Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles
- Thread starter Lascaris
- Start date
Well, around this time, Horthy tried to surrender to the Allies but was thwarted in Operation Panzerfaust.I wouldn't know what you mean.
Yeah I think as time goes on FDR would care less and less about what Stalin thinks as time goes on on the straits, since Constantinople would be mostly devoid of Turkish ppl by this point, and I don't think FDR would care about what Turkey thinks about Constantinople.
I could see FDR disliking Stalin more and more earlier than otl due to this.
Considering the circumstances I think that's what Stalin and Churchill would agree on lol.
true. I was more thinking American/yugoslav armies using Greek infrastructure to continue fighting.
Well, keeping the mouth of the Black Sea under contention would be important. Add to the fact that Russian actions in Uskudar, and I think America would care about making the USSR know that they can't leave the Black Sea. After all, posturing is just as important as the realities on the ground...
tbf its like Stalin specifically taking Kaliningrad in otl and uskudar ittl. They still can't leave the Baltics/Med even with said ports.
Well the Soviets are in Prussia while the allies are doing slightly better than otl, so it really depends on Sweden. Sweden changes things too, with their actions in Norway.
I think it is possible for the allies to do better than otl in terms of the lands they take. Not that they'd get a lot farther than otl tho.
frankly it can happen if Czechoslovakia is seen as neutral country, since Slovakia is more pro-democracy, and would allow both American and soviet troops to be in the region, and prevent the communist party from seizing power.
Also, it would be heavily dependent, of the possible existence and importance of both the Philo Hellenic war propaganda and in the number and possible influence of the Americans 'Hellenists'/pro Greek helping/advocating the probable Greek government lobby/interests defense in the American Press and before the WH and the Congress...
Yeah, with Greece being a lot stronger, having similar interests with the Brits and Americans, and having won one of the first victories in the war would make them quite successful in making a good case in the eyes of the American public.
Lmao yes Vaeius that smell is the unique scent of speculation in the air
I still can see Italy getting by almost scot free depending on what happens in Yugoslavia. Handing land over to a country in the middle of a civil war being a bad idea is a pretty good argument to maintain temporary stewardship that becomes de facto when NATO doesn’t want to give territory to the Soviets. That said I think you map is pretty likely if Yugoslavia is in any condition to receive territory.
Whatever happens in Yugoslavia it’s gonna be messy. I see a few different likely possibilities. Something like yours is one. Completely victory for either side is another. But the third is the one I think is most likely. Western or neutral Slovenia, Western Greater Serbia, abd Communist Croatia with some portion of Bosnia.
Definitely feel like the Assyrians should take whatever they can get, especially at that size. The Alawite state feels like it has a better chance of independence and continued Western support. France in particular I could see trying to keep close ties to the Lebanese and Alawites for various reasons.
Definitely feels like something that might happen during the Khrushchev thaw in my mind. Instead of demoting it, giving it to Finland to strengthen relations seems possible. At least parts of it.
Well in all fairness, Bulgaria got off extremely light after WW2 OTL. That feels like one of those flukes of history that doesn’t happen in most timelines.
I’ve always been under the impression that a lot of that support happened because the Soviets kicked out the Sudetenland Germans and redistributed their property to the poor. If it was the Wallies doing that it seems likely that they’d get the popularity boost. That said I’m basing that off something my post 1900’s European History professor who was a Cold War relic said over a decade ago, so he might have been biased/wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time, so if anyone has an actual source that points either way I’d appreciate it.
Last edited:
A barrier of neutral states would still be satisfying for Stalin, especially if he can exchange that for other important goals.
I can see Stalin accepting a neutral Czechia, Austria, and yes even Poland in return for a) Legal recognition of the annexation of the Baltic States b) legal recognition of his territorial annexations vs. Poland c) Soviet right to pass warships through the Straits and Soviet territorial control on the Asiatic side d) Soviet paramountcy in Turkey, Romania, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia e) perhaps a unification of Slovakia with Hungary and Hungary also keeping the Voivodina f) neutrality and arms limitations for all German successor states g) Recognition of Titoist state.
These are all major things Stalin wants and conceding neutral status for a the mitteuropa barrier and even Poland might be worth it (though in the Polish case with defacto military alliances). I.e Poland and Turkey become the Finalnd of this timeline.
I can see Stalin accepting a neutral Czechia, Austria, and yes even Poland in return for a) Legal recognition of the annexation of the Baltic States b) legal recognition of his territorial annexations vs. Poland c) Soviet right to pass warships through the Straits and Soviet territorial control on the Asiatic side d) Soviet paramountcy in Turkey, Romania, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia e) perhaps a unification of Slovakia with Hungary and Hungary also keeping the Voivodina f) neutrality and arms limitations for all German successor states g) Recognition of Titoist state.
These are all major things Stalin wants and conceding neutral status for a the mitteuropa barrier and even Poland might be worth it (though in the Polish case with defacto military alliances). I.e Poland and Turkey become the Finalnd of this timeline.
pls don't ban me
Monthly Donor
OTL bulgaria was a forced member of the axis.
