|
|
Post by raharris1973 on May 9, 2023 11:38:13 GMT
What if the Soviets invade Turkey and seize the straits as an adjunct to their 1944 Balkans campaign?
I am imagining that the Soviets were finding the Turkish straits far closer to powerful combat forces of their own in the late stages of WWII than in any stages of WWI or many other points of Russian history, and Stalin could have found it tempting, while occupying Bulgaria in strength, to cross the border and seize the Turkish straits as well.
The Soviets declared war on Bulgaria and invaded it in September 1944, achieving almost instant capitulation. I imagine the Soviet combined ground, air and naval operation to seize the straits, and probably the Kars border region of northeastern Turkey, could be feasibly set up and well-timed for middle or late December 1944, and combined with a Declaration of War, based on supposed hostile Turkish intent, alleged past Turkish unneutral behavior, and hostile troop movements on the border during earlier dangerous points during the Great Patriotic War. [similar to justifications used in declaring war against Bulgaria, and Japan, who had not declared war on the USSR].
A December date would have allowed movement and concentration of Black Sea fleet support, troop echelons and airpower in Bulgaria and the Caucasus, to be able to execute a quick grab of Thrace, Constantinople, the Asian side of the sea of Marmara, Turkey's Aegean islands, and Kars. Politically, this is after the settlement of the western and Soviet occupation zones in Germany in London in September. And after the Balkan 'percentages' agreement in October 1944, which notably - did not address Turkey. It is also after FDR's reelection, and it at a moment where the inevitable bad PR and blowback the Soviets will face in the west is somewhat diluted by the recent British suppression of the Greek Communists being roundly criticized in the US press. It also after nearly all the year's Lend-Lease has been delivered, including just about everything to be used in the January offensive the Soviets intend to use to sweep across Poland to the gates of Berlin, to hopefully break into the city early in the new year.
How long will and can the Turks fight for the territorities the Soviets are seizing and keep attempting counterattacks?
How will the western powers react to the Soviet fait accompli, and its thin and unconvincing explanation, while the Soviets also press full steam ahead against the Germans in Central Europe and Yugoslavia?
Do the Western Allies reshape any of their final operations for the defeat of the Nazis in Europe, terms of acceptance for Nazi surrenders, limit or terminate Lend Lease deliveries, or alter any of the stop lines they are aiming for in Europe?
In Yalta, will they still be meeting with the Soviets in person, and seeking their participation in the Pacific War, and offering Lend-Lease in support of that end, or now rethinking that whole idea of extending the partnership eastward?
---
Theoretically, the Soviets could initiate action against Turkey even sooner, in late September or October. It would require more advance Soviet planning and preparation and staging of follow-on forces and naval forces, but it would also seem to flow more 'naturalistically' and accidentally from adjacent operations in Bulgaria. It leaves open a branch plan to even cross the border and exert some influence in northeastern Greece on behalf of ELAS if so desired.
Politically, it is riskier in that it leaves the Soviets appearing more unilaterally domineering than the British. It may also pose a risk to FDR's reelection and to Lend Lease supplies for the final Berlin campaign and for follow on caampaigns against Japan.
What happens if the Soviets hit Turkey on the way through Bulgaria in late September 1944?
