If Turkey enters WWII on the Axis side and subsequently loses the war, how much territory is it going to lose?

Sep 2012
3,843
Bulgaria
#21
Immediately after the second world war soviets had an aura of prestige from having fought the nazis and Stalin wanted a buffer zone of friendly communist countries to protect the USSR from further attacks in the future from international bourgeoisie. So called salami tactic was used and other non-communist parties were bit by bit removed from political landscape, their leaders either forced to leave the country or subjected to show trials leading to their imprisonment / execution. Thus the soviet satellites were created ruled by communist parties again as effective protective buffer for USSR.

It would have not been in Soviets interest to try to incorporate in the union this state as soviet socialist republic for the same reason. Creating a Turkish People's Republic as protective buffer with access to mediterranean sea is more likely. Also completely intact giving the soviet leader a status of protector of turkish proletariat against the evil intentions of the western bourgeoisie to tear apart their fatherland.
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,068
Republika Srpska
#22
A separate, off-topic question (I don't want to create a new thread just for this question): Had Russia somehow avoided the Bolshevik Revolution and thus remained in WWI up to the very end, would it have actually been any more successful against Ataturk's forces in the Turkish War of Independence than the Brits, French, and Greeks were in real life?
I would say yes. The conquest of Constantinople was a long-held dream of the Russians and the Turks were their traditional enemies. I would think they would be willing to send a lot of troops to fight the Turks and they would probably pursue that fight much longer than the French for example.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#23
I would say yes. The conquest of Constantinople was a long-held dream of the Russians and the Turks were their traditional enemies. I would think they would be willing to send a lot of troops to fight the Turks and they would probably pursue that fight much longer than the French for example.
Were Russian troops and/or Russian socialists actually enthusiastic about fighting for Constantinople, though? I mean, didn't socialists in the Petrograd Soviet condemn the Russian Provisional Government when it initially refused to give up the goal of acquiring Constantinople? Also, weren't Russian troops unwilling to die for imperialist war aims (as opposed to dying to protect the revolution)?
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,068
Republika Srpska
#24
Eh, these are questions that are hard to answer. Did the average Russian back then know all that much about Istanbul? However, your original question supposed the survival of the Russian Empire or at least the Provisional Government, both of which harbored ambitions of incorporating Constantinople into Russia. And I don't put much weight into the whole "soldiers won't fight for imperialism". If you motivate them well enough and give them what they need, in most cases they will fight. And the "holy war against Islam" can be a big motivator.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#25
Eh, these are questions that are hard to answer. Did the average Russian back then know all that much about Istanbul?
That might depend on just how much access they had to various information. One would think that they were in contact with Bolshevik defeatist agitators who told them about this and other Russian "imperialist" war aims.

However, your original question supposed the survival of the Russian Empire or at least the Provisional Government, both of which harbored ambitions of incorporating Constantinople into Russia.
Yep, I was thinking of having the Russian Provisional Government somehow survive--perhaps by not launching that idiotic Kerensky Offensive and/or by not having Kornilov launch a failed coup attempt.

And I don't put much weight into the whole "soldiers won't fight for imperialism". If you motivate them well enough and give them what they need, in most cases they will fight.
The interesting thing, though, is that Bolshevik defeatist agitation really does appear to have had a significant effect on reducing Russian soldiers' morale in 1917. This was in spite of the fact that Russia wasn't actually losing the war and that the US was already entering WWI and thus providing a huge boost to the Entente cause.

And the "holy war against Islam" can be a big motivator.
Were Russian soldiers back then particularly Islamophobic, though?
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,068
Republika Srpska
#26
Even if they were not particularly Islamophobic, the whole "reclaiming the lost capital of Orthodoxy" can be a big thing. Most Russians were quite devout back then and such stories and narratives would impact them.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#27
Even if they were not particularly Islamophobic, the whole "reclaiming the lost capital of Orthodoxy" can be a big thing. Most Russians were quite devout back then and such stories and narratives would impact them.
That might be true, but why did Bolshevik defeatist agitation severely hurt Russian soldiers' morale in 1917?
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,068
Republika Srpska
#30
Enormous losses and as you said Russia was not really losing, sure, but it was hardly winning either, sure they were beating the Ottomans and Austrians, but they suffered many stinging defeats. America entering the war and fighting on the other side of the continent could hardly make a difference in the mind of an average Russian soldier. Russia was generally in chaos, food shortages, inflation, troubles with supplying the army with uniforms etc. The soldiers were aware of these things.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions