Correct Norman, I forgot that Persia became Iran in 1935. I just read about it thanks to your reminder. Apparently the name change was because Iran references the nation being Aryan, and this was done to curry favor with the Nazis and remind them who the real Aryans were.
2 Likes
Interestingly, during the war, Churchill (around the time of the Tehran Conference) requested the Iranian government to keep the name âPersiaâ to avoid confusion with Iraq. However, we Americans still called it Iran (as the United States had little involvement in Middle Eastern affairs of the day unlike the British).
1 Like
Not too sure about the Nazi connection, tho. The locals have referred to it as Iran, Arya, etc., for the longest time (as far back as the time of Zoroaster). And the official name change was directed at all foreign governments.
1 Like
There are a number of reasons, no doubt, but the name changes in 1935. The Nazis are already in power at this time. Their diplomats are already in Iran. In 1936, the newly minted Iranians are declared to be pure Aryans by the Nazis, and ties are steadily strengthened, as Iran fears the British and the Soviets. Rezah Shah went to a lot of trouble to build ties with Nazi Germany, and for good political reasons, as his state was threatened. In terms of the name Iran being tied to Zoroaster, I must disagree, as the name Persia has far stronger ties to Zoroaster, such as Parsee, and Pharisee. Now tell me, why would a country trying to develop ties with Nazi Germany possibly change their countryâs name to one that means âLand of the Aryansâ?
1 Like
I didnât say it was tied to Zoroaster. I said that the local people referred to their land as âIranâ or âAryaâ as far back as Zoroaster, maybe even earlier. The locals never called it âPersiaâ â the rest of the world did, starting with the Ancient Greeks. The term âPersianâ is an exonym.
Yes, the Nazis did declare the Iranians to be pure Aryans, but do you have any sources that claimed that the name change was because of the German government in 1935? I couldnât find a document backing that up. If you do, please share it.
The locals have always called it that. Not an excuse, just an explanation. From the British archives:
Got those pictures from Quora.
If thereâs any new information with proper sources to back it up, Iâll gladly make changes with this answer.
4 Likes
Hi Formless, Sorry I have been busy for the pas month and unable to spend time here.
You understand my points and then you ignore the logical conclusions that result for these points. I donât have much time so I will have to be short.
-
How is capturing turkey going to allow Hitler to get to any oil fields? Thanks to our fellow we know that there was no bridge over the Bosporus. So how is Hitler going to move supplies and forces into Anatolia? They were already not able to support their African campaign due to lack of fuel for ships and impossibility to have true naval and air dominance in the mediteranean sea.
-
If Hitler invaded turkey, how would that result in Persia thinking they will protect their freedom? And Nazi Germany would not hide their extreme racism toward them. For Persia, that is just another threatening neighbor to keep in check.
-
I already mentioned that Stalin ignore the warning of the invasion due to his paranoia and the fact that at the time a war with Germany would be terrible for his nation. So he was finding excuses to believe it would not happen yet. But he never doubted the war would eventually come, he just fantasized that he would be the one deciding when and where. An invasion of Turkey with all the problems it would cause Germany would be a great when and where.
-
Germany conquered 80% of Europe because their enemies at the time failed to understand and implement modern warfare correctly. Franceâs army were stronger on paper but failed on a strategic level, same for the USSR until 1943-1944 came around. And same for the British empire. Hitler succeeded because he had insane luck on his timing at the beginning. Why do you think all these conquests happened at the very start of the war only? And by the time the mid war came around the writing was already on the wall that Germany was loosing and it was only a matter of time.
-
German logistics were also bad due to the fact they terminated the free market economy. That had central state planners diciding how much of each resources needed to be made but without a market that freely regulates itself those central planners were only doing guesswork leading to massive wastes.
-
One more time, your question is a massive what if and you are thinking about it in a vacuum. You are not considering so many different facts that would impact that decision. First of all, the fact that it would have never ever been made by nazi germany. This is just wishful thinking.
1 Like
In answer to your points liessem_tobjorn, in orderâŚ
-
Turkey serves as a gateway to the Middle East. You donât need a bridge over the Bosphorus, there is a technology known as pipelines, and they work quite well when submerged, even in the 1940s. As to providing supplies, the Bosphorus is far less of an obstacle to supply than the Central Mediterranean, which Rommelâs North African supplies had to cross, and generally didnât make it. Also, the Bosphorus chokepoint is an area where smaller resources could be applied to guard duty with greater effect.
