Consider who provides the overwhelming majority of the troops to the Allied Armies of the Orient and who is the theatre commander. War is the continuation of politics by other means and Theodore Pangalos will understand that the Yugoslavs need to be front and centre when the border is crossed and for the same reason will make sure that the thrust through Thrace towards Constantinople is dominated by Greek troops.
Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles
- Thread starter Lascaris
- Start date
Consider who provides the overwhelming majority of the troops to the Allied Armies of the Orient and who is the theatre commander. War is the continuation of politics by other means and Theodore Pangalos will understand that the Yugoslavs need to be front and centre when the border is crossed and for the same reason will make sure that the thrust through Thrace towards Constantinople is dominated by Greek troops.
I don't know what the author is planning for Constantinople, but I do not agree that Greece cannot get the City.
1919 is VERY different from 1944-45. ITTL Turkey wasn't just a belligerent, but allied itself with the ultimate evil and if the Free French weren't so successful, Britain's position in the ME would have been closer to disaster.
Turkey proved to be unreliable concerning its contribution to the international stability, and an international Constantinople proved to be too vulnerable to instability.
Furthermore, Greece is not the divided country which entered the war late as IOTL, but the country which stopped the Axis in continental Europe and was backstabbed by Turkey exactly when the Greeks were giving the decisive battle for the Free World. Therefore Greece has proven that if has the time to prepare, she can maintain control on her premises in the interest of the alliance. The Greek army which tried to secure the City for the Allies was annihilated without mercy.
All in all, Greece has every chance of gaining Constantinople, except if the USSR plays hard on maintaining an internationalised City.
Again, as I said, there will probably be no drive through Thrace to The City. There is simply no transportation network to support a major advance from Thessaloniki to Constantinople/Istanbul if it is not via the Nis-Sofia axis. Thus a drive to Nis will take strategic priority. The exception is a drive from Ionia to the Asian side. I did not consider that before. But still with open flanks to the East such a drive will also be unlikely. By the time Istanbul/Constantinople becomes a prize, the Ottoman Turks will already have sought peace and still be in control of the City. Greece will thus not have troops on the ground in it.
Well.it would be supposing, thaty nothing wouyld be ever to change and that the Axis forces would be able to keep resisting and be a ble to whistant the current attrition level facing the ongoing Allies offensives... So, a possible, exception, may be if one or more fronts would collapse and/or if Greece along with the Allies Theater headquarters, would decide that the City capture, would be important enough, as for attempt to pull TTL Aegean equivalent (hopefully better planned) to OTL, Market Garden.
For what reason in the world would the Allies allow Turkey to keep a prize like Constantinople after a war they have lost? Even the Soviets won't allow that. Most probable outcome for the Allies is to split the City to occupation zones and the Soviets get the Eastern side. The Turks would never ever hold the City for any reason in the world after joining the losing side.
The Rhineland was a great industrial prize within Germany, as shown by the French occupation after WWI, and yet France did not summarily annex any part of the Rhineland after WWII. Occupation zones—military subjugation but political autonomy to some degree—was the go to solution of the Allies (excluding the USSR) in Germany and Japan. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go for occupation zones in Turkey too and that definitely makes Greek non-annexation more likely.
A Trieste outcome is possible—that is, Allied/UN occupation of the City after the war for a decade or so that ends with the UN parcelling it out to Greece.
Last edited:
Well Germany had the Rhineland before the war unlike Turkey with Constantinople. The Rhineland also is completely German by all means while the City has a significant Greek minority. So not the same those two. Same with Singapore that was suggested somewhere here. Totally different situations.
They are not. But there is difference between taking a city before the armistice and taking it after.
My dear fellow think as a General HQ general, not a soldier. You can go after Constantinople/Istanbul diverting forces from a drive to Nis, betting on some weird mumbo jumbo aero-naval operation, that will have to rely on a corps level organization coming fast enough along the non-existent transportation lines linking Thessaloniki to the City without passing through Sofia to save you from being swamped by surrounding axis forces, and royally angering your allies, or you can drive to Nis and Sofia (primary effort Nis, secondary Sofia), cut off three Axis allies from Germany or degrade their transport ability, put a massive allied army on the rear of Barbarossa, probably push Bulgaria out of the war, followed by Romania and Turkey, and shorten the war by at least six months. And then you can just march into the City as part of a victory parade.
