3 ms·

The USSR/Russia had plenty of interest in the named countries as well, that's why Turkey is in NATO and helped enable Iraq to fight Iran. Not overly different.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Of course they did, that's kind of the good thing in bipolar orders, either of the superpowers often has a lot of interests and you can play them against each other.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  I don't understand this reply after your previous message was that Soviet support made the situation different. My point is they all already received similar treatment, and the addition of another resource wouldn't change much.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Sure, it's pretty simple, Turkey was a NATO ally and Soviet support wouldn't have done anything. More or less, so was Iraq. If they had their own Suez Canal crisis they would be screwed.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >Turkey was a NATO ally and Soviet support wouldn't have done anything Soviet support could have switched them from a NATO ally to Soviet aligned, and could have potentially fought off a French and British backed invasion as well.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        No, the West would not allow Turkey to become allied with the Warsaw Pact. The invasion wouldn't simply be French and British, the US and the entire rest of NATO would 1000% get involved and all means necessary would be used to keep control of the Bosphorus strait.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The US would not allow Egypt to become part of the Warsaw pact either, yet Soviet support somehow made that situation different. >the US and the entire rest of NATO would 1000% get involved They didn't for the Suez Canal crisis, the US broadly sided with the USSR against France and the UK. >all means necessary would be used to keep control of the Bosphorus strait. Much like the Suez Canal, they never had control over the straits. A treaty regulated both civilian and military vessels that allowed the USSR access. Reinforcing my point, that their treatment wouldn't have changed with a canal too.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        >The US would not allow Egypt to become part of the Warsaw pact either, yet Soviet support somehow made that situation different. The US wouldn't have had the ability to prevent that from happening if somehow the USSR and Egypt and most Arab countries supported it. For Turkey however, it's very different, as it's much easier for the NATO to project power into Turkey than for the USSR and because willingness is much higher. >They didn't for the Suez Canal crisis, the US broadly sided with the USSR against France and the UK. Yes, but that wouldn't have happened if instead of the Suez Canal it was also the Bosphorus Strait, for which being into NATO hands completely prevented the USSR from becoming a naval power, which may very well have changed the course of history. >Much like the Suez Canal, they never had control over the straits. A treaty regulated both civilian and military vessels that allowed the USSR access. Reinforcing my point, that their treatment wouldn't have changed with a canal too. This is simply very false. Not only did the treaty limit what kind of ships the USSR could pass through for military reasons, most importantly the presence of the strait meant that in the case of a war against NATO it is impossible to defend the passage without an invasion of Turkey. Obviously, the treaties would not mean anything in a hot war.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >as it's much easier for the NATO to project power into Turkey than for the USSR and because willingness is much higher. This doesn't make any sense. It's easier for a distant foreign power to project power than a neighboring country? And the distant nation would be more willing than the neighbor? >Not only did the treaty limit what kind of ships the USSR could pass through for military reasons, Or "regulated military access." >for which being into NATO hands completely prevented the USSR from becoming a naval power, Both Soviet submarines and aircraft carriers were usually allowed through, the symbols of post war naval power. >in the case of a war against NATO it is impossible to defend the passage without an invasion of Turkey. War with NATO meant Turkey was at war, or that a NATO member was the aggressor in which case Turkey may reconsider their position. Your entire point seems to be that the US placed a much higher value on Turkey than Egypt already. I find that hard to accept given how they sided with Egypt during the Suez Canal crisis but were immediately willing to sell out Turkey during the Cuban Missile crisis. Either way, I'd still describe the treatment they received "similar" as my original post claimed.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Of course they did, that's kind of the good thing in bipolar orders, either of the superpowers often has a lot of interests and you can play them against each other.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
I don't understand this reply after your previous message was that Soviet support made the situation different. My point is they all already received similar treatment, and the addition of another resource wouldn't change much.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Sure, it's pretty simple, Turkey was a NATO ally and Soviet support wouldn't have done anything. More or less, so was Iraq. If they had their own Suez Canal crisis they would be screwed.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >Turkey was a NATO ally and Soviet support wouldn't have done anything Soviet support could have switched them from a NATO ally to Soviet aligned, and could have potentially fought off a French and British backed invasion as well.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      No, the West would not allow Turkey to become allied with the Warsaw Pact. The invasion wouldn't simply be French and British, the US and the entire rest of NATO would 1000% get involved and all means necessary would be used to keep control of the Bosphorus strait.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The US would not allow Egypt to become part of the Warsaw pact either, yet Soviet support somehow made that situation different. >the US and the entire rest of NATO would 1000% get involved They didn't for the Suez Canal crisis, the US broadly sided with the USSR against France and the UK. >all means necessary would be used to keep control of the Bosphorus strait. Much like the Suez Canal, they never had control over the straits. A treaty regulated both civilian and military vessels that allowed the USSR access. Reinforcing my point, that their treatment wouldn't have changed with a canal too.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        >The US would not allow Egypt to become part of the Warsaw pact either, yet Soviet support somehow made that situation different. The US wouldn't have had the ability to prevent that from happening if somehow the USSR and Egypt and most Arab countries supported it. For Turkey however, it's very different, as it's much easier for the NATO to project power into Turkey than for the USSR and because willingness is much higher. >They didn't for the Suez Canal crisis, the US broadly sided with the USSR against France and the UK. Yes, but that wouldn't have happened if instead of the Suez Canal it was also the Bosphorus Strait, for which being into NATO hands completely prevented the USSR from becoming a naval power, which may very well have changed the course of history. >Much like the Suez Canal, they never had control over the straits. A treaty regulated both civilian and military vessels that allowed the USSR access. Reinforcing my point, that their treatment wouldn't have changed with a canal too. This is simply very false. Not only did the treaty limit what kind of ships the USSR could pass through for military reasons, most importantly the presence of the strait meant that in the case of a war against NATO it is impossible to defend the passage without an invasion of Turkey. Obviously, the treaties would not mean anything in a hot war.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >as it's much easier for the NATO to project power into Turkey than for the USSR and because willingness is much higher. This doesn't make any sense. It's easier for a distant foreign power to project power than a neighboring country? And the distant nation would be more willing than the neighbor? >Not only did the treaty limit what kind of ships the USSR could pass through for military reasons, Or "regulated military access." >for which being into NATO hands completely prevented the USSR from becoming a naval power, Both Soviet submarines and aircraft carriers were usually allowed through, the symbols of post war naval power. >in the case of a war against NATO it is impossible to defend the passage without an invasion of Turkey. War with NATO meant Turkey was at war, or that a NATO member was the aggressor in which case Turkey may reconsider their position. Your entire point seems to be that the US placed a much higher value on Turkey than Egypt already. I find that hard to accept given how they sided with Egypt during the Suez Canal crisis but were immediately willing to sell out Turkey during the Cuban Missile crisis. Either way, I'd still describe the treatment they received "similar" as my original post claimed.