Successful Gallipoli

I am not sure how. Better planning perhaps or if the Turks had built more of thier forts right on the coasts making British bombardment more successfull. Anyway, this would change the war. Russia's armies are better supplied and much more effective. Allied troops come to Serbia's rescue. Bulgaria joins entente.
 
I am not sure how. Better planning perhaps or if the Turks had built more of thier forts right on the coasts making British bombardment more successfull. Anyway, this would change the war. Russia's armies are better supplied and much more effective. Allied troops come to Serbia's rescue. Bulgaria joins entente.

There is an entire TL with that premise here ... I don´t remember its name dough ...
 
There is a simple way to do that,

just have the naval attack on the 18 marts either not run into the lone minefield, or decide to press on anyway...

The turks were pretty much out of ammo and no real answer to a couple of battleships ankered off the Golden Horn.
 
There is a simple way to do that,

just have the naval attack on the 18 marts either not run into the lone minefield, or decide to press on anyway...

The turks were pretty much out of ammo and no real answer to a couple of battleships ankered off the Golden Horn.

Yes, but what happens after that?

Abdul seemed to think that even if the Allies took territory, they wouldn't be able to secure their macro-goals like controlling the Straits or taking Constantinople.
 
Yes, but what happens after that?

Abdul seemed to think that even if the Allies took territory, they wouldn't be able to secure their macro-goals like controlling the Straits or taking Constantinople.

He also was of the opinion that the Ottoman Empire was one of the most liberal, progressive, groundbreaking regimes in humanity and never killed one person out of hand ever.
 
The Armenian genocide started at this time, nearly to the day. If the straits become open quickly, then a possible assistance. I doubt it for a variety of reasons (those few on the coasts like Sinope were already very quickly boated out off coasts and tied together in roped groups to die), and most were killed off in the first few days, but who knows. Also, the Armenians close to the coasts, a smaller group, would have a changed situation. For example, the policy of the Turks then was to gauge armies and potential repercussions. The ethnic Greeks were merely interned without severe trouble, because their kin had a large standing army. No way were the Turks going to be invaded deep inside their territory any time soon.

Not many political butterflies, AFAIK Armenians were a mere political toy for the Russians, but certainly some humanitarian ones.
 
He also was of the opinion that the Ottoman Empire was one of the most liberal, progressive, groundbreaking regimes in humanity and never killed one person out of hand ever.

That's a lot more dubious than the distribution of troops around Constantinople at the time.
 
I think the TL referred to above was Anaxagoras' Rule Britannia!

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=30473

Turkey's entry into WW1 is undoubtedly one of the biggest WI's ever, as well as a successful Dardanelles' operation, if Churchill hadn't rubbed the Ottoman's noses in it over their new Dreadnoughts or if Goeben and Breslau had been intercepted then Turkey may well have decided against joining the CP's. For the Dardanelles to be a success it would help if there had been better planning and organisation of the operation to begin with or if the initial assault had been a combined land and sea operation.

The truth is we simply don't know what would have happened if the RN had made it to the Sea of Marmara, Abdul Hamid Pasha points out that they would still have had to force the even narrower Bosphorous and they have to try and keep a force supplied in what is effectively a Turkish lake. He also argues that the Ottoman government had plans to move to Anatolia and continue the war from there, that's true but having a plan doesn't necessarily mean that you can manage to implement it. There's numerous examples from history in which and enemy force bearing down on your capital causes the moral of the defenders to crack leading to an implosion of the government, in such circumstances it doesn't need much to create panic among the defenders and the civil population causing a full scale collapse, undoubtedly there would have been those in the Government who had opposed entry to the war who would have desperate to strike a deal with the British while there would have been diehards wanting to fight to the last bullet. Alternatively as AHP argues, the defenders could have held, equally there are plenty of examples of people "rallying to the flag" when their nation is faced with defeat and beating back the invaders. Both scenarios and several others would have been possible in those circumstances.

