WI: Treaty of Sèvres enforced (AKA the Great Turkey Roast of 1920)

[Circle of Willis]

The Treaty of Sèvres between the Entente Powers and the Ottoman Empire at the end of the latter's lifespan would have crippled and dismembered Turkey: carving out a demilitarized and internationalized 'Zone of the Straits' including Constantinople/Istanbul (though it seems it was British dudes took the lead in controlling Constantinople through the Allied occupation commission); giving Greece Ionia & East Thrace; creating a gigantic 'Wilsonian' Armenia; scheduling a referendum for a truncated Kurdistan which was to be cut out of Turkey without also including the Kurdish parts of British Iraq, French Syria or Iran; and established extensive zones of influence for France, Britain (who had already split the former Ottoman Levant between them) and Italy in Turkey proper.

Historically the Turks managed to fight off all comers (with the Greeks putting in the most effort) in the Turkish War of Independence, eventually managing to get a revised, less punitive treaty which secured their present-day borders. However, what if they had lost to the various Entente Powers trying to carve them up like, well, a huge roast turkey and the above map was made a reality?

 

[PsihoKekec]

Might we see an independent Armenia as a buffer against Soviet Union?

 

[Circle of Willis]

Might we see an independent Armenia as a buffer against Soviet Union?

I imagine that would be the main purpose to its existence. A Wilsonian Armenia is a big enough Armenia that it's worthwhile for the Entente to prop it up, and in turn it would need the Entente in order to not die between the vengeful Turks (no doubt including the many Turks they'd be driving out of Western Armenia, both in revenge for the genocide and to ensure the greater part of their territory isn't packed full of Turkish fifth columns) and the Soviets.

Apparently the Turks and Soviets worked together IRL, so post-Sèvres it will entirely be within the best interest of literally everyone in that part of the world who is neither a Turk nor a Communist to keep the Turks down, the Soviets out and the two as far apart from one another as humanly possible. A strong Armenia is the only thing that can physically accomplish the third of these goals, and must in turn also know that they're dead meat if they ever take their foot off the Turks' throats or their eyes off the Soviet border.

 

[ATP]

I imagine that would be the main purpose to its existence. A Wilsonian Armenia is a big enough Armenia that it's worthwhile for the Entente to prop it up, and in turn it would need the Entente in order to not die between the vengeful Turks (no doubt including the many Turks they'd be driving out of Western Armenia, both in revenge for the genocide and to ensure the greater part of their territory isn't packed full of Turkish fifth columns) and the Soviets.

Apparently the Turks and Soviets worked together IRL, so post-Sèvres it will entirely be within the best interest of literally everyone in that part of the world who is neither a Turk nor a Communist to keep the Turks down, the Soviets out and the two as far apart from one another as humanly possible. A strong Armenia is the only thing that can physically accomplish the third of these goals, and must in turn also know that they're dead meat if they ever take their foot off the Turks' throats or their eyes off the Soviet border.

True,but what would happen during WW2? i see soviets and turks attackig Armenia together,with coalition of Greeks,French and Brits helping them.

In this scenario,Italy could remai neutral!

Considering how fucked soviet army was in 1940,Armenia with Italy help should hold.
Germans would not attack Greece,only Yugoslav.

They would attack soviets 2 weeks aerlier with 2 more tank dyvisions -and partially take Moscov.Get beaten then,but stil have more forces there.

Soviets would need to made peace with Armenia&Italy.

Germans would hold better,probably on Dniepr river till 1945 - when Italy attack them.

As a result - soviets without any conqests except possible Baltic states,Poland and Czech.

Strong Italy allied with Greece and Armenia.
Independent Kurdish state,and soviet Turkey.

Much better world,if you ask me.

 

[Skallagrim]

Historically the Turks managed to fight off all comers (with the Greeks putting in the most effort) in the Turkish War of Independence, eventually managing to get a revised, less punitive treaty which secured their present-day borders. However, what if they had lost to the various Entente Powers trying to carve them up like, well, a huge roast turkey and the above map was made a reality?

Even if the Turks lose their war, I'm not sure the exact map above can become a reality. The Entente powers aren't up for infinite application of military force (as their OTL stances after World War I show us in some detail), so even if the Turks gets crushed, the main things you'll see is that authority in the West gets handed off to the Greeks, and in the East to the Armenians.

Regarding the Greeks: they fought hardest in OTL, as you've noted, so it'll mostly be a case where they declare the Megali Idea realised and wield effective power over the Straits, and the Entente powers ultimately just recognise this is a fait accompli (after the Greeks ensure free Entente shipping across the Bosphoros, and agree to participate in the Western blockade of the USSR).

The Greeks will simply receive a lot of Western backing, and so will the Armenians. To the effect that Armenia ultimately looks like this:

(Excepting, I expect, the yellow area North of the Lori region. That'll be Georgian/Soviet occupied soon enough.)



The rest of the ideas is considerably more questionable. I don't think the French will be willing or able to project power deep into Anatolia. The Italians will be willing, but not able. I expect that their zones of control will be reduced to coastal strips-- but in the process (and also in the context of them winning the 1920 war against the Turks), their control will become more entrenched and consolidated.

A plausible scenario is that in the West, the Greeks extend their holdings to Marmaris and the isle of Rhodos, while in the East, the French just outright annex everything along the coast Westwards from their territory along the Gulf of Alexandretta, up to Silifke. The Italians fully occupy the Southern Anatolian coast in between these two points, with Antalya becoming their colonial headquarters.

The Kurdish region most probably gets its idependence, but the Anglo-French control over the region soon becomes nominal, and the region becomes the source of cross-border raids into Syria and Iraq, and the centre of broader Kurdish independence struggles. (The USSR may soon seek to support the Kurds in these efforts.)



Now, assuming that anything like the above is realised, we end up with Turkey and Kurdistan both gravitating towards the USSR, since both are revanchist against the Western powers and against the Armenians. (Also, consider that the Kurds were, in practice, the main perpetrators of the Armenian genocide. Serving under Ottoman command, yes, and identified as "mountain Turks" by the Ottomans, but they were the ones who did a lot of the killing. Which makes sense, because a lot of the area was ethnically mixed between Kurds and Armenians.)

Meanwhile, Greece and Armenia are doggedly pro-Western, and solidly Western-backed. Italy likewise maintains a position that's more in line with the Western interests. And being occupied, uh... occupying the Southern coastal strip of Anatolia, there's a chance they have no means available for any adventuring in Ethiopia. So there's a half-way decent chance of Italy remaining Western-aligned.

