Executing the Patriarch, even if he was a clearly partisan actor, seems like something which won't easily be forgotten come peace time.
Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles
- Thread starter Lascaris
- Start date
The obvious rebuttal is that the Turkish/Muslim population had no say in this referendum whatsoever. I frankly doubt any of the Allies recognized the referendum.
The point of the Rhineland wasn’t to suggest it’s the same situation, but rather an example of the approach the Allies generally took to administration of occupied enemy land after the war. Seeing as Constantinople was independent before the war, that does make it very different to the Rhineland. The default option will be to restore it as an independent state, but I expect the existence of the referendum will lead to immediate calls for a new, binding referendum, and the administration will likely allow it. Of course post-war I’m sure many of the Turks of Constantinople will have fled with the retreating Turkish armies and many of the rest will be ethnically cleansed, so the Greeks will win.
It, would depend on whatever would have been agreed on TTL interallied conferences and/or like OTL, on the negotiations between Churchill and Stalin about the Western and Soviet spheres of interest on the postwar Balkans/Eastern Europe... Remember that OTL the Allied Headquarters/Supreme Command not allowed that Patton's 3rd Army to advance and liberate Praga... Cause, as IOTL, the limits and directions, to be reached by the Allies armies, would be pre determinate politically on base to the aforementioned conferences/agreements.
Can I asume that Greeks and Armenian population numbers would be lower than their Turkish neighbours ones?
I would suppose that, IIRC,after that they joined to City defense, alongside the Greeks, that at least the Free French, would as matter of fact, at least have acknowledged it. But, anyway, once again, I think, that would be possible that the point about international acknowledging would be mot, due either to any possible Inter Allied agreement. Or even due to any possible British or Franco-British joint compromise about the defense and restoration from the pre war international borders, as they were at the moment of the outbreak of hostilities...
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is thinking Turkey will keep any possessions in Europe at this point. Rather the discussion is on whether Constantinople will revert to a Greek city or a neutral city state similar to Austria OTL. I am still in the camp that Constantinople will almost certainly see Greek troops in it before the end of the war simply by proximity of the Greek armies versus Soviet Armies and that at that point possession is 9/10th's the law and some sort of demilitarization of the strait will be negotiated but ultimately it will be up to Lascaris on what happens. He has pushed hard for better but grounded throughout the story and I don't see it drifting from that just because he wants the city to end up with Greece. Should Greece end up with Constantinople it will be grounded and realistic and follow a logical path to that point.
The question for Turkey isn't if it will lose land but exactly what land it will lose. It could be anything from minor border adjustments and increased autonomy for minorities all the way to reducing the Turkish state to an Central Anatolian rump completely stripped of its Aegean and Eastern territories. I have said before that if it could get terms it liked Turkey would already be out of the war and I stand by it. A rational actor with all the information in front of them would take whatever terms can be gained now because the terms will only get more harsh as time goes on. Turkey is very much on the downswing and the allies still increasing in strength. Of course the fact that the war continues means that either the Turks don't have correct information. There is also the strong possibility that Greece is derailing any talks by making demands well outside what Turkey is willing to accept at this point even if the demands are likely only to get harsher as the Greek position becomes relatively stronger. They may be a relatively minor player overall but Greece is very much the major allied power in the Eastern Mediterranean and any peace treaty involving Turkey will need Greece's signature lest a continuation war immediately break out.
If the Turkish leaders can see the writing on the wall the Greek political establishment very much can as well. In Greece there is almost certainly a desire that this be a final war and that Greece achieve fully defensible borders and permanently neuter their enemies; in this case Bulgaria and Turkey. Greece would approach any peace talks with Turkey with maximalist demands that may be derailing any peace talks before they even have a chance to begin. To the concern that there are large non-Greek/Christian populations in the territories that Greece is pushing for I will simply point out there were large German populations outside their final borders as well and even the maximalist demands of Greece would displace fewer people than the Trans-Oder and Sudeten German population expulsions. This is somewhere between the 5th and 9th war between Turkey and Greece since Greek independence; depending on exactly how you want to define it; and there is going to be a strong feeling that this is the chance to finally permanently break Turkey and a lot will be attempted to bring that to fruition IMHO.
Edit: The wars are Independence War (1821-1830), obviously; Crimean War where Greek irregulars fought Ottoman troops (1854); Great Eastern Crisis (1878), 1st Greco-Turkish War (1898), Cretan Revolt (1897-1898), 1st Balkan War (1912-1913), World War 1 (1918) for when they actually fought each other some, 2nd Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), World War 2 (1941-present). Bold are unquestionably wars against each other while the others are there if any Greek politician wants to drive the point home.
