What if Gallipoli succeeded(a plan of Churchill) in 1915? What would happen next? How soon would Turkey fall? How about Austria-Hungary? Would the collapse of these force Hindenburg and Ludendorff to tell Wilhelm to either throw in the towel and beg for peace and sign a treaty with Nicholas 2nd? How about Woodrow Wilson? Would US offer to negotiate? I'm not sure about the Kaiser dealing with Russia. What would happen to Austria? I believe Franz Josef had died or was in a bad way? OK, go from there.
Gallipoli succeeds in 1915
- Thread starter edvader
- Start date
In 1915 the Ottomans had enough reserves left that they wouldn't collapse immediately, but the loss of Constantinople would be a severe psychological and strategic blow so they'd likely have tried to negotiate something.
The Allies are already commited to giving Russia Constantinople, which creates a desire to grant Britain and France their own shares of the Empire. If Gallipoli was won quickly and easily they wouldn't have the respect for Ottoman power needed to moderate these demands and so the Allies probably wouldn't propose anything the Turks would find acceptable, so that war goes on, but with the Staits open and probably at a lower level than in OTL. I also wonder whether Envar could have survived such a defeat?
The fall of Constantinople doesn't hurt the Habsburgs directly but it would have deterred Bulgaria from joing their attack on Serbia, which might allow the Serbs to hoild out in Macedonia with Allied aid coming up from Salonika. An extra front in 1916.
The key question is how much more aid can be shipped to Russia than in OTL and does it make a difference?
I suspect the answer is that it wouldn't make much a difference, a stronger Russian artillery kills a few more Germans than in OTL and troops are a littel better supplied but the revolution still breaks out more or less on schedule.
The Allies are already commited to giving Russia Constantinople, which creates a desire to grant Britain and France their own shares of the Empire. If Gallipoli was won quickly and easily they wouldn't have the respect for Ottoman power needed to moderate these demands and so the Allies probably wouldn't propose anything the Turks would find acceptable, so that war goes on, but with the Staits open and probably at a lower level than in OTL. I also wonder whether Envar could have survived such a defeat?
The fall of Constantinople doesn't hurt the Habsburgs directly but it would have deterred Bulgaria from joing their attack on Serbia, which might allow the Serbs to hoild out in Macedonia with Allied aid coming up from Salonika. An extra front in 1916.
The key question is how much more aid can be shipped to Russia than in OTL and does it make a difference?
I suspect the answer is that it wouldn't make much a difference, a stronger Russian artillery kills a few more Germans than in OTL and troops are a littel better supplied but the revolution still breaks out more or less on schedule.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
ED(Mister) said:
We've actually been over this several times, but in summary, Gallipoli succeeding doesn't really gain the Allies much, as it would be difficult to impossible to supply a fleet in the Sea of Marmara, and you can't occupy a city with ships. I don't really think shelling Constantinople would be possible politically, nor would it do anything to cow the government, which would have already relocated to Anatolia. If anything, the outrage would have stiffened Ottoman resolve.
It is possible though, that this would result in the end of the CUP government and the discrediting of the pro-CP elements of the government, leading to a pro-Entente regime; however, unless the Entente severely modifies its terms, the Ottomans will have little choice but to continue the war. Giving up the capital, which is at the center of the most valuable province, is not really an option until you are militarily defeated, which the Ottomans were most certainly NOT in 1915.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Nonny said:
If the withdrawal had occurred during the Spring or Summer (or even the fall) instead of Winter, it's possible the British would have suffered horrendous casualties, as it would have been much harder to sneak away (clear weather and much shorter night).
If this had happened earlier than historical, the impact on the war would have been quite great, as there would be a huge army of veterans available for othere fronts. In 1915 that could have made a big difference in the Caucasus, as Russia was having severe logistical problems then, or the troops could have been used to eject the British from Mesopotamia. A stunning defeat of the British and capture of large amounts of troops would have been a political and morale disaster for the Entente.
Gallipoli already had a large impact upon history, as it created the officer corps that led the struggle for a Turkish nation, and provided the Ottomans with a large morale boost and a large number of hardened veterans.
With the success of Gallipoli, not the initial landings, but the push to seize Ottoman territories in Europe, including Istanbul, it is likely that the Ottomans MUST seek terms, even unfavorable ones. Greece has not made a decision yet and far too much eagerly sought Ottoman soil is now 'available'. If the Ottomans make a deal, they likely keep some that they lost in history, starting with northern Iraq and Syria(oil? they have oil where?). If not, Cyprus, Istanbul, and the coast around Izmir are over to Greece, which then enters the war. The Ottomans, cut off from aid and advisors, can be easily contained and eliminated at the leisure of the Allies.
