Could a German invasion of Turkey succeed?

[Tom from Cornwall]

Churchill understood that Britain has to be the last major colonial power to fall, and any price must be paid to achieve that.

What does that mean? Germany, Italy and Japan were rapidly acquiring colonial empires so I don't follow your logic there. Perfidious Albion letting down its Allies perhaps?

Regards from a somewhat perplexed,

Tom

[Peter89]

Churchill understood that Britain has to be the last major colonial power to fall, and any price must be paid to achieve that.

What does that mean? Germany, Italy and Japan were rapidly acquiring colonial empires so I don't follow your logic there. Perfidious Albion letting down its Allies perhaps?

Regards from a somewhat perplexed,

Tom

It does mean that he understood that the power system of the world was changing. Like Terry said, the colonial empires were not really profitable anymore. Their only use was power: strategic positions and resources. They were not good for peacetime existence. But the transition from the colonial empire period to the future, let it be free market capitalism or socialism, was a big question. If Britain gives up its colonial empire first, then the French and the Japanese could grow strong, if they get those strategic positions and tap those resources then they could defeat Britain on the seas and / or the air. Also, if Britain lets Germany to defeat the Soviets, then who is going to counterbalance Germany on the continent? If Britain lets the Soviets defeat the Germans, who is going to counterbalance the Soviets?

Churchill needed a major industrial power that didn't have a colonial system (thus, it has an incentive to abolish it), one that is keen to defeat the Germans and the Soviets too, if necessary. At the same time, the power could peacefully shift from Britain's hands.

This is why the Brits didn't let the French to regain their control over their colonies (Levant Crisis) and the Soviets to extend their influence in Iran (Iran Crisis). This is why immediately after the war, Churchill gave a speech proclaiming that against the superpowers, Europe (ie. the western part of it) must unite and not entirely depend on America's aid. He instinctively realized that the power vacuum left behind the treaties after WW I will lead to either Russian or German annexation of that part of Europe, that will always unpset the power balance of the continent, and Britain cannot afford to go to war against France, Germany or Russia in every 50 years. Now that the German aggression was dealt with and the French lost their empire, he called for a unified Europe led by these two nations to keep the Russian influence in check, and reduce that superpower back to a major power, and integrate the hodgepodge of nations from Finland to Greece into their cooperation.

[Tom from Cornwall]

It does mean that he understood that the power system of the world was changing. Like Terry said, the colonial empires were not really profitable anymore. Their only use was power: strategic positions and resources. They were not good for peacetime existence. But the transition from the colonial empire period to the future, let it be free market capitalism or socialism, was a big question. If Britain gives up its colonial empire first, then the French and the Japanese could grow strong, if they get those strategic positions and tap those resources then they could defeat Britain on the seas and / or the air. Also, if Britain lets Germany to defeat the Soviets, then who is going to counterbalance Germany on the continent? If Britain lets the Soviets defeat the Germans, who is going to counterbalance the Soviets?

Churchill needed a major industrial power that didn't have a colonial system (thus, it has an incentive to abolish it), one that is keen to defeat the Germans and the Soviets too, if necessary. At the same time, the power could peacefully shift from Britain's hands.

Peter,

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you are talking about here. Is this all just your opinion, looking back with hindsight, or do you have some documentary sources that are informing your assertions?

You seem to be saying that colonial empires were obsolete by the middle of the 20th Century, which I wouldn't argue with - but then you go on to argue that if Britain allowed other nations to build colonial empires that would be detrimental to Britain's influence in the world. I'm very confused.

Churchill did say, after all, that he hadn't become Prime Minister to oversee the dissolution of the British Empire!

Anyway, we've probably led this thread down a bit of a rabbit hole so should probably move this discussion to another thread before we incur the wrath of he who doesn't approve of "thread-deviation"!

Regards

Tom

[Aber]

Anyway, we've probably led this thread down a bit of a rabbit hole so should probably move this discussion to another thread before we incur the wrath of he who doesn't approve of "thread-deviation"!

Strange we're allowed to get away with hesitation and repetition...

