Talk:Sultanate of Turkey (1983: Doomsday)

Archive

Thoughts on Article
Caeruleus:Per our recent discussion, I have had an opportunity to review your article on Turkey. Given the recent changes you made since I started this, I went back and took a second look and made some revisions. As such, my apologies for the delay. Having read through it, I have several thoughts. To begin with, I think you made a good start to build upon and your idea on revising the Sultanate is indeed interesting. Although the sultanate idea is not improbable, I would have imagined something more akin to a military junta or dictatorship. I say this given Turkey's military has a habit of stepping in an taking over such as they had done in 1980. I would also closely look at the religous angle. Turkey has prided itself on being a secular state, so I am not sure it would go over to being an Islamic State. This said, I have a number of concerns.

I believe your article is far to optimistic in comparison to what the reality would have been. Turkey was a vital member of NATO and the only member on the border with the USSR. It would have been subject to USSR short and long range weapons as well as bombers. Given all NATO nations such as Britain, France, Italy, and Spain were pummeled, it would stand to reason so would Turkey. Although it is reasonable to hypothesize Turkish/NATO forces would have fought back, I think many weapons would have gotten through. Given they were right on the border, their reaction time would have been far less than say England or the US, no matter how good the radar was. I could see some bombers and perhaps a few warheads being downed, however the nation would still have suffered catastrophic damage between the strikes (which would be multiple in some locations) along with the fallout from these hits and those outside its borders. Although only certain cities were listed originally listed on the strike list, that did not mean they were the only places to be hit. Sometime ago, Turkey was designated as a nation which ceased to exist, in part given the number of strikes it would receive. A few months ago, I started doing research for a short article on the country and what would have occurred. Based on my research, I concluded at least the following targets would have been hit: Istanbul and Ankara and the surrounding area

Incirlik Air Base - NATO - 5 miles from Adana (Note: NATO kept nuclear armed planes on ground)

Izmir Air Force Station (USAF): Located on Turkish western coast, Izmir

Akinci Air Base (Turkish AFB): Located northwest of Ankara

Balikesir Airport, located in city of Balikesir (Note: NATO kept nuclear armed planes on ground)

Bandirma Airport, military and civilian airport located in city of Bandirma

Cigli Turkish military AFB, near Izmir (NATO units based here)

Erhac Airport, also known as Malatya Erhac Airport (Turkish military/civilian) 21 miles Malatya

Erkilet Airport (Turkish military/civilian) 3.1 miles north of Kayseri

Eskisehir Airport (Turkish military): Eskisehir (Note: NATO kept nuclear armed planes on ground)

Pirinçlik Air Base (NATO): Near Diyarbakır (NATO Radar Base)

Konya Airport (Turkish military/civilian): Located near Konya, (used by NATO)

Etimesgut Air Base (Turkish AFB): Ankara

Gaziemir Air Training Command (Turkish AF): Izmir

Merzifon Airport (Turkish AFB): Merzifon

Bartin Naval Base (home to sub pens): 6.1 miles nw of Bartin

Foca Naval Base (home of Turkish Marines): 2.6 miles se of Foca

Golcuk Naval Base (main naval base for logistics): Golcuk

Cengiz Topel NAS (Turkish naval base): east of Izmit (turned over to NATO in 1981) In addition to these targets, the Soviets likely would have struck the ten largest cities as well, some of which are on my list. Attached is a map I created reflecting some of the strikes I have elaborated on.

When you factor in the massive damage from strikes, radioactive fallout, EMP damage, collapse of the infrastructure, outbreaks of disease, and the lack of water and food, I do not honestly see Turkey having the strength to be able to advance politically, economically, or militarily to the lengths you have depicted, even twenty-seven years out from Doomsday. The major focus of any survivor states will be on those elements immediately neccessary to survival, such as food. Industrialization might come over time, but in a limitted capacitiy, probabley by the mid 1990s. I don't logically seen heavy industry occuring, let alone car or electronci manufacturing. Shipbuilding would be relegated to small coastal ships or fishing boats. As for energy, even if the hydropower dams were not destroyed, their systems would have been burned out by EMPs and be useless. Wind might be used on a small scale, such as windmills, but wind turbines or solar would again not make sense. It is also important to note, that in 1983, the population stood at about 47.8 million of which about 44% lived in urban areas. The most densly populated areas of the country were located in those regions which would likely have been targeted. Given these factors, within six months of Doomsday, the population would more than likely have been less than half this number with many suvivors either ill or having fled south by land or boat. Does this mean your country can't exist, no. However, I think it makes more sense that Turkey would divide into several nations. In addition to Kurdistan, I would see a nation arising along the Gulf of Antalya (yours likely), and one in Hatay Province, which at one time was a seperate region. I would recommend creating additional states in the country rather than one.

I believe the likliest scenario for Turkey would be this: Turkey is hit in at least 30 locations. Major NATO and Turkish Air Force and Naval facilities are targeted with a number of the largest cities, including Istanbul and Ankara. The nation suffers a complete meltdown. There is no one government, just a lot of little areas vying for power. Many who are not dying from disease/raditation flee to surviving ports or adjacent nations to escape. The PKK seizes southeastern Turkey in a bloody war. The nation breaks down into several smaller nations. By sometime in 1984 elements of the military still around begin to take control of larger areas and establish a rump nation, likely under military rule. They utilize harsh measures to ensure survival of the people and focus on establishing order, moving it into lawless areas and ensuring the essentials for survival are available. (Given limitted resources any attempt to pacificy warlords and such would indeed last well into the 2000s.) Contact is slowly established with other nations, such as eastern Syria, Lebanon, and the GSU. Industrialization would begin slowly, sometime in the mid-1990s with the assistance of other nations. Its projection of power would be limitted to within the Anatolian Peninsula, no further. By the early 21st Centruy, some areas who are still independent, begin having discussions about reuniting into a new Turkish state.

As I said, I think you have a good start but you definitely need to do rewrites. I noted you have dropped some areas, such as Cyprus, which is good, given they were not realistic. I do ask that you not advance into Syria given I have future plans for my article as I earlier said. I sincerely hope my thoughts have been of help to you in this matter and I look forward to seeing your future revisions. Once this is done, I could see some kind of future interaction between your area and mine in the Middle East. If you have any questions or wish to talk further, let me know. I will try to respond in a timely manner if possible.--Fxgentleman 03:24, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. This is definitely something to think about. Thank you for figuring this all out. But, I do have a few concerns/questions. Do you think a unified Turkey by 2009 is too unrealistic? Also, how many independent nations are you thinking arose from Turkey, just two main ones with a few smaller juntas or something more like Warlord Era China? Caeruleus 03:51, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

The nation is still too large. It would be impossible to have taken control over all that territory again, even in all the time that has passed.

Also, so long as it is written that they possess nukes it will not be graduated.

Lordganon 20:35, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why is possessing nukes a problem? Caeruleus 01:09, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

It's just overkill - empire-building. While it sounds plausible, it really isnt - they'd have been launched.

There's no reason for it. All it is is just a way to arm yourself with nukes.

Lordganon 10:09, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

They probably wouldn't have launched every nuke and would still retain their nuclear artillery since that never had a chance to be reused. But, like you said, it is sort of overkill. I'll remove it. Caeruleus 14:03, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I am currently trying to read your article and catch up on all your changes. However, I noted your main map still shows Turkey having absorbed a chunk of Syria and I wanted to remind you in regards to my earlier statement. I plan to create two new states in Syria. One in the eastern area beginning from the Euphrates to its old borders and one to the southwest corner near Jordan. If you want to absorb some ex-Syrian land in the northwest I would not be adverse as long as it doesn't conflict with my plans. Please let me know what you are intending to do. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 03:51, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about all the updates. I have a lot of time during the summer, so I update it almost daily. The chuck of northern Syria is all I plan for Turkish advances into Syria. If it conflicts with your planned states, I don't mind reducing Turkish controlled areas of Syria in size. Also, remember that much of the Euphrates and the northeast corner of Syria is controlled by Kurdistan, so I hope that doesn't interfere with your plans.

Also, since you're trying to catch up, what are your thoughts on a Turkish-Israeli alliance built off of pre-Doomsday relations between the two countries? Caeruleus 05:39, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for just now getting back to you. I have read through your article and for the most part I think it is okay, although a bit optimistic in some areas. As to relations, I don't see any problems with diplomatic ties between Israel, Lebanon, Jordon, etc. I could see some sort of Middle East type of NATO between the GSU, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey in order to stand up to future Iranian aggression. I would ask you to remove the area dealing with the integration of Lebanon's economy into Turkey. Again, I could see economic trading or alliances, but I would prefer Lebanon's economy to remain separate. Also, please change your map to reflect the concerns I raised previously regarding Syria. I am still planning to create two new nations in the former Syria and your map still gives an impression the nation has been mostly absorbed by Turkey. Otherwise I am okay. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 00:19, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was also thinking of a Middle East organization that would oppose Iran (and possibly Greece/ADC?). The Lebanon part has been edited appropriately. I didn't mean for it to sound quite that drastic. And I'll be editing the map shortly. Some areas of northern Syria will still be under Turkish control, as a result of expansion into the area as by the Republic of Hatay, but I'll reduce the size of the Syrian territory controlled to mostly just small areas of borderland.


 * What nations are you planning to create in Syria?Caeruleus 00:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

When I first began writing the Syria article, I had envisioned a new state arising in the eastern half of the country extending from the Euphrates east to Syria's border. I felt the worst of the nuclear strikes would fall in the western half of the nation, which in turn would be abandoned. The history I have been working out in my head since is for the remainder of the old Syrian Ba'athist government trying to reestablish themselves in this region. Citizens who felt they were to blame for the war and tired of the old repression instigate a civil war. S. Hussein, who despised the old government, provides covert support via arms to the rebels. Following a bloody civil war, the rebels win, take over, and create a new nation, called Al Jazeera. The second state, was inspired by another writer. During the French mandate, there was a Jabal Druze state in the southwestern region which was later incorporated into modern Syria. I have examined the situation and believe it feasible to resurrect it. It would be allied with Lebanon (where the Druze are as well) and maybe Jordan. I have kinda envisioned maybe the GSU playing a role in supporting both states as well. Earlier, you had made mention of Kurdistan controlling part of this area. As I am sure you have noted, Kurdistan is a stub and their exact area has yet to be defined. My anticipation is for Al Jazeera not to allow Kurdistan to have the little bit of the region which goes through the old Syria to be taken over by them. I hope this helps.--Fxgentleman 02:49, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Sounds interesting. I'm just a bit curious as to who's sphere of influence these states would fall under, since they wouldn't be very strong. Iran, Turkey, or the GSU are all probably competing for influence in the area. Btw, we should probably continue this on Syria's talk page. Caeruleus 03:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Graduation
For you random followers of this article, does anyone have any final, reasonable objects to this article's graduation? I'd like to see it graduated soon. Caeruleus 01:08, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

The nukes, and the size. It was not very plausible before all the strikes were added, and it definitely is not now.

Of course, I've said it so many times already that its obvious you won't listen. But it still stands - and that wont go away. Others have told you this too.

It is a good article. But the empire-building is too much. It wouldn't be possible to reach so far over the mountains in this period of time.

Lordganon 10:13, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

It's not really empire building since they haven't expanded past Turkish borders. Also, I'm working on further explaining how they expanded so quickly. But to sum it up for you, southern Turkey was taken in the early years entirely by the Sultanate. Northern Turkey was all but abandoned after the nuclear strikes in the area and the few survivors were plagued by famine and diesase. They were all too willing to join the Sultanate with minimal resistance. Southeast Turkey was controlled by the Republic of Hatay, which collapsed midway through their war with the Sultanate due to internal rebellion. I'm still writing the article about that. Northeast Turkey was devestated by Doomsday and Soviet invasions, so the area was divided between relatively weak warlord who were constantly at war with each other. Several allied with the Sultanate and together they were able to conquer the rest. Those who allied with the Sultanate joined it after the rest were conquered. I'll dive into more detail when I complete the associated Republic of Hatay and Eastern Turkish Wasteland articles.

So, it's a plausible divide and conquer scenario. As for the mountains, those only became a major problem in the eastern campaigns when the primary combatants were Sultanate-armed warlords who wouldn't have had to worry about pushing all the way through the mountains. Caeruleus 14:10, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting with the other two articles, but it would likely be better if they still existed independently - maybe have them fighting hatay atm, or conquering parts of the western wastelands. The expansions were believable - if barely - before the additional strikes were added, but with the increased destruction in the western part of the nation, it would be too engaged in rebuilding to really expand into the other areas this much.

Besides, I suspect that as it is right now this state would be far stronger than Greece, lol. And its already been established as being the strongest in this area, so....



Lordganon 06:41, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

My current plan for the Republic of Hatay is to have an internal rebellion in the middle of the war that destablizes their government, and, since it's an oligarchy, it was disasterous. After that, the Sultanate would take another two years to just basically clean up the remaining warlords in the area. I hope it will fit in well with the rest of it.

I haven't focused much on the rebuilding, so I'll have to work on those portions. Currently, I've just assumed that they quarentined all areas that were nuked and the largest problem eminating from the strikes was the massive loss of life, almost a third of the total Turkish population. How would you see their rebuilding going?

Well, in all honesty, the fact that Greece is a regional superpower is laughable at best, however, since it is part of canon I will respect that. I'm attempting to phrase it so that Turkey is a powerful state that threatens Greece, but is still weaker than it, especially navally. Turkey's main advantage over Greece is superior numbers. In the future, Turkey will surpass Greece, as it has OTL. But that won't occur for several years. I'm thinking like 2015 or so. Caeruleus 16:52, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

With most military and major cities nuked, Turkey would have massive refugee problems, and with a lack of forces to ensure stability....