-
On the contrary, there was very real chance that Iran might have been enticed to go pro-Axis as a means of protecting its sovereignty and increasing its power in the region. Consider how Romania and Bulgaria reacted during WW2.
-
That is pure conjecture. The fact that Stalin had a mental shutdown for a fortnight during Barbarossa suggests that he didnât think that Hitler would go East. Stalin was happily supplying Germany its oil, and the relationship was relatively cozy.
-
The success comes early in the war, because there was nothing else in Europe that Germany really wanted to take militarily. The USSR doesnât really win against Germany either, so much as it drowns the enemy in its own blood. The USSR was so profligate with the lives of its citizens, it beggars the imagination. On the Western front, it isnât so much that the Allies are winning, as that the Germans are neck deep in the USSR and canât devote the resources to stopping them. Had the Western allies ever faced even 50% of the Wehrmacht, in supply, the results would have been equivalent. Consider Montecasino, and the German defense at Dunkirk 1944-45.
-
The only country that half managed to get logistics under control during WW2 were the USA imo. USSR logistics and British logistics were similarly awful to German logistics for the reasons you have outlined. So I put it to you, if everyone is similarly awful, nobody has an advantage in this area. In terms of the Nazi conquest of Turkey hypothesis, it is a far shorter distance from the Turkish border to Baku than it is from the Polish border, when you launch Barbarossa in 1943 instead of 1941, having devoted the previous years to defeating Britain, and consolidating in Europe. If the Nazis spent the intervening time controlling the Middle Eastâs oil after breaking out of Turkey, and taking the Suez Canal, they would have had more time to get their supply situation under control too.
-
I disagree. It is entirely plausible. Using the Africa Corps on one side and an assault on Turkey, followed by an assault on the Middle East to pincer into the Suez canal would have grossly damaged Britainâs supply lines, opened oil supplies from sources outside the USSR, and provided the means to cut the USSR off from its oil supplies as an opening move of a future 1943 Barbarossa with an attack on the Azeri oilfields. The extra intervening time could also be used to force Britain to capitulate, even if it meant relatively token terms.
In order as well:
-
Fun fact, the first underwater pipeline was constructed in 1944 during operation Pluto by the British Empire and they had lots of issues doing it. Expecting Nazi Germany to manage to pull that off 4 years early without experience in Pipeline construction is ludicrous. And you forget that it also need to be build over the Anatolian mountains in areas with almost 0 infrastructures for thousands of miles. In areas brimming with guerrilla units from Turkey. And building the pipeline would probably take years anyway. And you conveniently forgot again despite pointing it out that food was a more urgent issue for Germany at the start of Barbarossa.
-
Romania and Bulgaria had an European culture and were surrounded by Axis powers. Iran was surrounded by allied powers. Your opinion is too much of a stretch for me to give it credence. Plus Yugoslavia actually did refuse and resist. Convenient to leave this country out of your conclusion since it doesnât fit in it.
-
And I think expecting that Stalin would not react to a German invasion of Turkey a huge conjecture. Especially since I proved to you that he did act multiple times on the Bosporus straits.
-
Defense is stronger than offense. Of course Germany will be able to pull off some good defenses here and there. While you can argue that USSR victory was costly in human life, it was still a complete victory. And as I mentioned, Germany was on a conquest roll vs the USSR until their enemies figured out how to use mixed combat arms efficiently like them. In a way this is very reminiscent of Napoleonâs experience. And he too never was mature enough to admit the obvious and blamed everyone else.
-
Yes, Germanyâs logistics was a nightmare and 100% relied on trains. So tell me, how would Germany go through the mountains of Anatolia? A place with 0 infrastructure recently ravaged by 2 genocides and total war? and through the strait that does not have a single bridge? In order to mount an attack with their full force in Egypt and Syria. All in the goal of capturing oil fields that will be inoperable for years without any way to bring it back to Germany for refining and distribution. Sounds very very far fetched
-
I 100% disagree with you. That is impossible to pull of for Nazi Germany.
2 Likes
Answered in order.
