Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles

Serpent

Banned
Ooh that could open up some interesting questions on succession depending on how the war's going, figurehead or not.

Yeah, I could see a referendum on the institution of monarchy taking place in post war Turkey, like what happened in Italy IOTL.
 
Part 123
Ionia, June 30th, 1943

The offensive of the Turkish 1st army was ordered to a halt. It was true that the Turks and Germans had begun with nearly twice as many men. But the Allies had command of the air, the Luftwaffe reinforcing her units in the Balkans with 140 more aircraft in May and June, had barely managed to put a dent on Allied air superiority and the Greeks had been well dug in, with superior armor and artillery and after three years of war more than adept in shifting forces where needed, helped by ample numbers of Studebaker and Ford trucks to move men and supplies much faster than the Turks and Germans that still had to largely depend on on animal drawn transport. After two of the initial Turkish probes had been savaged by the Greek III Armoured Division and with reports of reinforcements already pouring through the port of Smyrna to Ptolemaios Saririgiannis Army of Asia Minor, Cakmak had had enough. There was no point to waste men and machines by continuing the offensive. Better let the Greeks and the English break their heads on Turkish defenses.

Eleusis air base, Athens, July 1st, 1943


Greek and Polish airmen presented arms as prime minister Wladislaw Sikorski climbed down the ladder of the converted B-24 that had brought him to Greece. The Polish prime minister was to meet with the Greek government in downtown Athens and go on an inspection tour of the Polish forces in Greece. Three Polish infantry divisions the 1 Dywizja Grenadierów, 2 Dywizja Strzelców Pieszych and 4 Dywizja Piechoty were fighting in the Thessalian front, with two Polish Air Force squadrons the 303rd "Kościuszko" with Spitfire IXs and 305th "Ziemia Wielkopolska" with B-25 Mitchells flying out of Eleusis. Fourteen more Polish squadrons were operating out of the British islands, the last of them No 336 Bomber squadron had been formed back in February.

Rome, July 4th, 1943

The Italian government ordered the headquarters of the 6th army to move to Calabria. Resistance to the Allied armies still continued but the Italiann hold on Sicily was systematically being reduced.

Kursk July 5th, 1943


781,000 German soldiers supported by more than 2,900 tanks including brand new Tigers and Panthers and almost 10,000 guns attacked. The German offensive had to be delayed repeatedly between lack of resources and crises in other fronts, in particular the landings in Sicily. Many German generals including Guderian had even suggested outright cancelling it, Guderian thought it better to stay on the defensive for 1943 and resume the offensive come next year. But enemy armies kept growing. thus in true Prussian fashion the German army was to once more take its chances and risk winning or losing everything on a single roll of the iron dice. Only this time over 1.4 million veteran Soviet soldiers withe more than 5,000 tanks and five times as many guns waited to receive the assault with yet more ready to reinforce them when needed...

Sicily, July 8th, 1943


Messe and Kesserling begun evacuating second line units and material through the straits of Messina to Calabria. The Allies would attempt to interdict the movement but the Regia Marina and the Regia Aeronautica would prove they still had teeth the hard way when Italian torpedo bombers heavily damaged HMS Indomitable and the submarine Dandolo nearly sunk the light cruiser HMS Sirius. The British and Greeks would attempt to infiltrate the straits of Messina at night with PT Boats, only for two boats to be sunk by the light cruiser Pompeio Magno, one of only a handful of Regia Marina ships equipped with radar. The evacuation and the fighting further south went on...

Rastenburg, East Prussia, July 12th, 1943


Marshals Von Manstein and Von Kluge were summoned to the Wolf's Laid to decide on the continuation of the German offewnsive at Kursk. So far the offensive had been going rather worse than the Germans had hoped for. Their forces had advanced but at very high cost. And while Von Manstein still hoped he was about to break through Soviet forces in his sector and destroy the remaining Soviet reserves afterwards, a rather optimistic assessment of the size of uncommitted Soviet reserves, the Soviets had already counterattacked in Von Kluge's front. Coupled with the imminent collapse of the defenses of Sicily the decision was taken to halt the offensive. But that the Germans had decided to stop their attack hardly meant the battle was over. The Soviet counterattack in the northern sector, was already evolving to a full scale counterattack...
 