Basically I think you should just do what I did with Prussia. Move up the timeline. I originally had Prussia invading Poland in the late 80s and have expanded almost to Lubeck. To fit plausibility and the concerns of the other editors I moved the polish invasion up to the mid 2000s to account for a greater period of reconstruction and establishing control over their area. Do the same here, move it up so the Hatay war is currently ongoing or just ended and spread out the timeline to show a greater period of reconstruction. It would also make it more plausible for a country dealing with massive reconstruction efforts, just concluding a war, and beginning to expand into an area torn by warlords and raiders... to give aid to Macedonia. And reverse engineering things can be a time consuming process. So reverse engineering american military hardware and putting them into mass production would first require adequate facilities for the reverse engineering, would probably take years, and then there would have to be the construction of adequate facilities for manufacturing, plus the aquisition of materials.Oerwinde 17:23, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Is the way in which the refugees are handled, as currently written in the article, not adequate then? If you haven't read the article in the past 24-48 hours, reread it. I've added a fair amount that changes several things. Caeruleus 18:19, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thrace is not north of Ankara, which you seem to be suggesting. The Aegean ports, yes - but not Ankara.

The thing is Caer, the refugees would have destroyed much of central Turkey. Whatever was left in western Turkey would have been destroyed in the same manner too. And, at least the Ankara pass would be too heavily irradiated to pass through for quite some time. Others would likely be the same way.

But yeah, you definitely seem to be understating the damage that they would cause. Though, this is better than before, I admit.

What Oer is saying is basically what I've said all along, really. Compare this nation-state to others that are canon, and the struggles that they faced. Say Virginia for example. While you've got more population to work with, the basic idea is the same.

Do what Oer said, and maybe add some bits about the Aegean ports only now being brought up to spec for usage.

You can add the Syrian parts to the Hatay article - will make sense there, but not so much here now.

Outside of the core regions, most of the country would have to be rebuilt. Fighting, refugees, or strikes would make sure of it. What you also haven't really considered is the Hatay war impact either - the areas they took in the war would need to be rebuilt too - and these are the core areas used to rebuild elsewhere, which would slow the whole process down. The war itself would mean that there was less resources to use in such a way too.

As to the war, maybe have them get to the gates of Konya - like a month later than planned, maybe. Then, have them turned back just before the gates of the city, and a long counteroffensive from there. If they could get that far, it would take a VERY long time to get them out of the country, so long as they have any decent officers in charge.

After the Hatay war, you'd have to rebuild Hatay, as well as parts of the Sultanate, as these would have been damaged by the war and rebellions in Hatay. As Oer said, this would likely be where you'd be at the present as a result. And, your military power would be hindered by having to occupy the area - and the citizens would not join your army for quite some time, either.

But, as I've said before, only those provinces south of the mountains, or in them - not the coastal ones, or maybe even the ones directly inland from there as well, depending on the size of the coastal ones - should be under your control as of yet. It's just that with the war, and the presence of Hatay in general, they wouldn't have the forces to get that far, even if I'd thought it was realistic before Hatay was added to this.

This wouldn't really hinder the Macedonian Intervention either, though the numbers may have to be adjusted depending on when the Hatay war occurs - you won't have the numbers if the war is going on, at least not that many to send.

You may want to decrease the population somewhat more as well.

I do like the wasteland part as well, except for the takeover bit. Maybe have the Trabzon part of that area being aided by Greece too - there's a long history of Greek possession of that place, even after the fall of the Byzantines. Note, not part of Greece, but aided by them.

Decrease the state-of-the-art talk in the military section. Like Oer said, it will take a long time to reverse engineer all this stuff. Probably, it would mostly be 1960s-type weapons. Though, you are right about the airforce - it likely would be.

Take out the Minerallia~ mention in the International relations. I've alreadly decided in going over articles for Ven that that one and its war are not plausible. Maybe mention something about Turkish attempts to act as a go-between for peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan in light of their war over Kazrath~. Note, Armenia is stronger militarily that Azerbaijan, though outnumbered a little. Them as low-level allies works though - just remember the distance would mean that no intervention would be possible.

Now, Israel and Turkey have a LONG history of being allies of some sort. I see no reason why even in light of the increased Islamic essence of Turkey here why there would not be some sort of relations - and good ones at that. Even in light of the strikes in Israel and everything, they would likely be source of arms or something, at least. Maybe talk to Fx about this.

Iran has been making trouble across the region by funding terrorists. I could see them going after with this in some manner the ancient enemies of Persia, the Ottomans.

And yeah, I agree with you - as it stands right now, Greece is overstated. I'd think about it as most of their military equipment being intact - but Turkey's was not. But, as it stands, not much to do about it.

Lordganon 03:47, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to say too - Xeight is due back soon - apparently he went to Greece or something - and may have something to say, so it can't graduate until then.

Lordganon 04:18, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Let me try to repsond to this wall of text :/


 * Thrace is north of Ankara...I don't know where you think Ankara is, but its in the center of the country.


 * I'm picturing the refugees being kept in northern and central Turkey. Western Turkey would have refugees, but less so due to the lower number of nuclear strikes in the area. I think the current timeline for the annexation of Western Turkey is fine. Though the timeline for the rebuilding of the ports will have to clarified.


 * I'm still working on elaborating on the damage caused and the initial years of the Sultanate in regards to their survival.


 * I haven't really had time to work on the Republic of Hatay stuff. All territory involved in the war until the Battle of Osmaniye will probably have to be rebuilt. After that, the Hatayan military largely collapsed and after the capital fell, the only thing left to deal with were bandits and minor warlords. Also, part of the reason the war ended so swiftly is a popular rebellion that occured against the Republic. They were a very oppression government who became desperate when they began to be driven back. Basically, the people were sick of it and rebelled with Sultanate support. This will be elaborated on in the Republic of Hatay article.


 * Thank you about the nukes reminder, again.


 * For the population, I just took 50 million, the population of Turkey in 1983, subtracted the 20 million dead. Then used half the OTL population growth rate of Turkey to calculate their 2010 population.


 * Possibly. I'll consider it. I've been thinking about having them supported by Armenia who feared a powerful, expansionist Sultanate reaching their borders. Greece could be a good candidate.


 * As for the state-of-the-art stuff, my assumption is that some NATO personnel survived Doomsday and cooperated with the new government to help them reverse engineer equipment. Also, Turkish personnel who were familiar with the equipment pre-Doomsday would also assist. I believe Turkey received plans for most of the imported American weapons and could produce at least some of it themselves and take care of technical support for it. Is that reasonable for explaining why they were able to reverse enginneer most of it by the late 1990s?


 * If the war is implausible, I'll remove the Mingerlia portion. I like the idea about diplomatically intervening in Armenia/Azerbaijan's war.

I've been thinking about an Israeli-Turkish alliance, but I haven't been sure why or how it would come about. I'll ask Fx though.


 * I have long term plans for a Turkish-Iranian cold war. I was thinking of having Turkey/Azerbaijan/Israel?/Lebanon? vs. Iran/Kurdistan/MLA/Pakistan.


 * I have plans for war with Greece around 2011-2015, but I'm not quite sure how that will work. I've also considered Turkish intervention in the Second Sicilian War. I need to sort out Turkish diplomacy first.


 * Mr. Xeight said that as long as I left Cyprus alone, respected Greece's power, and honored Greek territory on Turkish lands he's fine with it. Caeruleus 05:32, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no worries lol. That's what happens when I think too much about something ;)

I'm aware where Ankara is - but if they were headed to Thrace they wouldn't end up there, as Thrace is a fair ways Northwest of there.

Actually, western turkey may even be a bit worse, as the refugees would be more desperate and thus destructive. But, that will mean a longer time to rebuild, not so much to conquer. The people there will not be in shape for years to be soldiers, either. This may add a year or two to the conquering time there, but is fine as it is.

You may be better off finding a port to build yourself, as the only real port on the Aegean in territory you have is Izmir, and that was nuked. Try the cities of Urla or Aliaga in Izmir Province for this. They look on the map to have decent harbors and not be easy to take from turkey, unlike most other options.

Even if the military falls back fairly rapidly, they'll still have fought back - and the rebellions would destroy more of their territory too. I'd make it so that rebels against the sultanate are still there, as even if they had rebelled with support, not all would have done it. And, like I said, it may be better to have the turning point battle right outside Konya. But, either way you need to take the destruction in Sultanate territory into account.

I'd make it maybe ~37.5 million people or so - a fair number in the western territories under control here would be too radiated to reproduce. And there's the war with Hatay to take into account too. But, most of that would be that some of these citizens would be under Greek control too - not all would die or flee from Greek territory.

Greek and Georgian, more like. But Trabzon would likely get some Armenian support too, true enough. It would definitely be a tougher nut to crack than the rest of the area, irregardless, because of the outside support. Likely even enough to stay independent, truthfully. I could even see it being involved officially with Greece, though not a member of it.

Thing is, while they would help the Sultanate, they'd only really know in most cases how to operate and maintain the vehicles. You're right about the plans - the Turks were/are able to make arms, and a few types of vehicles. This would likely end up being one or two at most that they could build like this, as some would be lost with DD. They would only be able to reproduce some of it, even by the late 90s. Probably all of it by the present day, though it would not be used throughout the forces yet by any means.

Yeah, its definitely impossible, given the weakness of Azerbaijan. Offering Turkey as a mediator between the two would be good, though convincing a power with less interest in the result to aid them would be a plan, as I doubt Armenia would accept if they were doing it themselves, given things. Like I said, you have to remember with that that Armenia is definitely and obviously stronger than Azerbaijan.

Really, you could base the alliance on the pre-existing relationship between the two. It would be low-level, given the more Islamic nature of the state, but nothing wrong with it existing. But, more than mentioning a relationship would be something to discuss with Fx. Given the nature of the state, I can say that arms shipments would be out, however.

Something like that cold war, not a bad future plan. But what I meant is maybe some Islamic extremists in the state now, believed to be financed by Iran. They are financing them in Dagestan and Central Asia, so why not here?

I'd go with the intervention, to a degree - nothing of war, but something to make Greece nervous. That would work. War in the future is a good goal, but something to discuss with Xeight.

Don't forget to talk to Fx about Syria! No idea what he has planned there.

What I meant was that he may have some objections or something. Doubt it, other than size, but..... never know.

Also, Edirne in Thrace would have gotten nuked, and I've written that into Rhodope, so it should be added to the strikes.

And yeah, will remind ya about the nukes repeatedly until I see them gone, lol.

...lastly, I'd be willing to help a little with the Wastelands article. More so Trabzon, but I'd do it readily.

Lordganon 13:58, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

You realize northwest is still north right? But that's okay. Some of us are okay with directions, others not so much lol.

Once again, I need to elaborate on the reconstruction efforts. I'm planning the expansion of surviving ports and the building of New Izmir.

Between the reversal 100 miles from Konya and the Battle of Osmaniye is where most of the damage will take place. I still need to write the article on that though.

Good point about the population.

I'm thinking that they small arms, tanks, and possibly a few helicopters will begin to be produced in the late 1990s, and they'll be based on pre-Doomsday NATO weaponry. Missiles and advance aircraft will begin to be produced around 2008.

I'll have to think about the mediation.

Why would arm shipments be out?

That's an option. Currently, I'm planning for the rivalry to originate from the Turkish desire to reannex Kurdish lands and Iran is an ally of Kurdistan.

I think he's planning a state of some sort in Eastern Syria.

The nukes are gone.

Currently, I'm planning Trabzon and Patnos to be the dominant Wasteland states. Between them, they dominate several smaller states. Elazid is another strong state, but they're supported by Kurdistan. Initially, the Sultanate will ally with the smaller states who will conquer other smaller states. Eventually, Trabzon and Patnos become directly involved in the war. Shortly after this, the Sultanate starts sending troops across the moutains. First, Elazid is conquered to end Kurdish influence and gain a foothold in the wastelands. Next, several of the smaller states are reinforced directly by Turkish troops. Then, Patnos switches sides after seing Turkish troops at their border and being promised certain concessions, including becoming a semi-autonomous state within the Sultanate once the war is over. After that, it becomes a grinding war against the powerful Second Empire of Trabzon until, finally, in May 2009 Trabzon is taken. So if you can sort of write something that goes somewhere along those lines, that would be great. I still haven't decided how I'm going to change the wars in the east though. Caeruleus 16:20, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'm better with directions then you'll ever be and I actually find that mildly insulting, lol.

What I mean is that an expedition to the area around Thrace would head north from more towards the Aegean, and never even go through the mountains near the ruins of Ankara.

Really, there wouldn't be a surviving Aegean port - the only ones besides Izmir are in Greek territory, and Izmir was destroyed. But the other cities I gave you should work nicely for New Izmir, though I'd call it the name it already had myself. Cities that start with "New" are overrated, lol.

For sure - but, it may flow better to have it happen just outside Konya - sounds better, lol. More mystique. Maybe even have a Islamic religious fellow call it to happen there.

I'd make it 1960s weapons that they can build late 90s, but no tanks - those are hard to build. At the very least none later than the 50s, anyway. But, 1980s ones should be build-able by 2008, though I would make it so that the missiles, advanced aircraft, and tanks can only be constructed very slowly - maybe a dozen a year of each at most - at this time.

Really, to the best of my knowledge Turkey is trying to do that nowadays anyway, not too far a stretch to mediate here too.

Way I figure it, the fact that Turkey is Muslim really prevents much of that kind of thing today - and here, they are more religious. Israel would not be as evil-sounding, but.... doubt it would happen anyway.

That sounds good as a way to start it, though I'd do the Islamic militants anyway.

That's what I'd heard too, though who knows - a Turkish puppet state might be possible ;)

Sounds like a good general outline for the area, though I'd wait for the change in the wars to be done first before I did anything. Personally, I'd make it so they have some sort of isolated contact with these states, with the conquest sometime in the future, and have the Hatay war just ending. Maybe some kind of mini-war with a satellite state of theirs in Syria too.

But, given the Greek irredentism shown elsewhere - and the links held by the Georgians and Armenians there - that they would let a war of conquest for Trabzon go so easily is something I myself doubt. and, with the outside support, it would likely take a generation to get relatively loyal subjects there at all.

What I'd do with that is make them some kind of vassal-state. Kind of like your plans for Patros, but just slightly more independent. Kind of like the princely states of the old British Raj in India, or the autonomous republics in modern Spain OTL. Independent, but with Turkey controlling their foreign affairs and being able to demand a levy of soldiers in times of war. Maybe some sort of tribute too. Look up vassals on wikipedia for more or this.