What if they go one further, and don't agree to percentages or noninterference with the British in Greece, helping ELAS take over and arm up in northern Greece while passing through?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 9, 2023 13:22:50 GMT
What if the Soviets invade Turkey and seize the straits as an adjunct to their 1944 Balkans campaign? I am imagining that the Soviets were finding the Turkish straits far closer to powerful combat forces of their own in the late stages of WWII than in any stages of WWI or many other points of Russian history, and Stalin could have found it tempting, while occupying Bulgaria in strength, to cross the border and seize the Turkish straits as well. The Soviets declared war on Bulgaria and invaded it in September 1944, achieving almost instant capitulation. I imagine the Soviet combined ground, air and naval operation to seize the straits, and probably the Kars border region of northeastern Turkey, could be feasibly set up and well-timed for middle or late December 1944, and combined with a Declaration of War, based on supposed hostile Turkish intent, alleged past Turkish unneutral behavior, and hostile troop movements on the border during earlier dangerous points during the Great Patriotic War. [similar to justifications used in declaring war against Bulgaria, and Japan, who had not declared war on the USSR]. A December date would have allowed movement and concentration of Black Sea fleet support, troop echelons and airpower in Bulgaria and the Caucasus, to be able to execute a quick grab of Thrace, Constantinople, the Asian side of the sea of Marmara, Turkey's Aegean islands, and Kars. Politically, this is after the settlement of the western and Soviet occupation zones in Germany in London in September. And after the Balkan 'percentages' agreement in October 1944, which notably - did not address Turkey. It is also after FDR's reelection, and it at a moment where the inevitable bad PR and blowback the Soviets will face in the west is somewhat diluted by the recent British suppression of the Greek Communists being roundly criticized in the US press. It also after nearly all the year's Lend-Lease has been delivered, including just about everything to be used in the January offensive the Soviets intend to use to sweep across Poland to the gates of Berlin, to hopefully break into the city early in the new year. How long will and can the Turks fight for the territorities the Soviets are seizing and keep attempting counterattacks? How will the western powers react to the Soviet fait accompli, and its thin and unconvincing explanation, while the Soviets also press full steam ahead against the Germans in Central Europe and Yugoslavia? Do the Western Allies reshape any of their final operations for the defeat of the Nazis in Europe, terms of acceptance for Nazi surrenders, limit or terminate Lend Lease deliveries, or alter any of the stop lines they are aiming for in Europe? In Yalta, will they still be meeting with the Soviets in person, and seeking their participation in the Pacific War, and offering Lend-Lease in support of that end, or now rethinking that whole idea of extending the partnership eastward? --- Theoretically, the Soviets could initiate action against Turkey even sooner, in late September or October. It would require more advance Soviet planning and preparation and staging of follow-on forces and naval forces, but it would also seem to flow more 'naturalistically' and accidentally from adjacent operations in Bulgaria. It leaves open a branch plan to even cross the border and exert some influence in northeastern Greece on behalf of ELAS if so desired. Politically, it is riskier in that it leaves the Soviets appearing more unilaterally domineering than the British. It may also pose a risk to FDR's reelection and to Lend Lease supplies for the final Berlin campaign and for follow on caampaigns against Japan. What happens if the Soviets hit Turkey on the way through Bulgaria in late September 1944? What if they go one further, and don't agree to percentages or noninterference with the British in Greece, helping ELAS take over and arm up in northern Greece while passing through?
Their already looking more domineering that the US, let alone the British.  Also it means an additional foe that while not well equipped has a long history of fighting hard against Russian forces and in the east especially has very favourable terrain for the defence.
Also I can't see the US, let alone the British supporting such a move and being further angered by it being done as a surprise to them. Very likely that aid will be cut or at least sharply reduced as by this time its looking good in western Europe and Germany is clearly going down.
Furthermore it was still unclear how much fight Germany still has and such a step done in say Oct/Nov might prompt a possible Germany strike in the Balkans rather than the OTL Bulge. Which while still likely to fail could cause real problems if it cut through to the Black Sea as forces attacking the Turks could find themselves distinctly isolated. Reports differ on how bad the Soviet manpower situation was by late 44 but there are a lot of reports of them conscripting just about everybody from areas they 'liberated'.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 10, 2023 20:02:53 GMT
