Turkey won't have a good time no matter what even if the USSR has more say than I expect. Turkey will be fully occupied for a bit at least.
Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles
- Thread starter Lascaris
- Start date
the depends on whether the divisions needed for occupation are available. Greece does not have enough to help occupy both Bulgaria and all of Anatolia, and the Soviets will want to keep as many as possible for Eastern Europe and Germany. No divisions, no occupation.
But the us has enough divisions..and Greece wouldn't need to occupy all of Bulgaria..just the bits that it wants to annex..
I agree with the general assessment, although I think they would be needed fewer divisions than the ones Foch proposed, since the land to be controlled is smaller in TTL (Asiatic Greece, Italian Caria, East Thrace, Soviet Armenia/Georgia), plus whatever permanent annexations take place.
However, I would like to propose a middle "solution" to the dilemma of total or no occupation. I think it would be plausible for the Allies to occupy for a fixed period strategic parts of Turkey. The first exampe that comes to mind is the Sanjak of Biga and the turkish coast in Bithynia. It might be annexed to Greece, although I doubt it due to its demographics. But it would be a way to important location to be left unoccupied. Then there is the matter of Kurdistan.: SOE and TE Lawrence are instigating a rebellion there. I expect to see an independent Kurdistan in 1945 under british protection: it will ensure that Turkey won't be able to project power over Iraq and its oil and it makes a valuable buffer against the USSR. Some forces will be needed to occupy Kurdistan, until a state can be organized. Perhaps, the British might occupy some strategic points on the turkish-kurdish border. For example, if a border is set at the Euphrates, to occupy bridgeheads over the main crossings of the river.
Lastly, I would expect the Allies would demand war reparations. Perhaps the major harbors might be occupied until said reparations are paid and to control the turkish economy until then. I have in mind Samsun (Soviets), Mersin and Antalya (Western Allies).
Tbf I think Greece will occupy (and annex) bits of Western anatolia (Caria + Bithinya) but they also would be at Ankara and Konya until the war ends (after all if you don't occupy them for a bit they'll continue fighting as the Turks know the consequences of surrendering). The USSR would occupy eastern Anatolia and Kurdistan and Assyria would be created too but I expect their presence to be longer.
I somewhat doubt that it would be case. The USSR won't stand for a Greece that controls the Straits completely. If anything I would bet that the Soviets would demand to get Izmit as a base themselves, if anything just as a negotiation tactic. At best, Greece might annex the european part of Constantinople. The same applies to Biga - difficult to see the Soviets agreeing in Greece controlling both sides of the Dardanelles.
When it comes to former Italian Caria, things are rather straightforward: the region is of no particular interest to a Great Power. Dragoumis can play the same card Venizelos plaid in 1919 Versailles: to claim that the Dodecanese and Caria are a single geopolitical region. That would mean a greek majority, especially if we take into account the demographics as it used to stand during the italian occupation.
Having said that, if greek ambitions in the Straits are not fullfilled, the Soviets would need to arrange for some compensation. My guess would be a soviet acceptance of a greco-bulgarian border along the Arda river. The same applies to war reparations by Turkey. If we are to trust this table, in OTL 1938 Turkey had a bit greater gold reserves than Greece. I would think in TTL, the turkish gold reserves will be significantly lower, since the country had considerably lower GDP and they spent a lot on rearmament. If the gold reserves won't be sufficient for war reparations, then reparations in kind would have to be added: locomotives, machine tools etc.
Last edited:
Minor note... the US does not have enough divisions. Manpower mismanagement that there is no reason to assume will be affected in any way by the changes mean only 91 divisions were formed. All of them will be needed.
I think there should be multiple occupation zones (a Greek, American and Soviet zone at least) that cover the whole of Turkey.
I feel that the mountainous interior of turkey would make occupation a nightmare...not unlike greece during otl
As in Afghanistan level nightmare..but the of course the occupation forces don't have to pretend to play nice...
