Pretty rose tinted thinking. German ignored Greece as Greece was seen as too weak to do anything , a stronger Greece will be seen as a threat. Likewise ITTL Italy will be a lot more likely to see Greece as a threat. If Greece is seen as pro British, which is likely, then neutrality is then likely to be ignored. Turkey has lost a lot of its economy and likely a population exchange ( if not official just due to people not wanting to be in the wrong country given likely higher tension, many Turks will leave Constantinople as they were linked to the Turkish state )
Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles
- Thread starter Lascaris
- Start date
It depends. If the Greek governemnt makes it perfectly clear to everyone that they want to stay neutral, then they may be ignored.
Italy has not much to be afraid of, they could rather focus on N. Africa for a change.
Greece can actually become quite a useful trading partner for the Axis (similar to Sweden), if they play their cards right.
It would be interesting to see what happens to ATL Turkey in the aftermath of WW2 should they give into the temptation of joining the Axis, particularly if they end up experiencing a similar fate as OTL Germany at the hands of the WAllies (plus Greece) and the Soviets. Mainly division (with the Soviet-occupied territory possibly being headed by a Communist Turk of Albanian origin or another figure), annexation* (the Greek equivalent of Poland's Recovered Territories as well as Soviet gains), flight and expulsion (as was the case with Germans) as well as at worse reparations (which the Greeks and others would probably want to extend to Ottoman/Turkish actions in WW1 and prior) and even some form of Morgenthau plan.
*- With the likes of the Georgian and Georgian SSRs as well as possibly even a successful ATL Republic of Mahabad benefiting at Axis Turkey's expense, with there also being a chance for the OTL short-lived Azerbaijan People's Government being Incorporated into the Azerbaijani SSR.
*- With the likes of the Georgian and Georgian SSRs as well as possibly even a successful ATL Republic of Mahabad benefiting at Axis Turkey's expense, with there also being a chance for the OTL short-lived Azerbaijan People's Government being Incorporated into the Azerbaijani SSR.
Last edited:
formion
Banned
The Recovered Territories in this occasion would have been Constantinople, the Italian Mandate and the Chanakkale district. We do know the soviet claims from OTL, even with a neutral Turkey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_territorial_claims_against_Turkey
But, wouldn't be possible that in an eventual war that Turkey could be used in the same way and with the same reasons that OTL the Allies used N. Africa against Ploesti but TTL against Baku and/or the Persian fields?
Also, would be possible that Basra and/or Baku (after I'd guess, that one or both them 'd be softened by months of bombings) would become on opportunity targets for eventual airborne attacks from the AXIS?
Also, I think, worthy to mention that if in TTL somewhat the Middle Eastern 'd becomes in a war theater and/or more probable, that'd get a new importance. Then would be possible that for this hypothetical M. E. theater 'd becomes even more relevant the possible support that there'd get Germany in this TTL...
Could see the Soviets further expanding on their OTL territorial claims by establishing a Turkish Kurdistan SSR that may or may not be merged with the Republic of Mahabad, with territory further west being part of a Turkish analogue of the DDR (yet not reaching the Mediterranean) bordering a neutral or Western-backed Turkish equivalent of the FRG (possibly without access to the Black Sea by way of a more north/south or northeastern/southwestern division post-war Allied occupation of Turkey).
The threat of a Soviet Kurdistan SSR with claims on Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistan would add an interesting element to how the Syrians and Iraqis views the Soviets.
Greece would obviously look to push for more with a Greek Bakker-Schut plan.
Smyrna is closer to 30%, the Goodman paper has actually exact numbers in page 75. Smyrna produced 7,116t in 1922 out of total Turkish production of 22,700t and 7,479t in 1923 out of 26,105t. Interestingly enough 6,000t out of 7,100t in 1922 were exported to the United states. So closer to 30-40% but nearly all of it was going to the US market. In 1929 it was 14,500t of which ~8,200t were exported to the US out of 36,300t, a full 40% but this was something of a special year with only 80% of the land cultivated in 1928.
