I have just read it, was it finished by any chance? I want to see how it ends?
Also has anyone figured out how my scenario can come about?
Greece gaining the following territories
- Thread starter Tongera
- Start date
- Status
I have just read it, was it finished by any chance? I want to see how it ends?
Also has anyone figured out how my scenario can come about?
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Wasn't part of the reason it was a massive fuck up because the Greeks had little land to spare for 1.5 million more people coming in from Anatolia? The population of Athens (and several other cities like Thessaloniki) jumped up several times because of the refugees.
But with Eastern Thrace and Gallipoli and some islands in the Aegan, the problem will be eased with more land to put the refuggees, especially if the Ottomans are given the Turkish population in the lands i mentioned.
I don't believe we said that, we just said that there would be some major caveats.
I don't really know enough about the subject to speak with certainty, but I am given to understand that it didn't really help that ethnic cleansing for any reason, by any means, is rarely workable.
What caveats would those be? Would Greece be stable though, if it got the territories i asked for?
As mentioned above, Greece would be taking on a very large Turkish population, which would be fairly hostile to Greek rule. Population transfers OTL would run into many issues similar to the ones Greece faced, such as the transfer territory not being able to accommodate the people. Greece would also have difficulty absorbing the territory it takes, the more it takes, because many of these territories were Turkish majority, and as a result, Greece would have difficulty repopulating the territory. And this ignores the human rights issues arising from population transfers.
And stability is really inversely related to he amount of territory and people it absorbs. Especially so if, in a hypothetical, the full Megali plan is implemented.
It looks like population tranfers are the way to go then, also if this takes place before the second world war, there wuldn't be much human right concerns. Also there be revanchism in Turkey or would Turkey be like Greece and accepts it?
Well, as I mentioned above, forcibly moving anyone anywhere generally doesn't work out well. Take the Armenian genocide for example.
If is before WWII you must take in consideration Italy regarding Rhodes (italian possession) and Albania (Italian sphere of influence and Rome), taking even in consideration the Corfù incident and some incident (in OTL) during the italian occupation of Albania and the Turkish war of independence, there is the possibility of a war between Greece and Italy, and Greece already overstreched is in a very bad situation.
Greece getting the most of the territory mentioned before WW2, the rest after? Greece gets the Dodekanisa Islands after WW2, and a communist Albania somehow provokes the Greeks into invading? That could work, i think.
Only if you want that Stalin or Tito decided to give fully support to the communist in the post-wwII civil war. But now that i think if Greece is in worse economic and social condition (see various previous post), the italian invasion can be more succesfull (maybe Bulgaria and later Turkey decide to join the event) so no German intervention, different Barbarossa and maybe a iron curtain that don't arrive near the Greece border...but is a big longshot.
Maybe after the Sino-Soviet split and when the colonel are in charge, but they still face international trouble, Tito will not be very happy nor the rest of Europe.
Why won't the rest of Europe like it? I can understand the communists reasons, why.
Turkey will be obviously unhappy, and they will not forget nor forgive. Considering the relative populations ratio, I would not exactly look forward to a revanchist Turkey on my border.
Yugoslavia will be not happy because an expansionist Greece will create turbulence in the Balkans. The more turbolence there is in the Balkans, the more trouble there will be in Yugoslavia, considering their internal problems (which did not disappear by magic under Tito: they were simply swiped under the carpet and as soon as Tito died erupted with a vengeance). Then who knows, if Greece is rabidly expansionist why Bulgaria should stay meek? And what about Albania?
The rest of Europe won't be happy because no one likes the colonels, and no one wants to have to weather another crisis in the Balkans - if not an out-and-out shootout between Greece and Turkey. I was just forgetting: because no one in Europe considers the Megali idea a reasonable proposition.
Care to explain how you justify Greece forcibly annexing regions where Greek-speaking population is a minority (not even a plurality: an out-and-out minority, even coopting the Armenians - which is a bit over the board)? Mind, the latest claim to Trakia, Constantinople, Smyrna has to go back at least to the 14th century (and it's based on the unreasonable and unjustified premises that the kingdom of Hellenes as created out of full cloth in the 1820s has any kind of claims on territories that in the far past had been under the control of the Eastern Roman Empire). And in such a case, why not claim Alexandria of Egypt? Founded by Greeks, beacon of Greek culture for centuries, still home to a significant Greek minority. The only drawback is that Alexandria has been ruled by the Caliphate or its successor states for some 1200 years, but who cares?
I'll go one up on you: claim also Melbourne, after all it is the second or third largest Greek city in the world. Wouldn't that be trying to turn city-dwellers into peasant famers? Somehow, I doubt whether many of those incomers would appreciate that part of the plan...
And you do realise that in order to take over Cyprus at any point between c.1870 and the 1960s you have to win a war against Britain, right?
Nato reunion will be very akward...if Turkey join, with this situation it's more probable that she will be neutral/american-leaning but outside official Nato, maybe CENTO till last, after who knows.
Yugoslavia will be not happy because an expansionist Greece will create turbulence in the Balkans. The more turbolence there is in the Balkans, the more trouble there will be in Yugoslavia, considering their internal problems (which did not disappear by magic under Tito: they were simply swiped under the carpet and as soon as Tito died erupted with a vengeance). Then who knows, if Greece is rabidly expansionist why Bulgaria should stay meek? And what about Albania?
Oh dear, not only we get internal terrorism, the oil crisis now the Balkan are again a trouble spot...stop the world i want get out.
anonymous french politician in 1973
More seriously, during the cold war thinking of change the border in Europe was a big, and i really mean big no no, as this can really create a situation where the two alliance stare at each others with weapon loaded and the trigger hitchin, so nobody in Europe (or in the rest of the world) will be very pleased
Nato reunion will be very akward...if Turkey join, with this situation it's more probable that she will be neutral/american-leaning but outside official Nato, maybe CENTO till last, after who knows.
Yugoslavia will be not happy because an expansionist Greece will create turbulence in the Balkans. The more turbolence there is in the Balkans, the more trouble there will be in Yugoslavia, considering their internal problems (which did not disappear by magic under Tito: they were simply swiped under the carpet and as soon as Tito died erupted with a vengeance). Then who knows, if Greece is rabidly expansionist why Bulgaria should stay meek? And what about Albania?
Oh dear, not only we get internal terrorism, the oil crisis now the Balkan are again a trouble spot...stop the world i want get out.
anonymous french politician in 1973
More seriously, during the cold war thinking of change the border in Europe was a big, and i really mean big no no, as this can really create a situation where the two alliance stare at each others with weapon loaded and the trigger hitchin, so nobody in Europe (or in the rest of the world) will be very pleased
True that borders can't be changed really in the cold war era or the mdoern era, but between WW1 and WW2, or even before WW1, it was sometimes acceptable to change the borders of a country, even to add to your own.
Wouldn't it be possible for Britain to give Cyprus to Greece to get the Greeks to join in a war? In IOTL, it was offered to Greece to get involved in WW1.
Now i just have to think how my scenario can come about.
Greece gaining more territorries is a bit like what my father says about a United Ireland, The Republic cannot properly govern 26 counties, how could it possibly govern 32 properly?
Mind you there's one huge economic difference between Greece and Ireland - In Greece it was traditionally more or less up to yourself to pay tax or not, in Ireland the authorities were extremely good at collecting taxes from the little people!
Mind you there's one huge economic difference between Greece and Ireland - In Greece it was traditionally more or less up to yourself to pay tax or not, in Ireland the authorities were extremely good at collecting taxes from the little people!
- Status