Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles

[Xenophonte]

While thinking about the Balkans and Europe in general, needs for rebuild/reconstruct from the destruction that years of combat so as TTL new geopolitical situation on both extremes of the Mediterranean/Europe like Greece/Yugoslavia may affect on those efforts. I just remember two OTL infrastructure projects on inland waterways, that in this TTL context may either be done way earlier than OTL and the other no longer be subject to endless discussion on it... The Tagus river Spanish one and the OTL geopolitical challenging Balkans one, the Danube-Morava-Vardar/Axios-Aegean canal, that OTL still remain in the proposal stage. Also, could be mentioned another one that's even TTL would hardly be politically feasible or that, nad ,IMO, at least, and at difference from the others two first mentioned 'd be not considered economically useful/worth the effort...

Eduardo Lopez Ochoa found himself leading factions in two Spanish civil wars, first with the Nationalists against the Republicans, and then with the moderate Nationalists and his former Republican enemies against his former Falangist allies. He himself claims than in both wars he was trying to protect Spain from far left and far right extremism alike. The Spanish Centrists have closed ranks behind him giving some credence to his claims. After all fighting and defeating German backed fascists and then joining the Allies can get a lot of inconvenient things forgotten...

I'm supposing that along with the ongoing rebuilding/reconstruction efforts, that for Spain 'd be even more a priority than OTL. Though with the key difference that this Ochoa lead Spain. would be integrated on the emerging new international order and be one of the signatories of the UN's chart...
So, I believe that, with the war ended, and in the aforementioned reconstruction context, that it would allow that the issues and needs for the management of the water resources. These issues 'be once again on the forefront pressing needs of the Spanish economy, for the just elect government. Given that, I think that would be possible that either thanks to receiving TTL version of the Marshall Plan and/or with a easier/steadier access to international financiation, than OTL. The Ochoa government would decide to restart the Engg Manuel Lorenzo Pardo's mega project for the Trasvase Tajo-Segura (Tagus-Segura Water Transfer). One that was introduced by the Indalecio Prieto Ministry, as key party of a major plan of hydraulics works for improve the Nation's water management, to the 1933 Cortes...

 

[phil03]

Kazim Karabekir, has become the third prime minister of Turkey after Mustafa Kemal and Rejep Peker. To him has fallen the task of picking up the pieces after the Turkish defeat. Including saving Halk partisi and its hold on Turkish society. The official line party apologists have start sprouting is that everything was Peker's fault and Kemal would had never gone to war against the Allies in 1941. Or lost it is left unsaid...

Obviously that position is extremely self-serving, and to a large degree its about obfuscating that it was the party's leaders and rank and files who signed up on Peker when they knew damn well he was the pro-Axis candidate, but I actually do think they are right about Kemal not intervening in 1941 if he had been alive.

IMO in both OTL and ITTL the man was most definitely ruthless but he was always a fairly calculating and cautious guy with a strong realistic streak and I don't see him deciding lightly to roll the dices. Moreover, and while the circumstances ITTL lead him to be far closer to the Axis then he was OTL, one of the earlier updates tends to indicate he isn't exactly all that impressed by Hitler and the Nazis ITTL either, at least if his impression from when he first actually met the future German dictator is any indication...

If I had to guess I'd say Kemal would have more likely taken a fairly Franco-like stance on intervention at first, and if anything being even tougher to recruit for the Axis since he didn't owe his position at least in part to their military intervention. Just like Franco he would have come up with outlandish demands to mask his refusal to intervene until, at the very least, the Wermacht was in Athens and quite probably until the UK was on the verge of defeat. Then, when the war would have started to tilt toward the Allies, he would have used the fact that his ties to the Axis were far less deep then Franco's to pivot toward a pro-Allies neutrality as much as he could have.

 

[Xenophonte]

f I had to guess I'd say Kemal would have more likely taken a fairly Franco-like stance on intervention at first, and if anything being even tougher to recruit for the Axis since he didn't owe his position at least in part to their military intervention. Just like Franco he would have come up with outlandish demands to mask his refusal to intervene until, at the very least, the Wermacht was in Athens and quite probably until the UK was on the verge of defeat.

Seems quite possible except that, I tend to believe, that, in such scenario, he would have to think very carefully before to agree to meet with Hitler) or his envoy) and/or what would be his territorial demands... Cause of difference to the Franco's Spain, Turkey would be in a more strategic position and that Germany/Hitler may be inclined to agree....
Even some fairly 'outlandish' demands in M. East/Caucasus, Balkans and in the Aegean at the expenses of the occupied Greece, the French Syria and the Soviets
Ofc, that, OTL like ITTL, it would have required both Turkey's full mobilization and deployment against the Soviets and WAllies, so as allow basing rights and the passage of the Nazis troops trough Anatolia... Without mention the inherent risks for Turkeys' sovereignty and the capacity to either be delivered and for conserving such concessions. Would be from Kemal's perspective both be quite problematical tied to their would be Germans allies final victory...

