Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles

Retaining territory is not being rewarded, it is simply not being punished (putting aside the fact that Turkey will already be "punished" on its other borders, not that I truly care for Turkey retaining Biga but still, Devil's advocate).

What was France compensated with OTL, Fezzan? Saarland?
What was Poland compensated with? (Well, Poland did gain a lot of land from Germany. But at the cost of losing land to USSR)



To prevent Greece totally monopolising it? Greece is basically already confirmed as Western allied, post-war Turkey might be neutral or Soviet allied.
Aegean does matter to the Soviets as it is the entrance to the Black Sea.
I believe that Biga didn’t belong to Turkey pre war it was in the same situation as Constantinople so it would be a reward. I’m also to be fair not die hard on either side but Turkey has lost.
 
the only way for the British to ensure that the Soviets cannot project power in the Mediterranean is a greek Biga and Greece controlling both shore of the Dardanelles.
Likewise, in that case, the only way for the Soviets to ensure that the RN won't shell Odessa and Sevastopol, is a Bosporus Strait that does not belong to Greece.
Or, even if it doesn't seem likely, perhaps, a Neutral/Non Aligned Greece like a Mediterranean/Aegean Finland or Switzerland...
 
Retaining territory is not being rewarded, it is simply not being punished (putting aside the fact that Turkey will already be "punished" on its other borders, not that I truly care for Turkey retaining Biga but still, Devil's advocate).

What was France compensated with OTL, Fezzan? Saarland?
What was Poland compensated with? (Well, Poland did gain a lot of land from Germany. But at the cost of losing land to USSR)



To prevent Greece totally monopolising it? Greece is basically already confirmed as Western allied, post-war Turkey might be neutral or Soviet allied.
Aegean does matter to the Soviets as it is the entrance to the Black Sea.
To be fair your right about France but Turkey is probably gonna end up western aligned.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Forced relocation isn't exactly ethnic cleansing, it's sad yes, but it was very common in the aftermath of WWII. 15 million Germans, 1,2 million Poles, 1 million Ukrainians etc were forcefully relocated by the Soviets in their bid to settle ethnic borders once and for all. Up to 20 million people in Central Europe experienced such a reality in the post WWII era.

Greece wasn't entirely immune to this reality either, as anywhere from 14.000 up to 35.000 Cham Albanians were expelled from their homes for collaborating with the Italians and committing crimes against the local population in Epirus. ITTL speaking, that number should for all intends and purposes significantly rise, given the incorporation of Northern Epirus. Similarly, thousands of Slavs departed from Greece fearing the retaliation of the Greek national military, both for their collaboration with the Bulgarians in WWII, as well as their participation in the Greek Civil War on the side of the communists.

Not saying that either of these examples where anywhere near the scale it would be required in order to uproot the Turkish people from Bithynia, however they both stand as a reminder that things weren't so black and white back then.

Regardless, I have to ask regarding Biga, will Greece actually get to incorporate it, because it is not only a really bad situation strategically, it is also a thorn to Greece's side, as well as a horrible bordergore situation, likening Greece to the likes of Tajikistan and Kirgysia, that have small enclaves right inside one another, or the HRE states in the medieval ages if you'd like that example more, for a truly feudal experience, taking the whole nation some 500 years back.

Regardless of the fact that Biga has a Turkish population, it would truly be madness to leave this entire area to Turkey, strategically and economically speaking alike.
Of course forced relocation is Ethnic Cleansing. It is quite literally one of the definitions of the action. So is Crime Against Humanity.

I strongly recommend you watch where you tread on this line of discussion.
 
I think it is a matter of a point of view. Turkey continues the ottoman policy on destroying the christian minorities. There are no gas chambers, but the Amele Taburu employ slave labor that is worked to death. Fascist Italy was brutal during the occupation of the Balkans but they did not enact genocide. Fascism denotes a political system, not the extremes of the system's policy.

Speaking of OTL Interwar Turkey, Stefan Ihrig in his book "Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination", presents a compelling case of how Kemalism influenced Nazism. Indeed, it can be argued that OTL Interwar Turkey presented most of the aspects of a fascist political entity.
That’s absolutely true, my fault for not thinking that way. I suppose I was more focused on the “fanatical” aspect a la Japan, but even Germany IOTL at the end had plenty of people who disobeyed the most ridiculous of Hitler’s last orders and it didn’t make them any less fascist.
 
There is of course the option that Greece takes both sides of Constantinople, Caria & Biga, but only takes the coastal sliver of Bithynia that was part of the OTL Sevres Treaty 'International Straits Zone'.
 
