In my absence we again appear to have gone off down an
            O.T.
            > > > line.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > We in Europe did not not "barely escape WWI" because of
            US
            > > > > > > involvement. We had to put up with it because of
            involvement
            > > by
            > > > > > > Woodrow Wilson and the US. government. Had they not
            openly
            > > > > > supported
            > > > > > > Britain with material aid on a vast scale then peace
            would
            > > have
            > > > > > broken
            > > > > > > out in 1915 with a negotiated peace.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > It was the Soviet Union and the red Army which
            essentially
            > > > > defeated
            > > > > > > the Wehrmacht as Churchill said, and not the US.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > There was a real possibility of an American Zone of
            > > Occupation _
            > > > > > > Armenia - in 1918 whatever may now be said.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > There was in any case a real chance of Turkey entering on
            > the
            > > > > side
            > > > > > of
            > > > > > > the Axis. However, if the boundaries of the Sevres treaty
            > > > > existed,
            > > > > > the
            > > > > > > Turks would have had to advance across an Armenia and a
            > > > Kurdistan
            > > > > > > before getting anywhere further east.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim
            > > > > > <jamescolex@a...>"
            > > > > > > <jamescolex@a...> wrote:
            > > > > > > > Ok let me respond to your point that Turkey would not
            have
            > > > > > entered
            > > > > > > > WWII. Had the allies Italy, Britain and France tried
            to
            > > > > enforce
            > > > > > the
            > > > > > > > treaty, it is very likely that Germany could have fed
            on
            > > > > Turkish
            > > > > > > > Pride ( demonstrated quite nicely by Mr. Piccone) and
            > drawn
            > > > > them
            > > > > > > into
            > > > > > > > WWII with the enticement that they could have any land
            > they
            > > > > could
            > > > > > > > retake. Like the Free City of Istanbul etc.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > I will be blunt Europe barely escaped WWI and only
            becasue
            > > of
            > > > > US
            > > > > > > > involvement. It survived WWII because of US
            involvement
            > > and
            > > > > > becasue
            > > > > > > > Russia was given time to recover from the almost
            crushing
            > > blow
            > > > > > > > delivered by the Germans. Imagine a fully mobilized and
            > > ticked
            > > > > > off
            > > > > > > > Turkey plunging head long into Central Russia. This
            > surely
            > > > > would
            > > > > > > > have spelt doom for Communist Russia. With Russia
            either
            > > > under
            > > > > > > > occupation or knocked out like WWI by a treay of
            surrender
            > > to
            > > > > the
            > > > > > > > Axis. The Liberation of France would have been far
            more
            > > > > costly,
            > > > > > if
            > > > > > > > it would succeed at all.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > Also Imagine Rommel running loose in Africa with
            Turkish
            > > > forces
            > > > > > > > pushing down the through Lebanon on Egypt. Britain
            would
            > > have
            > > > > > been
            > > > > > > > stretched to the breaking point.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > Finally France could be counted on to do diddly squat.
            If
            > > > they
            > > > > > were
            > > > > > > > not going to gain territory for their empire, they
            would
            > > have
            > > > > > seen
            > > > > > > no
            > > > > > > > need to start a War in 1922 with Turkey. What could
            the
            > > > > possible
            > > > > > > > gain? Unless England was offering part of Egypt(fat
            > chance
            > > in
            > > > > > > hades).
