The middle east is full of oil, so why not invade Turkey and the middle east instead of Russia?

The middle east is full of oil, so why not invade Turkey and the middle east instead of Russia?

They could probably get their "living space" too if they killed everyone there.

Other urls found in this thread:

too hot and there's not enough towels for the germans to put down

Russia touched Germany.

>The middle east is full of oil
Not in the 1940s it wasn't.

It was preemptive. The stated goal of communsim is to span the globe. Leave the high school level stuff behind. Hitler was the good guy. Russia invaded Poland and Finland. After the war they nearly took over all of Europe. Hundreds of millions lived under the Soviet boot. 80 percent of the war in Europe was between them. We just stabbed them in the back and spit on their graves.

>Hitler was the good guy.
This is how I know you aren't any kind of historian or worth listening to.

History doesn't deal in "good" and "bad" or "good" and "evil."

They'd have to control the Suez canal with no means of doing so.

Because Hitler thought the basis of a strong modern nation was agriculture.

No, seriously.

>The stated goal of communsim is to span the globe.
Stalin was a "one-country" socialist who even axed Leon Trotsky in the head for spouting permanent revolution.

Not agreeing with the guy you replied to but just because Stalin buried the "world revolution now" pipe dream in favor of focusing on his own country doesn't mean he wasn't okay with expansion.

Permanent revolution is a different concept than expansionism.

This video explains it fully.

but in short, The USSR was supplying the Nazis with the grand majority of their oil as agreed by the Non-Aggression pact.

and Stalin and Hitler both knew that the Soviets holding Germany hostage when it came to oil supply was the Soviet's greatest trump card against Germany. Hitler feared that Stalin could just institute an embargo of oil to Germany in order to twist Hitler's arm into submission.

Hitler was going to have none of that. and invaded the Soviet Union to kill two birds with one stone. He would fulfill Lebensraum and bring in new land to be settled by ethnic Germans, and he would be seizing the Soviets grand oil reserves, keeping Germany's resource needs in-house, without fear of embargo by an energy exporter.

When the Soviet campaign turned sour, the Germans and Italians tried to make a break for the middle east, but by then the damage was already done and the Axis armies were too crippled advance that far and were crushed at El Alamein.

Most non-trotskyists communists consider it to be imperialist.

We´re never going to have a non-sectarian left are we?

Let's say Hitler invades the Middle East as you say.

This means he has supply lines running adjacent to the caucasus and balkans, and is exhausting manpower and resources - effectively weakening his whole military structure.

Do you think Stalin is going to see an exhausted and weakened potential enemy and not strike preemptively?

Stalin was going to act either way, Hitler was just enacting an inevitability.


It's not like Hitler would have invaded the SU if it could have been avoided somehow. They had one chance by taking Moscow through blitzkrieg or to face a massive attack sooner or later impossible for Germany to withstand.

Cause Turkey doesnt have oil

>Russia invaded Poland and Finland.
You mean Russia divided up Eastern Europe together with Germany.

The middle east had sympathy for hitler because he promised to release them from their colonial british and french oppressors if Germany won.
Also during ww2 some iranian leader was thrown in prison by the allies so he couldnt side with hitler

here it is

>The Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran also known as Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Persia was the invasion of the Empire of Iran during World War II by Soviet, British and other Commonwealth armed forces. The invasion lasted from 25 August to 17 September 1941, and was codenamed Operation Countenance. The purpose was to secure Iranian oil fields and ensure Allied supply lines (see Persian Corridor) for the Soviets, fighting against Axis forces on the Eastern Front. Though Iran was officially neutral, according to the Allies its monarch Rezā Shāh was friendly toward the Axis powers and was deposed during the subsequent occupation and replaced with his young son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Yes. Stalin was as happy watching the Axis powers and the anglo-americans fighting each other as the anglo-americans would have been watching the Germans and the Soviets going to war prior to 1939. Plus, the Soviet Union was still running an industrial-military build-up that was far from ready by 1942, the purges of the late 30s had left the soviet high command in shambles and it was still trying to recover, the deals with Germany had allowed the Soviet Union to occupy the Baltic states, and make territorial gains in Finland, Poland and Romania at a very low cost, and it was running and interesting commerce with Germany. In short, Stalin was comfy with the situation and it had no intention of attacking the Germans. Furthermore he want to cling on to cordial relations with Germany above all. Even when through spionage he was warned of an imminent german attack, and even when the german attack materialized he refused tobelieve it and put it down to misunderstanding, as much as issuing orders to the border troops not to engage in fighting with the germans.

So no, the USSR wouldn't have gone to war against Germany in any case until, at least 1945, and only under specific circumstamces.

The reason why the Germans didn't attack the ME are to be found in Hitler's ideology. He wasn't interested in the mediterranean, that was for the Italians, and they asked for reinforcements Hitler just sent them the so called Afrika Korps which consisted of just 3-4 divisions. Hitler want the lebensraum, the great continental space for Germany, and he wasn't going to commit any significative amount of forces in any other direction. Had he pulled a Barbarossa with ~200 divisions plus the axis forces in the direction of the ME, the turks, and then the Brits would have been btfo in the time it would take the german army to get there and then, history could have been very different.

>The stated goal of communsim is to span the globe
So is the goal of Islam

sure was good of the Germans to make a deal with the Soviets splitting up Poland then, really showed their good intentions for eastern europe.

because true evil is russia

he had to choose between Russia and Turkey
Defating Turks are easier ofc but
-Turks are true guerillas
-Land type is more difficult for tanks&infantry
-First world war allies
-Russia would attack anyways after invasion of Anatolia


>This is how I know you aren't any kind of historian or worth listening to.
>History doesn't deal in "good" and "bad" or "good" and "evil."
i'm using this

Good luck going through 1930s turkey with mobilized infantry and tanks.

They didn't have any boats to take them there.

So much wrong with this post, it hurts to read. Whoever you are, you don't belong on a history board. Others have already torn it apart, but "hitler was the good guy" just makes naziboo super obvious.

except Stalin began doing the exact same policies Trotsky had wanted (rapid industrialization, internationalism)

It'll put him in the odds with USSR because of the position of bosphorus. You already answered your question because Germany needed oil and wheat, which were abundant in Russia - wheat from Ukraine specifically. That's why Germans gotten along well with Ukrainians - farmers continued to work. Transporting oil through middle east in barges or through bosphorus is not practical because of British navy. That leaves Russia as the most obvious target for expansion.

Gee I dunno, maybe because Turkey/the ME isn't as accessible to Germany, and because the eventual goal of German settlement would've come against bigger cultural and economic hurdles?

>sectarianism keeps impeding actual advancement of the working class and their rights