Why didn't Hitler go through Turkey to get the Caucasus Oil?

[@fatihonal6273]

One correction: there were no bridges across the Bosphorus in 1940. The first bridge was finished in 1973. Otherwise nice video :)

[@gelzamangitzaman1482]

Yeah major mistake.

[@Aaron-in2mx]

Well if anything it proves Tiks point more

[@davidchicoine6949]

If darius made a bridge with barges and ship made of wood and ropes .....but yeah logistical nightmare indeed

[@melgross]

The US army engineers famously made many pontoon bridges during the war that had no problem carrying troops and tanks in large numbers. So bridges were not a major problem, just a convenience. Hitler had to have the war when he did, and he knew it, because Germany had little resources that were running out. They were in a paradoxical position. If they waited to have the war, they couldn’t do it. If they did it early, they had to win quickly before they ran out of those limited resources. Oil was a major problem for them. Money was a problem for them. They made oil from coal, but that consumed a great deal of money the regime didn’t have. Taxes were at a maximum. So what follows is what this video shows.

[@solin.victus]

@@melgross this is not a river we are taking about this is a strait that's very long, pontoon bridges are technically not possible.

[@bruhovski7554]

Hitler taking notes in hell from a 12 year old hoi4 player writing an essay about how Hitler couldve won the war

[@Maltbyr]

lol

[@micahsmith4237]

this youtube channel deletes the most obvious route to victory for germany. They should of allied the jewish people and offered most of that region after they won the war. The allies said no after WW1.

[@sababugs1125]

Kid travels back in time to 1936 and meets with Hitler : alright call up the Romanian embassy and tell them only make fighter 2s

[@ethanloveland504]

Also tells hitler to spam Sub 3s in the channel for green sea for 1940 sealion so the allies cap before America joins the war

[@captainnutsack8151]

@@sababugs1125 "Yo, Romania, I need you to rush Fighter III, even with the penalty for early research" - Hitler, probably

[@ctrlaltdebug]

Lol, did he even play HOI? Try invading through low infra mountains and across a sea gap?

[@TheImperatorKnight]

At least logistics aren't an issue in HOI4... since they basically don't exist 😂

[@murderouskitten2577]

Especially getting from Istambul to Asia part of Turkey :) It is a nightmare

[@grahamturner2640]

@@TheImperatorKnight How?

[@Perkelenaattori]

@@doctoronishispsychosislab1474 Well there is attrition percentage in HOI4 which is dependant on the infra level. When your taking 40%+ attrition damage to your equipment, you'll soon run out of stuff to reinforce your armies with.

[@johncarter449]

@@Perkelenaattori i think the next DLC Barbarossa they will work on logistics.

[@oreasic901]

What a stupid idea, to run your tanks trough mountains and hills of Balkan and Turkey, instead of flat plains of Ukraine and Russia.

[@JamesJames-jt3ts]

Not really, imagine russians had 4x the number of tanks Germany had

[@Makeyourselfbig]

@@JamesJames-jt3ts Well how would coming through Turkey change that?

[@skipper4126]

@@JamesJames-jt3ts they also loss 4 x the number of tanks germany did

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

The germans had the schwer gustave, an artillery monster that could annihilate any cities in few shots from almost 100 kilometres, the « defensive hills and mountains » would become craters. The werhmacht would just steam roll the turkish army and resistance and will get to the caucasus with way less casualties than having fought the Russians

[@Makeyourselfbig]

@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 It needed 250 men to assemble the gun in 3 days (54 hours), 2,500 to lay track and dig embankments. 2 flak battalions to protect the gun from air attack. At the siege of Sevastopol it took 4,000 men five weeks to get it into its firing position. It was a completely impractical weapon as any weapon that requires a railroad built to move it would be. In mountainous territory like Turkey it would be useless. I would also point out the Germans would not just be facing the Turkish army. No doubt they would have received assistance from the Russians and any imperial forces the British had in the area.

[@varovaro1967]

I ve travelled a lot through Turkey..... i can’t even imagine how bad communications were back then.... unreal!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Yes, one of the pictures in this video is one I took when I visited Turkey. The country is very hilly to say the least

[@varovaro1967]

@@TheImperatorKnight the Berlin- Baghdad railway was never finished.... the Taurus mountains proved a formidable barrier...

[@silvanastoeva8641]

@@TheImperatorKnight I have a suggestion. What about adding the Bulgarian army for invasion of Turkey? The dreams since the 8 century Bulgaria been dreaming for Istanbul. Could also be convinced to go in Mala Asia (Anatolia). For sure Bulgaria if equipped would gather half a mill standing army quick. Through I dunno if it had good num of conscripts and definitely didnt had a legit large army so no Ww1 style but still. I think through gorilla warfare even with German help could turn up shite. Regardless Germany would need their troops when they arrive in the freaking tall Caucasian mountains cause you know real history and maybe you know why Bulgaria didn't send troops in real time line. I would bet on double attack and when Ukraine is taken defences be built and troops freely transported by sea to Anatolia. Regardless I wouldn't bet on Hitler agreeing with this since as you mentioned he thinks the Soviets are an easy pick. Doing what I suggest he does will be laughable for all they been saying about how great they are but then transferring troops trying to trick the Soviets as if they need to. I think Turkey will be defeated easily because German tech is levels above and Bulgaria if well supplied for years prior and reorganising the army could take at least the capital. After all Turkey was larger and more populated but will be way slower to mobilise and with lesser tech so it could happen. If the city is taken and the area would that give Germany better supplying in the Ukraine and Black Sea as a whole if they could dominate the Soviet navy? A surprise sea born invasion in Ukraine could do some damage after all. Plus stocks from the Danude area could reach better to the east.

[@anon2034]

@@silvanastoeva8641 Нямаше да успеем.

[@silvanastoeva8641]

@@anon2034 Не сме били готови. Обаче с въоръжение и подготовка ще се изсипем в Одрин за под седмица. С 150х Германци и Истанбул пада до края на месеца. С Немско тежко оборудване разбира се.

[@johndii2194]

The problem was lack of Ball Bearings. Hogan and his Hero's kept blowing up the Ball bearing factories.

[@onetwothreefour3957]

yes germany desperately needed just one more enemy in order to win 😂😂😂

[@silvanastoeva8641]

@@ahoomun4848 Turkey as an allie would definitely help. Will be quick to pressure the Soviets and Egypt be taken for sure as British troops were spread thin anyways. I dunno but Egypt might have been good for feeding the allies. After all it maybe suppling 10s of millions of people so why not? It is something. Turkey while not a food growing heaven will add millions of soldiers regardless of how mediocre they would be. So were the Soviets and the British empireal forces weren't top either. So a as an allie Turkey can help them win. Whether they would conquer the Caucasian mountains or not isn't much to debate. With ruling the sea could just spread North of the Caucasian mountains and bypassing it would save huge time.

[@dantecaputo2629]

@@silvanastoeva8641 Turkey was no freind to Germany, and it was still recovering from WWI and the Turkish War Of Independence. It’s industry was lacking, even under the reform programs of Ataturk, and its Army was limited in size and its Navy minuscule. Against the Russians it would be merely a nuisance, and against the British and Free French it would open up a new front, but not prove to bothersome. (Before they got to Egypt they would have to take Syria, which I highly doubt they could of.)

[@silvanastoeva8641]

@The Colonel Turkey was smart to not participate. They join the Allied and pay thy heavy price ASAP or join the Axis and may make a good difference to take Egypt and mid East oil fields as well as presure the Soviets but got forbid the Axis lose and Turkey would never see the sun again. So staying out means they aren't harmed while all others are. Look at their population growth. That time they really went smart to sit on their arse and wait.

[@louisfuckjer8320]

the original argument and video comes from "the alternativ hypothesis"

[@NUMMEHARBEN]

@@dantecaputo2629 could OF ?

[@DaiElsan]

They didn't realise Libya was a massive oil field.

[@khankrum1]

Rommel was sat on it and never realised it. They thought the British werr tainting the water, and the British thought the Germans was at fault.

[@catholicracialist776]

Is there oil in Libiya??

[@DaiElsan]

@@catholicracialist776 the Germans thought it was polluted water wells and ignored it.

[@firemangan2731]

@@DaiElsan Thats halariously dumb

[@DaiElsan]

@@firemangan2731 read up on your history.

[@markfryer9880]

One thing that seems to have been overlooked is that while Turkey was a Neutral country during WWII, it did have a favourable disposition towards Germany from prior to WWI and this continued into WWII. There was and still is the train line that The Orient Express to Istanbul/Constantinople ran on, so some communications were better than the USSR.

[@orbit1894]

Turkey had a favourable disposition towards Germany not because of what you said but because of Soviet threat. Turkey at that time couldnt care less about its previous relationship with Germany. And Constantinople doesnt exist.

[@ozgurpeynirci]

Constantinople is less than %1 of Istanbul today. Most of the city is built from 17th century onwards but keep pretending it is a byzantine-roman city.

