You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
alternatehistory.com
Hello, here I want to discuss another controversial aspect of WW1. Everebody discussed about an eventual success of Dardanelles/Gallipoli operation in 1915. Here I want to discuss with you one eventual aftermath: a Danube operation against Austria-Hungary. In case of success, after Dardanelles, this was the idea of ministers Lloyd George and Churchill, emerged during the January 1915 debate (before Dardanelles). This idea was repeated in Thomas Hankey’s memorandum “After the Dardanelles, the next steps”, drafted on 2 March (16 days before the naval attack on Dardanelles). The plans supposed that Romania and Greece would have joined the Entente after a succesfull Dardanelles campaign. According to this plan, a British expeditionnary force, supported by a large flotilla (Insect class gunboats and other light ships) would constitute the center of an allied army. Serbians and Greeks, on the left, would move into Bosnia and Hezegovina. On the right, the Romanians (supported by French troops) would held the lines, with the help of Russian forces in Galicia. British forces would turn the flank of forces opposing Romanian army, which would enable the latter to threaten the Austro-Hungarian forces in Galicia. This plan was revised and studied untill the end of Gallipoli campaign. It was discarded only after the Serbian collapse in autumn 1915.
Against British played several factors; among them:
Distances: the Danube front was very far from London, British navy should have assured a long life-line in the Mediterranean in order to send troops and materiels in the Balkans. On the other side of the hill, German and Austrian’s forces had a very efficient railway net and they could transport all troops and materiel necessary to stop an enemy advance Local logistics: Serbia had only one railway line from Nis to Belgrade. British had to trasport everything by river, along the Danube. If they didn’t occupy the northern bank (Hungaria and Croatia) this life-line would have been closed. Order of Battle: Greeks and Romanian troops were very weak. I don’t know how many French and British forces could have sent in the new front. But, considering a success in Dardanelles, Kitchner’s desire to keep all troops in France could be overcome.
Against Central Powers played other factors, like:
Morale: after an eventual defeat of the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria neutrality, Austria-Hungary and Germany would be isolated against a larger Entente’s coalition. In this scenario, they could have lost any hope in victory, especially in Austro-Hungarian empire. Balance of powers: bring together the forces Russia, Romania, Greece, Serbia, Italy and a large British and French contingent and you can have at your disposal one of the largest army in military history. Austria-Hungary (the weakest of the two Central Powers) supported by German forces, should have to resist to: an Italian push from South-West, an offensive of a large Allied force from the south, an eventual Russian offensive from East. British flotilla: it could have played a significant role in a Danube’s campaign. British Insect class gunboats surclassed all Austrian ships of Danube’s flotilla. This factor could provide allied forces with superior firepower.
What if the Danube campaign started? Could have been an Entente’s decisive victory in late 1915/early 1916? Or another Entente’s disaster? Discuss