Turkey and other countries in the Axis

The problem with Turkey's that a very similar alliance lost them only an Empire. Why then, for them? So they could lose Asia Minor this time? That, presumably, is why stayed neutral - safest.

And, isn't a small military right for a NEUTRAL power? And, it's not like having a massive military would've helped them stay neutral, because the better-equipped USSR and US were also warred on, in response to the inevitable conservative argument. Turkey did have decent equipment, just not so much of it, and alot, proportionally, in defensive fortresses.

And the thread's right about the strength of their borders making them stronger defensively. But that works two ways - they lost VAST numbers in WW1 attacking in the same places, another reason not to repeat the mistake.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
What happens if turkey brings troops into Iraq, and since the war in Russia has cooled down can it be possible for Franco to send the Blue division there as well as some Nationalist Chinese volunteers to help the Iraqis overthrow the British.

Would the Turkish send in Volunteers or the Actual military.

Would moving "Volunteers" into Iraq be considered an attack on British soil even though the Nationalist forces have the people on their side. Could the British be forced out of the country without firing a single shot.

Also since Nationalist China now has ties with Germany and they have fought and pretty much defeated the Communists can we see them signing the anti-comitern pact and sending a volunteer division to help Germany in Barbarossa.

Edit: Also what would happen if Spain and Portugal somehow happened to side with the Axis.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know of any good books on intermarriage turkeys economy? Was its military really that weak? Ataturk was a general. Did he really let their military fall that far behind.
 
If they were so useless, why did the British spend such a large amount of time, money and resources trying to get them to join the war?

Well, they had some useful real estate to conduct operations in the Balkans. However, the Turkish army was useless. Also, Turkey provided some valuable resources to German industry. IIRC nickel or chrome or something like that, so much of the money and equipment given to Turkey was to prevent them exporting those to Germany as well to deter Germans from taking them by force. I don't think Turkey would be anything but a sideshow in any case.
 
If they were so useless, why did the British spend such a large amount of time, money and resources trying to get them to join the war?

At a guess, to block chromium (?) exports to Germany, to open the Black Sea supply route to the SU and possibly as a base for bombers to hit Romania (although aaargh infrastructure).

In contrast, Germany only needs Turkey to be neutral to buy her chromium, to keep the Bosphorus closed and to not be a threat to Ploesti.
 
Sigh. The issue is the relationship between manpower (and manpower requirements) and raw resources (and industrial capability and equipment requirements).

The Axis is short of nearly everything.
Sigh. Are you talking 1943 or later here? In 1940, after Dunkirk, the shoe is on the other foot.

The British can provide nearly everything from some part of the globe, and if and once they really cannot, the USA will supply it for a nominal payment.
Like they supplied Singapore.

It's always a good idea, at this point, to read ...
My suggestion is that you read something about logistics.
It's always a good idea to refrain from giving condescending 'advice'.
My suggestion is that you read something about politeness.

I can imagine just a couple of RAF Squadrons strafing that dozen or so trains and doing away with the whole effort.
I can imagine reading just a moment ago that there were only a couple of RAF biplanes (NOT biplane squadrons) in Iraq at the time of the Rashid Ali revolt. See this excerpt from the Anglo-Iraqi War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In addition, at the start of battle, there were about 1000 RAF personnel[42] but only 39 pilots. All told, on 1 April, the British had 3 old Gladiator biplane fighters, 30 Hawker Audax biplane close co-operation aircraft, 7 Fairey Gordon biplane bombers, 27 twin-engine Oxford trainers, 28 Hawker Hart biplane light bombers (the "bomber" version of the Hawker Audax), 20 Hart trainers, and 1 Bristol Blenheim Mk1 bomber.
The wikipedia article on the Turkish air force says that it had 500 planes of all types during WW II. This is of course not a very accurate statements since it does not say when this strength was reached. The types used were usually more modern than the RAF biplanes in Iraq, though I do not know when they were acquired.

Does anyone know of any good books on intermarriage turkeys economy? Was its military really that weak? Ataturk was a general. Did he really let their military fall that far behind.
I have my doubts about Michele's statements too. On the other hand Kemal Atatürk expressly warned the Turks not to join Germany in another war. I think his words were generally regarded as gospel truth. I do not know whether the Turkish government would still have felt to have to obey those words if Germany concentrates fully on defeating Britain and even more things go wrong for Britain in 1940 and later than in OTL.
 
Last edited:
Top