Serpent
Banned
I believe that your premise forgets to take into account that the Soviet Union would be weaker compared to OTL, their sphere of influence much reduced from the OTL Warsaw Pact area, once this ATL Yalta conference takes place. The reason for this is that, with the addition of Turkey on the Axis side, (& the additional instability/support for Axis in the Near East by extension, meaning that the ATL Axis has managed to spread more successfully & cause challenges throughout the periphery of the Soviet Union), the Soviet forces will be depleted much harder than OTL, while the Soviets will have to occupy much more land than IRL, they cannot just opt to not dedicate themselves into offensives against Turkey altogether throughout WWII, only post war they can opt to withdraw their forces from the area, due to the costs related to a prolonged occupation. So the east/west line will be significantly shifted east, to the benefit of the United States, the British and the French, comparatively to OTL.
This will be predetermined by the reality of events on the ground, regardless of Soviet wishes. And that will leave them with a much shakier hold on Eastern Europe and consequently in worse negotiating position, rendering them unable, (/& even possibly unwilling, see below), to push their demands regarding Bosporus.
If you think about it, in these current conditions, Greece would be better off to halt the offensive at its pre-war borders in the Balkans and ship every single non essential available troop from the Balkans to Asia Minor afterwards, to focus exclusively against the Turkish forces there, because this will greatly strengthen Greece's hand post war, while, if the Soviets are allowed to occupy half of Yugoslavia, not whole, but not be kept out of it by the allies either, given that the Balkans are a secondary front that everybody would be willing to sacrifice in favor of a push towards Berlin/Germany's heartlands, the ultimate prize.
If Yugoslavia is therefore split into two different states, East Yugo & West Yugo, the Soviets are gonna have a much easier time keeping Tito under their thumb, thereby severely negating the importance of Soviet and by extension their need to control the Bosporus, as the Soviets would already have secured, (a much better/wider truth be told), their long desired access to the Mediterranean Sea through another avenue, through the Strait of Ontranto. Combining that with the inevitable Soviet demands on eastern Anatolia, the Greater Armenia areas of the treaty of Sevres + Pontus & Lazistan, and you can see that the Soviets would have already severely overplayed their hand in Yalta to be able to come close to enforcing their aspirations for the future of the Bosporus straits.
Also, annexing the vast area south of Arda river would serve what purpose exactly? The Kingdom of Greece has no pretensions to that area, and as a result this action would be seen as a blatant land grab throughout the world, bar the USSR and Greece, which would lead to ethnic tensions and instability in the area, burdening Greece with a useless problem for no real gain. As for expelling the local population of the area, this would firstly be extremely difficult and would cause outrage throughout the world, because unlike the Turks, the Bulgarians would not resist militarily, thus justifying their expulsion, but would throw down their arms post war, so this action would be seen as victims of a mass persecution against them, even worse than the expulsion of east germans throughout eastern europe, because Germany had the hatred of the entire world, while Bulgaria has barely been involved in WWII, and they haven't commit any attrocities remotely near to the scale that the Germans and Turks have, that could justify their expulsion as rightful retaliation.
So this entire affair looks awfully similar to the horrible arbitrary OTL Bakker-Schut Plan plan that the Netherlands post WWII had to annex everything west of the line Wilhelmshaven-Osnabrück-Hamm-Wesel, as well as the land east of Limburg, where the border followed the Rhine until close to Cologne, then diverging towards Aachen in the west, again an area they held no claims to whatsoever, driven purely by the need to be "compensated", as well as their strategic concerns to acquire strategic depth, (similarly to the French intentions to bring about the so called "natural borders of France", similarly driven by their strategic concerns to acquire strategic depth, part of which was the ultimately unsuccessful Saar protectorate), while expelling all the German populace residing in the area towards the rest of Germany, adding up to the already enormous burden the rump German occupied soon to be redesignated as a state faced from all the incoming Eastern German refugees from all around Eastern Europe, that the Soviet Union had expelled. So naturally, it was rejected out of hand by the Allied leadership and the Netherlands got jackshit, for making absurd demands in the negotiations.
Last edited:
You forget that the yugoslav army and government are currently in greece..they would definitely object to a soviet "liberation" of their lands..
Yeah, and I'm not convinced they would need it any more than they did OTL.
Though to be fair there were a lot of Polish army units and it's government in exile in the West, and the Soviets were rather adamant on convincing everyone to ignore them.
But there is a lot more land between Yugoslavia and Russia than there it for Poland. There's nothing set in stone for the Yugoslavians just yet.
