Germany-USSR, the ultimate what-if

[Boroda]

Angus, if UK is neutral - USSR occupies all Iran, not only the Northern half. Then it uses Gulf ports for importing materials bought from other countries, just as it did in current reality.

I think it may be just a small addition to your work.

[Elfie]

The power of economy behind a lend lease program is a tiny fraction of the power behind a war economy.

I was assuming actual sales, not a Lend/Lease program. The arms sales would have had to have been on a very large scale as well.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Boroda
Angus, if UK is neutral - USSR occupies all Iran, not only the Northern half. Then it uses Gulf ports for importing materials bought from other countries, just as it did in current reality.

I think it may be just a small addition to your work.

I do not get your point there.
With UK neutral, I mean that the IK would not be at war with Germany, lift the Naval embargo off Germany and go around with the business.
This would mean a stronger Germany as well as a stronger UK, since neither of them wouldn't be fighting anybody.
Had the USSR wanted Iran, it would have been more complicated with the British empire to move at will, than it was in 1940 when the British were pressed in the war with Germany.
So, in short....I see no point at all...

[Angus]

Oh, Boroda, BTW, in that reality, the Axis naval power is vastly more than the USSR's. So had both been open to the Suez (With the RN as a police), either one or both would be closed in the cause of war. The one definately having problems would be the USSR, since the Italian navy alone outguns them easily.

I must thank you for this point though. I never considered the USSR using the possibility of benefitting from this angle in a "truce" environment. But they definately were considering it in case the UK collapsed, so it's logical.
1940 - 1941 might thus have brought naval trade to the USSR from the middle and far east.
About oil though, the Axis needed it more I think, so the benefit would probably have been more on their side. After all, they were buying oil from the USSR.

[Angus]

About time to waky-waky!
Got a question for....Boroda perhaps?
It was mentioned that the USSR had an interest in accessing the med and the canal of Suez.
Did that happen after the USSR and UK/USA became allies, or was there never time for it?
Then, on to the Baltic. Does anyone have some figures of USSR naval strength and engagements in the Baltic in WW2, noteably in the fall of 1941?

[Angus]

Oh, and another important issue.
How was the USSR-Turkish relation during WW2?
From WWI they were no friends, and the Battle of Gallipoli was all about the western allies trying to open the searoute to the black sea to be able to supply the Russian forces, but losing the game to the Turks.
But that was the Ottoman empire and not the later Turks, and thet was the Zarist Russia and not the USSR.
What I know is that Turkey was a little bit pro-Axis perhaps, selling crucial Ore to the Germans, and trying to stay out of trouble, while the UK was trying to get them to join the Allies....

[Furball]

I haven't followed all of this thread, but have you considered the impact of British neutrality on events in the far east?  If Britain made peace with Germany, maybe Germany/Japan could attack the Soviet Union on two fronts?

[Angus]

Ahh, DING, the Bosphorus would have been open if not for the RN, for any "cargo"
"Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits was a 1936 agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. The representatives of ten nations attended the conference held in Montreux. The principal contenders were Britain, the Soviet Union and Turkey; the main issue was the passage of combatant vessels in war.

The 1936 Montreux Convention came about due to the Turkish desire to remilitarize the Straits, which under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne had been demilitarized. They also wanted the international Straits Commission created back in Lausanne abolished, seeing it as an obstacle to Turkish sovereignty in their internal waters.

The Convention agreed to consists of 29 Articles, four annexes and one protocol. Articles 2-7 consider the passage of merchant ships. Articles 8-22 consider the passage of war vessels. The key principle of freedom of passage and navigation is stated in articles 1 and 2. Article 1 provides that "The High Contracting Parties recognise and affirm the principle of freedom of passage and navigation by sea in the Straits". Article 2 states that "In time of peace, merchant vessels shall enjoy complete freedom of passage and navigation in the Straits, by day and by night, under any flag with any kind of cargo."

So, my hunch that the Black sea was refused to the Axis by the RN seems to have been right.
Furthermore, my diggings revealed that the Germans actually planned that way, but they needed Gibraltar, and were refused a land entry there by Franco (Spain).
Some Generals still clinged on using Bosporus, to access the south of the USSR, but with the RN on the move there, as well as some severe blows delivered to the Italian Navy, and the lack of connection with the Atlantic because of Gibraltar made the idea sound bad. Hitler discarded it, well he was never the navy guy...
Anyway, it was on the table, but rendered unusable because of the British.

