Turkish Railway Capacity supply to caucasus

[BDV]

If the British attacked Turkish railroads, even with German "transiters" upon them, would probably create a declaration of war or direct conflict with Britain.

... and then at a snap turkish civvie and military bureaucrats would instantaneously apply themselves with utmost energy and abnegation to furthering the delusional whims of 3rdR's ruling clique.

[phylo_roadking]

...and the 90% of Turkish economic "traffic" that travelled along its coasts by ship, in the Eastern Med and the Aegean...and Black Sea...rather than by train would be potential targets to submarine warfare...

[alltoes]

If the British attacked Turkish railroads, even with German "transiters" upon them, would probably create a declaration of war or direct conflict with Britain.

... and then at a snap turkish civvie and military bureaucrats would instantaneously apply themselves with utmost energy and abnegation to furthering the delusional whims of 3rdR's ruling clique.

...and the 90% of Turkish economic "traffic" that travelled along its coasts by ship, in the Eastern Med and the Aegean...and Black Sea...rather than by train would be potential targets to submarine warfare...

This is a "What if" gentlemen....isn't it??? The topic was railroads in Turkey. "If" Germany from whatever means obtained transit rights AND the UK bombed the rail lines, you believe the Turks would sit back and say "jolly good show"??? IMHO it would have created discourse between Turkey and the UK.....this is a given. There are many directions Turkey could go.

Phyo, for some bizarre reason, you tend to make statements from right field.....that's American baseball in case you were unaware. The UK IMHO usually followed the Geneva Convention....I don't believe their subs would attack Turkish civilians. Exception of course is fire-bombing German cities.....a war crime IMHO. But the victor is the one who makes the rules!!! Of course, German bombing British cities was also a war crime.

[phylo_roadking]

The UK IMHO usually followed the Geneva Convention....I don't believe their subs would attack Turkish civilians. Exception of course is fire-bombing German cities.....a war crime IMHO. But the victor is the one who makes the rules!!!

And who sailed the Turkish civilian vessels that WWI British submarines sank in the Eastern Med and the Sea of Marmaris? If any German offensive action of any nature is launched from Turkish territory on British territory or her allies - Turkey has two choices; cease ALL relations with Germany, and demand Germany withdraw ALL military forces from Turkish territory....or be at war with the Allies.

Of course, German bombing British cities was also a war crime.

Er....no. And that has been discussed to death on AHF over the years. Use the search function...

Phyo, for some bizarre reason, you tend to make statements from right field.....

as for the Western Roman Empire that lasted for 400 years...how long did the OTHER bit of the Empire last?

ONE half of the Empire fell in 400 years - hardly a measure of great "success - when the OTHER half lasted another thousand years!

[BDV]

This is a "What if" gentlemen....isn't it??? The topic was railroads in Turkey. "If" Germany from whatever means obtained transit rights AND the UK bombed the rail lines, you believe the Turks would sit back and say "jolly good show"??? IMHO it would have created discourse between Turkey and the UK.....this is a given. There are many directions Turkey could go.

Yes, but how do you get from here (OTL) to there (ATL)?

[LWD]

... This is a "What if" gentlemen....isn't it???

Indeed but the "what ifs" allowed on these boards are expected to follow the guidlines posted in the FAQs. If you postulate a certain action then it's fair for others to point out the likely consequences and counter actions.

The topic was railroads in Turkey. "If" Germany from whatever means obtained transit rights AND the UK bombed the rail lines, you believe the Turks would sit back and say "jolly good show"??? IMHO it would have created discourse between Turkey and the UK.....this is a given. There are many directions Turkey could go.

Indeed and many of them would be simply to not agree to the transit rights in the first place.

[Old_Fossil]

We have been ignoring an important player in this discussion of German transit rights over the Turkish Railway. What about Vichy France? When Britain attacked Leb/Syria Vichy could only manage to send a few warplanes. While I am certain Vichy would object strongly to direct German intervention, Vichy would have jumped at the chance to rail in a couple of divisions even if they first had to come from North Africa. With a friendly (via Germany) Turkish government Vichy could now rail supllies and troops into Lebanon/Syria.

[phylo_roadking]

We have been ignoring an important player in this discussion of German transit rights over the Turkish Railway. What about Vichy France? When Britain attacked Leb/Syria Vichy could only manage to send a few warplanes. While I am certain Vichy would object strongly to direct German intervention, Vichy would have jumped at the chance to rail in a couple of divisions even if they first had to come from North Africa. With a friendly (via Germany) Turkish government Vichy could now rail supllies and troops into Lebanon/Syria.

No. All Vichy military movements, even in the colonies, were controlled by the Germans under the Armistice agreement. Vichy authorities could move forces about inside the colonies...but not outside, or between them without German permission.

[Old_Fossil]

No? The reinforcements that Vichy sent in the OTL were from North Africa. Hitler gave permission. The aircraft sent could not have made it without active Axis support. Why would Hitler refuse to allow Vichy to send reinforcements via rail if Turkey could be persuaded to allow it?

[phylo_roadking]

No? The reinforcements that Vichy sent in the OTL were from North Africa. Hitler gave permission.

Exactly. The were moved from one French colony to another with German permission...