There is of course the option that Greece takes both sides of Constantinople, Caria & Biga, but only takes the coastal sliver of Bithynia that was part of the OTL Sevres Treaty 'International Straits Zone'.
To me this seems like what’s probably the best case scenario for Greece, and also one that’s highly probable to be what happens with the boots on the ground. Uncle Joe and Turkey will complain but the Greeks aren’t likely to leave once there and I think Churchill at least will back them on it.
 
I think the most important soviet goal is to ensure that the liberal democracies cannot project power in the Black Sea. The main british goal is to ensure that the Soviets cannot project power in the Mediterranean.
This is very true, and also I think underscores the nature of the advantage the WAllies have in the geostrategy here. Whether or not Greece manages to finagle an annexation of Constantinople proper (which I still think is a given), they will still have direct access to the Black Sea barring an unexpected showing by the Bulgarians; granted, none of the towns and ports there are particularly large, but places like Midye/Medea still exist. In contrast, the Soviets are nowhere near the Turkish Mediterranean coast, while Greek, British, French, and American forces are well-positioned to occupy it in its entirety moving out from Smyrna and the currently stalled front in southeast Turkey. Going off current trends, the game of maritime power projection looks liable to heavily favor the Allies over the Soviet Union, meaning the latter is going to have to make some concessions and rein in its ambitions if it wants to keep from being comprehensively boxed into the Black Sea.

I think such a situation would highly favor the Soviet Union angling for a united postwar Turkey rather than a partition of the country (a south+west/north+east division does them no favors in preventing Allied monopoly over Mediterranean-Black Sea access). Assuming this, it's unlikely they would control enough of Turkey's strategic regions to successfully argue for the installation of a communist regime over the entire country, which to me would suggest they would instead aim for a constitutionally neutral and possibly disarmed Turkey. This would accomplish another goal as well, in establishing a buffer between an enlarged Soviet sphere of influence/empire in Caucasia and the Anatolian Highlands, and the Allied presence in Greece and the Anglo-French Near East protectorates. Between ostensibly neutral negotiations via third parties and under-the-table machinations, they could stand to maintain a level of presence in the Mediterranean through such a neutral Turkey without surrendering vast diplomatic capital getting a bit more.
 
Part 120
North of Mardin, Anatolia, May 14th, 1943

The 6th Indian Infantry Division, reinforced by an armoured brigade from the 31st Indian Armoured Division, attacked. The two Allied armies in Southern Anatolia were still not in position to launch a major attack, the needs of the Greek and Sicilian fronts meant, were taking precedence, and Slim's 9th army had had the 5th Indian and the 78th British Infantry Divisions removed from it, the former to reinforce Montgomery in Burma, the latter to join the landings in Sicily. But neither Slim nor De Lattre were willing to let their troops stay idle. Thus a series of limited attacks to improve Allied positions before a major offensive could take place, begun...

Warsaw, May 16th, 1943

The Great Synagogue was blown up by the Germans, who proclaimed the end of the suppression of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Tens of thousands of Jews had been massacred or would be shipped to extermination camps.

Augusta, Sicily, May 17th, 1943

US troops entered the city. Allied forces were steadily advancing out of their initial landing zones, but Messe's soldiers were not showing any sign of collapsing or panicking just yet, with the Napoli division counterattacking the next day and temporarily reentering Augusta before the Americans could push it back again. Meanwhile the first German reinforcements had crossed into Messina.

Over the Ruhr May 16/17th, 1943

The Lancaster bombers of 617 Squadron RAF, begun unleashing their massive 10 ton bombs on their targets. Eight out of the 19 bombers participating in the raid would be shot down by the Germans, but they would leave two dams breached, one more damaged and severe flooding in their wake...

Sutjeska, Yugoslavia, May 17th, 1943

127,000 Italian, Croatian and Bulgarian troops begun the fifth major offensive against the partisans and this time also the Chetniks in Bosnia and Montenegro. Much to the dismay of the Italian occupation authorities, the Chetniks over the past few months had begun to be much more active against the occupation armies, despite just as often fighting against the partisans. No major German formations were taking part in the offensive, all sixteen German divisions in the Near East were fully committed on the Olympus and Anatolia already. Air support was coming from the ZNDH the Croatian air force, again the Italian, German and Bulgarian air forces had their hands full fighting the Allies further south. Over the next month the occupation armies would inflict thousand of casualties on the resistance but once more fail to destroy it.

