Does Turkey Enter WWII on the Side of the Axis Powers if it Loses the Greco-Turkish War?

CaliGuy

Banned
In our TL, Turkey defeated Greece in a war between the two of them in the early 1920s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919–1922)

However, what if Turkey had somehow lost this war (perhaps at least in part as a result of Greek King Alexander not dying after getting bitten by a monkey)?

Specifically, would Turkey have entered World War II on the side of the Axis Powers--especially if/after France would have fallen--in this TL?

Also, if so, how exactly would this have affected the course of World War II?

Any thoughts on all of this?
 
This really has too many other variables to tell. What of Wilsonian Armenia? does it also survive? Same as the international zone of the straits; is it demilitarized, or does it become a militarized border? Does Greece have Ionia and Eastern Thrace sans Constantinople, or does it only have the latter?

If Greece only maintains Thrace, then it's doubtful anything would change. If Ionia exists, and the Armenians have nominal control over Wilsonian Armenia, as well as French Syria still maintaining Alexandretta... Then there's quite a bit of temptation.

However, if they entered, it would not be at the fall of France. It would be after the Italian invasion of Greece, and the subsequent German reinforcement. This Fascist Turkey would join in publicly for the spoils in Greece (revanchist claims), but also to intervene against the USSR (and, if they are still independent, Armenia/Georgia/Azerbaijan, depending on butterflies). In order to accomplish this, I would imagine that there would have to have been some buildup over time (basically, a visible transition, a military buildup), and the British and French may or may not have responded accordingly. The Arab states would certainly have noticed; they would not want to be reincorporated into the New Ottoman Empire, which is what it would have been, so support for the Axis might have fallen in the Middle East in response.

Note that a revanchist Turkey likely would not give up its claims over Mosul as well, pushing Iraq closer to the British. Same if they plan to annex parts of Syria; hostility would bring opposition.

In the end, the amount that Turkey would contribute industrially would have been minimal; the biggest boon would be the amount of resources they could provide and putting more bodies against the Allies in the Middle East and in the USSR. That might mean that the Axis pushes much more quickly towards Baku, making the relocation of resources for the USS far more important (considering the terrible terrain of the Caucasus, though, any fighting would be long and hard. And if we're assuming Wilsonian Armenia, they have a lot farther to go. Baku may or may not fall, but it will require more resources than OTL (meaning Germany likely advances farther elsewhere). Baku is simply too important.

Note that the Turkish were mostly armed with WW1 era munitions during WW2; that would have to be supplied either from Italy or Germany (or captured supplies), so Turkey would likely be getting the short end of the stick: those being supplies that couldn't be spent elsewhere.

End result being that the USSR is bled even more than OTL, Baku likely doesn't fall at a great cost, and French/British/Colonial armies in the Middle East hold off the Turkish advance and push into southern Turkey. French and British likely offer Kurdish independence and recognition in exchange for support, so fighting in Anatolia likely becomes a long, hard slog through the region. The USSR is even more insistent for a second front, so perhaps Italy is more invested, or maybe Normandy is moved up? Even so, the allies move into Europe earlier. (Assuming the USSR is still able to function, then their advance maybe up to 6 months behind schedule. maybe even more).

The Allies move in and move the final boundaries east, with, possibly, an allied-leaning Yugoslavia (Kingdom of?) and a Kingdom of Greece restored. Greece will probably want the straits after such a war (and to make a land connection with Ionia), the Kurds get their independence, the USSR likely moves in and takes northeastern Turkey (see USSR claims), and the USSR fumes about having been bled by the Germans and not being able to get their pound of flesh otherwise.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
This really has too many other variables to tell. What of Wilsonian Armenia? does it also survive? Same as the international zone of the straits; is it demilitarized, or does it become a militarized border? Does Greece have Ionia and Eastern Thrace sans Constantinople, or does it only have the latter?

If Greece only maintains Thrace, then it's doubtful anything would change. If Ionia exists, and the Armenians have nominal control over Wilsonian Armenia, as well as French Syria still maintaining Alexandretta... Then there's quite a bit of temptation.