[@leventcelik6597]

3 years later, let me add my two cents. The military leaders of the Ottoman empire had favourable disposition towards Germany, but the new Turkish regime came from a very different place. In fact, they criticized the old leaders, going so far as calling them "German lovers". Turkey had an anti-war position from the beginning, signed a mutual defense pact with the Soviets, then a mutual non-aggression pact with the Germans. In fact, Germany invaded USSR a day after signing the pact with Turkey. Turkey played both sides, desparately trying to avoid another war after having fought non-stop between 1915-1923. The political leaders were military heroes of WWI. Still, Turkish economy went back 10 years in the span of WWII because all the resources went into preparing the army for defense of the European border.

[@BarrettSlimmer]

No five foot railway guage like Russia .

[@RuzgarYldrm-zj9ec]

@@leventcelik6597 my 1 cent after 3 months as somebody from turkey the 2nd problem was all the experianced military soldiers that knew tactics died back in ww1 the ones that formed the military were ataturks nationalist ( kuvayi milliye ) troops and despite the fact that even to this day i have no doubt they would have given thier lives to protect the country i also know for a fact that experianced germans would probably win over us also we only had a few soviet and brıtısh light tanks for armor that really coundnt penetrate late war german tanks and despite the fact that we had an airforce it consisted of bi planes that ataturk built while he was still alive

[@theartofwar6889]

It is a shame that paradox makes Chromium so irrelevant in their game.

[@robertalaverdov8147]

What about Coal, one of the most used resources at the time. And don't get me started on copper, nickel, asbestos and so on. Or how the resources just magically go into factories without any steel, aluminum, and fuel refinery plants. Or the most important resource in human history, food.

[@fatihbaskin2000]

Pick soviet union, Declare war at Turkey, Annex Turkey and Romania, Axis can't buy oil from Romania. Deploy only heavy tanks. Use tungsten for arty. Victory by 1943. Tested and approved.

[@fatihbaskin2000]

@Someone Unknown I was talking about a game called HoI4 and in that game invading Turkey is easy as Soviets, hence you have a fleet in Black Sea, and an invasion is quite easy.

[@fatihbaskin2000]

@Someone Unknown wow, interesting, generally Turkey does not have enough manpower or equipment to defend against Soviets.

[@fatihbaskin2000]

@Someone Unknown yea, but by an easy naval invasion you can invade Turkey, also with 14/4 mountaineer divisions can kill any division on the mountain with adequate air support.

[@ayyildiz019]

There were no bridges connecting europe to anatolia like you said. Only in the 70s was the first bridge built. There were only ferrys moving from anatolia tot europe on the bosphorus

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Okay, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information!

[@johnc2438]

@@TheImperatorKnight OK! You've made your mistake for 2020! Everyone's entitled to one mistake... 😁

[@kampkat6089]

If only Germany had bridge building tech. Tons of concrete in the Atlantic Wall and underground factory’s consumed there time. Damn bridges couldn’t be conceived of.

[@turkishboyMLT]

That's a good example for not beleive everything you hear, read or see on internet I assume.

[@fundaguvenll]

​@@TheImperatorKnight The truth is this: Hitler is planning to invade Turkey. However, the protürk and anti-Turkish soldiers dissuade him. Turkey is a difficult country to occupy because of its mountainous and rugged terrain. The Germans would have lost their tanks for nothing. That's why Germany invaded the Soviets, whose land was flat. However, it was made in the necessary preparation for the invasion of Turkey. In other words, if the Soviet invasion had been successful, they would have invaded Turkey as well. Besides, if the United States hadn't helped the Soviets, the Soviets would have lost anyway. In other words, the help of the United States also saved Turkey from invasion.

[@monkeyboy4746]

His voice inflection really adds to the presentation, there are too many presenters on YT who just sound like newscasters/newsreaders.

[@MrPro897]

Insightful video. German army would have a difficult time in Turkey, a mountainous country without good infrastructure, with British support. Just to mention that there were no bridges across Bosporus. The first Bosporus bridge was built in 1973.

[@johnhehir508]

And night clubs open all night ,And only 4 hours from Gatwick and Heathrow 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@mvfc7637]

It’s the a very compelling narrative TIK. It explains the logic behind many of the strategic decisions made by the OKW/OKH and Hitler especially. Every operation was planned with the amount of oil available being the main consideration, well done for bringing the “oil narrative” to everyone’s attention. I’ve been interested in military history for 30 years now and this is the most credible theory I’ve heard in that time.

[@snuggles03]

That was great. You’re so right, the entrance to the station is sooo under rated....it sure needs a refresh in 2021

[@wazabi2698]

Wehraboo. Hide under a rock where you belong.

[@baldviking1970]

I am reading about and listening to lectures and podcasts about the wars between The Roman/Byzantine Empire and the Arabian Kaliphat. Yes, invading through Turkey/Asia Minor is possible if you have great numerical advantage, but basically the area is damn easy to defend.

[@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish]

Exactly, tanks don't exactly do well in the mountains.

[@mehmetaliozgunduz5023]

One correction: There wasn't any bridge on the Bosphorus in 1941. The first one was built in 1973.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

If anything, the logistics of a German war in Anatolia would have been even worse than they were in the USSR. And the Turkish army was famously tough.

[@dusk6159]

The turkish armed forces were trash, but the distance and logistics "alone" indeed trampled any plan of attack on Turkey already, let alone the Soviet Union's Caucasus and then to the oil fields. It would have been very tough and almost moot even for the actual question of the user, so passing through the turkish territory without an attack.

[@onurkalkan201]

@@dusk6159 turkish army fought ww1 then independence war etc etc they were trained and germans once fought with them side by side so they knew who they would face

[@steadyzz2371]

@@dusk6159 the Turkish armed forces were probably the most disciplined and experienced you would find in the entire planet

[@matthewlee8667]

All of the many videos I have watched on the topic of Barbarossa leads me to one conclusion: the longer they wait, the weaker the Germans get and the stronger the Soviets get. The Soviets military was in the middle of a transition period whereas the Axis were slowly running out of fuel. This is something that many people asking why they didn't wait for spring don't seem to realize

[@user-ot4rc9jh8e]

They had to wait because they couldn't keep up with a quick invasion. Worse, the weather and the first winter. Despite the success, by December 1941, the army was already weak and overstretched. 1942 defeats were inevitable. Hitler lost most of his troops and gear because of bad weather in 1941. There was no way they could take over Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad in 1942. The enemy that invades always takes the most damage.

[@nichevo1]

Maybe they should have headed east instead of west in 1939-40 then.

[@haldir3120]

@@user-ot4rc9jh8e Just no. You should not perpertuate the winter myth circulated by the Nazi generals. Halder already wrote end of July that all was for nothing and Russia is way too strong. The Invasion already failed by that point considering the goal was to reach the AA line within 12 weeks (100s of km behind Moskow). Also the Nazis did not lose their Equipment and men due to the weather. They lost it due to failed Operation Taifun and the remarkable winter (!) counter offensive by the Soviets led by Churkov the Great (btw he was also the one who smashed the Nazis at Stalingrad using the depth in defence tactic and also he inflicted the biggest military defeat to Germany in its history during Operation Bagration).

[@user-ot4rc9jh8e]

@@haldir3120 The winter argument still stands because of how weather caused massive problems to the Germans supply line after the summer in each year. The only times the Germans could take serious action was in the Spring and Summer. Stalingrad was not the end of the German army but it did cause them to delay and ignore the southern front leading to thier geography defeat. If you noticed after 1941 Germany lost its initiative and only made limited operations. Russia actually failed most of the time they tried individual counter offenses. But when they did large scale operations they eventually broke through the German front. 1941 was full of Germans stalling back the Russians. 1942 was when Russia finally broke the German front.

[@haldir3120]

@@user-ot4rc9jh8e Please do not take this the wrong way but from my point of view you got a lot of things mixed up or wrong. The campaign startet in June 1941 and was supposed to end by end of September 100s of km behind Moskow. But by end of September they just started their attack on Moskow. By their own judgement the the Russia campaign Was already a fail and the German push was stopped by the 6th of Dec following a massive counter push by the Soviets lasting until Feb. If winter Was the culprit, tell me how the Germans got screwed over by it in Oct/Nov but the Soviets not from Dec to Feb? Rhzev offsenive followed the Dec offensive. The Nazis were complety deleted, lost most of their tanks, Planes and trucks and used up all their solider reserves while getting pushed by the Soviets. How do expect an army in such a state to make a winter offensive in 1942? The war was lost because the Soviets were better and the Germans had no plan B but attack and win in 12 weeks.

1) There was no bridge in Bosporus during 2nd WW. First bridge over Bosporus was built during 70s. 2) Turkey did sell Chromite ore to Germany until late stages of the War.

