Would Kurdistan fall under Soviet Influence in this scenario? If so, how would the Middle East be affected?

Seaboigium

In my alt-history timeline, Turkey joins the Axis Powers during WWII and promptly commits a devastating invasion of southern Russia. I'm not sure if this would prolong the war but ultimately, the Axis is still defeated, the USSR survives and as punishment, Turkey's borders are reduced to that of "Anatolia Proper", depicted: here.

Turkey's lost territory is divided between Greece and Soviet Armenia while the southeastern-most portion of Turkey's partitioned territory becomes an independent Kurdistan. This newly independent Kurdistan does not encompass all historic Kurdish claims since Syria, Iraq, and Iran would likely be in no position to surrender territory to Kurdistan and Kurdistan's historic territorial claims overlap with Armenia, so a balance needs to be struck but Kurdistan comes into existence regardless of its small size.

Since this territorial partition is largely invoked by the Soviets with the western allies handling the Istanbul area, I think it's very likely that this Kurdistan could either become an SSR or a Soviet satellite state. What do you think?

Secondly, if Kurdistan did fall under Soviet influence, how would this have affected USSR presence in the Middle East? It's well known that Russia has always wanted warm-water ports and Soviet Kurdistan would bring the USSR closer to the Persian Gulf. Would the USSR perhaps use Kurdistan to launch Soviet-backed communist revolutions in Iraq and Kuwait? Could this cause an early gulf war to transpire?

I'm just trying to figure out what the ultimate outcome would be of this scenario.
 

MahBoi

I would say this hinges on two things; how did the alternate Yalta Conference (or equivalent) pan out, and how did the invasion of Turkey play out?

The agreement between the powers over how lands were to be divided was important. Nobody was especially keen about another big war (with a few exceptions), so if an agreement is made, then it will likely be honored. Thus, if the Allies and Soviets agree to partition Turkey in a specific fashion, I would expect them to stick to it.

Of course if Turkey is swiftly defeated by the Soviets before the Allies get anywhere near it, I imagine any discussions over what to do with it will be moot. The Allies don't have much bargaining power over territories they do not and are unlikely to control, so if the Soviets have overrun Turkey, I imagine they'll leave them to it, including Kurdistan. However, if the Allies have any part in invading Turkey (as they still control the Middle East until decolonization occurs), then they're likely to want to mark out a point to partition the country. That would include negotiations over what happens to Kurdistan, I would think. While they might agree to the borders you've created, I can't imagine they'd do so without making sure they're neutral territories and not Soviet satellites, similar to what happened with Austria. Otherwise you're likely going to get a split scenario like with Germany.

So, do the Soviets get a free hand in Turkey, or do they have to accommodate the Allies? That's the crux of the question.
 

Seaboigium

MahBoi said:
I would say this hinges on two things; how did the alternate Yalta Conference (or equivalent) pan out, and how did the invasion of Turkey play out?

The agreement between the powers over how lands were to be divided was important. Nobody was especially keen about another big war (with a few exceptions), so if an agreement is made, then it will likely be honored. Thus, if the Allies and Soviets agree to partition Turkey in a specific fashion, I would expect them to stick to it.

Of course if Turkey is swiftly defeated by the Soviets before the Allies get anywhere near it, I imagine any discussions over what to do with it will be moot. The Allies don't have much bargaining power over territories they do not and are unlikely to control, so if the Soviets have overrun Turkey, I imagine they'll leave them to it, including Kurdistan. However, if the Allies have any part in invading Turkey (as they still control the Middle East until decolonization occurs), then they're likely to want to mark out a point to partition the country. That would include negotiations over what happens to Kurdistan, I would think. While they might agree to the borders you've created, I can't imagine they'd do so without making sure they're neutral territories and not Soviet satellites, similar to what happened with Austria. Otherwise you're likely going to get a split scenario like with Germany.

So, do the Soviets get a free hand in Turkey, or do they have to accommodate the Allies? That's the crux of the question.
Click to expand...

I'm not super knowledgeable on Allied military activities in the Middle East during WWII and I'm not sure how the allies would approach operations in the Middle East with Turkey on the Axis's side. Therefore I'm not sure if it's more likely for the Soviets to defeat Turkey without allied intervention or not.
 

tomiasdesd

i think that if this independent kurdistan becomes a soviet ally its likely that Iraq, Iran and Syria become major western allies due to fear of kurd separatism, intensified ITTL due to an independent kurdistan next to them

if this happens i also can see Israel becoming closer to the USSR
 

MahBoi

Seaboigium said:
I'm not super knowledgeable on Allied military activities in the Middle East during WWII and I'm not sure how the allies would approach operations in the Middle East with Turkey on the Axis's side. Therefore I'm not sure if it's more likely for the Soviets to defeat Turkey without allied intervention or not.
Click to expand...
Well, it's your timeline, so you kind of need to come up with an answer, unless you plan to leave it vague and shrug when people ask.

You can't have Turkey join the Axis and not really address the implications for the Middle East.
 

walmart

Britain is the most likely to push into Kurdistan instead of the Soviet Union during world war 2 given it's base in Iraq .
 
Ilúphatar

Ilúphatar

Seaboigium said:
Turkey's borders are reduced to that of "Anatolia Proper", depicted: here.

Turkey's lost territory is divided between Greece and Soviet Armenia while the southeastern-most portion of Turkey's partitioned territory becomes an independent Kurdistan.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to read a timeline which included such a turn of events, where can I find it?

The question of whether Kurdistan would fall under Soviet influence really depends, as others have mentioned, on which nation(s) occupy the territory first. Which will have much to do with the timing of Turkish entry into the war. If it's earlier, then the Turks can either use French Syria as a buffer or bolster it with their own troops whilst focusing on the USSR. If it's later, after the Allies oust the Vichy French from Syria, then Turkey will have to deal with a mostly British threat on its southern flank.

My guess would be that the British are more likely to conquer Turkish Kurdistan before the Soviets in most circumstances, because it is easier for the British to march up the Euphrates and Tigris than it is for the Soviets to march south over the Caucasian Mountains (especially if the Turks make significant progress against the Russians).

Incidentally, my guess would be that the Western Allies would focus on knocking Turkey out of the war before Italy. So they might perhaps take Sicily after the Axis are ousted from North Africa, but I would anticipate the primary Allied (or certainly British) effort to be against the Turks and thence up through the Balkans. So you might also see a Western-aligned Bulgaria, Albania and Yugoslavia for example, if the Western Allies get there before the Soviets.
 

Seaboigium

Iluvatar said:
I'd be interested to read a timeline which included such a turn of events, where can I find it?

The question of whether Kurdistan would fall under Soviet influence really depends, as others have mentioned, on which nation(s) occupy the territory first. Which will have much to do with the timing of Turkish entry into the war. If it's earlier, then the Turks can either use French Syria as a buffer or bolster it with their own troops whilst focusing on the USSR. If it's later, after the Allies oust the Vichy French from Syria, then Turkey will have to deal with a mostly British threat on its southern flank.

My guess would be that the British are more likely to conquer Turkish Kurdistan before the Soviets in most circumstances, because it is easier for the British to march up the Euphrates and Tigris than it is for the Soviets to march south over the Caucasian Mountains (especially if the Turks make significant progress against the Russians).

Incidentally, my guess would be that the Western Allies would focus on knocking Turkey out of the war before Italy. So they might perhaps take Sicily after the Axis are ousted from North Africa, but I would anticipate the primary Allied (or certainly British) effort to be against the Turks and thence up through the Balkans. So you might also see a Western-aligned Bulgaria, Albania and Yugoslavia for example, if the Western Allies get there before the Soviets.
Click to expand...

I haven't really started work on this timeline yet as this is part of an attempt to fix the finer details.

In any case, most people seem to agree that Britain would likely reach southern Turkey first so I think I'll have Kurdistan become independent as a neutral country. This seems
the most preferable to me as I'm sure a series of chaotic events would unfold if the USSR got Kurdistan.

I'll keep the rest of the information you provided in mind.
 

Strategos' Risk

TickTock The Witch's Dead

Seaboigium said:
I haven't really started work on this timeline yet as this is part of an attempt to fix the finer details.

In any case, most people seem to agree that Britain would likely reach southern Turkey first so I think I'll have Kurdistan become independent as a neutral country. This seems
the most preferable to me as I'm sure a series of chaotic events would unfold if the USSR got Kurdistan.

I'll keep the rest of the information you provided in mind.
Click to expand...
Be quite interested to see what kind of TL this'll be. Wouldn't Greece demand more land though?

My guess is that if the USSR supports the Kurds by giving them an independent state the Kurds will definitely ally with the Soviets. If neither France nor Britain agrees to give away their portions of Kurdistan to the new state, it could be a serious potential conflict zone. And the Soviets will definitely back the Kurds here.

Also I too have planned a similar TL too so you and I might think alike here!

(There's no notice about this thread is "x" months old so I assume it'll be ok for me to comment here)
 
Last edited:

Monk78

Supporting Kurds means potentially antagonizing Iraqis Iranians Syrians and Turks for very little gain
I doubt Soviets will do that better to just back small factions of Kurds to create nuisance for Turks without an existential threat for Arabs
 

Seaboigium

Strategos' Risk said:
Also this

en.wikipedia.org

Republic of Mahabad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

I completely ignored this comment when it was posted and I apologize for that but this is very interesting.

So, in this timeline. could Turkey invading the USSR in WWII cause the USSR to hold onto this territory? A Larger Azerbaijan would be interesting.

Most people seem to agree that the British would get Kurdistan but perhaps the Soviets get the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad?


If the USSR is able to enlarge the size of Azerbaijan and get Kurdistan, I think it might have enough land to form a solid foundation for a hypothetical canal that connects the Caspain Sea to the Persian Gulf by building the canal to connect with Lake Urmia and the Tigris River. Such a canal would still be a monumental undertaking but it would be a major incentive for Iraq to join the USSR's sphere of influence as the economic advantages would be enormous.
 
Last edited:
TiberiusCaesar

TiberiusCaesar

Banned
Seaboigium said:
In my alt-history timeline, Turkey joins the Axis Powers during WWII and promptly commits a devastating invasion of southern Russia. I'm not sure if this would prolong the war but ultimately, the Axis is still defeated, the USSR survives and as punishment, Turkey's borders are reduced to that of "Anatolia Proper", depicted: here.

Turkey's lost territory is divided between Greece and Soviet Armenia while the southeastern-most portion of Turkey's partitioned territory becomes an independent Kurdistan. This newly independent Kurdistan does not encompass all historic Kurdish claims since Syria, Iraq, and Iran would likely be in no position to surrender territory to Kurdistan and Kurdistan's historic territorial claims overlap with Armenia, so a balance needs to be struck but Kurdistan comes into existence regardless of its small size.

Since this territorial partition is largely invoked by the Soviets with the western allies handling the Istanbul area, I think it's very likely that this Kurdistan could either become an SSR or a Soviet satellite state. What do you think?

Secondly, if Kurdistan did fall under Soviet influence, how would this have affected USSR presence in the Middle East? It's well known that Russia has always wanted warm-water ports and Soviet Kurdistan would bring the USSR closer to the Persian Gulf. Would the USSR perhaps use Kurdistan to launch Soviet-backed communist revolutions in Iraq and Kuwait? Could this cause an early gulf war to transpire?

I'm just trying to figure out what the ultimate outcome would be of this scenario.
Click to expand...
A strict neutralist Turkey of OTL invading the USSR... that's something like Guatemala invading Mexico in 1940 :p

Anyway, independent Kurdistan that is established after a lost War vs the Soviets means it's going to be a Soviet friendly state/Soviet Puppet. Though I see the Barzanis resist that. The terrain is good for guerilla warfare. This Kurdistan will not resemble Turkey at all, who already had difficulties with insurgents until the late 90s. Huge consequences...

A defeated Turkey is most likely a Soviet puppet too and if Syria is included as a pro-USSR state then this could very well influence the Israeli War of Independence. If the Arabs win, with increased Soviet aid, the I see Palestine becoming Communist too, probably, in the 50s. If Israel still succeeds then it will get even more US aid. I already feel bad for Soviet Jews left in the USSR...

Jordan and Iraq remain the last non-Communist States in the Fertile Crescent. The fall of those states means the Middle East is mostly pro-Soviet and the US will aid the monarchies of the Arab peninsula even more.
 

TickTock The Witch's Dead

Seaboigium said:
If the USSR is able to enlarge the size of Azerbaijan and get Kurdistan, I think it might have enough land to form a solid foundation for a hypothetical canal that connects the Caspain Sea to the Persian Gulf by building the canal to connect with Lake Urmia and the Tigris River. Such a canal would still be a monumental undertaking but it would be a major incentive for Iraq to join the USSR's sphere of influence as the economic advantages would be enormous.
Click to expand...
Would that canal work? Sounds like they have to dig up so much land. Also not sure how much of the Tigris is actually navigable by boat.
 
PakistaniGuyUK

PakistaniGuyUK

Banned
Russians (USSR) didn't bother giving Armenia independence (despite the one-sided love affair) so why would they bother with an independent Kurdistan?

Possibly Armenia will get a larger SSR though some Russian general did say 'we want Armenia without Armenians' so would they settle with an Armenian SSR superstate that could potentially rebel? Doubt it.

Kurdistan gets its own SSR for sure but zero chance Moscow will grant it independence imho
 
TiberiusCaesar

TiberiusCaesar

Banned
PakistaniGuyUK said:
Russians (USSR) didn't bother giving Armenia independence (despite the one-sided love affair) so why would they bother with an independent Kurdistan?

Possibly Armenia will get a larger SSR though some Russian general did say 'we want Armenia without Armenians' so would they settle with an Armenian SSR superstate that could potentially rebel? Doubt it.

Kurdistan gets its own SSR for sure but zero chance Moscow will grant it independence imho
Click to expand...
Because Armenia belonged to the Russian Empire, Kurdistan did not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top