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > If they couldn't be counted on to stand up to Germany
            what
            > > > > makes
            > > > > > you
            > > > > > > > think they would have been willing to stand up to the
            > Turks
            > > or
            > > > > > for
            > > > > > > > that matter stand against the Turks, whom for the most
            > part
            > > of
            > > > > > the
            > > > > > > > past 400 years had been one of France's closest allies.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > As for Post WWI US owning a Zone of Turkey. Bah we
            > > weren't
            > > > > even
            > > > > > > > willing to be part of a toothless orgqanization like
            the
            > > > League
            > > > > > of
            > > > > > > > Nations, what makes you think the citizens or the
            Congress
            > > > > would
            > > > > > > have
            > > > > > > > allowed troops to be deployed in Turkey, which it would
            > > have
            > > > > > taken
            > > > > > > to
            > > > > > > > enforce peace. More then likely that zone and the
            French
            > > > Zone
            > > > > > > would
            > > > > > > > have been truned over to Attaturk right away, with
            Italies
            > > > > > following
            > > > > > > > shortly behing as the Fascists take over.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > I hate to agree with John, but this an untenable
            situation
            > > > > which
            > > > > > was
            > > > > > > > avoided.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, Richard
            > Roper
            > > > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
            > > > > > > > > Well this has little to do with Rome-Byzantium, but we
            > > > > > > > > appear to be dealing with an alternative version of
            > > > > > > > > history in which the Armenian Genocide doesn't takr e
            > > > > > > > > place and other nationaliies other than Turks aren't
            > > > > > > > > expelled from Asia Minor.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > The Kemalists had to expel other nationalities if they
            > > > > > > > > were to create a state based on nationalism and
            > > > > > > > > nationality.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > The Greeks were not in fact in a minority neither did
            > > > > > > > > they "seize" it, it being intended by the Allies to
            > > > > > > > > divide Asia Minor on ethnic lines, it was just Atatuk
            > > > > > > > > wanted territory far in excess of what he was
            > > > > > > > > entitled.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > There was a real possibility of action by the British,
            > > > > > > > > which would have meant the Italians and French would
            > > > > > > > > have been involved, and it was not because of the
            > > > > > > > > overwhelming victory of Ataturk that prevented it.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > --- "John Piccone <jpiccone@y...>"
            > > > > > > > > <jpiccone@y...> wrote:
            > > > > > > > > > Yes, the Ottomans invaded in the 1300s, and before
            > > > > > > > > > that the Bulgars,
            > > > > > > > > > Slavs, Magyars, and countless others invaded. So
            > > > > > > > > > what? By 1914, all
            > > > > > > > > > that was left of the Ottoman Empire was
            > > > > > > > > > overwhelmingly Muslim, and
            > > > > > > > > > the government had done nothing to expell
            > > > > > > > > > minorities. The Armenians
            > > > > > > > > > were expelled for military reasons, not due to
            > > > > > > > > > nationalist
            > > > > > > > > > ideological reasons.
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > The Greeks are not being irridentist anymore,
            > > > > > > > > > because their attempt
            > > > > > > > > > was crushed. The Greeks attempted to seize
            > > > > > > > > > territory where they were
            > > > > > > > > > in a minority, and in most of it, a very small
            > > > > > > > > > minority. The
            > > > > > > > > > nationalism of the Kemalists was not really
            > > > > > > > > > nationalism as we would
            > > > > > > > > > think of it today, as the concept of a "Turk" was
            > > > > > > > > > pretty sketchy back
            > > > > > > > > > then; Kemal's program was to establish a state that
            > > > > > > > > > was not based on
            > > > > > > > > > religion; the term "Turk" included people we would
            > > > > > > > > > call Kurds,
            > > > > > > > > > Circassians, Laz, and many other groups. It is
            > > > > > > > > > notable that the Jews
            > > > > > > > > > were strongly encouraged to stay, and did - it was
            > > > > > > > > > the peoples that
            > > > > > > > > > had actively revolted and tried to seize territory
            > > > > > > > > > that were
            > > > > > > > > > expelled, and even then, the Powers decided the
            > > > > > > > > > Greeks should go.
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > Britain did not withdraw for domestic reasons, they
            > > > > > > > > > withdrew because
            > > > > > > > > > with the total victory of the Kemalists, their
            > > > > > > > > > position was
            > > > > > > > > > untenable, unless they wnated to maintain a huge
            > > > > > > > > > fleet in the Straits
            > > > > > > > > > and a large garrison among a hostile population;
            > > > > > > > > > this was impossible
            > > > > > > > > > for impoverished post-war Britain. To eliminate the
            > > > > > > > > > threat, it would
            > > > > > > > > > have been necessary to penetrate to central
            > > > > > > > > > Anatolia, which was
            > > > > > > > > > beyond Britain's capabilities. If the Russians
            > > > > > > > > > couldn't do it,
            > > > > > > > > > Britain certainly couldn't.
