What if Turkey decides to join Germany at WWII?

[L-Burna]

Joining up the war before Operation Barbarossa hasn't been started is suicide especially if Balkans aren't occupied yet. The best choice is to join in 1941 when Operation Barbarossa has started (At least after July) or 1942. After that it's too late already. Otherwise it would end up occupied either by British or USSR.

[nemgod]

I don't see why it would be suicide. Turkish mainland is highly defendable. Greece even while at war with Italy was pretty much pro german and it wasn't until after metaxas died and his replacement started to allow british Troops to start a 2nd front did Germany realise it had to get involved.

Bulgaria and Romania were in the axis already so the Balkans were pretty much a non issue. Being allied with Germany would allow German troops free passage to the Caucus and Middle east. This could make British defense of the region more harder if not impossible since there is also vichy French forces and pro german populace helping out down there.

In short an Axis Turkey could easily be a game changer if before US involvement.

[Holger Danske]

Depends on if they would be as much a liability as Italy was.

[IrishBlood]

Well I think the Turks would be a bit more competent than the Italians, at least in terms of experience and leadership, though obviously with MUCH less manufacturing capability.

The main problem with the Italians during WW2 was their terrible leadership. Italian troops preformed extremely well under Rommel, so there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t have done any worse under a competent Italian leader. The Italian equipment was generally of a reasonably good standard (I remember reading about an Italian submachine gun that was standard issue for the Italian police and some elite army units that was highly sought after by allied troops in Italy because of its high quality.
The real problem was not what the Italians had available to them in terms of arms etc, but that the overbearing and highly inefficient bureaucracy created by Mussolini severely hampered their ability to actually equip their troops.

Turkey on the other hand would have been a reverse of Italy: Good leadership and organization, though generally poor equipment and access to Industry/supplies.

Turkey fought long and hard in the inter-war period and came out on top in the end. Their military was not crippled by the cronyism that effected Russia and Italy, so the military’s commanders were experienced veterans.

I can see the Turks making far fewer military blunders than the Italians, but I really doubt their ability to seriously contest the British and Russians in either airpower or armour without receiving alot of equipment and training from the Germans.

Whatever about invading the extremely difficult ground in the south Caucasus in order to capture Baku, Turkish forces could certainly play hell on the British in the middle east.

If the Turks were to join the war and throw the weight of their military behind the Vichy French defence of Syria then I REALLY doubt the already stretched British forces in the region would have been capable of dislodging them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria%E...banon_Campaign

An invasion of Iraq, even if unsuccessful, would severely hamper the British oil supply and require drawing away even more troops from the North African front.

As this wiki article seems to indicate, the Turks had a fairly large standing army, roughly 200,000, which both sides seemed to think could make a significant difference in the middle eastern theatre, but the Germans obviously recognised the amount of resources, particularly aircraft, that they would need in order to bring the Turks up to scratch so to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Turkey

So BASICALLY, Turkey would be like another Italy, but a better led, better motivated one thats better placed to cause serious damage to the allied war effort. However they would be seriously lacking airpower and armour support for its troops.
SO in the short term they could cause serious trouble for the allies, if such help was to lead to a break through in the war in the middle east, or aid the Germans in taking the vital oil region of Baku.
BUUUUUUUTTTT if the Turks were unable to make a serious contribution straight away and got bogged down in the middle east, then I can see them suffering HEAVILY in a protracted campagin and becoming as much as a liability as the Italian proved to be.

[FarKenal]

If Turkey joined the Axis at any point up until say roughly July/August 1942, then I think the Axis would have won as Army group South would have been able to transfer units to the Turkish front and attack over a greatly shorter distance for the Baku oil fields, and also the Turks could supply Army Group South (even in the parts in the Ukraine, via their black sea ports) which would have relieved the immense stress on the German supply lines, which was more of a hinderance in their march to Stalingrad and the Causacus then the Russians. Not only would this cause more Russians to be pulled from the front lines (not that many) but the Germans were so agonisingly close to winning at Stalingrad, that they probably would have fully taken the city, and then been able disperse and to effectively counter any future Russian offensives.

Even in the event the Germans were'nt able to win at Stalingrad or take the Baku Oil fields for themselves, the Luftwaffe would be within range to consistantly bomb the Baku Oil fields to nothing, and without any fuel the Russians would be forced to surrender within 3-6 months. (and before anyone says something ridiculous, there is no way in hell lend lease could even hope to contribute anything close to the required amount to even start up the motorcycles, let alone tanks, aircraft, ships, trucks). A great example of the fuel situation would be how 4 months after the loss of the Romanian Ploesti oil fields the Germans didnt even have enough fuel for a tiny handful of divisions receiving the highest priority during the battle of the bulge to march more than 60 miles and then had to abandon all of their tanks and trucks when they ran out. So you can just imagine the extreme shortages for the other 95% of the army, which frequently had to simply abandon all of its vehicles, aircraft and equipment.