Considering the Turkic attack immediately got halted by Greek forces turkey really seems spent in this war. There's not much they can do other than guerrilla warfare and the allies would roll over any proper army.

Also considering Poland does seem to have very good relations with Greece I'd think Greece would be one of the countries with an ambassador for the polish government in exile which would piss the USSR off.
 
Where are the frontlines, give or take ?
This. Roughly.

Asia Minor February 1943.jpg
 
Tbf there's not much turkey can do considering the wallies prob want unconditional surrender due to turkey entering the war early and quite a few allies benefiting from unconditional surrender.
I mean it’s to be expected - they’ve done a Germany, picked the wrong side twice and never switched

100% losing Istanbul - or I suppose Constantinople in this world - and probably a hefty chunk of Western Anatolia
 
I mean it’s to be expected - they’ve done a Germany, picked the wrong side twice and never switched

100% losing Istanbul - or I suppose Constantinople in this world - and probably a hefty chunk of Western Anatolia
Ye but I think the more extensive losses land-wise will be in eastern Anatolia (Armenia, Pontus, Kurdistan), they'd at least 'just' lose the hellspont, European Constantinople and minor adjustments in Ionia.
 
Also while it is true that Turkey will be surrounded by potential enemy states, one should not assume that those states will also not have severe stability issues. Considering Kurdish identity and culture in the 1940s-1950s, I would not expect Kurdistan to be much of a military threat to anybody. Indeed I would expect a lot of Kurdish migration to Turkey and the Middle East for work.

Actually I have been thinking about TTL's Iran and Kurdistan and I wanted to run a few thoughts by you. It seem the stage is set for either a democratic or semi-democratic Iran. The country went through an interesting Interwar that seemed to have strengthened its institutions. Considering that after Turkey, Iran has been the most sophisticated state in the region, what would it mean post war ?

It seems to me that without the double occupation of OTL and without the despotic Shah, Iran will have much greater vigor and confidence. The weakest Ally, but an Ally nevertheless. I would expect when Turkey asks for an armistice there will be iranian boots in Kurdistan. And things get more interesting after the end of the war. Nobody can deny the cultural influence Iran had historically been projecting throughout the region, from Mesopotamia to Amu Darya and even to the Gangetic Plain. While the Kurds are trying to formulate a modern state, might they look to Iran as an example?

From the iranian perspective, it seems to me that Kurdistan will be the main focus of projecting soft power. I assume Iran will have aspirations to be a regional hegemon and that they will be alligned with the West - without neglecting their own interests. To the north, the Soviets have an iron grip over the Caucasus and Central Asia. Before Suez takes place, the British presence cannot be discounted. I doubt London would view positively Iran meddling in rump Iraq or the Gulf sheikhdoms (Bahrain comes to mind). That leaves out only Afganistan and Kurdistan. What are the chances of Kurdistan getting pulled into the iranian sphere of influence? What would DC think of such development? I may speak nonsense, but to my amateur eye seem that Spykman's disciples would view it positively.
 
Actually I have been thinking about TTL's Iran and Kurdistan and I wanted to run a few thoughts by you. It seem the stage is set for either a democratic or semi-democratic Iran. The country went through an interesting Interwar that seemed to have strengthened its institutions. Considering that after Turkey, Iran has been the most sophisticated state in the region, what would it mean post war ?

It seems to me that without the double occupation of OTL and without the despotic Shah, Iran will have much greater vigor and confidence. The weakest Ally, but an Ally nevertheless. I would expect when Turkey asks for an armistice there will be iranian boots in Kurdistan. And things get more interesting after the end of the war. Nobody can deny the cultural influence Iran had historically been projecting throughout the region, from Mesopotamia to Amu Darya and even to the Gangetic Plain. While the Kurds are trying to formulate a modern state, might they look to Iran as an example?