[Peter89]

Peter,

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you are talking about here. Is this all just your opinion, looking back with hindsight, or do you have some documentary sources that are informing your assertions?

Well, the facts are not opinions of mine, only the assumptions based on these facts

For which claims do you need sources?

You seem to be saying that colonial empires were obsolete by the middle of the 20th Century, which I wouldn't argue with - but then you go on to argue that if Britain allowed other nations to build colonial empires that would be detrimental to Britain's influence in the world. I'm very confused.

Yes, the colonial empires were obsolete, BUT they were instruments of power. If a colonial empire lets free its colonies, the other colonial empires would seize them and increase their power on the short run, DESPITE the fact that it was not economically profitable to sustain them. Why? Because in case of a war, the colonies were needed.

For example, Gibraltar was a rock, it was an economic and diplomatic liability in times of peace. However, in times of war, it controlled the entry to the Mediterranean sea. Of course its upkeep costs and its strategic value are not even comparable. And there were the African colonies; raising revenue there was extremely difficult (except SA), and in times of peace, some might prove an economic burden. Sometimes they revolted even, raising the upkeep costs to a definitely uneconomical level. However, in times of war, they provided important raw materials or even soldiers for the war effort. There was no free trade and limitlessly convertible currencies; so even if it didn't make much economic sense to upkeep these empires in times of peace, it made sense in case of war.

Churchill did say, after all, that he hadn't become Prime Minister to oversee the dissolution of the British Empire!

Yes, because if it would happen during his (first) tenure as PM, then it would be a really big problem for the British.

Anyway, we've probably led this thread down a bit of a rabbit hole so should probably move this discussion to another thread before we incur the wrath of he who doesn't approve of "thread-deviation"!

Don't worry too much about that, the past 10 pages don't even mention Turkey.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Well, the facts are not opinions of mine, only the assumptions based on these facts

For which claims do you need sources?

Well, to start with:

he understood that the power system of the world was changing

Churchill needed a major industrial power that didn't have a colonial system (thus, it has an incentive to abolish it), one that is keen to defeat the Germans and the Soviets too, if necessary. At the same time, the power could peacefully shift from Britain's hands.

This is why the Brits didn't let the French to regain their control over their colonies (Levant Crisis) and the Soviets to extend their influence in Iran (Iran Crisis).

This is why immediately after the war, Churchill gave a speech proclaiming that against the superpowers, Europe (ie. the western part of it) must unite and not entirely depend on America's aid.

He instinctively realized that the power vacuum left behind the treaties after WW I will lead to...

Now that the German aggression was dealt with and the French lost their empire, he called for a unified Europe led by these two nations to keep the Russian influence in check, and reduce that superpower back to a major power, and integrate the hodgepodge of nations from Finland to Greece into their cooperation.

Anyway, back to Turkey!

Regards

Tom

[Peter89]

Well, the facts are not opinions of mine, only the assumptions based on these facts

For which claims do you need sources?

Well, to start with:

he understood that the power system of the world was changing

see Churchill speech, March 5, 1946

Churchill needed a major industrial power that didn't have a colonial system (thus, it has an incentive to abolish it), one that is keen to defeat the Germans and the Soviets too, if necessary. At the same time, the power could peacefully shift from Britain's hands.

see the Atlantic Charter

This is why the Brits didn't let the French to regain their control over their colonies (Levant Crisis) and the Soviets to extend their influence in Iran (Iran Crisis).

He ordered his troops to disarm French troops, so put an end to the French colonial ambitions in his reach.
& see Churchill speech, March 5, 1946

This is why immediately after the war, Churchill gave a speech proclaiming that against the superpowers, Europe (ie. the western part of it) must unite and not entirely depend on America's aid.

see Churchill speech, September 19, 1946

He instinctively realized that the power vacuum left behind the treaties after WW I will lead to...

see Churchill speech, March 24, 1938

Now that the German aggression was dealt with and the French lost their empire, he called for a unified Europe led by these two nations to keep the Russian influence in check, and reduce that superpower back to a major power, and integrate the hodgepodge of nations from Finland to Greece into their cooperation.

see Churchill speech, September 19, 1946

Anyway, back to Turkey!