[@charlesphillips4575]

The terrain alone makes moving a significant mechanised force through Turkey impossible, even with Turkish cooperation. Invading makes no sense. Getting the Turks to attack Russia at the same time as the Germans, would have complicated things for the Russians and maybe captured the oilfields. But the Germans thought they could do it on their own, and did not want to share the spoils.

[@hermitoldguy6312]

I agree, Turkey's a fortress.

[@DerDop]

The Turkish army was massacred by the russians in the last 2 centuries. In the first world war, in Caucasus, the Russians lost 140.000 people. The Turks lost 300.000

[@scottycheesecake]

While the Turks saw the Soviets as enemies, they weren't interested in fighting them head on. It was an impossible task considering the economic situation at the time. They weren't convinced that the Germans could win either, Ismet Inönü; Turkish president at the time, and most of the high command was favoring Britain. Turkish strategy was to stay neutral and get favors from both sides of the war until one was defeated and then join the winning side against the USSR. Which is exactly what they did in the cold war.

[@scottycheesecake]

@@hermitoldguy6312 Yep. Turkish borders are either mountains or sea. Both, sometimes.

[@brianlong2334]

Had Spain and Turkey been convinced to join the war would have most likely gone well for the Germans, or even the Japanese not cancelled there invasion of Siberia and Mongolia to go after the Dutch east Indies because of the USA, for its oil embargo.

[@massculini]

I think the war was lost in fighting two fronts , Germany was fighting all of Europe plus Americas included it wasn't an easy task

[@mrcool2107]

Germany was forced to fight in western front

[@Nikodem2008]

@@mrcool2107 no hitler made it more difficult for germany to win by invading the usa when he didnt have to

[@mrcool2107]

@@Nikodem2008 there R 2 reasons for that 1. He attacked usa after 5 days of japan pearl harbour incident.( It's to either support them or he never expected japan would attack usa) 2. He declare war on usa to avoid usa being more prepared to attack Europe Even if ye didn't declare war . Still usa would attack Germany as they R taking Europe

[@goncal7099]

If Irak had more oil than the Caucasus, why not go there through Turkey and forget about the Soviet Union? Or even commit to the Northen Africa campaign and go through Egipt? I understand he underestimated the Soviet Union, but still he must have known it would be more difficult than Turkey, and he was already enemy with Britain so attacking them in Irak wasn't an issue

[@jonathanevans4610]

Just because there's oil doesn't mean you can use it. The whole setup of the Iraq oil fields is to move that oil by sea and the Axis just don't have the tanker tonnage.

[@Bialy_1]

@@jonathanevans4610 heh, it was all about Stalins preparation to invade its ally, so that ally need to do that first, whole Red Army in 1941 was all about attack not on deffence and that is one of main reasons why they were fighting so badly with all that superiority in numbers in 1941. Stalin was building airfields 800m from new border so it was hard to use planes on them when Germans could just use normal soldiers with basic rifles to just shot the pilots that was runing to planes during German invasion...

[@wesjanson6979]

aside from longer supply lines the refineries in the Caucasus were as important as the crude oil itself and they were more developed than the same systems in Iraq. Getting it from Iraq into Axis held territory would require ships and the Axis did not have naval superiority, a lot of that material would be lost. Whereas if they'd been successful in capturing the Caucasus oil and refineries they could've transported it by train back into Axis held territory and then the only concern is partisan sabotage of rail lines, a much easier concern to deal with than the Royal Navy

[@goncal7099]

@@wesjanson6979 to get to Irak I guess Germany would have needed to get control of Suez. How could the British keep Naval superiority in the Mediterranean after losing all their territories?

[@fundaguvenll]

​@@goncal7099 The truth is this: Hitler is planning to invade Turkey. However, the protürk and anti-Turkish soldiers dissuade him. Turkey is a difficult country to occupy because of its mountainous and rugged terrain. The Germans would have lost their tanks for nothing. That's why Germany invaded the Soviets, whose land was flat. However, it was made in the necessary preparation for the invasion of Turkey. In other words, if the Soviet invasion had been successful, they would have invaded Turkey as well. Besides, if the United States hadn't helped the Soviets, the Soviets would have lost anyway. In other words, the help of the United States also saved Turkey from invasion.

[@Maximitus96]

Attacking Turkey is pure non-sense, what i think that has merit is the hypothesis of what would have happened if Hitler focused completely on the Mediterranean sea and North Africa theater. If instead of invading the USSR in 1941 he had focused on capturing Gibraltar, Malta & the Suez Canal (thus kicking out the British from the Mediterranean and allowing him to easily capture the Middle East), this could have given him some temporary oil reserves while also opening another future front against the soviets through Iran, pointing directly to the Caucasus. This would have also been seen as just Germany fightning the British forces and not directly wanting to harm the Soviets. Even if Operstion Barbarrosa launched in 1942 against a stronger USSR after capturing the Middle East, the Germans would have probably been in a less desperate position while also preventing any kind of Allied help to the Soviets trough the Persian Corridor. Not to mention than having complete dominance of all the Mediterranean and North Africa would have made something like Operationg Torch a lot harder. The Germans not caring enough about the NA front costed them dearly when the Allies achieved a solid foothold there and started punching trough their "Soft Underbelly" (Italy).

[@Maximitus96]

@Afrodisiac what

[@davidlodge681]

I’d suggest that a delay of Barbarossa, until 1942 could have been achieved IF the North Africa campaign was fully supported, Malta, serious attacks to limit the Mediterranean fleet (by the oil starved Italian fleet) and Gibraltar, ( to do so he had to convince Spain to cooperate) and ensure enough oil / food etc to survive through to victory, reset, required, redeploy for Barbarossa 42. Any weakening would have encouraged the USSR to be more aggressive. This would have effectively taken Britain out of the war until 44 or so apart from it airforce and whatever the US supplied.

[@howardwhite1507]

I agree totaly, but i would add that when they did launch an attack pn the soviets, they should have put more effort into the north and south and less on the middle... closing shipping in the north as well as the south would force lend lease thru siberia or iran... Securing the med would have solved the weak italy problem and encouraged the turks and spain to help more....

[@Maximitus96]

@@howardwhite1507 Totally agree, the Persian Corridor and the Murmansk Railway where the lifeline of the USSR in 1941/42. The thing was that Most generals wanted to take Moscow directly (which also had strategic merits, because the entire railway system passed trough there).

[@educationmatters3291]

Yes, Attacking Russia is a big mistake

[@shannonballspen1s482]

He was Hungary so he wanted to go to Turkey but he slipped in Greece.

[@stevensamuels4041]

Best comment

[@taurohkea2169]

and after that I-ran? or I-rock? maybe he didnt have an ARMenia?

[@tomhutchins7495]

Hi TiK, this was very interesting as always. I have been wondering though: in retrospect Hitler’s belief that the USSR would collapse upon invasion appears to have been incorrect, but how wrong was this really? In various videos you have suggested that it remained close to economic collapse through 1942, and that the Soviet economy may never have recovered. Therefore, is there a case that the “collapse” theory was not wrong, but undermined by the German Generals’ insistence on attacking Moscow and Leningrad, combined with Lend-Lease support? I would be very interested in a video on this and your economic research does make you a particularly well-informed perspective.

[@leoa4c]

The Soviet Union itself, for a short while, did collapse. The Germans were welcomed with open arms in Ukraine, the Baltic states, etc. It was only the subsequent treatment of the native population what reversed their attitudes. Had the Germans treated the conquered Soviet states with some dignity and compassion, "the whole rotten structure" may well have collapsed. There was always going to be the issue of dealing with the resistance in Siberia (perfect grounds for guerrilla/partisan warfare), but the Soviet Union would massively shrink in physical size, resources and manpower.

[@uffa00001]

Hitler committed atrocities during Barbarossa such as letting 500.000 Russian prisones die of cold and starvation. This decision was not advantageous (the enemy will fight until the last drop of blood if he knows there will be no mercy for prisoners) and was probably due to the dire situation caused by the food crisis and the logistic crises (which doesn't excuse them, we are understood). Yet, one might think that if the Germans had not begun killing prisoners from year 1, that might have helped many young Soviet soldiers convince themselves that maybe Hitler was no worse than Stalin, or maybe he was actually less bad. When you know the enemy will mostly kill prisoners, you can mount a desperate resistence such as the one at Stalingrad, and you can accept much higher casualties than your enemy, because you know you have no alternative whatsoever.

[@ugrasergun]

To the point you made at 8:10. When they informed İsmet İnönü (Turkish president at the time) that Germany attacked Soviet Union he started to laugh hysterically in his bad with pyjamas. It was the reaction to realising that imminent German threat against Turkey has passed.

[@Ph33NIXx]

Well... i feel this falls into the catagory "if the nazis werent nazis they would have won" - as in.. if they had had another world view

[@Ph33NIXx]

@Dean Spencer did you want to reply some one elses comment and hit mine by mistake?

