AHC: Additional seemingly extremely unrealistic nationalist territorial ambitions that ultimately came to pass?

[WolfBear]

Which additional realistic cases could there have been of seemingly extremely unrealistic nationalist territorial ambitions ultimately came to pass? In real life, we had the success of the Zionist movement in reviving Jews' 2,000-year-old claim to Palestine and the success of the Poles acquiring the Recovered Territories (which were Polish or at least proto-Polish in the middle Middle Ages) after the end of World War II:

I can personally think of the Megali Idea succeeding had Greece's war with Turkey after the end of World War I been more successful and also Nazi Germany's Lebensraum idea succeeding had Nazi Germany actually succeeded in making peace with Britain in 1940 and thus managed to subsequently win World War II in the East:

Anyway, what do you think?

 

[Buba]

Poland had nothing to do with being gifted/compensated with the "recovered lands" - it was Stalin's/Russia's whim.

Other examples - Transylvania and - for a time - Yugoslavia (Greater Serbia).

 

[WolfBear]

Poland had nothing to do with being gifted/compensated with the "recovered lands" - it was Stalin's/Russia's whim.

Other examples - Transylvania and - for a time - Yugoslavia (Greater Serbia).

Poland built the early history behind these lands. That gave Stalin the justification to do what he did.

They weren't that unrealistic, though. These countries fantasized about this even before World War I:

Territorial claims in Europe in the pre-WWI and post-WWI time periods

No, it was not? On the basis of?

historum.com

 

[History Learner]

Well, my personal two favorite as always: Greek Plan revival of the Byzantine Empire and the U.S. annexing Mexico in 1848 lol.

 

[WolfBear]

Well, my personal two favorite as always: Greek Plan revival of the Byzantine Empire and the U.S. annexing Mexico in 1848 lol.

The former is very similar to the Megali Idea that I mentioned above, with the exception that Bulgaria would also become a part of the Neo-Byzantine Empire.

 

[ATP]

You forget about Russia.
If tsar dreams come true,they would get entire Balkans,Constantinopole,and part of A-H,too.
Maybe even Jeruzalem?

And,they have good chances for that - all they need was send Brusilow against turks in 1916,not germans.
Well,they would not get Jeruzalem after winning WW1,but rest of tat,including Constantinopole - why not?

 

[raharris1973]

You forget about Russia.
If tsar dreams come true,they would get entire Balkans,Constantinopole,and part of A-H,too.
Maybe even Jeruzalem?

And,they have good chances for that - all they need was send Brusilow against turks in 1916,not germans.
Well,they would not get Jeruzalem after winning WW1,but rest of tat,including Constantinopole - why not?

If they send Brusilov against Turks, not Austrians and Germans in 1916, that can get them more of Anatolia, but unfortunately, Constantinople is on the European side of the straits. The Russians cannot get to Constantinople without getting there by sea, or without getting through Romania and Bulgaria before touching Turkey. Can they get through that many countries in 1916? Romania joined the war in August 1916, but I think they only joined because Brusilov made the Austrians look weak and the Romanians thought they could get Austro-Hungarian territory. Could the Russians get the Romanians into the war to attack south to Bulgaria, instead of west into the Hungary?

 

[stevep]

If they send Brusilov against Turks, not Austrians and Germans in 1916, that can get them more of Anatolia, but unfortunately, Constantinople is on the European side of the straits. The Russians cannot get to Constantinople without getting there by sea, or without getting through Romania and Bulgaria before touching Turkey. Can they get through that many countries in 1916? Romania joined the war in August 1916, but I think they only joined because Brusilov made the Austrians look weak and the Romanians thought they could get Austro-Hungarian territory. Could the Russians get the Romanians into the war to attack south to Bulgaria, instead of west into the Hungary?

The other problem with Anatolia is terrain and logistics. Especially since with Goeben about they can't rely on control of the Black Sea. True it was never fully operational after being badly damaged by a mine but I doubt the Russians knew that.

Romania wanted lands from Hungary which continued a fair number of Romanians. Its very unlikely they could have been persuaded to strike south. If things had been better organised they might have held the northern passes once winter came although the German attack through Bulgaria would still have been a problem. It would likely have been better for both the allies and Romania if it had stayed neutral, at least for another year or so.

 

[ATP]

If they send Brusilov against Turks, not Austrians and Germans in 1916, that can get them more of Anatolia, but unfortunately, Constantinople is on the European side of the straits. The Russians cannot get to Constantinople without getting there by sea, or without getting through Romania and Bulgaria before touching Turkey. Can they get through that many countries in 1916? Romania joined the war in August 1916, but I think they only joined because Brusilov made the Austrians look weak and the Romanians thought they could get Austro-Hungarian territory. Could the Russians get the Romanians into the war to attack south to Bulgaria, instead of west into the Hungary?

They could get all of Anatolia - turks do not have german units which could save them,just like they saved austrians in OTL.
And russian offensive in 1917 with lesser forces succed,till soldiers refused to fight becouse of revolution.

After that they would get materials from Allies,do not fall to revolution,and after peace take Constantinopole.
I do not think that after discovering mounts of armenian corpses anybody would try save Turkey from Partition.