Regards

Tom

Just scroll back 15 pages and it's full of on topic infos.

[Tom from Cornwall]

see Churchill speech, March 5, 1946

This one:

https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1946/s460305a_e.htm

In which Churchill talks repeatedly about the power and benefits, as he saw them, of the British Empire and Commonwealth?

We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful.

This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States...It should carry with it the continuance of the present facilities for mutual security by the joint use of all Naval and Air Force bases in the possession of either country all over the world. This would perhaps double the mobility of the American Navy and Air Force. It would greatly expand that of the British Empire Forces and it might well lead, if and as the world calms down, to important financial savings. Already we use together a large number of islands; more may well be entrusted to our joint care in the near future.

Let no man underrate the abiding power of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Because you see the 46 millions in our island harassed about their food supply, of which they only grow one half, even in war-time, or because we have difficulty in restarting our industries and export trade after six years of passionate war effort, do not suppose that we shall not come through these dark years of privation as we have come through the glorious years of agony, or that half a century from now, you will not see 70 or 80 millions of Britons spread about the world and united in defense of our traditions, our way of life, and of the world causes which you and we espouse.

None of which supports your assertions that:

Peter89 wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021 17:20
he understood that the power system of the world was changing

Peter89 wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021 17:20
Churchill needed a major industrial power that didn't have a colonial system (thus, it has an incentive to abolish it), one that is keen to defeat the Germans and the Soviets too, if necessary. At the same time, the power could peacefully shift from Britain's hands.

Peter89 wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021 17:20
This is why immediately after the war, Churchill gave a speech proclaiming that against the superpowers, Europe (ie. the western part of it) must unite and not entirely depend on America's aid.

Regards

Tom

[Peter89]

see Churchill speech, March 5, 1946

This one:

https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1946/s460305a_e.htm

In which Churchill talks repeatedly about the power and benefits, as he saw them, of the British Empire and Commonwealth?

We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful.

This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States...It should carry with it the continuance of the present facilities for mutual security by the joint use of all Naval and Air Force bases in the possession of either country all over the world. This would perhaps double the mobility of the American Navy and Air Force. It would greatly expand that of the British Empire Forces and it might well lead, if and as the world calms down, to important financial savings. Already we use together a large number of islands; more may well be entrusted to our joint care in the near future.

Let no man underrate the abiding power of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Because you see the 46 millions in our island harassed about their food supply, of which they only grow one half, even in war-time, or because we have difficulty in restarting our industries and export trade after six years of passionate war effort, do not suppose that we shall not come through these dark years of privation as we have come through the glorious years of agony, or that half a century from now, you will not see 70 or 80 millions of Britons spread about the world and united in defense of our traditions, our way of life, and of the world causes which you and we espouse.

None of which supports your assertions that:

Peter89 wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021 17:20
he understood that the power system of the world was changing

Peter89 wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021 17:20
Churchill needed a major industrial power that didn't have a colonial system (thus, it has an incentive to abolish it), one that is keen to defeat the Germans and the Soviets too, if necessary. At the same time, the power could peacefully shift from Britain's hands.

Peter89 wrote: ↑21 Jul 2021 17:20
This is why immediately after the war, Churchill gave a speech proclaiming that against the superpowers, Europe (ie. the western part of it) must unite and not entirely depend on America's aid.

Regards

Tom

Atlantic Charter

AUGUST 14, 1941

The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

In fact both let go their colonies.

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

This led to the dissolution of the British Empire in political terms.

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

This led to the dissolution of the British Empire in economic terms.

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

This means that when Nazi Germany will be defeated, other kind of tyrannies will not be tolerated (ie.: Soviet Union).

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.

But also colonial imperialism.


Regardless of what Churchill would do, the British Raj would depart from the Empire after the war.
Regardless of what crimes he had done in Kenya and Malaysia, these colonies would depart, too. In fact, during his last tenure, he had to recognize Nasser in Egypt (= loss of Suez) and draw plans to recognize Malaysia and Singapore (= loss of the Malacca strait).

