>Turkey is destroyed by Europeans in the first Balkan War
>Turkey is destroyed by Arabs and Brits in WW1
>By 1919 Turkey is surrounded by Greeks, Armenians, Brits and Frenchmen on all fronts
>Basically reduced to Ankara
>Still managed to come back and murder 500,000 innocent civilians
What went wrong /his/? How did Europe allow this to happen? Why didn't Bulgaria just walk in and take Instanbul?
The Anglos might give the Turks a few slaps every now and then, but they will never take care of the problem. Why? Not only would the Arabs have self-rule, but Russia and Persia would put the area under their influence. Think of the fame Russia would have if they took back Constantinople.
Britain is essentially the kid with all the toys who cries when kids get other toys. As such, Britain keeps the Turks in power to insure that Russia and other countries don't disrupt the balance of power. Genocide and tyranny doesn't matter to the Anglos.
That's what always happens with wars like these. People rally up, get highly motivated and push back.
A lot of people really underestimate the feeling of "no turning back, nothing to lose" and how excellent of a call to arms it is.
>Destroyed in the first Balkan War
>Destroyed in WW1
>Against Brits and Frenchmen
Look at the battles of the first Balkan War, the Turks got destroyed. They won like 3 battles out of 30 and all of them were very minor victories. Turkish troops (apart from Janissaries) could never in history match European troops not even with "muh WW1 veterans". And in 1919 they were outnumbered 1:4 by Europeans.
>in the middle east
Asia minor is the cradle of European civilization, the gateway to the black sea and the gateway to the middle east. It's was always very important geopolitcally.
There is no >muh galipoli
Turkey clearly lost the first Balkan War, but the territories damaged were the one that the winners got.
They got some of them back in the second Balkan War.
In the WW1 too, they didn't have been destroyed. Their empire ahs been dismantled, the current territory of Turkey didn't suffered harshly. (Compared to Germany in WW2, or nothern France in WW1)
Finally, in their Independance War, Brits and Frenchmen barely did anything, they just defended most of the territories they took. But didn't try (as WW1 just finished) to put a final blow with the Greeks and Armenians. Greeks were greedy, they failed. Too bad for them.
So yeah, saying a "destroyed" Turkey won on all fronts is ridiculous.
Yes, they were in bad shape during this war, yes they suffered, but no, it wasn't a country in ruins that was attacked by Europeans.
>What went wrong /his/? How did Europe allow this to happen?
The partitioning of Turkey wasn't tremendously beneficial to anyone but the Greeks and the Armenians. Once their forces were defeated it was always going to be a struggle to uphold the Treaty of Sevres. The nationalists led by Ataturk did a good job of isolating individual members of the Triple Entente to peace out.
The Russians were in a state of Civil War and weren't that fussed about ceding territory claimed by the Armenians once their forces had been defeated in Eastern Turkey. Retaking that territory would have required a significant diversion of Russian manpower at that point, which wasn't particularly expedient at the time.
Joseph Stalin is actually recorded as having played an influential role in speeding up negotiations between the Bolsheviks and the Turks during the treaties of Moscow and Kars - and was targeted by the Turkish delegation as an opponent of Armenian interests.
It's also important to note that the Turkish nationalists looked like they might establish a socialist republic at that point. Ataturk addressed Lenin as his comrade, claimed that he was looking to establish state socialism in Turkey, and called on the Turkish youth to be socialists before anything else and understand dialectic materialism. He abandoned this language as soon as the necessary treaties were signed with Bolshevik Russia.
The French attempted to occupy Cilicia and Southern Anatolia but were immediately faced with fierce local resistance in the latter region and struggled to hold onto territory in places like Antep, Urfa and Marash. Using Armenian volunteers didn't help and it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to hold onto the land without deploying hundreds of thousands of troops in difficult terrain.
The French decided it was worth suing for peace with the Turks, ceding areas they couldn't possibly hold onto in exchange for recognition of the French Mandate of Syria.
The British PM David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill (who was Secretary of State for the Colonies at that point) were strongly in favour of upholding Greek interests and the Treaty of Sevres. However, with the defeat of the Greek Army by the nationalists in Asia Minor, they were left in an impossible position.
Read up on the Chanak Crisis to understand more but the challenges they faced primarily came from:
>Opposition to war from a public fatigued by an exhausting conflict in Western Europe
>A lack of support from members of the Commonwealth like Canada, who made it clear that they would make the call about whether to commit to renewed hostilities rather than automatically falling in line with the wishes of London
>The refusal of France and Italy to join in a war against the nationalist Turks
>The potential for a nationalist uprising in Constantinople, which had been infiltrated by Ataturk's agents and gunrunners for months on end
>Opposition to war from their Conservative coalition partners, who supported the nationalist Turks over the Greeks
>A loss of initiative on the part of their Greek allies, who had been completely routed in Asia Minor
All of this led to the British agreeing to the Armistice of Mudanya, which preceded the Treaty of Lausanne, concluding the Turkish War of Independence.