Also Edit: To make clear any population expulsion and ethnic cleansing are bad and will cause 10,000's of deaths even in a best case and 100,000's of deaths in a more likely scenario. I mention it in terms of a peace treaty only because it is functionally the only way Greece can expand its territory and in the aftermath of the WW2 it would not in any way be unprecedented or exceptional.
Last edited:
Some very excellent points from everyone. Now let me be the pessimist (it must be the Keffalonian in me). Possession is indeed 9/10ths of legal right. Well who do you think can get faster to The City. Greeks troops over an overland troops resisted by Turkish troops or Soviet Troops by ship at the invitation of the Turkish goverment? My dear fellows, if Stalin wants The City it is in his grasp. The USSR is closer to it than any Wallies force if the Turkish side decides not to fight. Indeed would not the sacrifice of The City to the USSR not win Turkey a potentially powerful ally in the peace negotiations (whether said ally sells them off in the end). Desperate times make for desperate measures.
Now there is one and one only way for the Greeks to avert this. By selling to the British an operation against Constantinople as part of a Concertation of Time strategy to counter the Axis Concertation of Force advantage due to interior lines. The big problem facing a Nis-Sofia advance is that the two lines of advance are isolated from each other (there are modern only four roads that cross the intervening Breglanitza mountains, and I think 1940 there are only two, Strumunitsa and the Kyustendil gaps), but the defender can easily shift forces using the Nish-Sofia railway. Thus operations to shift/pin as many of the Axis forces as possible away from the main attack can be justified. Among them something towards Constantinople. The problem is that the Soviets can also use this an excuse for something of their own.
What does this mean? If decision makers do not make a simple political decision, the drive to Nish has to be part of a wider Theater level operation that would bring together Greek operations in Anatolia, Wally Operations in Mespotamia-Anatolia, Soviet Operations in the Caucasus, Partisan operations in Yugoslavia, Soviet Operations in Ukraine, and Allied Operations against Nish-Sofia in one full whole. The strategic goal is still what I said, take Nish and divide the Axis into two. But the way to get it is maximum pressure, in order to as much as possible shift axis forces away from the center of gravity.
Thus there is a possibility for a Greek move on the City, but it will be part of a broader plan and the Soviets will be aware of it and take their own measures.
Now there is one and one only way for the Greeks to avert this. By selling to the British an operation against Constantinople as part of a Concertation of Time strategy to counter the Axis Concertation of Force advantage due to interior lines. The big problem facing a Nis-Sofia advance is that the two lines of advance are isolated from each other (there are modern only four roads that cross the intervening Breglanitza mountains, and I think 1940 there are only two, Strumunitsa and the Kyustendil gaps), but the defender can easily shift forces using the Nish-Sofia railway. Thus operations to shift/pin as many of the Axis forces as possible away from the main attack can be justified. Among them something towards Constantinople. The problem is that the Soviets can also use this an excuse for something of their own.
What does this mean? If decision makers do not make a simple political decision, the drive to Nish has to be part of a wider Theater level operation that would bring together Greek operations in Anatolia, Wally Operations in Mespotamia-Anatolia, Soviet Operations in the Caucasus, Partisan operations in Yugoslavia, Soviet Operations in Ukraine, and Allied Operations against Nish-Sofia in one full whole. The strategic goal is still what I said, take Nish and divide the Axis into two. But the way to get it is maximum pressure, in order to as much as possible shift axis forces away from the center of gravity.
Thus there is a possibility for a Greek move on the City, but it will be part of a broader plan and the Soviets will be aware of it and take their own measures.
Since maps are important here, here are the main transportation nodes across the Breglanitza mountains (original map at Reddit)
Just as in the case of the liberation of Greek Macedonia, the effort to Sofia and Nish will be fought over old battelfields of the First and Second Balkan Wars, and First World War. Bitola/Monastir, Kumanovo, Kalimantsi, Breglanitza, Dioran, Peristeri, Prilep/Perlipep.
Some more to help people visualize the ground, and also a second version showing potential lines of defense.