Lordganon 03:49, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

There are no more Greeks in the Trabzon area. There are few few Greeks in Turkey at all, and they mostly life on the eastern coast. Any Greeks would would have lived in eastern Turkey would have been expelled during the population exchanges of the 1930s. So Greek irredentism wouldn't be a major issue there. The Empire of Trabzon would the a throughly Turkish state, with small Armenian and Georgian minorities. Though, something you could incorporate, is the involvement of ex-Soviet military leaders in Trabzon leadership. They would be junior leadership though. The Emperor, and his inner circle, would be Turkish.

I was thinking more like the autonomous republics of Spain OTL. They would be able to control their own internal affairs and have their own militia. But they would be subject to national conscription and have their foreign affairs controlled by the national government. For Trabzon, since they resisted so heavily and were the primary combatant in the war, they were conquered, annexed, and placed under provisional military rule, which would last until 2013-14. Caeruleus 23:57, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that there isn't - but they've gone and taken the more "greek" areas in the west, even though Greeks havent been there in more than a half-century. Trabzon had a large number of Greeks until then too. It's far enough away that they would have no control, but I could see them have designs on the area. If it helps, the empire of trabzon that existed long ago was the last independent Greek state - conquered by the Ottomans after the fall of the Byzantines, in the late 1400s - until the early 1800s. Irredentism is basically taking territory that was once yours, or you believe to be rightfully yours. Trabzon would easily fit there. I'm not saying it would be Greeks in charge - you are right that it would be Turks - but it makes a lot of sense for both the Georgians and Greeks - and to a certain extent the Armenians - to be influencing that state, given historical interests on the part of all three in the region.

And, my current plans to modify Georgia have the military staying there and basically being in charge.

That's what I was saying for the republic bit, though make the troops only allowed to be called up in time of war. I'd wait for the war to finalized before deciding how this turns out. Like has been said by myself and Oer, it would likely be the best plan to have only feelers being sent into the area, not have any under Turkish control.

And, fyi, its not uncommon in wars for the loser - even on that scale - to be occupied militarily and then made some sort of vassal (in this case an autonomous state). They'd have to become some sort of prince, but I'm sure under duress and threat of death they'd agree ;)

Lordganon 06:04, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I understand what you're getting at now. I suppose the Greeks could at least be perceived to be assisting Trabzon or be assisting them in name only. However, I would like to prevent any expansion of the already unrealistic Greek superpower. They can have a political agenda there, but I doubt much support, be it financial, military, or otherwise, would actually be forthcoming.

I would still like to see full unification by 2009-2010. Even though it seems a bit of a stretch, it is certainly not the most unrealistic thing on this timeline. I believe if the sheer conquest aspect of it is deemphasized and replaced with more semi-peaceful political unification, it would be plausible.

Some autonomous states are certainly planned in the east, and possibly the north.

Caeruleus 15:49, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

There ya go. I'd expect maybe a couple shiploads of supplies of some sort - food, clothes, something like that - but no more. Basically, just some sort of political support to the current regime - that means nothing, in the end.

Without conquest, that would sound better - too optimistic, but better, since conquest of that area in that time-frame would be impossible. They'd have little support for campaigns from soldiers from those areas, mind - think that they would serve, but in the slowest and laziest way possible. Normal for conscripts from territories like that. This would make campaigns in that area difficult, and leave some parts still independent, so long as they dont campaign against the Sultanate in some way. What I'd do in that light is make the Hatay war just ended, and with many of these autonomous states only recently sworn to the Sultanate - basically, having sworn themselves to the Sultan once the obvious victor was seen in the war. A few holdouts would exist, of course, which campaigning in the next couple of years would remove.

I'd change that to definitely the northern half of the country being full of them - with the current setup, that area would have been on its own for a while, which would mean some sort of organization established there. That would make my concerns about that area go away, for sure. This would make the Northeastern bit have to change though, definitely. But I do like the idea.

Should tell you about my Georgia plans too - I was thinking a military dictatorship of some sort, put into place by the remains of the military forces which survived the fighting with Turkey in the area after Moscow ordered them to attack Turkey.

The breakaway republics? OTL they were supplied, aided, helped, etc. by Russia - which isnt happening here. Thus, independence not happening - they'd stay autonomous, under force.

I'll have them support Trabzon in some manner - help establishing the state, some supplies afterwards as possible.

Lordganon 06:09, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

There would still be a good amount of conquest. Hatay would be conquered. Much of eastern Turkey would be conquered. Northern Turkey would mainly just be absorbed, usually peacefully. The incorporation of northern Turkey would be relatively easy due to the minimal population, lack of supplies, and isolated nature of the communities in the area. As far as Hatay goes, I can see that war being pushed back or extended until 2003 at the latest. However, they could have been conquered by then. Some residual rebels could reside within the area for a few years, but that's it. In the east, about half the states in the area would join the Sultanate voluntarily or through a small show of force. The rest would be conquered, but the only one that would be difficult to deal with would be Trabzon, where substantial rebels would continue after the war was officially over.

Eight years for the Eastern Conquest is plenty to largely subdue the area imo. Two years for the Hatayan War may be a little short, so I'll think about extending that.

The Turkish Imperial Army is about 60% volunteer. Also, it is mostly the volunteer portions of their army that are used in offensive campaigns. The conscripts are mainly assigned to occupation or internal security duties. So they wouldn't have a lot of problems with lazy conscripts during war. Also, like in OTL Turkey, the military instills a strict sense of nationalism and the state's basic idealogy into its volunteer members. It would be very nationalistic and loyal to the state, which would also decrease problems with personnel and internal dissent within the military.

What I was thinking for northern Turkey was the establishment of mostly provinces, except around the Greek border possibly, because the area was so chaotic during the post-Doomsday years that no strong warlords or states emerged. The area would be mostly small, local communities or maurading bands strugling to survive. Once the Sultanate came, they would mostly want to join the Sultanate who would then organize them into a working government.

Military dictatorship sounds good for Georgia, especially becaus of the large concentration of Soviet forces posted there. However, there would definitely be breakaway republics. Within the Soviet Union, several of these breakaway republics had semi-autonomous governments. During the chaos of Doomsday, all the republics with semi-autonomous governments would breakaway from any post-Doomsday state that tried to claim them, unless they were reconquered by force which would involve a major war. The other OTL breakaway republics that did not have their own semi-autonomous government would see large-scale indepedence movements for sure, and probably indepdence. They would be supplied by fleeing Soviet, and possibly Turkish, soldiers who either fled to them or abandoned their weapons during the chaos of Doomsday. Abkazia and Ossetia would definitely gain their independence. Mingrelia could, but it is more doubtful. They would probably either be conquered by Georgia or would gain indepedence and be an extended part of the Eastern Turkish Wasteland that could possibly be conquered by or be allied with Turkey.Caeruleus 05:36, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the strike on the Georgian capital, the only other strikes thereare a pair of coastal cities, one of which is the main city in Abkazia. A nuclear bomber base in North Ossetia would also have been hit. Except for the losses in the fighting with the Turkish soldiers, the majority of their military equipment would remain intact. This alone would prevent their independence.

But, OTL, the ONLY reason why both of those areas are not under Georgian control is because they both are being supplied - and reinforced - by Russia.

The fleeing Soviet troops would end up under Georgian authority, and there's no reason for the Turks to flee in that way - why end up ruling a bunch of Georgians when you can set up your own state in turkey? ;)

At any rate, my plans are not in question at all here - yours are ;)

The thing is, even after less than 10 years, you'd find quite a few of those states would not give up their authority quite so willingly. Add in the fact that Turks are historically a much more independent-minded folk than most, and its a problem.

Overall, it gets too strong and too big too fast. I guess that's the problem, really - and when you ask for objections to graduation on the proposal talk page, others will tell you the same thing.

Remember, I am trying to help you here.

Lordganon 12:16, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

And the only reason Georgia is strong enough to keep them down OTL is because they're supported by the US. But I'll reserve any further comments for Georgia's talk page.

Explain why you think the Turks are historically more independent minded. Since the foundation of the Ottoman Empire, almost 700 years ago, Turkey has been a united country and people with few, if any, rebellions occuring in Turkish-inhabited territory. Also, since WW1, Turkish nationalism has been very high. OTL, this was enforced through the cult of personality created by Kemel Ataturk and the Turkish military. ATL, this is forced by necessity, nationalism, remanants of Kemal Ataturk's philosophy, and military force. Despite the coups and such, Turkey didn't have a lot of the kind of internal divisions or differences that would prevent other countries, like China, from reuniting in this time. Plus they're not that large of a country.

It's not really that strong. It's just strong enough to reunite Turkey. It's still weaker than Greece and fears war with Kurdistan. It is also unwilling, and somewhat unable, to advance further into the Caucusus at this time. Its main advantages over neighboring states are population and resources. By 2010, it has mostly reindustrialized in the southwest, but much of the north and east is still minimally developed. They're really only developed militarily and have transportation inferstructure in place in those areas.

Besides, if Ireland can conquer half of Britain and parts of France, Greece can become an expansionist superpower, and the Mafia can conquer Tunisia and almost conquer all of Italy, a united Turkey in 27 years isn't that far fetched. Caeruleus 16:51, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Both of those two are effectively independent now - this was established with the aid of Russian troops in the early 90s - and if they were not still stationed there it would likely have been reconquered by Georgia, with or without the American aid. But yes, for the Georgia talk page only.

Once upon a time, there was a Turkish state for nearly every clan - look at maps before the Ottomans got really strong and took Constantinople for more on that - had its own state. The way I figure it, after so long being on their own they would have regained this, to a certain extent - while some would willingly give up to become an autonomous state, the majority likely wouldn't or would only do it after fighting for a while first. Besides, why would you give up power so willingly if you were in charge? Would you? I know I wouldn't ;)

It's just WAY too optimistic, really.

The thing is, I know how strong you intend it to be - but the problem is that it reads like its a lot stronger than that.

And I do agree that it is possible to reunite the majority of the country in that time-span - I guess what I'm saying is I'm holding out for at least ONE independent state to be left out of this re-unification at this time, and the Trabzon state sounds the most likely. Call it on the verge of war, but not quite to war yet to avoid antagonizing Georgia/Greece.

Lordganon 07:23, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that was over 700 years ago. Turky wouldn't totally revert to a tribal-like situation in 5-15 years. Based on your point, the assumption you seem like you're trying to make it that once given the chance to have power, people will automatically seize it and refuse to give it up. While this is partially true in some cases, you have to factor in the devestation of Doomsday, pre-Doomsday loyalties, and popular desire for reunification.

Honestly, it probably reads too optimistic because it's too long and rather detailed. So it probably sounds like I'm creating an unstoppable war machine, right?

That's a possiblity. My thinking, though, is why would Turkey leave a single state left standing? They would, conceivably, have the power to defeat it, even if from nothing but sheer numbers. So why wouldn't they?

Caeruleus 09:32, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

That's an overstatement, but yes. I just think that you're understating how it would be, and badly.

To a certain extent, but I consider it empire-building, like I said.

If it's supported by outside states - kind of a buffer, I guess - it would be to avoid antagonizing them and risking war with an actual opponent so soon after Hatay.

Lordganon 20:34, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I am. Yes, many areas will become independent and fight for that independence fiercely. But if you have a gun pointed at your head or are dying of starvation, that independence can, and will, quickly become a secondary though. Military force or desperation have been used to annex new territory throughout history, as it would in a post-Doomsday world.

What's wrong with empire-building? The post-Doomsday world offers the perfect conditions for empire-creation and most nations would, and have according to canon, engaged in it. Plus, empire-building typically involves the conquest of other nations. What Turkey is doing is more analagous to national unification. An all-out invasion of the Caucusus, Syria, or Iraq would be more analagous to empire-building.

Trabzon could be a buffer for Georgia or Armenia, but both states are weaker than Turkey and Turkey would have little to fear from them. If it's supported by Greece, they'd be unable to assist them because they'd be involved in the Second Sicily War from 2008 to an as of now undetermined date.

Caeruleus 21:22, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but if any authority at all has been established - like you have, to a certain point stated there was - it would be fought over. Even worse, in this case. You're saying that the semi-warlords that were in the army would give up to the Sultanate - but given the Extremist Secular and Republican views held by the army (They've had several coups when the army thought the government was too religious or not republican), I doubt they'd give up power willingly to a Sultanate, especially if there is an increase in religion like it seems in the article.

Empire-building is something that's been avoided on DD, at least on a large scale. Even in areas that were untouched by DD, the lack of government, fallout, and lack of workable modern machinery for the most part would mean a general breakdown in society and everything. This would mean that large-scale empire building is out, as even areas unharmed directly by DD would need to be repaired/rehabilitated. You're right about it being more like unification, but even then, given the amount of territory and the likely damage of the area it is effectively empire-building.

True enough, it is stronger than both, likely even combined. At the same time, however, your resources are coming from south of the mountains, so that while you would win a war in the end, even against both, their power bases being closer would likely mean that it would be very long and drawn out, causing them much more trouble than its worth. Besides, it is both common and likely that a nation would support small vestiges of authority near their borders - keeps the bandits away ;)

On another note, thinking about the population - you should lower the 1983 population by another million or two, since that would be the amount left in territory now under Greek control. While a certain amount would go to the sultanate, a sizable amount would also stay put. Shouldn't lower the net population by too much.

Also, add Edrine, near the Bulgarian border, to the nuclear strikes. I've had that in Rhodope and Vidin since day 1 as being hit - basically, its a large city to start, and would be the basis of any Turkish attacks into Bulgaria, so killing it (as well as Istanbul) would remove the threat for a while.

Lordganon 11:31, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

For the warlords who gave up, their choice was basically join or die. As for the secularism and republicanism of the army, the secularism was maintained because Islam is a growing force, as in OTL, but not an official or dominant force. It's also still a democratic state, but the head of state is the Sultan, who's ironically pro-democracy.

I see no reason why limited empire building can't take place in certain areas, especially areas that weren't affected, but that's not where I plan to go in the near term. National unification will be achieved through a combination of force of arms and diplomacy by 2009. Further military action will be down the line, but not necessarily soon. And, despite the lack of modern equipment, people used to be able to make their own guns. They'll learn to do that again if necessary. Conquest is carried out by whatever weaponry is available, whether that's tanks or spears.

No war against Georgia and Armenia is planned. Though any influence they have in the Eastern Wasteland will be eliminated by 2009.

I suppose the population can be lowered slightly.