[@Ph33NIXx]

@Dean Spencer i never mentioned going through Turkey.. so can you please elaborate on how im not reasonable?

[@Ph33NIXx]

@Dean Spencer i never said they lost the war because of their ideologi. I said the conten of this video reminds me of when people says "if Hitler had not done this and that Germany would not have lost" - and their solution to germany winning is de facto not being nazi to begin with. I think you missunderstood what i'm saying. As i am a strong believer that germany could never win the war.. as their strategic situation was never good. They probably could have prolonged the war had the soviet collapsed and they had taken the oil fields. But the fact that USA was not touched, and their industry was a lot more effecient than Germany. I think germany would have lost in the end any way. Tbh i would also argue that USSR could have taken Berlin even without the front opening in Normandy.. but thats a whole other discussion. When you dont have the resources to win the war in country, and you invade half of europe which you now have to supply too.. and you go to war with the two super powers of the world. You lose.

[@Ph33NIXx]

@Dean Spencer i somewhat agree with you in all points. Though Germany only had a chance of winning strategicly if Halder had planned Barbarossa with the aim of taking Ukrain and Caucassus, and not Moscow. Though even then its entering a very chance based territory as the majority of the russian forces were defending Ukrain and Caucasus in 41. But then moved to Moscow in 42 when the german refocused on army group south and taking caucasus. So possible yes.. but certain? Far from it. Also.. for them to win, Britain and US. Would have to give up, even if USSR collapsed.... and i dont see the US give in. Maybe with USSR collapsed they could force UK to sign a peace treaty, or invade. So since we are mostly in agreement here.. why are we discussing?

[@Ph33NIXx]

@Dean Spencer it was not meant to imply that. It was directly aimed at TIK's dialog, were he list a lot of "if ther germans did this they would have won" scenarios(its 3 mont ago i saw the movie.. and im not gonna rewatch it now just for the sake of debate, so pardon that i cant quote specefic what part i commented on), and i said it kind of reminded me of some earlier topics he's covered, were some of the reasoning people had for the germans to win, practically was, they would have won if they werent nazi at all. I feel you are reading a lot into my comment which isn't there. In any way... i am sorry i did not make myself clear enough.

[@VengefulLeprechauns]

In the original video, Germany doesn’t invade Turkey, it allies with them. Here’s a reupload: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6fEl6OlhbirhsU The alliance is done by revealing to Turkey the Soviet Overtures for a joint German-Soviet invasion of turkey, and by Germany promising to restore the old ottoman lands in the middle east. Germany would have access to Iraqi and Iranian oil (~7 million tonnes of oil a year, assuming they operate at half production capacity) and also could potentially capture the Suez. From there Germany would invade the Soviet Union both through Eastern Europe and the caucasus mountains. He doesn’t address the German food crisis in the video, but I wrote to him about the effects on food production by allying with Turkey in the comments (He also throws in an alliance with Spain but admits that it’s not really necessary for victory like an alliance with Turkey) and he personally believed it wouldn’t affect his alternate history scenario too much besides making the Holocaust and starvation of occupied countries begin earlier. Since Germany would capture 80% of the Soviet oil fields right at the beginning of the war, the war would end sooner at around 1944, and the earlier starvation would not manifest effects fast enough to change the war outcome.

[@micahsmith4237]

this youtube channel deletes the most obvious route to victory for germany. They should of allied the jewish people and offered most of that region after they won the war. The allies said no after WW1.

[@arvinalz9404]

Iran wasn't former ottoman land

[@VengefulLeprechauns]

@@arvinalz9404 I never said it was, I said by allying with Turkey Germany would have access to Iranian oil. Iran was an Axis aligned state until 1941 when Britain and the USSR invaded

[@alanlawson4180]

Around 20 years ago I was involved in some of the planning for the invasion of Iraq. We (Brits) were going to go into the N, through Kurdistan and head S, via Turkey. In the event the Turks wouldn't allow us to do this, but we did a lot of planning. The Main Supply Routes, Ports and roads in general would have been a nightmare then, let alone with the roads of 1941. There isn't a lot of flat ground in Turkey, and if the locals had been anti, as they might have been in 1941, well, good luck. And as for resistance by the Turks - they are really, really tough Soldiers. As an example, I remember reading years ago that while a (small) proportion of USA and UK soldiers captured in Korea collaborated, in major or minor ways, with their captors, and for ther nations the same thing happened in varying levels, the Turks had Zero collaboration.

[@MrHL5]

interesting

[@silvanastoeva8641]

The population was +20 mil so even if Bulgaria enters with 900k and Greece is persuaded it would be a tone of German equipment supplied just for conquering it. Food supply would also be needed as both were peasant states and had no option to feed while 10% of the population are at war which probably is a higher % of workforce perhaps 20/30 % I dunno.

[@silvanastoeva8641]

@Florian Cravic haha 10m from where? If the whole middle east comes at their help maybe. Turkey in that period was a peasant state and could be KOed. if Bulgaria and Greece joined forces supplied by legit German equipment would take out the European part really easy. The first thing is they will mobilise more forces faster and send them faster.

[@Dioramatikos]

If you take as example the Korean campaign, to tell us that the Turks are tough soldiers . . . Then something is wrong with your knowledge about Korean war. And something is more wrong with your mind. If you believe that the cruelty of the Turkish officers means ( tough soldiers ). Everyone who has basic idea wtf happened there with Turks. Knows that they just masacred from the Chinese. They failed to complete their goals and they used from their mongol state as expendable meat. All these means a poor slave army not a tough army. Don't you know that the Turkish officers beaten their soldiers in daily almost basis ? Don't you know how they had treaten the poor inocent soldiers during the coup of 2016. WTF are you ? RETARD ? You are admirer of the despotism and the eastern ancient barbarism ? You seem like lost in space. . .

[@oisnowy5368]

Loved the video, only would have liked a small tiny exploration of the idea of Germany and Turkey teaming up.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Yes, although that wasn't an option until the very end of Fall Blau. Apparently, if the Germans had reached Baku, the Turks may have joined the Axis. How much that is true though, or wishful thinking on the part of the Germans, I'm not sure.

[@jmbpaz]

@@TheImperatorKnight To me there is something missing. The Turks were part of the axis in WW1. How much harder could it have been to convince them to join the winning side in 1942? What did the Soviets do to anticipate this? When Odesa and Crimea were captured why didn’t the axis move into the Black Sea and send troops from there even without Turkeys help?

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

That what was exactly suggested in the original video: altcensored.com/watch?v=k7GZzu7XHs4

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

If my post is shadowbanned, just search in something non-censorious like through duckduckgo this phrase from link: k7GZzu7XHs4 Quite easy to get the original video.

[@benjamin112]

I think you're final statement was the most accurate. Estimations of nations' confidence and resolve.

[@trailingarm63]

Brilliant video, really enjoyed it. I think the ace in your argument is the warning a Turkey invasion would give Stalin. As you say, Barbarossa got off to a flyer because Stalin refused to believe it would happen. The same card also adds weight to your speculation about why Hitler paused his tanks during the BEF's retreat in France: keeping Britain in the war (however ineffectual it was) would help keep the bear asleep.

[@alexmckenna1171]

Turkey would have been no walkover. The Allies had no luck invading them in WW1. They had a great army; and anyway, why make an enemy of a powerful country?

[@cleanerben9636]

Before watching the video I'm going to guess the cruel mistress logistics plays a key factor as well as fighting through the Caucus mountains.

[@suleymankanburoglu6814]

Suleyman Kanburoglu Hi TIK, thank you for your wonderful videos. I want to make a small correction to the information contained in this video. At the time WW2 there were no bridges across the Bosphorus, Asia and Europe were connected only by ferries. First bridge across Bosphorus built in 1973.

[@alexgustavsson5955]

TIK, I think I know what that video was - The Alternative Hypothesis made a video about how Germany could have won ww2 or at least defeated the USSR, he has since deleted all of his videos on KZbin. His strategy as pertaining to Turkey was not to attack them, but to ally them by giving them parts of Greece and promising them territory lost in ww1 (Syria, Jordan etc.). I have read that even this would have been problematic, as supplying a significant attacking force through the Caucasus with the Turkish railway system of the time would've been difficult. Seeing as most of the oil producing parts were relatively close to the Turkish border though, it might have been possible to just bomb them to bits, severely reducing Soviet oil output throughout the rest of the war. It's definitely an interesting alt-history strategy. He also had a plan for allying Spain by promising them Morocco (which he stated they already asked for in the negotiations, but apparently the head of the Abwehr who was sent to seal the alliance was a traitor, and he made the deal fall through, and Hitler wanted to keep Vichy France as an ally and so was hesitant to give away French colonial possessions) - removing Gibraltar from the equation. I believe he also said something about allying Iran, but I watched the video long ago, and that wasn't crucial to the strategy anyway, certainly you would try to get as much oil from Iran as possible, probably by exporting arms. I remember some other things about that video, feel free to ask if you're interested.