Which option do you think Allied GHQs will prefer?
Which option do you think Allied GHQs will prefer?
It seems that we are forgetting that a railroad link between Thessaloniki and Constantinople exists without passing thru Sofia and tts the a secondary railway was made along the Thracian coast in the 1930ish..so you don't have to march to Sofia to get to Constantinople
was it? @Lascaris. And if it was , what is its carrying capacity? Can it support logistics for three corps (the minimum needed for an assault on the European side (two by land one by aero-naval operations)? We also to forget that this railroad can be flanked through Kresna Gorge or the Edirne/Adrianople gap from Axis forces in Bulgaria. So even if you want to march along that axis you need to at least bottle up Kresna Gorge. So again why do that, when taking Nis will have the same effect? I can easily see the Greek Army being tasked with the Sofia route, and Panaglos seeking to incorporate that in a pincer maneuver with Ionia, but the mass of the Allied Armies will march to Nis. Better tank country along that way.
Why would the allies divert their efforts in divergent axis of attack? Why would the Wallies let the Greeks dilute the forces available with a divergent operation on Istanbul/Constantinople while they would have to guard the flanks towards Nish and Sofia for it? Strategic logic demands to concentrate on one region. Attacking towards Nish with a supportive attack towards Sofia are convergent axis of attack. Attacking Nish, Sofia and Constantinople is divergent. You will end up with the kind of disaster the Greeks got in March 1921 when they attacked Eskisehir and Afyon Karahisar without pushing at Kutahya. Strategic logic imho makes Nish the key center of gravity of the whole Axis position in the Balkans. An attack to The City right now would be working to the benefit of the Axis. With Nish in Axis hands they can easily use interior lines to defeat in detail the attacking force. Absent Nish there whole military situation become untanable and they lose interior lines.
Why would the allies divert their efforts in divergent axis of attack? Why would the Wallies let the Greeks dilute the forces available with a divergent operation on Istanbul/Constantinople while they would have to guard the flanks towards Nish and Sofia for it? Strategic logic demands to concentrate on one region. Attacking towards Nish with a supportive attack towards Sofia are convergent axis of attack. Attacking Nish, Sofia and Constantinople is divergent. You will end up with the kind of disaster the Greeks got in March 1921 when they attacked Eskisehir and Afyon Karahisar without pushing at Kutahya. Strategic logic imho makes Nish the key center of gravity of the whole Axis position in the Balkans. An attack to The City right now would be working to the benefit of the Axis. With Nish in Axis hands they can easily use interior lines to defeat in detail the attacking force. Absent Nish there whole military situation become untanable and they lose interior lines.
Last edited:
I believe it is worth considering that before Constantinople fell to the Turks ITTL, the European side of the city was proclaimed as being united with the rest of Greece following a referendum.
The Allies cannot afford a drive towards Constantinople when they have to protect their flanks. They need to cover the Monastir Gap, the Vardar/Axios valley, the Strymonas valley and most importantly the Evros/Maritsa valley. If they post a single strong corps in each strategic point with some forces in-between, then the Army Group has melted away. They leave themselves open for a defeat in detail. I agree the only plausible route considering the circumstances, is a drive towards Nis.
Is that right? I can't remember.
But if yes, then Greece isn't losing the City even with the Soviets challenging it; the most they 're gaining is the Asian side.
Otherwise, Greece will get everything else and more (Cyprus, Asia Minor land, border adjustment with Bulgaria, reparations, a permanent seat in the Security Council, etc)
Well a permanent seat in the security council is definitely out of the question...greece is not a world power with interest in every corner of the world
Indeed.
To be honest though, this matter puzzles me somehow.
There wasn't any specific requirements for the permanent UNSC members, apart from being one of the victors in WWII. It seems though that the ability to project power in a considerable part of the world and therefore contribute to the international stability, was taken in account. On the other hand, China with the 1940's standards was definitely a regional power.