There is even the potential that a Western-aligned Italy goes all-out on guaranteeing the security of Austria, meaning the Anschluß is ruled out. Assuming Italian fascim and Austro-fascism (or cognates thereof) still arise, which I consider probable, a long-term implication may well be that national socialism ends up viewed as uniquely evil, whereas fascism is considered far more normal and acceptable.

In these circumstances, the Nazi-Soviet pact may even last (at least last longer), as both prioritise the matter of fighting the "decadent, perverse West" first and foremost. Which may in turn flip matters in East Asia, with China joining this "Continental Axis", while Japan instinctively sides against Russia.

(Mackinder be like: "Told you so!")




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Apologies in advance for this off-topic line of discussion. I couldn't help myself.

Germans would not attack Greece,only Yugoslav.

Quick aside: Germany only attacked Yugoslavia because Yugoslavia refused to allow them to march through on their way to Greece (to bail out Benito). No Italian war against Greece = no need for any of this = no German invasion of Yugoslavia, either.

They would attack soviets 2 weeks aerlier with 2 more tank dyvisions -and partially take Moscov.Get beaten then,but stil have more forces there.

Persuant to the above, the Germans could theoretically launch Barbarossa six weeks earlier, with at least two more tank divisions (I think four are freed up, in fact, although logistics may get in the way of using them all in the initial stage of Barbarossa) and an additional 20.000+ men that were killed in the Yugoslav and Greek campaigns.

Granted, those six weeks are theoretical, because the rains went on for pretty long that year. But they can use the first four weeks to optimise their positions and preparations, and then launch two week earlier than in OTL.

...Not that it makes even the slightest practical difference, because Hitler was a fool who would still dither about the choice between driving for Moscow, or doing a two-prong movement towards Leningrad and Stalingrad. He wasted two more weeks on that (after Barbarossa had launched in OTL), basically cut his army in three, and only then had the centre drive for Moscow. Whose outskirts they reached the very day that it began to snow.

If Adolf the Foolish had avoided the Greek/Yugoslav boondoggle and committed to "everyone, aim for Moscow!" from the start during Barbarossa, he could thus have had:

-- Four weeks extra to prepare the attack adequately.

-- Four weeks extra to march on Moscow.

-- Two-to-four extra tank divisions and upwards of 20.000 extra men for the invasion.

-- All his forces available to take Moscow, with only a minority of the OTL Northern and Southern forces available to guard his flanks, and the rest free to join in the spear-head.

Which means he'd have taken Moscow, destroying all effective logistics in European Russia (since all their rails went to and from Moscow), and forcing Stalin to flee East in a panic. (Stalin, in OTL, was at the train station, ready to evacuate, when the German assault faltered.) In short: then the Germans would have effectively won in the East by the close of 1941, because Soviet leadership would be in disarray and their logistics would be shattered. After further action throughout '42, he'd have been in reasonably solid control of everything up to the Urals by the end of that year.

But to manage all that, Adolf the Foolish would have needed to be Adolf the Clever, which he wasn't.



(Like I said, this line of discussion is off-topic. To avoid derails, further discussion should presumably not occur in this thread.)

 

[ATP]

Even if the Turks lose their war, I'm not sure the exact map above can become a reality. The Entente powers aren't up for infinite application of military force (as their OTL stances after World War I show us in some detail), so even if the Trks gets crushed, the main things you'll see is that authority in the West gets handed off to the Greeks, and in the East to the Armenians.

Regarding the Greeks: they fought hardest in OTL, as you've noted, so it'll mostly be a case where they declare the Megali Idea realised and wield effective power over the Straits, and the Entente powers ultimately just recognise this is a fait accompli (after the Greeks ensure free Entente shipping across the Bosphoros, and agree to participate in the Western blockade of the USSR).

The Greeks will simply receive a lot of Western backing, and so will the Armenians. To the effect that Armenia ultimately looks like this:

(Excepting, I expect, the yellow area North of the Lori region. That'll be Georgian/Soviet occupied soon enough.)



The rest of the ideas is considerably more questionable. I don't think the French will be willing or able to project power deep into Anatolia. The Italians will be willing, but not able. I expect that their zones of control will be reduced to coastal strips-- but in the process (and also in the context of them winning the 1920 war against the Turks), their control will becme more entrenched and consolidated.

A plausible scenario is that in the West, the Greeks extend their holdings to Marmaris and the isle of Rhodos, while in the East, the French just outright annex everything along the coast Westwards from their territory along the Gulf of Alexandretta, up to Silifke. The Italians fully occupy the Southern Anatolian coast in between these two points, with Antalya becoming their colonial headquarters.

The Kurdish region most probably gets its idependence, but the Anglo-French control over the region soon becomes nominal, and the region becomes the source of cross-border raids into Syria and Iraq, and the centre of broader Kurdish independence struggles. (The USSR may soon seek to support the Kurds in these efforts.)



Now, assuming that anything like the above is realised, we end up with Turkey and Kurdistan both gravitating towards the USSR, since both are revanchist against the Western powers and against the Armenian. (Also, consider that the Kurds were, in practice, the main perpetrators of the Armenian genocide. Serving under Ottoman command, yes, and identified as "mountain Turks" by the Ottomans, but they were the ones who did a lot of the killing. Which makes sense, because a lot of the area was erhnically mixed between Kurds and Armenians.)

Meanwhile, Greece and Armenia are doggedly pro-Western, and solidly Western-backed. Italy likewise maintains a position that's more in line with the Western interests. And being occupied, uh... occupying the Southern coastal strip of Anatolia, there's a chance they have no means available for any adventuring in Ethiopia. So there's a half-way decent chance of Italy remaining Western-aligned.

There is even the potential that a Western-aligned Italy goes all-out on guaranteeing the security of Austria, meaning the Anschluß is ruled out. Assuming Italian fascim and Austro-fascism (or cognates thereof) still arise, which I consider probable, a long-term implication may well be that national socialism ends up viewed as uniquely evil, whereas fascism is considered far more normal and acceptable.

In these circumstances, the Nazi-Soviet pact may even last (at least last longer), as both prioritise the matter of fighting the "decadent, perverse West" first and foremost. Which may in turn flip matters in East Asia, with China joining this "Continental Axis", while Japan instinctively sides against Russia.

(Mackinder be like: "Told you so!")




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Apologies in advance for this off-topic line of discussion. I couldn't help myself.




Quick aside: Germany only attacked Yugoslavia because Yugoslavia refused to allow them to march through on their way to Greece (to bail out Benito). No Italian war against Greece = no need for any of this = no German invasion of Yugoslavia, either.