Speaking of Greek rearmament after 1936 there are a couple of interesting recent works one here by Constantine Vlassis http://pandemos.panteion.gr/index.php?op=record&pid=iid:17698&lang=el who has also published a pretty comprehensive book with the minutes of the meetings of the Greek supreme war council after 1935 relating to arms sales.
In OTL there was a very marked increase in the share of the German foreign trade after 1932, thanks to the introduction of clearing agreements, with the share nearly tripling and the Greeks actually taking measures in 1939 to lower the dependence on German foreign trade and pressing Britain to accept larger imports of Greek tobacco. In absolute numbers in 1938 Greece had exported 26,675 tons to Germany, 10,027 tons to USA and less than 500 to Britain out of a total of 48,708 tons exported. Turkish total production in the same year was 58,800t up from 47,250t in 1930 and a quarter of this was processed and presumably consumed domestically. It looks to me like the Greeks will be grabbing TTL the grand majority of OTL Turkish tobacco exports to the US which would help with Greek export dependency to Germany.
We are of course still in 1924. But assuming there is a Caucasus front in the TTL WW2 (if it happens on schedule) and all other things are equal... I wouldn't be taking a Republic of Mahabad for granted. For one thing Iran will be affected earlier, at a minimum Reza shah had Kemal for a role model in OTL. For another if the British and Soviets are heavily engaged against Turkey, what happens to Iran come 1941?
Also perhaps mutual comprehension - I have read that the various regional demotic forms of Greek were not always mutually comprehensible.
Of course this could have been a factor in Germany, Italy, and France. OTOH, the spread of the "common language" in those countries was generally a consequence of modernization, and Greece lagged.
Germany and Italy pretty much recruited locally as well, the names of the Italian divisions were not accidental.
IMO the fate of Turkey ITTL is grim. Kemal is defeated and exiled, which means no Kemal reforms such as the conversion of the alphabet. This on top of the loss of territory and people. I very much doubt that Turkey will be very ambitious for a long time.
WRT the monarchy, could an Alexandrine successor be offered as a compromise to the monarchists? I.e. you can have a monarchy under "Alexander II/Sofia" or a republic? Were there any monarchists who would consider that?
Last edited:
Kemal's role in Turkish modernisation after 1922 is quite probably overblown. Or maybe not, that Turkey was an one party state for the next quarter century with an overblown role of the military in politics for the next century can be attributed directly to him. As for things like the change of the alphabet or what kind of hat the average citizen would wear I would question whether they mattered at all in actual modernisation. And TTL the government is still dominated by "Kemalists" even without Kemal being there in person.
At least in the more serious strain of royalist, Alexander was a Venizelist puppet. Very few are loyal to the theoretical concept of the monarchy as an institution as opposed to the king of their party.
Agreed.
Nevertheless it is fascinating seeing a scenario where seemingly the fates of Turkey and its neighbors including ATL Greece are more or less switched, especially with a potential for things to become pretty grim for Turkey based on what the Soviets did in OTL.
Am sure things will not actually go that poorly for rump Turkey ITTL, though it is dealing with a neighbor that in OTL did not hesitate to expel Germans, deport Crimean Tatars* (mostly to the Uzbek SSR) and implement Operation Keelhaul / the forced Repatriation of Cossacks (and others) after WW2 amongst other things. Not to mention the potential for a defeated Axis rump Turkey rife with instability becoming a Korean War-meets-Afghanistan-like battleground.
The Soviet Union is likely to be affected in some mild ways rather early on. For the obvious point Constantinople is a League of Nations territory with British (and French) units stationed right there and the Soviets were historically paranoid over lesser things. The 1926-27 war scare is probably even more acute than OTL with Royal Navy ships in the Bosporus. This does affect to some extend at least Soviet naval construction. Then you have both Greek and Turkish populations in the Caucasus that will be looking suspicious no matter whether they are or not...