[@marrvynswillames4975]

Wasnt Iran under allied occupation?

[@pipinggpipingg1487]

9:36 Turkey is also a really cold country in winter ,eastern parts of Turkey have seen minus 40 c and -20 is usual for winter ,way colder average winter temperatures compare to western europe .

[@johnburns4017]

The Turkish ambassador to the UK stated that the UK can raise 45 million troops from its empire so will win. This point was given credence when an army of 2.6 million was assembled in India to fight the Japanese. Turkey stayed cool towards Germany, except when they were in the southern USSR - in case of German invasion. Through 1942 British Commonwealth troops were fighting, or seriously expecting to be attacked, in: ♦ French North Africa; ♦ Libya; ♦ Egypt; ♦ Cyprus; ♦ Syria, where an airborne assault was expected, with preparations to reinforce Turkey if they were attacked; ♦ Madagascar. Fighting the Vichy French to prevent them from inviting the Japanese in as they had done in Indochina; ♦ Iraq; ♦ Iran. A potential German invasion from the north entailed expanded British troop deployment until the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad; Those troops were more in numbers than were facing Japan and Rommel combined.

[@brianlong2334]

In theory only, the UK could have about 10 to 11million that would be the total male population of the UK. Pluss Canada 3million. Australia New Zealand under 3million. And the Indian British army was basically the total number loyal to the empire the majority of Indian's wanted independence. So in reality more like 20million however they could never deploy most of that. The Brittish at best, without anyone else to fight could deploy 7million but the reality made it only possible for 1million to fight on mainland Europe from 1939 to 1943 and 2million form 44 to 45. By comparison Turkey could have 2million, and a total of about 4million.

[@johnburns4017]

@@brianlong2334 _"In theory only,"_ No. In practice Re-read what I wrote.

[@johnburns4017]

@@brianlong2334 Americans were Johnny-come-late in WW2. Apart from the US Philippino forces that surrendered in early 1942, the US had a couple of divisions in Gaudalcanal after August 1942 and one in New Guinea by November 1942. In 1943 the US managed to get up to six divisions in the Pacific, but still not matching the British or British Indian armies respectively. Until late 1943 the Australian Army alone deployed more ground fighting troops against the Japanese than the USA. The Americans never put more ground troops into combat against the Japanese at any point than just the British Indian Army alone, which was 2.6 million strong. The US had nowhere near 2.6 million men on the ground against the Japanese. The Soviets fielded over one million against the Japanese. Most Japanese troops were put out of action by the British and Soviets, not the USA - FACT. At the battles of Khohima and Imphal the Japanese suffered their worst defeat in their history up to that point. Then the British set the Eastern and Pacific fleets against the Japanese, not far off in numbers than the US fleet. The British Pacific Fleet assisted US troops protecting the western coast of Okinawa with its armoured carriers - they could operate way nearer to the coast than wooden decked US carriers. The Australian navy assisted the US navy all through the Japanese war. It was less than 10 months before the Japanese surrender before the US actually fielded an entire army against the Japanese. That was in the Philippines. Before that it was just divisions fighting on scattered islands for a month or so at a time. The British Commonwealth fielded over 100 divisions in 1942 alone, compared to the US total of 88 by the end of the war. In 1944/45 the British kept back 110,000 troops in the UK, while allowing the US to build up forces in Europe. The only nation that could raise massive armies that could fight on any front. The biggest agents in the defeat of the Nazis and Japanese were the British. Stop getting your history from Hollywood and poor History Channel documentaries.

[@brianlong2334]

@@johnburns4017 They couldn't get that many Indians to fight for them so... It's empire could only get about half that so re-read what I said about 20million or 22.5million at best. The USA claimed it could build before ww2 started 550,000 tanks in a war they produced only 106,000. So are you going to tell me they produced 550,000 tanks?.....lol

[@brianlong2334]

@@johnburns4017 The Japanese suffered about 800,000 KIA in the pacific or almost 900,000 total casualties. Usa suffered 100,000 KIA but about 400,000 total casualties. Other allies also suffered about 400,000 total casualties. The Russian's killed about 20,000 Japanese for a lose of about 10,000 KIA 5 days befor they surrendered so not that good a victory when they didn't actually do much fighting.... I suggest you try and help your original comment not try and argue about stuff that's not being argued about, I'm Australian btw not American I get a vibe you think I am lol! UK total that served was about 6million. Australia Zealand about 1million Canada 1.1 India 3million The other parts of the empire under half a million. Italy 5million USA 16million Germany 18million Russia 36million. Edit: USA had 4million men in the pacific that's more then the British and India...

[@briansteenson3036]

Thanks so much for this I have been wondering this since A-Level history

[@SamuelJamesNary]

The reason that Germany ultimately lost World War 2 relates to the extreme arrogance hubris at nearly every level... Political, military, economic, cultural, etc. They spent too much time drinking their own cool aid, as it were, and this in turn lead to mistakes that would complicate their strategic and economic positions... and their politics made real diplomacy with anyone difficult. Thus things snowballed... For example, I don't think there was any expectation that France and Britain would actually declare war to defend Poland, and thus when they did declare war... he was put in a position that he didn't expect to be in and had little real answer on how to win that conflict short of someone just deciding to surrender. And while he got lucky with regard to France in 1940 (with the exception of De Gaulle's Free French), Britain didn't surrender and since the German navy had been mauled winning the Norwegian campaign... Germany didn't have the naval resources to engage in a major naval campaign with a hostile shore. And from there in late 1940 to 1941 they then had a host of strategic and economic problems. For while Britain "could" be ignored, the fact that they were still in the war and presented major questions as to what to do. Invading the Soviet Union might ease some of Germany's immediate food issues, but they'd still need to get to the Caucasus to get the fuel needed to run their army and transport food from the Ukraine to Germany. The Mediterranean and Turkey might allow for a more immediate move against Britain and put strain on Churchill's government in the hopes that his replacement would return to a more appeasing strategy... and this would have the potential to irritate Stalin... In this, while Germany might be able to navigate either option, BOTH carried a great deal of risk that Hitler never paid attention to or realized. He did look down on the Soviets true... but he also never had any staff training and thus wouldn't fully understand the logistical needs of the army beyond a general concept, much of which would be driven by his own political biases. Thus... he was in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position and that he'd face some form of defeat REGARDLESS of what he did. For even if the military wins in the short term... his weaknesses in other areas would make that a short term gain... If he moves to "strengthen" those other areas by what he could do... such as using less oil, he'd weaken his military's ability to win on the battlefield. That's what represents the trap that Germany was in and ultimately why it lost the war.

[@paolofumarola2319]

Very nice video, though i think I saw that video, and I'd say you missed the point. That guy was making a case for a german victory though savy diplomacy, employing a carrot and stick approach to recive more support from acquired and potential allies, trying to get Spain in promising Gibraltar and Morocco, possibly Algeria, and Turkey promising lost lands in WWI like Iraq Syiria and Arabia. Were these nations to come in they could provide military advisors and support similarly to the Ottoman alliance in WWI, and with a combined effort, march to Baku through lands inhabited by peoples that weren't exactly extatic about being under the red flag... if done properly, with enough secrecy and preparetions, they could overwhelm not only the Caucasus, but Suez, Iraq and the entire Middle East, though a likely alliance with Persia.

[@fritzfieldwrangle-clouder7299]

The problem with the video was that it gave the carrot too much credit, it ignored the (self declared) existence of another stick and imagined there was no third or firth options. Look at the carrots offered Turkey. The really juicy ones aren't even Hitler's to offer, they are still in the hands of Vichy France and Britain and even the Russians have shown their interest so they are no more than wishful thinking carrots. The only carrot Hitler can offer Turkey is a mouldy indigestible Greece. It wouldn't be the anschluss would it, with Greeks lining the streets to welcome their Turkish brothers. Supposing Inonu was interested could he bank on his generals taking their troops there just to be shot and blown up by partisans. Then there's the 'stick', Hitler's very threat tells Turkey that Hitler isn't the only one with a stick. If Turkey accepts the mouldy carrot then Hitler can withdraw his stick but he's got no control over Stalin's stick so Turkey still faces a potential beating from the east. Ryan argues that the Turks have no other options but that's nonsense, Hitler may have humiliated the British and kicked them out of France but Turkey had done the same in the Dardanelles in WW1 and look how that turned out in the end. Hitler had just lost the battle of Britain and the Royal Navy was still in the Med and all over North Africa and the Middle east and then there was America. Both Britain and American had been helping Turkey with money and/or training so why shouldn't Turkey ask for support from them when under a direct threat from Hitler. Why not offer the Americans some ports in the Med. And then there's the issue of trust. Turkey is being invited to help Hitler stab his ally in the back after Hitler has reneged on the Munich agreement, is he trust worthy and will he be anymore trustworthy after Turkey has helped him become master of Europe, Russia, North Africa and the Middle East? You see, there is nothing certain in it for Turkey from Hitler either way, they might as well call Hitler's bluff and get the allies in.

