Too bad for you then, you might look like you had any semblance of an idea of what was going on:
From your own link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk#Territorial_cessions_in_the_Caucasus
Huh, the Ottoman faced a non-existent Russian army to occupy territory that was no longer Russian and just forming into a new country.
You said the Brits were never stopped, I provided 3 examples of them being stopped and beaten by the Ottomans.
Your reply is a really sad attempt to try and change the subject.
Funny how they stayed from 1941-46 despite what you claim is nonexistent infrastructure.
If they have no active fronts it isn't like they couldn't build more, seeing as they already occupied the territory and the Allies will still have to to commit divisions it cannot spare to try and check them at a minimum and preferably push them out. After all Britain wants that oil.
Iran did provide a conduit of L-L supply to the USSR, one of the highest volume routes, which ran through the Caspian see ports. All while supplying the forces they had there occupying Iran until 1946. They got supplies from Iran and from the USSR, L-L material almost exclusively moved into the USSR, not going to supply the occupying forces.
As they would in any TL. Which means there is a Middle East Front that Britain/the Allies needs to supply, sucks in divisions, equipment, and supplies they need for Europe, and achieves exactly what I was talking about: active participation of the USSR in the war against the Allies and drains them.
The oil only flowed because the Brits weren't fighting the Soviets, rather than were helped by them. Fighting in Iran changes the entire ability of the Allies to source oil from that country. How many forces do you think the Brits would pour into the country to ensure the flow of oil? Where are they coming from??? What happens when Iraq revolts while all available British divisions are in Iran?
You will ignore what you cannot prove of course, pathetic attempt to dodge.
You haven't provided any evidence at all, so I don't now what you think you've proven or even how it relates to what the discussion is of.
Please quote where I did.
How about specifically stating what you're choosing to concede because of inability to argue any point.
They are the problem of the entire alliance, since they want to influence nations like Turkey and various Balkan states to join their alliance.
So far all I notice is your inability to make coherent points or supply actual evidence and get sidetracked by made up points that you've dreamed up.
Ok? Where did I argue that they would be a problem ITTL?
Hey more nonsense world salad!
Like any nation in WW2?
Same with the Brits until the Butt Report and development of electronic bombing aids that took time, despite developing all that same stuff you list above pre-war. Experience takes time to develop and I'm not arguing the Soviets would be perfect on their first bombing raid at night over Britain, not sure why you're arguing like I am or did.
They pretty much abandoned their strategic bombing effort a few months after the start of Barbarossa and didn't resume until WW2 in Europe ended. So OTL isn't a heuristic for how their learning curve would be without Barbarossa, allied to Germany and getting helped by them, and operating out of France against Britain rather than over featureless Eastern European terrain at night trying to find a blacked out city.
You're making a lot of specious claims based on OTL AFTER Germany invaded and inflicted immense economic damage and the Soviets abandoned their strategic bombing program for years.
The Anglo-Americans weren't able to bomb Berlin with any sort of accuracy or consistency despite investing enormous resources in their strategic bombing programs until 1942. In fact the failures of the RAF to pull it off in November 1941 led to BC's leader being fired and Bomber Harris getting the job.
Timing isn't irrelevant considering how much time and more resources the Soviets would have to developing their bomber and honing their skills and technology. You're trying to deflect again and only showing how bad at proving your points you are. Why are you comparing a situation after the USSR was surprise attacked in the worst invasion in modern history, that inflicted by some estimates upwards of 40% loss of GDP on the USSR and their entire pre-war military, to how they'd be able to conduct their operations in a TL where they aren't at war with the OTL invaders, instead allied to them and assisting their bombing campaign?



That is the most pathetic argument of the bunch.
One French aircraft flying over a lit up capital city after hugging the German North Sea coast; the only reason they found the city was it was lit up like there was no war on and they could see it from nearly the coast. The Soviets were trying to bomb a blacked out city and pulled it off.
Did you even bother to read your own article?
Ok?
Do you have a quote about that circuit problem? I can't find a single reference to support your assertion.
I could go on, but I'm tired of all the nonsense I keep coming across in your posts.