Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

Reader mode

Salamander

Why is everyone assuming that Italy is next on the invasion list? Remember that Churchill is PM, and he is obsessed with Greece. At this stage of the war, with North Africa secure, French North Africa notwithstanding, and little to no US presence of any consequence, the Balkans are definitely on the table. Liberating the Dodocanese from the Italians puts Imperial bases between occupied Greece and Turkey, this opens an all season shipping route through neutral Turkey to the Soviet Union. It also enables a possible landing to liberate Greece, while linking up with the Yugoslav partisans and threatening Bulgaria. Or at least it opens up the potential of such landings.
Alternatively, and depending on whether or not French Africa throws in with Britain and re-enters the war, island hopping via Sicily, Sardinia & Corsica will provide bases for attacks & future landings on the Italian Peninsular, while further isolating Spain.
 

MattII

kelgar04 said:
Depending on how bloody it will be will probably depend if Operation Underworld goes off the same way, if a version of Mincemeat is pulled off along with other efforts and if any US officer listens to the British (which most won’t) also how many Germany units are on the Island since at this point Italian Morale is in the toilet and their ability to knock out British Armour isn’t all that great and the Victor will make it worse for both the Germans and the Italians.

Its still going to be bloody because the US Army at this point doesn’t have any one with fairly recent combat experience and factor in officers in the West like Patton and Clark, I can’t help but seeing them sending a lot more letter home at least if Eisenhower or Bradley doesn’t effectively sit on people and make them listen.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that the same with Torch OTL? And at least in Sicily, some support can be lent by aircraft operating out of Malta.

Salamander said:
Why is everyone assuming that Italy is next on the invasion list? Remember that Churchill is PM, and he is obsessed with Greece. At this stage of the war, with North Africa secure, French North Africa notwithstanding, and little to no US presence of any consequence, the Balkans are definitely on the table. Liberating the Dodocanese from the Italians puts Imperial bases between occupied Greece and Turkey, this opens an all season shipping route through neutral Turkey to the Soviet Union. It also enables a possible landing to liberate Greece, while linking up with the Yugoslav partisans and threatening Bulgaria. Or at least it opens up the potential of such landings.
Alternatively, and depending on whether or not French Africa throws in with Britain and re-enters the war, island hopping via Sicily, Sardinia & Corsica will provide bases for attacks & future landings on the Italian Peninsular, while further isolating Spain.
Click to expand...
If the allies have Sicily, they can run convoys through the Med with basic impunity. That's a lot more useful than any land-grab in Greece.
 
Ramp-Rat

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
What does a successful invasion of Rhodes do for the Allies?

This will be the first attempt by the Allies to conduct an amphibious assault, that is designed to more than a raid, with the intention to invade, capture and retain the objective. Up until now the only nations to have carried out such a mission are the Germans in Norway and the Japanese in the Philippines. The British have been conducting numerous raids large and small in the Mediterranean and Europe, but have up to date, never tried to remain in place. This will be a tremendous learning experience, and only add to the knowledge of amphibious operations, that is steadily building up. And if successful will do much to reduce the British fear of large scale amphibious operations, induced by the failure in WWI of the Gallipoli invasion. Once in control of Rhodes the British will essentially control the Eastern Mediterranean, and the pressure on the Vichy French in the Levant to switch sides will become intense. With Rhodes in British hands any threat to Crete, is illuminated, and the British will be able to construct airfields for bombers that can seriously threaten the oilfields of Ploiesti. And if the British get their act together start mining the Danube, which will cause major disruption to the axis logistics, especially oil transportation. In addition the capture of Rhodes will make British and Greek operations in the other Greek islands and mainland far more effective. As for the status of the Island, this will be a problem, Winston will want to keep everything on the table until the end of the war, the Turks will be demanding that the Island which up until 1912 was there’s is returned to them, and the Greeks supported by the Americans will want it all handed over to Greece. The one thing you can be sure of is that London doesn’t want another contested Mediterranean island, dumped on its plate.

RR.
 
Ramp-Rat

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Salamander said:
Why is everyone assuming that Italy is next on the invasion list? Remember that Churchill is PM, and he is obsessed with Greece. At this stage of the war, with North Africa secure, French North Africa notwithstanding, and little to no US presence of any consequence, the Balkans are definitely on the table. Liberating the Dodocanese from the Italians puts Imperial bases between occupied Greece and Turkey, this opens an all season shipping route through neutral Turkey to the Soviet Union. It also enables a possible landing to liberate Greece, while linking up with the Yugoslav partisans and threatening Bulgaria. Or at least it opens up the potential of such landings.
Alternatively, and depending on whether or not French Africa throws in with Britain and re-enters the war, island hopping via Sicily, Sardinia & Corsica will provide bases for attacks & future landings on the Italian Peninsular, while further isolating Spain.
Click to expand...

