I don't believe your guys are looking at the big picture here. The Soviets would gain a warm water port 24/7. They would have the straits and could control all of the black sea, who comes in and out. They would have all of Turkey raw material. This would have open up the whole middle east.
Well, firstly, this is assuming the Soviets neatly destroy Turkey. Given the state of their army in their timeframe... I am dubious. As I said, I don't really know anything about Turkish resources, but Turkey is
not an easy place to invade. And the Mashriq wasn't exactly the guiding light of Soviet policy: compared to security in the west (which includes, of course, security for Leningrad), it wasn't much.
The Soviets already have several "warm water ports". Sevastopol, for instance. It's not really a useful term that far south. And as I said, what are the Soviets going to do with their newfound Mediterrainian force projection? Invade Egypt, for the lolz? Keeping the enemy out was their first concern at the straits, and had been since, oh, 1856.
Turkey is home to 77 out of 90 varieties of ore, which is currently traded in the global markets. Although Turkey currently produces only 60 types of minerals, it ranks among the countries with high potential.
Of course, invading Turkey and not beating it quickly means that you don't have any resources to show, and you can't get any trade through the straits.
As far as Finland goes, they would of never attacked Leningrad, no matter how closes the border was. Finland would have been happy to set out the war being neutral.
And what mental condition was Stalin notorious for? That's right, paranoia. That it was possible to shell his second city from Finland
did influence his policy tremendously, whatever we think of it.
Once Turkey was taken, NKVD units could easily deal with the Turks. Sending trouble makers to labor camps or special treatment. Giving the Turks a taste of Socialism at its best.
But why commit such resources at all? The Soviets
can conquer Turkey, if they really want to. I see no reason why they should.
As far as England goes, they would be far too busy dealing with a Germany on the raise. Beside doesn't anyone remember the Crimea war or Gallipoli. England doesn't have a very good track record in this part of the world and would of thought twice about getting in the Soviets way.
1)
Britain.
2) We were actually thinking seriously about involvement in the Finnish war.
3) Although it exposed important failings in our armed forces and the French in any case did a good deal of the work, the Crimean War was, in the short term, a pretty neat victory for us.
4) Gallipoli? What a perfect exemplar of my thesis that invading Turkey is not a barrel of laughs!
As far as combat goes Turkey is very mountainous. But the Soviets would have the Turks far out number in men and armor, and everything else for that matter.
Sort of like how they did in Finland?
Beats the hell out of of combat in -40 deg Finland.
Funny story about that...
There are some pretty gruesome episodes from that battle. I read a Turkish officer's account of a column struggling up a mountain, with another column besides them, not moving, and soldiers dropping into it now and again. When he got closer, he saw that they had frozen to death. And that was the
Turks...
Eastern Anatolia in the winter is not much fun.