What if the Soviets invade Turkey and seize the straits as an adjunct to their 1944 Balkans campaign? I am imagining that the Soviets were finding the Turkish straits far closer to powerful combat forces of their own in the late stages of WWII than in any stages of WWI or many other points of Russian history, and Stalin could have found it tempting, while occupying Bulgaria in strength, to cross the border and seize the Turkish straits as well. The Soviets declared war on Bulgaria and invaded it in September 1944, achieving almost instant capitulation. I imagine the Soviet combined ground, air and naval operation to seize the straits, and probably the Kars border region of northeastern Turkey, could be feasibly set up and well-timed for middle or late December 1944, and combined with a Declaration of War, based on supposed hostile Turkish intent, alleged past Turkish unneutral behavior, and hostile troop movements on the border during earlier dangerous points during the Great Patriotic War. [similar to justifications used in declaring war against Bulgaria, and Japan, who had not declared war on the USSR]. A December date would have allowed movement and concentration of Black Sea fleet support, troop echelons and airpower in Bulgaria and the Caucasus, to be able to execute a quick grab of Thrace, Constantinople, the Asian side of the sea of Marmara, Turkey's Aegean islands, and Kars. Politically, this is after the settlement of the western and Soviet occupation zones in Germany in London in September. And after the Balkan 'percentages' agreement in October 1944, which notably - did not address Turkey. It is also after FDR's reelection, and it at a moment where the inevitable bad PR and blowback the Soviets will face in the west is somewhat diluted by the recent British suppression of the Greek Communists being roundly criticized in the US press. It also after nearly all the year's Lend-Lease has been delivered, including just about everything to be used in the January offensive the Soviets intend to use to sweep across Poland to the gates of Berlin, to hopefully break into the city early in the new year. How long will and can the Turks fight for the territorities the Soviets are seizing and keep attempting counterattacks? How will the western powers react to the Soviet fait accompli, and its thin and unconvincing explanation, while the Soviets also press full steam ahead against the Germans in Central Europe and Yugoslavia? Do the Western Allies reshape any of their final operations for the defeat of the Nazis in Europe, terms of acceptance for Nazi surrenders, limit or terminate Lend Lease deliveries, or alter any of the stop lines they are aiming for in Europe? In Yalta, will they still be meeting with the Soviets in person, and seeking their participation in the Pacific War, and offering Lend-Lease in support of that end, or now rethinking that whole idea of extending the partnership eastward? --- Theoretically, the Soviets could initiate action against Turkey even sooner, in late September or October. It would require more advance Soviet planning and preparation and staging of follow-on forces and naval forces, but it would also seem to flow more 'naturalistically' and accidentally from adjacent operations in Bulgaria. It leaves open a branch plan to even cross the border and exert some influence in northeastern Greece on behalf of ELAS if so desired. Politically, it is riskier in that it leaves the Soviets appearing more unilaterally domineering than the British. It may also pose a risk to FDR's reelection and to Lend Lease supplies for the final Berlin campaign and for follow on caampaigns against Japan. What happens if the Soviets hit Turkey on the way through Bulgaria in late September 1944? What if they go one further, and don't agree to percentages or noninterference with the British in Greece, helping ELAS take over and arm up in northern Greece while passing through? Can you show me the logistics and physical lines of communication? I am locked in a discussion similar to this in concept embodying the same area with a different cast of historical characters going after this terrain; to try to overrun Turkey / the Ottoman Empire in a different thread. I do question that the Soviets WITHOUT allied logistic support can operate much past northern Bulgaria, once they hit the mountains. I cite actual history. There should have been no way for Greece to withstand the so called "Soviet Juggernaut, even with British help during the Greek civil war, unless the logistics was not there. It was not there, which is why Stalin tried proxy war. It was the same trick he tried in Korea for the same reason. You have no ability to cross country via truck? You are not going to crash through the Balkan mountains, much less the Caucasus. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on May 11, 2023 2:37:06 GMT
I do question that the Soviets WITHOUT allied logistic support can operate much past northern Bulgaria, In a sense, the Soviets have accumulated allied logistic support *already delivered* from past Lend Lease shipments via the Pacific, Arctic, Persian, and from 1944 increasingly, the straits Lend-Lease routes. What they don't have is direct, real time full-service allied logistic support with just in time delivery of fresh parts and allied technicians present on call 24/7 with Soviet forces. But, the Soviets in 1944 certainly *did* historically operate well past northern Bulgaria. once they hit the mountains. Well you're not *that* intimidated by those mountains you see in the topographic map of Bulgaria and the Balkans are you? Please don't tell me you're one of those peeps who like to respond about the military feasibility of something with just a picture of mountains or a topographic map, as if that's a complete answer. It isn't. It's always the combination of terrain and defender capabilities. Tanks and other caterpillar drive vehicles