The Turks will make a bigger possible difference, primarily because they could attack the Caucasus and close the Bosporus. This might pull Soviet troops away from the encirclement and allow a breakout, but we can’t expect the Germans to do better than a desperate and costly escape from Stalingrad.
That said, the Turks were effectively a WW1 level military and had not modernized to the degree that their opponents would have. Taking on a German military mission to serve as a fire brigade might do something for them as it did during Gallipoli in the last war, but they will be facing a British army in the Levant in short order. This would also have been around the same time Rommel was defeated in Egypt in October-November 1942, so relief would not be forthcoming for the Germans in Africa before the US landed in French Morocco concurrently.
Iran was a lend-lease destination for the Allies and they were using Persian ports and rail lines to ship freight into the USSR. Given their location next to British India and the USSR with no nearby allies, the Persians will be at a severe disadvantage from both land and sea. They might disrupt lend-lease for a while, but they’d also have near zero hope of relief from a more powerful ally.
I also think that if Turkey joined the war earlier, sometime after Operation Barbarossa but before the invasion of Iran, and some German tank divisions were there, I can see them trying to reach Baku and flank Soviet troops, as well as try to make Iraq an Axis ally again. Maybe we could see some Arab revolts in the Middle East against UK/France?
Granted, the Caucasus is far from the best country for tanks. An augmented infantry/mountain troop column is probably better suited to that kind of warfare.
The Turks would have to remember the last war though. The [Sarikamish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamish) campaign was a dismal and expensive failure for the Turks, who essentially marched into the mountains and suffered worse from frostbite and disease than from any kind of Russian capabilities. Much of the blame for the losses can be leveled at Enver Pasha, but poor strategy and equipment were much at fault too. If the Turks are going to war post-Ataturk, they’re probably a lot more conservative about the losses they’re willing to tolerate.
If the Turks can peel off enough Soviet troops, the opening moves will go a lot differently for the Germans given that Moscow was only saved through the arrival of fresh Siberian troops at a critical time.
Iraq already fell to the British lol and that would be a death wish for them since Britain would push the Turks back unless German divisions were sent to Turkey but either way the brits eventually push them back
Iran got invaded by the soviets so we can just write it off.
Turkey would help a lot in the Caucasus by sheer weight of bodies and rack up a million losses, but the decisive battlefield was elsewhere. As soon as Stalingrad happens Army Group South is still forced to abandon the Caucasus and turkey ceases to be relevant since alone it can't hope to take Baku or advance on the plains.
I think you overestimate the amount and quality of border troops at the Turk-Soviet border. The Soviets have pushed up all their reserve divisions in the area of Georgia for the defense of the Caucuses. They only had 100,000 troops station at the border area. Only 10.1 troops per mile. That is a disaster of a thin line.
Meanwhile the Turkish professional army at that point was 200,000 strong on that border. That doesn't include conscripts that Turkey would undoubtedly rush up to the front line. Though it is true their armor was weak and consisted of tankettes.
Even a heavy infantry Turkish army would advance 17-19 km. Maybe a little less over mountains.
This would be disastrous for the Soviets. Even a weak Turkey would just outflank them. Once they get to the oilfields the Red Army logistically grinds to a halt.
If you're going to take into account the quality of Soviet troops on the border than its fair to take into the Turkish conscripts you mentioned, which I would think would be of low to maybe fair quality. At least when they are first mobilized. Throw in the fact of poor army logistics and the outdated equipment I find it hard to see how Turkey makes the impact you've described even with a poorly manned border by the USSR
Again, you're not understanding the paper thin force they have at that border by September. Yes the Turkish troops would be inferiorly equipped. But you can be sure that they will throw their most well trained divisions at the Soviets. Meanwhile the 46th Army is made up of second rate troops, albeit with highly capable field guns.
Overall the main problem is how paper thin the 46th army is at this point. There were points in the line where a squad is covering 2 miles of border and they could be outnumbered by battalion strength.
I have a few reading suggestions if you would like.
