WI: Stalin doesn't try to carve up Turkey after WW2

[fasquardon]

So before and during WW2, relations between the Soviet Union and the Turkish Republic were pretty good, and the Soviets were friends to the Turks during the time they were most isolated. The Soviets even returned to the Turks Kars province, taken by the Russian Empire in the 19th Century.

After WW2, for reasons which I cannot divine (perhaps Stalin had been possessed by the ghost of one of Russia's old Tsars), Stalin started pressing claims to Turkish territory (pretty much the same territory that Russia had been eying up back in 1913, only without designs on outright annexing Istanbul).

This seems to have played a large role in Turkey seeking an alliance with the USA (and eventually becoming a staunch NATO member).

So WI Stalin doesn't start claiming bits of the country?

Do relations between the USSR and Turkey remain good?

Does Turkey end up making an alliance with the Soviets?

What knock-on effects would there be to no Turkish-American alliance on the rest of the Cold War?

fasquardon

 

[tomtom34b]

Indeed, Stalin´s political moves seem a bit odd there. However i dont see the turks become close allies. Look at how the paths of Stalin and Tito diverged after ww2. Maybe with the soviets being more friendly, turkey would not become a NATO-member, but i full-blown soviet ally, i highly doubt it. NATO would be very interested to keep the soviet black sea fleet contained and bottled up and would offer incentives to turkey. Maybe Turkey could play both sides and profit from remaining a neutral bloc party (similar to what yugoslavia did).

Maybe a neutral non-NATO turkey would butterfly away the whole cuba crisis...

 

[fasquardon]

Indeed, Stalin´s political moves seem a bit odd there. However i dont see the turks become close allies. Look at how the paths of Stalin and Tito diverged after ww2. Maybe with the soviets being more friendly, turkey would not become a NATO-member, but i full-blown soviet ally, i highly doubt it. NATO would be very interested to keep the soviet black sea fleet contained and bottled up and would offer incentives to turkey. Maybe Turkey could play both sides and profit from remaining a neutral bloc party (similar to what yugoslavia did).

Maybe a neutral non-NATO turkey would butterfly away the whole cuba crisis...

Personally my bet would be that Turkey might end up like Finland - so allied to the Soviets, but said alliance being an alliance of fully sovereign states (so not an alliance of vassals as the Warsaw Pact was) and very much defensive in nature.

But, as with Finland, we could see the political culture and economic ties of such a Turkey become closer to the West over time.

And I agree that NATO would be very interested in keeping the Black Sea fleet bottled up, but given that Turkey's history with most of the NATO members are dirt poor, if the Soviets don't throw away all the credit they gained during the 20s and 30s I'm not sure how much traction the West could get. Quite possibly, Western efforts to "flip" Turkey to their side could end up pushing the Turks to deepen their ties with the Soviets.

fasquardon

 

[kodak]

Prior to WWII, Ataturk's policy generally involved playing the Italians (and later, also Germans) against the Soviets for his favor for profit and maintained a look of neutrality. Post WWII, something similar could happen between the WP and NATO. Turkey would probably not become a Soviet ally, they'd probably go the path of Yugoslavia.

 

[fasquardon]

Prior to WWII, Ataturk's policy generally involved playing the Italians (and later, also Germans) against the Soviets for his favor for profit and maintained a look of neutrality. Post WWII, something similar could happen between the WP and NATO. Turkey would probably not become a Soviet ally, they'd probably go the path of Yugoslavia.

Really? Interesting.

Well, the consensus so far is that they'd follow a Yugoslav-type path. What happens if they do? Certainly they aren't going to allow American nuclear missiles on their soil in that case. Any other potentialities?

I wonder if it might change how both sides play in the Middle East if both the Soviets and Americans are trying to keep the Turks happy with them.

fasquardon

 

[kodak]

Really? Interesting.

Well, the consensus so far is that they'd follow a Yugoslav-type path. What happens if they do? Certainly they aren't going to allow American nuclear missiles on their soil in that case. Any other potentialities?