Over Sofia, Bulgaria, May 20th, 1943

A quartet of DAR 12B Strelka fighters rose to intercept the aircraft of the 303 and 305 Polish Air Force squadrons attacking the railway station. Back in 1940 Germany had refused to the Bulgarians licence production of the Avia B-135 to force them to buy Bf 109s from Messerschmitt instead, Bf 109s Germany was in no position to deliver. And thus Bulgaria following the invasion of Yugoslavia and the heavy attrition of its air force had instead turned to FIAT buying a licence of G.50 instead. DAR had managed to deliver a mere 32 aircraft the previous two years, with production of the newer G.55, DAR 12B for the Bulgarians, reaching two aircraft a month since January. It was only a pittance when the Bulgarian air force had lost 439 aircraft since the start of the war. But it was better than nothing, when the only fighters Germany had managed to deliver were 23 Bf 109Gs the previous March, and 96 D.520s taken over from Vichy France in 1942.

Cork, May 23rd, 1943


Michael Collins inspected LE Niamh before she left for her first war mission. The former HMS Haldon a Hunt class destroyer, had been delivered from the Royal Navy the previous year making it the first major warship of the nascent Irish navy. The Irish were already pressing both Britain and the United States for more ships.

Kiel, May 24th, 1943


Admiral Karl Dönitz sent the order to his U-Boats to pull out from the Atlantic. 43 German submarines had been sunk since the start of the month managing to destroy only 30 Allied merchant ships. The battle of the Atlantic might not be over yet but it was starting to turn clearly to the Allied advantage, with ever more numerous and ever more effective escort ships and aircraft hunting down the German boats.

Near Urfa, Anatolia, May 25th, 1943

A pair of machine guns opened up at the convoy moving supplies north to the front. The Kurdish auxiliaries escorting the convoy would quickly move against the Turkish guerrillas and then raid the nearby Turkish village, whether the villagers had anything to do with the guerrillas or not, as usual in this kind of warfare was proving irrelevant. But just like in 1919-1921 the Turkish population in occupied territory was not in the mood to stay idle. And thus the Kuva-yi Miliye was back...
 
Tbf seeing the WAllies succeeding is always good, and seeing the Chetniks fight in Yugoslavia is always good, and is seeding the grounds for future conflicts in the cold war.

Seeing the Kurds causing the creation of Turkish partisans was somewhat expected considering how warfare occured there. I could see a lot of the partisans being indoctrinated to communism too and be a headache for everyone involved. Prob shit tons of ethnic cleansing in Turkey post war.
 
North of Mardin, Anatolia, May 14th, 1943
I would like a map to visualize the front here to be honest. What is going on with the Kurds and the Soviets. The Greeks follow the same strategy and attack as well or they have switched to defense only?
Sutjeska, Yugoslavia, May 17th, 1943
Is this a blunder on the Italian side? I mean they would need most of their reserve troops on Italy itself to push out the Allies not putting down partizans.
Near Urfa, Anatolia, May 25th, 1943
I wonder if those guerilla fighters turn communist as partizans tend to do or are they fully nationalistic as they were in 1920?

I do wonder here if the Atlantic wall is being built at the same rate as OTL. I mean I know the German troops in Near East and the Balkans are the equivalent of the ones in Africa OTL but I feel like they have ore committed here. And the whole Italian invasion now would make the situation even worse. Overlord is coming in 1944 but it is limited by the weather either way so the Germans have time. Do they have the manpower and the resources to do so though? I mean in a capacity similar to OTL. Or am I underestimating the German capacities for slave labor here?
 
Tbf did otl 1942 conferences start the concept of things like unconditional surrender and stuff?

I'm asking because since the African front is already done earlier, and operation overlord could only occur at 1944, the fight is in the Balkans, and would we see the Smyrna front start to have allied attacks and Greece striking to Constantinople while the WAllies strike in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria?
 
Last edited:
Tbf did otl 1942 conferences start the concept of things like unconditional surrender and stuff?