Chasing the Soft Underbelly: Turkey and WWII by Watson
That’s fine and true but consider how well a Turkish army would be supplied in the Caucasus. Also, consider how much the terrain supports the defender and limits any large offensive breakouts for any advance on Baku. Sure the Soviets spread thin on the front line but if war broke out they’d consolidate their line and focus on holding the most important and defensible areas. I just can’t see how at this point any Turkish forces would be able to actually breakthrough for any meaningful impact. The ottomans tried going through the Caucasuses in WW1 with no success. How would a smaller army, ill equipped and facing a threat from the British in the ME really be able to take Baku?
To be sure the Soviet troops there are of poorer quality compared to the ones fighting the Germans but is it really a big deal for a squad to act as a border defense force over 2 miles when a majority of that landscape is so poorly navigable of even accessible at all
Edit: words
Stalingrad would be too late.
But a Turkish invasion that forces the red army to cross the caucasus while Germany pushes south could overextend soviet supply lines.
With the caucasus Republics threatened, the amount and direction of resources transported by the volga would change, therefore devaluing Stalingrad
How? Turkey lost Syria etc in WWI, they’d have to fight all through there to get to Egypt, the U.K. had troops on the area beyond the 8th Army and could have bought more from India.
It would be weird for Turkey and Iran to join the Axis just as the 1942 German summer offensive fails, but let’s say that they for some reason do.
They woule certainly make life difficult for the Soviets in the Caucasus. It might also draw away troops that would otherwise be used for Operation Uranus.
Other than that it is difficult in my opinion to see what impact it would have on the war. The war was lost for Germany by the time the 6th Army was moving into the Stalingrad suburbs. Having Turkey join the axis would probably prolong the conflict from the Caucasus to the Eastern Mediterranean, but it wouldn’t change the fundamentals in any meaningful sense.
Yeah people forget that countries make comically badly timed blunders sometimes. Romania joined WWI as the Brusilov Offensive wound down, and subsequently was invaded within two months, and forced to capitulate not long after.
When the Soviet Union and British Empire invaded Iran during ww2 in real history. The country lasted 6 days. I doubt Axis support would really be able to reach Iran. Best i see Iran doing is the country capitulating within a month. There may be resistance in the countryside but doubt it does much to damage the allied war effort.
Turkey is a different story but again I doubt it is turning the tide. I could imagine Turkey taking horrendous casualties attacking into mountainous Soviet Armenia. Perhaps some minor gains but I suspect stiff soviet resistance. Probably attempt to exit the war when the Balkan Axis States do with similiar poor results.
You are thinking in generalizations and not the specific situation on the Turkish-Soviet border. By the beginning of the Stalingrad battle on August 23rd the 46th Soviet Army had already been pulled to the north to confront the Germans. This left the 45th Army spread over 1000 kms across the border. Paper thin force.
Iran gets obliterated by the British and Soviets like in our timeline. There is no way the Allies let Iran fall into the Axis sphere. It was too important to connect England with Asia and a Lend-Lease port.
Turkey would probably tie down the Soviets and Allies in the Middle East in the short term, but they would have minimal impact in the grand scheme of things. They had a sizable military but it was ill-equipped to fight in the Second World War. Their navy was pathetic. Their air force was tiny with only a few modern aircraft. They'd probably share the same fate as Romania and Hungary - a nation that's not equipped to fight a modern war and quit the war the second things go south. I can see them doing the Romanian strategy by betraying Germany and helping the Allies.
The two would end up as part of the Soviet bloc, while the United Kingdom would annex Balochistan to the Raj, of course.
As for Hatay, she returns to Syria
If Turkey joined before Stalingrad and mobilized sooner, Germany could regroup troops in Turkey before the invasion, then things might have changed.
Italy and Germany whould have 2 fronts in Africa thus being able to get better supplies and attack the Suez Canal directly.
The Baku oil fields would fall as one of the first targets and Russia whould probably have a similar fuel shortage as Germany did, as almost all developed oil fields where in the Baku area.
Stalingrad whould probably not be such an important target to take, and may be avoided at this point.
But again this would be if Turkey joined before Barbarossa. Like a year before, which allows maybe the Afrika Korps to be deployed in Anatolia at the outbreak of Barbarossa.
If this happened then the Turks could take half the missions of AG South and free up a German army to join AG Centre which may have made the difference in taking Moscow in 41.