With this, Bulgaria likely continues to give peace a chance(although the right allied bribe...), causing Romania and Greece to enter the war, dramatically strengthening the Balkan Front. Likely Macadonia and southern Serbia can be held, further diverting German attention from Russia.
As supplies pour in through to the Crimea, Russia is further strengthened by about 100,000 British troops(whose ideas near the Russians are just bound to get revolutionaries thinking...).
By 1916 Germany and it's one ally are in bad shape
Oh, and perhaps Great Britain can limit the number of ethnic groups and nations it promised Ottoman Palestine to below the low double digits?
Nah....
With this, Bulgaria likely continues to give peace a chance(although the right allied bribe...), causing Romania and Greece to enter the war, dramatically strengthening the Balkan Front. Likely Macadonia and southern Serbia can be held, further diverting German attention from Russia.
As supplies pour in through to the Crimea, Russia is further strengthened by about 100,000 British troops(whose ideas near the Russians are just bound to get revolutionaries thinking...).
By 1916 Germany and it's one ally are in bad shape
Oh, and perhaps Great Britain can limit the number of ethnic groups and nations it promised Ottoman Palestine to below the low double digits?
Nah....
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Grimm Reaper said:
Greece got it's ass kicked by the Turks AFTER Istanbul and Thrace had been occupied, all the German advisors had gone home, five more years of total war had gone by and the Ottoman army had been completely demobilized. If the Greeks so much as set foot in Anatolia in 1915 they would have been reduced to a puddle of goo in under 5 minutes.
I would like to see you support the notion that "cut off from advisors and supplies the Ottomans can be contained and eliminated at the leisure of the Allies". Tell that to the million casualties they suffered fighting the Ottomans historically. Istanbul is strategically irrelevant to the Ottoman war effort. If anything, it's a liability. The government would have relocated to Anatolia and fought on. In any case, the cost associated with taking Istanbul could outweigh the gains. The warship losses trying to operate in the Sea of Marmara are going to be truly horrendous, and if you look at a map, taking the Gallipoli peninsula does not exactly make Istanbul fall. You still have to get through Thrace, then get over the Chatalja Line, which is a more formidable defense than anything that was on Gallipoli, and until then, there are not going to be any supplies getting to Russia. Then there is the little problem of getting the Ottomans off the Asiatic shore, from whence they can shell any ships trying to get through the Straits. Don't forget that the Dardanelles are only the first part of the Straits - beyond them is the inland Sea of Marmara, and then the second strait, the Bosphorus.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The most ridiculous assumption the Entente made was that the Ottomans would have to surrender if Istanbul fell. The Turks didn't surrender historically even when Istanbul WAS occupied, Anatolia invaded by Russia, Armenia, Italy, Britain, Greece, and France, and the Turks only having about one-fifth the troops and equipment the Ottomans had in 1915, and exhausted by 12 years of continuous war.
Greece got it's ass kicked by the Turks AFTER Istanbul and Thrace had been occupied, all the German advisors had gone home, five more years of total war had gone by and the Ottoman army had been completely demobilized. If the Greeks so much as set foot in Anatolia in 1915 they would have been reduced to a puddle of goo in under 5 minutes.
Yeah, but the Greeks came pretty close to winning, and that was at a time when the Turks could focus most of their resources on just 1 enemy. In 1915 the Ottomans were at war with the world's 3 largest empires. I think in 1915 the Greeks could probably grab parts of the western coast of Turkey, if nothing else.
If Istanbul falls, the Ottomans would certainly be able to fight on, defending Anatolia, but they would also have lots of troops cut off in Europe. The allies would probably focus on moving north against these surviving Ottoman forces and their Bulgarian allies. In Anatolia, they would dig trenches and establish strongpoints and prepare to fight off any Ottoman counter-attack. With the straits open, a lot of Allied supplies could get through to Russia, strengthening its armies. Overall, it would be a major strategic victory for the Allies - one that might lead to Allied victory without a collapse of the Tsar's government in Russia.
Yeah, but the Greeks came pretty close to winning, and that was at a time when the Turks could focus most of their resources on just 1 enemy. In 1915 the Ottomans were at war with the world's 3 largest empires. I think in 1915 the Greeks could probably grab parts of the western coast of Turkey, if nothing else.