What about if Greece maintains both Thrace and Ionia while the Turks still manage to conquer Armenia and--in 1939--to acquire Hatay?

However, if they entered, it would not be at the fall of France. It would be after the Italian invasion of Greece, and the subsequent German reinforcement. This Fascist Turkey would join in publicly for the spoils in Greece (revanchist claims), but also to intervene against the USSR (and, if they are still independent, Armenia/Georgia/Azerbaijan, depending on butterflies). In order to accomplish this, I would imagine that there would have to have been some buildup over time (basically, a visible transition, a military buildup), and the British and French may or may not have responded accordingly. The Arab states would certainly have noticed; they would not want to be reincorporated into the New Ottoman Empire, which is what it would have been, so support for the Axis might have fallen in the Middle East in response.

Note that a revanchist Turkey likely would not give up its claims over Mosul as well, pushing Iraq closer to the British. Same if they plan to annex parts of Syria; hostility would bring opposition.

In the end, the amount that Turkey would contribute industrially would have been minimal; the biggest boon would be the amount of resources they could provide and putting more bodies against the Allies in the Middle East and in the USSR. That might mean that the Axis pushes much more quickly towards Baku, making the relocation of resources for the USS far more important (considering the terrible terrain of the Caucasus, though, any fighting would be long and hard. And if we're assuming Wilsonian Armenia, they have a lot farther to go. Baku may or may not fall, but it will require more resources than OTL (meaning Germany likely advances farther elsewhere). Baku is simply too important.

Note that the Turkish were mostly armed with WW1 era munitions during WW2; that would have to be supplied either from Italy or Germany (or captured supplies), so Turkey would likely be getting the short end of the stick: those being supplies that couldn't be spent elsewhere.

End result being that the USSR is bled even more than OTL, Baku likely doesn't fall at a great cost, and French/British/Colonial armies in the Middle East hold off the Turkish advance and push into southern Turkey. French and British likely offer Kurdish independence and recognition in exchange for support, so fighting in Anatolia likely becomes a long, hard slog through the region. The USSR is even more insistent for a second front, so perhaps Italy is more invested, or maybe Normandy is moved up? Even so, the allies move into Europe earlier. (Assuming the USSR is still able to function, then their advance maybe up to 6 months behind schedule. maybe even more).

I've got a question--couldn't the Western Allies send some/many of their troops directly to the Soviet Union in this TL? After all, wouldn't the Western Allies be able to move their troops through Iran and--once it is conquered--through eastern Turkey?

The Allies move in and move the final boundaries east, with, possibly, an allied-leaning Yugoslavia (Kingdom of?)

Wouldn't Tito's Communists still be the main anti-Axis insurgents in Yugoslavia in this TL, though?

and a Kingdom of Greece restored. Greece will probably want the straits after such a war (and to make a land connection with Ionia), the Kurds get their independence, the USSR likely moves in and takes northeastern Turkey (see USSR claims), and the USSR fumes about having been bled by the Germans and not being able to get their pound of flesh otherwise.

Agreed with all of this.

Also, though, are there large-scale expulsions in Turkey and the Middle East after the end of World War II in this TL?

In addition to this, the independent Kurdistan will be created from parts of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey--but not Iran--correct?
 
What about if Greece maintains both Thrace and Ionia while the Turks still manage to conquer Armenia and--in 1939--to acquire Hatay?

They'd like make noise about Ionia, certain, Thrace as well. They'd probably just push the allies for concessions from Greece more than anything, trying to earn them as they did with Hatay. Basically, losing the largest amount of land would create the greatest irredenta.

I've got a question--couldn't the Western Allies send some/many of their troops directly to the Soviet Union in this TL? After all, wouldn't the Western Allies be able to move their troops through Iran and--once it is conquered--through eastern Turkey?

They were able to move their troops through Iran OTL, same with Murmansk etc. They just didn't want to Churchill wouldn't do it, as it would involve placing British troops under Soviet command in order to help expand the Soviet sphere of influence. British troops dying for the USSR isn't something that would be done.

