Russians Take Baghdad in 1917

In 1917, British commanders in the Mesopotamian Campaign during ww1 were anxious about the fact that with the recent huge advance of the Russians in 1916 to the Ottomans in Erzurum, the Russians would attempt to take Baghdad.

The Russians, in reality, had purposed a Spring plan of a Mesopotamian invasion to relife the British from the recent defeat a Kut and try to get the Ottomans out of the war faster.

Fear of a Russian seizure of Baghdad from the Ottomans is one of the motivators for the Invasion of Baghdad.

It was such a real issue, a British officer reasoned that if they reached Baghdad first, "It would nullify the Sykes-Picot agreement"


So, what would happen, if the Russians did take Baghdad in 1917 before the British did?

How would it happen?

And what are it's consequences?
 
You are asking what a Russian Mesopotamia would look like? Well I'm sure they would have loved to hold it and have a warm water Persian Gulf Port but that probably isn't possible. No one knew about the regions oil reserves till after the 1920s so nobody is going annex the land for that reason. Here are three scenarios.

1. The Russians hand over Baghdad and Mesopotamia to Persia in exchange for the South Caspian Coast and some leasing rights on their ports in the Persian Gulf.

2. Mesopotamia is partitioned between the Russians and the British. Perhaps North/South.

3. Russia will use Mesopotamia as a bargaining chip in postwar negotiations. British get all of Iraq in exchange for Russia getting something else. Perhaps the Turkish Straits?

Of course, this all can only happen if Russia wins the War in Europe. If they concede to Germany or revolution happens like in OTL, any gains they made will be forfeit and the British will seize Baghdad anyway.
 
In 1917, British commanders in the Mesopotamian Campaign during ww1 were anxious about the fact that with the recent huge advance of the Russians in 1916 to the Ottomans in Erzurum, the Russians would attempt to take Baghdad.

The Russians, in reality, had purposed a Spring plan of a Mesopotamian invasion to relife the British from the recent defeat a Kut and try to get the Ottomans out of the war faster.

Fear of a Russian seizure of Baghdad from the Ottomans is one of the motivators for the Invasion of Baghdad.

It was such a real issue, a British officer reasoned that if they reached Baghdad first, "It would nullify the Sykes-Picot agreement"


So, what would happen, if the Russians did take Baghdad in 1917 before the British did?

How would it happen?

And what are it's consequences?

The British even after being defeated at Kut still were closer and likely to take Baghdad before Russia even reaches Mosul. Not something you succeed in a few months. There needs to be changes like British pinned down in Basra and Russia has more troops in the Caucasus. Maybe weakening German Army in Poland or so.

But getting a fair deal by taking Baghdad is not necessary. The Mosul Vilayet is enough. Britain wants it.
 
This is a very interesting thesis on the British thinking about Mesepotamia.

British strategy and oil, 1914-1923

Gibson, Martin William (2012) British strategy and oil, 1914-1923. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow

Abstract
This thesis analyses the significance of oil to British strategy during 1914-1923. It shows that by 1923 Britain had a coherent oil policy, which affected naval strategy, diplomatic relations, policy towards the oil industry and post-war aims in the Middle East. Previous works have looked at only part of the picture and have not appreciated the extent to which oil affected all these areas. This work brings all these different facets together into a single study. The most important British user of oil was the Royal Navy, which was replacing coal with oil as its principal fuel even before the First World War, which saw great growth in the use of oil. Aircraft and land vehicles powered by oil fuelled internal combustion engines transformed both warfare and civilian life, but their overall usage of oil was much less than that of the RN. British industry was slower than the RN to adopt oil because coal was cheaper; the RN put the technical advantages of oil ahead of cost.

Britain's power and prestige was based on its naval supremacy; British dominance of naval fuel bunkering was a key factor in this. Britain had substantial reserves of coal, including Welsh steam coal, the best in the world for naval use, but little oil. Britain's oil strategy in 1914 was to build up reserves cheaply in peacetime and to buy on the market in wartime. An oil crisis in 1917 showed that this was flawed and that secure, British controlled supplies were needed. The war created an opportunity for Britain to secure substantial oil reserves in the Middle East. Attempts to obtain control of these affected the peace treaties and Britain's post-war relations with its Allies. The USA was then the world's largest producer and was the main supplier to the Allies during the war. It believed, wrongly, that its output would decline in the 1920s and feared that Britain was trying to exclude it from the rest of the world. France also realised that it needed access to safe and reliable supplies of oil.

The largest available potential oilfield was in the Mosul vilayet, part of the Ottoman Empire in 1914, and now part of Iraq. The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement allocated about half of Mosul to France, which in 1918 agreed to include all of it in the British mandate territory of Iraq in return for a share of the oil and British support elsewhere. Other disagreements delayed an Anglo-French oil agreement, but one was finally signed at San Remo in 1920. It was followed by the Treaty of Sèvres with the Ottoman Empire, which appeared to give Britain all that it wanted in the Middle East. The resurgence of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal meant that it had to be re-negotiated at Lausanne in 1923. Sèvres angered the USA, since it appeared to exclude US oil companies from Iraq. For a period Britain focused on the need to have a large, British controlled oil company, but it was eventually realised that control of oil bearing territory was more important than the nationality of companies. This allowed US oil companies to be given a stake in Iraqi oil, improving Anglo-American relations. Britain's need for oil meant that it had to ensure that the Treaty of Lausanne left Mosul as part of the British mandate territory of Iraq. Turkey objected, but the League of Nations ruled in Britain's favour. Britain had other interests in the region, but most of them did not require control over Mosul. Mosul's oil gave Britain secure supplies and revenue that made Iraq viable without British subsidies. By 1923 Britain had devised a coherent strategy of ensuring secure supplies of oil by controlling oil bearing territory.

Full download available from this link

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/3160/
 
Last edited:
Top