If Istanbul falls, the Ottomans would certainly be able to fight on, defending Anatolia, but they would also have lots of troops cut off in Europe. The allies would probably focus on moving north against these surviving Ottoman forces and their Bulgarian allies. In Anatolia, they would dig trenches and establish strongpoints and prepare to fight off any Ottoman counter-attack. With the straits open, a lot of Allied supplies could get through to Russia, strengthening its armies. Overall, it would be a major strategic victory for the Allies - one that might lead to Allied victory without a collapse of the Tsar's government in Russia.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Paul Spring said:
It raises a couple of interesting questions :-
1. What does the Goeben do ? Unless it wants to retreat to and sit off somewhere like Varna (Blugaria), or Trebizond, it will probably go down fighting.
2. I should think German and Austrian submarines out of the Adriatic are going to have a field day with any attempt to invade Western Anatolia by the Greeks.
3. It should also be remembered that in the post-war battles the Ottoman army was to a large degree inactive before Kemal kicked it into action. The Allies and the Sultan had decreed that it NOT fight the Greeks, nor contest the landings at Smyrna. If the Greeks try to do this in the middle of a war they will be landing under fire - artillery fire I assume. They will be met with an immediate counter-attack.
Combine 2. and 3. and you can see the need for the Greek landing to have substantial naval fire support. Are the British and French able to provide this, or are all their major warships tied up securing the Dardanelles, Marmara, Istanbul and one assumes also the Bosphorus ? If the British and French can not provide heavy fire support then the Greeks have to bring in what constituts their heavy guns - Lemnos, Kilkis and Averoff. I can bet the Central Powers u-boat commanders will be very happy !
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf
Donor
Grimm Reaper said:
When did the British and French promise Constantinople to Russia ?
Britain would never give Greece Cyprus; it was extremely annoyed at Versailles that Wilson was trying to redraw the maps to include the loss of non-ethnically cohesive possessions and protested that it had a strategic need for Cyprus
Grey Wolf
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Paul Spring said:
Disagree on every front. There would be virtually no troops trapped in Europe, they would have evacuated to Anatolia. This was planned for.
The Turks came nowhere near being defeated by Greece; the Nationalists played the game very deliberatively, gathering strength to push the Greeks out. The Greeks knew time was against them, and made a hopeless and suicidal lunge into Central Anatolia, which hastened their defeat.
The Turks were also NOT concentrating upon only one enemy; they were also repelling an invasion by Armenia, and French, Italian, and Russian invasions as well, and also trying to fend off the British who were in Istanbul, not to mention having to face of the Russians in a land-grab - relations were relatively friendly, but very, very wary, and they Soviets could only be trusted with force.
Western biases have led to consistent underestimation of the Ottomans and Turks.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Grey Wolf said:
Russia was promised Istanbul. This was mooted by Russia's collapse, and even then, after Greece had joined the Entente, the British did not let them have it. It would have remained a British-controlled zone until eventually it was recovered by the Turks or Ottomans, whichever was around.
Grey Wolf said:
We offered Cyprus to Greece in 1915, to try to bring them into the war.
"CONDITIONAL OFFER TO GREECE 16 OCTOBER 1915: Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, in an emergency meeting of the Cabinet managed to have the decision of offering Cyprus to Greece made on condition that Greece should join the war helping the Serbs who were attacked by Bulgaria.
27 OCTOBER 1915: The Greek government headed by Zaimis and the King were not willing to renounce Greece's neutrality and join the war. Thus the offer was not accepted. Therefore the British offer to hand over Cyprus to Greece lapsed and the British parliament was accordingly informed on 27 October 1915. "
- http://www.trncgov.com/history_6.htm but you can find it on Greek sites too, it's not propaganda.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Grey Wolf said:
1. Goeben would have held back in the Bosphorus and shelled Entente ships; she had greater range, and could have been deliberately listed to increase this. She was not in great fighting condition at this time, but perfectly capable of firing. Queen Elizabeth could outrange her, but I think the chances of her being risked in the Sea of Marmara were negligible.
2. Forget the Aegean, try the Marmara. Warships would be sitting ducks there. In any case, the Greeks totally lacked any capacity to transport invasion forces; they would have to be carried in British ships and supported by British gunfire. Landing opposed in unthinkable. They would be lucky to get anyone ashore alive.
3. The Ottoman army had been totally demobilized. A few local commanders had managed to secretly keep some units active, and the Ottoman government was able to sneak Mustafa Kemal out to Anatolia as an inspector to oversee demobilization, but the forces he had at his disposal were a tiny fraction of what the Ottomans had available in 1915.
The Turks were also NOT concentrating upon only one enemy; they were also repelling an invasion by Armenia, and French, Italian, and Russian invasions as well, and also trying to fend off the British who were in Istanbul, not to mention having to face of the Russians in a land-grab - relations were relatively friendly, but very, very wary, and they Soviets could only be trusted with force.