 

[raharris1973]

They could get all of Anatolia - turks do not have german units which could save them,

If they put all their available offensive resources into Anatolia in 1916, they could get this, get to the Asian side of the straits, the Aegean, Cilicia and the Mediterranean?

And russian offensive in 1917 with lesser forces succed,till soldiers refused to fight becouse of revolution.

This was real life? When was this going on, the early winter months until the February (March by western calendar) and then it stopped abruptly?

 

[WolfBear]

If they put all their available offensive resources into Anatolia in 1916, they could get this, get to the Asian side of the straits, the Aegean, Cilicia and the Mediterranean?

Would this still result in Falkenhayn getting replaced in Germany?

 

[raharris1973]

Would this still result in Falkenhayn getting replaced in Germany?

no idea

 

[WolfBear]

no idea

That's what really matters here since if Falkenhayn stays on, there very likely is no USW resumption in early 1917 and thus no subsequent US entry into WWI.

 

[ATP]

If they put all their available offensive resources into Anatolia in 1916, they could get this, get to the Asian side of the straits, the Aegean, Cilicia and the Mediterranean?



This was real life? When was this going on, the early winter months until the February (March by western calendar) and then it stopped abruptly?

1.I think they could.Maybe not taking entire Anatolia,but most of it.
2.I read about that long ago,so i am not sure.

 

[WolfBear]

It would likely have been better for both the allies and Romania if it had stayed neutral, at least for another year or so.

No, it wouldn't. At least not if this would have resulted in Falkenhayn keeping his job rather than him being replaced with Hindy and Luddy. Falkenhayn was much less likely to support USW, to my knowledge. This means no US entry into WWI and no unsecured loans for the Entente, which would mean that the Entente would likely begin having very serious financial difficulties in 1917. Maybe the Russian Provisional Government's calls for peace would be more receptively welcomed by the Western Allied countries in this TL? This would certainly make Russia itself better off if peace is able to be made before the Bolsheviks will actually seize power in Russia.

 

[stevep]

No, it wouldn't. At least not if this would have resulted in Falkenhayn keeping his job rather than him being replaced with Hindy and Luddy. Falkenhayn was much less likely to support USW, to my knowledge. This means no US entry into WWI and no unsecured loans for the Entente, which would mean that the Entente would likely begin having very serious financial difficulties in 1917. Maybe the Russian Provisional Government's calls for peace would be more receptively welcomed by the Western Allied countries in this TL? This would certainly make Russia itself better off if peace is able to be made before the Bolsheviks will actually seize power in Russia.

Possibly although Germany is already in a bad way and hence many are seeing USW as a way to win the war. They after all don't know the allied fiscal situation. Also if somehow Russia overruns most of Anatolia - which I think is unlikely due to the logistics then that's also going to cause further problems for Germany with a big ally going down the tube and also British/Imperial forces being freed up from the campaigns in Syria and the Levant. Also:
a) What happens on the eastern front if the Russians are committing so much to Anatolia. The Germans might be forced to commit more to attacking the Russians which will mean the latter are fighting defensively which should both reduce their losses and also make it more a war to protect holy Russia. As such while there would still be unrest it would be delayed somewhat.
b) If Romania stays neutral then Russia has a shorter eastern front to defend as they don't have to worry about their border with now CP occupied Romania. Plus can the CP afford to buy the grain and oil that OTL they were able to loot after conquering it. [Albeit that Britain managed a successful campaign to restrict extracting of Romanian oil for the CPs].
c) Wasn't the primary reason for Falkenhayn losing his job the failure of the Verdun campaign to break French resistance? Isn't that going to happen anyway?

 

[WolfBear]

[Albeit that Britain managed a successful campaign to restrict extracting of Romanian oil for the CPs].

What did Britain do? Bomb the Romanian oil fields during WWI?

c) Wasn't the primary reason for Falkenhayn losing his job the failure of the Verdun campaign to break French resistance? Isn't that going to happen anyway?

That was a part of it, but AFAIK it was also combined with the relative success of the Brusilov offensive against A-H and Romania's entry into the war contrary to Falkenhayn's predictions. In other words, it was a perfect storm against Falkenhayn.

 

[stevep]

What did Britain do? Bomb the Romanian oil fields during WWI?



That was a part of it, but AFAIK it was also combined with the relative success of the Brusilov offensive against A-H and Romania's entry into the war contrary to Falkenhayn's predictions. In other words, it was a perfect storm against Falkenhayn.

IIRC there was a skilled intelligence operation to sabotage the existing oil plants and stockpiles before the Germans managed to get their hands on them.

While searching came across this from wiki - Romanian in WWI. From a brief review I may have to reverse my opinion as the Romanians gave the CPs a pretty tough fight despite not getting the promised support from the allies. [The forces in the Balkans were insufficient to prevent Bulgaria and German forces based there attacking from the south while Russian forces were less than the promised 200,00 and distinctly unreliable in some cases in terms of morale.

 

[Navarro]

Manifest Destiny, perhaps?

 

[WolfBear]

Manifest Destiny, perhaps?

Does it actually strike you as being extremely unlikely/unrealistic, though? I mean, Americans did elect Polk in 1844 and even before that Texas successfully broke away from Mexico, the US acquired Florida from Spain, and the US acquired Louisiana from France. And fighting against Mexico was easier than fighting against Britain, which the US did during the War of 1812 and managed to achieve a draw.