WI: Axis Turkey
- Thread starter MapleTekh
- Start date
Deleted member 1487
Depends when it joins. It could totally unhinge the British in the Middle East if it came in during the Iraqi Rebellion and then allow German forces to move in to Syria and Iraq. If later it would be helpful during the Caucasus campaign, but I find it very hard to believe the Turks would want to join after the US enters the war. Turkey entering in 1940-1941 might be enough to get the Brits to exit the war; Iran would be very much interested them in nationalizing their oil industry and could well hop on board to pushing the British out of the Middle East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Army_order_of_battle_in_1941
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Land_Forces#War_of_Independence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Land_Forces#War_of_Independence
Deleted member 1487
Probably not in 1941-42 though. The Soviets had a lot of problems with the Chechens and the German invasion, though they could stop the invasion via East Turkey; Turkey's real contribution would be against the British though IMHO and as an air base for German operations against Baku and Tiblisi, as well as a way to influence Iran and cut that supply route for LL.
We get the classic "Nazis invade the Middle East and win the war" scenario, don't we?
I don't think it's that an Axis Turkey is feasible without making the Treaty of Sèvres being enforced to at least some degree.
Turkey most likely would have turned the tide of the Middle East campaign by aiding the Vichy Army in the area. They would have most likely helped in on the Eastern Front, but would not have changed the outcome dramatically. The Soviets would have had to split their army so one force could head south, but Turkey would have fell rather quickly.
redlightning
Banned
I could see the Germans and Italians supporting a cou or revolution in Turkey in the years before World War II like in Spain or Hungary. A fascist dictatorship is established and supports them during the war. The Allies invade Turkey or remove the dictator as part of the campaign in North Africa. Turkey supports the invasion of the Soviet Union by attacking oil pipelines and closing off Russian access between the Black and Mediterranean Seas. It might allow the Germans to use their ports to stage attacks on the Soviet Union from the sea and invade as well.
usertron2020
Donor
Mustafa Ataturk had died only the year before the start of WWII, and Kemalism was very much still alive and well during and long after the war. Germany and Italy intervened in an existing Spanish Civil War, and Hungary represented a country with long and strong ties to the German people. Iraq was basically in the orbit of the British, and Iran was quickly occupied by both the Soviets and the British. So both of these countries had legitimate beefs against the Allies.
None of this was true for Turkey. The Ottomans let themselves be dragged into WWI by the Central Powers and lost their empire over it. OTOH, the founder of modern Turkey commanded at the Dardanelles, giving the Allies their worst strategic drubbing outside of Russia in the entire war. This, coupled with Ataturk's winning of the Turkish War of Independence and his successful radical rebuilding, liberalizing, and modernization of Turkish life meant that the Turks came out of the early 20s with a modest sense of satisfaction.
In short, the Turks in 1939-1941 had no real bones to pick with their neighbors. And after the horrors of WWI, Turkey was one country determined to avoid their past mistakes. The republicans were not going to follow the path of the sultans. By joining the Axis, they had everything to lose and nothing to gain. And whatever problems the Arabs had with Jewish immigration to Palestine, and British occupation, it was nothing compared to what for them would be the ultimate nightmare of a Turkish army looking to restore their empire, and probably looking for major payback too.
Against the Arabs.Even if there are promises of limited Turkish involvement, not sending any troops south (only against the USSR), politics is about perception. The Armenian and Ionian Greek genocides were not very long ago at this point in time, and the Arabs could remember that the Turks made for harsh taskmasters even to their own co-religionists. This saves a lot of internal security headaches for the Soviets and the British. For that matter, you could expect a national uprising IN SUPPORT of the Soviets within Armenia, typically the quietest of all Soviet republics, after the Russians liberated them from the horrors of Turkish occupation during the Russian Civil War. If the Turks ever made it to Armenia, the fighting would be house-to-house. And the Turks had shown that between their paucity in equipment and poor tactics, they were not nearly as effective in attack as they were in defense.
IF Turkish troops are seen invading Syria and Iraq (1) you could expect to see (possibly) a total reversal on the facts on the ground for the "Arab Street". Even troops raised, as they were in WWI, to act as at least defensive troops to fight against the Turks.
1) Iran really isn't in a position to be invaded by either the Germans OR Turks or both. The terrain in SE Turkey in WWII was horrific for a modern army. They'd have to go through the Southern Caucasus region first, trying to convert the rails to European gauge. And all this from a single rail line leading all the way back to Belgrade before the railroads start to branch out at last. Logistics-logistics-logistics.