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com,
            > > > > > > > > > Richard Roper
            > > > > > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
            > > > > > > > > > > It was the Ottomans who invade Europe and
            > > > > > > > > > southeast
            > > > > > > > > > > Europe, creating an Islamic empire there. It was
            > > > > > > > > > only
            > > > > > > > > > > by the invention of Britain that the Ottomans were
            > > > > > > > > > not
            > > > > > > > > > > entirely expelled from Europe at the end of the
            > > > > > > > > > 19th
            > > > > > > > > > > century.
            > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > The Greeks are by no means being irredentist.
            > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > Clearly given the nationalism of the Kemalists any
            > > > > > > > > > > assignment of the Symrna area to Turkey would lead
            > > > > > > > > > to
            > > > > > > > > > > the expulsion of the Greek and Christian
            > > > > > > > > > population,
            > > > > > > > > > > as was the case with Armenia.
            > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > Britain withdrew in 1922 for purely domestic
            > > > > > > > > > reasons.
            > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > However we are a long way from Rome-Byzantium.
            > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > --- "John Piccone <jpiccone@y...>"
            > > > > > > > > > > <jpiccone@y...> wrote:
            > > > > > > > > > > > Constantinople was a Roman/Byzantine city until
            > > > > > > > > > > > 1453, after which it
            > > > > > > > > > > > became Istanbul, an Ottoman/Turkish city, which
            > > > > > > > > > it
            > > > > > > > > > > > has remained
            > > > > > > > > > > > since. Irredentist claims of Greece, which is
            > > > > > > > > > by no
            > > > > > > > > > > > means the
            > > > > > > > > > > > successor state to Byzantium, are irrelevant and
            > > > > > > > > > > > frankly silly. I
            > > > > > > > > > > > suggest you study some "recent" history of the
            > > > > > > > > > city;
            > > > > > > > > > > > I am a bit taken
            > > > > > > > > > > > aback by your claim that Istanbul is not a
            > > > > > > > > > Turkish
            > > > > > > > > > > > city, since my
            > > > > > > > > > > > mother's family has lived there since 1453 and I
            > > > > > > > > > > > have spent a lot of
            > > > > > > > > > > > time there. Is Egypt A Roman/Greek country?
            > > > > > > > > > How
            > > > > > > > > > > > about Israel and
            > > > > > > > > > > > Jordan? Why not Bulgaria, Serbia, Libya,
            > > > > > > > > > Tunisia,
            > > > > > > > > > > > Italy, etc. as
            > > > > > > > > > > > well?
            > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > > Izmir need not have had all the Greeks expelled
            > > > > > > > > > in
            > > > > > > > > > > > order to "give it
            > > > > > > > > > > > back" to Turkey - the Ottomans had ruled it
            > > > > > > > > > since
            > > > > > > > > > > > some time before
            > > > > > > > > > > > the conquest of Constantinople, and some number
            > > > > > > > > > of
            > > > > > > > > > > > Greeks had lived
            > > > > > > > > > > > there for most of that time; also, the Pontic
            > > > > > > > > > Greeks
            > > > > > > > > > > > (Black Sea coast
            > > > > > > > > > > > around Trebizond) had lived contimuously in that
            > > > > > > > > > > > region since
            > > > > > > > > > > > antiquity, and had lived quite well and happily
            > > > > > > > > > > > under centuried of
            > > > > > > > > > > > Ottoman rule.
            > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > > The population exchange was mandated by the
            > > > > > > > > > Great
            > > > > > > > > > > > Powers in the
            > > > > > > > > > > > Treaty of Lausanne, and this was a result of the
            > > > > > > > > > > > Greek invasion, not
            > > > > > > > > > > > any action by the Turks, so I'm not sure what
            > > > > > > > > > you
            > > > > > > > > > > > mean.
            > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > > A British campaign in Asia Minor would have had
            > > > > > > > > > the
            > > > > > > > > > > > same result as
            > > > > > > > > > > > the Greek campaign, which is why the British
            > > > > > > > > > didn't
            > > > > > > > > > > > try it. There
            > > > > > > > > > > > was this little thing called "Gallipoli" that
            > > > > > > > > > didn't
            > > > > > > > > > > > go too well from
            > > > > > > > > > > > them, and on the Anatolian plateau they wouldn't
            > > > > > > > > > > > have the Royal Navy
            > > > > > > > > > > > aavailable for support.
            > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > > --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com,
            > > > > > > > > > > > Richard Roper
            > > > > > > > > > > > <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
            > > > > > > > > > > > > Constaninople was a Greek/Roman city and not a
            > > > > > > > > > > > Turkish
            > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
            > > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > > > Also the Symrna area could not be returned to
            > > > > > > > > > the
            > > > > > > > > > > > > Turks without the expulsion of the Greek, (and
            > > > > > > > > > > > > Armenian), population.
            > > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't follow had the Great Powers
            > > > > > > > > > insisted
            > > > > > > > > > > > that
            > > > > > > > > > > > > the Treaty of Sevres was upheld that Turkey
            > > > > > > > > > would
            > > > > > > > > > > > have
            > > > > > > > > > > > > entered WWI, Ataturk being very loath to get
            > > > > > > > > > > > involvrd.
            > > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > > > But such action would not necessarily mean
            > > > > > > > > > Axis
            > > > > > > > > > > > > victory, a British campaign in Western Asua
            > > > > > > > > > Minor
            > > > > > > > > > > > > would have been much more sucessful than
            > > > > > > > > > Greece or
            > > > > > > > > > > > > Crete, and Russia might have become involved
            > > > > > > > > > in
            > > > > > > > > > > > alarm,
            > > > > > > > > > > > > through a much enlarged Armenia.
            > > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
            > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
            > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign
            > > > > > > > > > up
            > > > > > > > > > > > now.
            > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
            > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
            > > > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
            > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
            > > > > > > > > > now.
            > > > > > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
            > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
            > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
            > > > > > > > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          • jcunningham9 <jcunningham9@yahoo.com>
            I find the Turkish component of this thread by Msr. Roper quite interesting...and mistaken. It seems he has a fundamental miconception over the composition of
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 4 1:32 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              I find the Turkish component of this thread by Msr. Roper quite
              interesting...and mistaken. It seems he has a fundamental
              miconception over the composition of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire
              was a truly multi-ethnic state, and when Kemal Ataturk created the
              Turkish Republic from the ashes of the Empire this tradition carried
              forward. To be a "Turk" was to be anyone of any Ottoman background
              who was a citizen of the new Turkey. So the Kemalists did not "expel
              other nationalities" to create a new Turkey, and what expulsions did
              occur were conducted by the Ottoman Empire as a reaction to internal
              nationalist movements seeking to break away from the Empire. This
              does not excuse any atrocities, but it is important to consider that
              the "Armenian Genocide" took place during a period of extreme
              upheaval and chaos, during which millions of Ottoman citizens died or
              were displaced.

              I mean, ask yourself, who is a Turk? Might as well ask who is an
              American. Kemal Ataturk was a Balkan-Greek Ottoman - born in
              Salonika, now part of Greece. How "ethnically Turkish" was he? Or my
              wife's family -- Turks from what was once Bosnia and Macedonia. Or
              another Turkish friend of mine who's family hails from Armenia
              originally. So your basic concept of some extreme nationalist/racist
              Turkey is absurd!!!

