Japan falls late 1943 -- effect on ETO

[pacifichistorian]

Once you are across the mountains along the coast

Exactly. That's the best argument against it I can think of. Where do you suppose the German defenders would be? Higher up, thinking how easy starting an avalanche would be...

No, the Balkans could be forced easilly, just like Italy for that matter, but only if the USA was willing to make it the prime front for the Western Allies. .

Then it's a pipedream, because the U.S. had been trying to get the Brits to go into Northern France since, oh, January 1942...

 

[The Sandman]

If the Allies invaded the Balkans, they would be fighting through terrain that was as bad, if not worse, than what they faced in Italy. It may be true that the Germans didn't have many front-line troops there in the Balkans at the time, but I'd contend that even second-rate troops can do a hell of a lot of damage to an enemy that is bottled up in mountain passes and small beachheads. IMHO the Allies, depending on where they invaded, would manage to liberate a country or two but would not be able to provide a war-ending knockout punch to the Germans. The best thing I think they'd be able to provide would be more stress on the Germans and the other Axis members.

Looking at that map, I actually see one interesting possibility, assuming the Allies can exert enough political pressure to make it viable.

The one spot where the terrain appears to be fairly decent, offensive wise, is southern Romania. From the Danube up to the Carpathians, a nice, relatively wide plain to assault instead of mountains right up to the coast like you have everywhere else in the Balkans. Going for Romania would also have the side-effect of dealing with Ploesti, which IIRC was still a concern of the Allies in 1943. Then, if you follow the Danube, you have one potentially nasty bit before it opens up again into the Vojvodina and Hungary proper. Take that route and you might be able to avoid the problem of the Germans making up for fewer and worse troops by using the terrain against you.

The one major obvious problem is that this would require somehow bringing Turkey into the war on the side of the Allies. Would this have been possible to do in 1943, and what might they have to have promised to the Turks to get it (the Dodecanese seem the most likely bet)?

 

[alt_historian]

...

The one major obvious problem is that this would require somehow bringing Turkey into the war on the side of the Allies. Would this have been possible to do in 1943, and what might they have to have promised to the Turks to get it (the Dodecanese seem the most likely bet)?

AFAIK, the Turks were staunchly (and honourably) neutral to both sides throughout the war. That may just be my misunderstanding, being no expert on that area... but yes, it would be a huge problem. You'd have to look at the reasons why they were neutral iOTL.

 

[pacifichistorian]

The one spot where the terrain appears to be fairly decent, offensive wise, is southern Romania. From the Danube up to the Carpathians, a nice, relatively wide plain to assault instead of mountains right up to the coast like you have everywhere else in the Balkans. Going for Romania would also have the side-effect of dealing with Ploesti, which IIRC was still a concern of the Allies in 1943. Then, if you follow the Danube, you have one potentially nasty bit before it opens up again into the Vojvodina and Hungary proper. Take that route and you might be able to avoid the problem of the Germans making up for fewer and worse troops by using the terrain against you.

The one major obvious problem is that this would require somehow bringing Turkey into the war on the side of the Allies. Would this have been possible to do in 1943, and what might they have to have promised to the Turks to get it (the Dodecanese seem the most likely bet)?

I see a real problem moving the Turks off neutrality, tho I'm no better informed on why they stayed on the fence. Looking at the map, I don't see the good terrain. I see one good exit from the plain, flanked by mountains on both sides. That's a good definition of suicide.