Plus, the more successful the USSR is, the larger the communist sphere is. You'll see supplies being sent as per otl, but no actual troops will be sent to the USSR.

Wouldn't Tito's Communists still be the main anti-Axis insurgents in Yugoslavia in this TL, though?

Just as likely as not. Who knows if a more hostile Turkey (and Bulgaria) might inspire more coordination between Greek and Yugoslav forces prior to the war. Or maybe the British support the monarchists more than OTL (or maybe the Monarchy just does better). So, one could lead to the other. Of course, the British never supported the Communists until 1944; there's still a lot of time, either way. Both results could work.

Agreed with all of this.

Also, though, are there large-scale expulsions in Turkey and the Middle East after the end of World War II in this TL?

In addition to this, the independent Kurdistan will be created from parts of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey--but not Iran--correct?

Iran wouldn't lose anything at all. It would likely be composed of Kurdish Turkey (All land east of the Euphrates in Turkey not within Wilsonian Armenia), combined with British and likely French Kurdish regions. The bigger question is more how far west they'd want to push. I don't think it'd be so far as access to the sea, but it might be close.

This will probably tick off the government of Iraq, though, by quite a bit.

Population transfers were the order of the day. Assuming no other changes from OTL, then it'd be likely.
 

my postings in that earlier thread were to effect that Italy was number two enemy of Turkey (second to USSR) however under this scenario the Dodecanese islands would (likely) have been returned to Greece, they were agreed to be returned by Italy but muddled situation of Greece losing war Italy did not follow thru.

removing Italy from islands encircling Turkey would remove one obstacle to them joining Axis.
 
what was Bulgaria doing at this time? not much information. could Greece have enlisted them to occupy parts of Eastern Thrace/European Turkey (as compensation for joining in?)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
They'd like make noise about Ionia, certain, Thrace as well. They'd probably just push the allies for concessions from Greece more than anything, trying to earn them as they did with Hatay. Basically, losing the largest amount of land would create the greatest irredenta.

How likely would the Allies be to successfully pressure Greece in regards to this, though?

Also, what about if Greece refuses to give up its territory?

They were able to move their troops through Iran OTL, same with Murmansk etc. They just didn't want to Churchill wouldn't do it, as it would involve placing British troops under Soviet command in order to help expand the Soviet sphere of influence. British troops dying for the USSR isn't something that would be done.

Plus, the more successful the USSR is, the larger the communist sphere is. You'll see supplies being sent as per otl, but no actual troops will be sent to the USSR.

Didn't the Western Allies have a vested interest in ensuring that the Soviet Union won't either collapse or make a separate peace with Hitler, though?

Just as likely as not. Who knows if a more hostile Turkey (and Bulgaria) might inspire more coordination between Greek and Yugoslav forces prior to the war. Or maybe the British support the monarchists more than OTL (or maybe the Monarchy just does better). So, one could lead to the other. Of course, the British never supported the Communists until 1944; there's still a lot of time, either way. Both results could work.

What caused the Communists to become the dominant insurgent force in Yugoslavia in our TL?

Iran wouldn't lose anything at all. It would likely be composed of Kurdish Turkey (All land east of the Euphrates in Turkey not within Wilsonian Armenia), combined with British and likely French Kurdish regions. The bigger question is more how far west they'd want to push. I don't think it'd be so far as access to the sea, but it might be close.

Why not go for access to the sea, though?

This will probably tick off the government of Iraq, though, by quite a bit.

Due to the loss of some of its oil reserves?

Population transfers were the order of the day. Assuming no other changes from OTL, then it'd be likely.

OK.
 
How likely would the Allies be to successfully pressure Greece in regards to this, though?

Also, what about if Greece refuses to give up its territory?

Unlikely to be successful at all. And a refusal might end up with the Turks occupying Ionia and as much of the straight as possible. Roughly analogous to an occupation of the Sudetenland, with the problem of Istanbul being on the wrong side of the straits. (A demilitarized zone, likely reoccupied in an analogy to the reoccupation of the Rheinland).

Didn't the Western Allies have a vested interest in ensuring that the Soviet Union won't either collapse or make a separate peace with Hitler, though?

Just the same as OTL. Turkey wouldn't be adding that many more troops, especially as their focus would be in the Middle East, where the British would also have to dedicate more forces. (The friendlier Arab allies would help). If I remember correctly, the US sent approximately 1/4 of its Lend Lease aid through Iran, enough to equip about 60 divisions. In total, the lend lease aid was enough to equip (by US standards) about 240 divisions - anywhere from 2.4 to 2.9 million men, roughly. (Assuming they referred to US divisional sizes of 10k to 12k people on average).

The route was through Soviet Azerbaijan, and Soviet troops occupying the route would likely be withdrawn to defend. If anything, British/US/other Allied troops serving in the Middle East might try the overland route through Armenia to try and prevent Turkey from threatening the route from the south. Granted, this might make the Soviets even more upset, as allied occupation of Armenia might mean a free Republic of Armenia after the war.

What caused the Communists to become the dominant insurgent force in Yugoslavia in our TL?

Not sure, although the Chetniks did have problems working within the system and collaborating with the Nazis, so I think they became the only other alternative by default. Then again, I don't think that there was any support given by the western allies (not much of any, at least).

Why not go for access to the sea, though?

Because that would call for a drastic population relocation. There was no major Kurdish settlements near the ocean at that time. That, and after the war, Syria might be given parts of Adana to make up for the loss of its Kurdish regions. If Kurdistan is granted a port (of which the closest would be Alexandretta in the Hatay province) then Syria would be doubly spurned (lose Hatay once to Turkey, then again to the Kurds).

Due to the loss of some of its oil reserves?

A large number of them; Mosul was the center of production before the oil wells were found after the war, if I recall correctly.
 
I've said this before, but if Turkey lost to Greece here, I don't think they'd ever be a threat to anyone again. There'd hardly be a Turkey left.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Unlikely to be successful at all. And a refusal might end up with the Turks occupying Ionia and as much of the straight as possible. Roughly analogous to an occupation of the Sudetenland, with the problem of Istanbul being on the wrong side of the straits. (A demilitarized zone, likely reoccupied in an analogy to the reoccupation of the Rheinland).

OK. However, would Turkey join the Axis Powers afterwards or would it declare itself to be a satisfied power and avoid further conflicts?

Just the same as OTL. Turkey wouldn't be adding that many more troops, especially as their focus would be in the Middle East, where the British would also have to dedicate more forces. (The friendlier Arab allies would help). If I remember correctly, the US sent approximately 1/4 of its Lend Lease aid through Iran, enough to equip about 60 divisions. In total, the lend lease aid was enough to equip (by US standards) about 240 divisions - anywhere from 2.4 to 2.9 million men, roughly. (Assuming they referred to US divisional sizes of 10k to 12k people on average).

OK.

The route was through Soviet Azerbaijan, and Soviet troops occupying the route would likely be withdrawn to defend.

Defend Baku?

Also, can't the U.S. and British occupy this route after the Soviets withdraw? After all, all that is necessary is a land connection, no?

If anything, British/US/other Allied troops serving in the Middle East might try the overland route through Armenia to try and prevent Turkey from threatening the route from the south. Granted, this might make the Soviets even more upset, as allied occupation of Armenia might mean a free Republic of Armenia after the war.

Wouldn't the route be safe as long as Baku remains in Soviet hands and as long as the Allies continue to occupy all of Iran, though?

Not sure, although the Chetniks did have problems working within the system and collaborating with the Nazis, so I think they became the only other alternative by default. Then again, I don't think that there was any support given by the western allies (not much of any, at least).

So the Western Allies mostly just stayed out of it?

Because that would call for a drastic population relocation. There was no major Kurdish settlements near the ocean at that time.

Didn't the Kurds have enough people who could move to the areas near the sea that expulsions would be unnecessary, though? Indeed, why not simply encourage some Kurdish peasants to move over there?