MIND, this is not an absolute. I have always believed that just as if Britain were on the brink of total collapse Franco's Spain would enter the war, so too the Turks would DoW the Allies if Russia were about to collapse (say if Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow and Astrakhan have fallen). To save themselves from an apparently victorious Axis. Assuming that this is pre-Pearl Harbor, Turkey represents Germany's doorway to Asia. Post-Pearl Harbor, I don't want to guess what happens with Turkey..
Last edited:
usertron2020
Donor
Agreed, if the Axis do better than OTL. But the truth is that Turkey was never as pro-Axis Neutral as Spain or Finland (after the Winter War and before they DoWed the USSR).
"As the Italian ambassador in Ankara Ottavio de Peppo put it: 'The Turkish ideal is that the last German soldier should fall upon the last Russian corpse.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=PlcpRNvsM4cC&pg=PA65
The only inducement I could see for Turkey to join the war on the Axis side would be a promise it would gain some of the Turkic territories of the USSR. Papen did indeed try this gambit but it didn't work:
"An important question in Turkey's relations with Germany during 1941-2 is whether Turkey hoped to gain territory in Transcaucasia and possibly other Turkic areas of the USSR, in collaboration with Germany, assuming Russia were defeated. Certainly, von Papen promoted the proposal , as a means of bringing Turkey over to the Axis side, and it had some support in Berlin. Although Attaturk had strictly abjured pan-Turkism , it had continued as a fringe movment in Turkey during the 1930s. A so-called committee of experts on the 'Turanian' question was established in July 1941, consisting of convinced pan-Turkists, including Nuri Pasha, a brother of the Young Turk leader Enver Pasha and now a businessman in Turkey, and Professor Zeki Velidi Togan, a well-known pan-Turkish historian. In August 1941 Nuri visited Berlin as what von Papen described as a fully accredited representative of the Turkish government, though Turkish sources deny this. At this stage, the Turkish government had evidently decided to test the temperature on this issue, through semi-official channels. In Berlin, Nuri urged the establishment of a pan-Turanian state stretching as far as the Chinese province of Xinjiang. However, both the Germans and Turks then abandoed this fantasy. Those Germans who favoured the idea also claimed Fevzi Qakmak as one of its supporters, but the furthest Qakmak was apparently prepared to go was to tell the Germans in May 1942 that he was willing to allow Turkish civilians to go to Germany to prepare for the establishment of separate states in the Turkic areas captured from the USSR. On the other hand, Hüsrev Gerede, who had supported the idea at first, bluntly turned down the proposal that Turkey should take over Turkic areas of the Soviet Union, when Hitler suggested it to him in August 1941. It was obviously dropped completely, once it was clear that Germany was not going to crush the USSR anyway." https://books.google.com/books?id=PlcpRNvsM4cC&pg=PA65
The only inducement I could see for Turkey to join the war on the Axis side would be a promise it would gain some of the Turkic territories of the USSR. Papen did indeed try this gambit but it didn't work:
"An important question in Turkey's relations with Germany during 1941-2 is whether Turkey hoped to gain territory in Transcaucasia and possibly other Turkic areas of the USSR, in collaboration with Germany, assuming Russia were defeated. Certainly, von Papen promoted the proposal , as a means of bringing Turkey over to the Axis side, and it had some support in Berlin. Although Attaturk had strictly abjured pan-Turkism , it had continued as a fringe movment in Turkey during the 1930s. A so-called committee of experts on the 'Turanian' question was established in July 1941, consisting of convinced pan-Turkists, including Nuri Pasha, a brother of the Young Turk leader Enver Pasha and now a businessman in Turkey, and Professor Zeki Velidi Togan, a well-known pan-Turkish historian. In August 1941 Nuri visited Berlin as what von Papen described as a fully accredited representative of the Turkish government, though Turkish sources deny this. At this stage, the Turkish government had evidently decided to test the temperature on this issue, through semi-official channels. In Berlin, Nuri urged the establishment of a pan-Turanian state stretching as far as the Chinese province of Xinjiang. However, both the Germans and Turks then abandoed this fantasy. Those Germans who favoured the idea also claimed Fevzi Qakmak as one of its supporters, but the furthest Qakmak was apparently prepared to go was to tell the Germans in May 1942 that he was willing to allow Turkish civilians to go to Germany to prepare for the establishment of separate states in the Turkic areas captured from the USSR. On the other hand, Hüsrev Gerede, who had supported the idea at first, bluntly turned down the proposal that Turkey should take over Turkic areas of the Soviet Union, when Hitler suggested it to him in August 1941. It was obviously dropped completely, once it was clear that Germany was not going to crush the USSR anyway." https://books.google.com/books?id=PlcpRNvsM4cC&pg=PA65
Mustafa Ataturk had died only the year before the start of WWII, and Kemalism was very much still alive and well during and long after the war. Germany and Italy intervened in an existing Spanish Civil War, and Hungary represented a country with long and strong ties to the German people. Iraq was basically in the orbit of the British, and Iran was quickly occupied by both the Soviets and the British. So both of these countries had legitimate beefs against the Allies.
None of this was true for Turkey. The Ottomans let themselves be dragged into WWI by the Central Powers and lost their empire over it. OTOH, the founder of modern Turkey commanded at the Dardanelles, giving the Allies their worst strategic drubbing outside of Russia in the entire war. This, coupled with Ataturk's winning of the Turkish War of Independence and his successful radical rebuilding, liberalizing, and modernization of Turkish life meant that the Turks came out of the early 20s with a modest sense of satisfaction.
In short, the Turks in 1939-1941 had no real bones to pick with their neighbors. And after the horrors of WWI, Turkey was one country determined to avoid their past mistakes. The republicans were not going to follow the path of the sultans. By joining the Axis, they had everything to lose and nothing to gain. And whatever problems the Arabs had with Jewish immigration to Palestine, and British occupation, it was nothing compared to what for them would be the ultimate nightmare of a Turkish army looking to restore their empire, and probably looking for major payback too.
Even if there are promises of limited Turkish involvement, not sending any troops south (only against the USSR), politics is about perception. The Armenian and Ionian Greek genocides were not very long ago at this point in time, and the Arabs could remember that the Turks made for harsh taskmasters even to their own co-religionists. This saves a lot of internal security headaches for the Soviets and the British. For that matter, you could expect a national uprising IN SUPPORT of the Soviets within Armenia, typically the quietest of all Soviet republics, after the Russians liberated them from the horrors of Turkish occupation during the Russian Civil War. If the Turks ever made it to Armenia, the fighting would be house-to-house. And the Turks had shown that between their paucity in equipment and poor tactics, they were not nearly as effective in attack as they were in defense.
IF Turkish troops are seen invading Syria and Iraq (1) you could expect to see (possibly) a total reversal on the facts on the ground for the "Arab Street". Even troops raised, as they were in WWI, to act as at least defensive troops to fight against the Turks.
1) Iran really isn't in a position to be invaded by either the Germans OR Turks or both. The terrain in SW Turkey in WWII was horrific for a modern army. They'd have to go through the Southern Caucasus region first, trying to convert the rails to European gauge. And all this from a single rail line leading all the way back to Belgrade before the railroads start to branch out at last. Logistics-logistics-logistics.
MIND, this is not an absolute. I have always believed that just as if Britain were on the brink of total collapse Franco's Spain would enter the war, so too the Turks would DoW the Allies if Russia were about to collapse (say if Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow and Astrakhan have fallen). To save themselves from an apparently victorious Axis. Assuming that this is pre-Pearl Harbor, Turkey represents Germany's doorway to Asia. Post-Pearl Harbor, I don't want to guess what happens with Turkey..
Excellent comments, I agree completely. Turkey had nothing to gain by joining the Axis. If for some reason they did I think it would help but using Turkey as a pathway to the Middle East would be a logistics nightmare.
Max Sinister
Banned
There is still the idea of using airports in E Turkey to strike against Baku. At this time, most of the SU's oil came from there. Hard to estimate how much it'd help Germany, even if Turkey allows it.
About as well as the Ottoman army did against the Russian Empire in WWI. They largely had the same equipment and a mostly-infantry army ... useful if deploying against whatever the Allies have in the Middle East, but trying to attack through the Caucasus, well, it wouldn't be pretty.
The Turks would be more useful just holding position, skirmishing here and there and forcing the Soviets to deploy troops to hold the line (stretching their lines and supplies further) and providing air bases for strikes against Baku.