Inaccuracies concerning Iraq

[Patchman123]

In AAG40, Iraq is depicted as a “pro-Axis” neutral, when in fact there were British forces stationed in Iraq and its government and the country itself, were effectively under British control, like Egypt. Like Egypt, Iraq had Axis collaborators, but the British kept them from being effective and when the pro-Axis revolt did take place, the British crushed it. Iraq was afraid of being overtly pro-Axis because many were still loyal to the British and the govt. of Rashid Ali was thrown and British control of Iraq was retained and restored.
Further info here.

The British perspective was that relations with Rashid Ali’s “National Defence Government” had become increasingly unsatisfactory. By treaty, Iraq was pledged to provide assistance to the United Kingdom (Thus making its “pro-Axis” status highly erroneous) in war and to permit the passage of British troops through its territory.

The RIrAF had 116 aircraft in seven squadrons and a training school; 50 to 60 of the aircraft were serviceable.[19][11] Most Iraqi fighter and bomber aircraft were at “Rashid Airfield” in Baghdad (formerly RAF Hinaidi) or in Mosul. Four squadrons and the Flying Training School were based in Baghdad.

Why is Iraq pro-Axis again? Iraq was pro-Allies and anything but neutral, as it was under effective British control, but was “independent” like over in Egypt.

Anyone else see this?

More here.
“*Britain concluded the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930. The treaty included permission to establish military bases for British use and provide the facilities for the unrestricted movement of British forces through the country, upon request to the Iraqi government.[26][27] The conditions of the treaty were imposed by the British to ensure control of Iraqi petroleum. Many Iraqis resented these conditions because Iraq was still under the control of the British Government.[*28]”

[MarshmallowofWar]

Historical accuracy was clearly not the primary concern. The board and setup are filled with inaccuracies.

Marsh

[General Veers]

@Patchman123
Flipping Iraq to a Pro-Allied neutral could tilt the OOB balance a little bit for the Allies without impacting opening moves for the Axis. The value of the three infantry and extra income for UK or USSR will add up over time, and to balance it’s one less territory for the USSR to use for it’s Spread of Communism National Objective. Most likely the UK player would active this the first turn using a transport from Egypt or India.

[Witt]

@Patchman123 thank you for all that information. Good to know the real history.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@General-Veers said in Inaccuracies concerning Iraq:

@Patchman123
Flipping Iraq to a Pro-Allied neutral could tilt the OOB balance a little bit for the Allies without impacting opening moves for the Axis. The value of the three infantry and extra income for UK or USSR will add up over time, and to balance it’s one less territory for the USSR to use for it’s Spread of Communism National Objective. Most likely the UK player would active this the first turn using a transport from Egypt or India.

It would be interesting to see how much of an impact that subtle shift had on the game. I doubt it would eliminate the need for a bid, but bids could probably be smaller.

Marsh

[General 6 Stars]

Ya shadow is correct. Not G40 but my 41 game.

[General 6 Stars]

Right. Game starts Dec 8, 1941.