AHC: Ottomans Defeated 1915

[Richter von Manthofen]

Bulgaria is a difficult matter.

The Entente is pledged to Serbia - thats a point where Bulgaria can't hope to gain anything for now. Greece is also on the Ententes side (more or less) and the OE is weakened. Bulgaria mighht reason to join with the CPs nonetheless and pressure the OE for concessions "later".

Serbia might fall as OTL and the CP press on towards Saloniki (can't be left in Entente hands).

The Balkans will become a quagmire and as Blondie BC pointed it the supply situation for the Allies might be distributed differently, but not improved overall even with the OE (almost) knocked out.

THe CPs doing better in Russia (see BBCs post) might prevent Romania to join the Entente - Russia even might collapse earlier?

Thats assuming things run well for the CPs - it might run differently - if so then the CPs might sure for peace in late 1916 - ending the war earlier and ironically lead to a less severe peace treaty (even A-H might survive in a lesser form)

 

[MattII]

If you have the Ottomans beat, regardless of whatever else happens, you have over half-a-million more troops that can be thrown in where needed (and who will probably not be stuck in the east, or just being started to be moved home when Verdun kicks off), or the ammunition that supported them OTL can be diverted to certain allies.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The Balkans will become a quagmire and as Blondie BC pointed it the supply situation for the Allies might be distributed differently, but not improved overall even with the OE (almost) knocked out.

THe CPs doing better in Russia (see BBCs post) might prevent Romania to join the Entente - Russia even might collapse earlier?

I posted thoughts on those posts earlier, but maybe I'm just having trouble seeing how a less effectively blockaded Russia is supposed to help the CP.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

To both previous posters.

All depends on how thouroghly the OE is beaten. OTL - even after the 1918 collapse the Thurks fought on from a quite difficult position. In addition its the way that leads to ottoman defeat. How long it takes to open the straits, how much of the surplus troops are still available after the turks are "knocked out" (occupation duty, fighting insurrections - what about the arabs - do they accept Entente rule odr do they demand independence?).

How many troops and resources were spent "opening" the straits.

In addition after winter 1915 the Bulgarian army faced a quite calm front (thats why they have least casualty rate of all CPs members) assuming Bulgaria still joins the CP (gave possible reasons in my earlier post) they will still be around to threaten the straits binding troops and resources.

It much depends on how easy and fast the straits are opened. Sometimes doing "better" leaves you in a worse state afterwards

 

[Dementor]

Bulgaria is a difficult matter.

The Entente is pledged to Serbia - thats a point where Bulgaria can't hope to gain anything for now. Greece is also on the Ententes side (more or less) and the OE is weakened. Bulgaria mighht reason to join with the CPs nonetheless and pressure the OE for concessions "later".

Serbia might fall as OTL and the CP press on towards Saloniki (can't be left in Entente hands).

The Balkans will become a quagmire and as Blondie BC pointed it the supply situation for the Allies might be distributed differently, but not improved overall even with the OE (almost) knocked out.

THe CPs doing better in Russia (see BBCs post) might prevent Romania to join the Entente - Russia even might collapse earlier?

Thats assuming things run well for the CPs - it might run differently - if so then the CPs might sure for peace in late 1916 - ending the war earlier and ironically lead to a less severe peace treaty (even A-H might survive in a lesser form)

In OTL, the Entente did promise some territory in Macedonia to Bulgaria, though they had great difficulties in persuading Serbia to agree to this. Actually forcing them to do so might be the way to get Bulgaria to join the Entente and thus accomplish the scenario set out in the OP. But if the Ottomans collapse without Bulgarian intervention, Bulgaria is most certainly not going to join the Central Powers, considering how it would be obvious that they were losing the war. Bulgaria joining the CP was a close decision in OTL as it is.
As for Romania, if things are better for Russia, they are worse for Austria-Hungary, so an earlier entry into the war is far more likely. Which combined with the Brusilov offensive is what might well break A-H and decide the war by early 1917 at the latest.

 

[Dementor]

To both previous posters.

All depends on how thouroghly the OE is beaten. OTL - even after the 1918 collapse the Thurks fought on from a quite difficult position. In addition its the way that leads to ottoman defeat. How long it takes to open the straits, how much of the surplus troops are still available after the turks are "knocked out" (occupation duty, fighting insurrections - what about the arabs - do they accept Entente rule odr do they demand independence?).