Persuant to the above, the Germans could theoretically launch Barbarossa six weeks earlier, with at least two more tank divisions (I think four are freed up, in fact, although logistics may get in the way of using them all in the initial stage of Barbarossa) and additional 20.000+ men that were killed in the Yugoslav and Greek campaigns.

Granted, those six weeks are theoretical, because the rains went on for pretty long that year. But they can use the four weeks to optimise their positions and preparations.

...Not that it makes even the slightest practical difference, because Hitler was a fool who would still dither about the choice between driving for Moscow, or doing a two-prong movement towards Leningrad and Stalingrad. He wasted two weeks on that (after Barbarossa had launched), basically cut his army in three, and only then had the centre drive for Moscow.

Whose outskirts they reached the very day that it began to snow.

If Adolf the Foolish had avoided the Greek/Yugoslav boondoggle and committed to "everyone, aim for Moscow!" from the start, he could thus have had:

-- Four weeks extra to prepare the attack adequately.

-- Four weeks extra to march on Moscow.

-- Two-to-four extra tank divisions and upwards of 20.000 extra men for the invasion.

-- All his forces available to take Moscow, with only a minority of the OTL Northern and Southern forces available to guard his flanks, and the rest free to join in the spear head.

Which means he'd have taken Moscow, destroying all effective logistics in European Russia (since all their rails went to and from Moscow), and forcing Stalin to flee East in a panic. (Stalin, in OTL, was at the train station, ready to evacuate, when the German assault faltered.) In short: then the Germans would have effectively won in the East by the close of 1941, because Soviet leadership would be in disarray and their logistics would be shattered.

But to manage all that, Adolf the Foolish would have needed to be Adolf the Clever, which he wasn't.



(Like I said, this line of discussion is off-topic. To avoid derails, further discussion should presumably not occur in this thread.)

So,would we still have WW2 here,or not?
And,if it happen,would we have war in 1938 with Italy supporting Austria ?

Becouse i am not sure,what could happen with smaller commie Turkey - would they take Armenia down,or not?
If they manage,would they be permittet to genocide armenians,or soviets would take everybody to gulag,including turks ?

P.S i agree,that no matter which scenario we choose,Adolf the idiot would do everytching he can to lost war,and blame it on others.
But,thanks to alliance with sralin,he could actually win !

 

[Circle of Willis]

True,but what would happen during WW2? i see soviets and turks attackig Armenia together,with coalition of Greeks,French and Brits helping them.

In this scenario,Italy could remai neutral!

Considering how fucked soviet army was in 1940,Armenia with Italy help should hold.
Germans would not attack Greece,only Yugoslav.

They would attack soviets 2 weeks aerlier with 2 more tank dyvisions -and partially take Moscov.Get beaten then,but stil have more forces there.

Soviets would need to made peace with Armenia&Italy.

Germans would hold better,probably on Dniepr river till 1945 - when Italy attack them.

As a result - soviets without any conqests except possible Baltic states,Poland and Czech.

Strong Italy allied with Greece and Armenia.
Independent Kurdish state,and soviet Turkey.

Much better world,if you ask me.

Even if the Turks lose their war, I'm not sure the exact map above can become a reality. The Entente powers aren't up for infinite application of military force (as their OTL stances after World War I show us in some detail), so even if the Turks gets crushed, the main things you'll see is that authority in the West gets handed off to the Greeks, and in the East to the Armenians.

Regarding the Greeks: they fought hardest in OTL, as you've noted, so it'll mostly be a case where they declare the Megali Idea realised and wield effective power over the Straits, and the Entente powers ultimately just recognise this is a fait accompli (after the Greeks ensure free Entente shipping across the Bosphoros, and agree to participate in the Western blockade of the USSR).

The Greeks will simply receive a lot of Western backing, and so will the Armenians. To the effect that Armenia ultimately looks like this:

(Excepting, I expect, the yellow area North of the Lori region. That'll be Georgian/Soviet occupied soon enough.)



The rest of the ideas is considerably more questionable. I don't think the French will be willing or able to project power deep into Anatolia. The Italians will be willing, but not able. I expect that their zones of control will be reduced to coastal strips-- but in the process (and also in the context of them winning the 1920 war against the Turks), their control will become more entrenched and consolidated.

A plausible scenario is that in the West, the Greeks extend their holdings to Marmaris and the isle of Rhodos, while in the East, the French just outright annex everything along the coast Westwards from their territory along the Gulf of Alexandretta, up to Silifke. The Italians fully occupy the Southern Anatolian coast in between these two points, with Antalya becoming their colonial headquarters.

The Kurdish region most probably gets its idependence, but the Anglo-French control over the region soon becomes nominal, and the region becomes the source of cross-border raids into Syria and Iraq, and the centre of broader Kurdish independence struggles. (The USSR may soon seek to support the Kurds in these efforts.)



Now, assuming that anything like the above is realised, we end up with Turkey and Kurdistan both gravitating towards the USSR, since both are revanchist against the Western powers and against the Armenians. (Also, consider that the Kurds were, in practice, the main perpetrators of the Armenian genocide. Serving under Ottoman command, yes, and identified as "mountain Turks" by the Ottomans, but they were the ones who did a lot of the killing. Which makes sense, because a lot of the area was ethnically mixed between Kurds and Armenians.)

Meanwhile, Greece and Armenia are doggedly pro-Western, and solidly Western-backed. Italy likewise maintains a position that's more in line with the Western interests. And being occupied, uh... occupying the Southern coastal strip of Anatolia, there's a chance they have no means available for any adventuring in Ethiopia. So there's a half-way decent chance of Italy remaining Western-aligned.

There is even the potential that a Western-aligned Italy goes all-out on guaranteeing the security of Austria, meaning the Anschluß is ruled out. Assuming Italian fascim and Austro-fascism (or cognates thereof) still arise, which I consider probable, a long-term implication may well be that national socialism ends up viewed as uniquely evil, whereas fascism is considered far more normal and acceptable.

In these circumstances, the Nazi-Soviet pact may even last (at least last longer), as both prioritise the matter of fighting the "decadent, perverse West" first and foremost. Which may in turn flip matters in East Asia, with China joining this "Continental Axis", while Japan instinctively sides against Russia.

(Mackinder be like: "Told you so!")




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Apologies in advance for this off-topic line of discussion. I couldn't help myself.




Quick aside: Germany only attacked Yugoslavia because Yugoslavia refused to allow them to march through on their way to Greece (to bail out Benito). No Italian war against Greece = no need for any of this = no German invasion of Yugoslavia, either.




Persuant to the above, the Germans could theoretically launch Barbarossa six weeks earlier, with at least two more tank divisions (I think four are freed up, in fact, although logistics may get in the way of using them all in the initial stage of Barbarossa) and additional 20.000+ men that were killed in the Yugoslav and Greek campaigns.