Good point about Moscow's paranoïa. Speaking of the Soviets, do you think that with their borders further west they would try and set up a fresh iteration of their "piedmont policy" in the Caucasus? That is, elevate some border region populated by a minority of a neighbouring state into an autonomy and nurture some irredentist claims, as they did OTL in Belarus, Moldavia, Armenia etc. I wonder if they have some sliver of territory populated by enough Kurds that they could proclaim some autonomous region or autonomous SSR and start posturing...
There was an autonomous Kurdish region as part of the Azerbaijan SSR in OTL. TTL it is part of the Armenian SSR. In OTL the region was disbanded in 1930 and most of the Kurds were deported to central Asia later in the decade. TTL with Turkey a monarchy likely to be perceived as hostile there is a reαsonable chance of the region surviving within Armenia and maybe the deportations being avoided. The other Piemond policy is of course, the very existence of Armenia, Georgia and the Pontic Greek population in the Caucasus. "The Soviet Union still supports the rightful claims of our fraternal republics that have been sold out by the Western imperialists!". After all even after the population exchanges there are still Greek, Georgian (Laz) and Armenian (Hemshin) speaking Muslim populations in the area that Moscow can perceive as belonging to the mother nations. Surely you are not claiming comrade that national consciousness is determined by religion of all things? That's counter revolutionary thinking! Go report yourself for correction!". Why for some in the populations in question they may even be right.
Part 27 Of ships and guns
Rome, February 25th 1924
The naval conference to extend the principles of the Washington Naval treaty to all lesser naval powers had begun in Rome under the auspices of the League of Nations in February 15th. The Greeks and Italians had quietly taken advantage of the occasion to restore diplomatic relations, with Greek foreign minister Nikolaos Politis sent to head the Greek delegation to the conference, while notably the Soviet Union and Turkey had been also admitted to the conference, with the Turkish delegation headed by Rauf Bey. As a basis of the negotiation had been used the proposals of John Roderick Segrave, Britain’s naval representative to the League from 1920 to 1923. Quite simply Sergrave had proposed that all parties aside from the WNT signatories should accept the battleship tonnage they had in November 1921, with every ship with artillery heavier than 8in counted against battleship tonnage. Thus Spain and Argentina would be limited to 81,000t each, Sweden to 62,500t, Brazil to 45,000t, Chile to 35,000t, Greece to 36,000t, the Netherlands to 26,500t, Norway to 16,000t and Denmark to 13,000t. As for the Soviet Union Segrave proposed a quota of 175,000t of battleships and 60,000t of aircraft carriers the same with France and Italy under Washington.
Now ten days later the conference was closing down in complete failure. Only Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands had agreed to the proposed tonnages. The Soviet representative Berens had asked for no less than 490,000t for the Soviet Union and the right for the Soviets to lay down 150,000t of new battleships to reach that tonnage. When that tonnage was unanimously refused, he had offered to accept 280,000t on provision that the implementation and supervision of the treaty would not be supervised by the League but some other organization, that the Bosporus and Dardanelles were closed to warships and that the Korean Straits were demilitarized. These terms, challenging the League, abrogating the treaty of Chantilly and still giving the Soviets 60% more tonnage than France and Italy were equally unacceptable. Aside from the Soviets, Spain had asked for an 105,000t tonnage limit, which was accepted in principle only for more problems to emerge when the Spanish demanded the right to lay down new battleships in 1927, 1929 and 1931. Then Spain agreed to a naval holiday only if France and Italy agreed not to lay new battleships either. In the Baltic Sweden agreed to a 60,000t limit only if every other country with a Baltic coast agreed to the same limit, while in South America both Brazil and Chile demanded parity with Argentina at 80,000t. In the Aegean, Turkey had had her navy limited to ships no larger than 10,000t in the treaty of Chantilly but had managed to avoid having its number of ships limited, given the Turkish economic situation this had been a concession the Entente had been willing to accept. Rauf bey now stated that Turkey would accept her navy being limited to the 33,000t it had on paper in November 1921 as long as the tonnage limits of the treaty of Chantilly were removed. On the other side of the Aegean Greece, with the Italian occupation of Corfu in mind had argued that Salamis already launched should be also accounted into her tonnage, thus raising it to 56,000t and further that here right to either take delivery of Salamis or lay down a replacement ensured. The only thing that remained from the Greek point of view was the confirmation that the country wanted to take delivery of Salamis and that Turkey was already pushing back against the disarmament limits of the treaty of Chantilly.