[@paolofumarola2319]

@@fritzfieldwrangle-clouder7299 I'm not sure why the idea of getting Turkey on doesn't seem reasonable to you: with a nice secret agreement with its government, right before operation Barbarossa, a few of the German divisions stationed in the Balkans and Greece could easily with turkish help advance through the flat terrain in Syria and Iraq, defended only by weankened units and trainees, as most forces were barely holding Egypt, possibly even recieving Persian help; just as they could fairly easily shove aside resistance in the Caucasus, as most units stationed there would be shifted northwards to defend Eastern Ukraine and Moscow, as were they not todo that, the defence of the capital might have gone the other way. Couple that with concentrating more pressure on the Mediterranean British bases in Cyprus and Malta, possibly with the fall of Gibraltar and Egypt, which sure look plausible in this timeline, the Mediterranean would become an Axis lake. Not sure why you don't think that the Axis wouldn't be able to offer the Middle East either, as it was either British or French, and while sure, the Vichy government wouldn't be pleased, they had already given up Indochina, and by 1941 if I'm not mistaken Syria was already being taken over by Free French and British forces, so... Also, really? You think that in the middle of the shock from operation Barbarossa and after the purges the ill equipped Soviet garrisons south of the Caucasus, composed of numerous ethnicities oppressed by the Soviets, would not only halt a joint German Turkish offensive, but also push them back into their lands? A part from the fact that I don't think the Turks would mind making Kurdish and Armenian ethnic territories into a battlefield, but this scenario seems pretty farfetched to me...

[@fritzfieldwrangle-clouder7299]

​@@paolofumarola2319 In Ryan's video there's not one moment given to speculation on alternative outcomes and you are following his lead. Just because you describe an outcome it doesn't mean that it would actually happen. It has no more merit than Hitler saying "we have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.” How did that work out. Inonu had no desire to enter the war. Contrary to Ryan's assertion Turkey was not an ally of the Nazis and had no interest in serving them.

[@jefaus06]

One of the little known campaigns of the war was the securing of French Palestine by Commonwealth forces in June/July of 1941. This was done to ensure that Axis Powers did not use this as a staging location to invade Turkey and Iraq. They used Australians specifically because of the good relations between the French and Australians in the Great War.

[@ajsimo2677]

Absolutely right, a campaign that is not so well known. If I remember rightly, Free French forces were also involved. There were cases of Free French fighting the Vichy French, though perhaps only on a small scale.

[@sjonnieplayfull5859]

Not just French Palestine. Syria, Iraq and even Iran saw operations at the same time, in Iran even with Russian aid. And indeed, little known.

[@ajsimo2677]

@@sjonnieplayfull5859 Yep. In fact, wasn't Iran partially occupied by the Soviets, and partly by the British?

[@sjonnieplayfull5859]

@@ajsimo2677 that's what I meant, not supply aid but troops aid.

[@ajsimo2677]

@@sjonnieplayfull5859 Indeed

[@seanlogue7771]

2. The land route from Turkey to Caucus Oil is very dangerous. Turkey lost 1/2 their men in WW1 to Caucus weather alone

[@jvp1286]

Wouldn't a better strategy have been to pressure Turkey to join the axis, promising them the return of the Ottoman Empire?

[@EternalModerate]

I think they did, Turkey wasn't buying it; they'd already lost an empire by being dragged into the last war, they weren't keen on jumping into another one which would see them dismembered if they lost. Turkey probably would have joined the axis if it was ever obvious Germany would win, but that never happened.

[@hanoitripper1809]

They didnt want any return to the ottoman empire, kemal at one point fought against ottoman troops to secure indepemdance

[@EternalModerate]

@@hanoitripper1809 I think the idea would be to regain Ottoman territory lost during WW1, not a return to the Ottoman system.

[@hanoitripper1809]

@@EternalModerate even so simply for former territory, i dont think kemal wanted to have so many non turks in the new state to rule over. He wanted ethnic turks to live within the new modern state of Turkey and did his best to sever ties with the ottomans by removing any trace of arab roots in language and dress. Turkey was determind to stay nuetral in ww2 as it had endured the sever losses of ww1

[@wizardaxis944]

@@hanoitripper1809 But Mustafa Kemal never fought the ottomans. I'm from Turkey by the way. Although the ''ottoman government'' in Istanbul was against his ideals, there wasn't a physical clash.

[@Billberlin]

I think the biggest factor is the food crisis you mentioned at the beginning of the video. We must keep in mind the Nazi's experience with WW1 where Germany pretty much collapsed because of the food crisis in the homeland (there were other factors, but it sped things up considerably). Hitler needed the Ukraine, the fertile black earth regions, this is what he wanted first, oil was only in second place.

[@glennchartrand5411]

Logistics. Taking Turkey would have resulted in a supply line the Allies could easily attack.

[@TurkishRepublicanX]

The original video suggests an alliance with Turkey, "taking Turkey" through military conquest. If that could be accomplished it would result in a second Dunkirk around Egypt.

[@thephilosopherofculture4559]

There was also another context in 1941 that we cannot fathom today, which is that in the winter of 1939-1940 the Soviet Union had lost a war against Finland. The image of the USSR had gotten a very deep dent.

[@flawlessbinary7449]

His argument wasn’t to invade turkey but to befriend it.

[@fireironthesecond2909]

Wouldn’t change anything

[@flawlessbinary7449]

@@fireironthesecond2909 why? Have you seen his video?

[@fireironthesecond2909]

@@flawlessbinary7449 because Turkey did not have a well enough equipped army to even break the Soviet line by themselves and Turkey joining the Axis would show Stalin what was about to happen.

[@flawlessbinary7449]

@@fireironthesecond2909 the video debunked that

[@steadyzz2371]

@@flawlessbinary7449 it would never happen. Turkey remained kemalist throughout ww2 (Ataturks ideology). A civil war would break out immediately of this happened or turkey turned fascist. Turkey was a half authoritarian regime with democratic elections, hitler would have had to convince them to give up the principles they fought by during their war of independence and also their president ismet inonu managed to get Russia to back down from the claims on the Bosporus and the allies from interfering in their region all by diplomacy.

[@m7md7100]

I always watch your videos during my online classes, I really enjoy them.

[@ystudbeast3]

Invading Turkey as opposed to the Soviet Union would be a logistical nightmare as well when considering terrain differences

[@ntskl]

My grandmother was taken prisoner from Soviet Ukraine and was made a labourer in a German munitions factory. She worked there until liberated by the allies.

[@coling3957]

Turkey played a clever game throughout ww2. they declare war on Germany - in April 1945... and you thought Americans were always late for wars!

[@melherd4672]

Excellent analysis!

[@scottnieradka6836]

Also there is the rail infrastructure, Turkey did invest comparatively heavily in rail in the 30s but I believe it was pretty scant in the east and didnt go to the su border.

[@christophersmith8316]

A reason is that the Turks didn't want the Soviets to use it to support an invasion of Turkey

[@5CoolestGuysEver]

I have seen the video mentioned. It argues not that Germany should have invaded Turkey but that Hitler should have been harsher with them and made them allow him to invade the Caucasus and to go through Iran straight to Baku. He argues Hitler should've tried basically anything for Turkey to join the Axis.

[@alexdunphy3716]

I was wondering if it refered to his video. I suspected right away when it said the video was unavailable lol

[@shinokiba]

Everyone: The election is tomorrow. Get out and vote! TIK: Here is a video about the German oil crisis during WW2.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I'm anti-political, remember 😉

[@ieuanhunt552]

He isn't American. Why would an American election effect his uploading schedule

[@Paris-xv9sj]

@@TheImperatorKnight yes politic divide people sadly...

[@GuilhermePereira-vi6vc]

@@ieuanhunt552 what nacionality is he? Do you know?

[@ieuanhunt552]

@@GuilhermePereira-vi6vc can't you tell by his accent. He's English

[@grekusPotatus]

An other reason was that the Germans didn't want to invade. For them the whole Balkan Campaign was forced on them by the British when they landed troops on Greece. They didn't want to further escale it.

[@JetFighters]

It was forced on them by the Italians failure to take Yugoslavia. Pretty most of that region was supposed to be taken by Italy but they were completely unable to do anything meaningful.

[@grekusPotatus]

@@JetFighters I don't think so. The British forcefully landed troops on Greece and the Germans turned south to destroy the British because they would have bombed the Romanian oil fields so Barbarossa wouldn't even be a thing. They didn't care too much about the Italians.

[@illjan]

perhaps stalin could have also reacted when he suspected hitlers intentions after he took turkey. i mean, stalin was known for ignoring the warnings of his secret service, but when hitler takes turkey, i think he would get even more paranoid and even intervene in the german-turkish war. Maybe, maybe not

[@xXxKAMIKAZExXx]

Hitler heard about the Emu War. He’s crazy enough to fight the Soviets, but birds? No thank you!