How many troops and resources were spent "opening" the straits.

In addition after winter 1915 the Bulgarian army faced a quite calm front (thats why they have least casualty rate of all CPs members) assuming Bulgaria still joins the CP (gave possible reasons in my earlier post) they will still be around to threaten the straits binding troops and resources.

It much depends on how easy and fast the straits are opened. Sometimes doing "better" leaves you in a worse state afterwards

Even if the Ottomans don't surrender, they will at best a rump state in Anatolia, losing most of their best territory and without any hope of resupply. Their ability to seriously oppose the Entente would be limited and their ability to prevent passage through the straits non-existent. I explained already why Bulgaria joining the Central Powers would be so unlikely
I have to say that I find it somewhat amusing how some posters here are trying to twist an event that so obviously favors the Entente into somehow being good for the Central Powers .

 

[MattII]

All depends on how thouroghly the OE is beaten. OTL - even after the 1918 collapse the Thurks fought on from a quite difficult position. In addition its the way that leads to ottoman defeat. How long it takes to open the straits, how much of the surplus troops are still available after the turks are "knocked out" (occupation duty, fighting insurrections - what about the arabs - do they accept Entente rule odr do they demand independence?).

Then you have a third-of-a-million troops worth of ammunition to sell cheaply to the Russians. See, ammunition is the thing here, and occupation is a much lower-intensity sort of conflict than open war, so you save a lot of ammunition, and thus, that ammunition can be spent elsewhere.

In addition after winter 1915 the Bulgarian army faced a quite calm front (thats why they have least casualty rate of all CPs members) assuming Bulgaria still joins the CP (gave possible reasons in my earlier post) they will still be around to threaten the straits binding troops and resources.

That's if they join the CP, but if the Entente has the straits, they can sell off land to Bulgaria, thus keeping them on-side at the expense of none of their Balkans neighbours.

It much depends on how easy and fast the straits are opened. Sometimes doing "better" leaves you in a worse state afterwards

In this case, better is better.

 

[Halagaz]

That's if they join the CP, but if the Entente has the straits, they can sell off land to Bulgaria, thus keeping them on-side at the expense of none of their Balkans neighbours.

To be fair, the Bulgarian government wanted Macedonia just as much as Thrace...but in this scenario that doesn't change anything. Serbia and Greece had both agreed to transfer some of their territory; with the Ottoman Empire broken and the Entente in a visibly stronger position, Bulgaria will be at least a friendly neutral - and probably even a combatant on the Entente side.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So Russia gets more supplies, Bulgaria's bought off w Ottoman territory, and Romania enters the war, all by the end of 1915, correct? So we likely see an earlier *Brusilov* Offensive (no later, I think, than Spring 1916). Austro-Hungary collapses by 1917, ending the war 1916. This work?

 

[LordKalvert]

If you want to knock out the Ottomans, the easiest thing to do is to take advantage of your overwhelming sea power. Conduct landings all over the place and seize the coastal towns and cities which the Ottomans will never be able to defend through their lack of an effective railroad net (which could be cut all over the place by raiding parties anyway).

Would have been a far better use of Italian troops than the Austrian Alps or the large colonial contingents the allies kept

The real key is for the Allies to recognize the OE as a secondary theater. There's no need to occupy it at once, just knock them out of the war. Grab a lot of land and offer good terms is a sound ploy

You can always partition the thing later

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

To be fair, the Bulgarian government wanted Macedonia just as much as Thrace...but in this scenario that doesn't change anything. Serbia and Greece had both agreed to transfer some of their territory; with the Ottoman Empire broken and the Entente in a visibly stronger position, Bulgaria will be at least a friendly neutral - and probably even a combatant on the Entente side.

But Bulgaria and Turkey had quite cordial relations in 1914 - they even had signed a mutal aid treaty. And OTL Bulgaria joined while Gallipoli campaign still ran. The Bulgarian entry will depned on the sucess and TL of an ATL Gallipoli.

And the ATL Gallipoli sucess will depned on the resources poured into it.