The problem with trying to ship supplies to the Soviets through the Dardanelles, is that there are international treaties on the transit of warships through the Dardanelles, and then once through any merchant ships would have to sail basically unescorted through the Black Sea. Unless you can get the Turkish to join the Allies and declare war upon Germany, which at this stage of the war is very unlikely, you will not be seeing individual Allied merchantmen or convoys sailing to wherever unoccupied ports the Soviets have.

RR.
 
Ramp-Rat

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
MattII said:
No way will the Islands go back to Turkey, the Itailans took them fair and square.
Click to expand...

Well given that they were given to Greece post war and not retained by Italy, the Turkish claim to them is equally valid. After all given that the Dutch bought the Island of Manhattan from the indigenous peoples, and had it taken away from them by the British, who lost it to the rebels during the colonial rebellion, might it not be time to ether give it back to the Dutch who paid for it fare and square, or return it to/the indigenous people who sold it? After all the Ottomans owned Rhodes for far longer than the USA has existed, and thus can be said to have the greatest claim on the land.

RR.
 

MattII

Ramp-Rat said:
Well given that they were given to Greece post war and not retained by Italy, the Turkish claim to them is equally valid. After all given that the Dutch bought the Island of Manhattan from the indigenous peoples, and had it taken away from them by the British, who lost it to the rebels during the colonial rebellion, might it not be time to ether give it back to the Dutch who paid for it fare and square, or return it to/the indigenous people who sold it? After all the Ottomans owned Rhodes for far longer than the USA has existed, and thus can be said to have the greatest claim on the land.
Click to expand...
I believe most of the population would prefer going to Greece, rather than Turkey. In addition, claiming that Turkey has the right to the island because they were owned by the Ottomans isn't likely to go down well with anyone.

diestormlie said:
One does not buy Direct Rule from London. One is sold it, with something of a Hard Sell.
Click to expand...
I can't see anyone in the British establishment supporting Direct Rule.
 
Last edited:

kelgar04

Will probably go to Greece that or they will hold a vote on it since Turkey hasn’t been involved in the Conflict as a belligerent yet.
 

Karelian

I could easily see some Foreign Office Turcophilic diplomats contemplating the scenario of promising the island(s) to Turkey postwar in exchange of joining the Allies and opening up a true new Balkans front.
 

MattII

Karelian said:
I could easily see some Foreign Office Turcophilic diplomats contemplating the scenario of promising the island(s) to Turkey postwar in exchange of joining the Allies and opening up a true new Balkans front.
Click to expand...
Why would Britain want Turkey involved?
 

kelgar04

Eh I’d wanna keep Turkey out of the war right now they are more useful as a nonbilgersnt power since they are keeping the Strait closed and it doesn’t risk another front being opened.
 

Karelian

diestormlie said:
As opposed to Greece, which was a belligerent on the side of the Allies during WW2?
Click to expand...
The point is that in OTL Britain had a consistent and determined political campaign to get Turkey actively involved to WW2 as soon as the situation in the Mediterranean permitted it (1943 onwards).

British OTL activity against Dodecanese had a lot to do with the diplomacy involving Turkey, and I see no reason why Britain doing better in the war against Italy than in OTL would act in a different manner regarding Turkey.
 

diestormlie

Karelian said:
The point is that in OTL Britain had a consistent and determined political campaign to get Turkey actively involved to WW2 as soon as the situation in the Mediterranean permitted it (1943 onwards).

British OTL activity against Dodecanese had a lot to do with the diplomacy involving Turkey, and I see no reason why Britain doing better in the war against Italy than in OTL would act in a different manner regarding Turkey.
Click to expand...
That is fair.
 

Look More Closely Later

pjmidd said:
Is it not more , our territory is growing as Rhodes did not become part of Greece OTL till 1947 ( Italians took it from the Ottomans not Greeks)
Click to expand...
Fair Point. Although I think that at least some of the Greeks will be of the opinion that regardless of whether Turkey or Italy were the current occupiers/invaders, Rhodes is still Greek territory which has been under occupation for several centuries.
And it puts Turkey in a bit of a bind if the British do take Rhodes and manage to hold against Axis count-attacks. Turkey either has to roll with 'thank-you for liberating our territory from the Axis, fellow belligerent' and declare war on the Axis, or wave goodbye to Rhodes permanently. I guess it depends on how much İnönü wants to retrieve Rhodes versus how willing/ready he is to join the war.
 

Look More Closely Later

kelgar04 said:
Eh I’d wanna keep Turkey out of the war right now they are more useful as a nonbilgersnt power since they are keeping the Strait closed and it doesn’t risk another front being opened.
Click to expand...
Keeping the strait closed to Allied shipping too, and the Persian railway route to southern Soviet Russia is a nightmare for sending stuff over.
I think someone posted a link to an article a few years back, about the Persian railway route, and if I recall correctly it was single track in places, went up and down mountains, and could get very hot in the summer.
 
mafio ball

mafio ball

Turkey's involvement in the war means the opening of the Bosphorus/Dardane passage for both merchant and warships. On the one hand, we have a new route to supply Russia, Stalin will be thrilled. On the other hand, it means the presence of the Royal Navy in the Black Sea: Stalin... will not be happy.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top