Boris III wanted to stay neutral but the italian invasion of greece forced hitler to come down and offer: "join the axis or die".
yeah sure we got to occupy Macedonia entirely and Thrace but Bulgaria literally did not have a single battle in ww2.
the Bulgarian declaration of war was purely formal to show Hitler that we were enthusiastically in the axis.
what Bulgaria did in the occupation zones i'm not gonna speak about it cause there's the "usual" war crimes that Balkan nations like to practice
We your now happily friendly for real neighbors have a saying "pull me even if I pretend to cry". Sure Boris was clever enough to want to grab the territory at minimal cost to Bulgaria. This did not mean he wanted to grab the territory any less or that this was not enthusiastically supported within Bulgaria or that we, and the Serbs I guess, viewed you as any less the aggressor.
I've said it before that any rational Bulgaria should had called it a game at the end of the 1st Balkans war and gone to cash out her gains. At a very quick calculation it had gained about 47,700 km2 and likely at the St Petersburg conference that was about to begin when it jumped everyone else would had likely gained at least some more. Already that was more than any of the other allies. Then for good measure it doubled down on backing the wrong horse in 1915 when it was being offered most of East Thrace, and large chunks of Macedonia to join the Entente. Boris dad and the politicians who kowtowed to him have a lot to account for.
Now I'm curious actually. TTL I have characterized the Bulgarian defeat in 1944 as a "3rd national catastrophe" since Bulgaria failed to gain territory against Greece and Yugoslavia once more and for good measure took 372,000 casualties (so call it something like between a quarter and a third of that killed). But on the other hand it does stand a fair chance of not going communist. If Bulgaria does not actually go communist is this better or worse for Bulgaria long term?
pls don't ban me
Monthly Donor
i agree on the Balkan wars, it was Ferdinand pride and arrogance that cost Bulgaria everything. ( same for ww1 which as we saw ended up in abdication). OTL speaking Boris III was personally speaking in the top 5 best rulers Bulgaria ever had ( 1st Simeon the great, 2nd his father Boris I, 3rd Boris III, 4th Krum and 5th Asparuh). Boris managed to establish an Absolute monarchy when the country was descending in dictatorship ( Zveno coup) and gave Bulgaria a "golden age" in the interwar period. He believed that Bulgaria could peacefully recover some lost territories through diplomacy. when the war started he tried to find some guarantees of help from the allies should war escalate and reach his country but no one answered so when Hitler basically arrived and said "join the axis" he said yes for the love of his country and avoid an invasion from someone that in 1940 looked as invincible. His death is still today regarded as poisonin ( because it's almost the same as the one that happened to metaxas) from Hitler due to his refusal to either declare war on the Soviets or give troops. After the communist took over they dug up his corpse, divided it into pieces and hid them somewhere. As of today only his heart has been recovered and put again to rest in the Rila Monastery.
YES. for several reasons:
1- Bulgaria keeps a very popular monarchy.
2- Simeon II stays as a figure head and does not do political damaged like OTL in 2001
3- no communism.
4- Marshall plan available.
without the communist experience Bulgaria will most likely avoid the mass emigration when communism fell so it will probably have 9 million citizen in 2024 instead of the almost 6,5. Heck, i wanna bet it bu with an actual democracy and economy Bulgaria might have even 10 mln citizens.
last thing i'm adding, if there won't be a communist yugoslavia, there will remain the issue of Bulgarians in Macedonia so either they expel like 1 million and half people or a somehow peaceful resolution shall be found by ONU . in OTL Yugoslavia kept Macedonia mainly because Tito and Stalin had not split yet ( there where even talks of a Bulgarian merge) and because the Second or third international ( don't remember which one) recognized the existence of Macedonians.
as far as i know Churchill might heavily throw support for Bulgaria as they are a monarchy and, as i discovered last summer, his favorite wines came from Dobruja and Melnik( near Macedonia) 🤣
OTOH, I doubt the Greeks (or the non-Communist elements of the Fatherland Front who'd probably be running things in Sofia ITTL) would want the Bulgarian monarchy running around, so there's that.
pls don't ban me
Monthly Donor
if you have to choose between risking a communist takeover a foreign monarchy you don't like but it's easier to deal with i'd be pretty sure of my choice.
As you mentioned before , this is the Balkans we are talking about . If the choices are between expelling a million people loyal to your enemy or gifting that enemy your lands right after they were crushed in a massive war , its not even a real choice . That million will be expelled . Some may even make it to Bulgaria ...