Notice the catastrophic results for the Axis position if Kyustendil falls. Not only do the allies gain interior lines of their own, but crucially the two next potential lines of defense are far too close to Sofia. I expect the Presevo-Kyustendil Battles to be the most decisive in this phase of the war in the Balkans once the Wallies break the Bitola-Gevgelija-Petrich lines, Notice also why the main effort will be towards Skopje. At the local level you have multiple axis of attack converging Skopje, permitting the attacker to somewhat counter the interior line advantage of the Axis forces. Once you take Skopje you can now flank the Axis positions at Kyustendil as well as have two axis of advance on Nish. I expect the campaign to Nish to be one of the bloodiest campaigns of World War II.
Notice the catastrophic results for the Axis position if Kyustendil falls. Not only do the allies gain interior lines of their own, but crucially the two next potential lines of defense are far too close to Sofia. I expect the Presevo-Kyustendil Battles to be the most decisive in this phase of the war in the Balkans once the Wallies break the Bitola-Gevgelija-Petrich lines, Notice also why the main effort will be towards Skopje. At the local level you have multiple axis of attack converging Skopje, permitting the attacker to somewhat counter the interior line advantage of the Axis forces. Once you take Skopje you can now flank the Axis positions at Kyustendil as well as have two axis of advance on Nish. I expect the campaign to Nish to be one of the bloodiest campaigns of World War II.
Last edited:
Initially there would be about 318,605 Greeks and 163,670 Armenians (numbers from Alexandris and the Armenian patriarchate statistics reproduced by McCarthy respectively) to an estimated 487,605 Turks (my number, make what you like of it. Karpat gives a figure of 560,435 for 1914 and 431,759 for 1906/7. I'm inclined towards the lower figure which actually fits the Turkish 1927 census data). By 1941 TTL you would have a Turkish plurality and a combined Greek-Armenian majority, I'm estimating 408,000 Greeks, 210,000 Armenians and 575,000 Turks for early 1941. With a clear Turkish majority in Uskudar and a Greek-Armenian one in the European districts. Now there is a huge difference in the non Turkish/Greek/Armenian/Jewish numbers between Karpat who gives a mere 8,775 and other sources who give up to... 150,000 but this does not affect us here.
Which is why I think a likely outcome could be the European side is Greek and the Asian side is Turkish after the war.
Perhaps, but now you are the one that would appear that'd be losing sight of the bigger political perspective. Given that for one, for the Turkish government it wouldn't be improving at all neither their current situation with the Wallies armies advancing in Anatolia nor their post surrendering position on the future negotiation table with whatever peace clauses to be imposed on them by the Wallies.
Also, besides that even if Stalin would consider to accept such hypothetical offer, he would have to divert key resources from the ongoing defense against the German for little potential benefit. The Soviet would be risking gto alienate their Western Allies, for what IOTL, was nearly an anathema for Stalin and the Soviet official position, during the WWII... I.e. accepting/entering in secret parallel negotiations/agreements with all or part of the Axis powers still fighting. Without mention that such move at the back of their allies, the Soviets would be putting at risk their current and future/desired interallied agreements respect to their future expansion/influence areas on the Caucasus/Eastern Anatolia and E. Europe. Stalin would be aware that the Soviet Union price by accept such hypothetical offer from Turkey, they 'd be running the risk of open a can of worms and that the WAllies would react by imposing, on the future, similar faits accomplis on areas deemed as key for the Soviets...
Sure, those are all good points. Again though it need not be done in the form of an official agreement. Just the Turks evacuating the city but holding the lines and letting the Soviets move in from the Black Sea, and then requesting an armistice. In another name a last minute desperate gamble (not unknown in WW2)
I can’t see the western powers letting that go without a prior agreement. The Soviets may be able to pull this off unilaterally, but if they did they would completely alienate the UK and the Greeks, and to a lesser degree the US and French. If the Soviets make an unjustified unagreed upon land grab on one of the most valuable pieces of strategic real estate on earth, a conditional German surrender with the west to halt the Soviets in the east is extremely likely. Particularly if Hitler gets offed.
China: ~10,000,000 sq km, ~500M people.
Greece: ~150,000 sq km, 8M people.
The five permanent members of UNSC are the modern "Great Powers". Though China at the time is weak, it is very large. It is also the most important non-white nation.
This is about as silly an idea as Sea Mammal. The Soviet Black Sea fleet is practically impotent, and the Soviets have very little shipping in the Black Sea. If several thousand Soviet troops board those few ships and steam to Istanbul, they would be sailing unescorted and vulnerable to Axis air attack from the Balkans and Turkey. Turkish air doesn't attack the troopships? That rather gives the game away.