 

[cmakk1012]

and Italian Africa

Interesting.

 

[phil03]

Seems quite possible except that, I tend to believe, that, in such scenario, he would have to think very carefully before to agree to meet with Hitler) or his envoy) and/or what would be his territorial demands... Cause of difference to the Franco's Spain, Turkey would be in a more strategic position and that Germany/Hitler may be inclined to agree....
Even some fairly 'outlandish' demands in M. East/Caucasus, Balkans and in the Aegean at the expenses of the occupied Greece, the French Syria and the Soviets
Ofc, that, OTL like ITTL, it would have required both Turkey's full mobilization and deployment against the Soviets and WAllies, so as allow basing rights and the passage of the Nazis troops trough Anatolia... Without mention the inherent risks for Turkeys' sovereignty and the capacity to either be delivered and for conserving such concessions. Would be from Kemal's perspective both be quite problematical tied to their would be Germans allies final victory...

Perhaps, altough Spain's strategic importance as the key to Gibraltar isn't to be underestimated, but in any case there is definitely stuff that would be surefire poison pills while still giving Kemal plausible deniability: ask for a ton of material and German troops alongside Turkish command over the later, ask for veto over some stuff in term of what Germany and the other Axis powers do, etc...

 

[Rommel1941]

Looking forward to the next chapter

 

[Turniops]

Still waiting for my Prague liberation question…

IT is interesting even for Polish wester forces.
If Prague (and most od Czechia - see map) has been not liberated via Red army, then it has been possible that Czechoslovakia went Austria’s way of Pro-Wester neutrality or Finland’s way.
Even if Soviets iniciated Czecho-Slovakia split (with forced communist Slovakia and “neutral” Czechia), Czechia/Czechoslovakia would remain only Slavic non-communist state, so natural target for exiled polish western force.

 

[Lascaris]

• Battleships: 1
  • Salamis class: 1 (Salamis)
• Cruisers: 2
  • Lemnos class: 1 (Lemnos)
  • Averof class: 1 (Averof)
• Destroyers: 14
  • Themistoklis class: 2 (Themistoklis, Miaoulis)
  • Kanaris (J) class: 4 (Kanaris, Apostolis, Sachtouris, Meliti)
  • Sfendoni (H) class: 4 (Sfendoni, Velos, Thyella, Logchi)
  • E class: 1 (Aspis)
  • Hydra (A) class: 3 (Kimon, Nearchos, Niki)
• Escorts: 10
  • Hunt class: 6 (Navarino, Formion, Hastings, Keraunos, Samos, Logchi)
  • Flower class: 4 (Panormos, Kydonies, Pergamos, Tralleis)
• Submarines: 11
  • Poseidon (S) class: 7 (Pipinos, Pontos, Delphin, Glaukos, Triton, Amphitriti, Poseidon)
  • Matrozos (U) class: 4 (Matrozos, Okeanos, Triaina, Nereus)

Ships Lost in action since August 15, 1940

• Cruisers: 4
  • Lemnos class: 1
  • Helli class: 1
  • Katsonis class: 2
• Destroyers: 16
  • Kanaris (J) class: 2
  • Sfendoni (H) class: 4
  • Hydra (A) class: 4
  • Aetos class: 2
  • S class: 4
• Escorts: 2
  • Hunt class: 2
• Submarines: 10
  • Poseidon (S) class: 6
  • Glaukos class: 4

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

A summary might be useful.

Ships Lost in action since August 15, 1940

• Cruisers: 4 of 6
• Destroyers: 16 of 30
• Escorts: 2 of 12
• Submarines: 10 of 20

That looks like heavier proportional casualties than any OTL Allied Navy.

 

[Duke of Orlando]

Interesting.

Potentially interesting. The ministry for Italian Africa existed until 1953 OTL as well so it could very well mean nothing. He could just be in charge of the decolonization efforts. But it could mean Italy has a portion of Africa (presumably a portion of Libya around the Tripoli to Khoms area and/or Benghazi where the majority of the settlers lived ) to actually administer. Which could have a large impact on what European decolonization looks like if they follow an “Italian” model of keeping areas they may actually be able to control/integrate and letting the rest be independent. It would also make European and North African relationships very strained.