I don't see why Edrine would be nuked. It has no significant military base, it's a relatively small city, and it's only culturally important. The only reason it would be attacked is because it's a border city, yet most border cities weren't nuked. It would probably be bombed by conventional bombers, but no nuclear strike would take place there.

16:08, July 30, 2010 (UTC)Caeruleus

In my book, the army wouldn't see it that way at all. It may still be a democracy, but it's not a republic. And that simple fact would do it. The growing force of Islam - which would likely be obvious, even if not official - would mean that the secular ones would have issues too. The majority of the ex-military warlords wouldn't join for that reason.

True enough, but like I said - most of these mountain passes, without modern weapons, could not easily be forced so long as the people at the barricades had guns - and that territory, good luck getting heavy machinery in.

Like I've said before, it just seems to expand too fast. And when you actually ask for objections, I've no doubt you'll hear more of the same.

You are underestimating the Georgians and Armenians - they still have the majority of their pre-DD weapons intact, remember. Especially in the case of Armenia, they would have a vested interest in keeping Turkey out of the area - they'd have no desire to have a potential ally of Azerbaijan there that could swing the balance in Azer~ favor, easily. And Georgia would be more interested in the buffer state to keep out the warlords/bandits.

I did make it so Ossetia was independent - North Ossetia was more or less unscathed, and that they would invade but be stalemated.

In effect, two stalemated wars - and its definite that neither would want a potential future opponent easily on their backdoor, so it makes sense. Come to think of it, Georgia would probably have some sort of relationship with the Greeks too. <Is trying to remember ancient history, so bare with it)

Maybe, but that was my logic. No sense risking an attack, after all - and the Soviets have been shown to have an interesting lack of caring for their allies when choosing targets, fallout-wise. Doesn't hurt the article, either way, so you may as well add it.

Lordganon 01:20, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but since that would require me rewriting the entire article, it stays a monarchy. My current justification is that all the generals thought it was a temporary solution to secure Konya and the Sultan would be deposed in a years. To their surprise when they considered deposing him years later, the Sultan was widely popular and supported by the civilian and religious leadership, so they were forced to maintain it.

You say "seems to" which doesn't exactly make me pause and want to reconsider. Forgive my thinkheadedness, but I still don't see why its not possible.

Georgia would be busy keeping its rebellious provinces under control. Armenia would have Azerbaijan to deal with. Neither would have much military equipment because most of their airforces would probably be shot down during the post-Doomsday border fighting with Turkish and NATO forces. Army forces based in the area would largely run out of ammunition and fuel for their heavy equipment, and possibly their small arms, once supply lines had broken down. Also, neither Georgia or Armenia have any native oil, gas, or coal sources (I think), so they would be lacking enough fuel to have any significant military strength. They'd be strong enough to supply the warlords during the war and later fund the insurgencies in the area after the war, but not strong enough for all out war with Turkey, which if nothing else could beat them through sheer numbers.

Georgia has never had a significant relationship with Greece (I think). The Byzantines controlled Georgia once upon a time, but after that, they were controlled by Muslim empires for several centuries until finally conquered by Russia. So now pre-existing relationships there.

Well, I do need some Turks in Thrace to survive, so there will be someone to revolt against Greece in 2015 or so ;)

Caeruleus 01:47, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't be a monarchy - as you wrote it, it makes sense. Just that the officers of the mini-states you have "giving themselves" up to the Sultanate wouldn't do it quite so easily.

What I'm saying is it would be harder to get over the mountains like that as easily as you seem to think, and that you're over-estimating the usefulness of the western areas in like the first decade. It would mean re-writing, but think of it this way - its something pretty well everyone has had to say about it, and you'll hear it again when you ask on the main page for objections to graduation.

Remember, I'm trying to help.

Given the location of armed forces in both Georgia and Armenia, the Armenian forces would be blocked off from Turkey for the most part. Largely, this means only Georgia would have battles going on around it. That area of Armenia is too mountainous for easy fighting, anyway. Armenia is basically barren of such resources, but would be able to get them from Iran easy enough. Georgia itself has some oil/gas reserves - looks like enough to run the military off of, too. The types of battles - and terrain - in the area there would prevent much use of fuel, due to lack of usefulness for vehicles and slow movement. As things go, Armenia and Azer~ are deadlocked - Armenia didn't lose most of its equipment with DD, but Azer~ did - which would mean that after the truce happened, they would be strong enough to make the Sultanate think for a second before trying anything with them. Georgia would be a little weaker militarily, but if you look at Ossetia, they have stalemated Ossetian forces not far from the border. As I discovered in my research, South Ossetia only has around 50,000 people - and without outside support, this would be easy to overcome for the Georgians. As for the other breakaway region, its capital was a naval base, and would get pancaked, killing any state there before it started.

Like I said, that area is mountainous. All you have to do is block the passes with barricades and infantry, preferably with artillery backing them up, and any attacking force, even with artillery and planes of their own, would have trouble breaking through. A combination of the colder weather and terrain in the mountains, really.

Ammunition is harder to get, but can be done and produced most anywhere, given some materials.

Georgia hasn't had a strong relationship with the Greeks since the Byzantines were strong - they've never really been part of it, though they are related peoples - and it was a battleground for a while between them and Persia. Yet, as has been seen in this area a few times, the Greeks are very into irredentism (and LONG ago stuff at that) after DD, and would no doubt be seeking to re-establish Byzantine influence. Heck, one of the options for the Greek flag here was the Byzantine flag, for pete's sake! And, fyi, they were independent for a long time, only being partially subjugated by the Muslims at one point, and breaking free after Persia was weakened, until their annexation by Russia.

Way I figure it, it does no harm one way or the other, and its already listed as being gone. It'll still mean surviving Turks for your rebels. Though, I wish Xeight had gone into more detail, since for the Greeks to be in such control, I'd hate to know what they did to the Turks there.

Lordganon 08:18, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, they assumed it was a temporary creation to obtain stability. That's reason enough for military officers who still think they're in charge.

So how would you change about that? And I'm envisioning only the core area (pre-1990) would be useful. The western and southeastern areas would be reindustrialized by the mid-2000s though. Also, Turkey is mountainous, but it's not that mountainous. They're not crossing the Alps or anything like that. Invaders have passed through Turkey with relative ease throughout history, as would Sultanate forces.

Army equipment would survive. Their air forces would largely be destroyed post-Doomsday or be abandoned. Iran would not sell Armenia oil. They wouldn't sell Georgia oil either. Both are enemies of Azerbaijan, who Iran would support (somewhat), which is enough to prevent the sale of oil. Also, remember, Georgia has 3 breakaway republics and a small population. Combine that with a lack of food, the nuclear strikes, the fallout, and the refugees and you wouldn't be seeing a very strong Georgian state. Abkhazia and Ossetia would probably break away, but definitely Abkhazia. And the independence movements in Georgia weren't urban movements, so the nuclear strike in Abkhazia wouldn't hamper them greatly.

No. Georgia was under Ottoman control for several centuries after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Persia hadn't controlled Georgia since the Sassinians. And, like I said before, Greece irredentism post-Doomsday is both unrealistic and overstretched. Since it's canon, I accept. However, any further promugation of it is unnecessary and unrealistic. Plus, Georgia, at most, would merely trade arms with Greece, but Greece would have difficulty supplying Georgia because most of the Bosporus was nuked.

Mr. Xeight's article tells you nothing. The probability of Greece actually taking over both sides of the Turkish Straits are incredibly low, so idk how he justifies that. Since he has no detail though, we can assume anything we want about the area. So, I'm assuming, Edrine wasn't nuked ;)

Caeruleus 16:15, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

In Konya, yes - but not the ones who are warlords. By the time Sultanate representatives got there, it would be painfully obvious that it being temporary was not the case.

The Southeast, for sure - that'd only really be war damage. Heck, the Southwest, besides Greek controlled areas, would largely be fairly easy to fix too. However, the Western areas themselves - closer to Thrace and Izmir - would be decades to fix.

The easternmost regions of Anatolia are high mountains. While the highest parts are in Kurdistan by the map, the northeastern ones are high too. The area is characterized by forests at lower altitudes in the valleys, and mountain passes at higher altitudes. The only really easy access is on the Black Sea Coast - and it's a very small area there at all. You're right about central Turkey - but the Eastern regions are just like the alps, likely even worse.

Iran may be Muslim - even the right kind for Azerbaijan - but Azerbaijan is fairly non-religious today, and has been like that for quite some time (some 50% of people there today consider it to be irrelevant, even if they are nominal Muslims). While Iran may be more inclined to support them despite this,but as they are also funding the anti-Soviet campaign (mostly) in Aralia, their intense dislike of the Soviets would mean that they would be willing to supply these countries with oil/gas for resources, or some sort of the same, since the market for both has dropped off greatly globally. It wouldn't be much, but it would be enough to run military equipment for the most part, especially with remaining active reserves held by the Georgians and reserves captured by Armenia fighting with Azerbaijan added to it. All of this is besides the fact that most of Azerbaijan's reserves are off-shore or around Baku, making them destroyed or inaccessible.

Actually, if you read the Georgia and Ossetia articles you'd see that is wrong. Still ~2 million people there in Georgia, fyi. Most of the population of Abkhazia actually lived/lives in that city - kill it, and most are gone. They still declare independence, but can't keep it this way. South Ossetia itself actually has a population of less than 100,000 on its own - even adding North Ossetia to the mix means that they cannot take all of it. But, given the situation in Georgia, they can't take it all back. In the end, they aren't a threat to Georgia, but need to be watched - blocking the passes would do it.

Like I said, without outside support neither nation would have managed OTL what they have managed - the Georgians outnumber them, 4 million or so to no more than three quarters of a million combined. And here, both of the two have had a strike - the main city of Abkhazia is gone, as well as a fifth of North Ossetia in an airfield strike - which combined make the odds still roughly the same.

The movements may have been based in the country in these two areas, but the population of both without outside support kills them.

Georgia was actually composed of a few vassal states to both the Ottomans and Persia on and off from 1516 to the 1730s - which is completely different. Nominally independent, paying a tribute, and constantly fought over between the two, but not part of either state. The Sassinians were actually the last Persian state to completely control the area, but by no means were the last to control some of it.

Greek actions are overrated, true enough, but if they have done all of this stuff, then the rest of Greek activities since DD have to be taken in the same light. I hate to say that, but......

The Bosporus being nuked would cause some damage, sure - but, its more than big enough so that it would still be easily passable. Especially with the Greeks controlling both sides.

I assumed that all on my own, and wrote it as such in the Bulgaria articles - and it was canonized ;)

Lordganon 09:03, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

No. The Sultan had little power in 1984-1990. At that time, the Imperial Council ruled the country like an oligarchy similar to that of pre-Doomsday military regimes in Turkey. So it wouldn't be obvious.

Most of Thrace is under Greece control, so that's their problem. Other parts of northern Turkey would receive fallout and damage from post-Doomsday chaos, but that's it.

The average height of the mountains in eastern Turkey is 1100 to 1900 meters. The average height of the Alps is 2000-4000 meters. So eastern Turkey isn't that bad. The valleys and forests would be fairly easy to pass through and much of the pre-Doomsday inferstructure would still be intact anyway, especially in areas where warlords repaired it. Travel through the area would be somewhat difficult where resistance was, but otherwise it would be rather straight-forward.

Iran would support Armenia over Azerbaijan because of ethnic and religious issues. There are more Azerbaijanis in Iran than there are in Azerbaijan. The Supreme Leader of Iran (both OTL and ATL) is an Azerbaijani-Iranian. Also, they would never support a Christian nation who's engaging in ethnic cleansing over a Muslim nation, especially if the MLA had any say in it.

Idk why I'm still talking about Georgia, but whatever. I think their state would largely collapse post-Doomsday, but then again, I don't really care.

No, they actually don't. It's already been said repeatedly that the Greeces would be overstretched, and if their actions aren't already canonized, I don't have to assume they would occur. So I'm not.

And you can't sail through an area that permeated with nuclear radiation. That'd be like walking through post-Doomsday New York. You'd get radation poisioning.

24.53.131.132 14:35, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

^ That was me btw. I didn't notice that I wasn't logged in. Caeruleus 16:32, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Summary of "Graduation" Points
The Graduation got too long, too quickly, and Idk what it even says anymore. For my own sanity, here are a summary of all (I think) major points.


 * Turkey sounds too strong, which is out of step with canon.


 * Deemphasize the sheer conquest aspect of the state
 * Further explain the rebuilding/reindustrialization efforts taken.


 * Elaborate on the Hatayan War and Eastern Conquest ( done in other articles)


 * Create more semi-autonomous states within Turkey

If I missed any (Lordganon), please add them.
 * Possibly move up timeline, but probably unnecessar y

Caeruleus 09:32, July 27, 2010 (UTC) Updated Caeruleus 01:18, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Sounds like anything I touch, lol. Curse of having a degree in history, I guess.

And please, LG!

Sounds about right - but I'd make some aspects more "dark" in nature too.

Lordganon 10:37, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

By "dark" nature, do you mean the expansionist, almost imperialistic, nature of the state? Or the Islamic nature of the state? Or possible internal repression? Or something else? Caeruleus 21:26, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Just less positive, I guess. Though a touch of repression might be a plan too.

Lordganon 10:53, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

So, LG, since you're the only one who's still commenting on this. I've added most of the fixes. The elaboration of the wars will be in other articles. Do you have any other objections to its graduation? Caeruleus 01:18, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Make it less..... strong worded/cheery.

Lordganon 01:22, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

That would require me rewriting half the article, which isn't happening for something as minor as the tone of the article. Think of it as neutral instead. It's not really cheery, imo. It's just not very bleak.

Caeruleus 01:48, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Same difference.

And it really just means that you have to change some words here and there. Not too bad.

Lordganon 07:32, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

It would be a lot more than a few words lol. I'd have to reword the entire thing, since none of it is doom and gloom. I think it's fine. It clearly states the state and position of Turkey in the region, which shows it in step with canon.

Caeruleus 16:19, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

You're not getting what I mean - just add some more negative description words to some parts, maybe a sentence or two making it look more grim than it is now. Nothing too major.