As to WI the British had succeeded, the entire course of subsequent history is altered. With a secure supply line to Russia for arms from the West and an export line for Russian grain then Russia performs much better in the East almost certainly preventing the 1917 Revolutions, so no Communism. With Turkey out of the War Greece and Romania would probably have joined the War earlier and Bulgaria could have been pressured into staying neutral, this increases the strain on Austria-Hungary and the consensus is in such a TL, AH would have broken in late 1916/early 1917. This would have led to the CP's asking for terms before American entry into the War, Anaxagoras' TL gives an account of the terms which are better for the CP's than Versailles. No reparations means that Germany doesn't collapse economically in the post War World. In addition as the cause of the final defeat would have been the collapse of "those incompetent Austrians" a certain Austrian would not have found the same receptive audience for his claims of a "Judeo-Bolshevik arch conspiracy!" The German Empire would have continued albeit after Wilhelm II's abdication albeit without it's colonies and with a much smaller navy.

As for the Allies, they wouldn't have been in so much debt and if the wasteful Western Front offensives hadn't been necessary then the casualty rates would have been far less so pacifism would never have taken off to the same extent. Britain emerges better off than France and with no American involvement it is likely the sole superpower. Irish Home Rule gets enacted in some form and the Liberals probably don't implode as IOTL leaving Labour as the third party. The Great Game of colonialism continues with Britain and Russia as the main players. No "Versailles diktat" means it's very unlikely there would have been a WW2 we get a more stable World but the colonial empires last much longer and without OTL's Cold War and the influence if Communism inspiring Nationalist movements, former colonies would retain close links with their former masters. Finally without the huge impetus given to technological development by WW2 and the Cold War, overall technology levels are probably at the level of the late 1980's, there's probably no nuclear weapons or energy and space exploration would have started much later and at a slower rate.

Sorry for the essay but a British victory at the Dardanelles would quite literally have had the potential to change everything you see outside your window today!
 

mowque

Banned
Yes, but what happens after that?

Abdul seemed to think that even if the Allies took territory, they wouldn't be able to secure their macro-goals like controlling the Straits or taking Constantinople.

Quite. The fighting shows the sturdiness of Turkish troops if led correctly and in defensive positions. Digging them out of Constantinople isn't going to be cheap!
 
Thanks for the very well written and interesting essay Oncoming Storm. I do have one disagreement. I think Bulgaria would have joined the Entente. They would have wanted a share of the loot. I also can see Germany fighting on after Austria Hungary surrenders. I see US. British, French and Russian troops conquering Germany in 1918.
 
Thanks for the very well written and interesting essay Oncoming Storm. I do have one disagreement. I think Bulgaria would have joined the Entente. They would have wanted a share of the loot. I also can see Germany fighting on after Austria Hungary surrenders. I see US. British, French and Russian troops conquering Germany in 1918.

An Austrian surrender means Game Over for Germany as they would have been surrounded on all sides by hostile powers and they would have been subject to the British blockade. Fighting on alone would have been impossible, the Entente powers would have simply needed to have maintained the blockade and waited for the food to run out. German generals and politicians knew their situation would have been hopeless, the only option would have been to seek the best possible terms.
 
There is a simple way to do that,

just have the naval attack on the 18 marts either not run into the lone minefield, or decide to press on anyway...

The turks were pretty much out of ammo and no real answer to a couple of battleships ankered off the Golden Horn.

Actually, Abdul Hadi Pasha has also pointed out that the defenders of the Dardanelles Straits had only used up a sixth of their available ammunition, as confirmed by the official Ottoman and German records, and that's taking into consideration that the main battery defending the Straits hadn't even been reached by the British.

Also, the Ottomans had plenty of torpedo boats and submarines that could have caused havoc on the fleet had they been able to enter the Sea of Marmara.
 