 

[Aristomenes]

@Lascaris any future palns for the HN fleet? IOTL Greece got the light cruiser Eugenio Di Savoia from Italy as war reparations. Could it get smt more ITTL? If Greece does get Cyprus from the UK at some point, it might be a good idea to obtain a light aircraft carrier, from the British or from the Americans .

 

[Lascaris]

Obviously that position is extremely self-serving, and to a large degree its about obfuscating that it was the party's leaders and rank and files who signed up on Peker when they knew damn well he was the pro-Axis candidate, but I actually do think they are right about Kemal not intervening in 1941 if he had been alive.

IMO in both OTL and ITTL the man was most definitely ruthless but he was always a fairly calculating and cautious guy with a strong realistic streak and I don't see him deciding lightly to roll the dices. Moreover, and while the circumstances ITTL lead him to be far closer to the Axis then he was OTL, one of the earlier updates tends to indicate he isn't exactly all that impressed by Hitler and the Nazis ITTL either, at least if his impression from when he first actually met the future German dictator is any indication...

I'm not exactly fond of the man, for all the modernizing/westernizing hype post 1923 he established a dictatorial one party state whose trappings remained generations after his death the "army as guardian of western values" could be just as easily construed as "the army enforcing its interests at the point of a gun". But I hope I gave an accurate plausible portrayal of the man.

If I had to guess I'd say Kemal would have more likely taken a fairly Franco-like stance on intervention at first, and if anything being even tougher to recruit for the Axis since he didn't owe his position at least in part to their military intervention. Just like Franco he would have come up with outlandish demands to mask his refusal to intervene until, at the very least, the Wermacht was in Athens and quite probably until the UK was on the verge of defeat. Then, when the war would have started to tilt toward the Allies, he would have used the fact that his ties to the Axis were far less deep then Franco's to pivot toward a pro-Allies neutrality as much as he could have.

I suppose TTL "Turkey stays out of the war" will be pretty high in the list of alternate histories. Hmm what are likely popular what ifs there? Just off the top of my head.

• Turkey stays out of the war
• Allies lose battle of Thermopylae
• Mussolini invades Greece first
• Mussolini does not invade either Greece or Yugoslavia

Seems quite possible except that, I tend to believe, that, in such scenario, he would have to think very carefully before to agree to meet with Hitler) or his envoy) and/or what would be his territorial demands... Cause of difference to the Franco's Spain, Turkey would be in a more strategic position and that Germany/Hitler may be inclined to agree....
Even some fairly 'outlandish' demands in M. East/Caucasus, Balkans and in the Aegean at the expenses of the occupied Greece, the French Syria and the Soviets
Ofc, that, OTL like ITTL, it would have required both Turkey's full mobilization and deployment against the Soviets and WAllies, so as allow basing rights and the passage of the Nazis troops trough Anatolia... Without mention the inherent risks for Turkeys' sovereignty and the capacity to either be delivered and for conserving such concessions. Would be from Kemal's perspective both be quite problematical tied to their would be Germans allies final victory...

Inonu sorry Ismirli would had likely stayed out of the war. Karabekir might or might not. But lets face it in February 1941 the incentives for Turkey to go to war are VERY strong TTL. How easy it is to predict eventual Allied victory?

Perhaps, altough Spain's strategic importance as the key to Gibraltar isn't to be underestimated, but in any case there is definitely stuff that would be surefire poison pills while still giving Kemal plausible deniability: ask for a ton of material and German troops alongside Turkish command over the later, ask for veto over some stuff in term of what Germany and the other Axis powers do, etc...

Technically Germany DID give Turkey a ton of material and Gurman troops under Turkish command TTL. Well a to of material may be an exaggeration but the Turks got more that about any of the Axis allies.

Still waiting for my Prague liberation question…

IT is interesting even for Polish wester forces.
If Prague (and most od Czechia - see map) has been not liberated via Red army, then it has been possible that Czechoslovakia went Austria’s way of Pro-Wester neutrality or Finland’s way.
Even if Soviets iniciated Czecho-Slovakia split (with forced communist Slovakia and “neutral” Czechia), Czechia/Czechoslovakia would remain only Slavic non-communist state, so natural target for exiled polish western force.View attachment 907457

That is excellent reason for the Polish forces to be kept as far away from Prague as possible lest they start world war 3 inadvertently. Hence as mentioned in the text the Poles were ordered further west. As for Czechoslovakia Yalta, sorry Constantinople, was not any different over it TTL. it was no accident that US troops pulled back to be replaced by Soviet ones OTL.

A summary might be useful.

Ships Lost in action since August 15, 1940

• Cruisers: 4 of 6
• Destroyers: 16 of 30
• Escorts: 2 of 12
• Submarines: 10 of 20

That looks like heavier proportional casualties than any OTL Allied Navy.