Granted, those six weeks are theoretical, because the rains went on for pretty long that year. But they can use the four weeks to optimise their positions and preparations.

...Not that it makes even the slightest practical difference, because Hitler was a fool who would still dither about the choice between driving for Moscow, or doing a two-prong movement towards Leningrad and Stalingrad. He wasted two weeks on that (after Barbarossa had launched), basically cut his army in three, and only then had the centre drive for Moscow.

Whose outskirts they reached the very day that it began to snow.

If Adolf the Foolish had avoided the Greek/Yugoslav boondoggle and committed to "everyone, aim for Moscow!" from the start, he could thus have had:

-- Four weeks extra to prepare the attack adequately.

-- Four weeks extra to march on Moscow.

-- Two-to-four extra tank divisions and upwards of 20.000 extra men for the invasion.

-- All his forces available to take Moscow, with only a minority of the OTL Northern and Southern forces available to guard his flanks, and the rest free to join in the spear head.

Which means he'd have taken Moscow, destroying all effective logistics in European Russia (since all their rails went to and from Moscow), and forcing Stalin to flee East in a panic. (Stalin, in OTL, was at the train station, ready to evacuate, when the German assault faltered.) In short: then the Germans would have effectively won in the East by the close of 1941, because Soviet leadership would be in disarray and their logistics would be shattered.

But to manage all that, Adolf the Foolish would have needed to be Adolf the Clever, which he wasn't.



(Like I said, this line of discussion is off-topic. To avoid derails, further discussion should presumably not occur in this thread.)

Interesting stuff across the board, and which I don't have any disagreements with. Regarding Georgia, and to build off what @PsihoKekec said as well, I do think there's a chance - a great chance even - that a strong Western-backed Armenia means that that first Georgian republic might survive as well. Protected by the Germans and then the British, they seem to have been the stablest and most prosperous Caucasian splinters from the Russian Empire: the Georgian Mensheviks gave up Communism in a hurry and (apparently quite successfully) made the jump to a constitutional, multi-party democracy with a free press which took steps to improve the economy, undertake successful land reform to turn their peasants into smallholders rather than embark on any collectivization experiments, decentralize authority to ease tensions with the ethnic minorities in Abkhazia & South Ossetia (while still retaining enough of a spine to stomp out full-on, Soviet-backed rebellion among said minorities when needed), etc. They even got Soviet recognition of their independence IRL, albeit at the cost of their British protectors going home, after which the Soviets of course almost immediately revoked their recognition & invaded Georgia.

With Sèvres enforced, a surviving Wilsonian Armenia and a more robust Entente presence in the region, it can't be that big of a stretch for the latter to continue propping up Georgia against the Soviets. This would be a slightly bigger Georgia than IOTL as well, since they'd be able to stake their claim to the Lazistan area around Rize - Sèvres might've assigned it to them but they had so many more bigger problems IRL that they never bothered to fight the Turks for it - and they contested Sochi with the Soviets, a conflict which they were winning when the British told them to stop and go back to what's now the modern (official) Russo-Georgian border in the northwest. They did feud with the Armenians around this time historically, but the Turkish-Soviet threat (the Turks also wanted Batumi out of Georgia and tried to annex it when the Reds invaded IRL) as well as Allied pressure should be enough to keep them from trying too hard to kill each other, IMO: the Armenians especially should already have more than enough on their plate in the west to try to digest to chase after Georgian-controlled Lori & Akhalkalaki.

That brings me to the last of the Transcaucasian triad, Azerbaijan. Historically the British tried to prop up a schizophrenic Menshevik-White Russian-Armenian 'Centrocaspian Dictatorship' in Baku against both the Bolsheviks and a combined Ottoman-Azeri force led by Enver Pasha's brother using a single 1,000-strong detachment, which didn't end well. Really didn't end well for any of the ethnic groups in that region. It's probably impossible to save the Centrocaspian Dictatorship, not only because it sounds totally inviable in the long term but also because it fell two years before Sèvres was inked, but if the Entente's succeeded in keeping Georgia and Armenia afloat - why not try for & reconcile with Azerbaijan too? Success would mean acquiring the oil wealth of that country and denying said resources to the Soviets. (Of course, the Soviets will almost certainly fight harder for Azerbaijan than the other Transcaucasian republics for the very same reason.)

A map I found on DA of what the situation in the Transcaucasus might look like (ignore the lack of Italian & French zones deep in Anatolia), this one depicts a Red Azerbaijan but you can substitute that for a Western-aligned one in case of maximal Entente/anti-Soviet success in the South Caucasus:

I'd also agree that this ATL Italy would feel their victory was less mutilated and have less reason to give the finger to the Entente & realign with Hitler. With the butterflies from a 1920 POD it might not even be the Nazis who rise to take over Germany in the end, but assuming it's them, perhaps the need to uphold the Soviet alliance for longer produces a more 'red' Nazism? Maybe it's Röhm and the SA who overcome Hitler in this timeline, either reducing him to a puppet or outright seizing power for themselves as part of their greater 'national-socialist revolution'. Then you have the perfect setup for WW2 with the Reds as the main villains, represented by a lasting German-Soviet alliance eager to revise the post-WW1 borders as the first step on the road to a world revolution (speaking of which, the only way this alliance could be more perfectly constructed to be the WW2 antagonists is if the internationalistic Trotsky takes over the USSR), with an Entente that includes Italy and the benefactors of Sèvres standing against them. Of course, if the Allies win then Communism as a whole becomes the universally discredited and detested totalitarian ideology of modernity in Nazism's place (and indeed absorbing Nazism under its umbrella). Better world indeed...

Oh yeah, and no doubt Turkey will be on the German-Soviet side. Maybe with this guy (as a young ultranationalist ideologue untainted by the great defeat of the early '20s) taking over from the decrepit and universally despised Ottoman government, which will be viewed by the Turks themselves as a tool of the foreign powers. (He even kinda looks like Hitler with the mustache shaved off! And apparently he was a rabid anti-Communist IRL, but then so was Hitler and that didn't stop him from allying with the USSR when tactical considerations made it seem like a good idea.) However given how badly Turkey will have been castrated by Sèvres, and how literally everyone around them will know that this ultra-revanchist Turkey winning = they die and fight accordingly ferociously against them, I can't imagine they'd be that much of a threat relative to the Germans & Soviets. More like a less effective OTL Axis-Italy, perhaps.