So basically as I said it depends all on the actual scenario. (How much must the Entente use to break the turks and when its achieved) Bulgaria was leaning MORE towards the CP - not at least because itss tanding in paris and St. Petersburg was quite low after the Balkans war. In addition Bulgaria had claims to 4 Balkans nations - 3 of them were Entente leaning. A promise of concesions is not worth the claims you can file as (likely) victor (and 1915/1916 was overall running FOR the CPs )

The suggestion to use your naval superiority to make landings all over the Ottoman coast is good, but again to hold bridgeheads is still more difficult than reconquering them. Ships are aplenty for the Entente, but for the BRidgeheads you need soldiers who are missed elsewhere. As countermeasure the Cps could always ship more subs from Germany to the adriatic wheree hey could slip through Otranto straits (Difficult, but not impossible) to harrass the shipping lines.

Again if you por more into Gallipoli the troops will be missed elsewere, so the pressure on Germany (Austria is lower on this other fronts, so they will perform better at those (or other = Russia) places.

Concerning occupation costs less - thats correct if the occupied country ins quiet, but what if its unruly and full of guerillas. Compare a few hundred miles of frontlines vs many 10s or 100s thousand squaremiles of hostile territory ...

 

[MattII]

Wasn't there one time Ataturk disobeyed an order and took a hill he knew the allies needed to seize? If he's not around the allies may take that hill and give themselves a considerable edge.

 

[Dementor]

But Bulgaria and Turkey had quite cordial relations in 1914 - they even had signed a mutal aid treaty. And OTL Bulgaria joined while Gallipoli campaign still ran. The Bulgarian entry will depned on the sucess and TL of an ATL Gallipoli.

And the ATL Gallipoli sucess will depned on the resources poured into it.

So basically as I said it depends all on the actual scenario. (How much must the Entente use to break the turks and when its achieved) Bulgaria was leaning MORE towards the CP - not at least because itss tanding in paris and St. Petersburg was quite low after the Balkans war. In addition Bulgaria had claims to 4 Balkans nations - 3 of them were Entente leaning. A promise of concesions is not worth the claims you can file as (likely) victor (and 1915/1916 was overall running FOR the CPs )

You didn't read my post, did you? Bulgaria leaned towards the Central Powers because they appeared to be the stronger side and also because the Ottoman Empire actually agreed to cede some territory to Bulgaria (I would like a source for the 1914 mutual aid claim, btw - I've never heard of such a thing). Here the Entente are obviously stronger, plus there is far more Ottoman territory to be taken. If the Gallipoli campaign is running well, Bulgaria will at least remain neutral.

 

[Dementor]

To be fair, the Bulgarian government wanted Macedonia just as much as Thrace...but in this scenario that doesn't change anything. Serbia and Greece had both agreed to transfer some of their territory; with the Ottoman Empire broken and the Entente in a visibly stronger position, Bulgaria will be at least a friendly neutral - and probably even a combatant on the Entente side.

It would be more precise to say that the Entente had agreed to transfer some Serbian and Greek territory; Serbia and Greece vehemently disagreed. Serbia did agree under Entente pressure to cede part of the so-called Uncontested zone, but only those areas east of the Vardar. This was far too little and far too late (1 September 1915, five days before the German-Bulgarian alliance was signed).

 

[Halagaz]

It would be more precise to say that the Entente had agreed to transfer some Serbian and Greek territory; Serbia and Greece vehemently disagreed. Serbia did agree under Entente pressure to cede part of the so-called Uncontested zone, but only those areas east of the Vardar. This was far too little and far too late (1 September 1915, five days before the German-Bulgarian alliance was signed).

There was certainly pressure, but nonetheless it is accurate to say that Belgrade and Athens had agreed. (in Greece's case, Venizelos agreed to cede everything they have east of the Struma river)

My point was that, together, Edrene, Kavalla and Western Macedonia will not be a bad deal at all.
(and with more time, the Entente should be able to get Serbia to agree to all or most of the "uncontested" zone)

And the increased power and prestige of the Entente in this scenario is not to be overlooked, either, and will in itself affect Sofia's decision.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

You didn't read my post, did you? Bulgaria leaned towards the Central Powers because they appeared to be the stronger side and also because the Ottoman Empire actually agreed to cede some territory to Bulgaria (I would like a source for the 1914 mutual aid claim, btw - I've never heard of such a thing). Here the Entente are obviously stronger, plus there is far more Ottoman territory to be taken. If the Gallipoli campaign is running well, Bulgaria will at least remain neutral.

Erickson, Edward J. (2001). Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-31516-9.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Wasn't there one time Ataturk disobeyed an order and took a hill he knew the allies needed to seize? If he's not around the allies may take that hill and give themselves a considerable edge.