What else is wrong with this? Almost certainly British, American, and Greek intelligence have agents on the ground in Istanbul, who will observe and report the very peculiar Turkish actions. So does Germany, and the US/UK are reading all Abwehr transmissions. (That was how they knew Double-Cross was working.) And of course other reporting agents in the Turkish government. Something this off-the-wall could never be kept to only a few, so there would be a lot of talk about it.
Turkey will go to this trouble to give the USSR control of Istanbul, to what end? To gain Stalin's "friendship"? One might as well expect gratitude from a hungry shark.
And how is this deal to be arranged? Turkey would have to propose it to the USSR, and Stalin would never take it seriously. Even if the deal was agreed to, it would take a few weeks for the Soviets to organize the expedition, and US/UK/Greek troops are already
approaching Istanbul.
The alleged constraints on Allied operations are also bizarre. Advancing north through the Rhodope Mountains to Nis and Sofia would be easier than east along the Aegean coastal plain? Troops moving along the coast could be supplied from the sea.
Greek forces have a particular incentive to liberate most of this area, which is part of their homeland.
And there is a huge incentive for the US/UK to take Thrace, which the USSR would support: it would open the Turkish Straits to Allied shipping. Lend-Lease aid could be delivered to Soviet ports in the Black Sea., saving 6,000 km of ocean travel and 3,000 km of overland haulage.
Yep at most I see the Turks surrendering and Constantinople is split between multiple powers and Greece not getting an occupation zone while the Turks get one in Anatolia.
The Turks surrendering to only the soviets would piss off the Wallies so much Stalin isn't going to entertain it. As much as you guys have talked about Stalin being cautious he knows the rest of the allies would be pissed off including Greece whose performance in being the only place in Europe to not fall under Axis tyranny would mean he would have to concede a lot for his other objectives.
It's not going to work. At all.
The Turks surrendering to only the soviets would piss off the Wallies so much Stalin isn't going to entertain it. As much as you guys have talked about Stalin being cautious he knows the rest of the allies would be pissed off including Greece whose performance in being the only place in Europe to not fall under Axis tyranny would mean he would have to concede a lot for his other objectives.
It's not going to work. At all.
The UN was formed as an organisation of the nations fighting against the Axis, as soon as 1942.
Initially the governing body of the UN didn't include even France which was under occupation.
Therefore the status, the importance for the fight and the contribution in the war had some impact for the formation of the UN, and Greece is not only prestigious but also is in charge of one of the main fronts and participates in another one. And as things might go, after WWII will be in control of a very sensitive part of the world and have one of the most formidable armed forces.
It's also interesting that you mention Brazil, because in 1945-6 the US tried to include Brazil in the permanent UNSC members but was blocked by Britain. Brazil has more land and population at that time than Greece, but I'm not sure about their economy and armed forces, not to mention the strategic importance. Furthermore Brazil's contribution in the war effort was minimal even compared with OTL Greece, even more so with TTL Greece. And the contribution in the war was really important back then. Just take the case of the Netherlands: a large economy, quite large population, a colonial empire in Indonesia and South America, and yet not taken seriously by the big players or the general public.
Of course Greece becoming a UNSC permanent member is a high catch, but ITTL Greece has become a case we didn't see IOTL. That's why I proposed that the UNSC ITTL might have a different form than what we know.
Sure the Soviets getting Istanbul like that is silly, but the idea that it is easier to get to Istanbul/Constantinople via Thrace is easier and superior option to taking Nish first is a fallacy.
A) We do not know the capacity of that railroad. But if it can at most support one division or corps it will mean the whole advance will be at a snails pace along one major road and one rail-line! There goes your fast approach
B) Saying the navy can support the landings is a good idea except that i) the only major port the Allies control right now is Thessaloniki ii) there are only two more ports available Kavala and Alexandroupolis. The first behind the Flamouri Mountains and Pangaion mountain lines, the second behind those, plus the Nestos gap and the Nipsas-Kirkis high ground. All once more connected by one rail-line.
C) The whole advance along the Thracian coast will threaten being flanked from either the Skopje Gaps, Petritch, the Nevrokopi pass and of course Adrianople. What is worse, you fight there, you are fighting with your back on the sea and no depth to accommodate setbacks. As others understood that means that any way you will need to attack at least to secure the Petritch-Prilep line to guards its flanks. How many forces will that divert? And if you are going to attack there anyway as a sine no qua for a secure advance on Constantinople/Istanbul via Thrace then why not make that the main effort and the Thrace advance a secondary one?