Lordganon 07:38, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

The population a bit... huge, isn't it? I know it's "only" half the (as of the 2009 cenus) population of Turkey, but according to this, Turkey has a higher population then Socialist Siberia!HAD 19:18, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know that, but the current population numbers for Turkey make sense imo. I took the 1983 population minus 10 million for immediate loses from the strikes minus another 10 million post-Doomsday losses minus another 3 million lost during the wars and those in the Greek and Kurdish controllec areas of Turkey then I multipled it by half of Turkey's OTL growth rate. Plus, that's Siberia. No one lives in Siberia anyway. Caeruleus 19:30, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Template Issue
I must just be bad with these things because they fail to work for me. Can someone add "Bayezid III" as Sultan and "Devlet Bahçeli?" as Prime Minister? Caeruleus 19:59, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you using rich text editor? Sometimes it causes issue when you try to edit infoboxes. Mitro 14:46, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so? But thanks. Caeruleus 17:19, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Think you could change that again? For some reason, it was voided when I updated the map. Those templates really don't like me... Caeruleus 21:31, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you are not using rich text editor? Check your preferences to make sure it is not on.  Mitro 15:43, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Edits
I edited this article to correct a few spelling mistakes, and added a link to the Second Empire of Trabzon.--Emperor of Trebizond 16:42, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Caeruleus 17:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Did the Sultanate really gain independence October 29, 1923? Or is this a mistake?--Emperor of Trebizond 22:32, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's when the Republic of Turkey declared independence. I should probably change that. Caeruleus 22:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

From main page
The Sultanate of Turkey is the successor state of the now defunct Republic of Turkey. I've started to write the article. Commentary and ideas are welcome. Most of the pre-Doomsday history is straight off Wikipedia. And I hope this doesn't conflict with any already accepted nations in this althist. I've accounted for the existence of Kurdistan, the Greek control of Rhodes and the (formerly) Turkish Straits, and the possiblity of an enlarged Armenia in eastern Turkey, though I'm not sure there's an accepted article about Armenia.

Caeruleus 22:17, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

In fact, its pretty awesome. Any objections? Arstarpool 17:24, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Heh. That Caucasian war bit is impossible, realistically, and the state is still too large.

Lordganon 03:03 June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if it included only southern Turkey, and shared little/no borders with Greece, then it would be acceptable. The Causcausian War crap should be taken out. Sorry, but I didn't read through the whole article, heh. Arstarpool 16:31, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

You have to erase the Georgian and Armenian things. There is a state on Georgia since much before you wrote this article. Fedelede 16:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Bye bye Turkish Empire I guess. Caucasian War portion removed. Caeruleus 18:29, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Still way too big as well as expanding too fast, and he's right about the strikes - dont know why I didn't notice before. You have to remember, the list is only a guideline, not anything definite. Some research is involved in this project, remember.

You need to take the criticism and work with it, not ignore it.

Lordganon 10:50, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Christ! He just gave himself nukes. Not getting graduated with that there, buddy.

Still needs to be smaller and expand less, especially with the new nuclear strikes. No way is that happening now. Add Edirne, in European Turkey, as well, please.

Lordganon 10:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know per our earlier discussion, I have posted my thoughts as you asked on your discussion page for Turkey. Please let me know if you wish to talk further in the future.--Fxgentleman 03:30, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Any other objections to its graduation? I believe I have fixed most of the previous issues. Caeruleus 15:42, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Um..... no, you haven't. It's still illogical for it to be that size. If I'd been the only one to say so, I'd let it slide, but I'm not the only one. Thus, I do object.

Lordganon 05:176, August 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * But it's not illogical for it to be that size. It makes sense and is explained in the article... Caeruleus 23:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * LG, you're the only one left who has signaled any opposition. So, last call, can it be graduated now? Caeruleus 20:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think it seems too optimistic. Every rival just seems to fall over and submit.Oerwinde 11:44, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * And...? There are lots of optimistic articles in this TL. There is also always one state that always wins their battles to unite their nation (i.e. Genghis Khan and the Mongols, Red Army in China and Russia, etc.). Caeruleus 19:51, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're always complaining that Greece is ASB, so then why are you sinking to its level? Just because more than a couple of nations here are optimistic doesn't mean you have to make yours bigger than it should be out of spite or because you want your nation to bloody recreate the Ottoman Empire; ever heard of the "Would you jump off a bridge if..." saying? Mr.Xeight 21:59, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike Greece, I'm not creating an international empire and an entirely unrealistic Mediterranean superpower in a country that would probably revert to a Peloponnesian War-like state. Also, to clarify, my main problem with Greece was not that it was unrealistic (lots of things in althists are), but that there was no detail on to how everything happen so it seemed as if it became a superpower from nothing. Now the article is much more detailed and I thank you, and the others who assisted you, for that.
 * The only reason this article is may seem optimistic, in my opinion, is because I didn't dwell very much on the famine, disease, death, and general destruction post-Doomsday. I also assume that Turkish nationalism remains relatively strong post-Doomsday, which is not unreasonable to assume. Between nationalism and pre-Doomsday preparations, I crafted Turkey to be reunited in a relatively short amount of time, which happened previously during post-WWI Turkey and during the initial Ottoman unification of the Turkish peoples of Anatolia in similar timeframes. Plus, Turkey isn't a particularly large nation, so unification can occur in a much shorter time period than it can in other nations. Caeruleus 22:09, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Are you still on about that? The only reason they got anything in North Africa at all was because the ADC either gave it to them to hold onto, or they nipped off pieces from lawless Libya. I didn't even want Greece's influence to extend past Tripoli; it was Mr. Hicken and Venezuela that has Greece puppetifying the Barbary. And you have no room to talk about implausibility either; you bloody have all those eastern-Anatolian states practically fawning over some neo-Sultanate to become annexed by being defeated in a mere months. Greece wouldn't revert back to Ancient Times; literally no one in Greece sees themselves as "Peloponnesian" or "Athenian" like philhellenes would have you think. The only reason their are facturated states now is because the ruling parties of each won't relinquish power-a very human theme. Greece is gradually unifying anyway-by 2012 it'll become one state due to the neo-conservancy, Byzantine-recreationism, all part of the "return to the Glory Years" mentality of post-Doomsday Greeks, mostly barely out of college and learned about East Rome in their studies and how in the early-mid Byzantine Empire things were good and they'll want their politicians to represent them on that and when they get older some will become politicians ride the band-wagon and use unity to make themselves look good. Mr.Xeight 22:23, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one who brought it up, so don't complain when I mention it. And your explanation for why that happened still doesn't explain how that's even possible, but whatever. Now that I've discovered where you actually mention all those tiny details, I don't particularly care to oppose the plausibility of the FoG anymore. Also, please learn to recognize historical analogies. The Peloponnesian War was an ancient war between Greek city-states. I was refering to my belief that post-Doomsday Greece would enter into a similar state of civil war between many small Greek states. But, once again, Greece is canon, so I can't change it. My current focus is this article. This isn't the place to argue the feasibility of Greece anyway.
 * And if you actually bothered to read the entire article, you would know it takes seven years for the Sultanate to conquer eastern Turkey, which involved direct warfare, proxy warfare, and difficult gunboat diplomacy. Not "mere months" as you put it. Caeruleus 22:30, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I believe Mr.Xeight has been satisfied. Any other objections? Caeruleus 19:00, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Some of the diplomatic contact dates need to be changed to those established in Rhodope, or afterwards.

Lordganon 08:14, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough. Anything else? Caeruleus 15:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

The size...I'm sorry but it is way too big, if not almost bigger than pre-Doomsday Turkey. Arstarpool 22:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not bigger than pre-Doomsday Turkey. And why is it too big? Caeruleus 22:35, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well when you first made the article, people were already arguing on the size, and then you made it bigger, so maybe you should return it to the original size and map. If you want, I will help you get it wrapped up for graduation even if it means toning it down a little. Arstarpool 22:40, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to reread the article. It's much smaller than when I first started it, back when it was outrageously large. I never increased the size. It's borders are all firmly within the boundaries of pre-Doomsday Turkey, except for a few minor Syrian border provinces. And if it is the map that is confusing you on its size, it's because the map emphasizes the size of Turkey in comparison to the other countries around it. But that's just a feature of the map I used. Caeruleus 22:54, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

See? I'm not the only one that feels that way.

The dates are a bit better now, but you have the Greeks telling you of Rhodope before they even found the nation.

And I've noticed that you have the Greeks in Thrace being found and encountered for the first time in both 1995 and 1990.

The Macedonian dates should likely be held back a bit too, depending on the Greek date, but it shouldn't make too much difference.

Lordganon 00:52, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you weren't when I initially mentioned it a week ago.
 * Where does it mention Thrace being encountered in 1990? I'll move that back, then I'll edit the Macedonia and Rhodope dates accordingly. Caeruleus 01:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

In the international relations part. And the eastern med. map is also wrong, fyi.

Lordganon 01:43, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed the dates. What's wrong with the map? Caeruleus 03:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you just made it bigger. I mostly take issue that Turkey seems to be the only country nuked to hell that is unified. While it doesn't break any rules, it goes against the spirit of the TL. The territory in the north that was until recently believed to be Greek I don't think should have been added, maybe create another Republic there, as Turkey having rejected a monarch being entirely unified by one seems suspect to me. There should be more republics in Turkey. And not just Republics in Name Only like Hatay that are prime targets for Sultanate imperialist expansionism. Oerwinde 05:28, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

That sums up my feelings nicely.

It's the borders in the Balkans, Caer. Make them like the Macedonia map~

Lordganon 05:58, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I made it slightly bigger to adjust it to accommodate the actual borders of Greece. I assumed that they had more territory than they actually have and are claiming.
 * Well, I'm sorry if it violates the "spirit" of the timeline, but like you said, it breaks no rules. Unless you have a problem with the actual substance of the article, I see no reason why it can't graduate.
 * I'll fix the map LG. Caeruleus 01:12, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, there are a handful of real democratic republics in eastern Turkey. I just haven't gotten around to writing articles on them yet, or found a volunteer willing to do so for me. Caeruleus 01:16, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rules? Listen we have marked articles as obsolete for being overly optimistic, like Rhodesia (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 01:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it isn't too optimistic, or at least no one has proven it to be so thus far. Caeruleus 01:36, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a lot of people who feel it is to large or else they wouldn't still be objecting. Have you thought about reqriting the history a bit to allow some of those Turkey survivor states you also created remain independent to cut back on the size? Mitro 14:05, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I considered it yes, but dismissed it because there's nothing I can find that is unrealistic about it. If someone can point out something concrete that shows how it couldn't happen, then I'll change it. Otherwise, why not? It makes things more interesting anyway. It's also not particularly large. It's smaller than OTL Turkey. Caeruleus 23:22, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I agree with that. Considering the map, even with the loss of territory to Greece and Kurdistan, the additional territory in Syria makes up for some of it. Furthermore just saying "its interesting' isn't going to convince the objectors to drop their objections. Mitro 00:10, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, just drop some land... Arstarpool 00:15, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

The Syrian border territories are minor. Less than 100 km into Syria and the border with Syria is shorter than it is OTL too. And if someone can give me a legitimate reason to drop some land, I will. So far, the most people have said is "It's too big." but give no reason why it is too big or why it can't be that big. Or at least that's how I understand most people's point so far. Arstarpool, if you, or anyone else, can come up with a reason why it has too much land, then I'll reduce it. "Just because" isn't a reason. Also, don't assume land = undue strength. Because it doesn't, at least in this case. Caeruleus 01:29, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I personally find the idea of Turkey returning to monarchy to be a bit implausible. Republicanism is pretty strong in OTL Turkey. HAD 16:52, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think initial expansion is a bit much. The article says they become somewhat oligarchic and deal with some heavy unrest and power shortages, yet despite this nearly triple in size. Though this might just be an issue with article clarity. Contact with Hatay would have come earlier I think, considering they share a border. My major issue though is if France and Spain, countries that were struck much less than Turkey with less people and less land area haven't been able to unify their nations or even come close why has Turkey? They've been able to fully industrialize, reach nearly their OTL borders, expand their military, as the article stands they are nearly on the same level as the SAC nations, and they achieved this without foreign aid.Oerwinde 17:28, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Really? I must say I agree with the objectors in that case. Turkey needs to be smaller, more divided and less developed.HAD 19:28, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this just now for the Greek contact dates, I notice that you have contact with the Greek Confederation before it is even established. You're gonna have to push the dates back to 1995, and you really should mention the nature of the first contact with Macedonia.

Also, Oer's point is more or less the one I was making.

Lordganon 20:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

The return to Monarchy was a result of the conservative religious and civilian leaders of Konya, the Turkish capital, wanting to form an Islamic state. To the military, a secular constitutional monarchy would be much more agreeable than an Islamic state, so they went for that.

Oerwinde, the reason they grow so quickly in the early years is because of pre-Doomsday preparations and a gathering order from the remains of the Turkish government. That caused most of the surviving Turkish military in western Turkey to either head for Konya or hold up where they were and join the Konya government when they expanded to reach them. Similar to the US's Gathering Order. It probably could have happened faster, but I tried to be reasonable about the how many units would follow this order. And you're probably correct about the meeting date with Hatay. I'll correct that.

Also, they're not fully industrialized. The southeast portions of the country are fully industrialized. Northern Turkey is sparsely populated, deals with lingering fallout effects, and is mostly agricultural. Eastern Turkey is rebuilding from the wars in the area and much of it is devastated. Only the former territory of the Republic of Greater Patnos is somewhat industrialized because, before their unification with the Sultanate, they had some assistance from Kurdistan and they were never invaded by the Sultanate during the war.

Countries like Spain and France could have plausibly reunited by now, especially with foreign assistance, but the writers of those pages have chosen not to do so. If you take a closer look, there are no massive wars between the various French and Spanish survivor states (for the most part). Unlike Turkey, they've chosen a more peaceful route to reunification, which would obviously take longer. Also, the Turkish survivor states in the north were mostly just small communities with minimal population who either were easily crushed (because they were essentially bandits) or willingly joined the Sultanate (out of desperation). In eastern Turkey, the survivor states were much more powerful, but they had assistance from foreign states (Georgia, Armenia, and Kurdistan) and constantly taxed their own resources in wars between other Wasteland states. The early years of the war in eastern Turkey was fought through proxies, so when the Sultanate military entered the area, they were already weakened and exhausted.

