What if Germans reached Alexandria during late 1940

[AJFFM]

The Russians had quite sa large garrison in the Caucasus. The terrain is terrible for attacking, for limited attack lines, And the Turkish railways were pretty bad. The Idea of 40 Divisions being supplied and attacking Russia is pretty unrealistic. As always people throw division around in a fantasy map that just does not allow for logistics. The Russian Garrison could hold it's own against any likely attacking force.

The German army was not far from Dover does not mean they could get there.

Not large enough to stop the Turkish onslaught while keeping the Germans at bay. Plus the "bad" Turkish railways kept feeding troops to the Iraq-Palestine front at a miraculous rate in the first war extending the life of the over extended understrength under equipped and numerically inferior Turkish troops by four years. In 1941 the Turkish railways were light years ahead of what existed in 1918.

And the Geography isn't that bad, in fact it plays on the side of the Turks who control the higher ground overlooking the Armenian and Georgian planes as well as the large mountain passes. The bottleneck is between Iran and Azerbaijan not between Turkey and Georgian and Armenia.

Would the also under equipped Turkish troops face difficulty? Of course but given the extensive experience its officer corps has in the wars from the Balkan wars till the last Kurdish rebellion in 37 I think the Turks had the power to overcome them provided they get support from the Germans.

[JAG13]

Nope, I do not underestimate their will to fight, I am simply stating that they showed clear signs of not being suicidal and therefore it would be a cold day in hell before they choose to fight Russians AND Germans over granting the latter passage.

Inonu was certainly not, others I have doubts. But in general we agree here.

So, you agree Turkey would join the Axis to avoid that.

Lol, what did the Russians had to fear from the Turks? They already had insinuated to the Turks that they wanted a different arrangement, Stalin even told the Germans so whom quickly passed that along to the Turks. Hitler wanted Turkey neutral because it would protect his flank during Brabarossa, the Yugos were already history by then and the Bulgarians were happy to be protected from the Russians and to get Thrace for free...

40 divisions that will actually fight and overwhelm the Caucasus, where much of the oil comes from for starters. Remember that linking Azerbaijan (the Persian and the Soviet parts) was a national goal for the nationalists in Turkey and with or without German support the Turks would have invaded on their own initiative had they though they would get away with it.

And exactly how do you supply 40 divisions over a mountain range?

15% small? Is significant, and I bet if given the chance by a large foreign invasion of killing Turks right after the 1930s massacres they would have jumped to the chance, as would have the other minorities that had undergone the same treatment from the Turks.

Again, you read too much into "Kurdish unity". First of all there is no Kurdish language. Each dialect is mutually incomprehensible to the non-native speaker of the other. Second, religious and tribal differences trump everything else. The 1930s rebellions were Alevi/tribal rebellions that massacred Sunni Turkish and Kurdish settlers of the area as part of the resettlement law. Those same Alevi tribes fought against Sunni Kurds in Diyarbakr 10 years earlier who rebelled against secular laws imposed by Ataturk so they didn't get much sympathy from their neighbours. Third, and this is the most important, Kurds remain in their majority loyal to the central government no matter what. This has been the case ever since independence and is proven by the fact that all Kurdish rebellions (except the last one that began in 84) were very local with little support outside a certain tribe or sect.

Nope, you are talking unity, I dont even care.

Kurds and other minorities suffered massacres so they would take revenge on the Turks if Turkey is invaded, that simple. And yet is a easily foreseeable consequence, Turkey would be crushed if opposes the Axis and lose the straits, Thrace, Kars, the Kurdish areas and the Italians would likely get the Anatolian coast... little would be left.

[JAG13]

The Russians had quite sa large garrison in the Caucasus. The terrain is terrible for attacking, for limited attack lines, And the Turkish railways were pretty bad. The Idea of 40 Divisions being supplied and attacking Russia is pretty unrealistic. As always people throw division around in a fantasy map that just does not allow for logistics. The Russian Garrison could hold it's own against any likely attacking force.

