Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles

[Duke of Orlando]

I wonder what is it the current and future status of the Princes' Islands, i.e. if they were occupied or if they are allied controlled and/or if they already belonged to Greece prior to the war...

I don’t think they were occupied prior to the war. And considering the Axis had complete ground control of the straits up until the last update I don’t see them having been occupied during the war. Now the Russians might not have actually gotten men on the islands as they’re relatively insignificant and have a tiny population, and if the Greeks wanted to be cheeky they might be able to get a few local boats full of men out there and occupy them to “ease the burden of their communist Allies”.

Edit: I will also note that there’s a lot of minor islands along the Bulgarian and Romanian coast with which the Greeks could try something similar, depending on access to the Black Sea and desired level of pettiness. Snake Island of Ukrainian War fame actually has historical Greek ties if the Greeks were really trying to annoy the Soviets. I don’t honestly think they can get there before the Soviets do because they probably won’t have access to the Black Sea when they surrender but it would be hilarious if they pulled it off. No way they’d keep it even if they got there, but it could be a valuable bargaining chip.

 

[Lascaris]

From what I know of early 20th century relations between the Iranian state and Kurdish nationalists, I would figure a "brother nation" policy/ethos to be either off the table or a near-wholly artificial thing.

OTL there were a number of armed revolts by Kurdish independentists in western Iran from end-WW1 to the mid-1940s following the withdrawal of the Soviets from the north of the country. While I doubt the conditions are right for something analogous to the existence of the Mahabad Republic to occur given how different a state Iran is in TTL, the rebellions of Simko Shikak (incidentally, one of the main ringleaders in the genocide of the Assyrian communities west of Lake Urmia) would about certainly have occurred as historically. I'm not sure how much of Iranian policy towards Kurds in the mid-'20s to '30s was the result of Pahlavi specifically versus broader currents of rising Iranian nationalism and reprisal against rebelling tribes in the west during that period, but given Teymourtash's modernist statecraft proclivities I would lean to the latter.

Now, in realpolitik terms I think Iran would support the formation of a Kurdish state from Turkish territory. It breaks up a far more relevant threat to the west, and allows for Iran to play it and Iraq off of one another to maintain a place of power vis-a-vis both countries, more easily than would be possible to do with Turkey. But I can't see this Iran sincerely buddying up to a neighboring Kurdish state given both the presence of rebellious Kurds on its side of said border and the level of influence the United Kingdom will have in that polity. Considering the logistical infeasibility of a population exchange, I can see Tehran being more supportive of instead trying to lessen or entirely prevent a border with Kurdistan by supporting the creation of a buffer state to the West, one likely dependent on them for defense and thus easy to maintain influence over.

It's funny that way. Kurdish dialects are part of the Iranian language group, while Ey Reqib the Kurdish national anthem does claim Median ancestry for the Kurds saying "we are the sons of the Medes and Cyaxares). So the common heritage is not actually a fantasy and recognized both sides. This did not stop of course Kurdish revolts in the 1920s, 1967 and 1979 or for that matter the creation of the republic of Mahabad in 1946. On the reverse these did not stop Iran from large scale support of the Iraqi Kurds against Baghdad since the 1960s.

So how do Kurdish-Iranian relations go post 1945. Kurdistan in all likelihood would be landlocked. It DOES need one of Turkey, Arabia or Iran as an ally/not enemy and it has grabbed territory from the first two. By the same token the Iranian Kurds will be its last notable Terra irredenta...

 

[Lascaris]

But I can't see this Iran sincerely buddying up to a neighboring Kurdish state given both the presence of rebellious Kurds on its side of said border and the level of influence the United Kingdom will have in that polity. Considering the logistical infeasibility of a population exchange, I can see Tehran being more supportive of instead trying to lessen or entirely prevent a border with Kurdistan by supporting the creation of a buffer state to the West, one likely dependent on them for defense and thus easy to maintain influence over.