The Turkish military is not on the same level as the SAC. It is large and they have weapons similar to those they would have had around 1983, along with a few newer weapons recently developed, but those are only on like an OTL 1995 level, if that. Their military expansion and strength is largely due to the initial Turkish gathering order. That saved and united most of their surviving military. After that, conscription and a slight militarization of the state took care of the rest. Additionally, foreign aid is unnecessary to do this. Greece, Japan, Korea, and a few others have done the same thing all without foreign aid. The Turks also industrialized the first time, during the 1920s and 1930s, and won their full independence during the early 1920s largely without foreign aid. They received some military aid from the Soviet Union, but that was very small because the Soviets had their own internal problems to deal with. At the time, they were also fighting powerful nations such as France and Britain, along with the weaker Greece.

If any of that is unclear in the article, please just tell me where it's mentioned, or not mentioned, and I'll change it to make it clear.

You're right LG. I'll adjust the contact dates to make more sense and mention the nature of Macedonian first contact. Caeruleus 15:02, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Dates look better now, but the references to the Aegean need to be taken out - it makes no sense for them to get across there without the Greeks noticing. As it is it's hard to believe that going from the Adriatic they would not be found by Greece, but its plausible enough that I can live with it.

Thrace is only a territory, so you'll want to fix that too.

Caer, that's exactly what we mean - you're sugar-coating the whole thing, and have from the start. It's perfectly clear that is what you've written. What we're saying is that it's not very plausible. But you refuse to listen.

In the case of Spain and France, they have not been reunited because most parts of the territory collapsed. They need to rebuild, and defeat what chaos remains today - and much of the territory is still like this. Now, in your case, you've got more of a central authority, so being more organized/able to recover is possible. But not to the extent, nor the speed, which you have them doing it at. While it was possible with only a pair of strikes, with the present amount it is not possible like this at all. And any less than that makes no sense, so....

Thing is, what you're saying makes sense. But what you're saying, and what the article says, are not the same thing. You describe chaos over much of Turkey, yet have them recover so easily, and its even more positive than that when you go on like that. You can't have both, and yet you do. And since the chaos is both canon and what would have happened, you have to live with it.

(EDIT) The Rhodes part is fine, though I wish you'd asked first - you should have.

Lordganon 18:20, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agreewith Lord. The Sultanate should be one state amoungst many.HAD 18:47, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the article itself is plausible, along with the timeline, if, and only if, the situation in Turkey is more deplorable than the article currently makes it seem. And, along with that, what I'm saying about the article needs to be included in the article. Is that basically it?


 * When rereading my article, I believe I have addressed the same things that I have said here. For example, the situation in northern Turkey is described here and here. The second link also describes how far Turkish industrialization has come along with passages here, here, and here. Some other things are probably slightly sugar-coated or haven't been properly clarifying and I'm looking through to alter those passages.


 * Also, if it helps, the historical basis for the article comes from the post-WWI Soviet Union and post-WWI Turkey. After WWI, the Soviet Union used force to successfully reunite the country during the civil war and defeated many factions that had foreign assistance. For Turkey after WWI, they drove out all foreign armies, established a highly nationalistic socialist state, which lead the country for the next 20-30 years and their rule resulted in the industrialization of Turkey. So, when basing it off those situations which were somewhat similar, rapid reunification becomes a more realistic prospect.


 * LG, the Adriatic is east of Italy. No where near Turkey. You have your seas mixed up. Turkey borders the Aegean Sea. I'll fix the part about Thrace. And what did I mention about Rhodes? Caeruleus 20:12, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you misread. Slow down and actually read things.

What I said was that having them go across the Aegean would not be plausible, due to Greece and all its islands being in the way and not having spotted them. Having them go down the Adriatic, something go horribly wrong, and then drift towards Anatolia south of Crete is slightly plausible.

The part about the Dodecanese. Can't spell it off the top of my head, but Rhodes is one of them and should have been recognizable. You should have asked first.

The article as written is not plausible, thought you keep failing to listen to anyone about that. What we're saying is that you're giving too rosy a picture. There should be no way they can unify Turkey by this time.

Lordganon 14:28, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense. You have to cross the Aegean to get to the Adriatic from Turkey. Also, a Greek presence in the Aegean has nothing to do with the ability of Turkish explorers to traverse the area. They wouldn't be out shooting every unrecognizable ship, not they could do so anyway.


 * Not sure what there was to ask, but sorry.


 * The article is plausible, imo. None of you have stated a reason why it would not be plausible. The Turkish monarchy may not be the most likely type of government to form, but it's possible.


 * The fact that they have reunited already isn't implausible either, or at least it isn't based on anything any of you have said thus far. The military option is always takes less time than the diplomacy option. The most prominent example of this in this TL is Socialist Siberia. They're regained control over half of their pre-Doomsday territory through military conquest. The only reason they're not fully reunited is because the USSR was a massive and incredibly diverse country. Turkey on the other hand is much smaller and largely composed of a single ethnic group. Most of the surviving Turkish industry was based in western Turkey, which is where the Sultanate arose. This enabled them to be the most economically powerful of any possible Turkish survivor states. Also, the Turkish Gathering Order (the Toplama Order) resulted in most of the Turkish military in Western Turkey remaining loyal and part of the new Turkish state, with many exceptions. This Gathering Order, just like the ANZC Gathering Order and Socialist Siberia's actions to retain control of their military post-Doomsday, allowed to the Turkish military to be quickly rebuilt and retain much of their pre-Doomsday strength. And, to clear up something, the Toplama Order was issued before the new government was instituted, so that wouldn't be an issue initially. This led to the easy annexation of most of southwest Turkey because most of the units in that area followed the Toplama Order. All these things are plausible, which contribute to the early success of the state.


 * Next, there are the 1990s, which is essentially one continuous era of conquest. As I said before, the Sultanate of Turkey inherited most of Turkey's surviving industrial centers and military. And, due to the mass exodus from northern Turkey as a result of the concentration of nuclear strikes in the area, the Sultanate's population greatly increased from refuges, which took 7 years to properly deal with. In 1990, the Turkish state, which was highly centralized, was organized enough to start a coordinated expansion effort. This is one major difference between Turkey and other post-Doomsday nations, like France and Spain. The new governments that arose either took longer to form because they resulted from a coalition of local communities or were less centralized for various reasons. The Sultanate follows the early stage Kemalist model, which Turkey used in the 1920s-1940s. When they began expanding north, the area was minimally populated, even before Doomsday. This enables the wealthier and more populous Sultanate to easily overtake the area over the course of 7 years (I will add more to that section to further clarify it). Then comes the war with Hatay. They started the war, but the Sultanate was able to defeat them because of their greater industrial base and population (I will also attempt to further clarify this). At the beginning of the war, most of the Sultanate's army was in northern Turkey. Once it was recalled to southern Turkey, it was able to turn back the Hatayan advance.TurkeyPopDenswNukes.jpg


 * Finally, there are the 2000s, which is the more destructive decade. Unlike in northern Turkey, many powerful states appeared in eastern Turkey and there were several large population and industrial centers in the east. However, the main difference is that eastern Turkey did not follow the Toplama Order because they were fighting the Soviets. The fighting with the Soviets only lasted a few weeks, but supplies lines had broken down and much of the equipment on both sides was destroyed. This left the Turkish military in the area in a very weak position, even though pre-Doomsday more of the Turkish military was stationed in eastern Turkey. Next, you had various Turkish generals seize control of various provinces as the region collapsed into chaos. These warlords lacked the ample military supplies they had pre-Doomsday and, thanks to the constant warfare, were unable to properly build up their industrial base rapidly. This constant warfare is another difference between Turkey and other nations. Unlike France, Spain, etc, many Turkish states were engaged in constant warfare, while the various French survivor states, for example, were comparatively peaceful. This weakened them to the point where it was relatively simple for the Sultanate, with their superior numbers and industrial, were able to defeat them. However, several of them willing joined the sultanate as autonomous republics, so they didn't conquer the entire area.


 * If you find any of this implausible or unclear, please tell me exactly what's wrong with it. Your general opposition doesn't help me improve the article. I need details. And sorry for the WoT. I was bored and had nothing else to do.

Caeruleus 15:51, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you overestimate the number of troops the Sultanate would have. As the majority of Turkish military was either in the east, which you stated mostly didn't respond to the Toplama order, or were based in nuked cities such as Istanbul or Izmir.

Oerwinde 18:00, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe anywhere from 30-45% of the pre-Doomsday Turkish military that survived would be based in western Turkey, about 70% of whom would follow the Toplama Order. Even though they'd lose large numbers of troops to the nuclear strikes, they would still have a larger military force than any other state in western Turkey. In addition, they received the 25,000 or so troops evacuated from Cyprus. Also, the military would be greatly enlarged through voluntary recruitment, post-Doomsday necessity, and conscription.

Caeruleus 19:38, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

It is the idea that a state could do so in general. If you hadn't noticed, I haven't griped at all about the government, just about its acceptance by the ex-army warlords so readily. I actually like the monarchy you have.

You should have asked because it is proper, and it involves what someone else has created.

Considering it was Macedonian explorers that arrived in Turkey..... >.>;

To arrive on the southern coast of Turkey from the Aegean is implausible. Maybe the western coast, but not the southern. It would be impossible to get through the Aegean without somebody noticing.

What states in Western Turkey? You've made no mention of this before, though there should indeed have been something there.

Wasn't it Hatay that got those troops from Cyprus? Methinks articles are saying different things again....

That's roughly how much was in western Turkey, sure. But the vast majority was in destroyed cities. Maybe 20-30% of troops that were in the west would have lived.

The issue is that it is not plausible to have expanded so fast. You've had suggestions several times over what might be better, but fail to give any sort of credit to them. That's the problem, Cer.

Lordganon 18:32, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Others have griped about the government. I was addressing everyone, not just you.


 * I still don't quite understand your issue with that, but you're correct about them landing on the western coast versus the southern coast. I'll edit that.


 * In southwest Turkey, there were very few states. There were warlords, but they were mainly Turkish generals who were following the Toplama Order and waiting for government forces to arrive. In northern Turkey, the massive amount of refugees and nearby nuclear strikes caused the region to collapse. There were several large marauding gangs, but no organized states.


 * And no, Hatay got the Turkish Cypriots were who expelled. The Sultanate got the Turkish troops who left early on following the Toplama Order.


 * Notice I said of the surviving soldiers. There would obviously be massive losses, though most Turkish military bases aren't actually based in cities, so the losses would be only like 30-50%.


 * Actually, I think it is plausible. Of course, none of you have been able to prove otherwise. Only Oerwinde, and Lordganon to a lesser extent, has actually be able to present any facts to back up their points. So far, none of your evidence has given a reason why it can't unify this quickly. Caeruleus 19:02, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

You got my point about the contact.

Actually, the majority in the west are in, or on the edges of, large cities. It's more like 20-40% surviving the blasts.

Actually, we've given good reasons, though you continue to tell us the are not valid. Most of mine have been on the article talk page, mind. We've given ample reason, but you continue to declare our points null and void, no matter how good they are.

But when all is said and done, you haven't given us any decent reason why it can do so. You've got to prove to us that they can, not so much the other way around.

Personally, I'd like someone else - preferably Mitro - to go over this and give their complete opinion, though none have as of yet.

Lordganon 00:00, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, most of the Second Command, most of the Aegean Army Command, and Cyprus Turkish Forces command would survive the nuclear strikes. A large part of the First Army would be destroyed in the strikes on Istanbul and Izmit, but II and V Corps would survive. The V Corps would probably evacuate across the Dardenelles following the Toplama Order. The II Corps would remain in Thrace and attempt to establish some resemblance of order in the non-coastal areas. The 3rd Army would not respond because they were based in eastern Turkey. That adds up to at least 40-60% of the Turkish Army surviving.


 * You have given some legitimate reasons Lordganon, which I believe I have addressed. Others have not. I've given plenty of reasons why it can be done. Caeruleus 02:18, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

3/5 of the Aegean Army brigades would have been destroyed by nukes outright - Izmir, Edremit, and Antalya - and one of the other two had to travel across all of western turkey to get to Konya.

Second Army: The headquarters at Malatya would have gone to Hatay, or had to go through their territory to get to Konya, rendering them worthless. The corps at Adana was nuked, largely destroying it. The same goes for the corps at Diyarbakir. The 3rd infantry division, at Yuksekova, is literally on the Iranian border - kinda have to doubt they could arrive in Konya. Same goes for the 70th Mechanized Infantry Brigade at Mardin, though that would likely have gone to Hatay. The 8th Corps, at Elazig, could have gotten some units to Konya, but given its location most would have ended up with Hatay. The 172nd Armd Bde, part of the 8th Corps, is also near the Iranian border.

First Army: Command wiped out in Istanbul strikes, with the majority of the 3rd Crops joining them, and the remainder of the 3rd Corps ending up stuck on the Bulgarian border. Large parts of the 2nd Corps would have died in the Edirne and Istanbul strikes, as well as fighting with Bulgarian and Soviet forces along the border, though the remainder would have managed to flee from the Gallipoli Peninsula. The majority of the 5th Corps at Corlu would have made it to Konya, however. The 52nd Armor division would have been lost at Istanbul as well.

3rd Army: The headquarters and the 9th Corps would have been fighting the Soviets, and very few if any would have made it to Konya. The 4th Corps at Mamak would largely have perished in the Ankara strike, though some would have made it.

Army Air Force: Mostly located at Istanbul, Ankara, and Diyarbakır. Effectively gone.

Commando Units: Only the 1st Commando Brigade at Kayseri and the 2nd Commando Brigade at Bolu were not near Kurdistan. The other 3 would have been unable to respond, though these two would have got to Konya.

Of course, the Turkish troops on Cyprus joined them too, bringing what equipment that was not fried destroyed by the EMP from the British bases and could be taken with them (some planes, etc)

By my estimation, this would leave you with 3-5 Corps of troops ending up in Konya, depending on the amount getting there alive from farther away. Most of these troops would be from the 5th Corps, the Cyprus troops, and the remains of the 4th, 8th, and 2nd Corps, though those last three would be quarter-strength at best. Overall, this translates to about 1 "Army" of troops, at most, which is maybe a third of the pre-war size, or around 160,000 - 170,000 men.

