Interesting thanks. It sounds like while he had doubts about some of the annexations he went along with it as a quid pro quo for political concessions by the army. Not what I'd heard before but opinions and viewpoints change as new info becomes available.
Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
Interesting thanks. It sounds like while he had doubts about some of the annexations he went along with it as a quid pro quo for political concessions by the army. Not what I'd heard before but opinions and viewpoints change as new info becomes available.
Depends on whether he allows Radical Republicans to run Reconstruction.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Easy. Greeks win the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-22, Constantinople either becomes a free city under Entente administration (should count since the British and French are obviously Christians, if you don't want to count France because the Third Republic is adamant about laicite then just have the Action Francaise or Croix de Feu overthrow them later) or is handed off to Greece if the Anglo-French ever withdraw for whatever reason (economics, need to send their garrison there elsewhere, etc.) Meanwhile the October Revolution and Russian Civil War proceed more or less as OTL.
Radical Reconstruction still happens. Lincoln wasn't going to veto something popular enough in his party to be passed over Johnson's veto. If there's anything that narrowly missed being veto-proof that probably passes too. This means his legacy is largely unchanged by his happening to live through its initial implementation.
The failure of reconstruction was caused by Grant's failure to vet one of his supreme court nominees not by anything Johnson managed to do. And not the one whose replacement was delayed by the Judicial Circuits Act which was enacted solely to prevent Johnson from nominating any justices, but the replacement for a member of the court who died shortly after that act was repealed.
Can you please name the specific Justice that Grant fucked up with?
Sounds reasonable, I suppose. The question, of course, would be how to realistically get the Greeks to win this war. Would having their King Alexander not die of a monkey bite be a step in the right direction here?
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Yes - from what I've read, Alexander's death and the return of his father Constantine to power led to a huge shakeup in the upper ranks of the Greek army, as liberal officers who had supported Alexander & his Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos were removed and replaced with more loyal but inexperienced/inept royalists. Apparently the Entente weren't fans of Constantine's return either, as he had tried hard to keep Greece neutral in WW1.
Have Alexander live-->the Greeks avoid the political struggles which sapped them of valuable time & skilled officers-->they keep on rolling eastward, perhaps seizing the chance to encircle and destroy the Turkish army at Kütahya–Eskişehir which Constantine & his hack generals missed out on. If the French, Kurds and Armenians are able to attain greater success against the Turks in the war's eastern fronts, all the better. Killing Mustafa Kemal and Ismet Inonu would also be a huge boost for the Greek side, of course.
But would a Greek victory in this war really be a good thing in the long(er)-run if it will lead to an Axis Turkey in World War II?
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
A fully Sèvres'd Turkey (further minus whatever extra bits Greece & the Entente decide to tear off due to their continued resistance) will have been pretty much castrated, so I doubt they'll be able to pose that much of a threat even if the shattering defeat does make them rabidly, psychotically revanchist. Lotta room for butterflies in those ~20 years following a Greek victory as well - for all we know, the Weimar Republic could survive or at least be overthrown by more 'normal' militarists rather than Literally Hitler in this timeline.
For Weimar Germany to survive, you need Wilhelm Marx to win in 1925 or Paul von Hindenburg not to run again in 1932. I also don't see normal militarists seizing power in Germany when they, being the idiots that they were, would think that it would be easier for them to coopt Hitler and the Nazis for their own purposes, which of course subsequently severely backfired on them.
You do have a valid point about Turkey getting castrated, but still, even a castrated Turkey could provide a useful base for the Nazis to attack the Soviet Caucasus during Operation Barbarossa, no? The Turkish troops themselves won't be that necessary; it's the strategic location that will matter more here.
FWIW, it's worth noting that Alsace was German-majority, unlike most of Lorraine, even if it was French in terms of political sentimentality (as evidenced by 1870s and 1880s election results in Alsace-Lorraine).
Anyway:
'AHC: Have Israel criminalize both apostasy and anti-Zionist speech as threats to its Jewish character'
Joseph P. Bradley
It also means a stronger Greece. Germany has to go through Greece to ally with Turkey. Greece gave the Axis a lot of trouble OTL. A stronger Greece that holds Byzantium again might be something Mussolini doesn't want to take on and in any case will take longer and inflict more losses on the Axis.
The best case for a WWII change is always going to be Russia being utterly crushed just in time for America to nuke Germany while Japan got blockaded until it either surrendered from the lack of imports or America built some more nukes.
It would depend on the circumstances but as Circle of Willis mentions a stronger Greece, especially if it avoided the disruption and losses of the OTL defeat and the political divisions resulting from Constantine's return, would be a factor that Mussolini might not risk attacking. [Or there might even be an earlier war between the two with Greece, possibly allied with Yugoslavia opposing Mussolini's annexation of Albania which could change things drastically. ]
Plus that much weaker a Turkey could also see division over the defeat and loss of land further weakening it. Not to mention that Turkey could end up in the Soviet sphere in any Nazi-Soviet pact in this TL. If this means a Soviet invasion of parts of it then Baku is a lot safer and its a long distance, with pretty poor land logistics even once the Nazis get past Greece which could make it a very bad area for a German attack.
Another factor is if the eastern front in 1918-20 goes worse for the Turks how much larger are:
a) The French lands in the region, which might end up with a good chunk of Kurdistan?
b) Armenia which might be significantly larger but unless given continued protection is likely to come under Soviet rule.
If Mussolini doesn't attack Greece, then Operation Barbarossa should start two weeks earlier, a possibly crucial difference, no?
And would the US actually be willing to remain in the war until it builds nukes if the USSR is already knocked out of the war? The American people who were voting in 1944 did not know about the US nuclear program, after all--did they?
Germans lost,becouse soviet start fight instead of surrender,and they start fight becouse they genocide them instead of liberate.
So,even if germans take part of Moscov,they would lost it in winter counterattack,possible with entire Army like in Stalingrad if Hitler ordered "no retreat" .
If that happen,war could end earlier.
Buba
A total creep
That was my first thought too
My feeling is that such a Greece would be at least 30% stronger than OTL - this really, really should make Mussolini take pause before attacking it in X.1940.
If not, then such a development - although not affecting Barbarossa in any way - has interesting consequences in 1941 nonetheless. E.g. the excitable drunkard does not send forces from Libya to the Balkans and there is no counteroffensive overruning most of Cyrenaica.
I suppose that George W. Bush could mount a decent campaign for the 1996 GOP nomination if he wants it, but what would be the point? A loss in 1996 would severely hurt his 2000 chances, after all.
'AHC: Lebanon as a Middle Eastern Christian homeland similar to Israel for the Jews'
Apparently the Middle East still had huge numbers of Christians (albeit generally as minorities) in the early 20th century:
How do we get these Christians to move to Lebanon en masse?
Apparently the Middle East still had huge numbers of Christians (albeit generally as minorities) in the early 20th century:
How do we get these Christians to move to Lebanon en masse?