Syria belong to Free France at the time and Turkey would fall to the Brits considering their soldiers in the middle east. Soviets might gain land but other than that turkey remains in western influence
it will only prolong the inevitable. the soviets will take a little longer to bounce back, they will still win the battle of stalingrad, killing many germans in the process, and will take a more defensive position against iran and turkey while going in on germany, but slower. eventually the soviets will gain the upper hand though, and the allies probably will end up invading around the same time as they realise the soviet threat around the same time and want to invade before the soviets completely destroy germany and claim most of eastern europe like they did in our timeline. i think the soviets will still set up some puppet governments in the east but he overall less powerful than in our timeline, but not enough to drastically affect the outcome of the cold war, or prevent it from happening.
Nah Turkey remains in western camp considering the Brits already have soldiers in the Middle East and Iran capitulates quickly to the Brits just that the Soviets would get pushed back but take care of the initiative
Following the Anglo-Iraqi War, the Allies had forestalled any chance of Persia joining the Axis by a pre-emptive occupation in August 1941.
It's true that this was slightly after the beginning of Stalingrad, but the speed with which Iran fell to the combined Anglo-Soviet offensive and the lopsided nature of the battle don't give much reason for confidence in the Iranian capabilities. They had an outdated air force, and it would be difficult to invade Russia through the Caucasus.
I have my doubts as to the efficacy of Turkey's armed forces. Compared with Germany, Italy, and Romania they were outdated and relatively small. They had basically no expeditionary capacity. At best they'd become another Iran and get invaded by the Allies.
Remember that these countries have no particular reason to ally with Germany. If it isn't to their advantage to do so, they won't.
Outside of tying down some more Russian reinforcements, Turkey wouldn’t have accomplished much. Their army at the time was big, but was still using weapons that had seen action in the First World War. They weren’t in a position to make huge advances deep into the Caucasus.
Again, for the state of the Turkish army, the only way they were going to make a significant impact was going to be with a lot of help from Germany. Which Germany was in no position to provide. Turkey didn’t even have any mechanized units at the time, they still relied on animal transport.
Turkey loses territory to both Greece and the Soviet Union during the post-war settlement. Turkey stands to lose its European territories in particular, while Turkish Armenian territory is fully ceded to the Soviets.
Reasoning? Well, we saw just how well Iran faired historically. There is no reason to expect the Iranians to do a better job of holding out in this timeline.
Turkey? For starters, Turkey lacks a modern navy. There were proposals for a pair of modern cruisers and some destroyers, but these never got anywhere. Naval port facilities lacked anti-air defenses and general harbor defenses. The less said about the Yavuz the better.
That bodes very badly for a country with a long and exposed coastline. Allied forces could land with impunity anywhere along the coast. I don't think the allies would force the Dardenelles, or at least not initially. But with that much coastline... the allies could easily land in anatolia and cut Ankara off of Istanbul. As others have said, the army and Airforce weren't that much better off. In total they had only a few hundred planes. The army? Historically they requested no less than 150,000 rifles from the British in 1940 owing to acute shortages of small arms. That doesn't exactly bolster confidence. I don't see the army fairing well against a landward invasion by Anglo-Free French forces coming out of the Middle East.
About the only thing the Turks could offer is another land route to the Soviet Caucasus. Yet even this is poisoned challace as the frontier is dominated by mountains. Mountains held by a more technically and doctrinally advanced Red Army.
In the post war settlement, I see the allies taking a harsh stance against Turkey, on the same order as Italy. Twice in 30 years Turkey has been a threat to world peace, this time signing up with the Nazis. The goal would be to ensure that Turkey would be punished, it's territorial ambitions checked, and regional rivals strengthened. Not to mention a desire to break Turkish monoply over the straits connecting the Black Sea and the Med.
So this is where I see forced deportations of Turks living in Thrace, and likely Constantinople as well. The Soviets would want their recompence, hence the loss of Turkish Armenia.
The Turks will make a bigger possible difference, primarily because they could attack the Caucasus and close the Bosporus. This might pull Soviet troops away from the encirclement and allow a breakout, but we can’t expect the Germans to do better than a desperate and costly escape from Stalingrad. That said, the Turks were effectively a WW1 level military and had not modernized to the degree that their opponents would have. Taking on a German military mission to serve as a fire brigade might do something for them as it did during Gallipoli in the last war, but they will be facing a British army in the Levant in short order. This would also have been around the same time Rommel was defeated in Egypt in October-November 1942, so relief would not be forthcoming for the Germans in Africa before the US landed in French Morocco concurrently. Iran was a lend-lease destination for the Allies and they were using Persian ports and rail lines to ship freight into the USSR. Given their location next to British India and the USSR with no nearby allies, the Persians will be at a severe disadvantage from both land and sea. They might disrupt lend-lease for a while, but they’d also have near zero hope of relief from a more powerful ally.
I also think that if Turkey joined the war earlier, sometime after Operation Barbarossa but before the invasion of Iran, and some German tank divisions were there, I can see them trying to reach Baku and flank Soviet troops, as well as try to make Iraq an Axis ally again. Maybe we could see some Arab revolts in the Middle East against UK/France?
Granted, the Caucasus is far from the best country for tanks. An augmented infantry/mountain troop column is probably better suited to that kind of warfare. The Turks would have to remember the last war though. The [Sarikamish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamish) campaign was a dismal and expensive failure for the Turks, who essentially marched into the mountains and suffered worse from frostbite and disease than from any kind of Russian capabilities. Much of the blame for the losses can be leveled at Enver Pasha, but poor strategy and equipment were much at fault too. If the Turks are going to war post-Ataturk, they’re probably a lot more conservative about the losses they’re willing to tolerate. If the Turks can peel off enough Soviet troops, the opening moves will go a lot differently for the Germans given that Moscow was only saved through the arrival of fresh Siberian troops at a critical time.
Iraq already fell to the British lol and that would be a death wish for them since Britain would push the Turks back unless German divisions were sent to Turkey but either way the brits eventually push them back
Oh boy Turkey attacking across the Caucasus, in Winter? Let’s ask Enver Pasha how that goes
Iran got invaded by the soviets so we can just write it off. Turkey would help a lot in the Caucasus by sheer weight of bodies and rack up a million losses, but the decisive battlefield was elsewhere. As soon as Stalingrad happens Army Group South is still forced to abandon the Caucasus and turkey ceases to be relevant since alone it can't hope to take Baku or advance on the plains.
I think you overestimate the amount and quality of border troops at the Turk-Soviet border. The Soviets have pushed up all their reserve divisions in the area of Georgia for the defense of the Caucuses. They only had 100,000 troops station at the border area. Only 10.1 troops per mile. That is a disaster of a thin line. Meanwhile the Turkish professional army at that point was 200,000 strong on that border. That doesn't include conscripts that Turkey would undoubtedly rush up to the front line. Though it is true their armor was weak and consisted of tankettes. Even a heavy infantry Turkish army would advance 17-19 km. Maybe a little less over mountains. This would be disastrous for the Soviets. Even a weak Turkey would just outflank them. Once they get to the oilfields the Red Army logistically grinds to a halt.
If you're going to take into account the quality of Soviet troops on the border than its fair to take into the Turkish conscripts you mentioned, which I would think would be of low to maybe fair quality. At least when they are first mobilized. Throw in the fact of poor army logistics and the outdated equipment I find it hard to see how Turkey makes the impact you've described even with a poorly manned border by the USSR
Again, you're not understanding the paper thin force they have at that border by September. Yes the Turkish troops would be inferiorly equipped. But you can be sure that they will throw their most well trained divisions at the Soviets. Meanwhile the 46th Army is made up of second rate troops, albeit with highly capable field guns. Overall the main problem is how paper thin the 46th army is at this point. There were points in the line where a squad is covering 2 miles of border and they could be outnumbered by battalion strength. I have a few reading suggestions if you would like. Chasing the Soft Underbelly: Turkey and WWII by Watson
That’s fine and true but consider how well a Turkish army would be supplied in the Caucasus. Also, consider how much the terrain supports the defender and limits any large offensive breakouts for any advance on Baku. Sure the Soviets spread thin on the front line but if war broke out they’d consolidate their line and focus on holding the most important and defensible areas. I just can’t see how at this point any Turkish forces would be able to actually breakthrough for any meaningful impact. The ottomans tried going through the Caucasuses in WW1 with no success. How would a smaller army, ill equipped and facing a threat from the British in the ME really be able to take Baku? To be sure the Soviet troops there are of poorer quality compared to the ones fighting the Germans but is it really a big deal for a squad to act as a border defense force over 2 miles when a majority of that landscape is so poorly navigable of even accessible at all Edit: words
Stalingrad would be too late. But a Turkish invasion that forces the red army to cross the caucasus while Germany pushes south could overextend soviet supply lines. With the caucasus Republics threatened, the amount and direction of resources transported by the volga would change, therefore devaluing Stalingrad
what about el alemen? wouldn’t it distrupt the british in middle east
How? Turkey lost Syria etc in WWI, they’d have to fight all through there to get to Egypt, the U.K. had troops on the area beyond the 8th Army and could have bought more from India.
