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

Re: RomanByzantineAltHist Roman-Byzantium Club

Expand Messages
  • Richard Roper
    This is an Alternative History site, and the running away from the Treaty of Sevres is in fact one of the Alternative turning points in history. On one
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 1, 2003
      This is an Alternative History site, and the running
      away from the Treaty of Sevres is in fact one of the
      Alternative turning points in history. On one
      Alternative History game iwas on, starting in 1922,
      war broke out between the Allied Powers and Ataturk.

      Whilst enforcing the treaty of versailles on germany,
      they chickened out of the treaty of Sevres, partly
      because of a political crisis in Britain.

      It was originally intended that Turkey would cease to
      exist and Asia Minor partitioned between the Great
      Powers, with one zone assigned to the US. - I've seen
      the map.

      Armenia would have come almost to Cape Sinope. As well
      as driving out the greeks, they also drove out the
      Armenians. Originally Greek territory almost came to
      the gates of Constantinople.


      --- Sebastian Brier <sebastianbrier@...> wrote:
      >
      > I've been wondering about this whole modern,
      > post-Sevres Empire idea...
      > With the corruption and problems the Greeks were
      > having, the whole idea does seem rather far-fetched.
      > The Turks did have far more resources and better
      > organization, even though they were split into
      > factions.
      > However, the idea is still workable. After all,
      > this IS Alternate History we're talking about!
      > I would see it as a great story if the Greeks had a
      > great general, a re-born Alexander, THAT would have
      > been interesting. He would have to be goooooood
      > though, because the Turks waaay outnumbered the
      > Greeks.
      > Another big factor could well be Armenia. Like if
      > the Armenians and Greeks were somehow able to team
      > up with other groups, like the Kurds. Even if they
      > wouldn't all "team up", they may well have been able
      > to provide enough of a distraction...
      > And if worse came to worse, there was also the
      > British, French, and Italian expeditionary forces.
      > Even though they backed off in our TL, who can say
      > what they might do in an AH.
      > As for the rest of the world letting the Greeks keep
      > Constantinople, somehow I doubt it. I think they
      > would have made it a "free-trade" zone under Allied
      > control. This was at the same time that the Soviets
      > were consolidating their power, and the Allies
      > feared Soviet expanion.
      > Sebastian Brier
      > Richard Roper <richard_roper@...>
      > 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
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > RomanByzantineAltHist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      > Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      > Sebastian Brier
      > www.milliondadsmarch.org
      > "You can't Stop me! You can only hope to Contain
      > me!"
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now


      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
      http://mailplus.yahoo.com
    • John Piccone <jpiccone@yahoo.com>
      Constantinople was a Roman/Byzantine city until 1453, after which it became Istanbul, an Ottoman/Turkish city, which it has remained since. Irredentist claims
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 3, 2003
        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
      • John Piccone <jpiccone@yahoo.com>
        Look, I love Byzantine history, but the empire died in 1204, and the last signs of life went out in 1453. Turkey is what it is, and that s highly preferrable
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 3, 2003
          Look, I love Byzantine history, but the empire died in 1204, and the
          last signs of life went out in 1453. Turkey is what it is, and
          that's highly preferrable to some Greater Greece that would have
          tried to eradicate all traces of the Ottoman period with tragic
          results. The Ottomans at least were very tolerant of other cultures
          and religions (especially in comparison to European nations), and
          modern Greece is not an empire, nor does it have any historical
          connection to the Byzantine Empire. Turkey is more of a successor to
          the Byzantine Empire than Greece is, since Turkey's institutions can
          trace themselves back to Byzantium.

          A new Greek Alexander wouldn't have mattered, since the Turks HAD a
          new Alexander, and still had totally superior resources and terrain
          advantages on their side. And the Greeks DID team up with other
          forces: the British and Armenians. The Turks pushed them all out.
          Those that backed out, like Italy, did so for very good reasons. I
          would remind you that Turkey would be even larger today if it weren't
          for British treachery (Mosul).

          I think we should concentrate on AH that could have preserved the
          empire, not hollow attempts to ressurrect it 700 years later.