Athens, April 1st, 1924
Queen consort Aspasia had a baby girl. She would be named Alexandra after her deceased father. The predicament of the royalist side remained, with the only practical options being George, which was guaranteed to unite the Venizelists against the monarchy or prince Peter which was just as likely to turn the majority of their own supporters against their own leaders. The more cynic of said leaders start simply calculated that remaining intransigent would at the very least secure their voter base. Dragoumis and Stratos were not among them, they would campaign for monarchy as an institution, leaving the decision for whom the king should be for the future.
Athens, April 18th, 1924
The Greek army supreme war council convened to decide on standardizing the rifle calibre for the army. Greece had adopted 6.5x54 back in 1903 but by now there were strong arguments over adopting a different calibre and since the army had no less than 4 main rifle calibres in service with about 144,000 Mannlichers, 91,000 Mausers, 84,000 Berthier and Lebel rifles and 100,000 P14 Enfields there was no particularly strong reason to standardize on it. The army had tried to obtain the results of the French army tests for a new rifle but to no avail, the French refused to share their results and had only allowed a Greek delegation to test file their new 7.5x57 in hopes of obtaining Greek orders. This had not gone very well with several weapons bursting in trials, apparently the new cartridge was so close in dimensions to the German 7.92x57 that the weapons had been chambered with the wrong rounds. An embarrassment overall that the French were looking into.[1] Finally the council decided upon adopting 7mm as the standard army calibre stating the inability to have spitzer bullets at 6.5mm as the reason. [2] 200,000 rifles would be built initially with an option for another 200,000 to follow. It was hoped that rifles would be also produced locally by the newly established Hephaestus Works. The council would also confirm orders to the French Schneider for no less than 676 artillery pieces. Over two thirds of these were mountain guns, with 288 75mm and 192 105mm pieces ordered. The rest were 96 105mm "long" guns and 100 155mm howitzers. [3]
Athens, May 1924
The first phase new Greek naval law called for the modernization of the cruisers Averof, Kounduriotis and Katsonis, conversion of Helli to a training ship and the laying down of 1 cruiser, 6 destroyers and 6 submarines by 1930. In effect it was following almost to the letter the proposals of the Kelly naval mission back in 1920 for a navy of 4 cruisers, 2 destroyer flotillas and 6 submarines. The two pre-dreadnoughts Lemnos and Kilkis would remain in service, the decision on their replacement likely by new heavy cruisers would be taken as part of the second phase of the naval program. An order for six submarines of 960t displacement submerged [4] was placed in France, at 119,000 pounds per ship, the French ships cost half the price Vickers was offering for here H50 submarines. The first pair of destroyers would be laid down the next year in the new Skaramanga naval yard under the supervision of Yarrow engineers. The Greek ships would be similar to the Yarrow designed Admiralen class of the Royal Netherlands Navy, with heavier topedo and anti-aircraft armament in place of the aircraft facilities of the Dutch ships.
The fate of the battleship Salamis had proven a serious bone of contention. Against his better judgement Venizelos had agreed to have the battleship completed in the aftermath of the Corfu incident. But the allied control commission, at Italian insistence had flatly refused to allow the export of the ship from Germany, at which point Greece terminated the contract with Vulcan citing the inability of Vulcan to deliver the ship and demanded a return of the instalments with Vulcan refusing and the issue taken in court. But Venizelos had refused to add a replacement in the current naval law, claiming that the Greek navy was at the moment completely superior to the Turkish navy so there was no reason to rush the construction of new battleships, instead Greece could concentrate her limited resources on aircraft and the light fleet for the time being. It was a decision hotly challenged in parliament, with Stratos a former minister of the navy that had split with Venizelos back in 1912 over ordering the Salamis as a fully fledged battleship leading the charge. But Venizelos would not budge. For the time being the only new ship ordered would be the destroyers and submarines.