were meant for cross-country off-roading. Also, the mountains in Bulgaria and the Balkans, especially on their eastern sides, are not all in a continuous line. There are plenty of gaps and passes - some pretty wide. I'll use the very map you introduced to show it: imgur.com/a/FQrXgr4I would note as the quote said, the Soviets got units down to southern Bulgaria in strength, which must have been either through the Balkan mountain on through the gap on the eastern end. And they advanced west from Bulgaria into adjacent areas of Yugoslavia, which had to be through some mountains. Now the largest number and greatest progress of Soviet forces through Yugoslavia in 44-45 was indeed through the flatter, northern plains portions of the Belgrade-Zagreb axis. But, when the Soviets simultaneously invaded and the Romanians defected in August 1944, the Soviets managed to get their forward elements across the Carpathians and Transylvanian alps, higher and broader than any of the Bulgarian mountain chains, all in the space of a month. There should have been no way for Greece to withstand the so called "Soviet Juggernaut, even with British help during the Greek civil war, unless the logistics was not there.It was not there, which is why Stalin tried proxy war. I think you only compel yourself to make the Greek case support this canned conclusion because you are reversing causation. Greek proxies ideologically aligned with Stalin were fighting for power in Greece, and enjoyed intermittent external support or sanctuary at different times from Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union. The reason why 'withstanding' the so-called Soviet Juggernaut was not because mountains an logistic poverty prevented Greece from being a viable field of operations, but because the Soviets simply never decided to 'jugger' their nauts off in the general direction of Greece. |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on May 11, 2023 3:08:42 GMT
Well you're not *that* intimidated by those mountains you see in the topographic map of Bulgaria and the Balkans are you? Please don't tell me you're one of those peeps who like to respond about the military feasibility of something with just a picture of mountains or a topographic map, as if that's a complete answer. It isn't. It's always the combination of terrain and defender capabilities. Tanks and other caterpillar drive vehicles were meant for cross-country off-roading. I did. I am very aware of what terrain and weather effects are and can do to even the best trained and logistically capable of armies and navies.  That is southwest Bulgaria. |
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Aug 1, 2023 8:14:12 GMT
Well this unilateral (if done without a real casus belli and without any preliminary talk with the British and the American) and frankly aggressive move against a nation that the Allies have tried to bring on their side and with decent results will alarm a lot of people, Churchill will be livid and even the americans will not like it as there are already some fear towards the Soviet expansion.
Naturally an attack to Turkey mean divert resources from other front and this can mean a slower advance in the east and the wallies increasing their final advance in Austria, Czech and Germany and maybe even win the run to Trieste and naturally there will be consequences on the invasion of Manchuria
The big crisis will be at the end of the hostilities, it's very probable that a full implementation of Yalta will be conditional to a return of the prewar situation in Turkey, if Stalin try also to snatch northern Greece and throw openly the % agreement on the dustbin immediately i doubt that the Anglo-American will retreat on the agreed line
|
|
Anastasia
Seaman
No truce with fairies.
Posts: 5
Likes: 6
|
Post by Anastasia on Oct 21, 2023 23:59:53 GMT
I could see Operation Unthinkable becoming far more likely ITTL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 22, 2023 11:39:29 GMT
I could see Operation Unthinkable becoming far more likely ITTL.
Its a possibility although the western powers are tired of war and a lot of propaganda effort has been put into painting the USSR as 'allies and friends' so anything which looks like a western attack would be very difficult to gain public support. If its a case of the USSR refusing to withdrawal from Turkey and things build up from there with no clear deliberate 1st outbreak of shooting, or the Soviets being seen to initiate fighting then it would be a different matter but a lot would depend on the circumstances. I could well see Truman and probably also Attlee refusing to withdraw from territory agreed to be in Soviet hands after Yalta if Stalin doesn't withdraw from Turkey. Which could be some significant territory as others have mentioned if the Soviets put a lot of resources into occupying Turkey, which could be the case.
In terms of the war in the Far East depending on the timing event you could see Stalin in turn refusing to carry out his promise to join the war against Japan in response. Or if conflict has already started in Europe the Japanese might even get their wish for the Soviets to suddenly become allies of a sort. Although that's unlikely to do them much good in the longer term.
If things really go to hell then the 1st nukes are probably more likely to be deployed against Soviet rather than Japanese targets although where and when would depend on circumstances.
|
|
Also it means an additional foe that while not well equipped has a long history of fighting hard against Russian forces and in the east especially has very favourable terrain for the defence.