You can argue that he did not realize that the world has changed, and we could dissect his - sometimes controversial - speeches and statements, but it wouldn't matter, because everything is open to interpretation, especially in case of such a shrewd and amoral politician as he was. Just an example, he always confuses the liberties and rights of the colonial subjects and that of the British islanders, or to be more specific, the English population of the British Isles. We could argue if he was in his right mind when he spoke about the exemplary liberties of a Boer peasant in SA, an Arab trader in Palestine, a hindu political activist in the Raj or a Chinese fisherman in Singapore. It is also possible that he lied deliberately. It is also possible, or even probable, that he was cynical.

For me, the facts matter: during his political career, the British Empire dissolved. My interpretation is that he understood that the times were changing, and his goal was to slow down this dissolution in order to give time to other colonial empires (most notably the French) to lose their colonies too. Which, as a matter of fact, they did. I also believe that the loss of the colonies would mean the loss of Britain's power (as a naval officer, he should have known what does the loss of the Suez, the Malacca, etc. mean). Also, the country that kept its colonies the longest time became the poorest country on the continent (Portugal). Given the British catastrophic loss of power during this transition period, and the other historical alternatives of impoverishment, I think that Churchill fared rather well. The British economy did not collapse, the nation did not impoverish, the public need for the gushes about national greatness were fulfilled, and everything happened relatively smoothly.

[TheMarcksPlan]

What I'm getting at is, why does the US - even the UK - stay in the European war? What's the feasible to victory?

In Britain's case because it is a matter of survival, now of the home islands alone. In the American case, because Hitler declared war on Germany so they don't really have much choice!

In Britain's case, Hitler would probably have offered terms so survival isn't at issue for them (unlike others). OTL Britain held out in '40, hoping that US entry would turn things around. So now let's consider ATL US's position:

Obviously how the US got into the war doesn't answer whether and how it leaves it.

ATL US raising an army large enough to invade Europe seems politically infeasible even if militarily feasible. US tolerating indefinite siege warfare is also dubious. With Japan in the mix and strengthened by contact with Germany over the TSRR, seems likely US will make peace with Germany.

Back to Britain, now facing either as US-less struggle against a much more powerful Germany or peace with Hitler. Latter seems most likely.

Of course it's possible that Hitler is so incensed in '43 by British bombing that peace is no longer an option; Sealion '44/'45 is the goal. Seems doubtful. Germans have their Lebensraum already; political pressure is probably for peace.

One aspect of the post-SU strategic situation we haven't discussed is the renewed threat of Sealion. Churchill and American leaders thought this was a significant factor; General Arnold was sufficiently worried to invoke it as a reason disfavoring a post-SU pivot to Asia.

We don't have to believe that Sealion '43-'45 would succeed to believe that its threat would influence the likelihood and shape of a war-ending settlement. The fact is that British/American leaders perceived it a threat; that fact has geopolitical significance. Peace negotiations would take place against the backdrop of a Sealion that threatened Britain's existence and/or would have tied down Allied forces sufficiently to delay - perhaps indefinitely - victory over Japan (more on that below).

Actual German ability to launch Sealion would depend on at least these factors:

• 1. Landing craft
• 2. Ability to create at least temporary air parity during Sealion
• 3. Strength of defense
• 4. German ability to control the Channel

Re (1), Germany had perfectly serviceable landing craft like the MFP, Siebel Ferries, and Pioneerelandungsboote. In March-April '44, at the height of the pre-Overlord landing craft construction boom, US was spending $206mil/month on landing craft of ~$2.5bn annually. Given wartime exchange rates somewhere in the area of 2.5-3, this implies Germany could have matched US landing craft construction for ~8bil RM annually or ~5% of OTL German GDP. So landing craft isn't an obstacle if Germany wants to try Sealion.

Re (2), it's a big discussion but the short version is German armaments output is ~2.5x OTL by 1944 and is ~70% LW (versus 45% OTL), thus LW production is 3.5-4x OTL and - due to Russian/Mideast oil - training is better. A Spring '45 Sealion would have the support of thousands of Me-262's so Germany can feasibly control Channel airspace.