In summary, the Baku oil fields were the single most important asset to the Russians which could not be replaced, and its destruction or capture would have meant victory for the Axis.

[IrishBlood]

If Turkey joined the Axis at any point up until say roughly July/August 1942, then I think the Axis would have won as Army group South would have been able to transfer units to the Turkish front and attack over a greatly shorter distance for the Baku oil fields, and also the Turks could supply Army Group South (even in the parts in the Ukraine, via their black sea ports) which would have relieved the immense stress on the German supply lines, which was more of a hinderance in their march to Stalingrad and the Causacus then the Russians. Not only would this cause more Russians to be pulled from the front lines (not that many) but the Germans were so agonisingly close to winning at Stalingrad, that they probably would have fully taken the city, and then been able disperse and to effectively counter any future Russian offensives.

Even in the event the Germans were'nt able to win at Stalingrad or take the Baku Oil fields for themselves, the Luftwaffe would be within range to consistantly bomb the Baku Oil fields to nothing, and without any fuel the Russians would be forced to surrender within 3-6 months. (and before anyone says something ridiculous, there is no way in hell lend lease could even hope to contribute anything close to the required amount to even start up the motorcycles, let alone tanks, aircraft, ships, trucks). A great example of the fuel situation would be how 4 months after the loss of the Romanian Ploesti oil fields the Germans didnt even have enough fuel for a tiny handful of divisions receiving the highest priority during the battle of the bulge to march more than 60 miles and then had to abandon all of their tanks and trucks when they ran out. So you can just imagine the extreme shortages for the other 95% of the army, which frequently had to simply abandon all of its vehicles, aircraft and equipment.

In summary, the Baku oil fields were the single most important asset to the Russians which could not be replaced, and its destruction or capture would have meant victory for the Axis.

I would agree with that, if it were not for the VAST supply of oil present in the central asian states under russian control, (Uzbekistan etc).

While the russians had not begun to exploit oil and such from the region, they were fully aware of its presence, and if they were to lose the baku fields they would most likely have made a heroic effort, along with alot of help from the allies, to get such resources up and running.

However, the length of time this would take would be crucial, as the Germans would obviously be able to make some series break-throughs in the the months following the capture/destruction of the Baku fields.

[Imposter]

The Greeks would have been given Constantinople back after the war ended...

[mike^_^]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]
Turkey could be a war changer if it joins in 1941 or 1942, Germany could easily occupy then Baku and cut off oil from Soviets. USSR would probably lose Stalingrad then too. Germany then could have sent more forces in the 1st attack to it and capture all of it fast and not go into deathless building to building fight.

Sorry. "Easily" is not a good word to describe this operation.

Soviets would have sabotaged anything of use in the caucuses. The British were also prepared to bomb Baku in 1939/1940, they would surely level it if the Germans capture intact. It's also the easiest place in the world to sabotage. Literally just sink the place. The Soviets also have formations in this region to defend against this very possibility.

The infrastructure on the Turkish side is of nightmarish quality. You also seem to miss the fact that the Germans were ENCIRCLED at Stalingrad. They would be encircled somewhere else if it wasn't there, probably resulting in an even greater disaster.

Short story : The Soviets were going to fight to the death. Don't mistake any of the peace feelers as an indication of their lack of resolve. There was enough industry behind the urals to support a population of 100 million. In fact, this was the war they feared and were preparing for since the Soviet Union's inception..

In summary, the Baku oil fields were the single most important asset to the Russians which could not be replaced, and its destruction or capture would have meant victory for the Axis.

I wouldn't go that far. Mitigate some of the pressure from Russian forces in the east for a short spell? Absolutely. Win the war? Not a chance.

[FarKenal]

Re. the capture or destruction of the Baku oil fields would result in an Axis victory

I wouldn't go that far. Mitigate some of the pressure from Russian forces in the east for a short spell? Absolutely. Win the war? Not a chance.

But without these oil fields the Russians would within a few months be incapable of any vehicle/tank movement of any kind and their aircraft would be grounded and the repair of these oil fields would take several years. So if they were destroyed in 1942 there is no way the Russians could have gone on the offensive, or even maintain an elastic defense which is what enabled them to hang on, and if the Russians surrender then its also game over for the Allies.

I suppose the biggest dilema is that Hitler was too greedy and instead of just denying it to the Russians and waiting for them to collapse, he wanted the Baku oil fields for himself, and so never ordered their air bombing when the Luftwaffe had the chance. So would he, wouldnt he...?