-
Yes, this would have been a genuine problem for the Germans if they invaded Turkey. They had little experience in laying underwater pipelines, and as operations in Maikop and the Caucuses in general have shown, the German militaryâs understanding of these issues generally amounted to hand waving in the general direction at the civilian authorities who were then expected to solve the problem. On the other hand, at its narrowest point, the Bosphorus is only 700m across and not so deep. If they cannot build underwater, it may be possible to build a bridge and pipeline above water. There are plenty of bridge spans larger than that, and with the addition of submarine nets, anti-aircraft guns, and some squadrons of fighters and dive bombers, a garrison can hold the area very successfully.
-
If you donât accept that Iran was largely pro-Axis, then you need to study Iranian history during the period. Iran was quite scared that either the USSR or the British Empire would invade and take away their sovereignty. As it turns out, this is exactly what happened during WW2, and they barely claw it back in the post war period before their government is overthrown by the USA. It is also worth pointing out that Afghanistan was also pro-Axis in this period for similar reasons.
-
Stalin was notably complacent with regards to Hitler. While the Wehrmacht massed on the Eastern Border for months, and he received continuous intelligence of an imminent invasion, he dismissed all that information as a British plot to drive a wedge between Germany and the USSR. It is called a state of denial, and it is an historical fact about Stalinâs mentality.
-
I agree that defense is stronger than offense. I also think that the Nazis now believed in the myth of their own invincibility. They are definitely going to need some luck, and the operation will not succeed without Italian naval support as Germany has no ships in the region, and the Romanian and Bulgarian navies are pitiful. Fighting in Turkey will require a very different doctrine to that of Germany to that time. On the other hand, Germany has plenty of Alpenkorps for handling the hills and mountains of Anatolia, and some excellent paratroops, while the Turks at this point have a pitiful army that hasnât updated their gear or their doctrine since 1922. Of course the British will try to send help to their new Turkish allies, but they have their hands tied in North Africa with Rommel.
-
Well, obviously you donât go over the mountains, but through the valleys, or you use the coastlines. The terrain is not dissimilar to Greece, and Germany did very well against Greece, even with British support. Remember also that it was the Turks dishing out and benefiting from the genocides, and Ataturk had done a lot to modernize Turkey, so the infrastructure was now better than it had been under the Ottomans. On the other hand, Turkey would pose the same logistical issues that Germany had overcome in Greece, with the main problem being the Bosphorus. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. Worth doing? Yes actually.
To invade Turkey would be a major strategic rethink for the Germans, but could potentially have allows them to capture the Middle East, and use the oil reserves there to prepare for an invasion of the USSR that wouldnât have ultimately failed due to lack of fuel. In fact it would have prepared the Wehrmacht for warfare in the Caucuses and likely led to them getting to Baku and cutting the Soviets off from their oil.
- This has now become my favorite wargame simulation. It works. That doesnât mean I am a Wehraboo (Wehrmacht over-enthusiast). I generally prefer playing Geopolitics as the British Empire or dabbling in annexation as the USSR. In fact this is one of the few strategies that I have used playing Germany that consistently results in a victory. Even in games where I have taken the British Isles as Germany, I have still then ground to a bleeding stalemate at best against the Soviets⌠unless I take their oil away.
I have this book in Danish but I guess there is a English version. It says there were high level connectons between Germany and The Muslim Middle East as they wanted to get rid of British influence and solve the jewish problem in Palestine. But a very complicated issue
2 Likes
Yes, I too play the extremely unrealistic military simulation known as hearts of iron. Did you know that with such an unrealistic simulation, the best strategy is simply to do a naval invasion of Great Britain supported by 200 stripped down submarines?
I donât think you are a Wehraboo, but I do believe you are an entrenched armchair general far removed for historical realities.
Let me ask, in your opinion how long would it take for Nazi Germany to complete the full invasion of Turkey, build a bridge capable of handling millions on tons in a day and just as impressive a pipeline from Berlin all the way to Cairo?
And remember that in 1941, they had less food reserves than fuel. At the opening of Barbarossa, the army was unable to supply food reserves to its units. Instructing troops to âlive of the landâ aka pillage to sustain themselves. However, units had so much fuel that they would use it to warm themselves at night and make pretty fires.
Edit- and railway tracks that would amount to three times the length of said pipeline, because the Wermacht could not move without railways. After all, only once all three of those infrastructure are completed could the army be moved to the oildfield and the unrefined oil brought back to Germany. And Iâm being kind here, the English would have also sabotaged the oil wells and that would take years of repairs before they could supply even close to what they used to.
2 Likes
Iâm definitely no Wehraboo. I actually prefer playing the UK and staging 1939 invasions into Frisia to capture Northern Germany, and break out down the Rhine.
You are right in the sense that Hearts of Iron isnât realistic.
In terms of a German invasion of Turkey, it would have been hard going, but the assets were already in the area in 1941. In terms of food, Germany started plundering Greek food supplies as it had nothing else to offer. If the Barbarossa men and materiel had been apportioned towards Turkey, there is no way Turkey could have survived, but Germany would have needed to make use of the Italian navy, and run many barges down the Danube to accommodate issues of supply.
That being said, Germany had some success with Turkey, Iraq and Iran diplomatically as they all felt threatened by the British Empire. Had Germany, by diplomacy or invasion, managed to get passage thru Turkey, there is little chance the UK could have held on in the Middle East, and Germany would likely have seized or obtained unfettered access to all the major regional oil fields, which would have meant an attack on Russia would have been much easier; especially a push towards Baku to cut off the major Soviet oilfields.
As to the Wehrmacht not being able to move without railways, that is only partially true. The rail âsnagâ Germany experienced during WW2 due to Hitlerâs railway policies was quite amazing, and makes a mockery of any idea we may have about German efficiency. The Wehrmacht certainly used trains, but their reliance on trucks and horses was far higher than you suggest.
1 Like
My prediction if this unlikeliest of unlikely scenarios had played out (ie Germany somehow conquering Turkey with the British and Soviets sitting idly by doing nothing):
Not a single barrel of that oil makes it to Germany. They simply didnât have the logistics and the British and Soviets would have overrun Iran and Iraq to begin with as basically happened in our timeline. Also, the chances of a breakthrough to Cairo by the Africa Corps were worse than anything coming from Mars (ie a million to 1).
Also, any troops sitting in Turkey are not available for heading into Russia from Poland or Romania. The Soviets on the other hand already had troops in the Caucasus to parry any attempt by Germany to cross the mountains from the south. Also: British help would pin those Germans into place.
1 Like
This position isnât born out by the logistics of the Wehrmacht operating in the Balkans up to that point. The fact is, German logistics thru the region were good. In terms of getting across the Bosphorus, well, the Danube empties into the Black Sea, and adequate watercraft could have been produced in Germany and sent down to perform logistics, under cover of airpower and the Romanian and Bulgarian navies. In truth, airpower was all that was really needed to keep shipping safe.
As to the British and Russians doing nothing. I concur that the British empire would have gone to Turkeyâs aid, but they were already stretched thin in the region. As to Russia, there is nothing to indicate that Stalin was in any way ready or willing to attack Germany, whom he considered to be a friend if not an ally at this stage of the war, as evidenced by Stalinâs disbelief at reports of Operation Barbarossa. For the first 2 weeks of the engagement Stalin believed that reports of a German attack were UK propaganda and refused to admit it was happening.
So this would mean Germany, Italy and the Axis minor powers facing Turkey with a hostile but underprepared British Empire, and a supine and disinterested Russia.
As to the Afrika Corps managing a breakthrough to Cairo, well, it was only 150 miles from El Alamein. Given the logistics the armies had faced in the desert campaign up to that point, they werenât that absurd. Add the potential of a second front moving down the Levantine coast through Palestine unopposed by meaningful French or British resistance from a breakout in Turkey, and the whole Middle East with all its oil and Axis friendly Arabs wanting liberation from their British Imperial overlords are waiting to be scooped up by Germany.
1 Like
Two reasons: 1) Hitler was in a hurry to get on with Barbarossa, and driving around in Turkey would have put so much wear (and time) on the panzers they might not be up to Barbarossa. It was a question of Turkey or Russia in 1941.
2) Hitler hoped he could offer the Turks the opportunity of Russian ports on the Black Sea, including Sevastopol, and theyâd sign on of their own volition.
2 Likes
Stalin hiding in a dacha for the first two weeks of the war and doing nothing is fiction. Sure, it would have been better for everyone had the other leaders worked up the courage to have him arrested, but that was never gonna happen, those that remained were all Stalin lackeys without a power base of there own. Would have helped the Soviets win the war with far less casualties, tho⌠but alas. Those ill prepared premature offensives happen in every time line.
