At the outbreak of the Second World War, there was a widespread sense in Turkey that Italy desired to complete what it started in the aftermath of the First World War in encroaching upon Turkish territory. Both sides waxed poetic about the glory of such a hypothetical war, so many must have felt it inevitable. But just how likely was it that Italy (given the opportunity to do so) would have sought such a war? And which side would have emerged victorious?
AHC/WI: Italian invasion of Turkey during WW2?
- Thread starter Huehuecoyotl
- Start date
Judging by the Italian military's disasters in other campaigns, an independent invasion of Turkey would be a dismal failure. Before Barbarossa, Stalin would feed lots of weapons to the Turks at the minimum. After Barbarossa, it wouldn't be so much as an Italian invasion of Turkey, as a German occupation where Italy gets an occupation zone.
The Nazis would have to expend very large resources in conquering and occupying Turkey. Would divert resources from Barbarossa and North Africa. And Turkey would probably be the first country the Nazis would decide to withdraw from, dodging partisan bullets the whole way.
Yeah, Turkey would be one of the messier places the Wehrmacht would have dirtied its jackboots in. IOTL Inonu was quite insistent on keeping his nation out of another destructive war, but if somebody else is in charge, or if the Italians initiate hostilities for... some reason, then Turkey could well be forced onto the Allied side. I wonder, if the Nazis occupied Turkey, would they feel encouraged to strike into Mesopotamia to get at its oil fields?
They probably would be tempted to go through Turkey to hit Iraq/Persia/etc. (and even more to the point, Baku), but I have to imagine that the logistics would be terrible.
Might the Turks get the Dodecanese after the war, instead of the Greeks? And do post-war Greco-Turkish relations get better if they both underwent German occupation? Alternatively, do the Soviets launch an offensive into Turkey at some point and add them to the Eastern Bloc post-war?
Might the Turks get the Dodecanese after the war, instead of the Greeks? And do post-war Greco-Turkish relations get better if they both underwent German occupation? Alternatively, do the Soviets launch an offensive into Turkey at some point and add them to the Eastern Bloc post-war?
I believe there was an agreement IOTL that Soviet troops could freely pass through Turkish territory, in the event of a war between Turkey and the Axis. That could have unpleasant consequences for Turkey post-war if the Soviets decided they didn't want to leave.
I would imagine that the old 1914 border would be restored, for starters, which would mean a greater Armenian and/or Georgian SSR.
Also:
People's Republic of Turkey?
Democratic Republic of Turkey?
Democratic People's Republic of Turkey?
Egad, don't startle me like that. But I wonder if Turkey is too rugged and populous for the USSR to effectively puppetize.
Wasn't the Turkish military pretty ramshackle during this time, though, compared to its modern incarnation?
If the Soviets were already in-country, they could probably take over - with heavy casualties, of course, but since when did that discourage Stalin?
Eh, good point... You're right on the Turkish military at this juncture too, FWIW. Ismet Inonu's Wikipedia page suggests that the economy of the state was still smarting from being at war almost constantly from 1908 to 1922 even by the 40's, which was the rationale behind Inonu's opposition to entering the war. I'm not sure how true that is without doing some independent research, but that may make a Comintern takeover a little easier as well.
Do you have a source? What were the other terms of the agreement, if there were any? It sounds very interesting.
Wikipedia says this:
Wikipedia said:
It cites Watt, D.C. How War Came : The Immediate Origins of the Second World War, 1938–1939, London: Heinemann, 1989 page 282 as the source for this.
Last edited:
If the Nazis and Mussolini's forces invaded Turkey in early 1941, the Allies would have months to shore up their defenses of the oil fields; I imagine the RAF would cut loose a lot more fighters and bombers for the Mideast. Less Nazi resources for North Africa would mean an ability to take out the Vichy collaborators in Syria much more quickly than in OTL. Also, the Brits were building up the Indian Army. Indian troops, who would perform very well in OTL against the Aryan supermen in North Africa and Italy, could easily be moved into Mesopotamia--getting enough tanks and artillery to work with them might be a bigger problem. But with the Nazis tied down in Turkey, the Brits might have been able to take the entire Libyan shore, thus making the transport of supplies to the Mideast much more easy, as well as allowing the battle-hardened British and Imperial forces to be shifted to help stop the Nazi drive into Mesopotamia.
Last edited:
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Wouldn't Bulgaria actually participate in the planned invasion of Turkey in addition to Italy? Strategically speaking, Eastern Thrace including Istanbul would be very tempting to the Axis.
A though on how it starts:
Realising that Italy is not look like the greatest ally after its recent debacles with the Greek campaign, its North African contributions, and Taranto, Mussolini decides to do something big to get back in Hitler's good books, namely an invasion of Turkey, to sieze the Dardanelles and Bosphorus Strait, allowing the Regia Marina access to the Black Sea.
Realising that Italy is not look like the greatest ally after its recent debacles with the Greek campaign, its North African contributions, and Taranto, Mussolini decides to do something big to get back in Hitler's good books, namely an invasion of Turkey, to sieze the Dardanelles and Bosphorus Strait, allowing the Regia Marina access to the Black Sea.