 

[Skallagrim]

I do think there's a chance - a great chance even - that a strong Western-backed Armenia means that that first Georgian republic might survive as well. Protected by the Germans and then the British, they seem to have been the stablest and most prosperous Caucasian splinters from the Russian Empire: the Georgian Mensheviks gave up Communism in a hurry and (apparently quite successfully) made the jump to a constitutional, multi-party democracy with a free press which took steps to improve the economy, undertake successful land reform to turn their peasants into smallholders rather than embark on any collectivization experiments, decentralize authority to ease tensions with the ethnic minorities in Abkhazia & South Ossetia (while still retaining enough of a spine to stomp out full-on, Soviet-backed rebellion among said minorities when needed), etc. They even got Soviet recognition of their independence IRL, albeit at the cost of their British protectors going home, after which the Soviets of course almost immediately revoked their recognition & invaded Georgia.

With Sèvres enforced, a surviving Wilsonian Armenia and a more robust Entente presence in the region, it can't be that big of a stretch for the latter to continue propping up Georgia against the Soviets. This would be a slightly bigger Georgia than IOTL as well, since they'd be able to stake their claim to the Lazistan area around Rize - Sèvres might've assigned it to them but they had so many more bigger problems IRL that they never bothered to fight the Turks for it - and they contested Sochi with the Soviets, a conflict which they were winning when the British told them to stop and go back to what's now the modern (official) Russo-Georgian border in the northwest.

Having Georgia also propped up by the West would be even better. My main concern here would be the willingness to commit and the logistical capabilities of the Entente powers.

They did feud with the Armenians around this time historically, but the Turkish-Soviet threat (the Turks also wanted Batumi out of Georgia and tried to annex it when the Reds invaded IRL) as well as Allied pressure should be enough to keep them from trying too hard to kill each other, IMO: the Armenians especially should already have more than enough on their plate in the west to try to digest to chase after Georgian-controlled Lori & Akhalkalaki.

It's true that some kind of Georgian-Armenian border settlement can be achieved fairly easily, under the circumstances. Especially if they both want Western help, and the West tells them to be reasonable about it (or else).

if the Entente's succeeded in keeping Georgia and Armenia afloat - why not try for & reconcile with Azerbaijan too? Success would mean acquiring the oil wealth of that country and denying said resources to the Soviets. (Of course, the Soviets will almost certainly fight harder for Azerbaijan than the other Transcaucasian republics for the very same reason.)

One issue would be that a successful Armenia and a successful Georgia would both have taken a bite out of Azerbaijan. It can be done, but it would be trickier to make it work. Even if it does, defending the areas North of the Caucasus range against the USSR would be nigh-impossible.

Ultimately, I imagine the map (in this scenario) ending up something like this:

(I've also shown the likely Armenia, Kurdish and Azeri claims in French Syria, British Mesopotamia/Iraq, and Persia. The degree to which these end up being pressed will no doubt vary.)



----------------------

I'd also agree that this ATL Italy would feel their victory was less mutilated and have less reason to give the finger to the Entente & realign with Hitler. With the butterflies from a 1920 POD it might not even be the Nazis who rise to take over Germany in the end, but assuming it's them, perhaps the need to uphold the Soviet alliance for longer produces a more 'red' Nazism? Maybe it's Röhm and the SA who overcome Hitler in this timeline, either reducing him to a puppet or outright seizing power for themselves as part of their greater 'national-socialist revolution'.

That, and/or Hitler gets offed and Strasserism becomes the main current within the movement.

So,would we still have WW2 here,or not?
And,if it happen,would we have war in 1938 with Italy supporting Austria ?

Then you have the perfect setup for WW2 with the Reds as the main villains, represented by a lasting German-Soviet alliance eager to revise the post-WW1 borders as the first step on the road to a world revolution (speaking of which, the only way this alliance could be more perfectly constructed to be the WW2 antagonists is if the internationalistic Trotsky takes over the USSR), with an Entente that includes Italy and the benefactors of Sèvres standing against them.

A Second World War would be practically unavaidable. If the West (incl. Italy) puts its foot down regarding Austria, there is likely no attempt by Germany to force the matter at that time. (Too risky.)

Germany and the USSR would buddy up, and prepare for a joint war. Much as in OTL, one of their first moves would be jointly invading Poland, and then they'd stand back-to-back against the nations surrounding their "Eurasian" bloc.

Having Trotsky in charge is unlikely to work out here, though, since even the National Bolshevist types in Germany were still avid anti-semites. They'd never work with "the Jew Bronstein". On the other hand, Stalinism and National Bolshevism would work pretty well together.

Of course, if the Allies win then Communism as a whole becomes the universally discredited and detested totalitarian ideology of modernity in Nazism's place (and indeed absorbing Nazism under its umbrella). Better world indeed...

That would be a very positive outcome.

what could happen with smaller commie Turkey - would they take Armenia down,or not?
If they manage,would they be permittet to genocide armenians,or soviets would take everybody to gulag,including turks ?

However given how badly Turkey will have been castrated by Sèvres, and how literally everyone around them will know that this ultra-revanchist Turkey winning = they die and fight accordingly ferociously against them, I can't imagine they'd be that much of a threat relative to the Germans & Soviets. More like a less effective OTL Axis-Italy, perhaps.

Revanchist Turkey would not be able to defeat the Western powers, but it could fight a very dirty war against its hated neighbours, involving lots of atrocities.

 

[ATP]

Interesting stuff across the board, and which I don't have any disagreements with. Regarding Georgia, and to build off what @PsihoKekec said as well, I do think there's a chance - a great chance even - that a strong Western-backed Armenia means that that first Georgian republic might survive as well. Protected by the Germans and then the British, they seem to have been the stablest and most prosperous Caucasian splinters from the Russian Empire: the Georgian Mensheviks gave up Communism in a hurry and (apparently quite successfully) made the jump to a constitutional, multi-party democracy with a free press which took steps to improve the economy, undertake successful land reform to turn their peasants into smallholders rather than embark on any collectivization experiments, decentralize authority to ease tensions with the ethnic minorities in Abkhazia & South Ossetia (while still retaining enough of a spine to stomp out full-on, Soviet-backed rebellion among said minorities when needed), etc. They even got Soviet recognition of their independence IRL, albeit at the cost of their British protectors going home, after which the Soviets of course almost immediately revoked their recognition & invaded Georgia.

