WI: Turkey Joined The Axis

kernals12

Banned
What it says on the tin. Surely the Turks would've wanted to get back some lost territory. And hopefully after the war, there would've been some accountability for the Armenian Genocide.
 
There are a bunch of POD problems here.

1. The actual Turkish government at the time, though nationalist, was fairly leftist and an Allied leaning neutral during the war. Churchill tried repeatedly to get them to join the Allies, and they did declare was on Germany though too late to make any difference.

2. Turkey gained Russian territory after World War I so there was no Soviet territory belonging to the Ottoman Empire to regain.

3. France gave Turkey part of northern Syria in 1939 to appease them. Actually if needed, the British could have handed over more territorial concessions but the Turkes were not really interested in absorbing any more Arabs or Kurds.

It really didn't make much strategic sense for Turkey to ally with the Axis and if anything they came closer to joining the Allies. So you probably need a POD where Ataturk is overthrown by an Islamic dictator opposed to his modernization program and interested in reviving the Ottoman Empire (who would also be anti-communist). And that changes a good deal more than World War II.

I doubt the armed forces of such a regime would be very effective, so the only gain to Germany would be access to Turkish territory, which would be a considerable help to reach the oil fields in either Iraq or the Caucasus. But with an insane pro-Axis Turkish dictator the Allies would have time to prepare. The Germans would probably have to commit a full armor group (and they would probably try for both the Caucasus and Iraq at the same time), so this shuts down a good part of their offensive in Russia. It certainly helps the Axis more than pro-Allied neutral Turkey, but not necessarily a war winner.
 
The Germans really didn't have much to offer, given Kemalist Turkey's rejection of pan-Turkism:

"An important question in Turkey's relations with Germany during 1941-2 is whether Turkey hoped to gain territory in Transcaucasia and possibly other Turkic areas of the USSR, in collaboration with Germany, assuming Russia were defeated. Certainly, von Papen promoted the proposal , as a means of bringing Turkey over to the Axis side, and it had some support in Berlin. Although Attaturk had strictly abjured pan-Turkism , it had continued as a fringe movment in Turkey during the 1930s. A so-called committee of experts on the 'Turanian' question was established in July 1941, consisting of convinced pan-Turkists, including Nuri Pasha, a brother of the Young Turk leader Enver Pasha and now a businessman in Turkey, and Professor Zeki Velidi Toğan, a well-known pan-Turkish historian. In August 1941 Nuri visited Berlin as what von Papen described as a fully accredited representative of the Turkish government, though Turkish sources deny this. At this stage, the Turkish government had evidently decided to test the temperature on this issue, through semi-official channels. In Berlin, Nuri urged the establishment of a pan-Turanian state stretching as far as the Chinese province of Xinjiang. However, both the Germans and Turks then abandoned this fantasy. Those Germans who favoured the idea also claimed Fevzi Qakmak as one of its supporters, but the furthest Qakmak was apparently prepared to go was to tell the Germans in May 1942 that he was willing to allow Turkish civilians to go to Germany to prepare for the establishment of separate states in the Turkic areas captured from the USSR. On the other hand, Hüsrev Gerede, who had supported the idea at first, bluntly turned down the proposal that Turkey should take over Turkic areas of the Soviet Union, when Hitler suggested it to him in August 1941. It was obviously dropped completely, once it was clear that Germany was not going to crush the USSR anyway." https://books.google.com/books?id=PlcpRNvsM4cC&pg=PA65

"The national movement led by Mustafa Kemal...established itself on national borders and did not claim the lost territories, with the exception of some bordering contested lands." https://journals.openedition.org/diacronie/1998

Turkey really had little to hope for, and much to fear, from whichever side won. As the Italian ambassador put it, the Turkish ideal was that "the last German soldier should fall upon the last Russian corpse." https://books.google.com/books?id=PlcpRNvsM4cC&pg=PA65
 
It be though for USSR. But at end Turkey will lose territory to Armenia. And Turkish straights to Russia.
 
2. Turkey gained Russian territory after World War I so there was no Soviet territory belonging to the Ottoman Empire to regain.

.

What if the Soviets demand it back? Instead or along with the winter war they attack Turkey.

That's surely going to mean a continuation war come 1941.

But the best pod is no referendum in Syria I think.
 
What if the Soviets demand it back? Instead or along with the winter war they attack Turkey.

That's surely going to mean a continuation war come 1941.

But the best pod is no referendum in Syria I think.
Why Syria? Soviet Union did depend it but after Wwii
 
Why Syria? Soviet Union did depend it but after Wwii

I mean this:

On 29 June 1939, following a referendum, Hatay became a Turkish province. This referendum has been labelled both "phoney" and "rigged", and a way for the French to let Turks take over the area, hoping that they would turn on Hitler. For the referendum, Turkey moved tens of thousands of Turks into Alexandretta to vote.
A different French attitude could push Turkey away

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatay_Province
 
One of the core principles of Kemalism is to be rather careful with foreign politics and avoid getting too much involved in foreign conflicts. It is an ideology which advocates avoiding risks here.
Joining the Axis is a highly risky move. If they win the war, you could gain a lot (if they are faithful and still want to fullfill their promises), if they loose the war, you loose the war with them.
Similarly joining the Allies too early in WW2 is highly risky, since it would mean war at your borders with highly superior opponents.

Maybe minor border corrections for minor help for one or another side in World War 2 is possible, but you need a government following a different ideology if you want Turkey joining World War 2 earlier.
 
In order for this to make any sense for Turkey this decision would have to be made in 36 or 37.

The thought process for Turkey would have to be how do they expand to become a major global power. The only way I can see that happening is if they take over Syria, Iraq, Iran/Persia and the Caucasus. They would then become one of the world leaders in petroleum reserves which would make that nation very rich. They would need to have a very detailed plan worked out with Germany on the moves, both during the war and after the war.

I don't know the infrastructure status of Turkey in the 30's but I assume that the pre-war years Turkey would need to establish and expand the ability to move large amounts of troops and supplies to the Eastern and South-Eastern part of their country. This would support the Germans quick access to the Caucasus as well as the Persian Gulf. If the oil reserves are taken away in the early part of the war from the Soviet Union and Great Britain from these areas it severely hampers their ability to continue the war.

The above situation points out how if Germany had any chance of winning they needed a comprehensive global plan on how to defeat France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. In retrospect they probably could have accomplished this before the US became relevant, but they needed a detailed global plan, which they never had.

So lacking the pre-planned understanding of what would have been needed, Turkey did the right thing by staying neutral and just selling their raw materials.
 

Deleted member 1487

What it says on the tin. Surely the Turks would've wanted to get back some lost territory. And hopefully after the war, there would've been some accountability for the Armenian Genocide.
As the other posters have said short of major early changes after WW1 there is just no way that Turkey would be interested in joining the Axis. I'm not even sure what sort of POD would even change their stance after the horror of WW1 and the post-war invasion.

Assuming there was some and Turkey was willing to side with the Axis I'd imagine it would have to either be relatively early on, say in 1941 during the successful Axis invasion of the Balkans, but then there is the problem of Barbarossa, as the strategic advantage of Turkey joining in the war on their side would be negated by Germany rushing off East instead of exploiting their entry point in the Middle East. Still if they did join in say April or May 1941 then the British would be quite wrong footed, especially if Turkey then could assist the situation vis-a-vis the Iraqi Revolt and the Axis mission to help them via Syria-Lebanon. Then there might be a chance for things to go quite a bit better for the Iraqi revolters and the Axis military mission to help them with Turkey providing men, material, and a logistical entry point to move more men and supplies into the area. That would probably mean the Afrika Korps becomes second fiddle to the Middle East effort. I'd guess that the Italians would then have to be made to bear the brunt of that effort given that they'd be the only ones with the spare resources to help, though given the history of Italy and Turkey that may not be the best relationship to carry out a military joint effort.

At very least then the Middle East becomes a serious front, Syria-Lebanon likely doesn't fall to the British, while Iraq may well end up split if the Turks get involved in the north of the country. At that point an invasion of Iran is going to be out of question come August. The Soviets too would probably then focus on invasion East Turkey instead of Iran come Barbarossa, but that may have to wait a couple of months after the initial invasion. Not sure it would get all that far and we'd have a rerun of WW1 in some regards. It would provide a staging base for Axis mountain troops though in 1942.

Thing is Turkey was not materially prepared for WW2, so they'd be a worse version of Italy for Germany in terms of what they'd need to prop them up, including oil, but they at least can provide a major source of vital raw materials. People mention Chromium, but that was hardly the only thing they had to provide.

https://www.iflr1000.com/NewsAndAnalysis/An-introduction-to-the-mining-industry-in-Turkey/Index/3233
Turkey is 10th in the world in terms of mineral variety and 28th for its production of underground resources. Copper, chrome, coal, marble and boron are the key minerals in the market. Turkey owns 75% of the world’s boron reserves. Turkey’s large and diverse mineral resource base includes coal, gold, iron and lead, mercury, silver, tin, other precious metals and coal.
 
Maybe a good POD could be the Treaty of Sevres getting enforced, leading to Turkey going nuts afterwards?
I love PODs like this. I was also thinking, what if instead of a WW1 humiliation, the humiliation starts even earlier?
The Italo-Ottoman War and the First Balkan war were extremely close together in timing. What if they overlapped or started around the same time, leading to an Italian alliance with the Balkan League?
I guess that's sort of off topic but still intriguing.
 
I love PODs like this. I was also thinking, what if instead of a WW1 humiliation, the humiliation starts even earlier?
The Italo-Ottoman War and the First Balkan war were extremely close together in timing. What if they overlapped or started around the same time, leading to an Italian alliance with the Balkan League?
I guess that's sort of off topic but still intriguing.
What if Russia join also? Knock out Turkey before war whit CP. Second Balkan war avoided.
 
Would.a
What it says on the tin. Surely the Turks would've wanted to get back some lost territory. And hopefully after the war, there would've been some accountability for the Armenian Genocide.
Would an Allied Turkey move on to fight the Germans in Greece?
 
As others have noted, it would be extremely unlikely for Turkey to do that. However, as a thought experiment, let's consider the immediate effects of Turkey joining the Axis.

The most effective moment for this would be 6 April 1941, the same day Bulgaria's neutrality ended with German forces attacking Greece and Yugoslavia from Bulgaria. We'll further assume that with Turkey joining the Axis, Germany sees an opportunity to capture the oilfields in northern Iraq, and therefore commits substantial forces to the theater.

(Yes, this is a diversion from BARBAROSSA; but having greatly increased fuel supplies would more than compensate.)

Also, on 3 April, the anti-British "Brotherhood of the Golden Square" seized control of Iraq. OTL, a month later Iraqi forces attacked British bases in Iraq; they received a tiny amount of aid from Germany, by air, with the connivance of the Vichy French colonial authorities in Syria.

Finally, Rommel had attacked in Libya on 24 March, and by 6 April was approaching Tobruk.

One other thing: British forces were in the final stage of the East Africa campaign; they took Addis Ababa on 6 April. Some Italians held out in the northern mountains till September 1941.

IOW, the British were already fighting several fires at once.

Thus, while it is likely that British intelligence would detect German deployments in Turkey, it seems unlikely that the British would have any forces available to deploy in response.

OTL, Britain was defeated in Greece, but held off Rommel in Libya, put down the Iraqi rebellion, and conquered Vichy Syria, while completing the mop-up in East Africa - just barely.

ATL: as with Bulgaria, German troops are deployed to attack immediately. This will be a strain on the Germans, as Turkey's railroads are not robust. But then the British forces have to be supplied by sea from around Africa or from India and Australia.

It should be possible for Germany to send a panzer corps with air support to Iraq, which is more than enough to defeat the British forces there, IMO. The British may be able to hold out in far southern Iraq, around Basra.

French Syria is the next question. It's between Axis Turkey and Allied Palestine. The main rail line to Iraq passes through Syria (from Aleppo to Mosul; though oddly, for about 300 km it runs along the Turkish side of the Turkey-Syria border). There are also oil pipelines running from Iraq to the Mediterranean through Syria. The French there are Axis-sympathetic; as noted, they assisted the Germans in aiding the Iraqi rebellion.

The German position in the area is very strong. But it's one thing to allow a few aircraft to transit through French airfields, or to allow use of railroads or pipelines through French territory. It's very different to allow combat troops to deploy and operate there. That's a step Vichy France will be reluctant to take.

OTL, Britain responded to the much smaller French collaboration by invading Syria. ATL, France has done more, but Britain's position is far weaker.

OYAH, there will be fighting in the desert between Iraq and Trans-Jordan. French Syria and neutral Saudi Arabia lie to the north and south, and the borders are mere map-lines across trackless desert. Both sides will be likely to violate those borders.

Yet another question is Cyprus, which is close to Axis Turkey, meaning a lot of air battles and possibly Axis invasion. (That may depend on whether ITTL Crete is a Pyrrhic victory for Germany as in OTL.)

If the Axis gain the full use of Syria, they will certainly want to take Cyprus and secure the SLoC to Syrian ports, and holding Syria would make that easier. Or if the Axis takes Cyprus, they would certainly want the use of Syrian ports. So getting either means getting both.

Possible longer-term knock-ons:

OTL, Iran was forced to accept British-Soviet occupation in summer 1941, and suspected pro-Axis Shah Reza I was deposed in favor of his son. Iran made no resistance. ITTL, Germany can directly support Iran.

If the Axis gets Syria, ISTM likely that they conquer Palestine. This could be very bad for the Zionist settlers there. OTOH, Hitler might see this as an opportunity to Finally Solve the "Jewish Problem" in a "humane" way by deporting all the Jews there - where most of them would starve to death anyway. (It would be impossible for the 400,000 Jewish settlers in Palestine to provide for 3M-6M destitute and helpless refugees. But that wouldn't be Germany's problem. Their hands would remain "clean".)

Axis Turkey means a fighting front in the Caucasus during BARBAROSSA. The terrain is difficult, but not impassable, and there is a narrow coastal plain along the Black Sea. OTL, the Soviet Black Sea fleet took refuge in Batumi, just north of Turkey; that won't be possible ITTL. The Black Sea could become an Axis lake. The Axis could even bring in major warships of the Italian Navy; it wouldn't take much to wipe out the small, mostly decrepit and obsolete Soviet force. (OTL the Axis had nothing.) With a secure water line of communication, Axis forces might be able to advance from western Georgia to Azerbaijan.

Later on: the Middle East would become a central theater of the war. If Iran followed Turkey into the Axis, or the Allies forced their own entry into Iran, there could be active theaters of combat in Baluchistan, where British India bordered Iran, and in NE Iran, on the border with Soviet Turkmenistan.

The Axis might occupy Egypt and drive the British out of southern Iraq, but it would be impossible for them to march all the way down the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. With the US in the war in say 1942, the Allies would counter-attack. It would be a huge strain, supporting a large army there, but the same would be true for the Axis. By late 1943, the Allies would have cleared the Axis from the Middle East and North Africa. The US and Britain would be preparing to invade Europe from the southeast.

In any case, the outcome will not be good for Turkey, which would be campaigned over and damaged as much as Italy was OTL.

One other important point: can Germany get any oil from Iraq? Probably yes. The Iraq oilfields are much larger than the one Soviet oilfield the Germans occupied, much easier to capture, and much better connected to Europe. How mcuh? And what difference does that make? Idunno.

And besides, all this was a thought experiment off an essentially impossible premise.
 
French Syria is the next question. It's between Axis Turkey and Allied Palestine. The main rail line to Iraq passes through Syria (from Aleppo to Mosul; though oddly, for about 300 km it runs along the Turkish side of the Turkey-Syria border). There are also oil pipelines running from Iraq to the Mediterranean through Syria. The French there are Axis-sympathetic; as noted, they assisted the Germans in aiding the Iraqi rebellion.

If the Axis gain the full use of Syria, they will certainly want to take Cyprus and secure the SLoC to Syrian ports, and holding Syria would make that easier. Or if the Axis takes Cyprus, they would certainly want the use of Syrian ports. So getting either means getting both.

my speculation is always that Germany grasps how weak Italy is militarily, makes some type of deal to install themselves in Vichy-controlled Syria, both to open a second front (or at least be positioned to open a second front) and also to insulate Turkey, albeit not to force them into the Axis and gain another unprepared ally?
 
Thing is Turkey was not materially prepared for WW2, so they'd be a worse version of Italy for Germany in terms of what they'd need to prop them up, including oil, but they at least can provide a major source of vital raw materials. People mention Chromium, but that was hardly the only thing they had to provide.

my understanding they were a net food producer, certainly they could not equal the shipments from the USSR, but a neutral (more than OTL friendly?) Turkey would be a big strategic asset?

a big IF they decided to wait or cancel invasion of the USSR, they could lavish some of the monies that went to Spain/Portugal for tungsten on cultivating Turkey.
 

Deleted member 1487

my understanding they were a net food producer, certainly they could not equal the shipments from the USSR, but a neutral (more than OTL friendly?) Turkey would be a big strategic asset?
Yes, in peacetime without being blockaded and an unmobilized farm labor force. A neutral pro-Axis Turkey would be a very helpful source of resources, though IOTL they required military equipment, including the latest aircraft, for their goods, which was a bit of a drain.

a big IF they decided to wait or cancel invasion of the USSR, they could lavish some of the monies that went to Spain/Portugal for tungsten on cultivating Turkey.
They could, but as I recall Turkey wanted weapons, not money.
 
Top