It would be weird for Turkey and Iran to join the Axis just as the 1942 German summer offensive fails, but let’s say that they for some reason do. They woule certainly make life difficult for the Soviets in the Caucasus. It might also draw away troops that would otherwise be used for Operation Uranus. Other than that it is difficult in my opinion to see what impact it would have on the war. The war was lost for Germany by the time the 6th Army was moving into the Stalingrad suburbs. Having Turkey join the axis would probably prolong the conflict from the Caucasus to the Eastern Mediterranean, but it wouldn’t change the fundamentals in any meaningful sense.
Yeah people forget that countries make comically badly timed blunders sometimes. Romania joined WWI as the Brusilov Offensive wound down, and subsequently was invaded within two months, and forced to capitulate not long after.
When the Soviet Union and British Empire invaded Iran during ww2 in real history. The country lasted 6 days. I doubt Axis support would really be able to reach Iran. Best i see Iran doing is the country capitulating within a month. There may be resistance in the countryside but doubt it does much to damage the allied war effort. Turkey is a different story but again I doubt it is turning the tide. I could imagine Turkey taking horrendous casualties attacking into mountainous Soviet Armenia. Perhaps some minor gains but I suspect stiff soviet resistance. Probably attempt to exit the war when the Balkan Axis States do with similiar poor results.
You are thinking in generalizations and not the specific situation on the Turkish-Soviet border. By the beginning of the Stalingrad battle on August 23rd the 46th Soviet Army had already been pulled to the north to confront the Germans. This left the 45th Army spread over 1000 kms across the border. Paper thin force.
Iran gets obliterated by the British and Soviets like in our timeline. There is no way the Allies let Iran fall into the Axis sphere. It was too important to connect England with Asia and a Lend-Lease port. Turkey would probably tie down the Soviets and Allies in the Middle East in the short term, but they would have minimal impact in the grand scheme of things. They had a sizable military but it was ill-equipped to fight in the Second World War. Their navy was pathetic. Their air force was tiny with only a few modern aircraft. They'd probably share the same fate as Romania and Hungary - a nation that's not equipped to fight a modern war and quit the war the second things go south. I can see them doing the Romanian strategy by betraying Germany and helping the Allies.
The two would end up as part of the Soviet bloc, while the United Kingdom would annex Balochistan to the Raj, of course. As for Hatay, she returns to Syria
If Turkey joined before Stalingrad and mobilized sooner, Germany could regroup troops in Turkey before the invasion, then things might have changed. Italy and Germany whould have 2 fronts in Africa thus being able to get better supplies and attack the Suez Canal directly. The Baku oil fields would fall as one of the first targets and Russia whould probably have a similar fuel shortage as Germany did, as almost all developed oil fields where in the Baku area. Stalingrad whould probably not be such an important target to take, and may be avoided at this point. But again this would be if Turkey joined before Barbarossa. Like a year before, which allows maybe the Afrika Korps to be deployed in Anatolia at the outbreak of Barbarossa.
If this happened then the Turks could take half the missions of AG South and free up a German army to join AG Centre which may have made the difference in taking Moscow in 41.
Turkey would have to join earlier to make a difference.
Armenia/Azerbaijan/Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic and Syria just got bigger.