That, and after the war, Syria might be given parts of Adana to make up for the loss of its Kurdish regions. If Kurdistan is granted a port (of which the closest would be Alexandretta in the Hatay province) then Syria would be doubly spurned (lose Hatay once to Turkey, then again to the Kurds).

That's a good point, actually.

Of course, you could try giving the Kurds a seaport in far-eastern Turkey. Indeed, think of the Turkish areas near Batumi.

A large number of them; Mosul was the center of production before the oil wells were found after the war, if I recall correctly.

Wouldn't Mosul have been located outside of any independent Kurdish state due to its Arab-majority population, though?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I've said this before, but if Turkey lost to Greece here, I don't think they'd ever be a threat to anyone again. There'd hardly be a Turkey left.
Hungary got dismembered by the 1920 Treaty of Trianon and yet ended up threatening its neighbors starting from 1938, though.
 
Hungary got dismembered by the 1920 Treaty of Trianon and yet ended up threatening its neighbors starting from 1938, though.

And it was only with German support that they were taken the least bit seriously. One on one, they couldn't win a war with any of their neighbors.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
And it was only with German support that they were taken the least bit seriously. One on one, they couldn't win a war with any of their neighbors.
Yes; however, would the Turks be incapable of likewise getting German support for their own revanchism in this TL?
 
Yes; however, would the Turks be incapable of likewise getting German support for their own revanchism in this TL?

Probably. Hungary's threat to, say, Czechoslovakia, was founded on their proximity to and cooperation with Germany. Turkey just doesn't have that, and it'd be hard to support the same way.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Probably. Hungary's threat to, say, Czechoslovakia, was founded on their proximity to and cooperation with Germany. Turkey just doesn't have that, and it'd be hard to support the same way.
Turkey is close to the Middle Eastern and Caucasian oil fields, though.
 
Probably. Hungary's threat to, say, Czechoslovakia, was founded on their proximity to and cooperation with Germany. Turkey just doesn't have that, and it'd be hard to support the same way.

They are, however, a threat to Mosul and Baku, major oil regions, as well as potentially opening up a route to the Middle East. The oil alone would be quite tempting.

It's not like they'd join in from the start. They'd jump in on a bandwagon.

OK. However, would Turkey join the Axis Powers afterwards or would it declare itself to be a satisfied power and avoid further conflicts?

As much as Germany would have. Again, it would probably wait at that point for Axis support for dividing Greece before jumping in.

Defend Baku?

Also, can't the U.S. and British occupy this route after the Soviets withdraw? After all, all that is necessary is a land connection, no?

Yes, sorry. Forgot to finish.

And US and British troops did occupy it OTL, so they would take their place along the route. The numbers weren't high, so this would probably turn into a secondary front against Turkey in general.

Wouldn't the route be safe as long as Baku remains in Soviet hands and as long as the Allies continue to occupy all of Iran, though?

The route would be safe as long as Baku is safe, yes. However, I meant more that the Allied troops would invade through Armenia (if it was independent before) or into what 'was' Armenia (the Wilsonian Armenia section that was taken by Turkey after the OTL Greco-Turkish War). That way, they would directly block the Turkish threat to Baku without actually defending part of the USSR proper; they would be liberating Armenia and Kurdistan.

So the Western Allies mostly just stayed out of it?

To my knowledge, pretty much. The Yugoslav King did take refuge in Great Britain, and was supported by the west until 1944. It was only after the situation on the ground was de facto in favor of Tito did they support the communists. Anything else and I don't know enough to comment.

Didn't the Kurds have enough people who could move to the areas near the sea that expulsions would be unnecessary, though? Indeed, why not simply encourage some Kurdish peasants to move over there?

That's a good point, actually.

Of course, you could try giving the Kurds a seaport in far-eastern Turkey. Indeed, think of the Turkish areas near Batumi.

I highly doubt Stalin (a Georgian) would have wanted to give up a piece of Georgia to the Kurds. If the USSR is at war with Turkey, and the USSR is on the winning side, there are two options. Either a strong enough neutral power supported by the west would lay claim to the majority of the region (Wilsonian Armenia) or the USSR would demand the territorial claims made on Turkish territory (which encompass none of the same region).