Washington DC, June 1924
The Greek military attache looked again at the rifle rounds in front of him. Following the news that Greece was looking at 200 to 400,000 new rifles at 7mm calibre he had received a visit from one of the main US designers John Pedersen to propose the rifle and .276 round he was developing in that calibre. The rifle was still being developed of course but had already piqued his interest, just as it had done for everyone else in the know in Washington. If it worked it would be an excellent weapon for the Greek army, provided it could be afforded of course, a semi-automatic was bound to be quite pricier than standard rifles he supposed. But the round was a different matter and needed consideration on its own merits. After all since the general staff had decided to switch, the only other 7mm round readily availably was the Mauser 7x57 the Serbs had been using during the war. [5] He start drafting the report to send to Athens...
[1] The Greeks asking for French test results and being refused is historical. So is 7.5x57 being so close to 7.92x57 that there were multiple accidents from its use that led to adoption of 7.5x54 in its place in 1929. Here the Greeks have a bit more diplomatic influence and quite a bit more money for the French to be a little more helpful in order to grab Greek orders.
[2] Same as OTL. Of course both the Japanese and the Swedes had spitzer bullets at 6.5mm so not certain how the war council made the argument in OTL.
[3] The orders are historical, in OTL they were later reduced to 468 guns to save money.
[4] That's the Glaukos class of OTL, the only difference is the first pair (OTL Papanikolis and Katsonis) being also built to the same standard.
[5] He's a Greek officer, so liable to think of the Serb Mauser rather than Spain...
The naval conference to extend the principles of the Washington Naval treaty to all lesser naval powers had begun in Rome under the auspices of the League of Nations in February 15th. The Greeks and Italians had quietly taken advantage of the occasion to restore diplomatic relations, with Greek foreign minister Nikolaos Politis sent to head the Greek delegation to the conference, while notably the Soviet Union and Turkey had been also admitted to the conference, with the Turkish delegation headed by Rauf Bey. As a basis of the negotiation had been used the proposals of John Roderick Segrave, Britain’s naval representative to the League from 1920 to 1923. Quite simply Sergrave had proposed that all parties aside from the WNT signatories should accept the battleship tonnage they had in November 1921, with every ship with artillery heavier than 8in counted against battleship tonnage. Thus Spain and Argentina would be limited to 81,000t each, Sweden to 62,500t, Brazil to 45,000t, Chile to 35,000t, Greece to 36,000t, the Netherlands to 26,500t, Norway to 16,000t and Denmark to 13,000t. As for the Soviet Union Segrave proposed a quota of 175,000t of battleships and 60,000t of aircraft carriers the same with France and Italy under Washington.