I don't understand why people always knock on Turks here.. they are pretty top tier military wise when under competent leadership (AKA Mutafa Kemal). I feel like its just fashinable at the moment to hate on them and discredit everything they do with "mehmet" and "kebab" memes . The Turkish war of independence was pretty astouding given Turks bouncing back that hard after WW1.
>It's also important to note that the Turkish nationalists looked like they might establish a socialist republic at that point. Ataturk addressed Lenin as his comrade, claimed that he was looking to establish state socialism in Turkey, and called on the Turkish youth to be socialists before anything else and understand dialectic materialism. He abandoned this language as soon as the necessary treaties were signed with Bolshevik Russia.
Why are Turks so sneaky /his/?
Nope. Turks aren't sneaky. They are too bold and straight. You can see this in their battles and diplomacy. Ataturk is an exception to this. He knew realpolitik and did what he deemed necessary in his regime. Ismet Inonu also has this cunning attitude but it dies with them.
because the ottoman army was only superior to western rivals for a very very short period of time, after that they used their numbers rather than quality
their strength was in empire building through administration of a huge variety of people, but not much else
being ex-steppe niggers turks have always dabbled in realpolitiks, and betrayal in opportune moments against political opponents has always been a common practice. check the earlier years of ottoman-byzantine relations and how turks treated with arabs during the growth into middle-east and north africa
>check the earlier years of ottoman-byzantine relations and how turks treated with arabs during the growth into middle-east and north africa
This. On the Battle of Maritsa they agreed to have the battle on the morning, but the Turks broke the agreement and attacked the (drunken) Serbs at night.
I think it's part of the steppe mentality to "outwit" your opponent with lies. I remember reading something similar in regards to the mongols. They didn't have a concept of honour such as Europeans or Arabs did.
There biggest problems was policies made as early as the mid 1500's that assumed that the Europeans will never catch up to them
By the time Catherine took Crimea it was too late for them to even compete with European powers
Not to mention that there opponents had Population booms that they never had untill The end of the empire ironicly
There is a reason people say "never trust a turk" in Europe. Muslims consider breaking their word to non-muslims a common practice, Christians are idiots for ever believing otherwise.
>Turks broke the agreement and attacked the (drunken) Serbs at night.
there is literally no source for this agreement and even if there is the Serbs are retarded for making such an agreement and getting drunk the night before a battle. sounds like more anti-turk butthurt and damage control for a successful night-attack.
>Be Ottoman Soldier
>Be ready for battle
>Random Serbian approached you, saying he has important message for your general.
>Bring him to him
>"Hey turk, we want to get blackout drunk. You come back tommorow and we fight battle OK?"
>Serb, already drunk, stumbles back to his camp.
>All Ottomans look at each other wondering if this is really fucking happening.
Often happened with the turks and their badass music.
Turkish wikipedia and several sources list HRE numbers as great as 150.000 troops but western wikipedia byzantine-anti turk boos will NEVER lat that stand in the english article.
But when thers a low and a high guess for turkish troop numbers in wiki, the big one is always quoted by everybody. Shameful revisionist mentality
>So yeah, saying a "destroyed" Turkey won on all fronts is ridiculous.
No its not.
>Yes, they were in bad shape during this war, yes they suffered, but no, it wasn't a country in ruins that was attacked by Europeans.
Top kek. Our forces were irregular volunteers who were already fighting against occupying forces of the alliance. The creation of our "army", what basically was undermanned and underequiped army forcing a stalemate against the advancing Greek forces who outnumbered and outgunned Turkish nationl forces. The bolshevik agreement gave us a great boost in morale, prestige, credibility
Karabekir went on to rape the armenians out of the north east and local volunteers literally beat the French in the south east
Western front battles were all about outnumbered and outgunned Turkish forces facing a greater enemy, but the experience of Turkish officers, fighting with friendly locals, better morale and having higher quality of soldiers who were veterans of WW resulted in Turkish victory after encirclement and complete destruction of Greek forces.
Turish forces who advanced after the Greek forces retreated who destroyed all farmland/villages/small cities in the aegean part (and who they today cry about turks being barbarian, top fucking kek), were finally liberated in Izmir, 9 september 1922. After gaining control of anatolia, caucasus, mesopotamia regions of Turkey, national assambly focuses on straits which met with great resistence from the Brittish government. The war was about to end but out forces already gained legimitacy as a legal government, we could not give up the straits.
Brits gambled on Ataturk not daring to wage war, and were hoping that we would negotiate some peace with a middle ground, but they knew the public would never support a war against self determination. Kemal called their bluff by marching all forces to the straits, and organized our residents to attack brittish forces in the city.
After our nationcal assmebly gained the support of Istanbul citizens, it was desperate for the Britts. Britts called for a peace conference, and a cease fire was signed that left east thrace under Turkish control. Straits would be discussed later.
ALLIED GOT BTFO! we recked there motherz, stay salty bitches