Let me add that how Kurdistan is influenced by Britain in its relations with Iran is I think a very cogent point. Logically the British are anything but happy with the Iranians under Teymurtash and Mosdaddegh stealing their thunder and horror of horrors using the Americans to balance them out instead of letting Britain loot their oil.

 

[Xenophonte]

It DOES need one of Turkey, Arabia or Iran as an ally/not enemy and it has grabbed territory from the first two.

You meant the Arabs/Syrian-Jordan (Irak?) Hashemites Kingdom?

 

[Lascaris]

You meant the Arabs/Syrian-Jordan (Irak?) Hashemites Kingdom?

Abdullah has crowned himself as king of the Arabs back in 1942 not merely king of Iraq. He holds at the time Jordan and not even all of Iraq and now that Turkey is out of the war he can't ignore for long the elephant in the room that is Kurdish and Assyrian independence but the ambitions implied by the title are obvious. And Abdullah does have the strongest Arab military around and south Iraqi oilfields to pay and arm it...

 

[Xenophonte]

Abdullah has crowned himself as king of the Arabs back in 1942 not merely king of Iraq. He holds at the time Jordan and not even all of Iraq and now that Turkey is out of the war he can't ignore for long the elephant in the room that is Kurdish and Assyrian independence but the ambitions implied by the title are obvious. And Abdullah does have the strongest Arab military around and south Iraqi oilfields to pay and arm it...

I see... So, would appear that most logical move/first step would be to take control of the Holy places/cities, but given that Gulf States/Emirates are under British control/protection and that Palestina and Syria, still are under Allied control.
I would suppose that he would move to the south, to Arabia and 'reclaim' his family lost ancient heritage and to take control of the Meca and Medina, from the Saudíes...

 

[Khan Doomy]

I think Abdullah will be more focused on Syria

 

[Khan Doomy]

I see... So, would appear that most logical move/first step would be to take control of the Holy places/cities, but given that Gulf States/Emirates are under British control/protection and that Palestina and Syria, still are under Allied control.
I would suppose that he would move to the south, to Arabia and 'reclaim' his family lost ancient heritage and to take control of the Meca and Medina, from the Saudíes...

Good luck with that fir him. The Saudis have the land and the US on their side.

What I am seeing is very bad US-UK relations in the early cold war. Worse than OTL

 

[Xenophonte]

Good luck with that fir him. The Saudis have the land and the US on their side.

Indeed, but, (AFAIK), IOTL at this time, their relations/links weren't so closer, as for that, when faced with, I'd suppose, that could perhaps be some sort of fait accompli with the Hashemites forces overthrowing/replacing to the Saudis.
It would cause that the US government (or those of the 'Seven Oil Sisters' US owned) would be so mad about it or that would react so badly as you suppose...

 

[DracoLazarus]

Good luck with that fir him. The Saudis have the land and the US on their side.

What I am seeing is very bad US-UK relations in the early cold war. Worse than OTL

So the English might actually show some spine in an alt-Suez Crisis ? Well that has the potential to be interesting.

 

[Khan Doomy]

Sure, though spine will do little good to them.

 

[Khan Doomy]

Indeed, but, (AFAIK), IOTL at this time, their relations/links weren't so closer, as for that, when faced with, I'd suppose, that could perhaps be some sort of fait accompli with the Hashemites forces overthrowing/replacing to the Saudis.
It would cause that the US government (or those of the 'Seven Oil Sisters' US owned) would be so mad about it or that would react so badly as you suppose...

How do you overthrow an army of credit religious warriors that can retreat to.a desert you cannot follow them in?

A long guerilla war in the Saudi Desert is likely going to undermine any attempts to get Syria.

 

[Khan Doomy]

It would be funny if the Israelis end supporting the Saudi guerillas as a balance against a more powerful Hashemite Kingdom.

 

[Xenophonte]

How do you overthrow an army of credit religious warriors that can retreat to.a desert you cannot follow them in?

A long guerilla war in the Saudi Desert is likely going to undermine any attempts to get Syria.

