Allies take Alexandretta, not Gallipoli 1915?

Quick idea...

Let's say that Kitchener's plan wins out over Churchill's to attack Alexandretta, the hub of the Ottoman Rail network instead of Gallipoli in 1915. Let's also say for the sake of argument, that the attack succeeds and the Entente take the city and it's environs.

Now the Ottomans are facing a big problem, without their rail hub, their peripheral territories of Mesopotamia and Palestine are impossible to reinforce, leaving them wide open to future British attacks. Furthermore their positions in Eastern Anatolia are also vulnerable from a renewed Allied attack from Alexandretta.

Now let's say that someone gets wise and decides that dismantling the Ottoman Empire isn't worth losing the rest of the war. Peace overtures are made giving generous terms to the Ottomans. I was thinking

1) Hand over the Goeben and Breslau (for UK ships?) and intern all CP troops on Ottoman Soil.

2)Open the straits to Allied convoys to Russia.

3)Small territorial concessions (Sinai to UK as a DMZ?)

4) Join the war effort against the CP

In exchange the Entente agrees to recognize the Ottoman Empire's new borders and guarantee it's territorial sovereignty. The Ottomans decide to take it, jumping ship in late 1915. With the straits open to Allied shipping Russia is buoyed and in short order, Bulgaria, Romania, and Italy all join the Entente to gang up against Austria-Hungary.

Thoughts?
 
124 views and no comments?

What, are people blown away by the mere suggestion that an Entente early victory and a surviving Ottoman Empire could co-exist in the same scenario?

IMO this is a fairly unique and plausible scenario...
 

Deleted member 1487

Probably because Alexandretta doesn't actually sit on a crucial rail route. You probably are thinking of Adana, but that is a non-option, as the landing beaches are hemmed in by mountains and it is very very rough terrain with next to no means of supplying the force moving deep in land. It is a defender's dream on so many levels, the best of which is that once the MEF moves in land there is no support for naval gunfire. Check out google earth to see what I mean. All these options were given and turned down for these very reasons. That and none of them actually help Russia and absolutely will not knock the Ottoman empire out of the war. All it does is expend Entente forces with no guarantees for success and too high a risk of intense embarrassment. Sorry, but this is a non-starter.
http://unimaps.com/syria-leb1923/mainmap.gif
http://www.greece.org/genocide/quotes/ge-map-cilicia.gif

Edit:
I also raised the Adana scenario before and was quite rightly shot down. I can't find it on search but maybe if you check my handle you can.
 
Sinai was already controlled by the British before the war. If this did play out, some better territorial concessions would have been:

- France gets coastal Lebanon and Alexandretta
- Greece gets part of Thrace and Smyrna
- British turn the Hejaz into a protectorate, and add Gaza and Negev to Egypt
- British occupy southern Mesopotamia
- a small slice of Armenia is given to Russia
- Italy gets the port of Adana
- the rest of the Ottoman Empire would be incompased within spheres of influence for the countries that would gain territory.
 
Top