With Sèvres enforced, a surviving Wilsonian Armenia and a more robust Entente presence in the region, it can't be that big of a stretch for the latter to continue propping up Georgia against the Soviets. This would be a slightly bigger Georgia than IOTL as well, since they'd be able to stake their claim to the Lazistan area around Rize - Sèvres might've assigned it to them but they had so many more bigger problems IRL that they never bothered to fight the Turks for it - and they contested Sochi with the Soviets, a conflict which they were winning when the British told them to stop and go back to what's now the modern (official) Russo-Georgian border in the northwest. They did feud with the Armenians around this time historically, but the Turkish-Soviet threat (the Turks also wanted Batumi out of Georgia and tried to annex it when the Reds invaded IRL) as well as Allied pressure should be enough to keep them from trying too hard to kill each other, IMO: the Armenians especially should already have more than enough on their plate in the west to try to digest to chase after Georgian-controlled Lori & Akhalkalaki.

That brings me to the last of the Transcaucasian triad, Azerbaijan. Historically the British tried to prop up a schizophrenic Menshevik-White Russian-Armenian 'Centrocaspian Dictatorship' in Baku against both the Bolsheviks and a combined Ottoman-Azeri force led by Enver Pasha's brother using a single 1,000-strong detachment, which didn't end well. Really didn't end well for any of the ethnic groups in that region. It's probably impossible to save the Centrocaspian Dictatorship, not only because it sounds totally inviable in the long term but also because it fell two years before Sèvres was inked, but if the Entente's succeeded in keeping Georgia and Armenia afloat - why not try for & reconcile with Azerbaijan too? Success would mean acquiring the oil wealth of that country and denying said resources to the Soviets. (Of course, the Soviets will almost certainly fight harder for Azerbaijan than the other Transcaucasian republics for the very same reason.)

A map I found on DA of what the situation in the Transcaucasus might look like (ignore the lack of Italian & French zones deep in Anatolia), this one depicts a Red Azerbaijan but you can substitute that for a Western-aligned one in case of maximal Entente/anti-Soviet success in the South Caucasus:

I'd also agree that this ATL Italy would feel their victory was less mutilated and have less reason to give the finger to the Entente & realign with Hitler. With the butterflies from a 1920 POD it might not even be the Nazis who rise to take over Germany in the end, but assuming it's them, perhaps the need to uphold the Soviet alliance for longer produces a more 'red' Nazism? Maybe it's Röhm and the SA who overcome Hitler in this timeline, either reducing him to a puppet or outright seizing power for themselves as part of their greater 'national-socialist revolution'. Then you have the perfect setup for WW2 with the Reds as the main villains, represented by a lasting German-Soviet alliance eager to revise the post-WW1 borders as the first step on the road to a world revolution (speaking of which, the only way this alliance could be more perfectly constructed to be the WW2 antagonists is if the internationalistic Trotsky takes over the USSR), with an Entente that includes Italy and the benefactors of Sèvres standing against them. Of course, if the Allies win then Communism as a whole becomes the universally discredited and detested totalitarian ideology of modernity in Nazism's place (and indeed absorbing Nazism under its umbrella). Better world indeed...

Oh yeah, and no doubt Turkey will be on the German-Soviet side. Maybe with this guy (as a young ultranationalist ideologue untainted by the great defeat of the early '20s) taking over from the decrepit and universally despised Ottoman government, which will be viewed by the Turks themselves as a tool of the foreign powers. (He even kinda looks like Hitler with the mustache shaved off! And apparently he was a rabid anti-Communist IRL, but then so was Hitler and that didn't stop him from allying with the USSR when tactical considerations made it seem like a good idea.) However given how badly Turkey will have been castrated by Sèvres, and how literally everyone around them will know that this ultra-revanchist Turkey winning = they die and fight accordingly ferociously against them, I can't imagine they'd be that much of a threat relative to the Germans & Soviets. More like a less effective OTL Axis-Italy, perhaps.

I forget about Georgia,but Azerbijan becouse of Baku would be lost cause.Soviets simply could not lost it - they get 50% of oil from there.
War later - tey would crush Poland like in OTL,but France with Italy help could hold,and Japan would take Siberia,unless they arleady had it.
USA - FDR loved soviets,would he support them here? if so,we could have world revolution as result.

If not,soviets would get crushed,and their crimes punished.
Turkey - they would be rather like Bulgary to germans here,not Italy.But - they would certainly genocide as much as they could.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Having Georgia also propped up by the West would be even better. My main concern here would be the willingness to commit and the logistical capabilities of the Entente powers.

It's true that some kind of Georgian-Armenian border settlement can be achieved fairly easily, under the circumstances. Especially if they both want Western help, and the West tells them to be reasonable about it (or else).

One issue would be that a successful Armenia and a successful Georgia would both have taken a bite out of Azerbaijan. It can be done, but it would be trickier to make it work. Even if it does, defending the areas North of the Caucasus range against the USSR would be nigh-impossible.

My thinking is that Georgia complements Armenia supremely well as the other half/third of the 'Great Anti-Soviet Wall of Caucasian states'. Giga-Armenia might look more impressive on a map, but I can't imagine it would be a very stable or economically prosperous country, while Georgia is the total opposite. According to this map of the 'six vilayets' which would've comprised most of that big western half to their state, they only constituted an ethnic majority in one out of the six (Van, and it's a narrow one there), and that was before the genocide.

That's a whole lotta Turks (and Kurds) that they're going to be 'population transferring' away. And I think realistically they would absolutely have to evict them, even assuming the Armenians were somehow in the mood to go 'no hard feelings eh?' to their genocidaires, letting those Turkish/Kurdish majorities stick around means they'll have to worry about some massive fifth columns begging Turkey/Kurdistan to come dismantle Greater Armenia at the earliest opportunity. The upheaval from these removals can't be good for the Armenian economy, and my understanding is that the economy of the First Armenian Republic was already a basketcase further strained by the initial refugee waves in 1918-19 (ironic, since Armenians had a reputation for being successful businessmen in both the Russian & Ottoman Empires) plus the Dashnaks who dominated it were far more authoritarian and heavy-handed than the Georgian Mensheviks. We never got to find out if their economic policies would be more like Pinochet's or like (early) Franco's in peacetime IRL, but considering the Dashnaks seem to have also been more committed to socialist orthodoxy than the Mensheviks of Georgia & actually still identify as Marxist-aligned socialists today, I lean toward the latter even under Entente influence, which combined with the depopulation of their western half, doesn't bode well for their odds of an economic revival.

