They don't have to support the Turks, and wouldn't. They'd simply have to withdraw their support for the Greeks. This would cause, IMO, a major problem and make the campaign clearly unwinnable. What happens as a result?
Okay. So by "back off" you meant no tacit British support of Greece's war in Anatolia.
If there is no British support, I think the Greeks would still manage to grab those cities on the Ionian coast. So fortified Greek outposts on the edge of Asia Minor?
Probably Greece doesn't have the refugee crisis to the same degree. Greeks in Pontus for instance would still be chased out of Anatolia, but they might not make the trek all the way to Greek proper, and instead settle in the Ionian cities.
Image: Greek official circa 1930 "Its those damn Pontian revanchists in Ephesus trying to start a war with Turkey!"
Mmm. Kemal is important, but even in OTL he moved very carefully. The Sultanate wasn't abolished until 1922, and the Caliphate not until 1924. Many of Attaturk's followers wanted the instuitution remained in some form, as did the National Assembly. He isn't infallible, and certainly the region has a history of coup.
I'm not really familiar with this period of Turkish history (I'm really not terribly familiar with ANY period of Turkish history, but I digress). How loyal Kemal's troops were is of paramount importance. If their loyalty came primarily from Kemal's exploits during the Greek War, then I agree, the Sultan-Caliph may survive in some form.
I think you should have Kemal take the Mosul vilayet (sp?). Ataturk/Ottoman/Turkish whatever would be far, far cooler with oil revenue.
AHP needs to help.
I was pointing out that Greece itself was on the edge of a civil war between supporters of the King and the PM. Why I thought this backed up part of my argument is not clear to me.
Without British involvement and the Greco-Turkish War Greece may end up in a Civil War. Which would give Turkey time to get its house in order without worrying about the Greeks doing something offensive (in a military sense).
One last note:
On the parallel of the potential Italian national strike with the actual British national strike.
The British had a strong history of democracy and rule of law, so they had a pretty strong society, and even with this strength there were some very radical things said and done.
The Italians don't have this same strong history of democracy and rule of law, and they have a society that fears itself on the edge of civil war. Therefore, I believe that if a national strike were to happen in Italy, it would be viewed (perhaps correctly) as the opening salvo in a Socialist coup. This view may be shared by the Socialists themselves.
If it is viewed this way (in the UK there were politicans on both sides who viewed the British National Strike as the prelude to something larger) then the right-wing (are they Fascists?) are going to come out (into the streets) to oppose this Socialist bid for national power. Fighting between striking workers and right-wing thugs escalates. Army attempts to intervene. Stymied by railroad workers refusing to allow troop trains to run. Fighting spreads. Killing starts. Italian Civil War.