The Fate of Constantinople/Istanbul After WW1!

[Boyar Son]

The defeated countries lost many territories in the aftermath of the great war, but I do not know why the allies (possibly just the British?) did not cede Constantinople/Istanbul to Greece? They gave them a large amount of territory relative to their nation's size but not one of their ancient capitals? Poland was created, Romania, Yugoslavia, Lithuania but no Byzantium/Eastern Rome?

Maybe the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines were irrelevant and long dead in the eyes of the west and left it to Turkey? I don't know. It's not a simple question to google

[PointOfViewGun]

The defeated countries lost many territories in the aftermath of the great war, but I do not know why the allies (possibly just the British?) did not cede Constantinople/Istanbul to Greece? They gave them a large amount of territory relative to their nation's size but not one of their ancient capitals? Poland was created, Romania, Yugoslavia, Lithuania but no Byzantium/Eastern Rome?

Maybe the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines were irrelevant and long dead in the eyes of the west and left it to Turkey? I don't know. It's not a simple question to google

Ummm, you wanted them to give the city, where Greeks were a minority, to Greece? Even as early as 1831, the city was about 66% Muslim. If they gave the city and the region to Greeks then they would risk an other war in Thrace and the city would simply implode.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Constantinople has been under Ottoman rule for almost five hundred years by that point. During that period, its demographics have shifted significantly, to a point the Turks were a majority by a wide margin.

Giving it back at that point would be sort of like the British deciding they want Normandy back. True, they did own it at some point, even had a good claim back in the day, but it was a long time ago and the populations have shifted enough to make their claims dubious given the reality of whose living there now.

[Abdülmecid I]

As Setekh and Calligula's Horse said, the Greeks weren't the majority of Istanbul's population. In fact, when the city was captured by Mehmed II, its population was decreased considerably and only thanks to the efforts of the Sultans it could rise again. Also, Entente had no reason to give such a strategic for military and financial reasons spot to a state that only joined the war in 1917, while previously it was co-operating with the central powers. In fact, afaik, the Greeks didn't even fight the Ottoman Army, focusing exclusively on the Macedonian front and the Bulgarian kingdom.

[Cyclops]

There was a lot of redrawing lines, Poland getting Gdansk, Yugoslavia coming into existence, and IIRC there was some sympathy for the Megali Idea in France and Great Britain. Italy was looking for a slice of Asia Minor too, so sensitivity to demographics wasn't a particularly high item on the international agenda.

The Entente effectively occupied Constantinople for a couple of years while the Hellenes and Turks sorted out who would rule western Asia Minor. In the event Mustafa Kemal was able to muster a stable government in Ankara with an army capable of keeping the Bosporus out of Soviet hands: I think that was enough for the Entente.

Had the Turkish nationalist movement failed and what is now Turkey collapsed into Greek, Armenian, Kurdish etc. states plus Italian, UK and French protectorates then Britain or France may have held onto Constantinople as a sort of "Free City" (like Danzig) or protectorate rather than handing it over to the Greeks. In an age where fleets had prestige and control of he seas had determined the outcome of a World War a magnificent harbour city controlling access to the Med and Black Seas was gold. Greece was still fairly divided (it had been cajoled and/or violated by the Entente in WWI, and the political divisions continued right through the 20th century) and might not have been a stable manager of such an important asset.

[Boyar Son]

Ummm, you wanted them to give the city, where Greeks were a minority, to Greece? Even as early as 1831, the city was about 66% Muslim. If they gave the city and the region to Greeks then they would risk an other war in Thrace and the city would simply implode.

Do I look like a leader from 1914? I'm just asking a question friend, I didn't know until now that Turks had targeted Greeks so they would stay a minority with taxes, riots and some murder.

Thanks for the responses. Google came up with many things but the sole reason why, and I had no where else to ask (I'm not using Yahoo ask )

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Umm... the Greeks did try to take the city, with British military support, just after WWI ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-T...%E2%80%9322%29

[Cyclops]

Umm... the Greeks did try to take the city, with British military support, just after WWI ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-T...%E2%80%9322%29

That article makes it clear Great Britain supported Greek territorial expansion in Thrace and around Smyrna but not into Constantinople. The British favoured the terms of the treaty of Sevres but once Atatürk proved his mettle against the Greeks he won international recognition. They specifically refused Greek manoeuvres and diplomatic advances on Constantinople.