Now ten days later the conference was closing down in complete failure. Only Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands had agreed to the proposed tonnages. The Soviet representative Berens had asked for no less than 490,000t for the Soviet Union and the right for the Soviets to lay down 150,000t of new battleships to reach that tonnage. When that tonnage was unanimously refused, he had offered to accept 280,000t on provision that the implementation and supervision of the treaty would not be supervised by the League but some other organization, that the Bosporus and Dardanelles were closed to warships and that the Korean Straits were demilitarized. These terms, challenging the League, abrogating the treaty of Chantilly and still giving the Soviets 60% more tonnage than France and Italy were equally unacceptable. Aside from the Soviets, Spain had asked for an 105,000t tonnage limit, which was accepted in principle only for more problems to emerge when the Spanish demanded the right to lay down new battleships in 1927, 1929 and 1931. Then Spain agreed to a naval holiday only if France and Italy agreed not to lay new battleships either. In the Baltic Sweden agreed to a 60,000t limit only if every other country with a Baltic coast agreed to the same limit, while in South America both Brazil and Chile demanded parity with Argentina at 80,000t. In the Aegean, Turkey had had her navy limited to ships no larger than 10,000t in the treaty of Chantilly but had managed to avoid having its number of ships limited, given the Turkish economic situation this had been a concession the Entente had been willing to accept. Rauf bey now stated that Turkey would accept her navy being limited to the 33,000t it had on paper in November 1921 as long as the tonnage limits of the treaty of Chantilly were removed. On the other side of the Aegean Greece, with the Italian occupation of Corfu in mind had argued that Salamis already launched should be also accounted into her tonnage, thus raising it to 56,000t and further that here right to either take delivery of Salamis or lay down a replacement ensured. The only thing that remained from the Greek point of view was the confirmation that the country wanted to take delivery of Salamis and that Turkey was already pushing back against the disarmament limits of the treaty of Chantilly.
Athens, April 1st, 1924
Queen consort Aspasia had a baby girl. She would be named Alexandra after her deceased father. The predicament of the royalist side remained, with the only practical options being George, which was guaranteed to unite the Venizelists against the monarchy or prince Peter which was just as likely to turn the majority of their own supporters against their own leaders. The more cynic of said leaders start simply calculated that remaining intransigent would at the very least secure their voter base. Dragoumis and Stratos were not among them, they would campaign for monarchy as an institution, leaving the decision for whom the king should be for the future.
Athens, April 18th, 1924
The Greek army supreme war council convened to decide on standardizing the rifle calibre for the army. Greece had adopted 6.5x54 back in 1903 but by now there were strong arguments over adopting a different calibre and since the army had no less than 4 main rifle calibres in service with about 144,000 Mannlichers, 91,000 Mausers, 84,000 Berthier and Lebel rifles and 100,000 P14 Enfields there was no particularly strong reason to standardize on it. The army had tried to obtain the results of the French army tests for a new rifle but to no avail, the French refused to share their results and had only allowed a Greek delegation to test file their new 7.5x57 in hopes of obtaining Greek orders. This had not gone very well with several weapons bursting in trials, apparently the new cartridge was so close in dimensions to the German 7.92x57 that the weapons had been chambered with the wrong rounds. An embarrassment overall that the French were looking into.[1] Finally the council decided upon adopting 7mm as the standard army calibre stating the inability to have spitzer bullets at 6.5mm as the reason. [2] 200,000 rifles would be built initially with an option for another 200,000 to follow. It was hoped that rifles would be also produced locally by the newly established Hephaestus Works. The council would also confirm orders to the French Schneider for no less than 676 artillery pieces. Over two thirds of these were mountain guns, with 288 75mm and 192 105mm pieces ordered. The rest were 96 105mm "long" guns and 100 155mm howitzers. [3]
Athens, May 1924
The first phase new Greek naval law called for the modernization of the cruisers Averof, Kounduriotis and Katsonis, conversion of Helli to a training ship and the laying down of 1 cruiser, 6 destroyers and 6 submarines by 1930. In effect it was following almost to the letter the proposals of the Kelly naval mission back in 1920 for a navy of 4 cruisers, 2 destroyer flotillas and 6 submarines. The two pre-dreadnoughts Lemnos and Kilkis would remain in service, the decision on their replacement likely by new heavy cruisers would be taken as part of the second phase of the naval program. An order for six submarines of 960t displacement submerged [4] was placed in France, at 119,000 pounds per ship, the French ships cost half the price Vickers was offering for here H50 submarines. The first pair of destroyers would be laid down the next year in the new Skaramanga naval yard under the supervision of Yarrow engineers. The Greek ships would be similar to the Yarrow designed Admiralen class of the Royal Netherlands Navy, with heavier topedo and anti-aircraft armament in place of the aircraft facilities of the Dutch ships.