The aircraft sent could not have made it without active Axis support.

The only support they received was permission to overfly Axis territory and refuel in Eleusina in Greece.

Why would Hitler refuse to allow Vichy to send reinforcements via rail if Turkey could be persuaded to allow it?

1/ Hitler was walking a fine tightrope to retain Vichy "neutality" at that point; there were major questions raised at the time over Luftwaffe assistance to Vichy in the Eastern Med....and Gen. Dentz in Syria/Lebanon himself turned down further German military aid.

2/ there were no French divisions to be sent...except those in other French colones; which would of course been better sent by sea...rather than transship from Morocco or Algeria to Metropolitan France, then by rail through to Syria/Lebanon all the way through various Axis or Axis-occupied countries! German assistance being granted in THAT way would also have been viewed by the rest of the world as a violation of Vichy's Neutrality.

Plus - EXPORTER only lasted five weeks; the Germans later in the war became past masters at dashing formations from one side of Europe to the other...but the French? How long would it have taken to get formations from Algeria, say, to Metropolitan France? And do you think the Allies would have peacefully let them come? Remember, the British didn't regard Vichy as neutral - and the Free French were fuly aware and on board with EXPORTER, and participated...

There would be a prickly political decision to take - but with the example of Mers-el-Kebir, do you think French colonial forces are going to be leaving Algeria by sea?

[Old_Fossil]

The whole point of enticing Vichy to sign the Paris Protocols was to get them to violate their neutrality in favour of Germany. Is Hitler worried about public opinion in the United States at this time? How is helping Vichy defend its territory from undeclared war by GB violating Vichy neutrality worse that GB violating Vichy neutrality by invading Lebanon/Syria? As for moving troops from North Africa, it would tough if done from Oran which is a day's sail from Gibraltar, but much easier from Bizerta. The RN was notably incapable of stopping convoys to and from North Africa during this time frame.

[phylo_roadking]

The whole point of enticing Vichy to sign the Paris Protocols was to get them to violate their neutrality in favour of Germany. Is Hitler worried about public opinion in the United States at this time?

No - but Vichy was It was getting food aid from the U.S. by then IIRC.

Don't forget - the Protocls were never ratified, and they lapsed. Darlan wanted better terms...but didn't get offered them. If Vichy had accepted, yes THEN they could have moved forces about possibly more freely. But once again, don't forget they were negotiated through MAY 1941...the 8th of June was a bit late to help Syria/lebanon...and a more pro-Axis stance would certainly have allowed the RN to...."stifle"....the transfer of colonial troops at source.

How is helping Vichy defend its territory from undeclared war by GB violating Vichy neutrality worse that GB violating Vichy neutrality by invading Lebanon/Syria?

Because Syria/Lebanon was a strange case; it wasn't actually a French...and thus eventually a Vichy french...colonial possession - it was a League of Nations' "mandate" post Versailles. It was also technically self-governing...only it's defence was in Vichy hands

As for moving troops from North Africa, it would tough if done from Oran which is a day's sail from Gibraltar, but much easier from Bizerta. The RN was notably incapable of stopping convoys to and from North Africa during this time frame.

They don't need to stop them, just deplete them And it can be done by submarine....don't forget, we're talking about transfers from Neutral Vichy colonies in North Africa - their departure times are going to be known to the minute

On a more technical note...nothing's going to be transferred from Bizerta. Gen. Barre's forces in Tunisia were titchy....only c.9000 men IIRC....so transfers are going to have to be from Oran etc. Even driving them over the border into Tunisia would need German permission

[pugsville]

Vichy Military forces had a strong sense of shame and dishonour from the French defeat in 1940. This made them very stubborn, Vichy military actions against Allied forces was in part a desire to show they were not going done without a fight again, French navy was adamant that handing over any ships to the Axis would be a massive dishonour thus the scuttling of ships at Toulon later in the war. There attitudes were complex, and not nesscarily easily dictated by the metropolitan Vichy regime.

[phylo_roadking]

There attitudes were complex, and not nesscarily easily dictated by the metropolitan Vichy regime.

...which is of course another problem - the degree of independence colonial authorities and Vichy Military authorites had in each colonial possession Vichy didn't have the degree of central control we normally expect from a "colonial power".

[JAG13]

Samsun and Zonguldak would be available for shipping.

...although the successful RN submarine campaigns in the Sea of Marmaris and Black Sea in WWI bear considering Remember - the French had already proposed in early 1940 that the RN commence submarine operations in the Black Sea as a way of disrupting Soviet consignemtns of strategic raw materials to Germany via the Black Sea-Danube route...so such a campaign was already on the table for discussion. It was one of THE great successes of RN submarine warfare, WWII submariners were always harking back to Nasmith and the E-11.

It's also noticable that each of these Black Sea ports is only served by a single branch line - should anything block or disrupt traffic on that branch, the ports are cut off from the rest of the rail network entirely...

Lol, RN subs in the Black Sea in WW2? Even if the Turks fail to prevent them from entering the BS they can hardly ignore them nor allow them to leave to refuel or reload torpedoes, placing an anti-sub net should be quite easy... If you mean AFTER the USSR is in then the many soviet subs are more of a concern than a few RN subs.