[Dromikaites]

Due to the fact at Versailles it was agreed that the population would decide to which country a territory would belong, it would have been highly unlikely Greece would have got Istanbul, even in the event of a victory against the Turks.

The more likely scenario in such case would have been something like Danzig or Shanghai, probably also with some British, French and Italian garrisons in order to ensure neither the Greek government nor the Turks in Istanbul get any interesting ideas.

The population of the city at the time was almost as large as that of the whole Greece (just like nowadays), therefore foreign garrisons would have been required to make sure nobody rocks the boat.

On the other hand, losing the war against Greece and pieces of Anatolia to Italy and France might have pushed Attaturk firmly into the arms of the Soviet Union. He had already created a dummy "Turkish Communist Party" with himself as president in order to get weapons from the Soviets (a stratagem which worked).

In the event of a Greek victory he might have opted against disbanding that fake communist party and instead transform it into a real one. Communism and anticolonialism were going hand in hand, therefore going truly red might have been his best option to kick out the Italians, French and Greeks from Anatolia and recover Istanbul.

Thought he didn't live long enough to see the colonial empires flounder, his commie successors might have succeeded in "spreading socialism" in the Middle East in a more effective way than the Soviet Union did. They had a better understanding of the area than Khrouschev.

[Abdülmecid I]

Umm... the Greeks did try to take the city, with British military support, just after WWI ended.

Actually, that war was launched against the Kemalist faction in central and eastern Anatolia, while Istanbul was occupied by Entente and officially in control of the Ottoman government. In fact, Kemal was supposed to be the common enemy of both Greece and Mehmed VI, although there was no chance that the Imperial Army would choose to fight the Turkish Patriots, instead of simply joining them. So, Greece was aiming to secure Izmir and possibly expand their occupied territory eastwards, not to invade Istanbul against the army and the wishes of her powerful allies.

[Kyriakos]

It likely will be part of some neo-Byzantine nation, following the break-up of the Eastern Thrace sultanate, so no worries

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Eh, as much as Europe needs another Roman Empire, I honestly hope Greece never re-takes the city, because Constantinople would probably get obliterated in the process.

[Cyclops]

Eh, as much as Europe needs another Roman Empire, I honestly hope Greece never re-takes the city, because Constantinople would probably get obliterated in the process.

There's an argument that Konstatinopoulos Nea Roma would do Hellas more harm than good.

When the Latins took the city in 1204 the immediately became mired in corruption and pleasure seeking (as had the ERE before them) and were thrown out half a century later. The Nicaean Empire that took the city back had started as a ERE rump in western Asia Minor that knuckled down and worked hard for its living (the emperor bought a gold crown for his Empress with the proceeds of a chicken farm IIRC).

The Nicaeans had dispensed with elaborate court ceremonial and scheming backstabbing ways and established themselves in a strong position that made retaking the city possible. Once back in the Imperial capital they became degraded and subject to corruption, assassinations and Ottoman conquests.

The Ottomans themselves were eventually enervated by the sink of depravity they housed themselves in, going the way of the Palaeologi and Komnenoi.

Should the modern Hellenic republic somehow come into possession of Istanbul, they would feel compelled to move the capital there, and once that happened, Greece would be mired in corruption, self-seeking liars and incompetent administration.

...oh wait.

[The Noble Lord]

Nobody wanted to resurrect the Byzantine empire after WWI, and the Greece itself was more concerned and focused on Smyrna and western Anatolia,
plus they couldn't do it without the assistance of the British and the French who were exhausted. Furthermore to police and manage city of that size in 1918-1920,
you needed at least 100,000 troops permanently to be stationed there, and Greece just couldn't do it!

The only country that could've taken Constantinople was Bulgaria in 1915, just before they opted for Central Powers side. The way from Edirne was way open
and there was nothing to stop well armed and battle hardened 500,000 strong Bulgarian army to march into the city, the Enver and Talaat already had contingency
plans ready where they would move entire government and the Sultan to Ankara. However, thanks to vigorous German lobbying and lots of German gold together with some
minor territorial concessions from the Ottomans, the Bulgarians opted against the Entente and the rest is history!

[Cyclops]

Nobody wanted to resurrect the Byzantine empire after WWI, ...

Don't under-rated insane nationalism. Italy had plans to resurrect the Grandeur that was Rome.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Never underestimate the European nationalists...