I wonder if it might change how both sides play in the Middle East if both the Soviets and Americans are trying to keep the Turks happy with them.

fasquardon

And, of course, an even bigger butterfly- no cuban missile crisis, which largely was a response to America putting missiles in Turkey. Assuming Khrushchev comes to power still, he won't lose face to the crisis and will stay in power longer.

 

[fasquardon]

And, of course, an even bigger butterfly- no cuban missile crisis, which largely was a response to America putting missiles in Turkey. Assuming Khrushchev comes to power still, he won't lose face to the crisis and will stay in power longer.

This assumes that the US doesn't manage to convince an equivalent country to host their missiles, Iran say...

That said, Iran is that little bit further away... It might not panic the Soviet nuclear strategists so much...

fasquardon

 

[Alto]

I still think Inonu would have picked America since the Turkish-Soviet marriage was of convenience to embassy foreign invaders for the Soviet sand defeat them for the Turks

 

[MichaelF]

Just to clarify, Stalin had asked the Germans to support his demands for control over the Dardanelles in November of 1940. What was truly bizarre was demanding the provinces of Kars and Ardahan five seconds after V-E Day. The reactions of the British and Americans was basically "WTF, man?" and that helped exacerbate the tensions that led to the Cold War. Here's a question- is American aid to Greece during the Civil War less if the Soviets don't pressure Turkey? How does that affect the Greek Civil War and the Cold War?

 

[Johnrankins]

Remember in both cases, particularly Finland. The "alliance" was largely based on the fear that if they refused they would be reduced to total puppets if they fought and lost. That is less likely with Turkey as it was not involved at all in the war.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

This assumes that the US doesn't manage to convince an equivalent country to host their missiles, Iran say...

Or Greece.

 

[oreocruncher]

Just to clarify, Stalin had asked the Germans to support his demands for control over the Dardanelles in November of 1940. What was truly bizarre was demanding the provinces of Kars and Ardahan five seconds after V-E Day. The reactions of the British and Americans was basically "WTF, man?" and that helped exacerbate the tensions that led to the Cold War. Here's a question- is American aid to Greece during the Civil War less if the Soviets don't pressure Turkey? How does that affect the Greek Civil War and the Cold War?

I think that was to quell rebellion in Armenia...

 

[fasquardon]

Or Greece.

Greece isn't that much closer to the Soviet Union than Italy is, so I am not sure basing missiles in Greece would irritate Moscow to the same degree (Jupiter missiles could hit Moscow from Italy just as well as from Greece, but missiles in Greece would have been able to hit the Volga delta - but the Volga delta wasn't that densely populated in 1961).

Just to clarify, Stalin had asked the Germans to support his demands for control over the Dardanelles in November of 1940. What was truly bizarre was demanding the provinces of Kars and Ardahan five seconds after V-E Day. The reactions of the British and Americans was basically "WTF, man?" and that helped exacerbate the tensions that led to the Cold War. Here's a question- is American aid to Greece during the Civil War less if the Soviets don't pressure Turkey? How does that affect the Greek Civil War and the Cold War?

I didn't know the demand for the Dardanelles was so much earlier.

I have read people opine that the Greek civil war was very close indeed. I don't have enough knowledge to really say if slightly less aid would have resulted in a Communist Greece though.

I think that was to quell rebellion in Armenia...

Hmm. Interesting. Do you know any references on this?

Remember in both cases, particularly Finland. The "alliance" was largely based on the fear that if they refused they would be reduced to total puppets if they fought and lost. That is less likely with Turkey as it was not involved at all in the war.

Before WW2, Turkey and the Soviet Union were close because they were revolutionary regimes who had to fight off the victors of WW1 in order to secure their regimes.

But yes, after WW2, I suspect any alliance between Turkey and the Soviets would become less a matter of mutual defense against Western Europe, and more a matter of "by allying with them, we stop them invading us".

I would note that this is hardly unusual - most small states next to large states need to accommodate the larger neighbour's security concerns lest the larger neighbour become a security problem for the smaller state. Look at US intervention in the Mexican Civil War, for example.

fasquardon

 

[MichaelF]

Hmm. Interesting. Do you know any references on this?