The Afrika Korps was stretched thinner than any British force out there. It had little to no hope of serious reinforcement whilst the British could deliver this if things became critical. It may have been only 150 miles to Alexandria but it might just as well have been on the moon.
The AK was short on tanks, vehicles, fuel, food and manpower. The only reason they even got as far as they did is because of timid leadership on the British side and corps and divisional commanders not working together as they should have.
Montgomery replaced many of those commanders for a reason and after that the AK chances of victory dropped from ânearly impossibleâ to âcompletely impossibleâ.
1 Like
We will have to agree to disagree on Stalin doing nothing during the first 2 weeks of Barbarossa. I have read MULTIPLE accounts that tell me that he refused to admit the Germans were attacking.
The proposed scenario is an attack on Turkey in 1941 in support of the Afrika Korps, using a large portion of the forces that would otherwise have gone into Russia. This involves efforts to reinforce and resupply the Afrika Korps.
It also involves attacking Turkey, and that means that the British will be honor-bound to split their Egyptian forces to support Turkey.
Logistics can be supported by bringing barges down the Danube and into the Black Sea and on to the Bosphorus as needed. Germany has an extensive canal network that make this workable.
Turkey in 1941 had WW1 era doctrine and equipment at best and was not ready for a serious war. Turkey certainly lacked a serious airforce, and the British could scarcely bring anything to bear given their own supply lines.
Even without Turkey out of the war, Iraq and Iran were pro-Axis.
With the Middle Eastâs oilfields likely to fall swiftly, and Turkeyâs eastern border being so close to the Baku and other Caucasian oilfields, Germany would have had few of the oil supply issues that ultimately lost them the war against Russia, assuming they even see the need to invade Russia subsequently.
The primary reason this scenario never unfolded were that Turkey had been resolutely well behaved towards the Germans and were considered potential friends, and, likely more importantly, as Turkey was on the Mediterranean, it fell within the Italian sphere of operations as agreed between Hitler and Mussolini. Also, I donât think the Germans had seriously considered the possibility, for whatever reasons.
Thanks to user:pugsville for pointing out the League of Nations reports. I chose one with a 1940 column, even though some spaces were not filled in due to war. But as it turns out, all nations producing more than a million tons of oil have a 1940 number.
(Mt means millions of metric tons of crude oil produced for the whole year)
USA 182.657 Mt
USSR 29.700 Mt
Venezuela 27.443 Mt
Iran 10.426 Mt
Indonesia 7.939 Mt
Mexico 6.721 Mt
Romania 5.764 Mt
Columbia 3.636 Mt
Iraq 3.438 Mt
Argentina 2.871 Mt
Trinidad 2.844 Mt
Peru 1.776 Mt
Burma 1.088 Mt
Canada 1.082 Mt
Egypt 0.929 Mt
So to understand your thinking, Germany could have taken Turkey and the rest of the Mideast would have aligned with Germany and solved Germanyâs fuel problem. I put this graph here to list Mideast oil production. They would have had to secure supplies all the way from Iran to make this happen. Talk about a logistical nightmare.
Here Is where the Mideast oil fields were located:
Map of the invasion
This map shows where the oil was located. The only pipelines went to the gulf coast. To get the oil to Germany would have been a hard to even imagine with 1940âs tech. Even without constant harassment. Itâs easy to see why they never considered this possibility. However someone had to consider it given that in 1941 Britain and Russia invaded Iran to secure the oil. That occurred in August. Iran lasted 6 days.
3 Likes
My god. US could have itâs citizens bathe in oil and still have a lot of left over for the war effort.
Though this does bring up the question of how good the oil was in each country. Not every country is gonna have the same extraction, purification method.
2 Likes
Well yes, that is exactly why he went to war with the Soviet Union when he did. Pure ideological hatred. If oil was so important to the war effort, why not rely on the friendly Soviets to keep supplying you as they had been doing? The only real reason is because he didnât trust the Bolsheviks. If he was going to strike, then this was the perfect opportunity, even in hindsight, this was probably the best shot that he could have given. Put on top of that his believe that the Red Army was in asolute disarrray and that this would be an âeasyâ campaign, the invasion makes sense. It can only come from ideological hatred and indoctrination that they would be so wrong.
The idea that nazi Germany was a rational actor should not just be assumed.