Greece is definitely not a great power and cannot project power in a long distance on her own, bit has the following attributes:
1. Is (will be) one of the major victors with an amazing volume of prestige.
2. Is a regional power, maybe without the potential of China, but located at a very sensitive part of the world.
3. Is stable and solidly democratic, with a thriving economy.
4. Will have formidable armed forces.
5. Will have a lot of soft power.
6. Will probably be in control of the Straits.
And due to this values it would be quite difficult for the rest to justify why Greece will not be in the UNSC.
Unless the UNSC is different ITTL!
The USA, the UK the USSR and France are definitely in as core members with the veto right, as we know them.
But what if China, Greece and Australia (for example) are permanent UNSC members without the right to veto? With the potential of this second class becoming larger one day with other countries, once they fulfill the requirements (Italy and Germany when stabilised and de-nazi-fascistised, India, Japan, Spain).
Is there a chance the special case of Greece (and the survival of larger fighting Yugoslav and Polish armies) and the larger extent of the war (Turkey, Iran) develop a mindset according which the international stability is seen as a more collective affair?
It's up to the author I guess....
So on the status of Constantinople in the post-war world there is a lot to look at:
ITTL Constantinople voted to join with Greece June 27, 1940 but crucially this was a non-binding referendum and even though de-facto Greek control started around this time; with the departure of the high commissioners aside from the British and Greek ones; de-jure Greek control was only proclaimed with the British and French abandonment of the city February 19, 1941. By March 13th, 1941 the city was secure enough in the hands of Turkey that they felt comfortable executing the Patriarch. So de-jure Greek control lasted at most a week or two, was almost immediately challenged by Turkey, and only occurred because the Greek army refused to declare an open city and evacuate as the British High Commissioner wanted them to do. What will a crucial point in the post-war negotiations is did the French, British, USA, etc. recognize the declaration of Enosis in February 1941 in any way, shape, or form. The story doesn't mention it one way or the other. If in the eyes of the West the city was Greek when it fell to Turkey it will be a lot harder politically to deny it to Greece post-war as opposed to if the city was still an considered an International City State with a Greek army detachment defending it against the advice of allied high command. It is semantics but diplomats love semantics and bigger decisions have been made on less.
I do agree with @Khan Doomy that the by far most likely response of the allies now will be a drive on one or both of Sofia/Nis rather than Constantinople and that a liberation of the city from the European side before both those cities have been secured is unlikely to point of not happening for all the excellent reasons he has mentioned. Once that is done however the very cutting of lines that is the main reason for the thrust also means that Constantinople is also only accessible through Greek controlled access points on the European side. I think it will lead to a serious disagreement between the Balkan allies as strategically it would make sense to continue pushing North to try to both liberate Yugoslavia and meet the USSR as deep into Romania as possible but the Greeks will want to push South and East towards Constantinople. There are only 3 Turkish divisions in Thrace and another 2 around the straits and although they are probably the most well-rested it is also likely they have been scavenged for recruits and equipment for the 3 active fronts the Turks currently are fighting in. It would be a tempting target for the Greek army.
I also wouldn't discount the possibility that liberation comes from the Asian side rather than Europe. I will point out Balikesir was taken by the Greek army a solid 6 weeks ago in story and is the last large population centre outside of coastal Anatolia in the region and gives the Greek army internal lines of supply compared to Turkey in the region. If it comes down to liberating north Bulgaria or Eastern Thrace would the Greek army pull out everything but blocking forces from the European theatre and put them all into Anatolia for a major push across the Sea of Marmara and damn the losses in Naval/Air/Army to achieve it if they thought it was the only way to see Constantinople absorbed into Greece; probably not to be honest but it is definitely a higher chance than zero. I do think overall though there is a higher chance of the first Greek boots in the city crossing the straits rather than marching through Thrace. I would also wonder at the quality and TOE of the 2 Turkish division left in the straits area. Are they still up to standard in equipment, numbers, and training or have they been raided by active fronts over the last 2 years to the point that they are little more than a heavily armed gendarme fully capable of occupation but would have difficulty resisting even a small push from the Greek army crossing the straits.