Honestly Caer, you've tried to, but haven't done much more than gloss over and avoid them.

Lordganon 03:38, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot about those based near Hatay. Thank you for correcting that. I already said the 3rd Army and most of the 1st Army would be lost, so thank you for agreeing with me there. Antalya, Edremit, and Diyarbakır weren't nuked, so whatever is based there would survive and make it to Konya. I only mentioned the army. I wouldn't count on most of the air force surviving. But, while some of what you said is correct, I would up that number slightly to 180,000 - 220,000 men. However, with either number, that would still give the Sultanate the single largest military in post-Doomsday Turkey. Together with their control of most of the surviving Turkish industrial and population centers, that sets them up to reunite Turkey at a fairly rapid pace.


 * Also, I still see no reason why Edirne would be nuked. It has no strategic value. Caeruleus 04:05, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Your own map shows Diyarbakir being nuked, actually - and there is no way that target would be missed. You'll have to pardon me for Edremit, there's a little grey splotch on this map here near that site that I assumed was a strike. Makes no sense for Anatalya to live, in my book, and I cannot fathom Alanya being nuked instead. Always thought that strike was Anatalya, lol. Make that 180,000 or so (brigades being ~5,000 men or so max. each) After a couple years though, I'd guess most that came from near strike zones would suffer somewhat from radiation, killing off maybe 40,000 of them within 5-10 years.

Yes, they have the biggest army. But you also have them doing the biggest tasks and taking over the most irradiated areas, by far. Really, there's no way they can expand so fast and not be suffering somewhere, but you have things all honky-dory everywhere, and with the size, this is not reasonable. By the looks of the population map, fyi, Hatay's population would be similar - though still slightly smaller - to the Sultanate, and in a more concentrated area to boot.

Basically, it should either be less stable, or smaller.

My logic for Edirne still stands, and will not change.

Lordganon 04:43, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I can't even read my own maps. Diyarbakir was nuked. My mistake. Adana was a more important target because of its large NATO base and nuclear weapons. Anatalya was just lucky. The nuke launched at it failed to detonate. Some soldiers would obviously die due to radiation, but their numbers would be quickly replaced once the new government is established through conscription and volunteers. Also, keep in mind that the numbers listed for the size of the Sultanate's army are the 2010 numbers.


 * Southern Turkey, where the Sultanate is based, would be among the least radiated areas. Northern Turkey and the Turkish Straits would be the most irradiated, which is an area that wasn't seized until the 1990s. Things aren't honky-dory either. Northern Turkey is depopulated and suffering economically. Eastern Turkey is experiencing a growing insurgency. The former Hatayan province experienced an insurgency that lasted several years after the conquest of Hatay. Greece and Kurdistan continue to control part of pre-Doomsday Turkey. I never said Turkey was particularly stable either. A third of the country is still under military occupation.


 * What is your logic for why Edirne was nuked again? Caeruleus 19:00, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Adana was nuked.

Your map shows a city, more or less the city of Alanya, getting nuked as well, which I cannot see a reason for.

Saying it failed to detonate is poor writing, to be honest - might want to try and think up a better way.

The present army size is plausible - have never said otherwise.

As I've said before, you merely mention that stuff going on - you fail to take it into account when considering the expansion of the nation-state.

Ahh, but you don't really say its not stable, either. And you fail to take the military occupation into account, as well.

You're trying to expand the sultanate a great deal, while rebuilding much of Anatolia, and fighting a war. To manage to conquer the whole area is as a result, unrealistic.

Looking at the international relations, you may want to rewrite the part about the Balkans somewhat - it just doesn't sound right anymore, with the 1988 contact. Maybe word it saying that when the Sultanate got there they found Greeks there already?

Had a look at the world map too, and the Egyptians have indeed expanded into Libya somewhat. You'll have to adjust your eastern med. map a bit more.

There seem to be several odd things with the Hatay portions of the article, largely with dates. You'll want to have a look.

Have a look at this map. It's more like what we've been saying.

1st expansion by 1993 or so, 2nd sometime in 1995-1996, and the 3rd in more like 2002-2003. With the Hatay war ending about the same time you sat, though maybe early 2000 instead.

Given the lack of strikes in the 3rd area, it would more than likely have some sort of organized states as well. You do mention some things, but gloss over them atm. Obviously making them harder to take over.

Just makes no sense to acquire all that territory in so short a time-span.

Lordganon 03:47, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Antalya isn't nuked. Why it wasn't, I don't care. Interception, a dud, or a missile was never fired at it. Take your pick.


 * Everyone I previously mentioned is in the article. The situation of northern Turkey is in the Economy section. The Hatayan insurgency is mentioned at the end of the Hatayan-Sultanate War section. The insurgency in eastern Turkey is mentioned at the end of the Eastern Conquest and Consolidation sections. It's all there. I just never dwelt on it because I planned to elaborate on it in related articles.


 * You're also overestimating what was rebuilt. Most of the 1990 Sultanate territory was rebuilt, along with major cities in the Hatayan provinces and 2 or 3 major ports on the Aegean and Black Seas. The rest hasn't been fully rebuilt yet. Most of what has been done so far is patchwork stuff to repair the immediate war damage The basic infrastructure is there, but nothing else.


 * I'll go back through and fix the dates and international relations.


 * I do like your expansion map however. The 2010 borders will remain the same, but the expansion periods are open to change. Most likely, the second expansion would last from 1993-1994 because that would be the most heavily depopulated region, which would be easy to unify. That moves the entire expansion up two years so everything continues to fall in place plausibly. For your third expansion, there possibly would be a state in the northwest and northeast corners of that area. However, that area would also be devastated by refugees from the Turkish Straits, so they states would probably be fairly weak. I'm betting on willing reunification with the Sultanate, which, once again, would be a result of the military superiority of the Sultanate, the strength of Turkish nationalism, and possibly the Toplama Order. I'll have to work that out later. Caeruleus 04:03, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro's got a point.

Really should have it all mentioned more than that, like in the military section if it is under military rule anywhere.

If I'm overestimating, and what you've listed is right, then the Sultanate couldn't possibly sustain the advances you have them doing.

The second expansion has to be finished after or during 1995, due to the Thrace requirements. Besides, while the area is the most depopulated, its also the most damaged by the strikes and the aftermath of them.

For the third area, that is true enough for the western areas. But distance should kill off most of the refugees from the Straits before they got to the northeast areas of that zone. Betting on a willing reunification would be assuming too much, mind. The order wouldn't be a good thing to have as part of it - any who would follow that would have got to Konya earlier. And if they wouldn't follow that then, they likely wouldn't cooperate now.

The 2010 borders are the issue, Caer. It's just too blasted big.

Lordganon 05:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned in the military section. Maybe you should reread the article.


 * Yes they could have. You're overestimating the opposition they would face to expansion. Transportation infrastructure would still be in place and somewhat maintained, especially in areas where states arose in the years immediately after Doomsday. They have the largest army, by far. And, by 1990, would have the largest population. They would also control most of the remaining industrial areas, as I said before. Military occupation is draining, but with a lack of foreign funding or major terrain advantages it wouldn't be too severe. The insurgency in eastern Turkey is very small at the moment, but has the possibility of growing. Northern Turkey's lack of population just means there are too few people for the area to properly develop. That also means there are less people to attend to and spend money on, which minimizes the drain on resources. None of those things would limit the current expansion rate. Remember, expansion doesn't mean the creation of productive, developed provinces. It simply means they occupy the territory, which mainly only requires manpower, that the Sultanate clearly has.


 * The second expansion can end in early 1995. And, yes, it would be the most depopulated, which also means the easiest to annex.


 * As for the unification of the survivor states in northern Turkey, it isn't assuming too much. Nationalism would survive the trauma of Doomsday, especially only a decade after. Also, even if nationalism wasn't strong enough for reunification, the obvious economic and military benefits from joining the Sultanate and military pressure would be more than enough to force unification. The Toplama Order also had two parts. The first part was return to Konya. The second part was, if you can't reach Konya for whatever reason, stay where you are, expand/fortify your area, and wait until government forces from Konya reach you. Those survivor states would be following the second part of the order. Additionally, for comparison purposes, many states in post-Doomsday America refused to declare independence and were waiting for well over a decade for US forces to reach them and reunify with the United States. Unlike in Turkey, that never happened in America, but it could and would happen in Turkey.

As I've said and explained multiple times, it's not too big. Caeruleus 21:32, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

The sentence and a half in the police section doesn't count. There's no way they could manage that task alone. Looking at the army size, that's actually smaller than the current army size - so they couldn't help much either. No way you can hold that territory down, then.

It would be the most depopulated as a result of the strikes and the aftermath - and that also means much destruction to fix.

Any area under military occupation will have resistance, no matter how long it has been in effect.

If I'm overestimating it, then you are underestimating it. But you cannot comprehend that.

I am well aware of the contents of your "order". No one north of Ankara and east of the straits could get to Konya easily - and the EMP from the strikes around Ankara would prevent the signals from being received. These states, even when being told of the order, would not be agreeable to go with your state, even for the "advantages" offered.

You are far too optimistic in your estimation of how easily your expansions would go. Your comparison with the US is only valid up until a point - most of these states gave up on the USA by 1990, yet you have these ones not doing so in roughly the same time period, which is illogical.

And, fyi, most would tend to ignore military pressure - it happens all too often in reality for all these warlords to give up like that. But again, you can't get that.

You continue to say that they have the largest population, but no matter how many refugees you have, the area where Hatay is based - according to your own map - has even more of the highest population density color.

Currently, the area marked as Hatay controlled has a population of about 7,068,855 in its main provinces - add maybe another two million for other areas. Taking down the population in a rough (fairly extreme in this example) counting for DD, call it like 6-7 million people, even if not all are loyal. Now, the Sultanate itself controls a - main - territory that has a population of roughly the same amount of people - currently. Taking it down for DD, counting in a bit more stabilization than Hatay - and an influx of refugees and troops - gives a best population of about the same number.

Now, the taking of Western Turkey would give them an advantage in numbers, true enough - but at the time of the Hatay War this region would be of little use for much other than a military sink, at least at first. Eventually they could be used to stem the tide, and even beat Hatay, in concert with the stronger military possessed by the Sultanate. But in doing do, they would likely lose territory both at the edges, and alongside, newer territory.

Basically, if you had the Hatay territory and troops - from the beginning - it would likely be possible to expand as such. But with what you start with, and having to defeat Hatay - even with the popular revolt - it just wouldn't be possible.

It's been suggested to you since very early on - and not just by myself, though I may be the biggest proponent of the view - that the state is too large and powerful. Several compromises, or solutions, have been proposed, and yet been discarded by you with little thought.

I am inclined to think we should have someone - one of the admins, and preferably Mitro, to be frank - make a decision on the article. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised none have as of yet. Not that I think you'd care about what they had to say, mind - you haven't cared much what anyone else has said yet, unless about something minor.

Lordganon 04:51, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Holding down friendly territory isn't particularly difficult. You're still overestimating the numbers needed to hold down the territory.


 * You fix things for people to use. If there are no people there, there is no reason to fix them.


 * If they couldn't reach Konya, they would remain where they are, or somewhere more secure, and control the area until government forces reached them. There were no high atmospheric detonations, so the EMP effects would be highly localized. Also, short-wave radios can withstand the effects of a EMP, so radio communication would still work.


 * There are several American survivor states who still cling to the USA. The same would occur for Turkish states, though it would wane after 1990-1995. Also, through radio communication and word of mouth, knowledge of the Sultanate would be widespread so they would have credible evidence to continue to support reunification. And when your people are dying of starvation, those "advantages" suddenly seem very tempting. Plus there are many examples in this TL of that occurring.


 * No one ignores military pressure. Iran can't project its influence in the Persian Gulf because the US has a large military presence in the area. Russia won't attack Poland because of the strong US military presence there. America's military presence in Panama keeps the Panamanians in line. Military pressure is impossible to ignore because it constitutes a real threat.


 * The refugees plus the existing population in southern Turkey would give the Sultanate the most population. Hatay would be a close second however. I never said they vastly outnumbered Hatay, but they would still be larger.


 * Hatay lost the war because they overestimated their own military strength and a popular revolt caused the government to ultimately collapse. It wasn't an easy war to win, but the Sultanate still won it. Then they had to deal with the insurgency after the war was over.


 * Even without Hatay's troops and population, it is still possible. You continue to underestimate the strength of nationalism, pre-Doomsday preparations by the Turkish government for such a disaster, and the power of gunboat diplomacy.Caeruleus 18:53, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often a nation will ignore military pressure - you need only look at some of the smaller states during the world wars for that. Poland, Yugoslavia, Finland, and the Baltic states, for example.

Thing is, if you read the article, it sounds like the destroyed region is of use - but it wouldn't be. The area, outside of military posts and a few villages, would be pretty well uninhabited. Yet, given the population you give, it is. Makes no sense.

You shouldn't assume it is "friendly" territory so easily - no matter how many republicans are willingly part of the Sultanate government, you're still going to have republican rebels and normal bandits in many areas - and those from Hatay, etc. in many more. About the only place free of this should be the core Sultanate areas.

Hatay may have lost the war, but outside of how close their attack got to Konya (which I still think should have gotten closer), it seems to have been a easy victory for the Sultanate, with no issues. The end works, but the conduct doesn't.

You mean that there is no known atmospheric detonations - it is hard to believe that the Soviets did nothing like that in Europe, or possibly even over Anatolia. Never assume something.

True, short wave-radios can survive EMP. But so can anything - EMP, to a certain extent, is random. As for it not knocking out electronics in parts of Turkey, with ground-bursts that would likely be true. But not all of these strikes would be such - you yourself can admit that - and a fair amount would be air-bursts, which would spread EMP more. Not as much as atmospheric bursts, true, but definitely more than you seem to think would be the case.

That would be the case for some areas of Turkey, true enough. I'd be willing to bet, however, that a fair number would hear of the monarchy and put up resistance for that reason, though you fail to make mention of this, choosing instead to assume that they would join the Sultanate, despite the republican extremism of the Turkish state - and especially the Turkish Army. It is true that many states willingly re-join as such - but there are also many that would never do so.

Heck, you'd prolly even end up with a theocracy somewhere in Anatolia, no matter how silly that sounds.