None of those threats were quite like the threat of a full invasion by a powerful enemy during a major war, though. The British, French, and Italians demobilized the bulk of their armies after WWI ended, and the forces they had on the fringes of Turkey were fairly small. Armenia was a small country in the southern Caucasus that ended up submitting to Soviet control because they were afraid of being conquered by the Turks. The Soviet Union itself was in the concluding stages of a massive Civil War in wasn't in shape to start overrunning other countries (they had tried that with Poland and been beaten). The Greeks themselves came from a smaller country, with a smaller population, fewer resources, etc. The Ottomans had much greater strength in 1915 than 6 or 7 years later, but the same was true for their opponents.
There would be virtually no troops trapped in Europe, they would have evacuated to Anatolia. This was planned for.
British and French ships could sink a lot of them if they were ferried across the Sea of Marmara or the Bosphorus. If the Russian fleet in the Black Sea got involved, it could sink those that were trying to cross the Black Sea. A lot would depend on how aggressive the allies were - if they were willing to lose some ships to mines or submarines they could have blocked the routes between Europe and Anatolia pretty quickly.
None of those threats were quite like the threat of a full invasion by a powerful enemy during a major war, though. The British, French, and Italians demobilized the bulk of their armies after WWI ended, and the forces they had on the fringes of Turkey were fairly small. Armenia was a small country in the southern Caucasus that ended up submitting to Soviet control because they were afraid of being conquered by the Turks. The Soviet Union itself was in the concluding stages of a massive Civil War in wasn't in shape to start overrunning other countries (they had tried that with Poland and been beaten). The Greeks themselves came from a smaller country, with a smaller population, fewer resources, etc. The Ottomans had much greater strength in 1915 than 6 or 7 years later, but the same was true for their opponents.
There would be virtually no troops trapped in Europe, they would have evacuated to Anatolia. This was planned for.
British and French ships could sink a lot of them if they were ferried across the Sea of Marmara or the Bosphorus. If the Russian fleet in the Black Sea got involved, it could sink those that were trying to cross the Black Sea. A lot would depend on how aggressive the allies were - if they were willing to lose some ships to mines or submarines they could have blocked the routes between Europe and Anatolia pretty quickly.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Paul Spring said:
Armenia was Sovietized because they expended all their resources trying to annex half of Anatolia, not because they were afraid of being conquered by the Turks, who were in fact the first nation to recognize Armenia.
If you look at a map, the Russian fleet would be useless in preventing Ottoman troops from crossing from Europe to Asia - the Bosphorus is quite long and narrow - until very recently, it was crossed in small boats in a couple of minutes. Also, if the Russians were capable of entering the Straits, one would think while the British were struggling at Gallipoli might have been a convenient time to do it! Even if the Entente had been successful in forcing the Dardanelles, this would still not allow them to interfere with crossings at the Bosphrus.
In any case, the British did not have any more troops availble than they were already using, and an invasion of Anatolia was beyond their capabilities and resources. They would have been badly defeated at Gallipoli if not for naval support.
Gallipoli disaster re ANZACs
Had the Gallipoli beach-head somehow totally been enveloped and overrun by the Turks (which I doubt IMHO given the relatively strong nature of the British and ANZAC trench-lines and the determination of the Allied troops to repulse enemy attacks), then the impact on Aust and NZ would've been even greater than OTL. Had the entire ANZAC force been wiped out or captured somehow, then wouldn't these Dominions' contribution to the war effort in manpower have been seriously compromised at the least or at worst totally negated ? Would the national outrage thruout Australasia have been so great that ppl would've demanded we quit the war due to British military incompetence which had cost the lives of so many young Antipodean men ?
Had the Gallipoli beach-head somehow totally been enveloped and overrun by the Turks (which I doubt IMHO given the relatively strong nature of the British and ANZAC trench-lines and the determination of the Allied troops to repulse enemy attacks), then the impact on Aust and NZ would've been even greater than OTL. Had the entire ANZAC force been wiped out or captured somehow, then wouldn't these Dominions' contribution to the war effort in manpower have been seriously compromised at the least or at worst totally negated ? Would the national outrage thruout Australasia have been so great that ppl would've demanded we quit the war due to British military incompetence which had cost the lives of so many young Antipodean men ?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Grey Wolf said:
Very few of the troops at Salonika were British; this was mostly a French effort. And in any case, many of the troops (3 divisions) facing off the Entente at Salonika were Ottomans.