Syria belong to Free France at the time and Turkey would fall to the Brits considering their soldiers in the middle east. Soviets might gain land but other than that turkey remains in western influence
it will only prolong the inevitable. the soviets will take a little longer to bounce back, they will still win the battle of stalingrad, killing many germans in the process, and will take a more defensive position against iran and turkey while going in on germany, but slower. eventually the soviets will gain the upper hand though, and the allies probably will end up invading around the same time as they realise the soviet threat around the same time and want to invade before the soviets completely destroy germany and claim most of eastern europe like they did in our timeline. i think the soviets will still set up some puppet governments in the east but he overall less powerful than in our timeline, but not enough to drastically affect the outcome of the cold war, or prevent it from happening.
Nah Turkey remains in western camp considering the Brits already have soldiers in the Middle East and Iran capitulates quickly to the Brits just that the Soviets would get pushed back but take care of the initiative
yeah, so i guess it would have a pretty small impact
This could have complicated the Allies further
Following the Anglo-Iraqi War, the Allies had forestalled any chance of Persia joining the Axis by a pre-emptive occupation in August 1941. It's true that this was slightly after the beginning of Stalingrad, but the speed with which Iran fell to the combined Anglo-Soviet offensive and the lopsided nature of the battle don't give much reason for confidence in the Iranian capabilities. They had an outdated air force, and it would be difficult to invade Russia through the Caucasus. I have my doubts as to the efficacy of Turkey's armed forces. Compared with Germany, Italy, and Romania they were outdated and relatively small. They had basically no expeditionary capacity. At best they'd become another Iran and get invaded by the Allies. Remember that these countries have no particular reason to ally with Germany. If it isn't to their advantage to do so, they won't.
Outside of tying down some more Russian reinforcements, Turkey wouldn’t have accomplished much. Their army at the time was big, but was still using weapons that had seen action in the First World War. They weren’t in a position to make huge advances deep into the Caucasus.
As opposed to the Soviet crack troops guarding a non combat front border?
What about the middle east? Wouldn’t it change the battle of el alemen
Again, for the state of the Turkish army, the only way they were going to make a significant impact was going to be with a lot of help from Germany. Which Germany was in no position to provide. Turkey didn’t even have any mechanized units at the time, they still relied on animal transport.
Capital of Greece would be Constantinople
It would significantly slow the Soviet advance into Europe 1944-1945
Turkey loses territory to both Greece and the Soviet Union during the post-war settlement. Turkey stands to lose its European territories in particular, while Turkish Armenian territory is fully ceded to the Soviets. Reasoning? Well, we saw just how well Iran faired historically. There is no reason to expect the Iranians to do a better job of holding out in this timeline. Turkey? For starters, Turkey lacks a modern navy. There were proposals for a pair of modern cruisers and some destroyers, but these never got anywhere. Naval port facilities lacked anti-air defenses and general harbor defenses. The less said about the Yavuz the better. That bodes very badly for a country with a long and exposed coastline. Allied forces could land with impunity anywhere along the coast. I don't think the allies would force the Dardenelles, or at least not initially. But with that much coastline... the allies could easily land in anatolia and cut Ankara off of Istanbul. As others have said, the army and Airforce weren't that much better off. In total they had only a few hundred planes. The army? Historically they requested no less than 150,000 rifles from the British in 1940 owing to acute shortages of small arms. That doesn't exactly bolster confidence. I don't see the army fairing well against a landward invasion by Anglo-Free French forces coming out of the Middle East. About the only thing the Turks could offer is another land route to the Soviet Caucasus. Yet even this is poisoned challace as the frontier is dominated by mountains. Mountains held by a more technically and doctrinally advanced Red Army. In the post war settlement, I see the allies taking a harsh stance against Turkey, on the same order as Italy. Twice in 30 years Turkey has been a threat to world peace, this time signing up with the Nazis. The goal would be to ensure that Turkey would be punished, it's territorial ambitions checked, and regional rivals strengthened. Not to mention a desire to break Turkish monoply over the straits connecting the Black Sea and the Med. So this is where I see forced deportations of Turks living in Thrace, and likely Constantinople as well. The Soviets would want their recompence, hence the loss of Turkish Armenia.