Is there anyway Turkey could've never been a member of NATO (not counting scenarios where it becomes a communist puppet of the USSR)?
Is there anyway Turkey could've never been a member of NATO (not counting scenarios where it becomes a communist puppet of the USSR)?
Is there anyway Turkey could've never been a member of NATO (not counting scenarios where it becomes a communist puppet of the USSR)?
OTL Turkey and Greece were admitted in at the same time so as not to piss off one of them. Maybe an ATL Turkish administration makes it clear they'll NEVER be member of the same organization as Greece and Western powers give up on Turkey and instead admit Greece in alone?
Well, if West dicks around with its politics too much, is there any chance of something like this happening:Given the importance of Turkey to the USSR, I think there's a strong possibility that if NATO had to make the choice, they would ditch Greece, and take Turkey.
Or they might admit one, and launch a coup in the other.
Here is another possibility: could Turky's government in 1950-1960 fall to a coup so common to its Arab neighbors at the time and replaced by an anti-U.S., anti-Israel, Soviet-freindly (but not communist) government? It wouldn't wanto to be part of NATO, it would be pro-Soviet but would not be a Soviet puppet any more than Saddam Hussein's Iraq was. Does that sound plausible?
Here is another possibility: could Turky's government in 1950-1960 fall to a coup so common to its Arab neighbors at the time and replaced by an anti-U.S., anti-Israel, Soviet-freindly (but not communist) government? It wouldn't wanto to be part of NATO, it would be pro-Soviet but would not be a Soviet puppet any more than Saddam Hussein's Iraq was. Does that sound plausible?
Saddam Hussein wasn't U.S.S.R.'s puppet, he was an unreliable regional ally. What I was trying to cleverly say was that Turkey in that scenario would be as much a Soviet puppet as Saddam was -- in other words not at all.Erm... actually Saddam Hussein was our puppet. The Soviets sold him weapons on the basis that 1: he was fighting the Iranians and the Soviets were interested in seeing the Islamic revolution quelched for reasons involving their Central Asian Republics and 2: he was actually paying for said weapons, which the cash-strapped USSR rather appreciated.
I think the analogy your looking for is either Nasser's Egypt or Syria (probably more the former then the latter).
Saddam Hussein wasn't U.S.S.R.'s puppet, he was an unreliable regional ally.
What I was trying to cleverly say was that Turkey in that scenario would be as much a Soviet puppet as Saddam was -- in other words not at all.
I've seen interview with high-ranking ex-Soviet military officer who said Iraq was U.S.S.R.'s unreliable regional ally so I beg to differ. But lets drop this - the OP is not asking who's ally Saddam really was and I think we can both agree that whatever the case Saddam was an unreliable ally.And again I say: that isn't true. He was the ally of the United States. The Soviets only sold him weapons for the reasons I already listed...
In November 1949 US Assistant Secretary of State George McGhee went to Ankara and proposed what was called the Northern Tier. This would have seen a line of Muslim Anti-Communist states backed by the United States running from Istanbul to Lahore, forming a hard ‘pie-crust’ beneath which the rest of the Middle-East would be safe from the spread of communism. So a Turkey – Iran – Pakistan – US alliance instead of NATO membership.