Your statistics are somewhat tilted by the ships already decommissioned by the Greeks. But overall the Greek navy had to keep Greece including besieged Smyrna supplied into the teeth of Axis naval and air power from 1941 to 1943. That did not come cheaply...

Potentially interesting. The ministry for Italian Africa existed until 1953 OTL as well so it could very well mean nothing. He could just be in charge of the decolonization efforts. But it could mean Italy has a portion of Africa (presumably a portion of Libya around the Tripoli to Khoms area and/or Benghazi where the majority of the settlers lived ) to actually administer. Which could have a large impact on what European decolonization looks like if they follow an “Italian” model of keeping areas they may actually be able to control/integrate and letting the rest be independent. It would also make European and North African relationships very strained.

The Italians keeping any part of Libya is rather unlikely. Of course OTL they kept Somalia in all but name into 1960 or so...

@Lascaris any future palns for the HN fleet? IOTL Greece got the light cruiser Eugenio Di Savoia from Italy as war reparations. Could it get smt more ITTL? If Greece does get Cyprus from the UK at some point, it might be a good idea to obtain a light aircraft carrier, from the British or from the Americans .

The current size of the navy is likely unsustainable, in OTL the navy postwar had apparently problems with manning its single cruiser... which I find short of odd given how shortly after its decommission in the 1960s fleet size was significantly increasing with the addition of lage numbers of manpower intensive ships like Fletcher and Gearing class destroyers. Now TTL Greece has both a larger population and is quite richer so likely the navy can retain more crews after all its not as if the country was short of sailors when the merchant marine has something in the order of 120,000.

 

[Duke of Orlando]

The Italians keeping any part of Libya is rather unlikely. Of course OTL they kept Somalia in all but name into 1960 or so...

You aren’t wrong but I am hoping to see decolonization go differently in this world so I got a bit a head of myself theorizing about Libya since I could see it starting said change. But as I said not to many comments back it’s hard to see the Wallies giving Italy some of Libya back when it would just anger the Newly independent Libya. Plus Italy is already keeping most or all of the Julian March and Italy needs to be punished somehow.

And considering Somalia was a bit of a disaster as a trust territory OTL it would be great if that could be avoided or went better ITTL.

 

[Whiteshore]

Italo Balbo, turned coat fast enough and successfully enough to escape the fall of fascism in Italy. Ηe remains minister of the air and Italian Africa in the government of national unity while he prepares his party for the coming elections.

With Balbo still around, I imagine the MSI equivalent to be more “radical” due to Balbo sucking in all the “moderates” who IOTL ended up dominant in it,

 

[Lascaris]

Active Fleet

• Destroyers: 4
  • Zafer class: 4 (Zafer, Demirhisar, Muavenet, Gayret)

Ships Lost in action since August 15, 1940

• Armored ships: 2
  • Fatih class: 1
  • Barbaros class: 1
• Cruisers: 1
  • Yavuz class: 1
  • Turgut Reis class: 1
• Destroyers: 8
  • Zafer class: 4
  • Yildirim class: 4
• Submarines: 11
  • Saldiray class: 2
  • Yildiray class: 5
  • Murat Reis class: 2
  • Uluc Ali Reis class: 2

 

[Aristomenes]

Cruisers: 1

• Yavuz class: 1
• Turgut Reis class: 1

Small error. the number of lost cruisers should be 2

 

[Turniops]

@Lascaris : Of course in Constantinopole Czechoslovakia was given to USSR, but Czechoslovakia had unique position in post-war Eastern Europe.
Czechoslovakia’s government in exile, led by President Beneš, was accepted as only legitimate government both in London and in Moscow. Czechoslovakia’s comunists said Stalin, that after war and Soviet’s liberation of Czechoslovakia, people would go and vote them. It was not overstated expectations, because Comunist party od Czechoslovakia was one of largest comunist party in pre-war europe.
So on 12th December 1943 Czechoslovakia and USSR signed “Pact of friendship, mutual assistance and post-war co-operation”. Most interesting was 4th point, where both sides signed, that they didn’t intermeddle with their interior affairs.
After that came more or less succesfull co-operation during Slovak national uprising and Carpathian offensive (see Battle of the Dukla Pass) and then, in Košice Government Program, followed more appeasements to Soviets such as partially nationalisation of industry, ban some pre-war politacal parties and creation transitional government with left-wing, pro-Moscow prime minister.

All these OTL events either happened ITL (Slovak national uprising) or were not described, but nothing implies, that they happened differently.