              Further, the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire was followed by a
              land grab by Greece and the Western Powers that blew up in their
              faces! The Ottoman Empire surrendered in 1918, and a coalition land-
              grab led by the European powers included an invasion of Asia Minor by
              Greece in 1919. Not only was Greece promised what is now western
              Turkey, but the Kurds were also used by the Western powers in the
              east and promised a homeland – they seem to have come up on the short
              end, eh? Further, I might ask you how many Turks were left in the
              Greek Peninsula following the Greek War of Independence and the two
              Balkan Wars preceding WWI? I would submit to you that the number
              was "zero." The Greek invasion of Turkey was a bloody affair that
              included well document atrocities equaling those suffered by the
              Greeks under Ottoman occupation, and could very well explain why
              those Greeks living in Asia Minor were booted out or "encouraged" to
              leave following Ataturk's liberation of Turkey from the Western
              powers (and Greece). And the Western powers violated the treaties
              that the Ottomans "agreed" to in permitting the Greek invasion in the
              first place, an invasion which attempted a thrust into Anatolia to
              seize what little was left of the Empire for "turks" at all.

              In fact, it was only with the invasion and occupation by the West
              that the concept of a nation called "Turkey" became possible, and
              that a ground-swell of action against the invaders took on the role
              of a nationalist liberation movement. The European Powers ended up
              having to recognize the Kemal government that emerged, given a
              nationalist movement of such a large scope, and the military failures
              suffered by the Greeks and European powers, they were essentially
              powerless to change this without a major resource commitment they,
              and their publics, were not prepared to make. The Europeans
              pragmatically followed they policy they nearly always do – recognize
              those in power as the legitimate government.

              So your argument that somehow if these shaky treaties, immediately
              violated by the powers that dicated them, somehow could have led to a
              different result in which there was a Kurdish nation (and there is an
              Armenian nation -- how does that keep getting forgotten?), American
              Zones, and a fundamantally different structure, seems off.
            • John Piccone
              The hostility toward Turks is quite startling, and the revisionism disturbing. The population of Ottoman Europe prior to 1876 was 43% Muslim. Some are
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 18, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                The hostility toward Turks is quite startling, and the revisionism
                disturbing.

                The population of Ottoman Europe prior to 1876 was 43% Muslim. Some
                are accounted for in the Bosnian Muslims and Albanians, but the rest
                were either massacred, or driven out to become refugees in Anatolia.
                In WWI, 2.5 million Muslims were killed in Eastern Anatolia, in a
                period of horrendous ethnic strife. Contrary to assertions below,
                the Western area of Anatolia did NOT have a Greek majority, nor had
                it for centuries; census data is freely available to support this.

                Finally, the Treaty of Sevres, violated by the powers that imposed
                it, was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, which was still a peace
                treaty to end WWI between the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic and the
                Entente, recognizing the Ottomans/Turks as the surrendering party.
                The population exchange was mandated by the victors, the Entente, not
                by the Kemalists.

                Greeks had always been a priveledged group in the Ottoman empire,
                even after the war for Greek independence, subject for most of
                Ottoman history to the spritual and temporal authority of the
                Orthodox Patriarch, just as the Armenians were to the Armenian
                Patriarch.

                As stated below, "Turk" is not a word with an easy definition. For
                instance, my maternal Grandmother, who called herself Turkish, was
                actually Albanian. My maternal grandfather was half Circassian.
                Ottomans classified themselves by religion, not ethnicity; thus
                Muslims became "Turks", and Orthodox became "Greeks", even though
                many of them were not Greek, and many were Turkish-speaking. This is
                another reason why it has taken so long for the Turkish public to
                become aware of the Kurds as a seperate ethnicity; they were always
                regarded as "mountain Turks".


                --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "jcunningham9
                <jcunningham9@y...>" <jcunningham9@y...> wrote:
                > I find the Turkish component of this thread by Msr. Roper quite
                > interesting...and mistaken. It seems he has a fundamental
                > miconception over the composition of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire
                > was a truly multi-ethnic state, and when Kemal Ataturk created the
                > Turkish Republic from the ashes of the Empire this tradition
                carried
                > forward. To be a "Turk" was to be anyone of any Ottoman background
                > who was a citizen of the new Turkey. So the Kemalists did
                not "expel
                > other nationalities" to create a new Turkey, and what expulsions
                did
                > occur were conducted by the Ottoman Empire as a reaction to
                internal
                > nationalist movements seeking to break away from the Empire. This
                > does not excuse any atrocities, but it is important to consider
                that
                > the "Armenian Genocide" took place during a period of extreme
                > upheaval and chaos, during which millions of Ottoman citizens died
                or
                > were displaced.