Regarding the Armenians, I found an interesting reference in "Stalin and the Turkish Crisis of the Cold War" by Jamil Haslani, pages 69-70. It says in March 1945, the Armenian National Church Council asked FDR to expand the borders of Soviet Armenia and in April 1945, the Armenian National Committee appealed to Stalin for support. The writer is pro-Turkish but this pro-Armenian website also has something about the Armenian role:
http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/armenica.cgi?251590482731447=1=7=0=K-167=nada=1=3=A

 

[riggerrob]

WI Turkey had "liberated" more of the Moslem lands along its border with the Soviet Union, circa 1920?
Those troublesome Moslem republics included: Chechnia, Azer-B, Kurdistan, Armenia, Palestine, Iraq, all or of Arabian Peninsula, etc.
... not sure how legitimate Turkish historical claims were to those lands, but since Persia and Constantinople had fought over them for centuries ... We could also speculate about how far Persia would allow Turkey to advance claims eastwards .... sort of a three-way Grand Game ....

 

[Nagisaki]

WI Turkey had "liberated" more of the Moslem lands along its border with the Soviet Union, circa 1920?
Those troublesome Moslem republics included: Chechnia, Azer-B, Kurdistan, Armenia, Palestine, Iraq, all or of Arabian Peninsula, etc.
... not sure how legitimate Turkish historical claims were to those lands, but since Persia and Constantinople had fought over them for centuries ... We could also speculate about how far Persia would allow Turkey to advance claims eastwards .... sort of a three-way Grand Game ....

yes, because I am sure the Armenians want to be under Turkish rule again, especially after the genocide.

 

[araraya]

yes, because I am sure the Armenians want to be under Turkish rule again, especially after the genocide.

Since when has it mattered what a conquered people want?

 

[raharris1973]

Nice choice of topics fasquadron, important implications for NATO and the Middle East, and, I've never, ever seen this up brought up before.

I wonder if Greece would still end up in NATO as a knock-on of anticommunism after its own civil war.

A non-aligned Turkey won't be fighting in Korea and their PoWs won't be earning a reputation as being more resistant to brainwashing than Americans or Brits

 

[fasquardon]

Nice choice of topics fasquadron

Thanks.

I wonder if Greece would still end up in NATO as a knock-on of anticommunism after its own civil war.

What happens to Greece in the scenario (and what this then does to the Cyprus dispute down the line) is pretty interesting.

If Greece is Communist, then American concerns about Archbishop Makarios (they suspected him of Communist sympathies when he first became president of Cyprus) may lead to the US somehow intervening against him in TTL. It would certainly change Cypriot history down the line - either Cyprus becomes the Cuba of the Mediterranean and Turkey is pushed towards a pro-western stance only 30 years later, or Cyprus is pro-western or strongly neutral in which case the Greek officers who lead the coup that made the Turks invade Cyprus in OTL are never sent as advisers to the island.

If Greece is not Communist and in NATO, then events in Cyprus probably play very similarly up until the 70s, but if Turkey is not in NATO and Greece is, when the coup or similarly strong move towards Enosis happens, it could turn into a face off between the two superpowers, rather than only a spat between two NATO members. Or the Soviets TRY to support the Turks when the Cyprus problem hots up, and the US counter-woos the Turks with things that will have their own consequences (like American support for Turkish Cyprus perhaps?)

If neither Greece nor Turkey are in NATO then things could get even stranger, depending on what happened when and which superpower was more successfully wooing what country at the time when things did destabilize...

A non-aligned Turkey won't be fighting in Korea and their PoWs won't be earning a reputation as being more resistant to brainwashing than Americans or Brits

Good point... I wonder if no Turkish brigade would affect the outcome of the war much... I would have thought not, since they were only 5,000 men out of almost 700,000 that fought on the side of the South.

fasquardon

 

[raharris1973]

I also wonder if a Turkey less worried about the Soviet Union might get more involved in the Arab world. For instance, maybe contribute volunteer forces to fight on the Arab side during the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war