WI WWII Eastern Front extended into Turkey? Who would be worse off?

Sending an army into / through Turkey is right out - but all the Germans would need are the airports in the East. If they could take out the Baku oilfields with one or more bomber runs, Stalin's in deep trouble... of course, if Stalin would allow that (I mean the Germans sending bombers to East Turkey) despite of his paranoia, I'd really wonder whether ASBs were involved.

Also note: Hitler had planned as step 2 to world domination (after a successful Barbarossa), to invade the Middle East via Transcaucasia and Bulgaria - not caring about Turkey's neutrality.
 
If this happens in 1941 scale back Barbarossa in Europe. Instead of a three pronged attack concentrate on the central drive on Moscow. This was what Halder and the general staff argued for any way. The forces that would have gone into Leningrad and taking Kiev cold be shifted to Turkey and making the attack on Moscow even stronger. Supplying an army through Turkey would be difficult but not impossible. They held Greece and controlled the Balkans. This gave them a common border and direct land route.

If in 1942 they could stay on the defensive in Europe or perhaps mount a single diversionary attack. The whole goal of the campaign in 1942 was to acquire teh oil fields to the south. Going through Turkey would simply be a shorter route.

So while half the Wehrmacht is dicking around in Turkey fighting their way over a mountain range, the other half gets encircled?:rolleyes:

Any German drive on Moscow ignoring Kiev and Leningrad the flanks leaves a horrifying number of Soviet troops on their very long flanks.

Best reply by far......
DaleCoz hit the nail on the head...if the German's invade Turkey, their proverbial turkey is cooked. Hitler's vision of a giant pincer (through the Caucasus) would have worked if the entire Africa Korp is used for a Turkey - to supplement Operation Barbarossa (instead of north Africa). The Axis was simply stretched too thin. Had the Africa Korp been used in Turkey (not in north africa) AND Turkey actively supported the Axis, you might have seen a far worse 1941 for the USSR. Would this be a game winner for the Axis in 1941? Probably not. They simply bit off more than they can chew (failure to take Murmansk, failure to take Archangelsk, failure to take Leningrad, etc). However, once they regrouped, I could easily see the Axis going for a knockout against the USSR 1942. And they might have succeeded too.

At the cost of seeing Italy knocked-out of the war and giving Britain large numbers of troops to re-deply...
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
More on Soviet aggression -

Interesting question...I actually thought about doing a TL where Stalin doesn't invade Finland but, instead, invades Turkey...very similar to what you are proposing.

My take is that Stalin could probably take Turkey eventually, but at a very heavy cost. Any power who invades Turkey, during this time, is in for a hard fight. Turkey's terrain is rough, especially on it's eastern borders. The transportation infrastructure is also pretty crappy all over. The Turks would no doubt resort to hit-and-run tactics, blocking key roads and passes, making slow going for the Red Army.

If they Soviets invade in June 1940, I don't see much support from Germany or the west.

Agreed -

If the Soviets invade in March 1941, the Germans could potentially divert some of their Barbarossa forces to support Turkey (in a clandestine fashion) until they are ready for the main invasion of the USSR, and then Turkey becomes a battleground for both sides (with the Turks in the middle).

Maybe some of that clandestine support would come in the form of providing the Turks captured British (and maybe French) gear.

Since a Soviet conquest campaign could take several months to complete, Hitler and Mussolini could also come in as Stalin's *ally* to seize Thrace (if the Sovs are not there) and a bridgehead in western Turkey that will give them some defensive depth for when Barb starts.


Cam the not-so-great
View Public Profile
Send a personal message to Cam the not-so-great
Find all posts by Cam the not-so-great
Add Cam the not-so-great to Your Contacts

#19 Report Post June 21st, 2011, 04:13 AM
Wendell
Creator of many dead threads Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lost in what might have been
Posts: 1000 or more

How exactly do the Soviets plan to knock over so mountainous and strategically located a country?

Land, sea and air invasion, with the main line of ground advance going through northeastern Turkey from the Transcaucasus. Not easy, but the Soviets can bring alot of force to bear. Even Tsarist Russia made considerable gains in northeast Anatolia in WWI. Less mobility for armor, more plodding, infantry artillery penetrations until a bridgehead on to the Anatolian plateau is established.

The trickiest part is securing European Turkey, because of the lack of a land corridor, and the probability the Turks would have some respectable beach defenses, mass their navy in the Dardanelles, and urban terrain of Istanbul would be a bitch to take.
 
Top