[@JBGARINGAN]

He didn't want to, the plan was to have the Afrika Korps and Rommel to break through all the way through North Africa take the Suez and drive up North through Mesopotamia and perhaps take the Iraqi oil along the way up to the Caucasus the main goal and to invade the Soviet Union from another side. Perhaps even more unrealistically ambitiously link up with the Japanese front in Afghanistan as if they would have conquered India at all even by then and go through Central Asia into Russia.

[@dennis2376]

Did not TIK say in a video that the Germans where near the maximum range for supply in the Soviet Union? If they had so many problems with transportation in the Soviet Union how could they possible get troops, planes, and supplies to Turkey? This brings up the question why did German get involved in the Mediterranean, it just pulled more troops and supplies from the primary goal?

[@dragosstanciu9866]

Initially Rommel's mission in North Africa was to prevent the defeat of Italy there. Rommel however went far beyond this mission and tried to defeat the British and to take Egypt, the Germans overestimated their capabilities in North Africa and deployed more and more troops there.

[@user_____M]

Even if Turkey joined the Axis, an attack into the Caucasus or the Middle East seems like a dandy dream because Anatolia was basically isolated, agricultural and with poorer infrastructure than the Soviet roads, not to mention that Anatolia and the Caucasus are mountains (easier to defend).

[@steadyzz2371]

You also have to look at Turkeys politics. They were the only nation that fully recovered from the First World War and defeated 3 superpowers at the same time. Turkey was the most exhausted from war along with giving thousands of casualties from their independence war

[@powderbeast5598]

Excellent question , & answered.

[@bigboyrambo2009]

Turkish people have never been conquered but why didn't Germany go through Turkish land?

[@godofblitzkrieg5466]

Thanks for the video, Sir.

[@24pavlo]

4:57 Donbas stands for Donets basin, not Don basin.

[@Diwana71]

🙏. I will studiously follow all your presentations. Many thanks and our respects for preparing these.

[@Chasstful]

Seems to me that the topography of Turkey would have been problematic, its basically one mountain range after another. Also, what was the disposition of Turkey politically? If Hitler could have threatened them and established a puppet government, that would be one thing, but if he had to invade and occupy the entire country, it would have been more trouble than it was worth.

[@Kriophoros]

People keep forgetting that Turkey smacks right between all 3 powers of WW2. Everyone knew if one side attacked, the other 2 would never leave it alone, so the Turkish government played the best hand, i.e. staying neutral and mooching as much as possible. Thus getting them into the Axis was out of the question as long as the balance of power was unchanged, unless Hitler could pull off something like what the Brits had done in Yugoslavia. Now if he could, we are in very speculative history, but certainly the Brits would not let the Nazi waltz right in Eastern Anatolia, and even Stalin should react negatively, because he would be extremely stupid to have the Nazi that close the vital oil fields in Caucasus.

[@DNAManiac]

Armed Neutruality and was very strict about staying out of the war. Also, I believe the army was very royal to head of government since he was a hero of turkish of war independence and a close friend of Atatürk.

[@Chasstful]

@@DNAManiac Thanks, that's about what I thought. WW1 was also very hard on Turkey so it seemed that had no appetite for involvement. These are all good reasons why Hitler didn't invade through Turkey.

[@DNAManiac]

@@Chasstful the motto was "Peace at home, peace at world." Also bosphorus would be a logistical nightmare that would haunt the logisticians till their death. Very hard currents and constant danger of enemy planes, warships and even submarines... And you have to keep the goodies flowing no matter what.

[@sean640307]

I've heard this argument about invading Turkey before, too, and mostly came to the same conclusion. A counter argument put to me was had Germany not helped the Italians in North Africa and gone through to Turkey instead, they'd have been more successful. My counter argument to that was that it would have ceded the entire North African area to the British, and they would have continued to have dominance over the entire Mediterranean and with no viable threat to their forces in Egypt, etc, would have been in a very, very strong position to have aided Turkey if requested, or at the very least, to have prevented any threat to the Suez and the Persian oil reserves. It's an interesting "what if", but no matter which way it gets carved up, the Russians had to be taken out first.

[@djquikdr]

TIK explains it in such a way that you can understand the reasoning, the logic why Hitler made specific choices at that time and situation. Most people think (reasoning) from a post WW2 perspective. In most general situations the logic from a retrospect perspective is different then the logic at that time. But great video TIK. Thank you!

[@podcastler]

Anatolia is not suited for blitzkrieg tactics . Thrace mostly flat but inner anatolia extremely hilly and perfect for hit and run attacks

[@stratejisturk3020]

Turkey : Win a war by being neutral Switzerland : Wait, this is illegal (İt's quote from Doğukan YEL)

[@davidwilkins3781]

Great video!

[@CoreyStudios2000]

I think that Hitler would have won the war if Turkey, during the 30’s, would’ve become a Fascist regime that mixed Ottoman nostalgia with Kemalism and Turanism.

[@aweirdredguy3885]

your grandparents would have grown up in poverty then

[@icefl4re597]

Nah, Ataturk is still alive and his vision is that Turkey shall be isolationist in general. The point of Ataturk is to get rid as much Ottoman influence as possible. It's the result of the modernist - Islam divide that happened since 1830s (Tanzimat).

[@icefl4re597]

@Ammar Hanafi Look for "The Turkish Century" trilogy. Watch it. Seriously. Tanzimat & subsequent modernization efforts in the Ottoman empire is not just about the military. There's also the issues with ethnic & religious minorities (there's a difference between being tolerated and having rights as a person), newer ideologies of nationalism and how they handle it. The Janissaries are already corrupt for a long time, however the absolute last straw before the Tanzimat began were the Greek Independence war, and it has its own reasons.

[@charlieharper4975]

You mean like Turkey is becoming now?

[@CoreyStudios2000]

@@charlieharper4975 Erdogan seems more like a typical authoritarian reactionary than an actual fascism, to be honest.

[@opperturk124]

Nice video, love you're work

[@endcensorship874]

Geography: the determining factor to all wars.

[@tomasf247]

Great video Very informative During this lockdown you really are an essential service. Thanks mate Keep up the awesome work

[@jebise1126]

well... even if germany had enough fuel they would still lost it the war not to mention barabrossa failed not just because of oil but many other reasons

[@auguststorm2037]

9:33 I wouldn't say Soviets and British wouldn't cooperate in Turkey. They did cooperate quite well during operation Countenance in August 1941 when Soviets and British invaded Iran because they feared the country could join Axis.

[@keithgoh123]

Everyone in Soviet Russia: Hitler is invading us. Stalin: Nonsense! Hitler is my best friend,

[@flying_hussar3034]

very good analysis

[@squamish4244]

I have a great idea for ensuring there is no food crisis in Germany in 1941: don't start a war that creates a food crisis in the first place. I know, the idea is pure insanity!

[@thecanadiankiwibirb4512]

Bruh I was considering becoming a patron just to ask this question!

[@JMRolf1]

Clicked just for the thumbnail xD. Fabulously goofy TIK.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Yes, Terri did a great job with this one 😂

[@Spectre4913]

I wouldn't say it's the main reason why they lost. I would say it's the main reason they lost in the timeframe they did. I don't think there was any way they could of won. The US was making sooo much stuff.

[@KittSpiken]

I thought he didn't because he was a vegetarian.

[@aeg9065]

this Turkey can consent tho

[@KittSpiken]

@@aeg9065 would it?

[@aeg9065]

@@KittSpiken depends. İsmet İnönü was leader back then. He decided and took measures not to join the war at all costs. But we never know

[@KittSpiken]

@@aeg9065 weird name for a big ole bird.

[@aeg9065]

@@KittSpiken in Turkish the name of the animal is hindi, from india. weird

[@andriy1000]

Great topic, thank you for explanation

[@harryflashman3141]

That image of the Jewish children coming or going to school with their well-groomed appearance was hard to look at in view of their probable fate.

[@Bialy_1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84 Plenty of kids that morning was hoping to go to the school first time after summer breake but instead they got visit in bed from Ju 87... Most of the kids murdered in that war by Germans were Slavic. "ich Wilde). The village Vogt (Polish: Wójt) Teofil Kielar was ordered to bury the victims with the help of other witnesses. He asked the German commander, whom he had known from prior inspections and food acquisitions, why the children too had been killed. Dieken answered in German, "So that you would not have any problems with them." " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_and_Wiktoria_Ulma

[@MalrickEQ2]

@@Bialy_1 Doesn't need to be a debate about which kids deserved to go to school more. All of them did.

[@dinc4973]

10:12 there were no bridges on istanbul at 1940s that time btw

[@ExceptionalPleb]

Churchill said that he was "happy to fight Germany down to the last Russian".