I'm asking because since the African front is already done earlier, and operation overlord could only occur at 1944, the fight is in the Balkans, and would we see the Smyrna front start to have allied attacks and Greece striking to Constantinople while the WAllies strike in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria?
Well, the Soviets IOTL demanded the Wallies to open a second front to relieve the Red Army of some of the pressure by the Axis (mainly German) forces on the Eastern Front.
ITTL the USSR has also a secont front to take care of, that with Turkey, whereas the Axis has already two fronts in Europe (the Easter and the Greek). Therefore it must have been quite unpleasant for the Soviets that the Wallies chose to open a third front before closing the Turkish one and free a lot of men, resources and energy for the Soviet army.
Somewhat the same could be argued on the Greek side. The Wallies started the campaign in Italy, including (even token) a Greek force, while Greece has an important amount of resources, men, shipping etc tied for maintaining the Asia Minor front, while hundreds of thousands of Greeks are still refugees, far from their homeland.
So, politically and even strategically, if the invasion in Sicily manages to lead to the overthrow of Musolini and effectively put Italy out of the war as per OTL, or at least diminish its participation, one would expect the Wallies won't try to land on the Italian peninsula. Instead, the destruction of Turkey as a fighting force would make more sense for the reasons explained above. And of course, after Turkey is off, the Balkans are open for an offensive, too.
 
Well, the Soviets IOTL demanded the Wallies to open a second front to relieve the Red Army of some of the pressure by the Axis (mainly German) forces on the Eastern Front.
ITTL the USSR has also a secont front to take care of, that with Turkey, whereas the Axis has already two fronts in Europe (the Easter and the Greek). Therefore it must have been quite unpleasant for the Soviets that the Wallies chose to open a third front before closing the Turkish one and free a lot of men, resources and energy for the Soviet army.
It's more a fourth front for WAllies : They have mainland Greece, Smyra front, Syria/Iraq Front and now Sicily (and since before they also had Tunisia it's more them retablishing their number of front with the troops liberated front the tunisian Front).

The Allies don't have the transport to do D-Day in France but they could liberated Corsica and invade Sardaigna and the southern part of Italy during 1943 even if Mussolini is not overthrown. Sardaigna and Corsica would give the WAllies another aerial bases to attack Northern Italy/Southern Germany and you can be sure the French at least would lobby for it.

The Turkish Fronts won't probably be much reinforced since the supply line are already at maximum (except on the Syrian Front) so it will be probably a slow grinding advance until the Turkish army crack by loss of equipement (or until the germans troops need to leave to reinforce the Eastern Front). Either way with the WAllies fleet in the Aegean and their aerial superiority no Axis troops can reinforced Turkey without taking a pretty big attrition so it not necessary an advantge for the WAllies to try to knock out Turkey too fast.
 