And now you've added a state out of Samsun which just gives itself up to the sultanate? Seriously, you're having that occur too often. Reading your article, only a couple of the independent states resist them. This makes no sense. You have Turks - army and civilian - in a strongly republican, and largely secular state, willingly giving themselves up to a religiously-moderate Monarchy. While in some cases - with military pressure, even most - they would give up willingly ( no matter how grudgingly) to the sultanate, you're still going to have a lot more fighting their forces than you have written.

Heck, I don't think it should control much territory besides most of western and southern Turkey, with the Hatay war having just ended.

I'd still like to see an opinion from someone else on the size of this nation.

Lordganon 23:51, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Poland thought it had Britain and France's support, when it didn't. Yugoslavia could expertly play the West against the Soviet Union to protect themselves and, later on, were forced to end the Bosnian War due to external military pressure. Finland was extremely determined to defend their independence and were ethnically different from the Soviets (which doesn't apply to Turkish survivor states). The Baltic States gave in to military pressure and allowed the Soviets to build bases in their territory (too bad for them the Soviets decided to annex them anyway).


 * Why does it sound like they're in use? I believe that I clearly stated that many areas are depopulated and are barely getting along. The population numbers makes sense. Just because areas are lawless or depopulated doesn't mean everyone died. They just left, aka refugees.


 * I might add more militants in northern Turkey. The Former Hatay provinces had an insurgency for several years. Eastern Turkey also has insurgents and bandits. So, you are correct. Only southwest Turkey is free of those problems. I'll look into issues with Turkish republicanism too.


 * I haven't explain the Hatayan War that well because I was planning to do it in a seperate war article or in the article. I just haven't had the time to do it. It will be explained though.


 * There would be no atmospheric detonations because they had almost no knowledge of the effects of one. There are been almost no research into high atmospheric detonated nukes and their EMPs OTL. And, the little research that has been done, mostly began after the Cold War ended during the 1990s and 2000s. As far as they knew, that would essentially be wasting a nuke so they wouldn't do it. To cause an EMP also requires it to be launched hundreds of miles in the sky, which causes an EMP that would be so large that it would affect Bulgaria and the Soviet Caucasus. So, even if they used them elsewhere, they wouldn't use it on Turkey due to their proximity to the Soviet Union.


 * Typical air-burst nuclear weapons aren't detonated high enough to cause a substantial EMP, so the effects would be minimal. Also, the effects of EMPs are a general unknown that no one really knows much about. As such, I'm going to keep their effects to a minimum because they are not properly understood.


 * The people who oppose the monarchy would be part of the Republican People's Party, and later on the New Turkey Party. I'll add more about their opposition to it. In the early years, people assumed the monarchy was a temporary solution and would be removed later on, so they ignore it. Later on, as the Sultan grew more powerful, people probably would begin speaking out more. I'll consider a possible coup, forced abdication, or something else of that nature down the line (like 2015-2020), but for now, the monarchy stays. Also, the monarchy is secular. That is specifically mentioned in the first part of the article.


 * I don't particularly like theocracies, nor do I feel like writing an article about one. Though, if there was a theocracy, a good place for it imo would be in Turkish Thrace beyond the borders of ATL Greece Thrace.


 * And yes, someone else's opinion would be nice. Caeruleus 02:07, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

You're understating the knowledge of EMP - it has been known about and studied since at least 1945 - electronics for the atomic test in the desert were even shielded for it, though some were still fried from the blast. Atmospheric tests done in the 1960s by both sides prove they knew about it. Have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

Note that I never said one was used over Turkey, but that it is weird nothing was done like that in Europe.

I didn't mean that the monarchy was not secular - it also says in the article that the fairly religious city of Konya played a role in things, and that there was an increase in religious fervor. Logically, that means that the state is not effectively anti-religion anymore, like the Turkish Republic is/was.

For the north, you state both things - in the economy section, for instance, it says that all pre-2000 areas of the country have been successfully re-industrialized, but in the same paragraph it also says that there is a small population and little economic growth there. Only place I see both so close, but I remember seeing the ideas both existing elsewhere as well.

Thing is, that population, with northwestern turkey turned into dust and refugees, is too high. The only way it's possible is with them getting there, but we both know most refugees from that area - unless attaching themselves to military convoys - would be unlikely to survive. I'd make it less than 30 million, or just over that, myself.

Much as I like your Thrace suggestion, there's just too many people within range of Thrace for it to survive outside of the village-level. Maybe I'll do that as the planned failed (read: looted and destroyed by Soviets) state in or around Razgrad Province of northeast Bulgaria - there's a Muslim (Turkish!) province up thataways.

My examples all had to do with WWII. Poland is a light case, due to outside support, but they still refused to cooperate with the Germans over Danzig, long before the French and British involved themselves. Yugoslavia originally bowed to pressure in 1941, but a coup followed, and the Axis than had to conquer it, despite it having no chance at defending itself from their military pressure. The Baltic states are another poor example, but the Soviets did have to defeat military forces to take control, even if it took mere days. Finland refused the initial demands by the Soviets, despite the Soviet army, and had to be forced to do as told. Another example is Japan - despite obvious military advantages held by the Allies, they refused several surrender demands prior to the atomic bombings.

It could also be said that the Turkish states would be determined to defend themselves from the Sultan due to their extreme republicanism, which is much the same as the Finnish and Japanese examples. After all, only a group like that would overthrow the elected government so often when they thought it went too far in that direction!

More rebels are definitely a good idea, especially if of a republican nature. While your future plans may be to have a coup or whatnot, semi-organized resistance by republicans to the monarchy would be likely in many areas.

Lordganon 04:30, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Gaziantep
Considering its major industrial and economic center of Turkey, with a population of 1 million +, its just seems likely that it would have been destroyed. Mitro 04:17, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, Mitro. This article is very well written, but the Sultanate is still to large. I still don't believe that Turkey would become a Sultanate again.HAD 13:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Gaziantep would probably be a secondary or tertiary target, which wouldn't have been hit since there was only one salvo launched during Doomsday from the Soviet Union.


 * The Sultanate arose from a compromise with religious and conservative civilian leaders. It was either a secular monarchy or an Islamic republic, plus it ensured the incorporation of Antalya into the Sultanate because the Sultan (before he was crowned) became a major political leader there. The military leaders, who were very republican, agreed because they assumed the Sultan would be weak and easily deposed later, but things didn't happen as planned. Caeruleus 21:37, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Gaziantep itself holds some 4% of all heavier industry in Turkey, and is a major economic center for the entire region. Given the selection of Soviet targets in Turkey, there's a fair chance it'd have been hit.

Not that I expect you to care at all, Caer.

Lordganon 04:54, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I care. I just don't care when you're blatantly wrong or have minimal facts. Caeruleus 19:02, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Samsun also likely would have been hit. Its apparently the most important port on the black sea coast according to Wikipedia. If it wasn't hit, it would have likely become the center of a major survivor state.Oerwinde 06:49, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your ignoring Soviet doctrine in the 80s to launch an all out attack if attacked first. Thus secondary or tertiary targets would likely be hit in such an event.  Gaziantep is at least a secondary target.  Furthermore I'm not a big fan of all these misses listed in the article.  The anti-ICBM tactics of NATO were never tested under real conditions.  Furthermore it goes against the dystopia theme of the TL.  Mitro 12:17, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm considering creating more survivor states in northern Turkey. If I allow Samsun to survive, it would host a fairly large survivor state. Even if its unrealistic, the hit-and-miss and shot down excuses are still fair game since everyone uses it. I'll use it sparingly though.
 * Any other surviving cities you have issue with? I may reconsider them as well. Caeruleus 19:02, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

A surprise to me, Caer, given your attitudes so far. But w/e.

List of cities:

Adapazarı: Car/Train factories, and a Major Defense Plant. Fairly large city too.

Kahramanmaraş: Fairly large city in southeast Turkey, Big textile industries. Has/Had a Turkish Armored Brigade.

Mersin: A Port city, more or less a suburb of Adana. Likely means a second strike around Adana.

Kayseri: A very large city in Central Anatolia. Seems to have airplane factories as well.

Eskişehir: Fairly large city. A major air base - a major command center for the Turkish Air Force - and seems to have aircraft plants. A major industrial center, besides, and quite possibly a large rail yard may have still been here too.

İzmit: Fairly large city. Many automotive plants, a large oil refinery, and a transportation hub.

Kırıkkale: Has many steel mills and other related business ventures.

Balıkesir: Seems to have a lot of big factories.

Gebze: Accounts for 15% of Turkish industrial production.

Batman: Major oil-producing center, and at least one pipeline leaves here.

Gölcük: One of the primary Turkish naval bases. Seems to have a car factory of some sort as well.

Uşak: Doesn't really have much info, but seems to be an industrial center of some sort.

Outside of their population, the main Hatay centers - and the sultanate cities of Konya and Antalya as well - have little reason to be hit, though the port cities do have more reason, being ports.

Map currently says that Golchuk or Izmit were hit, can't tell which for sure. But odds are good both would have got it.

Include Gaziantep on the list too, obviously.

Outside of its port, Samsun has little reason to be hit. Due to its history - Mustafa Kemal apparently started the war of independence in the region - it would serve as a good spot for a state loyal to the republic and its ideals. And be strong enough to cause much grief too.

Lordganon 23:20, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Izmit was hit. Caeruleus 00:07, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Question answered. Now, is anything going to be done with these?

Lordganon 23:53, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Haven't really had time to consider it much. I may add one or two more strikes to the list, but no more than that. Caeruleus 01:39, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Of these, Adapazarı, Gölcük, Batman, and Eskişehir would be the most likely. Kayseri as a good addition to them, of course.

Personally, I'd hit all 5 of those - most are around Thrace, anyway. Kayseri is north of Hatay, and Batman would be in Kurdistan, but the other 3 are near Thrace.

Wouldn't change the story - you'd have to edit the map, little more. Simply have to add Batman to Kurdistan as a strike as well.

Lordganon 03:38, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I might. Like I said, I'll need to sit down and decide. I'm probably not going to add all of them because that's excessive when compared to the number of strikes in other similarly situated countries (like Germany). Caeruleus 04:15, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you'll be doing that, use the map I've put on Waldeck-Hesse as the guide - I've added every mentioned strike in Germany articles to the map at one point or another. The list of Germany strikes on the doomsday page is a little.... understated.

Lordganon 04:38, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

An Alternate Direction
After reconsider parts of this article (and growing increasingly bored), I've been contemplating the shrinkage of Turkish territory. If it is agreeable to everyone and there are no more objections, I may consider implementing it. The difference is that most of the Eastern Turkish Wasteland was not annexed by the Sultanate. Instead, the Sultanate only controls the former State of Elazig and surrounding territory. The rest of the Wasteland would be controlled by the, , and the (as shown on the map).

Are there any objections to this? Caeruleus 23:34, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I also like the idea of having the provisional Republican government in the north as well, shown in the map you recently added. Oerwinde 23:40, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly? I'll have to think it over. Caeruleus 01:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Guys how come there is no "gray area"? There should be a bit of uncontrolled, lawless areas in every former country IMHO. Maybe one of those eastern Turkish states could instead be a lawless area. Arstarpool 23:43, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts.

Lordganon 23:52, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Lawless areas in the center of countries by 2010 don't make sense. If they're lawless, that's only because no one has bothered to form a government or they haven't been invaded. An effect of the lawlessness however is the lack of industry or economic productivity, which means the region would be poor, minimally equipped, and weak. If any organized state with a industrial economy chose to take over a lawless area (assuming it also had the appropriately sized military to do so), they could do so with relative ease. So no, there will be no lawless areas by 2010 because organized states will have seized control of all of those areas. Caeruleus 01:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I want the Second Empire of Trabzon to be annexed into the Sultanate. Taking out the most powerful wasteland state would be a key move and a fitful ending for Turkey's current military conquests. Besides, I spent far too much time writing and researching the possible fall of Trabzon to watch it be discarded. Here is a compromise I suggest: Trabzon itself falls, but the state of the 'Second Empire of Trabzon' retains much of its remaining eastern territory.

New Ezurum and the Republic of Greater Patnos could remain independent, but be more or less democratic allies of the Sultanate. The Republic of Greater Patnos could also serve as a refuge for many republican Turks who oppose the idea of a monarchy.--Emperor of Trebizond 00:47, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I do like this idea. Caeruleus 01:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Do the words "resources and manpower needed" come into the picture when people make modern day empires like Virginia, Kentucky, and Turkey? Guys I think at least one of those little nations would remain a wasteland, I hate it when people just think that every un-nuked area has a chance at surviving. Arstarpool 00:53, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about Virginia or Kentucky, but Turkey certainly isn't an empire. Caeruleus 01:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * For reference on why so many were opposed to Turkey's size, Kentucky and Virginia are considered large empires. Turkey is twice the size of both of them put together.Oerwinde 02:41, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining. However, the difference, imo, is that Turkey is contained totally within pre-Doomsday Turkey's borders, which makes it more reasonable. Also, large nations/empires aren't implausible in a post-Doomsday world. That isn't what I'm aiming for though. Caeruleus 03:03, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

After the fall of Trabzon, the nominal empire would descend mainly into lawlessness in its remaining territory, with the emperor only controlling isolated parts of the countryside and a few forts. He could be one faction among many, including bandits, refugees, rebels, various post-Doomsday wanderers.--Emperor of Trebizond 01:03, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Trabzon will eventually be incorporated into the Sultanate. However, I think I'm merely going to delay its conquest until sometime between 2012 and 2015, so they only thing you'll have to change is the dates. Caeruleus 01:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Emp, you can just move the part about the fall to the talk page for now - will be safe there until it is needed. Only the dates will have to be changed.

Like I said, go for the other republican state in the north being intact - or at least being conquered.

You argument does make sense for the lawless territory - but only if you add something about most of Sultanate territory being military control, or something similar (a map of military v.s. civilian control would be good here).

Still should have a couple or three zones of expansion - works better that way.

Lordganon 03:48, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Military control of certain areas is either implied or directly stated in various areas of the article. However, I will try to make a map for it. And, if I change the article as explained above, I will probably add a least one expansion zone. Caeruleus 04:11, September 18, 2010 (UTC)