[Angus]

More studies reveil the same.
With the med open to the Axis powers, which would be the strongest military power in the world in 1941 without the UK fighting, there would be no stopping them entering the Black Sea.
Even if the Turks would have tried such  feat, I remain doubtful that they'd been able to, nor even wanted to.
Now, Gallipoli was about the exact same deal, and the Turks held their land at great cost,  - in order to deprive the Russians of supplies from the western powers.
But that was before concepts like air power and airborne power came into the equation.
So, in short, with UK out of war with Germany, lifting the Naval blockade, the maps and entrance to the USSR would have looked entirely different.
One northern route from land ending in Moscow, one southern route from the sea and perhaps through Romania and Besarabia, beginning in Ucraine.
With no Balcanese or N-African campaign, the Axis could have launched their complete strength some month earlier, notably in the south.
With considerably more strength, twice the airforce, much better and swifter transport, extra time, Naval support, and no detour between the Northern and southern fronts of the USSR, I have little doubt that the Axis would have had the USSR in deep doo-doo well before the winter settled in.
Now where's Viking and Boroda when you need them

[LLv34_Snefens]

I've read a book concerning the German-Turkish relationship during WW2, but can't place it's exact name atm.
Anyway it had correspondance between German and Turkish diplomats, as well as internal directives, about what it would take for them to get involved and the result basically was that only if German was in complete control of entire Caucasus was a Turkish "Occupation force" in USSR maybe possible.

I'll get back to you with the name of the book.

Oh, and as for the Baltic fleet you can have a look here

[LLv34_Snefens]

Found it:

Weber, Frank G.
"The evasive neutral : Germany, Britain, and the quest for a Turkish alliance in the Second World War"

[Angus]

Thanks a lot Snefens.
Any Idea on Axis-USSR naval engagements in the Baltic? And Minelaying? I know the Brits were dropping mines in the Baltic, at the German coast, did the USSR manage that one as well?

[FrodeMk3]

Angus, if UK is neutral - USSR occupies all Iran, not only the Northern half. Then it uses Gulf ports for importing materials bought from other countries, just as it did in current reality.

I think it may be just a small addition to your work.

Being as Iran even at that time was a source for British oil, That would have a profound effect; It would be considered a warlike move against the UK, which already harbored strong anti-Bolshevik sentiments. I couldn't see Stalin doing that; the potential of facing Germany AND the UK (although I doubt that the Germans' and the Brits would openly throw in with one another, it would be more like the USSR fighting 2 different wars' on 2 different fronts' at the same time) would be un-palatable.Plus, the diversion of forces' to Iran would further weaken the Red Army where it needed them most, at that time-against Germany.

[Angus]

Agree with you there.
And since Stalin didn't go for the move while:
A. Already having a pact with Nazi Germany in RL
B. Already with a much weaker UK in RL than had the UK made peace with Germany.
Then.....no go.

BTW, the UK invaded and conquested Iraq in ...1940 or 1941....got to look. There was some fighting.

In my speculation there would be no war in Africa or the mid east BTW, since there is ... peace with the UK. Same might go with the Baltics, - Greece and Yugoslavia. Axis focus would be on the USSR.
And with no Naval blockade from the behalf of the RN, things look very different in the planning room...

[Angus]

The real cause for The Soviets winning was the Lend Lease program and all the supplies that america fed them.  Or at least, the reason they didn't lose was because of these programs.

Now here's where it gets tricky.  The reason that Japan attacked American interests in the pacific, and NOT the Soviet Union was because of the level of infiltration of Soviet Agents in the Japanese government.

Had the spies not convinced Japan to attack America, I would put the odds at 50/50 whether or not the soviets would ultimately lose, even with the Lend Lease programs.

Sort of pinging this one up, - lol, took me ages to find it.
Anyway, I mentioned Gallipoli, and after looking into it better, it all boils down to the same, - wether or not there is access between the Atlantic (or Suez for that sake) AND the black sea. An enormous issue in the plans of conquering the USSR, and discarded by the Axis because of the British blockade, - at Gibraltar, then N-Africa.
As for the quote above, I think that one of the big reasons of Japan choosing the USA as a target was that the British empire was on wobbly legs. Remember that the RN was absolutely the biggest sea power at the time, and they had their hands full.
With Britain at peace with Germany and the blockade lifted, the Japs would have absolutely no chance against the united navies of both the UK and the USA. Well, compare that with a co&pro-Axis assault on the USSR where the USA and UK would have been at bay.....
(Both not happy with communism, and the UK holding a grudge against the USSR because of their pro-German stance regarding Poland and their pacts with Germany in the first place)