Cause, modern arms and war seasoned soldiers when they are correctly commanded/leaded and with artillery/Air support it nearly always would trump an army of warriors. Not matter as skilled or zealous they would be but without their enemies experience,equipment or support. Also, the Saudis can not withdrawn to the Arabian deserts without before making a stand and/or to defend the Holy places and source of their legitimacy, to the last men...
After of it, and supposing that any of them would survive and that would be able to gather support after a so big defeat and even bigger loss of prestige.... I think that whatever that the scattered survivors would chose or attempt to do... It, (imo,again), wouldn't be a matter of great worry for the Hashemites, now controlling and ruling again the Holy Places.

 

[Lascaris]

Good luck with that fir him. The Saudis have the land and the US on their side.

What I am seeing is very bad US-UK relations in the early cold war. Worse than OTL

Mind elaborating a bit on this? I'm not saying that you are wrong or I necessarily disagree, Iran is an obvious point of contention that was not there in OTL, since the US strong armed the British into agreeing into a 50-50 Saudi style share deal in October 1941 and the Iranian government increasingly turns to the US for support as, with good reason, it trusts neither the British nor the Soviets.

But what would you see as major points of contention between Britain and the US not there in OTL or exacerbated from OTL?

 

[Lascaris]

So the English might actually show some spine in an alt-Suez Crisis ? Well that has the potential to be interesting.

If you want funny side effects I would point to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US–UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement If you kill it and by extension the later Polaris agreement...

 

[Lascaris]

I don’t think they were occupied prior to the war. And considering the Axis had complete ground control of the straits up until the last update I don’t see them having been occupied during the war. Now the Russians might not have actually gotten men on the islands as they’re relatively insignificant and have a tiny population, and if the Greeks wanted to be cheeky they might be able to get a few local boats full of men out there and occupy them to “ease the burden of their communist Allies”.

Historically they are part of Constantinople and given their population at this time is overwhelmingly Greek both OTL and even more so TTL they would fall with the Western zone of control.

Edit: I will also note that there’s a lot of minor islands along the Bulgarian and Romanian coast with which the Greeks could try something similar, depending on access to the Black Sea and desired level of pettiness. Snake Island of Ukrainian War fame actually has historical Greek ties if the Greeks were really trying to annoy the Soviets. I don’t honestly think they can get there before the Soviets do because they probably won’t have access to the Black Sea when they surrender but it would be hilarious if they pulled it off. No way they’d keep it even if they got there, but it could be a valuable bargaining chip.

That is... suicidal. Besides needing the Greek navy in the Black sea, which the German hold on Gallipoli makes impossible. But I would point on Sazan island as a place Greece may well show an interest in the peace treaty...

 

[Duke of Orlando]

I think Abdullah will be more focused on Syria

Abdullah might focus on getting Syria first but I have doubts that it would actually take much time if he leaves the minority areas to their own devices. He has a decently sized battle hardened army equipped with modernish equipment. Arab Syria has a few veterans from the uprising a ago that have been kept down by Kurdish, Alawite, and Lebanese militia that aren’t likely to care anymore if the French aren’t paying them to. And assuming that anything like OTL Syrian developments are happening they won’t. So who is going to make taking Syria hard for him? He can swallow Syria and then take out the Saudis. The US isn’t likely to care at this point as long as the oil keeps flowing, especially if something like the Korean War is happening.

As for the idea of worse UK/US relations, that’s possible. Especially if the UK takes a more French style stance to decolonization, which seems possible. But I don’t see why it would be that much worse.

 

[Duke of Orlando]

That is... suicidal. Besides needing the Greek navy in the Black sea, which the German hold on Gallipoli makes impossible

To be clear I absolutely know it is at the moment. My admittedly dumb idea was meant for after they had Black Sea access, not now.

 

[cmakk1012]

If Britain takes a France-style approach to decolonization, it could go anywhere from them successfully holding onto more minor islands around the world and relatively speaking being in a better spot by the 21st century to them bankrupting themselves trying to hold on to more than they can handle and completely fading to irrelevancy.