Meanwhile Georgia is pretty stable, even democratic, mildly economically prosperous, and gets along reasonably well with its minorities, which basically makes it a miracle among the post-Soviet states (especially in the Caucasus). Since it's the one with a direct border with the Soviet Union, not unstable and sure-to-be-bloodsoaked Armenia, it can serve as a shield to the latter while the Armenians provide the Entente with a friendly land-bridge to Georgia. Combined with Georgia's relatively clean record and consequently pretty good international reputation (their only serious war crimes in this timeframe were against the Armenians, and doesn't remotely compare to the Armenian Genocide or the mutual Armenian-Azeri massacres in Azerbaijan in scale), and I think they'd easily be the West's golden boy in the Transcaucasus. I could also see Georgia being favored more by Britain within the Entente while Armenia becomes France's client - the Georgians relied on British protection as said before, while France took in more refugees from the Armenian Genocide (a lot more, they've got the 3rd biggest Armenian expat community in the world as a consequence) and fielded the only Armenian expatriate legion in WWI itself as well as their own clashes with the Turks post-WWI.

Azerbaijan does seem like the toughest piece to fit into this puzzle. Georgia & Armenia do indeed both have claims against it and I really can't see Armenia in particular being willing to make nice without some concessions/major Western pressure considering the history of massacres there in the preceding years. I guess a Western puppet Azerbaijan could be compelled to cede the disputed lands to the greater Transcaucasian powers by Britain/France, but that seems like a quick ticket to enraging the Azeri population so badly that they'd hang their own government for being 'foreign lapdogs who hate Azerbaijan itself' & roll out the welcome mat for the Soviets as soon as they get a chance, which would render the Entente's efforts to pull Azerbaijan into its orbit (even if successful at first) pointless in the medium to long term. Twisting Armenia & Georgia's arms until they back down seems like it'd just kick the can down the road, but at least the Entente might not have to worry about that particular powderkeg exploding until after the Soviets are dealt with?

Ultimately, I imagine the map (in this scenario) ending up something like this:

(I've also shown the likely Armenia, Kurdish and Azeri claims in French Syria, British Mesopotamia/Iraq, and Persia. The degree to which these end up being pressed will no doubt vary.)

Seems reasonable. Persia looks like a country that can be drawn into the West's web of alliances too: they already have good reason to fear & hate the Soviets, and could also function as a useful cudgel against Kurdistan (and Azerbaijan too if the Entente's salvaged that country) in case they get ideas above their intended station & agitate for the unification of all Kurds (or Azeris) into their country.

That, and/or Hitler gets offed and Strasserism becomes the main current within the movement.






A Second World War would be practically unavaidable. If the West (incl. Italy) puts its foot down regarding Austria, there is likely no attempt by Germany to force the matter at that time. (Too risky.)

Germany and the USSR would buddy up, and prepare for a joint war. Much as in OTL, one of their first moves would be jointly invading Poland, and then they'd stand back-to-back against the nations surrounding their "Eurasian" bloc.

Having Trotsky in charge is unlikely to work out here, though, since even the National Bolshevist types in Germany were still avid anti-semites. They'd never work with "the Jew Bronstein". On the other hand, Stalinism and National Bolshevism would work pretty well together.




That would be a very positive outcome.






Revanchist Turkey would not be able to defeat the Western powers, but it could fight a very dirty war against its hated neighbours, involving lots of atrocities.

Sure, that works too. Perhaps they could, even should work together in a Red Reich - Röhm and Strasser that is, considering Hitler whacked them both in the Night of Long Knives, and even Goebbels too maybe. IIRC he was a close ally of Strasser's at first and was initially horrified at Hitler characterizing socialism as a 'Jewish creation' (or something along those lines) before changing his mind around 1926 and becoming Hitler's #1 fan.

Ah true, I suppose Trotsky being Jewish would be a bridge too far even for the 'extra-rare' among the 'beefsteak' Nazis. Stalin should indeed be the ideal partner to them.

In case of a Turkish defeat in WW2, I do wonder how much harsher they could possibly have been punished, considering how punitive Sèvres is already. Given the preexisting grievances in the region and how the atrocity-meter is probably going to resemble the Eastern Front's, I don't believe anyone is going to be in the mood to let bygones be bygones, no matter what some Westerners might have to say about how Sèvres totally set this disaster up in the first place like Versailles did WW2 overall or something. While I'm guessing that deporting the Turks to Central Asia would be impossible, I guess the Greeks could try to push the border to Cappadocia for the sake of the Cappadocian Greeks (the Pontic Greeks are already in Armenian & Georgian territory under Sèvres, since the Greeks themselves thought that an independent Pontus would be too fragile) if they're feeling really ambitious and/or vindictive. I don't know what more the Armenians could possibly demand though, other than the total dismantlement of the Turkish nation.

I forget about Georgia,but Azerbijan becouse of Baku would be lost cause.Soviets simply could not lost it - they get 50% of oil from there.
War later - tey would crush Poland like in OTL,but France with Italy help could hold,and Japan would take Siberia,unless they arleady had it.
USA - FDR loved soviets,would he support them here? if so,we could have world revolution as result.

If not,soviets would get crushed,and their crimes punished.
Turkey - they would be rather like Bulgary to germans here,not Italy.But - they would certainly genocide as much as they could.

Well, if the Allies can win the battle for Azerbaijan and keep Baku's oilfields out of Soviet hands, that would certainly make beating the Soviets in WW2 much easier. But yes, I suspect that for that very reason, Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin will throw everything they've got into this particular fray.

I doubt the US would ever find a reason to jump in on the Soviets' side. Fighting the (totalitarian, national-socialist) Nazis is one thing, but outside of those Communist spies who infiltrated FDR's administration, I can't think of any Americans who'd be down to fight the democratic Britain and France on behalf of the USSR. Least of all the 'conservative coalition' which increasingly controlled Congress from the late 1930s onward and had already helped stymie some of the most egregious New Deal bullshit (like the court-packing bill). Then again, with a 1920 POD the butterfly effect might be sufficient to ensure FDR never becomes president in the first place - it could be another Dem who's nominated in 1932, he could still be elected but then get killed early on by Giuseppe Zangara ITL, etc.

Speaking of the US and how they can affect this scenario however, the US straight up taking over Armenia for a while as a League of Nations Mandate was a seriously considered one in 1920, but Congress would have none of it. Having them approve of Wilson's and Lloyd George's scheme would certainly be one hilarious way to get a (literally) Wilsonian Armenia going, but requires so many changes in American politics that FDR might well never become a national figure.

 

[ATP]

My thinking is that Georgia complements Armenia supremely well as the other half/third of the 'Great Anti-Soviet Wall of Caucasian states'. Giga-Armenia might look more impressive on a map, but I can't imagine it would be a very stable or economically prosperous country, while Georgia is the total opposite. According to this map of the 'six vilayets' which would've comprised most of that big western half to their state, they only constituted an ethnic majority in one out of the six (Van, and it's a narrow one there), and that was before the genocide.

