Sweden and USA/USSR War Readiness

[Curry]

I dont remember seeing this subject in my searches of past threads so here goes.

Why is it that the USA war readiness increases so much more than the USSR war readiness when the axis invades Sweden.

Axis invades Sweden and the

- USA war readiness goes up around +16%

- USSR war readiness goes up around +5%

I would think that with Sweden so close in proximity to the USSR, and accross from the Batic and Gulf of Botnia, and influencing concerning control of Finland, that if the Axis invaded Sweden that USSR war readiness would increase more than the US readiness.

If the USSR readiness increased at the same rate as the USA, around another 10%, it might help the allied cause and help stop the "axis cookie cutter". I dont think it would stop it but it would help the allied cause with the USSR coming in earlier. And that 10% would make it harder for the axis to get control over Spain or another minor before the Russian war.

For SCII this would be something I would change.

[ November 25, 2003, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Curry ]

[Bill101]

Agreed. I think that there should be tougher penalties for non-historic actions.

Let's make it harder, but not impossible, for the Axis players.

Also, there should be tougher penalties for the allies attacking neutrals like Ireland. Either a bigger reduction in US war readiness, or the need to deal with partisans.

[Curry]

Bill, agreed with allies too. Especially for attacking Ireland.

[JerseyJohn]

Excellent points.

Agreed on the Swedish situation but with the rejoinder that, as I've said from day one, Germany historically had nothing to gain by invading Sweden (it's trade was automatically locked into Germany's!) and everything to lose (sabotage and war damage, resistance movement, etc. & etc. ..).

These things are never reflected, weren't in either COS or HiCom and aren't in SC; but they should be. Shaka, Kurt, KDG, several others and myself had a few interesting threads a while back on neutrals influencing major country economies. Hubert commented that he had bookmarks in them so I'm confident we'll see that reflected in SC2.

There was large scale anti-British IRA activity during WW I and postwar pressure from the American public was one of the driving forces behind Britain granting Irish Independance. This came only a short time before WW II and a British invasion of Independant Ireland might well have prevented the United States from entering the war except as a result of direct German attack. The truth is the United States was not entering the War in Europe and only did so because of an Axis Declaration of War; without that it was the Pacific ONLY!

Realizing American reluctance to enter the European War, the UK would have been insane to invade Ireland unless it joined the Axis. Such an invasion of neutral Ireland would have killed the Lend-Lease Bill at the very least.

[kurt88]

it's trade was automatically locked into Germany's!

If this was represented in SC, by having an Mpp flow from Sweden to Germany, the Axis player would be less inclined to attack the Swedes. Especially if Russian WE would rise significantly.

And if also minors could have a better OoB and even a HQ it would make things even harder for Axis to go way out of history.

Here's a link to a thread by JJ about minor HQ's

and

A link to a thread about diplomacy

Rereading these threads, I really hope something along these lines will be included in SC2 alongside a good weathersystem and some of Edwin P's great event ideas.

[Edwin P.]

Re: Ideas re: Sweden

I would keep the current readiness penalties but would add other consequences such as;

1> German DOW Sweden then German production drops by 5/10MPP per turn until Sweden is conquered as Sweden halts shipment of iron to Germany.

2> If Germany DOW Sweden then Spain may mobilize a HQ unit and start accumulating MPPs from its own production base. The chance of this occuring increases the longer it takes Germany to conquer Sweden. (This will make any invasion of Spain more difficult).

3> A successful German attack on Sweden may also embolden Turkey to attempt an annexation of Syria or Iraq (making it harder for Germany to attack Russia from the south by annexing Iraq) and it may even convince the Turks to open up a new supply route to Russia from Ankara, thus allowing Russia to build troops in the Caucaus area even if this region can not trace a supply line north to Moscow. This would probably be the most powerful disincentive to attack Sweden as the cookie cutter strategy is to cut Russia in two so new units can't be built in southern Russia.

4> Sweden may respond to a German attack on Vichy France and Spain by Mobilizing its reserve and starting to entrench its units. (making it harder to take Sweden - say 30% if Vichy is attacked, +30% if Spain is attacked, +30% if Switzerland is attacked)

5> Add a chance for Partisans during the winter months, the partisans would force Germany to guard the Norwegian and Swedish mines. The allies could increase the chance of this occuring by supplying the partisans.