[@guestimator121]

+Exceptional Pleb It is an English proverb "We will fight until our last ally"

[@planet_69]

beast against beast

[@Phantomrasberryblowe]

Germany lost more of their troops (killed, wounded or POW) on the Western front than in the East - a benefit of letting the enemy know that if they surrender, not only will they not be killed, but they’ll be better fed than when they were serving soldiers…

[@hermitoldguy6312]

Prove it.

[@Phantomrasberryblowe]

And a large majority of the Eastern Front units were undermanned infantry, and a far more significant percentage of the units facing West were mechanised, and often at or near full strength. In sheer combat power, the removal of ten percent of divisions (say 20 divisions) from the Eastern Front to face the Western Allies (happened 3 times - Tunisia/Mediterranean 1942, Sicily/Italy 1943, and France 1944) looks a lot more significant if it involves moving 50% of the available Panzers and 70 or 80% of the high quality, full strength, specially equipped, Paratroop or Mountain or Waffen SS divisions. In the Russia one was a highly trained and superbly equipped mechanised army of about thirty divisions. The other was a vast and largely unskilled force of badly equipped and horse mobile infantry, which trailed along to try and perform the role of garrison troops. For the Germans, those thirty high value divisions were of greater value than the other 170. This was obvious when many of them had to be sent to the Mediterranean or the West. While a transfer of 18-20 divisions to other fronts may not sound much, it amounted to more than half of their high tech strikeforce. In Europe, the vast quantities of Geman infantry being slowly chewed up in Russia were not nearly as significant as the much smaller numbers of mechanised and anti-aircraft troops and planes being slowly chewed up by the western allies. The infantry were of little value, it was the mechanised forces which broke the budget.

[@paulbenedict1289]

Oil wasn't the main reason why Hitler attacked the Soviets, because he was getting oil from the Soviets already. The simple fact that Stalin did not attack India by January 1941, meant that he was not interested in long term alliance with Germany. He wanted central Europe and only the allies could 'give' him that. Hitler understood the situation and knew that waiting longer would only make invasion more difficult and increased the chances of Soviets invading first.

[@themaskedmenace314]

I'd be curious to know how accurate Polish military intelligence was regarding Soviet military capabilities? It seems obvious German intelligence was poor.

[@brianlong2334]

The hole world thought that the Russian's were going to lose when the Germans invaded them, even the Russian's did till the end of operation Barbarssa then they relised thet it wasn't over and had only just started. Basically the Germans estimated about half the Soviet strength for example they thought. The Russian's would have no more then 5million troops avalable at the start. Which was right but they didn't take in to account the reserves of which there were about 11million. Tanks they estimated no more then 10,000 to 11,000, however reality was more like 20,000 to 25,000. Aircraft they estimated 20,000 yet it was more like 40,000.

[@mustafahaithammohammedalha5581]

Hi TIK, how are you doing, it's been a while since the last battlestorm video and we are really eager to see the next episode, hope it will be uploaded soon, thanks for the effort.

[@raulduke6105]

Ask any WW1 vet who fought the Turks how they fought especially on their own soil

[@frankatwood1770]

And what if the Axis offered them Syria and Iraq for joining their effort?

[@DerDop]

The russians butchered them.

[@DNAManiac]

@@frankatwood1770 First, Turkey was really keen on staying out of the war regardless of any offers. Second, Turkey isn't really interested in expanding southeast. A few cities in the northern part of Syria were really considered Turkish and besides that, there was nothing of interest. Balkans would be more of a price from the Turkish perspective.

[@kasadam85]

@@DNAManiac What do blanks have that middle east countries do not?

[@luthlorienn]

@@kasadam85 Middle east was never a home for Turks. Ottomans conquered it just beacuse they could. Ottomans conqured Balkans long before they conqured East Anatolia. (it’s in modern Turkey now) They saw Balkans and West Anatolia as home. Pashas (powerful state officals or war lords) were always from Balkans or West Anatolia (Eagean part mostly) not Middle East. Turks settled mostly in Anatolia and Balkans. Middle East was inhabited by Arabs. Ottomans constracted buildings mostly in Balkans and West Anatolia, they didn’t care about the rest parts. You can google Sarajevo (Bosnian capital) or Skopje (North Macedonian capital, the old part of it) or Edirne, Bursa (Turkish cities). They lool similiar because of the Ottoman style. I have to add that Middle East was and is seen as backwards in Turkey. The new seculer Turkish Republic wanted nothing to do with them. They even abolished the caliphate for it. Arabs were a threat to secularism. I hope it helps.

[@Douglas.Scott.McCarron]

Just looking at my maps of Europe. From what I can see there is one dual track rail like from Bulgaria to the Soviet Union, running through mountains, a few swamps, and then REAL MOUNTAINS. Then you get to the Soviet Union with it one rail line of a different gauge. But you still have not reached any oil. The Caucasus Mountain range is still in the way. You can then either go East towards Baku or North West toward Maikop (or Maykop I have also seen it spelled), adding hundreds of more miles or kilometers to the drive. The Germans would probably have to go both directions so as to not get attacked from behind of either thrust, and then there are the Caucasus Mountains that attacks can come from and thus need to be defended against, along hundreds of kilometers of front. And once you get there and take the oil fields how do you get the oil back to Germany? Over the exposed rail lines you just captured running hundreds of kilometers through not so friendly lands before you get it out of Turkey. If you have the fuel to run the trains to get the oil back. And this ignores that while the Turkish military didn't have much offensive possibilities, it sure had massive defensive possibilities. It was a very large and trained army. Plus with the UK probably offering support along with the Soviet Union, it would have been quite the problem. In my opinion.

[@Drain_Life_Archive]

Turkey wasn't allied to Nazi Germany so this was never going to happen. The direct route through Poland makes far more sense. It was already conquered.

[@Bialy_1]

"already conquered" yea less than 49% was German and over 51% was conquered by Soviet Union... Soviet Union was an ally of Germany and its kinda funny that people like you not aware of basic histrical facts are ready and happy to teach history. :D Stalin also overcrowded its part of Poland with soviet soldiers.

[@Drain_Life_Archive]

@@Bialy_1 Saying they were "allied" is a stretch. It was a non-aggression pact. Also Germany invaded first and did most of the work. The Russians didn't show up until 2 weeks later when Poland was already throwing everything it had to the west side in a desperate attempt to survive the invading Germans. These are basic "historical" facts.

[@bambi-wj2ol]

hi TIK, brilliant analysis, I loved it, questionable however because the Turkish track had good luck thanks to the German / Turkish friendship pact for access to the Black Sea via its ally Romania and the, the faster conquest of the Caucasus where is the black gold ... BAKOU, still would it have been necessary that his ally has a large military and transport fleet? do you find this lead wrong?

[@Axisjampa]

We began November with a Thanks givin' topic. Not that British, right TIK? Or is it a Tanks Giving?

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Yeah I should have waited until later this month to release this 😂 well, this can be my early Thanksgiving video for everyone!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I like "tanks giving"! I'm going to use that 😂

[@Axisjampa]

@@TheImperatorKnight oh please, do. That will be fun. 🤣🤣🤣

[@robertschumann7737]

I have often wondered why Hitler didn’t go through Turkey as well. I would have to disagree about Stalin being alarmed. Barbarossa showed how convinced Stalin was that Hitler was not preparing to attack the Soviet Union. He ignored the buildup of millions of troops and thousands of tanks and anti-guns. Hitler could have easily convinced him that he grabbed Turkey to go after the English occupied Middle East. The Nazi’s were already fighting in Africa and opening up an additional front against the British land forces made a lot of sense. He could have easily given Stalin full rights to move the Black Sea fleet through. I do agree that after France, Hitler was too big for his britches and he clearly thought the Soviet Union was going to be an easy victory. I would have to agree with Hitler, that is exactly how it should have been. The army and Slav peasants were so demoralized from Stalin’s purge that if the Nazi’s had come through as liberators and treated the Russians as allies and not slaughtering them in massive numbers, that is exactly what would have happened. I am confident a large part of the Russian army would have defected to the Germans and the Nazi’s could have easily made Russia into a puppet state similar to Vichy France. He could dismantle the Soviet Union and give each ethnic group their own land and country. He wouldn’t need to keep 60 divisions there if he pacified the people instead of terrorizing them. But then again, Hitler was Hitler and there is a reason he is still seen as one of if not the biggest monsters to ever control a country. Stalin created more fear and killed millions more people, yet he is still seen as a lessor evil than Hitler. Could you imagine the choice of the Ukrainian people back in the war years? Choose to fight Hitler and return to Stalin or fight for Hitler and try to avoid Stalin returning. I am so glad I only have to live under Trump in power. He only lines his pockets. I might not agree with pretty much anything he does but at least I don’t have to fear someone from the SS or KGB kicking in my door. I only have to fear a Trump supporter getting in my face because I don’t agree with him.