ITTL Constantinople voted to join with Greece June 27, 1940 but crucially this was a non-binding referendum and even though de-facto Greek control started around this time; with the departure of the high commissioners aside from the British and Greek ones; de-jure Greek control was only proclaimed with the British and French abandonment of the city February 19, 1941. By March 13th, 1941 the city was secure enough in the hands of Turkey that they felt comfortable executing the Patriarch. So de-jure Greek control lasted at most a week or two, was almost immediately challenged by Turkey, and only occurred because the Greek army refused to declare an open city and evacuate as the British High Commissioner wanted them to do. What will a crucial point in the post-war negotiations is did the French, British, USA, etc. recognize the declaration of Enosis in February 1941 in any way, shape, or form. The story doesn't mention it one way or the other. If in the eyes of the West the city was Greek when it fell to Turkey it will be a lot harder politically to deny it to Greece post-war as opposed to if the city was still an considered an International City State with a Greek army detachment defending it against the advice of allied high command. It is semantics but diplomats love semantics and bigger decisions have been made on less.
I do agree with @Khan Doomy that the by far most likely response of the allies now will be a drive on one or both of Sofia/Nis rather than Constantinople and that a liberation of the city from the European side before both those cities have been secured is unlikely to point of not happening for all the excellent reasons he has mentioned. Once that is done however the very cutting of lines that is the main reason for the thrust also means that Constantinople is also only accessible through Greek controlled access points on the European side. I think it will lead to a serious disagreement between the Balkan allies as strategically it would make sense to continue pushing North to try to both liberate Yugoslavia and meet the USSR as deep into Romania as possible but the Greeks will want to push South and East towards Constantinople. There are only 3 Turkish divisions in Thrace and another 2 around the straits and although they are probably the most well-rested it is also likely they have been scavenged for recruits and equipment for the 3 active fronts the Turks currently are fighting in. It would be a tempting target for the Greek army.
I also wouldn't discount the possibility that liberation comes from the Asian side rather than Europe. I will point out Balikesir was taken by the Greek army a solid 6 weeks ago in story and is the last large population centre outside of coastal Anatolia in the region and gives the Greek army internal lines of supply compared to Turkey in the region. If it comes down to liberating north Bulgaria or Eastern Thrace would the Greek army pull out everything but blocking forces from the European theatre and put them all into Anatolia for a major push across the Sea of Marmara and damn the losses in Naval/Air/Army to achieve it if they thought it was the only way to see Constantinople absorbed into Greece; probably not to be honest but it is definitely a higher chance than zero. I do think overall though there is a higher chance of the first Greek boots in the city crossing the straits rather than marching through Thrace. I would also wonder at the quality and TOE of the 2 Turkish division left in the straits area. Are they still up to standard in equipment, numbers, and training or have they been raided by active fronts over the last 2 years to the point that they are little more than a heavily armed gendarme fully capable of occupation but would have difficulty resisting even a small push from the Greek army crossing the straits.
I see a lot of stubbornness in this thread as if it is already a conclusion that Turkey keeps Constantinople. Turkey here has committed atrocities of great magnitude, it has challenged the international order twice, it has allied itself with the most vile regimes and has be shown to be totally untrustworthy. Under no circumstance would the Greeks or the Soviets let them keep it. Some have speculated that the USSR will let Turkey keep the straits in order to control them by proxy, but why would they do that when they can outright control them or influence it better as an international zone.
Comparing the Rhineland, a German state with German customs, culture, and with a homogeneous ethnic group to Constantinople is wrong. This is a Greek Tl, that should at the very least tell you guys what the most likely option will be. If you all insist on Greece falling short as it always had in OTL, why would the author write this. A compromise is most likely, with international zone with multipolar control.
Comparing the Rhineland, a German state with German customs, culture, and with a homogeneous ethnic group to Constantinople is wrong. This is a Greek Tl, that should at the very least tell you guys what the most likely option will be. If you all insist on Greece falling short as it always had in OTL, why would the author write this. A compromise is most likely, with international zone with multipolar control.
I defo agree with this. Turkey would have hell to pay even if it surrenders, and no one would be against the punishment of Turkey.
At least the status quo of international Constantinople is kept, and even that is a little suspect considering that turkey broke that by conquering and occupying it in WWII.
Also, Constantinople has insane political consequences on Greece, and Greek politics would want the City to be part of Greece, and dragoumis would most likely push it to have an offensive for Constantinople. Wars are fought by the politicians just as much as the generals and the infantry that Khan Doomy dissed.