[ November 25, 2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Kurt

Glad you agree and thanks for linking those threads -- I feel fairly certain Hubert will incorporate things along these lines when making SC2.

Switzerland was in a similar situation. At times they helped Germany by taking up the slack in industries such as ball-bearings, which were hard hit in Germany by the Allies. Also, but diverting electric power to German industrial regions when dams were knocked out by Allied bombing raids. Occasionally the Americans would show their displeasure by releasing bombs that strayed across the Swiss border and Switzerland would back off a bit!

As mentioned in one or both of those threads, no European Nation was able to go through the war in a state of real and total neutrality. Portugal and Spain, in eonomic terms, played it both ways, passing goods through to the UK from Europe and to Germany from South America and even the United States as a third party. There was nothing sinister about any of that, it was only an uninvolved country conducting commerce.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Good ideas, particularly the partisan activity.

The problem with Turkish annexation of either Syria or Iraq would mean it's going to war with the UK, as British troops were in both locations to keep their governments pro-allied. Such annexations would have put Turkey into the Axis rather than the other way around.

My overall impression, historically, is that Turkey would have joined the Axis if it thought that side would emerge victorious! Therefore, I think Turkish, and for that matter Spanish, what-ifs should be heavily weighted toward Germany. This includes an Axis invasion of Vicy France. As stated earlier, that would have served to open up territories that both Italy and Spain would have occupied.

The Spanish, Portucguese and Turks weren't morally concerned about German activities, the only concern was over their own self-interests. Turkey certainly had more than enough old scores to settle with the British and French and Franco would have welcomed the opportunity to control Gibraltar and expand outward from Morocco into Algeria and the West Africa region.

[Curry]

JJ - really good points on both Sweden and Ireland. My thinking but you said it much better.

I would hope as you indicated that Mr. H.C. would consider these things for SCII.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn,

I think that the Brits would have accepted a Turkish re-conquest of Iraq and Syria so long as it did not affect trade with Russia (and they allowed UK overflights to Russia) and the Turks promised not to move on Egypt, which was vastly more important to England. Russia would have accepted this also, as they could not afford to open up a second front.

Both countries would also be loth to push Turkey into the Axis Alliance.

Turkey itself, would probably have accepted this as it would 1)still remain neutral and 2)could continue to trade with both sides in the conflict while regaining control of the lands it lost after WWI and deeply embarrassing the French and English.

So you have these options;

1. Turkey threatens to Annex Iraq and Syria and backs down due to British threat.

2. Turkey annexes Iraq & Syria with UK acceptance

3. Turkey annexes Iraq and Syria, UK declares war on Turkey and Turkey joins the Axis

4. UK loses Egypt and Turkey annexes Iraq and Syria.

5. UK loses Egypt and Turkey does nothing.

6. Turkey annexes Iraq and Syria and allows Allied Forces to Operate to/from Russia and UK cities can trace a supply line to Russia (increasing their value to 10). Perhaps, they also allow Allied units to transit the straits to the Black Sea?

7. Turkey remaines Neutral

Moreover, this options would be relatively easy to model in SC2 - aka the Russian annexation of the Baltic States - and would definitely spice up the activity in the Middle East.

As discussed in other posts the chance for Turkish Annexation of Syria and Iraq would be influenced by these events;

1. Surrender of France (+1%, ie 1 in 100 games)

2. Axis Attack on Vichy France (+5%, 1 in 20 games)

3. Axis Conquest of Egypt (25%)

4. Deal with the UK, if German Transports are sighted off the coast of Vichy Syria or the Germans conquer Vichy Syria the UK might agree to turn over Iraq and/or Syria to Turkey to prevent annexation by Germany (say a 5% that the Brits can convince Turkey to Annex Syria with a 10% that Turkey also demands control of Iraq - thus the Brits can make this offer, but Turkish acceptance is not a sure bet. Perhaps such an offer could also drive the Iraqis to join the Axis to protect themselves from the Turks?)

5. UK Surrender due to German Sea Lion (50%)

Moreover, the % parameters for this option could be set in the editor to allow players to experiment with different settings and for play testing.

PS: If German Sea Lion did succeed I would like to see Turkey Join the Allies, as a play balance option in games vs the AI with Turkey expanding to control Syria, Iraq and Egypt. Perhaps this would only occur at Genius Level AI vs a Human Axis player. This would give the allies 3 Ports, 6 cities and 2 oil fields, a much needed boost.

In fact I could see an entire diplomatic routine being built around this option with the Turkish AI response based on several factors including whether or not the Axis Minor countries have joined the Axis and the presence of German troops on the border of Istanbul.

Example: German troops on the Border of Istanbul(ie not Bulgarian troops) will cause the Turks to 100% reject any UK request for transit rights through the Straits, if the UK demands this for accepting Turkish annexation of Syria and Iraq.

[ November 25, 2003, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Curry Appreciated -- probably because this is the twelth time all this has come up and it gets more polished each time.

Edwin

All interesting possibilities.

Let me put my view on Turkey and Spain this way and it will make more sense: Neither country was calling it's own shots, they were both dealing from positions of weakness and fear of various major powers.

Spain, on the one hand was immediately afraid of German Land power and it wasn't till Franco felt certain that Germany had committed itself to the East that he began setting his own course. I think Hubert is correct in the game to have Spain join the Axis pretty much after the fall of London.

Franco's other fear was of British coastal attacks and blockade. Once he was certain that the UK was no longer a threat, and with German success on the British Isles the Royal Navy would diminish in his view and be replaced by German land power. The wise choice would then have been to join the Axis, in all likelihood picking up Gibraltar, bloodlessly, at the peace talks held in London .

A German invasion of Vichy with enough force at the ready to invade Spain as well would again have shifted his thinking and probably pushed him into the Axis, despite fear of British Naval Power. An additional incentive would have been former French colonial territories which Germany would have offered along with Gibraltar.

Franco's view would have been no point preparing for an invasion that could be avoided. To begin with Spain would have fallen, if it held out more than a few weeks his position would not have been secure enough to insure his remaining in power, he knew that, and would not have risked a war, but if forced to take sides prior to Germany's disassters in Russia, the choice would have most certainly been Germany.

There's no escaping the fact that Germany had the unquestioned ability to level his armies and that's a big incentive for joining rather than opposing.

Similar situation with Turkey. Under normal circumstances Britain weilded uncontestable power in the Middle East. With the fall of France that diminished. With Germany and Russia cooperatine with one another the British influence would have been reduced even further.

Turkey needed to be careful with Britain, but it feared both Germany and Russia. Despite her global empire, it was very unlikely the UK could successfully invade the Penninsula. Not so with the other two. I'm sure that, as the Balkans lined up behind the Axis the Turks had to make a cold and calculating reassessment of it's position. Hitler tried to coax it into the Axis because he didn't want to directly invade it. Stalin would have liked to move into the Middle East but he was juggling British and German reactions.

If you're leading Turkey and it's circa 1940, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary are either in the Axis or sure to join. The USSR has just grabbed half of Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania along with part of Finland. Germany is on a rampage in the West ... What diplomatic course do you set? Do you become idealistic and decide to align against the Axis because they've attacked Spain or Vichy or Sweden? Or do you figure it's coming to be your own turn and perhaps those three Balkan neighbors had the right idea?

What I'm getting at is the key isn't a stiffening reaction to Axis aggression; exactly the opposite!

All three Balkan States might well have preferred neutrality. Perhaps the newsreel footage of Poland, the Low Countries and France shown with great frequency by the German Diplomatic Corps had more to do with their joining the Axis than any positive incentives Germany had to offer.

The one and only motive was survival. Hitler was perhaps over anxious to invade Russia. Underestimating the task he assumed a quick victory and total dominance of Europe afterwards. The opposite may have worked more effectively; perhaps playing the USSR off against Britain. Pressure on Turkey from both Germany and Russia might well have forced it into the Axis. If the diplomatic course failed a combined military one would not have.

Probably the diplomatic reactions need to be seen from two perspectives; with and without a German invasion of the USSR. In 1940 Stalin wanted cooperation with Hitler and Japan favored a three way alliance! It was only Hitler's contempt for the Slavs and his obsession with a Russian conquest that prevented these ideas from developing further.

Taking that into account would also necessitate a re-evaluation of U. S. neutrality. Does the United States suddenly awaken when Russia is pouring into Persia and Germany masses along the English Channel in earnest?

These are great possibilities and more so if evaluated in terms of realistic interaction.

Naturally, an option should always be maintained of Hitler following his historical course and plowing ahead with his Eastern Crusade. A war to destroy, rather than conquer, a major power.

The other options would involve a less obsessed Axis Leader.

[Edwin P.]

I agree with you that Turkey wanted to remain neutral as it could not afford another fiasco like it suffered during WWII.

At the same time I think that under the right circumstances its leadership would have considered taking back its lost territories if this could be accomplished without dragging it into the war between Russia and Germany.

This would have been easiest to do in the case of Vichy Syria and possible with Iraq, especially if Turkish diplomats could have convinced the British Government to approve it and it was not seen as a direct threat to German aspirations. The chance for this acceptance would dramatically increase after Germany and Russia are at war and UK was fighting the war alone in the west.

Given the German focus on the Eastarn front Germany would have most likely accepted Turkish annexation of Vichy Syria, in my opinion, so long as Turkey did not join the allies. In fact Hitler would have probably regarded it as just punishment for the French. The Brits could have accepted it so long as Turkey did not join the Axis and continued to trade with their forces in Egypt.

Turkey was weak when compared to the UK and Germany but it was strong in the area of Vichy Syria, lands which were not critical to either major power. Another element to consider is the speed of transportation during the 1940s and the difficulty of waging a war far from your national borders.

[ November 26, 2003, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Agreed, but are we talking about game history or real history?

In the game Syria is Vichy. Historically it wasn't -- or at least not for long! I think this is what we're getting hung up.

Historically, there were British troops east of Sanai in Plalestine and Jordan. After France made it's treaty and Iraq attempted to coups, Britain forcibly took over both Syria and Iraq. Iraqi oil was used mainly for the Royal Navy units in the area with the surplus going for other local purposes; it wasn't sent to Britain but helped in that it negated the need to send oil from elsewhere into the region.

Turkey can't annex Syria after Britain takes control of it from France. Unfortunately this never occurs in the game.

There should be a German choice whether or not to set up Vichy, but there isn't. The down side of not allowing it would be all French ships go to UK and also UK gets a substantial MPP boost from the French Empire. The upside of not allowing Vichy should be a greater, perhaps automatic Spanish entry into the Axis if a given number of German units line up along the border.

If Vichy is selected, there should be a weak corps in Syria with the UK allowed to invade that territory without driving Vichy into the Axis; UK wouldn't get the previously mentioned MPP bonus etc. ... .

As Germany was trying to get Vichy, as well as Turkey, into the Axis, I can't imagine their looking favorably on a Turkish move in Syria. The only condition that would make sense for them would be if it had given up on Vichy and was luring both Spain and Turkey with British and French territory.

If that's the case, it makes sense that Germany would support Turkey in taking both Syria and Iraq, provided the Turks agree to an oil arrangement similar to Romania's where it flows into the Reich. This, of course, would set it at war with Britain, which would be inevitable under the circumstances.

All of that is before Germany invades Russia. After Germany commits itself Turkey has less German pressure but increasingly more pressure from Britain and Russia.

The problem with Syria is all Frenchmen regarded it as part of France. The UK invaded it because they nervous about the local commanders allowing Germany to establish bases there. As Britain was still acting on behalf of France, not recognizing Vichy as a true nation, it would not have seen itself as able to negotiate the place to Turkey. It was holding it in custodianship; after the war it was returned to the French, who shortly afterwards had to grant independance.

In the earlier Three Way Alliance (German+Italy & USSR & Japan) I think, if Turkey joined them, it wouldn't be unreasonable to see the sphere's of influence in the Middle East as Italy gets Egypt, Turkey gets Syria, Palestine, Jordan and Iraq, Russia gets Iran. India would have been supported in rebellion against Britain and afterwards been an Axis minor Ally (a rather large one, but still an unindustrialized minor!).

In all instances where Turkey moves on either Syria or Iraq I can only see it as being at war with the UK; same as Spain making a move on Gibraltar. Britain, especially under Churchill, was not about to negotiate any of those places away. They had puppet governments in Arabia, Egypt and Iraq. Turkey was not strong enough to influence the situation and, what's worse, none of the populations involved wanted a return of Turkish rule! So, Turkey's only expansionist options lay with the Axis.

Essentially I think there are two routes to Turkey's becoming involved:

1) It joins Germany willingly after Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria join and Germany send troops, aircraft and weapons to assist in conquering the Middle East. While expanding Turkish territory, it also puts in the role of a permanent German Protectorate/Minor Ally. Germany's only interest in this arrangement would have been Iraqi oil, first to have it for it's own and second to deprive Britain of having it. There would have no illusions about the Turks having freedom to peddle it elsewhere.

2) Germany defeats the USSR. Turkey would almost certainly have to join the Axis or, eventually be invaded itself. In this case, however, with the Russian oil and other resources controlled by Germany, Turkey would have been offered greater freedom in administering it's regained territories.

Failing either of those, the country has to remain neutral. Joining the UK while Germany was still powerful, particularly before U. S. entry, would have been exactly the folly they wanted to avoid. And there would have been no incentive; as mentioned earlier, Britain wasn't in a position to hand territory back to her.

Nor did Britain instill any convidence in either Spain, Turkey or Portugal that it would be able to help fight a German invasion. The Reich made it clear early on that being on it's wrong side didn't mean risking the outcome of a war, it meant gambling with national survival!

Getting back to Sweden, as an example, the fear was great enough that it permitted the transport of German troops and supplies in 1940 along it's own railroads to relieve an otherwise stranded command near Narvik! Germany had yet to invade either France or the Low Countries but the utter crushing of Poland was not lost on their diplomats. As I said originally, none of these countries had the luxury of pure neutrality.

[ November 26, 2003, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Jersey John - There should be a German choice whether or not to set up Vichy, but there isn't. The down side of not allowing it would be all French ships go to UK and also UK gets a substantial MPP boost from the French Empire. The upside of not allowing Vichy should be a greater, perhaps automatic Spanish entry into the Axis if a given number of German units line up along the border.

If Vichy is selected, there should be a weak corps in Syria with the UK allowed to invade that territory without driving Vichy into the Axis; UK wouldn't get the previously mentioned MPP bonus etc. ... .

A most excellent idea

No Vichy

-- All French Ships Join the UK as Free French

-- UK Gains Overseas French Territories (Algeria and Syria)

-- % per turn for Spanish Entry on Side of Germans if X number of German troops line up on border. Perhaps cumulative % per turn per German unit on the border. (1% - 3% - 6% - 10% - 15% - 21% - 28%)

-- No Vichy or Spanish Plunder for Germans

Vichy

-- French Navy disbands except for units that become Free French

-- Germany can gain plunder from attacking Vichy France

-- Weak French Corps in Syria, UK can attack Vichy Syria without triggering war with rest of Vichy.

---------------------------------------

And may I add: If the UK does not move into Vichy Syria the Turks may do so, especially after Germany attacks Vichy France.

[ November 26, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Very glad you like the ideas.

"And may I add: If the UK does not move into Vichy Syria the Turks may do so, especially after Germany attacks Vichy France."

Okay -- I concede! -- Yes. Debating the Turkish/Syrian point was like wrestling a full grown python! There is definitely merit to the idea. The UK, while still wanting Free French support, would not have shoved Turkey into the Axis over Syria. Doing so would have been suicide for their Middle East position.

[ November 26, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

From Decision Tree Event Post:

JerseyJohn - Regarding Turkey and Germany in WW II . . ..

In at least one exchange during the height of the war a Turkish official said to his German counterpart, "We backed the losing side last time and won't risk it again."

Hitler sent weapons to the Turks and tried hard to get them into the Axis around the same time he was working on Spain and Vichy France, with equally poor results in all cases.

By way of background . . ..

After WW I Britain and France wanted Turkey partitioned between themselves and Greece. The United States suppressed the idea, but the two powers encouraged Greece to claim Turkish territory, including the Dardenelles, after Versailles concluded, then stepped back as the Greeks crossed their border and open warfare broke out.

Greece was initially successful, then defeated and pushed back to the starting line with heavy losses and numerous accounts of attrocities on both sides.

Hemingway's short story, "On the Quai at Smyrna," originally a newspaper article describing Greek refugees fleeing from the Turks, is set in that war..........

One of the prizes Hitler offered Turkey was the Southern Caucasus, which was ceded to them in the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but afterwards rescinded by Russia after Germany's defeat.

[ November 26, 2003, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Thanks for posting that, it saves a lot restatement.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohnOn #6 why not have Iraq as a UK Ally from the start with a chance that an Axis coup attempt will be made, and if made, it has a 50% chance of succeeding, in which case it would be the UK's option to invade the country. --

-- A Complicating factor would be the presence of UK or French/Free French troops in the country when it occurs; how would this effect the situation? I'd say Iraqi Corps should remain in Baghdad, if not and foreign unit is in the city, coups should automatically succeed and foreign units relocated to adjoining UK area with Baghdad Corps placed in city and an Axis unit.

I think something similar should be set up for Syria as it was invaded by the British and occupied without sparking Vichy to join the Axis.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

I'd still go with that one.*

* "...and an Axis unit." a bit confusing as it infers an additional Axis unit should be placed there. It should more properly read "[baghdad corps placed in city] as an Axis Unit."

[ November 26, 2003, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Iraq:By the end of the 1930s, pan- Arabism had become a powerful ideological force in the Iraqi military, especially among younger officers who hailed from the northern provinces and who had suffered economically from the partition of the Ottoman Empire. The British role in quelling the Palestine revolt of 1936 to 1939 further intensified anti-British sentiments in the military and led a group of disgruntled officers to form the Free Officers' Movement, which aimed at overthrowing the monarchy.

As World War II approached, Nazi Germany attempted to capitalize on the anti-British sentiments in Iraq and to woo Baghdad to the Axis cause. In 1939 Iraq severed diplomatic relations with Germany--as it was obliged to do because of treaty obligations with Britain. In 1940, however, the Iraqi nationalist and ardent anglophobe Rashid Ali succeeded Nuri as Said as prime minister.......... In response, Rashid Ali and four generals led a military coup that ousted Nuri as Said and the regent, both of whom escaped to Transjordan. Shortly after seizing power in 1941, Rashid Ali appointed an ultranationalist civilian cabinet, which gave only conditional consent to British requests in April 1941 for troop landings in Iraq. The British quickly retaliated by landing forces at Basra, justifying this second occupation of Iraq by citing Rashid Ali's violation of the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930. Many Iraqis regarded the move as an attempt to restore British rule. They rallied to the support of the Iraqi army, which receiveda number of aircraft from the Axis powers. The Germans, however, were preoccupied with campaigns in Crete and with preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union, and they could spare little assistance to Iraq. As the British steadily advanced, Rashid Ali and his government fled to Egypt. An armis- tice was signed on May 30.

TurkeyAfter the eruption of World War II, it announced a declaration of neutrality, and on 19/10/1939 it signed a mutual assistance pact with Great Britain and France. Influenced by the early war triumphs of Nazi Germany, Turkey decided to initiate cooperation with the Axis; on 18/06/1941 it signed a pact of friendship with Third Reich. Subsequently, it provided considerable quantities of strategic raw materials to support the German war effort, including 30% of all chrome needed by Germany. Western powers fruitlessly attempted to persuade Turkey to abandon this Axis-friendly neutrality and to join the Allied cause. Not until 02/08/1944, did Turkey sever diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany; it did the same with Japan on 03/01/1945. On 01/03/1945 it formally declared war on both of these countries, althought, it never fought against them.

[ November 28, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Great material and interesting reading on two countries rarely discussed in any depth by WW II historians.

Turkey just went with the flow, Iraq was trying to find it's place in the world and Britain was attempting to keep it's empire in tact! Points very well made by those articles.

Not an easy part of the war to make sense out of. If the Italians had managed a competant Egyptian offensive, something similar to what Rommel accomplished in 1942, while Iraq was making it's move, I doubt the UK could have maintained it's hold on the region.

Also interesting that the Palestine / Jordan and Iraqi anti-British efforts have been all but forgotten in contemporary discussions of Middle East unrest. By way of extension, Egypt, Iran and, of course, India, had similar nationalist causes at the time; all were either ruled or controled by British and American interests. In the Iran and Egypt the ruling monarch, though nominally independant, was actually controled by U. S. and British interests.

A long, tangled web we've all inherited.

[ November 28, 2003, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]