                >
                > I mean, ask yourself, who is a Turk? Might as well ask who is an
                > American. Kemal Ataturk was a Balkan-Greek Ottoman - born in
                > Salonika, now part of Greece. How "ethnically Turkish" was he? Or
                my
                > wife's family -- Turks from what was once Bosnia and Macedonia. Or
                > another Turkish friend of mine who's family hails from Armenia
                > originally. So your basic concept of some extreme
                nationalist/racist
                > Turkey is absurd!!!
                >
                > Further, the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire was followed by a
                > land grab by Greece and the Western Powers that blew up in their
                > faces! The Ottoman Empire surrendered in 1918, and a coalition land-
                > grab led by the European powers included an invasion of Asia Minor
                by
                > Greece in 1919. Not only was Greece promised what is now western
                > Turkey, but the Kurds were also used by the Western powers in the
                > east and promised a homeland – they seem to have come up on the
                short
                > end, eh? Further, I might ask you how many Turks were left in the
                > Greek Peninsula following the Greek War of Independence and the two
                > Balkan Wars preceding WWI? I would submit to you that the number
                > was "zero." The Greek invasion of Turkey was a bloody affair that
                > included well document atrocities equaling those suffered by the
                > Greeks under Ottoman occupation, and could very well explain why
                > those Greeks living in Asia Minor were booted out or "encouraged"
                to
                > leave following Ataturk's liberation of Turkey from the Western
                > powers (and Greece). And the Western powers violated the treaties
                > that the Ottomans "agreed" to in permitting the Greek invasion in
                the
                > first place, an invasion which attempted a thrust into Anatolia to
                > seize what little was left of the Empire for "turks" at all.
                >
                > In fact, it was only with the invasion and occupation by the West
                > that the concept of a nation called "Turkey" became possible, and
                > that a ground-swell of action against the invaders took on the role
                > of a nationalist liberation movement. The European Powers ended up
                > having to recognize the Kemal government that emerged, given a
                > nationalist movement of such a large scope, and the military
                failures
                > suffered by the Greeks and European powers, they were essentially
                > powerless to change this without a major resource commitment they,
                > and their publics, were not prepared to make. The Europeans
                > pragmatically followed they policy they nearly always do –
                recognize
                > those in power as the legitimate government.
                >
                > So your argument that somehow if these shaky treaties, immediately
                > violated by the powers that dicated them, somehow could have led to
                a
                > different result in which there was a Kurdish nation (and there is
                an
                > Armenian nation -- how does that keep getting forgotten?), American
                > Zones, and a fundamantally different structure, seems off.
              • st_prez
                Yes, this was sort of what Mustapha Kemal was on about. The definition of = turks, though, comes from the Young Turk movement that succeeded Abd-al-Hamid
                Message 7 of 20 , Jan 17, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, this was sort of what Mustapha Kemal was on about. The definition of =
                  "turks," though, comes from the "Young Turk" movement
                  that succeeded Abd-al-Hamid II (the Paranoid). These cats were trying to m=
                  ake the empire Turkish as an ethnic thing appropriate to a
                  modern state. They WERE trying to sell a sort of pan-Turkish ideology, whi=
                  ch is why Enver Pasha ended up getting killed as a
                  Turkish Freikorps leader in central Asia after the Russian empire fell apar=
                  t. They weren't 'Islamic fanatics.' They were 'ethnic
                  cleansers.' The post-WWI Greeks were trying to do exactly the same thing, =
                  but they lost, and that's why the boundaries are where
                  they are today. The Armenians got caught between the 'Young Turks' and th=
                  e Bolshevik revolution, and they really paid the price.

                  In my own Alternate Byzantium, this is the 'Young Hellas' movement, involvi=
                  ng an attempt to reintruduce 'classical' Greek culture by
                  (again) a bunch of rich kids educated at Paris and Heidelberg, and taking t=
                  he writings of George Gemistos Plethon as their textbook.
