No Winter War for Stalin

What if Stalin had invaded Turkey and not Finland during the 30's. In 1938 the Turkish standing army had only 20 000 officers and 174 000 men. A very small force compared to the Soviets at the time.


Turkey at the time was neutral. In 1941 it signed a pact of friendship with Third Reich which did not end until 1944.


Compared to what the Soviets got out of the Fins a invasion of Turkey seems to make more sense. It could of opened up the whole Mediterranean to the black fleet. In the long run land in Turkey would be far better then land in Finland. Plus the winter war was kind of a embarrassment to the Soviets. So do you think the Soviets would of fared better in Turkey?
 

nbcman

Donor
At a minimum the British and French would send material and 'volunteers'. At worst, they would declare war on the USSR.

I think that the SU would still have a rough time invading Turkey due to the poor communication networks (lack of roads/rail) available in the early '40s. The Turks should delay the SU as the SU would advance along the Black Sea coast or following the rail line out of Tiflis leading to Erzurum and beyond.

So it would be a hard war-and potentially disastrous for the Allies.
 
Well, firstly, military matters. I don't know anything about the Turkish army, but the Finnish army was not huge, and the Turks have a short and very mountainous border with the interior line of communication. Behind this border is... more mountain. I don't see the Soviets achieving anything militarily. During WW1, recall, the Caucasus was about Russia's most succesful front for much much of the war, yet they, acting from a better start line, assisted by widespread Armenian collaboration (WHICH THERE IS NO NEED TO GO INTO) and a disasterous Turkish mistake at Sarikamis, never advanced far enough to break the Ottoman armies and make them ask for terms, and the Ottomans were fighting on many other fronts. The Caucasus is just a bad place to attack Anatolia from.

Secondly, diplomatic matters. The Soviets have no reason to attack Turkey. In Finland, vital strategic interests (the defence of Leningrad, Baltic security) were at stake. "Finnish land" was actually much more valuable than "Turkish land". Turkish land would be so many mountains, whereas Finnish land was so many miles between Leningrad and the frontier. The Soviets did not actually want to get into the Mediterrainian in any urgent sense. What would they do when they got there? A Turkey which wasn't going to let enemy warships in was the primary concern, not the ability of Russian ships to get out. And Turkey in any case wasn't mentioned in the Hitler-Stalin pact.

IIRC, the Soviets were nursing some scheme to extort stuff from Turkey just before Barbarossa, but it wasn't a tract of mountains with little in them, and I doubt they thought it was worth a war.
 

Deleted member 1487

I agree there was little reason to attack Turkey, but perhaps there could have been a fear of the Allies/Germans using Turkey as a base to attack their oil fields.

Regardless, as NBCman points out, the Black Sea Fleet would be involved and definitely capable of landing large numbers of troops all over Anatola. Not only that, but there is the vulnerability of Istanbul from the Black sea side, as they don't have to go through the Bosphorus and can land near the capitol in a surprise attack (hopefully avoiding mines then). Not to mention the 30,000+ paratroopers that could have been landed for an invasion of the country on the opposite side of the Caucasus mountains to secure passes for troops on the Russian sides.

I'd say this is more up in the air, if it were a straight fight, but it won't be, not by a longshot. The Allies are going to intervene, and the Germans might use this to try and find common cause.
 
Soviet Russia could try and force Turkey to revoke the Treaty of Kars and cede the land Russia like they (the Soviets) tried to do after the war.
 
Soviet Russia could try and force Turkey to revoke the Treaty of Kars and cede the land Russia like they (the Soviets) tried to do after the war.

Thing is, why? Nothing there but mountains and Turks (and Kurds). Better to put resources towards the Baltic.

If Russia is going to antagonise Turkey, it might as well be over what actually matters: the straits.

I hadn't heard about this post-war revisionism, though. I'm intrigued.
 
Thing is, why? Nothing there but mountains and Turks (and Kurds). Better to put resources towards the Baltic.

If Russia is going to antagonise Turkey, it might as well be over what actually matters: the straits.

I hadn't heard about this post-war revisionism, though. I'm intrigued.

There is book called on "GOOGLE BOOKS" Turkish Foreign Policy 1774-2000 see pages 111/112 which are there for free.

In march 1945 Soviet Union denounced Treaty of Turkish-Soviet Friendship, and demaned a renegotion of the Straits convention soley between Turkey and Soviet Union which would allow free passage of Soviet ships through the straits, closure of the Straits to states not bordering the Black Sea, Soviet military bases established around the Straits and the retrocession of the territorry lost to Turkey in the Treaty of Kars, if these demands were satisfied Soviet Union would sign a new treaty of friendship with Turkey.
It was mostly these events which caused Turkey to join NATO.
 
In Finland, vital strategic interests (the defence of Leningrad, Baltic security) were at stake. "Finnish land" was actually much more valuable than "Turkish land". Turkish land would be so many mountains, whereas Finnish land was so many miles between Leningrad and the frontier.

Well if Finland just agrees to the original land exchange then the Red army is going to need something else to occupy its time.
 
This is how you get an Axis Turkey and potentially a real fight for the Middle East.

Soviet Forces at the time of the Winter War were obviously very flawed, although Turkey has no real chance of doing anything other than making the whole experience painful. While the Soviets would almost certainly want Kars, I think the real prize would be the Straits.

One thought though--it is also possible that the UK might be willing to DoW the Soviet Union for attacking Turkey, in which case WW2 as we know it is over. Turkey would then join the Allies and we either have a Triangle of Axis vs. Allies vs. Commintern, or Hitler seizes the opportunity to make a peace of convenience with the allies and backstabs Stalin while his forces are deploying to the Middle East.

In short, this could go down VERY badly...
 
Well if Finland just agrees to the original land exchange then the Red army is going to need something else to occupy its time.

Yes, the way it worked for Czechoslovakia and later on for Baltic States. Appeasement is always the solution!
 
I have to echo the 'why attack Turkey' sentiments.
From a strategy game perspective it does make more sense but in the real world? Finland was formerly part of Russia which after a war against communists of its own had gone off on its own.
Turkey was the remnants/replacement of the Ottomans. Old enemies of Russia certainly but....not so pressing as part of Russia itself. Especially considering much of the eminity came about from religious matters which the Soviets distanced themselves from.
 
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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Beats the hell out of of combat in -40 deg Finland.
 
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.
 
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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Beats the hell out of of combat in -40 deg Finland.

First of all, the United Kingdom does not want its assets in the Middle East Threatened. Finland doesn't neighbor UK assets, but Turkey is right above Iran, Iraq and of course, Transjordan. The UK might not have the best reputation in the region, but that doesn't mean that the Soviet Union is going to find the UK--which after Poland in 1939, saw the Soviets as possibly being allied to Germany--willing to accept this move.

So the Soviets risk war with the UK, "Image" to the contrary.

Turkey isn't going to be easily taken. Grabbing Thrace is going to be essentially impossible, assuming that one is able to get through all of the mountains first.

Yes, Turkey will get beaten by the Soviets, but at what price? Finland held out for three months, and Turkey is easier to support and likely to be supported by the UK.

So, according to the Big Picture, Stalin is gambling that the UK doesn't DoW him, which he can't rule out, image to the contrary. And of course, Stalin is probably going to find that the Red Army is not as cool as he thought it was, as Finland provided OTL. With that knowledge, Turkey is almost certainly going to survive as an independent nation and wind up either allied, or possibly Axis if the UK didn't support them.
 
Top