If Turkey enters WWII on the Axis side and subsequently loses the war, how much territory is it going to lose?

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,322
Las Vegas, NV USA
#11
Why not have Greece acquire all of the Turkish coastline from Zonguldak to Antalya and expel all of the Turks living there?
Too much. Turkey's core territory in Anatolia should probably be kept except the Armenian area. It still depends on what happened in the war such as how Turkey treated British POWs for example.

The US had no territorial interest in Japan or Germany nor did its Western allies. France got its territory back. Japan or Germany is not comparable to a pro German Turkey in WWII. Except for the Anatolian core, these were conquered lands beginning with Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,935
SoCal
#12
Too much. Turkey's core territory in Anatolia should probably be kept except the Armenian area. It still depends on what happened in the war such as how Turkey treated British POWs for example.
The "Armenian area" was no longer an Armenian area by the 1940s, though.

As for their treatment of British POWs, I would assume that it would be comparable to the Italians' treatment of British POWs.

The US had no territorial interest in Japan or Germany nor did its Western allies. France got its territory back. Japan or Germany is not comparable to a pro German Turkey in WWII. Except for the Anatolian core, these were conquered lands beginning with Constantinople.
What's your point about these being conquered lands? After all, the Anatolian core was also a conquered land.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,935
SoCal
#14
Japan got off lightly?
Okinawa taken off it by the US.
Sakahalin taken off it by the Soviets.
It’s entire empire was dismantled.
Occupied for longer than Germany too.
Its core territory largely remained intact, though. The same certainly can't be said for Germany. Plus, it wasn't partitioned for almost half a century like Germany was.
 
Feb 2016
4,358
Japan
#15
Well you could argue that Japan’s core territory was divided as it considered Sakhalin as its core territory. The whinge to Russia about it even today.

Also Germany as a single state was not historical. It had been unified for less than 100 years and was actually an amalgamation of several Germanic nations that should have stayed independent.

So splitting it in half was an easier compromise with Russia.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,322
Las Vegas, NV USA
#16
The "Armenian area" was no longer an Armenian area by the 1940s, though.
Really? There were no Armenians in Turkey by this time?

What's your point about these being conquered lands? After all, the Anatolian core was also a conquered land.
It's somewhat arbitrary but I think you could draw line between Turkish lands to t he east which had been conquered several centuries earlier and Constantinople which fell 1453.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,935
SoCal
#17
Really? There were no Armenians in Turkey by this time?
Not that many. After all, this was after the Armenian Genocide.

It's somewhat arbitrary but I think you could draw line between Turkish lands to t he east which had been conquered several centuries earlier and Constantinople which fell 1453.
The Byzantine Empire still controlled western Anatolia as late as the late 13th century, though:



Plus, there was a separate Byzantine state at Trebizond until the early 1460s!
 
Likes: stevev

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,935
SoCal
#19
A separate, off-topic question (I don't want to create a new thread just for this question): Had Russia somehow avoided the Bolshevik Revolution and thus remained in WWI up to the very end, would it have actually been any more successful against Ataturk's forces in the Turkish War of Independence than the Brits, French, and Greeks were in real life?
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,575
#20
The population exchange in the 1920's had pretty much removed the argument for ceding territory based on plebiscite and interests of local populations. If a defeated Turkey after WWII is going to lose large swathes of land it would require not just the principle of self-determination but a post-fact roll-back of the entire settlement already reached. Then the Greeks can get then Aegean coastline of Asia Minor AND the Pontian coastline, resettling the Pontian Greeks there one might presume, and in the bargain they would get Constantinopolis. Turkey would be pushed back to its new capital of Ankara, established partly to create some place more "pure" Turkish than the mongrel city of Constantinopolis anyway.

But probably if there would be border revisions, possibly Hatay back to Syria, expansion of Soviet SSRS in the eastern part of Anatolia at Turkey's expense, and the Greeks get Adrianopolis/Edirne bringing them right up to, but not giving them, Constantinopolis.

Then again it depends on HOW Turkey would be defeated. By the Soviets? Well maybe then an entirely new Turkish Socialist Peoples' Republic as a Soviet satellite.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions