Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles

Serpent

Banned
I could see it being considered illegitimate by some or ignored by large portions of the Muslim world but I’m not sure it would turn violent. Especially since the Caliph is choosing to stay, he’s not a prisoner. But if the “Greek Caliph” is only accepted in a few countries I wouldn’t be surprised. I could see the Muslims of the Balkans, Europe in general, Lebanon, and Islamic countries with close ties to Europe accepting them while the caliph is ignored by the world at large.

A "Greek caliph" is an interesting concept, however:

A) Only a few countries would even consider accepting it, like Albania, Lebanon, the Muslims/Turks within Bulgaria and Yugoslavia and maybe, just maybe Turkey if it stays non aligned, but that's kinda worse, because then they would have a serious additional reason that would constantly motivate them to engage in further military campaigns to liberate Constantinople and free their caliph...

B) As for Syria and the rest of the middle east, they are Arab nationalists and they wouldn't want anything to do with a Turkish caliph prisoner to infidels...

C) Maybe the Indian Muslims would accept his authority, but only if Turkey accepts it too, and even then, the Turkish authorities could just proclaim him a prisoner and proclaim that they will interpret his will until he is freed, as he lives within the captivity of the infidels...

Guess who would the Indian Muslims follow, due to historical ties and proximity...

D) That's apart from the large possibility that the Arab countries take the opportunity to counter proclaim their own Arab Caliph, followed by Iran, which would also then proclaim its own Persian Caliph...

So basically schisms, followed by even more schisms...

That is not to say that it wouldn't provide an opportunity on its own...

Like Greece could exploit the divisions to increase its influence in Muslim African majority countries/populations that have a historical ethnic tensions with the Arab and the Berber people, like Chad, Niger, Mali and Darfur, once decolonization takes place.

Like even apart from Nasser and the expulsion of the Greek people, I can't really see the ITTL Greece, which is much stronger, politically, economically and much more stable and thus more centrist politically, having the same ties that it had with Arab countries in ITTL, simply because of the far weaker ITTL communist party and the far weaker ITTL socialist movement under Papandreou in Greece.


Even when Papandreou eventually rises to power, if he does as per OTL, then he would have the ability to perform a far more dynamic policy, the Greek people are not the same ITTL as to OTL, so I'd expect this disparities in income and living standards, on top of the aforementioned weakening of communist and socialist influences compared to OTL, to affect the general population's positions on the Palestinian issue, favoring Israel far more ITTL, thus taking down one of the major catalysts that turned the Greek populace to become friendly to the Arabs in general, because of sympathy for the Palestinian plight...

Honestly fast moving forward I'd even expect an ITTL Greek intervention in the Lebanese civil war in favor of the Lebanese forces of Bachir Gemayel, to ensure, alongside Israel, and against Syria, that the Christian political and military dominance of Lebanon is maintained.

And to go further that that, a far more prosperous Greece ITTL means a far more prosperous Greek industry, which would require more working hands...

At the same time, Lebanon would be a natural avenue for Greek foreign investments, from the emerging wealthy industrialist, shipowning and financial classes, that apart from strategical reasons, also because of the emerging friendly environment between the two countries (Greece and Lebanon).
Similarly I can see military cooperation taking place between the armies of Lebanon and Greece ITTL, since thanks to Cyprus achieving enosis, the distance between Greece and Lebanon is much, much shorter.

Said interests would require the entanglement of Greek military to secure their vast investments...
That being said, I could easily see ITTL Greece agreeing to take up quite a lot of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, to help stabilize the situation there, but also because ITTL Greece, like several Western European countries at this time, (the 80s), would be feeding it's economical expansion with immigrants from outside Europe.

Which I could see leading to a polarized environment politically within the next decades, similar to France...

In general, like I've stated before, ITTL Greece has a lot of similarities with OTL France, both politically and military, as we descent closer to modern day...
At least the way I see this TL playing out...
 
Last edited:
Eee no I don't think greece would take in large numbers of Palestinians Muslims... after all the Palestinians have caused instability in every country they have settled in large numbers (Lebanese civil war,black September etc)
 
Eee no I don't think greece would take in large numbers of Palestinians Muslims... after all the Palestinians have caused instability in every country they have settled in large numbers (Lebanese civil war,black September etc)
I don't think Greece ITTL would take much refugees in general, reason being the wars with Turkey would possibly make them more wary of "foreign" Muslims. Muslims who've lived in Greece for centuries sure, but outsiders? No.
 
More broadly, the situation in the Middle East is in way too much flux for us to talk about the specifics of an ITTL version of the Lebanese Civil War yet.

How would Abdullah being king in both Amman and Bagdad impact things? Would he realize his ambitions of taking Syria as well? What would the politics of the ITTL Alawite state be? How will the ITTL 1948 Israeli-Arab War play out (I get the sense Israel is likely to win ITTL as well, thanks to how many battle-hardened veterans it will have at its disposal due to wider British recruitment in the Yishuv ITTL but the specifics do matter)? What would be the borders of the Kurdish state to be? Will there an Assyrian one as well and if yes what would its border be too? What would be Kurdistan's foreign and internal politics? How about Assyria if it comes into being? How will all of this impact the internal politics of Lebanon?

Yes, having a way stronger Greece which is likely to be close to Beyrouth due to cultural ties between Greece and some of its communities, as well as Cyprus not being far from it would be one impact, but there are many other factors at play here. For all we know Lebanon might just keep its precarious confessional balance to the current day...
 
Last edited:
If Abdullah takes Syria, he has a very strong claim to being the “rightful” overlord of the Levantine Arabs, which at this point in history would unambiguously include the Palestinians too. Unlike Jordan holding the West Bank IOTL, if Abdullah’s state takes over any part of Palestine after the 1948 war it would be significantly easier for that state to “digest” those areas, changing the IP situation considerably.
 
More broadly, the situation in the Middle East is in way too much flux for us to talk about the specifics of an ITTL version of the Lebanese Civil War yet.

How would Abdullah being king in both Amman and Bagdad impact things? Would he realize his ambitions of taking Syria as well?
He is actively being supported by the British, from their point of view he is the most reliable partner they have in the Middle East and holding Iraq means he also has the revenues of Iraq to play with. In OTL the Iraqi army by 1948 was 22,000 when the Arab Legion was about 8,000 men. So at a minimum Abdullah could be sporting an army of up to 30,000 TTL and historically the Jordanians have been the best Arab army around. Recruiting patterns matter of course quite a great deal in that.

Conversely Syria is quite a bit worse off given French policies prior and during the war. The Alawites which accounted from a high fraction of its early regular military are a separate state, the Kurdish north is almost certainly becoming part of Kurdistan to be. In OTL most of the Syrian nationalists did not want to be ruled by Abdullah. TTL he may be the only game in town or at least much more needed than OTL. And of course he does have the prestige of ruling Iraq.
What would the politics of the ITTL Alawite state be?
The Syrians will have excellent non ideological reasons to want to roll over it and annex it... it is their outlet to the sea, otherwise Syria is a landlocked stat. On the other hand both they and the Lebanese are inheriting way more of the French army in Syria, including in the case of the Lebanese units that have seen intense combat in Anatolia and the Balkans. Soo... fall back to French support to fend off the Syrians? This in turn brings to question who is the Syrians patron...
How will the ITTL 1948 Israeli-Arab War play out (I get the sense Israel is likely to win ITTL as well, thanks to how many battle-hardened veterans it will have at its disposal due to wider British recruitment in the Yishuv ITTL but the specifics do matter)? What would be the borders of the Kurdish state to be? Will there an Assyrian one as well and if yes what would its border be too? What would be Kurdistan's foreign and internal politics?
A bit of a mess for the foreseeable future one suspects although the war has left them with the second largest army behind Iran. Which means they can make their claims to Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan stick without much trouble. Which means the sole Kurdish populated territory, outside Kurdish control at the moment is Iranian Kurdistan...
How about Assyria if it comes into being?
Assyria has the same problem with the Alawites. Abdullah can't just let them go, particularly after losing Kurdish territories and given the attitudes of his Muslim population (Simele massacres anyone? ). Which likely means the existence of an independent Assyria is decided the hard way after the war in Europe is over.
How will all of this impact the internal politics of Lebanon?
Someone would need to see how Syria plays out first and the attitudes of whoever comes to control Damascus towards an independent Lebanon...
 
? How will the ITTL 1948 Israeli-Arab War play out (I get the sense Israel is likely to win ITTL as well, thanks to how many battle-hardened veterans it will have at its disposal due to wider British recruitment in the Yishuv ITTL but the specifics do matter)?

If Abdullah takes Syria, he has a very strong claim to being the “rightful” overlord of the Levantine Arabs, which at this point in history would unambiguously include the Palestinians too. Unlike Jordan holding the West Bank IOTL, if Abdullah’s state takes over any part of Palestine after the 1948 war it would be significantly easier for that state to “digest” those areas, changing the IP situation considerably.

I’m seriously wondering if we see anything like 1948’s war in the first place. OTL Abdullah supported the partition plan until he was pressured by the other members of the Arab League into being against it. In a world where he essentially controls the Levant, who is going to pressure him? Not the Lebanese. The Saudis and Egyptians could try and make him look bad but if he’s riding high after a successful participation in WW2 and unifying atleast Transjordan, Iraq, and possibly Syria I’m not sure such claims have a lot of traction. The Egyptians and Saudis could try going it alone but I’m not sure they will.
 
I’m seriously wondering if we see anything like 1948’s war in the first place. OTL Abdullah supported the partition plan until he was pressured by the other members of the Arab League into being against it. In a world where he essentially controls the Levant, who is going to pressure him? Not the Lebanese. The Saudis and Egyptians could try and make him look bad but if he’s riding high after a successful participation in WW2 and unifying atleast Transjordan, Iraq, and possibly Syria I’m not sure such claims have a lot of traction. The Egyptians and Saudis could try going it alone but I’m not sure they will.
On the downside he's been forced to give up at a minimum Iraqi Kurdistan. And "successful participation in WW2" from an Arab nationalist point of view is I short of suspect a very precarious title. As in "been the English loyal puppet helping them beat up patriots like Rashid Ali and the mufti of Jerusalem". Soo... how much public legitimization he needs within his newly minted kingdom lest his new subjects start rising up to overthrow his rule?
 
I’m seriously wondering if we see anything like 1948’s war in the first place. OTL Abdullah supported the partition plan until he was pressured by the other members of the Arab League into being against it. In a world where he essentially controls the Levant, who is going to pressure him? Not the Lebanese. The Saudis and Egyptians could try and make him look bad but if he’s riding high after a successful participation in WW2 and unifying atleast Transjordan, Iraq, and possibly Syria I’m not sure such claims have a lot of traction. The Egyptians and Saudis could try going it alone but I’m not sure they will.
The problem is that fighting is very likely to be already ongoing in Palestine by the time the British Mandate ends, which will put a ton of pressure on Abdullah to join any coalition. To prevent that you'd need violence to be kept at a far lower than OTL, but that would require significant changes in the Palestinian leadership as well as quite possibly in the Yishuv leadership as well, and I don't see why it would be so different ITTL.

What won't help in terms of pressure on Abdullah if fighting breaks out is that the balance of power will be way more to the Yishuv's advantage than in OTL, and the last phase of the Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, when it escalated to full scale open conventional warfare, was an utter disaster for the Palestinians in OTL anyway.

EDIT: Thinking more on it I think it will be best to leave the speculations for those particular butterflies (the ITTL partition and potential conflicts following it) for later due to current events. I was the one who started them and I take full responsibility for that but IMO better to leave the subject be for now.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that fighting is very likely to be already ongoing in Palestine by the time the British Mandate ends, which will put a ton of pressure on Abdullah to join any coalition. To prevent that you'd need violence to be kept at a far lower than OTL, but that would require significant changes in the Palestinian leadership as well as quite possibly in the Yishuv leadership as well, and I don't see why it would be so different ITTL.

What won't help in terms of pressure on Abdullah if fighting breaks out is that the balance of power will be way more to the Yishuv's advantage than in OTL, and the last phase of the Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, when it escalated to full scale open conventional warfare, was an utter disaster for the Palestinians in OTL anyway.
TTL aside from a full sized Israeli division (Palmach says hello) there are also thousands of Jewish veterans of the Greek army. Now its not to be taken for granted that there is mass migration of the surviving Greek Jewish communities to Israel TTL but logic would say there must be SOME movement at least...
 
More broadly, the situation in the Middle East is in way too much flux for us to talk about the specifics of an ITTL version of the Lebanese Civil War yet.

How would Abdullah being king in both Amman and Bagdad impact things? Would he realize his ambitions of taking Syria as well? What would the politics of the ITTL Alawite state be? How will the ITTL 1948 Israeli-Arab War play out (I get the sense Israel is likely to win ITTL as well, thanks to how many battle-hardened veterans it will have at its disposal due to wider British recruitment in the Yishuv ITTL but the specifics do matter)? What would be the borders of the Kurdish state to be? Will there an Assyrian one as well and if yes what would its border be too? What would be Kurdistan's foreign and internal politics? How about Assyria if it comes into being? How will all of this impact the internal politics of Lebanon?

Yes, having a way stronger Greece which is likely to be close to Beyrouth due to cultural ties between Greece and some of its communities, as well as Cyprus not being far from it would be one impact, but there are many other factors at play here. For all we know Lebanon might just keep its precarious confessional balance to the current day...
tbf I think one of the few alliances I think will stick is the Greece-Israel alliance bc they have similar interests in the ME.
The Syrians will have excellent non ideological reasons to want to roll over it and annex it... it is their outlet to the sea, otherwise Syria is a landlocked stat. On the other hand both they and the Lebanese are inheriting way more of the French army in Syria, including in the case of the Lebanese units that have seen intense combat in Anatolia and the Balkans. Soo... fall back to French support to fend off the Syrians? This in turn brings to question who is the Syrians patron...
Someone would need to see how Syria plays out first and the attitudes of whoever comes to control Damascus towards an independent Lebanon...
I think these states would very much be states the Americans (and the Greeks) would want to keep present within the area since they are allies that they've been working with, and with the Alawites being an important component of the Syrian armies I definitely think they could have a shot at building a nation on the coast of Syria, especially if they needed them to fight off the bigger Syrian state since the Alawites would have had the military strength and leaders to do so due to WWII. All that's needed are the leaders to champion succession, and with WWII happening a charismatic Alawite leader rising up from the rank and file is very plausible. Also the fact that Alexandretta is under Syrian control is good news, as it was majority Alawite before the Turks came along.

tbf if the Alawites and Lebanese work together I think it could work. Damascus is quite close to lebanon after all, and if Israel pops up as per otl, Abdullah would be locked out of the Levant coastline unless he makes overtures to these states. If anything Syria could end up like Jordan, with no coastline and bitter enemies by the coast.

An Alawite-Israel alliance would be an interesting one to see happen too.
A bit of a mess for the foreseeable future one suspects although the war has left them with the second largest army behind Iran. Which means they can make their claims to Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan stick without much trouble. Which means the sole Kurdish populated territory, outside Kurdish control at the moment is Iranian Kurdistan...
Assyria has the same problem with the Alawites. Abdullah can't just let them go, particularly after losing Kurdish territories and given the attitudes of his Muslim population (Simele massacres anyone? ). Which likely means the existence of an independent Assyria is decided the hard way after the war in Europe is over.
If the Iranians help the Assyrians I think it could work, much like how Armenia is Iran's ally against Azerbaijan to prevent Kurdistan/Azerbaijan to make irredentist claims against Iranian lands where the majority populations are of various minorities which may have sepratist sentiments.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that fighting is very likely to be already ongoing in Palestine by the time the British Mandate ends, which will put a ton of pressure on Abdullah to join any coalition. To prevent that you'd need violence to be kept at a far lower than OTL, but that would require significant changes in the Palestinian leadership as well as quite possibly in the Yishuv leadership as well, and I don't see why it would be so different ITTL.

What won't help in terms of pressure on Abdullah if fighting breaks out is that the balance of power will be way more to the Yishuv's advantage than in OTL, and the last phase of the Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, when it escalated to full scale open conventional warfare, was an utter disaster for the Palestinians in OTL anyway.

EDIT: Thinking more on it I think it will be best to leave the speculations for those particular butterflies (the ITTL partition and potential conflicts following it) for later due to current events. I was the one who started them and I take full responsibility for that but IMO better to leave the subject be for now.
I think the ME would be a lot more bloody than otl, with the Alawites, fighting the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds and Assyrians already fighting with each other to suss out where the borders lie. I think Abdullah wouldn't have a lot of choice on the matter and the fact is an Arabian nationalist coalition would probably make sense.
 
I think the ME would be a lot more bloody than otl, with the Alawites, fighting the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds and Assyrians already fighting with each other to suss out where the borders lie. I think Abdullah wouldn't have a lot of choice on the matter and the fact is an Arabian nationalist coalition would probably make sense.
I'd say the Kurds and Assyrians have some good reasons to hack things out peacefully and collaborate. After all, and for all the sympathy they are landlocked with many potential enemies nearby and few allies. I agree in general though, with the caveat that more warlike isn't necessarily more bloody. With the Kurds hopefully being free of Saddam and the like and the Assyrians perhaps being similarly protected by sovereignty many lives who were lost in OTL may be saved ITTL.

Oh, and to add an extra lawyer: I kinda wonder what Abudulah's title as King of the Arabs might or might not mean as to whether he has accepted his family's ancestral Hejaz is Saudi for good...
 
Last edited:
I'd say the Kurds and Assyrians have some good reasons to hack things out peacefully and collaborate. After all, and for all the sympathy they are landlocked with many potential enemies nearby and few allies. I agree in general though.
I think the Kurds and Assyrians should collaborate, but all of Assyria could be considered part of Kurdistan and the Kurds committed genocide on the Christian minorities of Anatolia so they could build their own state. In ittl I don't see the Kurds not grumble about it.
 
On the Hagia Sophia minartes and Ottoman additions. Trying to take those out would be structurally unwise. Justinians hubris with the cupola resulted in a building where literally the weight of the cupola has been eroding the foundations for all these centuries. The Ottomans made serious architectural interventions to buttress them (archs, buttresses etc) and fooling around with them would have a catastrophic consequences. This includes trying to remove the minarets. More likely you will have crosses put on the minarets and the cupola and that is it.

On the Blue Mosque. Considering that Greece in 1919-1922 did not make any of the Adrianople/Edirne imperial mosques into churches, I do not see why it would do that with the Blue Mosque (or the Fetihye, the Suleiman, the Yeni Cami etc, serioudly the Suleimaniye has much more of a commanding view of the city). You will see things like the Khora Church, the Hagia Irene, the Kucuk Aya Sofia (Sergius and Vakhus Church) restored to the Orthodox Church, but I do not see much touching of the Imperial Mosques, or the Armenian build ones. You are more likely to see land grabs in things like Muslim cemeteries (think Edirnekapi cemetary that covers a huge area). One area I am sure will be bulldozed and rebuilt Haussmann style will be the working class Muslim neighborhoods hugging the walls, as most budlings are structurally unsound and unhyegnic. Their population is likely to be removed anyway (it is the most islamist and conservative part of the City).

On the palaces, demolishing Top Kapi makes little sense. It will probably stay as a museum (it is not very useful as an administrative building). Dolmabahce on the other hand will either become an administrative building (especially as it is located close to Pera), or it may become a hotel (i.e The Ciragan Palace fate), or even a university.

On the Greek Chalif. I find that idea unlikely. OTL Greece managed its Muslim affairs like the Ottomans managed their Christiaan affairs, assigning control of religious sites and properties to a vakif/foindation. Now what form that Vakf takes, and whether it has the form of a international organization (including muslim states friendly to Greece) or NGO (perhaps embeded in an UNESCO affiliated organization) is a different story. ATL Greece will be presenting itself more as a "western" "civilized" country then OTL and the general expectation is that it will continue the policy it had in 1912-1923.
 
Another thing. If Constantipole/Istanbul becomes an international zone after the war, it is likely going to become a dumping ground for "undesirable" populations in the area. For example, let us say Bulgarian authorities decide to ethnically cleanse their non-Pomak muslim population? It is not impossible that the decision is to move them to the International Zone.

Lastly, long term it is not to be expected that the European side of Constantinople when it become Greek will see the population increase it did OTL. Greece is bigger, has more attractive economically regions for internal migration, and no massive migration of Kurds and rural Anatolian Turks to Istanbul in the 1950s-1980s. You may very well end up with a modest city of 500k contained mostly in the Old City and the European coastline. Interestingly at the end of the timeline The City from once being the greatest Greek metropole might be just the fourth largest Greek city, a culturally important center without question, probably a very beautiful city (after a heavy Haussman style treatment), but not a center of political or economic power (instead the triangle Smyrna-Athens-Thessaloniki taking those roles)
 
Greece can use the presence of important islamic sites, and regulation of which Muslims states participate in their upkeep as a powerful tool of foreign policy. No need to give it up for cheap theatrics.
 
On the ME. An Alawite-Lebanese Christian confederal or federal states makes sense ATL.
tbf a Alawite-Lebanon state makes a lot of sense, and would be very interesting to witness as the Alawites' only claim to be a state is their religion. The pan arab parties would probably try to destroy the just bc of that.
with the caveat that more warlike isn't necessarily more bloody. With the Kurds hopefully being free of Saddam and the like and the Assyrians perhaps being similarly protected by sovereignty many lives who were lost in OTL may be saved ITTL.
its more that we'd probably get at least two conflicts post war with the Alawites having the guns to contest the landholders that allowed the dissolution of the Alawite state in otl while Israel goes forward as per otl to take over Cisjordan.
 
Top