The fate of the battleship Salamis had proven a serious bone of contention. Against his better judgement Venizelos had agreed to have the battleship completed in the aftermath of the Corfu incident. But the allied control commission, at Italian insistence had flatly refused to allow the export of the ship from Germany, at which point Greece terminated the contract with Vulcan citing the inability of Vulcan to deliver the ship and demanded a return of the instalments with Vulcan refusing and the issue taken in court. But Venizelos had refused to add a replacement in the current naval law, claiming that the Greek navy was at the moment completely superior to the Turkish navy so there was no reason to rush the construction of new battleships, instead Greece could concentrate her limited resources on aircraft and the light fleet for the time being. It was a decision hotly challenged in parliament, with Stratos a former minister of the navy that had split with Venizelos back in 1912 over ordering the Salamis as a fully fledged battleship leading the charge. But Venizelos would not budge. For the time being the only new ship ordered would be the destroyers and submarines.
Washington DC, June 1924
The Greek military attache looked again at the rifle rounds in front of him. Following the news that Greece was looking at 200 to 400,000 new rifles at 7mm calibre he had received a visit from one of the main US designers John Pedersen to propose the rifle and .276 round he was developing in that calibre. The rifle was still being developed of course but had already piqued his interest, just as it had done for everyone else in the know in Washington. If it worked it would be an excellent weapon for the Greek army, provided it could be afforded of course, a semi-automatic was bound to be quite pricier than standard rifles he supposed. But the round was a different matter and needed consideration on its own merits. After all since the general staff had decided to switch, the only other 7mm round readily availably was the Mauser 7x57 the Serbs had been using during the war. [5] He start drafting the report to send to Athens...
[1] The Greeks asking for French test results and being refused is historical. So is 7.5x57 being so close to 7.92x57 that there were multiple accidents from its use that led to adoption of 7.5x54 in its place in 1929. Here the Greeks have a bit more diplomatic influence and quite a bit more money for the French to be a little more helpful in order to grab Greek orders.
[2] Same as OTL. Of course both the Japanese and the Swedes had spitzer bullets at 6.5mm so not certain how the war council made the argument in OTL.
[3] The orders are historical, in OTL they were later reduced to 468 guns to save money.
[4] That's the Glaukos class of OTL, the only difference is the first pair (OTL Papanikolis and Katsonis) being also built to the same standard.
[5] He's a Greek officer, so liable to think of the Serb Mauser rather than Spain...
In the future - Over the deck of HMS Ark Royal, 843 Naval Air Service squadron is preparing it's Grumman Martlet to take off and support the Fairey Swordfish send to bomb the Turkish Naval Base in the Mediterranean. The 843 is formed from both Greek-exiled that escaped their country occupation and from 1st or 2nd generation greeks already living in the foreign countries prior to the start of the war 
John Agorastos Platis would not approve... he was RAF. As for Martlets... when Greece bought PZL P.24 in OTL she was also offered Curtis P-36 at about the same price but in dollars instead of tobacco. Now TTL Greece is exporting quite a bit more tobacco to the US and imports rather less wheat so has a much better exchange rate in dollars. Just saying.In the future - Over the deck of HMS Ark Royal, 843 Naval Air Service squadron is preparing it's Grumman Martlet to take off and support the Fairey Swordfish send to bomb the Turkish Naval Base in the Mediterranean. The 843 is formed from both Greek-exiled that escaped their country occupation and from 1st or 2nd generation greeks already living in the foreign countries prior to the start of the war
All things considered TTL Greece is just as likely as any of the other minor European states like Yugoslavia and Romania to be building some kind of fighter domestically by 1939-40, anyone down to Estonia with the Aviotehas PN-3 was either licence building or designing one or more, but I'm not quite decided what that should be. Well in reality it's directly connected to the engine. The two games in town were the Hispano-Suiza 12 or radials (mostly Gnome-Rhone 14 but also Mercury, R-1830). Each means quite different licence/design choices...