Speaking of Anatolia, how are the Soviets and Iranians doing? Have they managed to recover slightly yet?
They have stopped the Turkish/German offensive in the Caucasus. They are in no position to take the offensive themselves. For the Soviets the Caucasus is secondary to the fighting going on in Ukraine, they wouldn't shift forces away from there to reinforce the Caucasus, as long as the front is stabilized. For the Iranians... they are fighting the war to secure their diplomatic position as an independent power and because the Germans violated their territory even more blatantly than the British and the Soviets. But they are a VERY low priority for the British and Americans when handling supplies.
Tbf seeing the WAllies succeeding is always good, and seeing the Chetniks fight in Yugoslavia is always good, and is seeding the grounds for future conflicts in the cold war.
It's not as if the Chetniks have any choice on the matter if they want to keep to exist. The Greeks and their own army in exile is bleeding for three years and unlike the British of OTL, do have a pretty good idea of what's going on the ground and which people to contact. Either they fight of someone who does replaces the current leadership.
Seeing the Kurds causing the creation of Turkish partisans was somewhat expected considering how warfare occured there. I could see a lot of the partisans being indoctrinated to communism too and be a headache for everyone involved. Prob shit tons of ethnic cleansing in Turkey post war.
If they were communist partisans they would be fighting against the Turkish army for the great socialist motherland, case in point the Bulgarian communists. But yes the local Turkish population fighting against Allied occupation, at least as long as the war goes on seems likely to me given what happened after 1918.
I would like a map to visualize the front here to be honest. What is going on with the Kurds and the Soviets. The Greeks follow the same strategy and attack as well or they have switched to defense only?
The Allies armies in the Balkans are on the offensive, without particular success but they keep the opposition fully engaged. The Kurds are not an independent player. You have SOE backed Kurdish guerillas and a Kurdish army of about 32,000 men attached to the British 9th army... and kept mostly on occupation duties as Slim is not exactly trusting their abilities just yet...
Is this a blunder on the Italian side? I mean they would need most of their reserve troops on Italy itself to push out the Allies not putting down partizans.
Possibly. Then the alternative would be large tracts of territory passing to partisan control. And there is the additional problem of moving troops in significant numbers from the Balkans in the first place and how the Germans would react to this. Assuming Mussolini would be reasonable enough to see his army gone from his one remaining conquest that is...
I wonder if those guerilla fighters turn communist as partizans tend to do or are they fully nationalistic as they were in 1920?
Communist guerillas tended to be loyal to the Soviet Union. Communist guerillas that fight against the armies fighting for our great socialist motherland?
I do wonder here if the Atlantic wall is being built at the same rate as OTL. I mean I know the German troops in Near East and the Balkans are the equivalent of the ones in Africa OTL but I feel like they have ore committed here. And the whole Italian invasion now would make the situation even worse. Overlord is coming in 1944 but it is limited by the weather either way so the Germans have time. Do they have the manpower and the resources to do so though? I mean in a capacity similar to OTL. Or am I underestimating the German capacities for slave labor here?
My suspicion is that at worst they pull enough French civilians to make up any shortcomings.
Tbf did otl 1942 conferences start the concept of things like unconditional surrender and stuff?
It happened on schedule. Now for the interesting question... which countries were expected to surrender unconditionally OTL? Germany and Japan naturally. But what about say... Romania?
I'm asking because since the African front is already done earlier, and operation overlord could only occur at 1944, the fight is in the Balkans, and would we see the Smyrna front start to have allied attacks and Greece striking to Constantinople while the WAllies strike in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria?
Logistics. Besides for political reasons the Greeks cannot let someone else liberate Macedonia on their own. Post that again they'd have obligations to their Yugoslav allies to aid in the liberation of Yugoslavia.
Well, the Soviets IOTL demanded the Wallies to open a second front to relieve the Red Army of some of the pressure by the Axis (mainly German) forces on the Eastern Front.
ITTL the USSR has also a secont front to take care of, that with Turkey, whereas the Axis has already two fronts in Europe (the Easter and the Greek). Therefore it must have been quite unpleasant for the Soviets that the Wallies chose to open a third front before closing the Turkish one and free a lot of men, resources and energy for the Soviet army.
Somewhat the same could be argued on the Greek side. The Wallies started the campaign in Italy, including (even token) a Greek force, while Greece has an important amount of resources, men, shipping etc tied for maintaining the Asia Minor front, while hundreds of thousands of Greeks are still refugees, far from their homeland.
So, politically and even strategically, if the invasion in Sicily manages to lead to the overthrow of Musolini and effectively put Italy out of the war as per OTL, or at least diminish its participation, one would expect the Wallies won't try to land on the Italian peninsula. Instead, the destruction of Turkey as a fighting force would make more sense for the reasons explained above. And of course, after Turkey is off, the Balkans are open for an offensive, too.
In the grand scheme of things the Americans won't much care for this, they are still trying to concentrate all for Overlord and the Mediterranean is a nuisance. Granted one they cannot avoid. But concentrate on knocking own Turkey? Why that's not leading to the destruction of Germany. If the forces already at hand can do it great. Shift more forces because the Greeks and Soviets are complaining? Nope. That said Sicily is done over say... Gallipoli because it is imperative from the Allied point of view to open the Mediterranean to shipping. Moving supplies around Africa, with the added obligations of fighting Turkey and feeding Greece is not exactly economical even with a larger Greek merchant navy and the battle of the Atlantic going significantly better.

It's more a fourth front for WAllies : They have mainland Greece, Smyra front, Syria/Iraq Front and now Sicily (and since before they also had Tunisia it's more them retablishing their number of front with the troops liberated front the tunisian Front).

The Allies don't have the transport to do D-Day in France
They do. Or rather they will in 1944 but OOC I never believed a cross-channel invasion in 1943 was a good idea. If need be they'll starve every other front for Overlord. The invasion of Sicily is driven by logistical considerations to a very large extend, namely opening the Mediterranean to shipping, at the moment you can move coastal convoys with heavy escort down Tunis or for that matter ship items to Algiers, move them by rail to Tripoli and ship them again from there but these are half measures.
 
But concentrate on knocking own Turkey? Why that's not leading to the destruction of Germany. If the forces already at hand can do it great. Shift more forces because the Greeks and Soviets are complaining? Nope. That said Sicily is done over say...

Perhaps, but I'd think that they aside of appreciate the advantages to end a war theater/front, even if admittedly, not the main one... I'd believe,too, that, TTL US planners at Washington, would realize the advantages of a shorter, quicker safer way to deliver supplies to the Soviets through the Black Sea than the current ones?
 
Top