[mike^_^]

Re. the capture or destruction of the Baku oil fields would result in an Axis victory



But without these oil fields the Russians would within a few months be incapable of any vehicle/tank movement of any kind and their aircraft would be grounded and the repair of these oil fields would take several years. So if they were destroyed in 1942 there is no way the Russians could have gone on the offensive, or even maintain an elastic defense which is what enabled them to hang on, and if the Russians surrender then its also game over for the Allies.

I suppose the biggest dilema is that Hitler was too greedy and instead of just denying it to the Russians and waiting for them to collapse, he wanted the Baku oil fields for himself, and so never ordered their air bombing when the Luftwaffe had the chance. So would he, wouldnt he...?

Why does the loss of Baku = Russians surrender? The Soviet government wouldn't have surrendered until the last party member was killed(not quite but pretty much). The United States could definitely mitigate this disaster with no more effort than the stroke of a pen. We had an agreement with the Japanese to not interfere with the Vladivostok convoy, there's murmansk/archangelsk, Iran.

Obviously this would be a disaster perhaps even greater than Kiev, but it's not going to force capitulation. The Soviet citizen made extreme sacrifice, they were quite used to starving and having no supplies.

and if the Russians surrender then its also game over for the Allies.

No, far from it. The United States has the war potential to match the entire world.

[money]

Why would America join the war if all that is left against Hitler is Britain. Britain would obviously fall and American armies suck, how could they even invade Nazi Germany?

[Vanoi]

Why would America join the war if all that is left against Hitler is Britain.

Because they are allies? Because its in US interests that Britain remain free?

Britain would obviously fall and American armies suck,

First Germany can't even invade Britain. Especially if American air power gets stationed there. The American and British air forces tore the Luftwaffe to pieces.

Second, since when do American armies suck?

how could they even invade Nazi Germany?

If the Soviet Union could do it, why not the US?

[mike^_^]

Why would America join the war if all that is left against Hitler is Britain. Britain would obviously fall and American armies suck, how could they even invade Nazi Germany?

Obviously fall? What world is this supposed to take place in? Please, spare me a Sea Lion thread.

edit :

How could the allies invade yurop after the Soviets collapse? Hmm, let me think on that.. oh yeah, the same way they did it in real life. With complete naval and air supremacy (which would happen no matter what, the manufacturing capacity of the United States assures this outcome), the allies literally can do whatever the hell they want.

[money]

They tore the Luftwaffe apart because they were outnumbered, the Western Front in 1944 was insignificant and the real war was being fought and ended in the East.

If Hitler defeats the Soviets then he can shift his power to the West. If America joined they can only hope to defeat Japan. Chances are Hitler would just make a treaty with America in which he screws over Japan in exchange for America not attacking him.

[Angrychris]

Hitler stretched his lines to far especially when he declared war on america after pearl harbor. Hitler had keys to success but acted to hastily. He should of took Britain out before breaking peace with Russia. Japan should of followed up on pearl harbor by assuring the pacific fleet was totally defeated. If these were down correctly Russia would have a 2 front war instead of a one front.

[mike^_^]

They tore the Luftwaffe apart because they were outnumbered, the Western Front in 1944 was insignificant and the real war was being fought and ended in the East.

If Hitler defeats the Soviets then he can shift his power to the West. If America joined they can only hope to defeat Japan. Chances are Hitler would just make a treaty with America in which he screws over Japan in exchange for America not attacking him.

Yeah, that's brilliant. I'm sure Roosevelt and his cabinet would be happy to negotiate.

Hitler had keys to success but acted to hastily.

You are completely ignoring the economic and geo-political reality the german government had to work with.

He should of took Britain out before breaking peace with Russia.

...

Japan should of followed up on pearl harbor by assuring the pacific fleet was totally defeated. If these were down correctly Russia would have a 2 front war instead of a one front.

What on earth do the Japanese have to gain by provoking another war with Russia? They were scared to death of them.

This thread is just retarded now

Bye

[money]

Roosevelt should make peace because no one wanted the war. I'm certain that Hitler could hold against America and Britain until Roosevelt's term ends and the new president would make peace.

[Vanoi]

They tore the Luftwaffe apart because they were outnumbered, the Western Front in 1944 was insignificant and the real war was being fought and ended in the East.

The American and British air forces were tearing apart the Luftwaffe before 1944.

If Hitler defeats the Soviets then he can shift his power to the West. If America joined they can only hope to defeat Japan. Chances are Hitler would just make a treaty with America in which he screws over Japan in exchange for America not attacking him.

Once again, its in American interests to make sure Britain does not fall.

[mike^_^]

Roosevelt should make peace because no one wanted the war. I'm certain that Hitler could hold against America and Britain until Roosevelt's term ends and the new president would make peace.

k I lied, I'm not done with this thread.