That's a whole lotta Turks (and Kurds) that they're going to be 'population transferring' away. And I think realistically they would absolutely have to evict them, even assuming the Armenians were somehow in the mood to go 'no hard feelings eh?' to their genocidaires, letting those Turkish/Kurdish majorities stick around means they'll have to worry about some massive fifth columns begging Turkey/Kurdistan to come dismantle Greater Armenia at the earliest opportunity. The upheaval from these removals can't be good for the Armenian economy, and my understanding is that the economy of the First Armenian Republic was already a basketcase further strained by the initial refugee waves in 1918-19 (ironic, since Armenians had a reputation for being successful businessmen in both the Russian & Ottoman Empires) plus the Dashnaks who dominated it were far more authoritarian and heavy-handed than the Georgian Mensheviks. We never got to find out if their economic policies would be more like Pinochet's or like (early) Franco's in peacetime IRL, but considering the Dashnaks seem to have also been more committed to socialist orthodoxy than the Mensheviks of Georgia & actually still identify as Marxist-aligned socialists today, I lean toward the latter even under Entente influence, which combined with the depopulation of their western half, doesn't bode well for their odds of an economic revival.

Meanwhile Georgia is pretty stable, even democratic, mildly economically prosperous, and gets along reasonably well with its minorities, which basically makes it a miracle among the post-Soviet states (especially in the Caucasus). Since it's the one with a direct border with the Soviet Union, not unstable and sure-to-be-bloodsoaked Armenia, it can serve as a shield to the latter while the Armenians provide the Entente with a friendly land-bridge to Georgia. Combined with Georgia's relatively clean record and consequently pretty good international reputation (their only serious war crimes in this timeframe were against the Armenians, and doesn't remotely compare to the Armenian Genocide or the mutual Armenian-Azeri massacres in Azerbaijan in scale), and I think they'd easily be the West's golden boy in the Transcaucasus. I could also see Georgia being favored more by Britain within the Entente while Armenia becomes France's client - the Georgians relied on British protection as said before, while France took in more refugees from the Armenian Genocide (a lot more, they've got the 3rd biggest Armenian expat community in the world as a consequence) and fielded the only Armenian expatriate legion in WWI itself as well as their own clashes with the Turks post-WWI.

Azerbaijan does seem like the toughest piece to fit into this puzzle. Georgia & Armenia do indeed both have claims against it and I really can't see Armenia in particular being willing to make nice without some concessions/major Western pressure considering the history of massacres there in the preceding years. I guess a Western puppet Azerbaijan could be compelled to cede the disputed lands to the greater Transcaucasian powers by Britain/France, but that seems like a quick ticket to enraging the Azeri population so badly that they'd hang their own government for being 'foreign lapdogs who hate Azerbaijan itself' & roll out the welcome mat for the Soviets as soon as they get a chance, which would render the Entente's efforts to pull Azerbaijan into its orbit (even if successful at first) pointless in the medium to long term. Twisting Armenia & Georgia's arms until they back down seems like it'd just kick the can down the road, but at least the Entente might not have to worry about that particular powderkeg exploding until after the Soviets are dealt with?



Seems reasonable. Persia looks like a country that can be drawn into the West's web of alliances too: they already have good reason to fear & hate the Soviets, and could also function as a useful cudgel against Kurdistan (and Azerbaijan too if the Entente's salvaged that country) in case they get ideas above their intended station & agitate for the unification of all Kurds (or Azeris) into their country.



Sure, that works too. Perhaps they could, even should work together in a Red Reich - Röhm and Strasser that is, considering Hitler whacked them both in the Night of Long Knives, and even Goebbels too maybe. IIRC he was a close ally of Strasser's at first and was initially horrified at Hitler characterizing socialism as a 'Jewish creation' (or something along those lines) before changing his mind around 1926 and becoming Hitler's #1 fan.

Ah true, I suppose Trotsky being Jewish would be a bridge too far even for the 'extra-rare' among the 'beefsteak' Nazis. Stalin should indeed be the ideal partner to them.

In case of a Turkish defeat in WW2, I do wonder how much harsher they could possibly have been punished, considering how punitive Sèvres is already. Given the preexisting grievances in the region and how the atrocity-meter is probably going to resemble the Eastern Front's, I don't believe anyone is going to be in the mood to let bygones be bygones, no matter what some Westerners might have to say about how Sèvres totally set this disaster up in the first place like Versailles did WW2 overall or something. While I'm guessing that deporting the Turks to Central Asia would be impossible, I guess the Greeks could try to push the border to Cappadocia for the sake of the Cappadocian Greeks (the Pontic Greeks are already in Armenian & Georgian territory under Sèvres, since the Greeks themselves thought that an independent Pontus would be too fragile) if they're feeling really ambitious and/or vindictive. I don't know what more the Armenians could possibly demand though, other than the total dismantlement of the Turkish nation.



Well, if the Allies can win the battle for Azerbaijan and keep Baku's oilfields out of Soviet hands, that would certainly make beating the Soviets in WW2 much easier. But yes, I suspect that for that very reason, Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin will throw everything they've got into this particular fray.

I doubt the US would ever find a reason to jump in on the Soviets' side. Fighting the (totalitarian, national-socialist) Nazis is one thing, but outside of those Communist spies who infiltrated FDR's administration, I can't think of any Americans who'd be down to fight the democratic Britain and France on behalf of the USSR. Least of all the 'conservative coalition' which increasingly controlled Congress from the late 1930s onward and had already helped stymie some of the most egregious New Deal bullshit (like the court-packing bill). Then again, with a 1920 POD the butterfly effect might be sufficient to ensure FDR never becomes president in the first place - it could be another Dem who's nominated in 1932, he could still be elected but then get killed early on by Giuseppe Zangara ITL, etc.

Speaking of the US and how they can affect this scenario however, the US straight up taking over Armenia for a while as a League of Nations Mandate was a seriously considered one in 1920, but Congress would have none of it. Having them approve of Wilson's and Lloyd George's scheme would certainly be one hilarious way to get a (literally) Wilsonian Armenia going, but requires so many changes in American politics that FDR might well never become a national figure.

In case of soviets loosing WW2 and still keeping power - Allies could relocate all turks to them.
With german supporters of NSDAP.
It would be interesting soviet union - marxist-aryan-muslim.

Possible for germans - even in OTL only reason why NSDAP do not abadonned Chrystianity was becouse they really do not knew what they want become - pagans,buddhist,hindu or muslims.
There were factions for all possibilities there !

Even aryan protestants,but they probably would not fare well in soviet exile....

 

[Sergeant Foley]

Following this timeline quite closely!