[pugsville]

If you look at the WW2 map, Hitler invaded almost everywhere around Turkey but didn't even touch Turkey. Why?
(OK. Hitler didn't really attack everywhere around Turkey. But Nazis came very close to Turkey, invading Greece)

My reasons:
1-) German Turkish non-aggression pact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2% ... ssion_Pact
2-) It was Italy that went into the Balkans and the Middle East and Hitler only reluctantly sent troops to these regions to back up his ally. Hitler was very Euro-centric - he had very little interest in acquiring territories outside of the continent. Germany was in Africa mainly to pull Italy's bacon out of the fire, as they were in the middle of being chased across the continent before the Germans showed up to save them, much to Mussolini's discomfort.
3-) Turkey could have helped him flank the USSR--though if he'd done Barbarossa right he wouldn't have needed any geographic help.
4-) Turkey was a useful neutral and provided Chromium in trade to the Germans.
5-) They also enabled some small indirect trade for Germany with the Allies.
6-) Unlike some other neutrals they also had a fairly robust military which for a while was actually being equipped by both the Axis and the Allies in an attempt to gain them as allies.
7-) Turkey is also quite difficult terrain for any would be conqueror. Aside from the mountainous terrain in Asian Turkey, Nobody would envy the Axis trying to force a crossing of the Bosphorus.
8-) We also have to remember that Hitler and the German people were, in part, acting out a revenge fantasy against their WW1 foes. And of course, Turkey had been a stalwart ally. Turkey sure seemed stalwart Ally to Germany at Gallipoli.
9-) There's also the fact that the portion of Turkey on the European side of the Bosphorus is so incredibly small that there was no point. It had no significant resources, and the territory wasn't strategically, or even tactically important. If he were to gain anything at all from attacking Turkey, he had to cross the Bosphorus. There's practically nothing on the European side to be worth pissing the Turks off, over. He was better off keeping them a 'friendly but neutral' party.

What else?

The Benefit of the attack though the Turkey into Russia is problematic. The Railway infrastructure was extremely poor. It would be extremely difficult to support a large force there, the terrain is woeful to attack through and Russians maintained a large Garrison. Any conquest of Turkey would really have Alerted Stalin, (you'd think). Germany was critically short of rolling stock and engines, supporting a large force would be a massive strain on the transport system for Germany, much harder than supporting the same units in Poland. ore than a handful of divisions would require a massive diversion of resources. Why would a force supported at great cost, attacking through bad terrain, against a numerous garrison have greater effect than attacking in the generally good going, much easier supported areas?

Common Fantasy scenario for those who dont understand logistics.

[Godstud]

It's my understanding that trichinosis in turkey makes you sleepy. Perhaps Hitler was worried that his troops might get sleepy in Turkey and thus waste time.

[Rich]

Hitler did have reasons for his attacks. On the whole they weren't completely gratuitous. Hitler's big problem was not that he declared war too much, but that he couldn't make a proper peace even when he'd achieved a complete victory. It was Mussolini who got him involved in Greece and Albania.

[Godstud]

Yes, my understanding why he didn't attack Turkey was because they were a useful ally(even though they were neutralish).

[Preston Cole]

The Benefit of the attack though the Turkey into Russia is problematic. The Railway infrastructure was extremely poor. It would be extremely difficult to support a large force there, the terrain is woeful to attack through and Russians maintained a large Garrison. Any conquest of Turkey would really have Alerted Stalin, (you'd think). Germany was critically short of rolling stock and engines, supporting a large force would be a massive strain on the transport system for Germany, much harder than supporting the same units in Poland. ore than a handful of divisions would require a massive diversion of resources. Why would a force supported at great cost, attacking through bad terrain, against a numerous garrison have greater effect than attacking in the generally good going, much easier supported areas?

If Hitler had allied or occupied Turkey, I'd say the mountains, rough terrain, lack of infrastructure, etc., would still present a far better perspective for capturing Baku than the horrendously risky Case Blue operation. The really important objective of the Russo-German war was Baku, and it's pretty close to the Turkish border. In a few months, faced with an armored offensive in eastern Europe and their oil seized, even if the Germans still didn't capture Moscow due to less concentrated troops in Europe, the Russians would be far more open to negotiations.

[ThirdTerm]

Turkey was a close German ally during the First World War, which served the German interests in countering the British Empire (i.e. the Battle of Gallipoli) and from 1903 to 1940, Germany invested heavily in the Berlin-Baghdad railway to bind Turkey and the Germans together, while sabotaging Britain's links with India by threatening Suez, and providing Germany with its own shortcut to the east. Hitler sent a letter of friendship to Turkey to maintain this strategic relationship to counter British influence in the Arab world.

His Excellency, we take this opportunity to declare officially that the measures in Germany, not in any way directed Turkey's territorial integrity or political structure. On the contrary, our great and crucial battle with the painful memories of the years following the war, and it is full of memories to you, based on friendship and cooperation between Germany and Turkey for the future, even if true that there are exactly all the conditions I would like to believe.

Because;
1. Germany has no territorial interests in these regions is not pursuing. German troops, immediately after removing the dangers Antenoscu in harmony with the President of Bulgaria and Romania will leave.
2. Way to heal the wounds of war will start after the end of the economic development of Europe, Germany and Turkey, by necessity, will put into close relations again.

[Smilin' Dave]

If Hitler had allied or occupied Turkey, I'd say the mountains, rough terrain, lack of infrastructure, etc., would still present a far better perspective for capturing Baku than the horrendously risky Case Blue operation. The really important objective of the Russo-German war was Baku, and it's pretty close to the Turkish border. In a few months, faced with an armored offensive in eastern Europe and their oil seized, even if the Germans still didn't capture Moscow due to less concentrated troops in Europe, the Russians would be far more open to negotiations.

While it would potentially bring German forces closer to Baku I think the logistical problems would have been even worse than the 'northern' approach that was taken (fewer airfields, worse road and rail networks). Given the significant difficulty already encountered in the Caucasian campaign in terms of logistics, this would be pretty serious. Also any gain in reach towards Baku would be offset somewhat by placing troops further away from key northern targets like Maikop.

[Rich]

Turkey as a belligerent ally would certainly have been useful. However Hitler's first big mistake was in occupying Czech. If he'd hadn't then he probably could have isolated Poland. Fought Poland alone without giving away Eastern Poland to the Soviets. He could then have restored the lost Eastern territory to Germany and then restored Poland as a fascist but independent client state. He could have peacefully got military access to the Baltic states, Finland, Romania and Hungary. Romania would not have had to give back the Moldavian territories to Russia. From there he could probably have cajoled Greece and Turkey into giving him military access. There's no reason Hitler couldn't even have got tanks out of the Czechs through negotiations. Occupations apart from the initial expropriations were a very poor way of getting resources out of nations at huge diplomatic cost, plus the need for occupying troops.

Hitler's stupidity was shielded by his incredible run of luck in Scandinavian, the campaign against France and the low countries and the incredible incompetence of the Russian high command which contry to myth continued though out the war. The question is not why did Hitler fail to take Moscow but how did he mange to take so much territory as he did facing resolute foe and such a huge disadvantage in both men and equipment.

[Thunderhawk]

If the Germans had penetrated the Caucasus all the way to the Turkish border, would Turkey have been open to selling supplies to Germany, especially war supplies, to German armies in the Caucasus?

What types of payment would Turkey have accepted?
- Precious minerals, older equipment, confiscated art, territory seized from the USSR?