Any recognition of "Macedonians" in this timeline is pretty much impossible . Greece has precisely 0 interest in doing so . Yugoslavia would be shooting itself on the foot ( if not the head) by alienating their most important ally for no reason whatsoever . Bulgaria is in damage control mode , trying to minimize losses . The last thing they want is to antagonize the states that can make your post war situation ( and the peace deal you get) far far worse ...
pls don't ban me
Monthly Donor
Yugoslavia will not expel them. they will try to resume the forced Serbianization they were doing before ww2
from th serbianisation wiki section:
Those who declared as ethnic Bulgarians were, harassed or deported to Bulgaria.[37] The high clergymen of the Bulgarian Exarchate were also deported.[38] Bulgarian schools were closed and teachers expelled. The population of Macedonia was forced to declare as Serbs. Those who refused were beaten and tortured.[39] Prominent people and teachers from Skopje who refused to declare as Serbs were deported to Bulgaria.[38] International Commission concluded that the Serbian state started in Macedonia wide sociological experiment of "assimilation through terror."[38] All Bulgarian books gave way to Serbian. The government Serbianized personal names and surnames for all official uses. Between 1913 and 1915 all people who spoke a Slavic language in Vardar Macedonia were presented by Serbia as Serbs.
Tito did not had an original idea, he simply took the former one and added the Macedonian touch to make it more effective. result: we have now people of slavic origin believing they are descendants of Alexander the great.
Also if Yugoslavia starts massively expelling people… it would be something like 3 mln people between Macedonians and Albanians ( 1,9), Hungarians ( 500k) and then all the others: Italians, Germans, Romanians…
out of a population of what… 15 mln? that is sure a way to make you hated by everyone.
I mean if they do it at the same time the Soviets and their Polish puppet are expelling all the Germans from Prussia and Silesia they can hid behind that. Something like "We're just ensuring that there will be no more of this 'we're doing this to protect our people in your country' nonsense that caused the war we just finished. Just like the Soviets are doing up north. Unless you're saying the Soviets are committing a genocide against the Germans by deporting them?" I'm sure the Serbs would LOVE that they no longer have to deal with Albanians, Bulgarians, or other groups on what they see as their land so it's not like it would be unpopular with the people of Yugoslavia (which has always basically been Greater Serbia).
Last edited:
pls don't ban me
Monthly Donor
while doing it to a neutral, momentarily dead, Bulgaria might work i highly doubt they can manage do it to toward the communist block or Italy. both have relatively more power than Yugoslavia and it might even escalate diplomatically...
i forgot to ask, @Lascaris are the Foibe massacres still happening or diverted?
I still think Voivodina goes to Hungary. Indeed I am not discounting Stalin resurrecting the old Hungarian Kingdom as a tripartie Socialist Federation of Slovaks, Croats and Hungarians. 1) With fewer direct satellites he probably wants a bigger territory under puppet control. 2) A tripartie state helps him play the peoples against each other. Tito especially will be more malleable 3) it would compensate the Hungarians ideologically for the loss of Transylvania 4) He can still sell the idea of socialist brotherhood. He would thus be better able to manage Romania and Hungary-Croatia-Slovakia and provide him with a good soviet controlled zone bordering the buffer zone. Depending on what happens in Poland he has only three direct vassal states to manage (plus Finland), that are able to mobilize more troops for the future Pact, and have more territory depth to absorb a "western" attack.
The above also means a preference for the officially neutral countries being as small and weak as possible. Austria, Slovenia, Czechia, and potential a Brandenburg (in this scenario I can see Stalin also pushing for undoing 1866). He may also push for a small neutral Bosniak state and Albania as buffers between Hun-Croa-Slov and Yugoslavia.
Lmao what would essentially be the communist revival of the Dual Monarchy is possibly the weirdest idea I’ve ever heard. I can see it happening but it’s just crazy to think about. The Slovaks would absolutely despise it, as would everyone who wasn’t a Hungarian in Vojvodina. I can absolutely see it’s dissolution taking the Yugoslav wars in the 90’s.
Wouldn’t Montenegro, either as an independent entity or part of Greater Serbia, stand between this tripartite monstrosity and Albania anyway? I’m sure Stalin would love to have a neutral of communist Albania but I’m not sure the Wallies want to leave a potential threat for their eastern wing.
Frankly if that actually happens I think Churchill's German partition plan may come to fruition. Since they're playing with the Dual monarchy, I see Churchill's Bavarian-Austrian coalition plan be used to split Germany between the Catholic and Protestant states. This plays right into most of the ppl in the conference as they want to destroy Prussian militarism, which could very well be achieved by moving Germany's capital to Bonn, and Poland gaining Silesia and Prussia, which also solves the problem of the Danzig corridor if Danzig is given back to Germany but with Prussia being cleared out.
ofc the major stipulation in this is that if any German nation tries to reunify with the other both America and the USSR would have to militarily intervene, which would solve the problem of 'what if the Americans allow for German reunification' bc most of Germany probably would be in WAllies hands ittl.
I think if we get Slovakia-Hungary, we'd get a 'Pannonian People's Republic' with more emphasis on the geographical region as part of 'global communism'.
Frankly I think Stalin would expand the tripartite monstrosity as the civil war goes on.
So basically I think at first Stalin would want Yugoslavia, but as the civil war drags on (especially if Tito dies) he would try to get the Hungarian +Slovak puppet to intervene and strengthen the Croats + Bozniak Yugoslavists, since I think Yugoslavia wouldn't be solved at Yalta and instead be solved in a separate treaty. At Yalta I think the Americans and Soviets would say that Yugoslavia is a neutral nation instead, as their proxies are both present in Yugoslavia.