          --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, Sebastian Brier
          <sebastianbrier@y...> wrote:
          >
          > I've been wondering about this whole modern, post-Sevres Empire
          idea...
          > With the corruption and problems the Greeks were having, the whole
          idea does seem rather far-fetched. The Turks did have far more
          resources and better organization, even though they were split into
          factions.
          > However, the idea is still workable. After all, this IS Alternate
          History we're talking about!
          > I would see it as a great story if the Greeks had a great general,
          a re-born Alexander, THAT would have been interesting. He would have
          to be goooooood though, because the Turks waaay outnumbered the
          Greeks.
          > Another big factor could well be Armenia. Like if the Armenians
          and Greeks were somehow able to team up with other groups, like the
          Kurds. Even if they wouldn't all "team up", they may well have been
          able to provide enough of a distraction...
          > And if worse came to worse, there was also the British, French, and
          Italian expeditionary forces. Even though they backed off in our TL,
          who can say what they might do in an AH.
          > As for the rest of the world letting the Greeks keep
          Constantinople, somehow I doubt it. I think they would have made it
          a "free-trade" zone under Allied control. This was at the same time
          that the Soviets were consolidating their power, and the Allies
          feared Soviet expanion.
          > Sebastian Brier
          > 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
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > RomanByzantineAltHist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          Service.
          >
          >
          > Sebastian Brier
          > www.milliondadsmarch.org
          > "You can't Stop me! You can only hope to Contain me!"
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
        • John Piccone <jpiccone@yahoo.com>
          True, but this is a Roman and Byzantine history site, not a Greece AH site. Today s Greece has absolutely no connection to the Byzantine Empire, and Sevres
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 3, 2003
            True, but this is a Roman and Byzantine history site, not a Greece AH
            site. Today's Greece has absolutely no connection to the Byzantine
            Empire, and Sevres was superceded by Lausanne because nobady had the
            power to enforce Sevres - it was just not possible, or at least not
            worth the enormous price. Remember, the Ottoman Empire had been
            continuously been at war from 1911-1923, and fought intesively
            simulataneously on several fronts, and unlike Russia, Germany,
            Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria, did not collapse; the Ottomans asked
            for an armistice because the sudden collapse of Bulgaria made
            Istanbul indefensible, as there was not enough time to shift troops
            over for its defense; and most of the fighting was not in defense of
            the Turkish homeland of Anatolia - any attempt to destroy the Turkish
            state would have been a bloody disaster. In our timeline, everybody
            recognized that except Greece and Lloyd George; in any AH, the result
            would have been the same, just with more bloodshed.

            --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, Richard Roper
            <richard_roper@y...> wrote:
            > This is an Alternative History site, and the running
            > away from the Treaty of Sevres is in fact one of the
            > Alternative turning points in history. On one
            > Alternative History game iwas on, starting in 1922,
            > war broke out between the Allied Powers and Ataturk.
            >
            > Whilst enforcing the treaty of versailles on germany,
            > they chickened out of the treaty of Sevres, partly
            > because of a political crisis in Britain.
            >
            > It was originally intended that Turkey would cease to
            > exist and Asia Minor partitioned between the Great
            > Powers, with one zone assigned to the US. - I've seen
            > the map.
            >
            > Armenia would have come almost to Cape Sinope. As well
            > as driving out the greeks, they also drove out the
            > Armenians. Originally Greek territory almost came to
            > the gates of Constantinople.
            >
            >
            > --- Sebastian Brier <sebastianbrier@y...> wrote:
            > >
            > > I've been wondering about this whole modern,
            > > post-Sevres Empire idea...
            > > With the corruption and problems the Greeks were
            > > having, the whole idea does seem rather far-fetched.
            > > The Turks did have far more resources and better
            > > organization, even though they were split into
            > > factions.
            > > However, the idea is still workable. After all,
            > > this IS Alternate History we're talking about!
            > > I would see it as a great story if the Greeks had a
            > > great general, a re-born Alexander, THAT would have
            > > been interesting. He would have to be goooooood
            > > though, because the Turks waaay outnumbered the
            > > Greeks.
            > > Another big factor could well be Armenia. Like if
            > > the Armenians and Greeks were somehow able to team
            > > up with other groups, like the Kurds. Even if they
            > > wouldn't all "team up", they may well have been able
            > > to provide enough of a distraction...
            > > And if worse came to worse, there was also the
            > > British, French, and Italian expeditionary forces.
            > > Even though they backed off in our TL, who can say
            > > what they might do in an AH.
            > > As for the rest of the world letting the Greeks keep
            > > Constantinople, somehow I doubt it. I think they
            > > would have made it a "free-trade" zone under Allied
            > > control. This was at the same time that the Soviets
            > > were consolidating their power, and the Allies
            > > feared Soviet expanion.
            > > Sebastian Brier
            > > 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
            > >
            > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > > RomanByzantineAltHist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
            > > Terms of Service.
            > >
            > >
            > > Sebastian Brier
            > > www.milliondadsmarch.org
            > > "You can't Stop me! You can only hope to Contain
            > > me!"
            > >
            > >
            > > ---------------------------------
            > > Do you Yahoo!?
            > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
            >
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do you Yahoo!?
            > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
            > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          • Richard Roper
            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
            Message 5 of 20 , Feb 3, 2003
              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@...>"
              <jpiccone@...> 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
            • John Piccone <jpiccone@yahoo.com>
              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
              Message 6 of 20 , Feb 3, 2003
                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
              • Richard Roper
                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
                Message 7 of 20 , Feb 4, 2003
                  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@...>"
                  <jpiccone@...> 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>
                  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
                  Message 8 of 20 , Feb 4, 2003
                    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>
                    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
                    Message 9 of 20 , Feb 22, 2003
                      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>
                      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
                      Message 10 of 20 , Feb 28, 2003
                        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>
                        Oops I meant surrender to Germany... ... in ... surrendered ... seen ... Egypt ... in ... choose ... stretched ... Ukraine ... defeated ... side ... existed,
                        Message 11 of 20 , Feb 28, 2003
                          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, 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 12 of 20 , Mar 1, 2003
                            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 13 of 20 , Mar 3, 2003
                              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 14 of 20 , Mar 3, 2003
                                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 15 of 20 , Mar 4, 2003
                                  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 16 of 20 , Mar 4, 2003
                                    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 17 of 20 , Apr 18, 2003
                                      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 18 of 20 , Jan 17, 2004
                                        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.