Re (3), if the US/UK stick with only ~130 first-rate divisions total, then if the Germans get firmly ashore they can certainly conquer Britain. If, OTOH, the US/UK raise larger armies then they draw on reserved workers and their production plummets. This is particularly true for additional US divisions, as div-slice was 60k and US workers were particularly productive. 50 more US divisions, for example, takes ~3mil men out of production. They can't be taken from the civilian minimum, neither can they from agriculture, so they come from 1944's ~18mil industrial workers, causing at least 15% decline in war production. US meanwhile has to produce more land weapons and basic equipment for the new soldiers - what's cut from air/sea production to enable this?

Re (4), a substantial flotilla of E-boats, torpedo boats (actually small destroyers), minesweepers (heavily armed), and fleet destroyers - combined with a few thousands LW torpedo/dive bombers - would make sending Allied bluewater naval assets into the Channel a suicide mission. Think here of Pound refusing to support the Dieppe Raid with anything larger than a destroyer. These ships would throw up a massive AAA barrage, as would the landing craft. This makes attaining total air supremacy unnecessary.

------------------------

Taking all the foregoing into consideration, it's not obvious from the standpoint of ATL Churchill (or Eden/Cripps/Attlee given ATL war's course) that Britain is secure from invasion if Germany tries it. If Hitler has offered terms (as I think he probably would) then continuing the war does indeed create an existential threat, whereas peace removes it.

This is true even for a British PM/cabinet considering the A-bomb in '44/45: It's not clear that a half-dozen A-bombs in Fall '45 will stop a German army that has landed in May '45 before it gets to Inverness.

Factor (3), meanwhile, dictates that continuing the war against Germany perhaps denies Britain/US the ability to stop Japan from conquering India and prolongs the Pacific war - perhaps indefinitely.

[glenn239]

One aspect of the post-SU strategic situation we haven't discussed is the renewed threat of Sealion. Churchill and American leaders thought this was a significant factor.

Once the US was in the war I don't think Sealion was viable even if done with thousands of specialized landing craft. That being said, the threat of it might have proven useful, but still would not have addressed the core problem for Germany, which was the inevitability of Anglo-American air strength exceeding Germany's.

[TheMarcksPlan]

One aspect of the post-SU strategic situation we haven't discussed is the renewed threat of Sealion. Churchill and American leaders thought this was a significant factor.

Once the US was in the war I don't think Sealion was viable even if done with thousands of specialized landing craft. That being said, the threat of it might have proven useful, but still would not have addressed the core problem for Germany, which was the inevitability of Anglo-American air strength exceeding Germany's.

Does US preclude Sealion because of naval, ground, or air forces in your opinion? Do you think the US would have rushed its bluewater fleet into the Channel to stop an invasion, even given massive German air and light naval forces?

It's probably that you don't accept the possibility of German-Allied air parity...

[glenn239]

There was not a chance of German-American air parity. The USAAF by 1945 was simply beyond anything Germany could muster. The only hope Germany had on the air front was an alliance with the Soviet Union, but Hitler ended any chance of that with Barbarossa.

In terms of Sealion the United States would have poured any amount of material into the UK to prevent it.

[KDF33]

There was not a chance of German-American air parity.

Why?

[TheMarcksPlan]

There was not a chance of German-American air parity.

Why?

I've asked this upthread, Glenn responded:

Could the Allies beat 50 LW's? 10? 5?

It's not a question of beating '10' Luftwaffes. It's a question of whether Allied airpower can fatally degrade German oil production regardless of the size of the Luftwaffe. I think the answer is yes, even if the Luftwaffe somehow manages to become x4 it's historical size.

The discussion veered in a different direction then.

Glenn does your case rely on Germany in no circumstances being able to protect its oil resources? We know that the Oil Campaign's success required continuous bombing of synthgas plants, else they'd be quickly repaired. How is this possible against, say, a 10x stronger LW? A 4x stronger?

A post-SU Germany will also be getting much (most?) of its avgas from oil refineries, very few of which will be in range of British bases. Under my ATL conditions, where Allies hold only Morocco and maybe Algeria, how do they bomb Ploesti and/or Caucasian refineries?