You would be right, if you were talking about the majority of the populations of these countries. Guess who did want the war though?

here's a couple hints





You also realize that FDR got elected to 4 terms.. right? He's going to be president until death. It doesn't matter who is president. There ARE certain REALITIES which people have to work with and accept, no matter how noble the things they may want to do are, in a perfect world.

America is not going to let Germany have a monopoly on Europe. Doesn't matter who is president.

..k, now I'm done with this thread. Goodbye

[FarKenal]

Why does the loss of Baku = Russians surrender? The Soviet government wouldn't have surrendered until the last party member was killed(not quite but pretty much). The United States could definitely mitigate this disaster with no more effort than the stroke of a pen. We had an agreement with the Japanese to not interfere with the Vladivostok convoy, there's murmansk/archangelsk, Iran.

Well it either equals Russian surrender or complete destruction. You might also be interested to know that the Russian Government also fielded the Germans surrender terms on at least 3 occasions (right up to mid 1943) so no I don’t think they would have waited until they were all dead... The Russians relied on the Baku and Gronzy oil fields for something like 85% of all its fuel consumption. All of Russia’s massive war production capabilities would have been of absolutely no use if they don’t have the fuel to move all those tanks, aircraft, tow artillery, ships or the ability to even supply the troops at the front lines with food/ammunition. The Brits also realised this and when Russia was allied with Germany during 1940-41, they had their own plans to bomb the Baku oil fields to completely cripple the Russians.

http://karbuz.blogspot.com.au/2006/1...om-wwii-3.html

Your assumption that the USA could solve all of the world’s problems with the stroke of a pen seems to be either based on nothing but sheer pride, though given your quote at the end of the subject I’d say more a lack of in depth knowledge regarding what happened during WW2.

The USA shipped a total of 2.1 million tonnes of oil/fuel of all kinds to the Russians for 5 years. However just Baku alone (ignoring Grozny) produced more than 22.2 million tonnes in 1940 and 25.4 million tonnes in 1941 alone.

As you can now clearly see, not only did the overstretched Allied supply convoys supply barely 1 to 2% of fuel used by the Russians, but they also didn’t even have enough fuel for their own few troops in 1944. Hence it would have have been completely impossible to supply the Russians with even a bare fraction of the fuel they needed, even if the USA and Commonwealth was not at war/fighting Germany. The Allies just simply didn’t have anywhere near enough ships to transport anything of such scale, let alone then also protect it. This was also no doubt compounded by the fact that in 1942 alone German uboat’s sank a quarter of the entire USA’s tanker fleet. Trying to build more would have been of no use since the Russians would capitulate in about 6 months from when the Baku oil fields may have been taken makes this irrelevant (so do the German XXI u-boats for a potential and unlikely dragged on war)

Obviously this would be a disaster perhaps even greater than Kiev, but it's not going to force capitulation. The Soviet citizen made extreme sacrifice, they were quite used to starving and having no supplies.

Actually it most likely would force capitulation, Russians were still surrendering themselves in the thousands, and once supplies stop delivering food and water to the front lines, you can bet that soon enough they’ll be following all the others over to the Germans. At any rate, tanks, aircraft & trucks don’t run on ‘extreme sacrifice’ or hopes and dreams. Without all their equipment the Germans could easily encircle entire Russian armies en-masse and able to force/starve massive pockets to surrender.

No, far from it. The United States has the war potential to match the entire world.

Oh please spare us from the “USA is so super awesome, that we could do anything’ lines. Do you realise that the Americans who were fighting a mere fraction of what was left of the shattered Germany army in 1944 and was so incapable of supplying its own men that they had to disband an entire division to perform port/logistic duties, and even this wasn’t enough. They may have had a massive portion of their citizens sitting back home in their safe factories, able to pump out lots of equipment, but therefore no army to use it.

Also do you realise that just the three countries of Russia, Germany and Britain out produced the USA (with greatly superior equipment compared to the USA’s too) whilst also having tens of millions more men fighting/dying which would have even further greatly enhanced production. And not to also forget the American Army would be completely outclassed by even just half of the German army, let alone the Russians etc. So much for the entire world hey…

In any event, if Russia surrendered there is now way that the Allies could have liberated mainland Europe. Germany would have air superiority thanks to having all the fuel they’d need to actually train their pilots, not to mention no longer losing so many of them or their planes fighting the Russians. They’d have millions more men and equipment (and the best/most well trained), not historically lost in 1943-45 (which was the massive bulk). Any hopes of a atom bomb winning the war would be non-existent as not only would they struggle to break through the armada of luftwaffe fighters, but Germany would also immediately retaliate with gas in V weapons (that travel faster than the speed of sound, and hence there is no warning) raining down on England the very next day, wiping out nearly half their population. Though if anything the implementation of the new generational XXI u-boats would have sunk anything and everything the Allies had on the water. These things would have won Germany the battle of the Atlantic very quickly and forced Britain into surrender.