Serpent
Banned
Lets be realistic, it's simply impossible to butterfly Tito's partisans entirely, or to such a point where they'd be unable to seize power post WWII, if anything, the ATL fact that a government in exile exists strengthens the hand of the west, that could ultimately allow them to retain the western half of Yugoslavia at best case scenario, given the miniscule size of the Yugoslav forces in Greece, >100k, compared to the 800k force that Tito partisans had IRL, even if it's a bit less, due to the additional power projection/influence the Yugoslav Gov in exile had ATL, enabling them to bolster the Chetniks somewhat, Tito's partisans would still be way too many for the Yugoslav ragtag army and their chetnik allies to overcome. Regardless, the bottomline is, either through Skopje/"North Macedonia", aka the old region of Peonia, that is Bulgarian ethnically, ending up incorporated into a Bulgarian soviet puppet state, linking up with an Albanian Soviet puppet state, the Soviets would still get their much sought after access to the Mediterranean Sea, through the Adriatic Sea and the Otranto straits.
Last edited:
Serpent
Banned
All I'm saying is that, it's much more likely/reasonable for the Yugoslavs to lose half their homeland to a Soviet aligned state under Tito, than it would be for the Soviets to force Greece to give up Bithynia, to keep the Bosporus straits open, like X Oristos suggested it would occur. When you occupy an area, you can pretty much drag your feet down and refuse to compromise, like I would expect Greece to do, especially under PM Ion Dragoumis. So control on the ground can create fait accompli situations. What could the Soviets possibly do? Sail their badly battered almost non existant (almost completely sunken at the bottom of the sea by the war's end) Black Sea fleet from their horrible last resort hideout in Sukhumi's ports, which can hardly accomodate them anyways, into the Bosporus and cry about it? Not that either scenario would 100% happen.
Last edited:
Regardless of the military situation in 1945, the Straits are of paramount importance to soviet/russian security as they have been for centuries. Even if they won't military occupy them, I expect them to burn a lot of diplomatic capital in order to avoid the Straits being turned into a greek lake. What they would give to the Western Allies in return? No idea.
I very much agree, at least for 1943, After all, the Iron Gate of Vardar/Axios is an excellent chokepoint.
As mentioned above there is a Serbian Army active in Greece and due to the different political circumstances, the Chetniks would have to properly engage against the Germans. With airbases in Greece, it would be much easier to send even in 1942 a lot of supplies to them, similar to the amount Tito was receiving in 1944 through the italian airfields. I think everything that we have read so far, indicate that Yugoslavia will be partitioned between Croatia and Serbia.
Well, it kinda did in OTL. In Paris 1947 the Greeks wanted a border along the Maleshevo-Pirin-Rhodope-Arda Valley line. They had been attacked by Bulgaria three times during a single generation. The region had little economic value, basically added vital strategic depth.
It is true that in OTL Bulgaria didn't participate in active battles. However, the bulgarian occupation of a rather small part of northern Greece was more brutal than even the german occupation. Even though they occupied such a small region, they executed some 40,000 Greeks, while the Germans executed a bit more than 21,000. A great part of the remaining greek population in the bulgarian occupation zone was ethnically cleansed. People were actually fleeing to the german-occupied strip next to the turkish border. That was in OTL.
Now the Bulgarians are not only very active in participating in the Greek Front, but they also occupy a much bigger area in Greece. If we judge by OTL numbers and the population figures, then TTL bulgarian occupation will be nightmarish. I think it will be quite possibly that we will end up with more executed people in Greece just by Bulgaria than the total executions of French citizens by Germans in occupied France. The WW2 in the Balkans and East Europe was incredibly brutal.
Leaving aside the postwar situation, for obvious reasons I won't comment on it, I would say that the presence of the Yugoslav army in exile is not likely to affect the size of the Yugoslav partisans. Why? Because the units that escaped to Greece in 1940 were in their grand majority recruited from Serbia proper. But on the other hand all the way to late 1944 the grand majority of the Yugoslav partisans were recruited from outside Serbia.
A more interesting question is what happens to the Chetniks. Because frankly neither the Greek nor the Yugoslav governments will be taking very well to Mihailovic's arguments of staying quiet to avoid reprisals when the main German supply line to Thessaly goes straight through Serbia...