The Kurds are stuck between a rock and a hard place. And, if given the choice between a distant port and Mosul, they'd take Mosul.

Wouldn't Mosul have been located outside of any independent Kurdish state due to its Arab-majority population, though?

The old vilayet of Mosul was Kurdish majority, and I think Mosul was the original choice of a capital (Diyarbikaner was chosen later). ...I believe, not for certain here.

The British would have to tread carefully, as they'd be bartering borders and regions between an ally they need (Iraq) and another one they need (Kurdistan). The only good answer is one that makes them both unhappy.
 
They are, however, a threat to Mosul and Baku, major oil regions, as well as potentially opening up a route to the Middle East. The oil alone would be quite tempting.

Are they, though? An attack on either would have to come from eastern Turkey, which to my understanding was (and is) the least developed region of the country, so the logistics are demanding. And before the Allies started supporting them during the war, the Turkish army had 1 armored brigade, a few cavalry brigades, and basically nothing else to speak of in terms of mobile forces or heavy armaments. An army like that is only good for occupation duty, certainly no threat to the four armies the Soviets had in the Transcaucasian district. Mosul they could try threatening, bu the British have better supply lines than they would, and Indian manpower to draw on if necessary, so they'd lose a war of attrition. The reasons they sat out the OTL war haven't changed enough, and for these prizes, well, Turkey being much weaker ITTL only makes them all the more distant.
 
Unlikely to be successful at all. And a refusal might end up with the Turks occupying Ionia and as much of the straight as possible. Roughly analogous to an occupation of the Sudetenland, with the problem of Istanbul being on the wrong side of the straits. (A demilitarized zone, likely reoccupied in an analogy to the reoccupation of the Rheinland).



Just the same as OTL. Turkey wouldn't be adding that many more troops, especially as their focus would be in the Middle East, where the British would also have to dedicate more forces. (The friendlier Arab allies would help). If I remember correctly, the US sent approximately 1/4 of its Lend Lease aid through Iran, enough to equip about 60 divisions. In total, the lend lease aid was enough to equip (by US standards) about 240 divisions - anywhere from 2.4 to 2.9 million men, roughly. (Assuming they referred to US divisional sizes of 10k to 12k people on average).

The route was through Soviet Azerbaijan, and Soviet troops occupying the route would likely be withdrawn to defend. If anything, British/US/other Allied troops serving in the Middle East might try the overland route through Armenia to try and prevent Turkey from threatening the route from the south. Granted, this might make the Soviets even more upset, as allied occupation of Armenia might mean a free Republic of Armenia after the war.



Not sure, although the Chetniks did have problems working within the system and collaborating with the Nazis, so I think they became the only other alternative by default. Then again, I don't think that there was any support given by the western allies (not much of any, at least).



Because that would call for a drastic population relocation. There was no major Kurdish settlements near the ocean at that time. That, and after the war, Syria might be given parts of Adana to make up for the loss of its Kurdish regions. If Kurdistan is granted a port (of which the closest would be Alexandretta in the Hatay province) then Syria would be doubly spurned (lose Hatay once to Turkey, then again to the Kurds).



A large number of them; Mosul was the center of production before the oil wells were found after the war, if I recall correctly.

Just a few points. First the ATL Greece by 1940 is an entirely different fish militarily and economically. Defeat in 1922 cost it about half its GDP and resettling the refugees another 80 million pounds in the first decade after that. ATL this failed to happen and the Greeks also draw revenue from Eastern Thrace and Ionia. So we are talking a much more developed country and way stronger armed forces and as willing as in OTL to bow to axis pressure, ie fighting is certain. Second Turkey's GDP will be down by roughly a third or more and would be under some shorts of military limitations in the final settlement. This means both a weaker Turkish army and just as significantly an even less developed railroad network. Last the Soviets invaded Iran with over 1000 tanks in OTL. ATL in July 1941 will be getting thrown on the Turkish army in the Caucasus with the latter being deficient in AT guns...
 
Top