One area where thorough planing on the Axis part (hah!) would help is ship-borne logistics from the Black Sea.

With Turkey in Axis camp, Regia Marina and Typ VII Uboats come into play, in conjunction with land based Ju88s, probably able to keep the shipping lanes safe from Soviet interdicition. Basically you get a coastal fight much like the fighting in Cyrenaica and Egypt, but with ports much closer to each other (it's 200 km from Trabzon to Batumi).

But, the same factoid that bedevils the original question of the thread interferes - the horrible, terrible, no good hash made by Benito and Adolf from the outstanding strategic situation they found themselves on June 21st 1940.

Yes, a amphibious landing on Georgia would be a far better option... but still 500Km away from Baku over a somewhat narrow valley.

At least is logistically feasible.

Such an attack could be complemented by a 6-8 mountain div. army pushing through the lesser caucasus range, I seriously doubt you can sustain more than that over a single track line AND THEN a mountain range...

[LWD]

1939 and 40 progress much as OTL with two exceptions. Hitler persuades Mussolini to seize Malta immediately i.e. within hours of entering the war (better positioning for demanding new territory at a peace conference) and to allow a German participation in the invasion of Egypt in exchange for allowing an Italian invasion of Yugoslavia in September 1940 (a far higher priority for Italy).

Until France is defeated the Italians are at a huge dissadvantage navy wise. To try and force Malta prior to the defeat of France is likely to result in the demise of the Italian navy. Not a good thing long term for their plans in North Africa. Even afterwards they are still inferior navy wise util their new battleships are operational. Then there's the problem of fuel oil.

... By September 1940 the Germans have deployed a force comparable to Rommel's OTL initial strength and by December a Panzer Corps somewhat stronger than OTL. In addition the Germans deploy a full Luftflotte made possible by an earlier abandonment of the battle of Britain. Perhaps even more important, the Germans dedicate an even larger number of supply trucks than OTL to be deployed ASAP....

Historically the British were sending reinforcements to North Africa in August of 1940 in spite of the threat of Sea Lion. Reorienting major parts of the Heer and Luftwaffe are going to lesson the direct threat to Britain and allow them more flexabilty in that regard and in the defence of Malta.

[AJFFM]

So, you agree Turkey would join the Axis to avoid that.

If there was a leader other than Inonu, probably yes.

And exactly how do you supply 40 divisions over a mountain range?

You need to download Google Earth and take a look. The terrain isn't that difficult and is criss-crossed with very wide mountain passes on the Turkish side looking down. Plus Azerbaijan was one of the most well developed regions of the USSR on account of the oil industry so supplies were abound.

Nope, you are talking unity, I dont even care.

Kurds and other minorities suffered massacres so they would take revenge on the Turks if Turkey is invaded, that simple. And yet is a easily foreseeable consequence, Turkey would be crushed if opposes the Axis and lose the straits, Thrace, Kars, the Kurdish areas and the Italians would likely get the Anatolian coast... little would be left.

No wonder Europeans screwed this region 10 times over by this simplistic view.

I am from this region in the world and here is how it goes for tribal peoples: My religion, my tribe and then pure hard cash. Anything else is a figment of imagination, a construct that might hold for a century or two before crumbling when basic instincts kick after invasion. Kurds are like Arabs (pure Arabs not Egyptians, Palestinians and such who are AINOs), they are a tribal nation which means the massacres that happen to other tribes mean nothing to me because my tribe isn't affected. Indeed I might even take part in them for personal gain which is exactly what were those massacres all about. They began with one tribe of Kurds attacking another tribe of Kurds (usually for religious reasons like Alevis massacring in the 20s Sunnis and vise versa in the 30s).

To say Kurds will rise in one full wave is a joke that everyone will laugh at including Kurds themselves. It only happened in 84 (and not in the way one might think) because when the state literally jails you for years for speaking the only f**king language you know was one move too much.

As for opposing the axis, while it would certainly lose to the axis it won't sink alone, it will bring the axis down with it especially now that it was preparing to fight the USSR which is why they never agreed to divide Turkey to begin with the way they did with Central and Eastern Europe. Turkey, blessed with a horrible geography in the east, a strategic location in the west and a people who will fight to the bitter end who ever fights them was impossible to break. Both countries wanted it neutral because it was the best of possible worlds.

[JAG13]

So, you agree Turkey would join the Axis to avoid that.

If there was a leader other than Inonu, probably yes.

So, Inonu was willing to see the Russians march into Kars and the Germans into Constantinople while plastering Ankara the way they did Belgrade?

The point was the Turks werent stupid, now you are claiming Inonu was, and that is far from the truth. And you are also ignoring that Inonu was arguing price with the Germans, not whether he would allow them passage as evidenced by von Papen and von Ribbentrop papers.

And exactly how do you supply 40 divisions over a mountain range?

You need to download Google Earth and take a look. The terrain isn't that difficult and is criss-crossed with very wide mountain passes on the Turkish side looking down. Plus Azerbaijan was one of the most well developed regions of the USSR on account of the oil industry so supplies were abound.

Azerbaijan? My friend, you happen to have to go through Armenia first... remember WWI? There are few roads and 2 railroad lines with several rather large bridges and tunnels, any Russian retreat means those tunnels and bridges are gone and all supplies go by mule train in mountain country inhabited by people very "fond" of the Turks so no, there wont be any fast advances there, the terrain and conditions are simply too favorable to the defender to allow for a a decisive breakthrough of any kind, more of a bloody grind to nowhere with your supply lines under partisan attack.

But that is assuming the Turks can actually advance, the Russians would have a ridiculous advantage in airpower so no, I doubt the Turks would advance at all under complete Soviet air dominance.

Add to that the fact that a single track RR can only supply a max of 10 divisions...

Nope, you are talking unity, I dont even care.

Kurds and other minorities suffered massacres so they would take revenge on the Turks if Turkey is invaded, that simple. And yet is a easily foreseeable consequence, Turkey would be crushed if opposes the Axis and lose the straits, Thrace, Kars, the Kurdish areas and the Italians would likely get the Anatolian coast... little would be left.

No wonder Europeans screwed this region 10 times over by this simplistic view.

I am from this region in the world and here is how it goes for tribal peoples: My religion, my tribe and then pure hard cash. Anything else is a figment of imagination, a construct that might hold for a century or two before crumbling when basic instincts kick after invasion. Kurds are like Arabs (pure Arabs not Egyptians, Palestinians and such who are AINOs), they are a tribal nation which means the massacres that happen to other tribes mean nothing to me because my tribe isn't affected. Indeed I might even take part in them for personal gain which is exactly what were those massacres all about. They began with one tribe of Kurds attacking another tribe of Kurds (usually for religious reasons like Alevis massacring in the 20s Sunnis and vise versa in the 30s).

1st, not European.

2nd, AFAIK the issue with the Kurds started as a religious one since they didnt like the secular Turkish govt, they were raised under the Caliphate and with the Ottoman Emperor as its head, so any chance at getting back at them would be welcome, not to mention the opportunities for Armenians, Greeks and Arabs.

To say Kurds will rise in one full wave is a joke that everyone will laugh at including Kurds themselves. It only happened in 84 (and not in the way one might think) because when the state literally jails you for years for speaking the only f**king language you know was one move too much.

Not rise as one, but many would just follow the advance of the Russians undertaking reprisals on the Turks and carry out sabotage and ambushes on the Turkish rear distracting thei troops.

As for opposing the axis, while it would certainly lose to the axis it won't sink alone, it will bring the axis down with it especially now that it was preparing to fight the USSR which is why they never agreed to divide Turkey to begin with the way they did with Central and Eastern Europe. Turkey, blessed with a horrible geography in the east, a strategic location in the west and a people who will fight to the bitter end who ever fights them was impossible to break. Both countries wanted it neutral because it was the best of possible worlds.

Which is why I said Turkey 1941 means Barbarossa 1942 since Hitler needs Turkey neutral to cover its flank, if no B1941 then Turkey is in the way to Iraq, Iran and their oil and Turkey has no chance in hell to win and they would have to be rally, REALLY STUPID to fall on their sword just to be Polonized. That position is UTTERLY STUPID and bears no relation with the extremely practical and cautious position Turkey undertook during WW2.

Germany would pressure Turkey with the Russian specter, but would do so only to get then to join the Axis and gain access to Iraq and then to the Caucasus. The Russians would get a piece only if the Turks suffer a Turette's attack and refuse to allow them passage, then they become more useful dead than alive as a bargain chip to maybe even consider getting Russia temporarily into the Axis. After all, that was one of the main points in the Soviet proposal to join the Axis, butcher Turkish territory.

In WW2 valor was a good thing, but much good it did to the Poles. Turkey would be facing 2 ruthless regimes with no hope of victory or relief, and one of those countries was one that had for centuries tried to obtain Turkish territory and would have no problem in absorbing more Turkish peoples into its empire and slaughtering any who oppose.

And the Germans were no better.

Turkey would be occupied and reduced to the Anatolian Higlands since Hitler would give the coast to the Italians, Russians would get the East, Istanbul and the straits, for what? Refusing to let the Germans pass and rejecting their assistance and weapons?

Rubbish.

[BDV]

And the Germans were no better.

Actually, The 3rd Reich, by way of Austrian Fuehrer and Anschluss, had links to a history of munching on Ottoman territory close second to Russia's. After all, the turkish high tide receded from under the walls of Vienna...

[AJFFM]

So, Inonu was willing to see the Russians march into Kars and the Germans into Constantinople while plastering Ankara the way they did Belgrade?

The point was the Turks werent stupid, now you are claiming Inonu was, and that is far from the truth. And you are also ignoring that Inonu was arguing price with the Germans, not whether he would allow them passage as evidenced by von Papen and von Ribbentrop papers.

OK, let me rephrase my point so that I would be clear. Inonu would, and indeed did, not break Turkish neutrality because he saw the situation as it is, A lose-lose situation which has been the case for Turkey for the previous century.

If there were other leaders in his place Turkey would have joined one alliance or another in 41 or 42 but not before.

And exactly how do you supply 40 divisions over a mountain range?


Azerbaijan? My friend, you happen to have to go through Armenia first... remember WWI? There are few roads and 2 railroad lines with several rather large bridges and tunnels, any Russian retreat means those tunnels and bridges are gone and all supplies go by mule train in mountain country inhabited by people very "fond" of the Turks so no, there wont be any fast advances there, the terrain and conditions are simply too favorable to the defender to allow for a a decisive breakthrough of any kind, more of a bloody grind to nowhere with your supply lines under partisan attack.

But that is assuming the Turks can actually advance, the Russians would have a ridiculous advantage in airpower so no, I doubt the Turks would advance at all under complete Soviet air dominance.

Add to that the fact that a single track RR can only supply a max of 10 divisions...

Again, check an Atlas or go and and download Google Earth and see for yourself. Yerevan is in the same wide plain as the Turkish city of Igdir. Yerevan itself is barely 25 km from the Turkish border and is basically the only major populated city of note in Armenia. Armenia is connected with Azerbaijan by a number of mountain passes in the North and South around Sevan lake. On the Geogrian side the Turks had two options, the coastal road from Batumi to the Kura river basin where Tiflis is located at or down from Armenia to Azerbaijan and then on to Tiflis.

And during WWI the situation was entirely different. All current Turkish border provinces were occupied by the Russians since 1878. and much of its Turkish population expelled (especially Kars). Those provinces on the Turkish side are the highest on the entire Anatolian plateau (including Armenia and Georgian highlands) and controlled the passes. Sarikamis where the famous battle took place (at 2500 m in basically polar conditions) was a Russian city back then. Not to forget that the Armenian population on the Turkish side rebelled and at least two provinces (Van and Bitlis) were out of Turkish control for the rest of the war. After the communist revolution the Army of Islam didn't find it hard to invade all the way to Baku in 1918 while the Ottoman empire was fighting for its survival in Syria-Iraq.

1st, not European.

You're from Chile, you are European (unless you are from Palestinian or Lebanese origin then things are different) in the eyes of 99% of non-Euro world.

2nd, AFAIK the issue with the Kurds started as a religious one since they didnt like the secular Turkish govt, they were raised under the Caliphate and with the Ottoman Emperor as its head, so any chance at getting back at them would be welcome, not to mention the opportunities for Armenians, Greeks and Arabs.

Another figment of imagination called "Caliphate", a construct with no meaning before 1050 AD and no existence after 1256. In its 400 years of being a "Caliphate" only one Ottoman ruler addressed himself as such, Abdul-Hamid II. Alevi Kurds are a quarter of the total Kurdish population of Turkey and to be honest not even Shias consider them Muslim nor do they count themselves as such for that matter so to say they rose up in the 30s for religious reasons is not correct.

In the 20s there were two uprisings connected to religion. One by religious Turks in the west and was limited and immediately quashed with limited popular support. The other was in the east by religious Kurds and again it was limited to a number of tribes living in a single area known for being a "Quran Belt" and was largely because of laws liberating women and not because the "Caliph" was deposed and people wanted him back.

Finally the other minorities were so limited in numbers or very loyal to the Turkish state (Arabs enthusiastically adopted secularisation, it was the era when women burned Burqa's in public you know so it didn't affect them).

[JAG13]

So, Inonu was willing to see the Russians march into Kars and the Germans into Constantinople while plastering Ankara the way they did Belgrade?

The point was the Turks werent stupid, now you are claiming Inonu was, and that is far from the truth. And you are also ignoring that Inonu was arguing price with the Germans, not whether he would allow them passage as evidenced by von Papen and von Ribbentrop papers.

OK, let me rephrase my point so that I would be clear. Inonu would, and indeed did, not break Turkish neutrality because he saw the situation as it is, A lose-lose situation which has been the case for Turkey for the previous century.

If there were other leaders in his place Turkey would have joined one alliance or another in 41 or 42 but not before.

Lose-lose, they point is, which option was WORSE?

They could join the axis, take the weapons, a better deal on Iraqi oil and the islands offered, with the possibility that the just evicted British might take offense...

...or be invaded by the 2 ruthless dictators ending in the partition of Turkey.

So it wasnt really lose-lose, it was lose-die.

And exactly how do you supply 40 divisions over a mountain range?


Azerbaijan? My friend, you happen to have to go through Armenia first... remember WWI? There are few roads and 2 railroad lines with several rather large bridges and tunnels, any Russian retreat means those tunnels and bridges are gone and all supplies go by mule train in mountain country inhabited by people very "fond" of the Turks so no, there wont be any fast advances there, the terrain and conditions are simply too favorable to the defender to allow for a a decisive breakthrough of any kind, more of a bloody grind to nowhere with your supply lines under partisan attack.

But that is assuming the Turks can actually advance, the Russians would have a ridiculous advantage in airpower so no, I doubt the Turks would advance at all under complete Soviet air dominance.

Add to that the fact that a single track RR can only supply a max of 10 divisions...

Again, check an Atlas or go and and download Google Earth and see for yourself. Yerevan is in the same wide plain as the Turkish city of Igdir. Yerevan itself is barely 25 km from the Turkish border and is basically the only major populated city of note in Armenia. Armenia is connected with Azerbaijan by a number of mountain passes in the North and South around Sevan lake. On the Geogrian side the Turks had two options, the coastal road from Batumi to the Kura river basin where Tiflis is located at or down from Armenia to Azerbaijan and then on to Tiflis.

Ive checked it thoroughly and read on the Russian railroads, Yerevan might be vulnerable since it is a frontier city but that doesnt take you anywhere, you are still limited to mule trains in mountain country with an extremely hostile local population and under enemy control of the sky... that is doomed.

How good was the coastal road, how many trucks did Turkey actually have? Is a single road under enemy air dominance, easy to interdict and close.

And during WWI the situation was entirely different. All current Turkish border provinces were occupied by the Russians since 1878. and much of its Turkish population expelled (especially Kars). Those provinces on the Turkish side are the highest on the entire Anatolian plateau (including Armenia and Georgian highlands) and controlled the passes. Sarikamis where the famous battle took place (at 2500 m in basically polar conditions) was a Russian city back then. Not to forget that the Armenian population on the Turkish side rebelled and at least two provinces (Van and Bitlis) were out of Turkish control for the rest of the war. After the communist revolution the Army of Islam didn't find it hard to invade all the way to Baku in 1918 while the Ottoman empire was fighting for its survival in Syria-Iraq.

I am aware of WWI conditions, you wil have the same rebellions if advancing into Armenia.

Who really opposed the 1918 Army? Soviets? White Russians?

1st, not European.

You're from Chile, you are European (unless you are from Palestinian or Lebanese origin then things are different) in the eyes of 99% of non-Euro world.

Since no one would mistake me for an european after meeting me I would allow myself a hearty laugh!

2nd, AFAIK the issue with the Kurds started as a religious one since they didnt like the secular Turkish govt, they were raised under the Caliphate and with the Ottoman Emperor as its head, so any chance at getting back at them would be welcome, not to mention the opportunities for Armenians, Greeks and Arabs.

Another figment of imagination called "Caliphate", a construct with no meaning before 1050 AD and no existence after 1256. In its 400 years of being a "Caliphate" only one Ottoman ruler addressed himself as such, Abdul-Hamid II. Alevi Kurds are a quarter of the total Kurdish population of Turkey and to be honest not even Shias consider them Muslim nor do they count themselves as such for that matter so to say they rose up in the 30s for religious reasons is not correct.

In the 20s there were two uprisings connected to religion. One by religious Turks in the west and was limited and immediately quashed with limited popular support. The other was in the east by religious Kurds and again it was limited to a number of tribes living in a single area known for being a "Quran Belt" and was largely because of laws liberating women and not because the "Caliph" was deposed and people wanted him back.

Finally the other minorities were so limited in numbers or very loyal to the Turkish state (Arabs enthusiastically adopted secularisation, it was the era when women burned Burqa's in public you know so it didn't affect them).

Thats what I said, they didnt like secularization and rebelled, a foreign invasion would give them the opportunity to do so again.

[AJFFM]

Lose-lose, they point is, which option was WORSE?

They could join the axis, take the weapons, a better deal on Iraqi oil and the islands offered, with the possibility that the just evicted British might take offense...

...or be invaded by the 2 ruthless dictators ending in the partition of Turkey.

So it wasnt really lose-lose, it was lose-die.

You keep forgetting that those two dictators who partitioned central and eastern Europe would never see eye to eye on Turkey. It was important for both of them to keep Turkey neutral to guard against the other because any partition would instantly weaken the other side's strategic position in the upcoming war. Germany would never let the USSR near the straits nor the USSR would let Germany keep them. So Turkey was actually immune from partition which is why neutrality was a win for Turkey.

Had Turkey joined the axis I think it doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen to it after the war, Turkey was no Finland able to switch alliances at a moment's notice. Had it joined the USSR and allies earlier it would have lost Istanbul and as I said history tells us Turkey always lost even if it was on the winning side.

Through neutrality Turkey won everyone except uncle Joe and got to keep its territorial integrity.

Ive checked it thoroughly and read on the Russian railroads, Yerevan might be vulnerable since it is a frontier city but that doesnt take you anywhere, you are still limited to mule trains in mountain country with an extremely hostile local population and under enemy control of the sky... that is doomed.

How good was the coastal road, how many trucks did Turkey actually have? Is a single road under enemy air dominance, easy to interdict and close.

Turkey would never make a move on the USSR unless the USSR was in a state of war with Germany. Since the VVS was decimated within days of the campaign's I think it is safe to say that the Luftwaffe would take care of air support for the supposed Turkish invasion.

As for railways, the Turkish army proved itself more than capable of conducting large scale campaigns with large numbers of troops in total absence of usable roads let alone railways. You keep thinking of the Turkish army in terms of the German, British or even the Soviet ones, the Turkish army was still largely a WWI force with light mechanisation.

I am aware of WWI conditions, you wil have the same rebellions if advancing into Armenia.

Who really opposed the 1918 Army? Soviets? White Russians?

The 1918 "Army of Islam" was 1 full division strong with a cavalry regiment attached to it and an artillery battalion, a total of 15k troops. Opposing it were the Armenian militias which inherited Russian imperial Army equipment (Armenia declared independence after all) which were roughly equal to the Turkish army, some holdout brigades of the white Army and a British Brigade and believe or not even communists of the Baku commune.

The Turks were able to reach Baku within 3 months and faced a lot of opposition in Armenia particularly while locals in Azerbaijan were quite supportive (as a result of the March massacres).

Since no one would mistake me for an european after meeting me I would allow myself a hearty laugh!

You remind me of a lilly white Chilean of all people who insists he is a "native American" despite his grand parents (on both sides I think) fled Franco's Spain not that long ago. Anyway, may all your days be happy ones full of laughter .

Thats what I said, they didnt like secularization and rebelled, a foreign invasion would give them the opportunity to do so again.

No, you said they wanted the Caliphate back (on one minor insurrection in the west happened but with no support). The Kurds who rebelled didn't like the social changes that were imposed by force (in the literal meaning) that banned Niqabs (full face covering), forced girls to go to school, raised marriage age etc. not to mention other laws regarding waqfs (trusts) and Sufi shrines. Kurds in that region were perfectly happy with Alcohol, drugs and brothels but opposed the social changes I listed above and violently protested and went into rebellion (fuelled by Sufi leaders).

A foreign invasion would not be better. The communists will destroy anything relating to religion while the Germans would prefer racial policies (Kurds are theoretically Aryans) which will make none Aryans angry.

[JAG13]

Lose-lose, they point is, which option was WORSE?

They could join the axis, take the weapons, a better deal on Iraqi oil and the islands offered, with the possibility that the just evicted British might take offense...

...or be invaded by the 2 ruthless dictators ending in the partition of Turkey.

So it wasnt really lose-lose, it was lose-die.

You keep forgetting that those two dictators who partitioned central and eastern Europe would never see eye to eye on Turkey. It was important for both of them to keep Turkey neutral to guard against the other because any partition would instantly weaken the other side's strategic position in the upcoming war. Germany would never let the USSR near the straits nor the USSR would let Germany keep them. So Turkey was actually immune from partition which is why neutrality was a win for Turkey.

No, Germany didnt care about the straits only about the apparently unsatiable Russian appetite. The Russians in 1941 warned Bulgaria about joining the axis, they joined and nothing happened. The Russians signed a friendship treaty with Yugoslavia, the Germans didnt care and invaded the next day, what did the Russians do? They immediately yielded on the ongoing border discussions with the Germans, sped up material shipments and offered additional shipments for FREE so no, the Russians wont move a finger for the Turks and the Germans wont need to coordinate anything with the Russians, if the Turks did not yield and Germany invaded Russia would want its share as well, if they joined the axis then the Russians get nothing.

Had Turkey joined the axis I think it doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen to it after the war, Turkey was no Finland able to switch alliances at a moment's notice. Had it joined the USSR and allies earlier it would have lost Istanbul and as I said history tells us Turkey always lost even if it was on the winning side.

Thats hindsight, and ignores the Germans needing to go through and demanding passage from the Turks, we are analyzing a what if, we need to see what Turkeys entrance would mean in a B1942.

Through neutrality Turkey won everyone except uncle Joe and got to keep its territorial integrity.

Yes, everyone but the only actual threat they had who almost had them for lucnh had not been for Truman's raging communist hate, the Brits were OK with the Turks eating it.

Ive checked it thoroughly and read on the Russian railroads, Yerevan might be vulnerable since it is a frontier city but that doesnt take you anywhere, you are still limited to mule trains in mountain country with an extremely hostile local population and under enemy control of the sky... that is doomed.

How good was the coastal road, how many trucks did Turkey actually have? Is a single road under enemy air dominance, easy to interdict and close.

Turkey would never make a move on the USSR unless the USSR was in a state of war with Germany. Since the VVS was decimated within days of the campaign's I think it is safe to say that the Luftwaffe would take care of air support for the supposed Turkish invasion.

I understood Turkey was on its own, with German support a naval landing on Georgia would put a lot more pressure on the Russians and making things easier, but a B1942 means basically a cold war period, with a better prepared Russia and a less damaging first strike.

As for railways, the Turkish army proved itself more than capable of conducting large scale campaigns with large numbers of troops in total absence of usable roads let alone railways. You keep thinking of the Turkish army in terms of the German, British or even the Soviet ones, the Turkish army was still largely a WWI force with light mechanisation.

I never doubted that, but mule trains are awfully vulnerable to everything.

I am aware of WWI conditions, you wil have the same rebellions if advancing into Armenia.

Who really opposed the 1918 Army? Soviets? White Russians?

The 1918 "Army of Islam" was 1 full division strong with a cavalry regiment attached to it and an artillery battalion, a total of 15k troops. Opposing it were the Armenian militias which inherited Russian imperial Army equipment (Armenia declared independence after all) which were roughly equal to the Turkish army, some holdout brigades of the white Army and a British Brigade and believe or not even communists of the Baku commune.

The Turks were able to reach Baku within 3 months and faced a lot of opposition in Armenia particularly while locals in Azerbaijan were quite supportive (as a result of the March massacres).

A british Brigade is basically a regiment, the rest are militias, hardly serious opposition in the absence of a conventional enemy in front. So it was basically a 3 month hike with just local opposition. A soviet army would be a far harder proposition, although if complemented with a German landing in Georgia they would have to retreat to avoid being cutoff.

Since no one would mistake me for an european after meeting me I would allow myself a hearty laugh!

You remind me of a lilly white Chilean of all people who insists he is a "native American" despite his grand parents (on both sides I think) fled Franco's Spain not that long ago. Anyway, may all your days be happy ones full of laughter .

Thx man! XD Same to you!

Its not unusual to see white people with native facial features, or caucasian features with some quite dark complexions and blue/green ayes (always an interesting combination), thats racial mixing for you, you can find all kinds of iterations when its very widespread.

Thats what I said, they didnt like secularization and rebelled, a foreign invasion would give them the opportunity to do so again.

No, you said they wanted the Caliphate back (on one minor insurrection in the west happened but with no support). The Kurds who rebelled didn't like the social changes that were imposed by force (in the literal meaning) that banned Niqabs (full face covering), forced girls to go to school, raised marriage age etc. not to mention other laws regarding waqfs (trusts) and Sufi shrines. Kurds in that region were perfectly happy with Alcohol, drugs and brothels but opposed the social changes I listed above and violently protested and went into rebellion (fuelled by Sufi leaders).

A foreign invasion would not be better. The communists will destroy anything relating to religion while the Germans would prefer racial policies (Kurds are theoretically Aryans) which will make none Aryans angry.[/quote]

No, I said they opposed secularization and they had been raised with the Ottoman Emperor as its Caliph and rebelled as a result. I agree they were very conservative but then who would they hate more, the secular Turks or the secular Russians?

The Germans were crazy with the racial issues.

[LWD]

...

Through neutrality Turkey won everyone except uncle Joe and got to keep its territorial integrity.

Yes, everyone but the only actual threat they had who almost had them for lucnh had not been for Truman's raging communist hate, the Brits were OK with the Turks eating it.
...

??? Even incontext that is incomprehensable. Care to clarify?