[Petrucci]

Allies in WW1 planned to give Constantinople and Dardanelles to Russia in case they win. But as you know revolution happened and ed up 300 years old Russian plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement

[Caligula's_Horse]

Allies in WW1 planned to give Constantinople and Dardanelles to Russia in case they win. But as you know revolution happened and ed up 300 years old Russian plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement

Given the early 20th century track record both the British and French have of lying through their teeth when signing these types of agreements, I don't think the Russians would have gotten what was promised to them even if the revolution never happened and they stuck it out in WWI.
Just off the top of my head, Mussolini rising to power and Italy switching over to the Axis for WWII was after all partially a result not getting a thing at the end of WWI. The levant was promised both to those Arabs who supported the war effort, Jewish immigrants (only the south of it, but still), as well as pre-agreed upon by the British and the French on how they'd divide it up amongst themselves (which is what actually happened).

There's no chance in hell the British and the French would have allowed the Russians easy access to the Mediterranean. It was strictly within their sphere of influence, and Russia was already getting too powerful for their liking as it was.

[IrishBlood]

Given the early 20th century track record both the British and French have of lying through their teeth when signing these types of agreements, I don't think the Russians would have gotten what was promised to them even if the revolution never happened and they stuck it out in WWI.
Just off the top of my head, Mussolini rising to power and Italy switching over to the Axis for WWII was after all partially a result not getting a thing at the end of WWI. The levant was promised both to those Arabs who supported the war effort, Jewish immigrants (only the south of it, but still), as well as pre-agreed upon by the British and the French on how they'd divide it up amongst themselves (which is what actually happened).

There's no chance in hell the British and the French would have allowed the Russians easy access to the Mediterranean. It was strictly within their sphere of influence, and Russia was already getting too powerful for their liking as it was.

I think that was Dependant how strong the Russian position was by the end of the war. Lets say the revolution failed or never took place, the Germans would still have lost the war. It stands to reason that they may have been able to reinforce their claim were that to occur.

Fair enough the Arabs and jews were lied to, as were the Italians, but they werent really that powerful. Italy was a second rate power and a brand new one at that, so they had little weight behind them. Russia on the other hand is a behemoth, always has been, always will be. at the VERY least the Russians could have overran the south caucuses, taking the Armenia regions, not that there were many left after the genocide.

The Russians simply would not have been able to be cowed so easily.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I think that was Dependant how strong the Russian position was by the end of the war. Lets say the revolution failed or never took place, the Germans would still have lost the war. It stands to reason that they may have been able to reinforce their claim were that to occur.

Fair enough the Arabs and jews were lied to, as were the Italians, but they werent really that powerful. Italy was a second rate power and a brand new one at that, so they had little weight behind them. Russia on the other hand is a behemoth, always has been, always will be. at the VERY least the Russians could have overran the south caucuses, taking the Armenia regions, not that there were many left after the genocide.

The Russians simply would not have been able to be cowed so easily.

The Russians might have managed to take Constantinople independently, fair enough. It wouldn't have been easy, or even terribly likely given the fierce Turkish resistance, but its within the realm of possibility. They wouldn't be doing it with any French or British support, however; in fact, the British and the French might have even gone as far as fund and supply anti-Russian elements in Turkey and elsewhere to foil the Russian effort (though not too overtly, as they still needed the Russians in case the Germans got uppity). Their near monopoly over the Mediterranean was quite important to them, and it wouldn't have been the first time the stepped in to keep Russia out when the Turkish resistance wouldn't cut it by itself.

Basically, the agreement was in of itself rather worthless. Nations often agree to one thing while secretly plotting another, especially when dealing with weaker nations.
Let me remind you that while Russia is a powerful nation today, and was nothing short of a super power as the USSR during the cold war, back in 1917, it was still second rate power, only half a notch above the likes of Italy and the Austro-Hungarians. Its army was vast, but under-equipped and ill trained, regularly loosing to the Germans despite most of their attentions being devoted westward. The Russian industrial base was a joke by European standards, and railway coverage insufficient given the nation's size, even if you don't count Siberia. The Navy was still in shambles after getting kicked in the teeth by the Japanese a decade earlier.
It wasn't until the USSR industrialized under Stalin, then had the time it required to recover from Stalin's purges, and the other great powers (barring the US) were taken down a notch by WWII and rebellious colonial holdings that Russia truly became a major world player. The USSR could certainly take Istanbul from the Turks; that's why the latter were so eager to join NATO. Russia under the Czars though, well, they've been at it on/off for 300 years and have never quite gotten there.