If this works, it would make a great PoD (much cleaner cut and obvious in its plausibility than better planning stage).

 

[MattII]

If this works, it would make a great PoD (much cleaner cut and obvious in its plausibility than better planning stage).

Here's where I got the first bits of info, and it does indeed seem that Chunuk Bair was a major issue at the time.

 

[Xenophonte]

Churchill

An immediate impact on the career of Churchill and the Royal Navy which surely will terminate the war .. Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty and the consequences for the RAF: Royal Naval Air Service

Roskill Seems To have convinced himself That Churchill was Opposed to the separation of the Naval Wing from the Royal Flying Corps, Claiming, "Churchill set his face firmly against such a step" [1] putting a lot of faith in Churchill's statement before the CID in June, 1914 That "I HAD always Looked on the Naval and Military Wings branches as of one great service." [2] A week after making this little speech, Churchill evidently sanctioned the renaming of the Naval Wing to the Royal Naval Air Service, it forming part of the Military Branch of the Royal Navy as from 1 July. [3]

In OTL in 1915, from his post as First Lord of the Admiralty had his darkest hour, being one of the main causes of the Gallipoli landings in February .in the Dardanelles, the so-called Battle of Gallipoli on the Turkish coast, planned and executed so incredibly incompetent, this episode that caused the death of thousands of British soldiers, Australians and New Zealanders.

Because of this failure that earned him the nickname "The Butcher" with a balance of approximately 300,000 British, Australian and New Zealand casualties.
In May 1915 he was again accused of negligence in connection with the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, which would have left without the protection of escort ships, which led to its collapse. Such a degree of incompetence raised suspicions that Churchill was trying to enter the United States in the war. This last incident resulted in the degradation of Churchill, who came to occupy a ministry without portfolio to resign later to rejoin the army.


Probably the bad opinion about him in the naval commanders had no real grounds or transcended publicly:

'' ... Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911 with a clear remit - to institute the equivalent of a General Staff in the Royal Navy. An Admiralty War Staff was created at the Beginning of 1912, but Its lack of executive authority and Churchill's domineering personality Its stunted development.
Far too many Historians have Blamed the staff's failings on the Navy's officer corps, When The Responsibility and the fault lies clearly with Churchill

Vice-Admiral Sir Frederick Hamilton, Churchill's last Second Sea Lord in the Great War, wrote in 1915:

''If history is really reliable Eventually to sift out the truth Winston will stand condemned as a clever but unscrupulous politician of the worst type.
[4].

Beatty, Churchill's Naval Secretary from 1912 to 1913, Told Hamilton in 1915, "I know the First Lord is obstinate When September on a thing, but really it only requires firm treatment to make him Realize When He goes off the rails, but indeed it must be astonishingly firm. "[5]

Admiral The Honorable Sir Stanley Colville Churchill Described variously as a "living danger" [6] and a "swollen headed maniac" [17] in letters to Hamilton.

Rear-Admiral Montague E. Browning, Rear-Admiral in the Third Battle Squadron, wrote to Vice-Admiral Sir Edmond Slade JW, "Churchill 've worked hard, but Proved himself unable to get work on with anyone, even with those of His most individual choice. "[7]



Roskill, Stephen (2004). Churchill and the Admirals. Barnsley: Pen & Sword.


http://http://www.worldcat.org/title/churchill-and-the admirals/oclc/874930893?referer=di&ht=edition


http://http://www.librarything.com/author/roskillsw

1) Roskill. Hankey. I. p. 185.

2) C.I.D. SAS.2 of June 25, 1914. The National Archives. ADM 1/8621.

3) Weekly Admiralty Orders. "55.-Royal Naval Air Service-Organization." C. W. 13964 / 14-26.6.1914. The National Archives. ADM 182/5.

4) Diary entry for 15 November, 1915. Hamilton Papers. National Maritime Museum. HTN / 106.

5) Beatty to Hamilton. Letter of February 17, 1915. Hamilton Papers. National Maritime Museum. HTN / 117 / A.

6) Colville to Hamilton. Letter of 30 October, 1915. Hamilton Papers. National Maritime Museum. HTN / 117 / A.

7) Colville to Hamilton. Letter of 12 June, 1917. Hamilton Papers. National Maritime Museum. HTN / 117 / A....

 

[Xenophonte]

Here's where [/QUOTE/]
This link appears broken