                  Anyone can be a Hellene, as long as he is a Platonist and speaks the kathar=
                  evousa. Hence the revolution of 1918, led by the
                  Christian Revolutionsry party, and the subsequent establishment of the Demo=
                  tic Republic of the Roman People. After that, things get
                  interesting . . .

                  --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "jcunningham9 <jcunningham9@y=
                  ...>" <jcunningham9@y...> wrote:
                  > I find the Turkish component of this thread by Msr. Roper quite
                  > interesting...and mistaken. It seems he has a fundamental
                  > miconception over the composition of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire
                  > was a truly multi-ethnic state, and when Kemal Ataturk created the
                  > Turkish Republic from the ashes of the Empire this tradition carried
                  > forward. To be a "Turk" was to be anyone of any Ottoman background
                  > who was a citizen of the new Turkey. So the Kemalists did not "expel
                  > other nationalities" to create a new Turkey, and what expulsions did
                  > occur were conducted by the Ottoman Empire as a reaction to internal
                  > nationalist movements seeking to break away from the Empire. This
                  > does not excuse any atrocities, but it is important to consider that
                  > the "Armenian Genocide" took place during a period of extreme
                  > upheaval and chaos, during which millions of Ottoman citizens died or
                  > were displaced.
                  >
                  > I mean, ask yourself, who is a Turk? Might as well ask who is an
                  > American. Kemal Ataturk was a Balkan-Greek Ottoman - born in
                  > Salonika, now part of Greece. How "ethnically Turkish" was he? Or my
                  > wife's family -- Turks from what was once Bosnia and Macedonia. Or
                  > another Turkish friend of mine who's family hails from Armenia
                  > originally. So your basic concept of some extreme nationalist/racist
                  > Turkey is absurd!!!
                  >
                  > Further, the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire was followed by a
                  > land grab by Greece and the Western Powers that blew up in their
                  > faces! The Ottoman Empire surrendered in 1918, and a coalition land-
                  > grab led by the European powers included an invasion of Asia Minor by
                  > Greece in 1919. Not only was Greece promised what is now western
                  > Turkey, but the Kurds were also used by the Western powers in the
                  > east and promised a homeland – they seem to have come up on the short
                  > end, eh? Further, I might ask you how many Turks were left in the
                  > Greek Peninsula following the Greek War of Independence and the two
                  > Balkan Wars preceding WWI? I would submit to you that the number
                  > was "zero." The Greek invasion of Turkey was a bloody affair that
                  > included well document atrocities equaling those suffered by the
                  > Greeks under Ottoman occupation, and could very well explain why
                  > those Greeks living in Asia Minor were booted out or "encouraged" to
                  > leave following Ataturk's liberation of Turkey from the Western
                  > powers (and Greece). And the Western powers violated the treaties
                  > that the Ottomans "agreed" to in permitting the Greek invasion in the
                  > first place, an invasion which attempted a thrust into Anatolia to
                  > seize what little was left of the Empire for "turks" at all.
                  >
                  > In fact, it was only with the invasion and occupation by the West
                  > that the concept of a nation called "Turkey" became possible, and
                  > that a ground-swell of action against the invaders took on the role
                  > of a nationalist liberation movement. The European Powers ended up
                  > having to recognize the Kemal government that emerged, given a
                  > nationalist movement of such a large scope, and the military failures
                  > suffered by the Greeks and European powers, they were essentially
                  > powerless to change this without a major resource commitment they,
                  > and their publics, were not prepared to make. The Europeans
                  > pragmatically followed they policy they nearly always do – recognize
                  > those in power as the legitimate government.
                  >
                  > So your argument that somehow if these shaky treaties, immediately
                  > violated by the powers that dicated them, somehow could have led to a
                  > different result in which there was a Kurdish nation (and there is an
                  > Armenian nation -- how does that keep getting forgotten?), American
                  > Zones, and a fundamantally different structure, seems off.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.