And what have you gained? You have reached the Evros/Maritsa delta. The Axis are going to be faster in moving troops due to superior interior lines. They will nicely concentrate and defeat you in detail in a battle around Adrianople pincering you from the North and the East and your back on the sea! To avoid that then not only must you pin the Petritch-Prilep line, now you need to also pin the Turkish and German forces in the are of Constantiople/Istanbul, which means of course some kind of Gallipoli operation, or diverting Greek forces in Ionia to a northern axis of advance (who is going to protect their flanks!) And of course shipping diverted to support a Gallipoli operation will mean less shipping for your Thracian advance!
And again I need to see why attacks on diverging axis are superior to ones on converging axis, and why breaking the Axis in two, is inferior to opening up the Straits? The USSR has more connections to the Wallies due to the Persian Gulf and Iran being Wally controlled this time (thus via the Persian Gulf to the Caspian, via Baku to the southern flank).
At the very least, exactly because Stalin does not want the Wallies to take Istanbul/Constantinople before he can have a say, he will put pressure for the Nish attack. And strategic logic here is on his side.
To put it simply you have two and only two options. Either you focus everything in the Balkans on taking Nish or you focus everything on Constantinople. There is no way to do both. One option nets you Bulgaria, Turkey and potentially Romania. The other at most nets you Turkey. The Axis have a superb position of Interior Lines in the Balkans. Any operation that ignores this will likely be a catastrophe.
A) We do not know the capacity of that railroad. But if it can at most support one division or corps it will mean the whole advance will be at a snails pace along one major road and one rail-line! There goes your fast approach
B) Saying the navy can support the landings is a good idea except that i) the only major port the Allies control right now is Thessaloniki ii) there are only two more ports available Kavala and Alexandroupolis. The first behind the Flamouri Mountains and Pangaion mountain lines, the second behind those, plus the Nestos gap and the Nipsas-Kirkis high ground. All once more connected by one rail-line.
C) The whole advance along the Thracian coast will threaten being flanked from either the Skopje Gaps, Petritch, the Nevrokopi pass and of course Adrianople. What is worse, you fight there, you are fighting with your back on the sea and no depth to accommodate setbacks. As others understood that means that any way you will need to attack at least to secure the Petritch-Prilep line to guards its flanks. How many forces will that divert? And if you are going to attack there anyway as a sine no qua for a secure advance on Constantinople/Istanbul via Thrace then why not make that the main effort and the Thrace advance a secondary one?
And what have you gained? You have reached the Evros/Maritsa delta. The Axis are going to be faster in moving troops due to superior interior lines. They will nicely concentrate and defeat you in detail in a battle around Adrianople pincering you from the North and the East and your back on the sea! To avoid that then not only must you pin the Petritch-Prilep line, now you need to also pin the Turkish and German forces in the are of Constantiople/Istanbul, which means of course some kind of Gallipoli operation, or diverting Greek forces in Ionia to a northern axis of advance (who is going to protect their flanks!) And of course shipping diverted to support a Gallipoli operation will mean less shipping for your Thracian advance!
And again I need to see why attacks on diverging axis are superior to ones on converging axis, and why breaking the Axis in two, is inferior to opening up the Straits? The USSR has more connections to the Wallies due to the Persian Gulf and Iran being Wally controlled this time (thus via the Persian Gulf to the Caspian, via Baku to the southern flank).
At the very least, exactly because Stalin does not want the Wallies to take Istanbul/Constantinople before he can have a say, he will put pressure for the Nish attack. And strategic logic here is on his side.
To put it simply you have two and only two options. Either you focus everything in the Balkans on taking Nish or you focus everything on Constantinople. There is no way to do both. One option nets you Bulgaria, Turkey and potentially Romania. The other at most nets you Turkey. The Axis have a superb position of Interior Lines in the Balkans. Any operation that ignores this will likely be a catastrophe.
Last edited:
The UNSC seat for Greece is impossible as long as Roosevelt lives. We are talking about a person who thought the Big Four should disarm everybody else in the world (see Anderson Perry, US Foreign Policy and its Thinkers, and McDougall Promised Land, Crusader Nation). Now the idea permanent members without veto power is interesting, and could be some kind of regional representation thing (so one per region), and sure in this case Greece could nab it. So half the non-voting UNSC seats being permanent, and half voted. That could work. As long as the "small folk" cannot impose anything on the major powers, they might let this take place. Especially if they can use this as justification to denying accommodating the candidate states on other issues of more importance.
Last edited: