The notion that conquering Turkey threathens the soviets is ludicrous.

[Beagá]

So, about this ahistorical path in particular.

1- Supply would have to be made by sea - only possible with a complete victory in North Africa. Also the infra in Anatolia was... bad for modern war.
2- Battles would be on the caucasus - VERY easy to defend. Supply hell to the Axis, not that bad to the soviets = stalemate and buying time, which is all the soviets need.
3- More partisans to deal with. Yeah why not.

Your opinions?

 

[keyframer]

Azerbaijan - Oil - Battle of Baku



But please enlight us Beagá about the History of Star and Crescent.

 

[Zauberelefant]

The same could be said about Finland, y'know.
But fact is that USSR had her hands already quite full without the Axis threatening the Caucasus, and truth be told an axis occupied turkey might have become an ally to the axis and in any case, the battle in north Africa would have developed quite differently.

 

[Timmysoboy]

I mean, the Bosporus had been a long term military goal of the Russians for centuries... not to mention the growth of a great power on any of a countries borders is threatening.

Generally I think of Canada as wilderness (obviously there's more to it), but I'd still be upset living in northern US if Russia took it over...

 

[Telenil]

I suppose it would have happened pretty much as in WW1: a moderate amount of Soviet troops would have been diverted to the Caucasus, the British would have been forced to stay on the defensive in North Africa (I have no idea if the Turks had the logistics for a push into Palestine and the Sinai), and the decisive battle would have happened on an other front.

 

[Duke_Dave]

Defense policy is not always rational. The other thing is that air forces could operate much closer from this area and well prepared (supply wise) offensive from here in 1941 would have surely reached the oil fields or at least gotten so close that the air force could have destroyed them with CAS.

 

[Harin]

I suppose it would have happened pretty much as in WW1: a moderate amount of Soviet troops would have been diverted to the Caucasus, the British would have been forced to stay on the defensive in North Africa (I have no idea if the Turks had the logistics for a push into Palestine and the Sinai), and the decisive battle would have happened on an other front.

You are probably right when considering how bad logistics were in the area.

On the other hand, oil was so important to the Axis in WW2 that they might have come up with a clever way to get past those mountains and gain the oil fields. Necessity being the mother of invention, after all. I can imagine the German High Command thinking about it hard.

 

[Fulmen]

The same could be said about Finland, y'know.

The notion that anyone except potentially Russia herself could have even pulled that off at the time is ludicrous.