And here came change because OTL war ended on 8/9th May, when Red army reached Prague. But ITL war ended on 6th May, when Red army was far far away from Prague. Western Allies in that time were only liberation forces in Bohemia and probably liberated larger part of Czechie than Soviets.

And this should create important difference, because in first (and OTL for long time last) free elections Communist had aureole of liberators (it was COMMUNIST Red army, which liberated most of Czechoslovakia including Prague), which gave them non-trivial boost.
But ITL, they would not have it, so they got less gains in election - and this should direct Czechoslovakia to much different future.

 

[Lascaris]

And here came change because OTL war ended on 8/9th May, when Red army reached Prague. But ITL war ended on 6th May, when Red army was far far away from Prague. Western Allies in that time were only liberation forces in Bohemia and probably liberated larger part of Czechie than Soviets.

And this should create important difference, because in first (and OTL for long time last) free elections Communist had aureole of liberators (it was COMMUNIST Red army, which liberated most of Czechoslovakia including Prague), which gave them non-trivial boost.
But ITL, they would not have it, so they got less gains in election - and this should direct Czechoslovakia to much different future.

The communists got 38.11% of the vote in May 1946 in free elections. Color me unconvinced that kind of electoral appeal was dependent on whether American of Soviet tanks got to Prague a week ahead of each other.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

The communists got 38.11% of the vote in May 1946 in free elections. Color me unconvinced that kind of electoral appeal was dependent on whether American of Soviet tanks got to Prague a week ahead of each other.

It could make a significant difference, especially at a time when political affiliations were extremely fluid. Also, as first occupiers, the Soviets would have considerable influence if not control over the selection over local officials to replace expelled volksdeutsch or other collaborators. This would apply for a very short period - but it would be a period of intense political and administrative shakeup.

IM purely speculative opinion, the effect would be at minimum 5%, and possibly as much as 12%.

 

[Duke of Orlando]

@Lascaris : Of course in Constantinopole Czechoslovakia was given to USSR, but Czechoslovakia had unique position in post-war Eastern Europe.
Czechoslovakia’s government in exile, led by President Beneš, was accepted as only legitimate government both in London and in Moscow. Czechoslovakia’s comunists said Stalin, that after war and Soviet’s liberation of Czechoslovakia, people would go and vote them. It was not overstated expectations, because Comunist party od Czechoslovakia was one of largest comunist party in pre-war europe.
So on 12th December 1943 Czechoslovakia and USSR signed “Pact of friendship, mutual assistance and post-war co-operation”. Most interesting was 4th point, where both sides signed, that they didn’t intermeddle with their interior affairs.
After that came more or less succesfull co-operation during Slovak national uprising and Carpathian offensive (see Battle of the Dukla Pass) and then, in Košice Government Program, followed more appeasements to Soviets such as partially nationalisation of industry, ban some pre-war politacal parties and creation transitional government with left-wing, pro-Moscow prime minister.

All these OTL events either happened ITL (Slovak national uprising) or were not described, but nothing implies, that they happened differently.

And here came change because OTL war ended on 8/9th May, when Red army reached Prague. But ITL war ended on 6th May, when Red army was far far away from Prague. Western Allies in that time were only liberation forces in Bohemia and probably liberated larger part of Czechie than Soviets.

And this should create important difference, because in first (and OTL for long time last) free elections Communist had aureole of liberators (it was COMMUNIST Red army, which liberated most of Czechoslovakia including Prague), which gave them non-trivial boost.
But ITL, they would not have it, so they got less gains in election - and this should direct Czechoslovakia to much different future.

The communists got 38.11% of the vote in May 1946 in free elections. Color me unconvinced that kind of electoral appeal was dependent on whether American of Soviet tanks got to Prague a week ahead of each other.

It could make a significant difference, especially at a time when political affiliations were extremely fluid. Also, as first occupiers, the Soviets would have considerable influence if not control over the selection over local officials to replace expelled volksdeutsch or other collaborators. This would apply for a very short period - but it would be a period of intense political and administrative shakeup.

IM purely speculative opinion, the effect would be at minimum 5%, and possibly as much as 12%.

In 1925 the communists got 13.2% of the vote, in 1929 they got 10.2%, and in 1935 they got 10.3%. So there was an incredibly sizable increase in the eleven year interim. Now as I understand it the communists got a huge boost from both liberating most of the country and assisting with the re distribution of confiscated Sudetenland German wealth. It also helped that the communists were one of the key groups fighting in the resistance. Would an American liberation of Prague change all that much? I don’t know. Almost certainly not enough for the Communists to lose the election outright. Maybe enough that Benes and Zenkl could maybe scrape together a minority government. I don’t imagine it would be long for this world though.