From the iranian perspective, it seems to me that Kurdistan will be the main focus of projecting soft power. I assume Iran will have aspirations to be a regional hegemon and that they will be alligned with the West - without neglecting their own interests. To the north, the Soviets have an iron grip over the Caucasus and Central Asia. Before Suez takes place, the British presence cannot be discounted. I doubt London would view positively Iran meddling in rump Iraq or the Gulf sheikhdoms (Bahrain comes to mind). That leaves out only Afganistan and Kurdistan. What are the chances of Kurdistan getting pulled into the iranian sphere of influence? What would DC think of such development? I may speak nonsense, but to my amateur eye seem that Spykman's disciples would view it positively.
Tbf I think Iran ittl takes the place of otl turkey in being the premier Muslim power while having a more balanced relationship with the US and western Europe. Iran should be relatively secular too and that would be good for Kurdistan as Kurdistan would like to keep Iran at arm's length for obvious reasons since a powerful Iran would Stoke Kurdistan's fears of being subsumed into the Iranian juggernaut and being a secular nation would be in Kurdistan's best interests.

I think if we get a stable Iran ittl and becomes a regional power their primary enemies are the USSR, Britain and the Arabs while Iran's allies are the US, Kurdistan, and maybe Pakistan (if it exists) and if British India doesn't split India (maybe Iran would be an ally to both due to their mutual dislike of Britain). Britain will be unhappy that their control over the ME is further lessened while the US is happy that a regional ally is actually a good ally other than Israel. Iran and Israel will also be great allies because they share similar interests while not interfering with each other's interests.
 
Actually I have been thinking about TTL's Iran and Kurdistan and I wanted to run a few thoughts by you. It seem the stage is set for either a democratic or semi-democratic Iran. The country went through an interesting Interwar that seemed to have strengthened its institutions. Considering that after Turkey, Iran has been the most sophisticated state in the region, what would it mean post war ?

It seems to me that without the double occupation of OTL and without the despotic Shah, Iran will have much greater vigor and confidence. The weakest Ally, but an Ally nevertheless. I would expect when Turkey asks for an armistice there will be iranian boots in Kurdistan. And things get more interesting after the end of the war. Nobody can deny the cultural influence Iran had historically been projecting throughout the region, from Mesopotamia to Amu Darya and even to the Gangetic Plain. While the Kurds are trying to formulate a modern state, might they look to Iran as an example?

From the iranian perspective, it seems to me that Kurdistan will be the main focus of projecting soft power. I assume Iran will have aspirations to be a regional hegemon and that they will be alligned with the West - without neglecting their own interests. To the north, the Soviets have an iron grip over the Caucasus and Central Asia. Before Suez takes place, the British presence cannot be discounted. I doubt London would view positively Iran meddling in rump Iraq or the Gulf sheikhdoms (Bahrain comes to mind). That leaves out only Afganistan and Kurdistan. What are the chances of Kurdistan getting pulled into the iranian sphere of influence? What would DC think of such development? I may speak nonsense, but to my amateur eye seem that Spykman's disciples would view it positively.
I would not be so optimistic. Iran is a very diverse society, with multiple ethnic groups, and a political system that TTL only has about what ? 20-30 years of relative stability. If it had 100 years of relative stability and working federalism, sure. But it has not had that, and it will not get that. Even OTL modernization was largely a minority , elite driven program that failed outside a couple of major cities. It has much more similarity to Afghanistan than say OTL Turkey in many ways, with the only difference being Persians are not as dominant as Pashtuns are.

Before the rise of a marxist based nationalist ideology in the 70s, Kurdish politics were dominated, and will be dominated TTL by powerful tribal identities. They blocked any land reform attempts from Ankara in the 1930s, and are instrumental in undermining the Kurdish national struggle. Excpect any independent Kurdistan in TTL to be riven by centrafigural conflicts among factions that will seek different external backers. TTL Anatolia/Turkey, Iran and Kurdistan will be heavily influence politically by the timing and character of the rise of mass politics. While Turkey and Iran TTL have elections and parties, I am not sure, and Lascaris has not clarified if those elections use restrictive franchises or indirect votes (as in the case of both the Ottoman Empire-TC until late 1920s and Iran). The opening of the political systems to new actors, by the expansion of suffrage and the role of marxist-secular ideas in that , as well as the demands for land-reform, will play massive role, which frankly not even as good an author as Lascaris can fully grapple with.

To put it simply, do not bet on stable Turkey, Iran, Kurdistan situation in the confines of the Cold War, Second Globalization ,and advent of mass politics
 
Top