An Austrian surrender means Game Over for Germany as they would have been surrounded on all sides by hostile powers and they would have been subject to the British blockade. Fighting on alone would have been impossible, the Entente powers would have simply needed to have maintained the blockade and waited for the food to run out. German generals and politicians knew their situation would have been hopeless, the only option would have been to seek the best possible terms.

I assume the Kaiser is still overthrown. With Tsarist Russia at the peace table Germany peace terms are worse than OTL. There would of course be no independent Poland. How would the maps of the Austrian Hungarian Empire be redrawn? What about the post war.Would Hitler still rise to power without the fear of communism? His other issues the bitter peace, the bad economy, anti semitism, racism are still there.
 
Thanks for the very well written and interesting essay Oncoming Storm. I do have one disagreement. I think Bulgaria would have joined the Entente. They would have wanted a share of the loot. I also can see Germany fighting on after Austria Hungary surrenders. I see US. British, French and Russian troops conquering Germany in 1918.

I agree, in the event of Bulgaria joining the Entente they would probably want Adrianople, which they won in the First Balkan War, but which they lost to the Ottomans again in the Second.
 

Deleted member 1487

Actually, Abdul Hadi Pasha has also pointed out that the defenders of the Dardanelles Straits had only used up a sixth of their available ammunition, as confirmed by the official Ottoman and German records, and that's taking into consideration that the main battery defending the Straits hadn't even been reached by the British.

Also, the Ottomans had plenty of torpedo boats and submarines that could have caused havoc on the fleet had they been able to enter the Sea of Marmara.

So a fleet action further into the Straights has the potential to be far bloodier than OTL and could well shift the balance of naval power a bit more in CP favor. Additionally there were more mines further along, so just because the Entente fleet passed without contacting any mines doesn't mean they won't hit more, especially hastily laid fields.
 
So a fleet action further into the Straights has the potential to be far bloodier than OTL and could well shift the balance of naval power a bit more in CP favor. Additionally there were more mines further along, so just because the Entente fleet passed without contacting any mines doesn't mean they won't hit more, especially hastily laid fields.
I'd imagine so, yes.
 
Cashiered Captains...

IIRC, one problem with the RN trying to force the Dardanelles was that any Captain who lost his ship in action at that stage of the war faced almost certain 'beaching' following his obligatory court martial...

It was not conducive to 'pressing on' through the coastal forts' fierce fire...

Had the RN trusted the Intelligence reports that the forts were almost out of ammunition and given a 'Nelson' order to 'Press On', much may have differed.

( Later, IIRC, during the North Sea battles, when even Admirals had to shift their flag in a hurry, a modicum of reality crept in. Plus, the 1918 amphibious assault on Zeebrugge *expected* to lose some supporting ships, which were modified accordingly... )

Also, IIRC, when the troops landed at Gallipoli, they initially faced scant opposition. This was fortunate, because they'd been stuck in over-heated, insanitary transports for rather too long. However, by the time the landed forces got themselves sorted out, the Turks had grabbed the high ground, so OTL's debacle ensued...

If the commanders had the wit to send an advance guard to hold the lightly guarded heights, so much might have been different...
 
I have one thought about the rise of Hitler. He would not have the stabbed in the back isssue. ITTL the defeat of Germany is much more clear cut than OTL. Particularly if Russian troops sack Berlin.
 
I assume the Kaiser is still overthrown. With Tsarist Russia at the peace table Germany peace terms are worse than OTL. There would of course be no independent Poland. How would the maps of the Austrian Hungarian Empire be redrawn? What about the post war.Would Hitler still rise to power without the fear of communism? His other issues the bitter peace, the bad economy, anti semitism, racism are still there.

With the war ending a lot earlier, it's possible the monarchy in itself will survive, but the German population won't want Wilhelm II himself to retain the throne, it would probably be passed to his son.

I'm not sure about the terms of the treaty being worse, without an independent Poland, there will be no need to concede the "Polish Corridor", which especially antagonised a lot of Germans.

Austria-Hungary will lose Galicia to Russia (probably annexed to Poland), Bosnia to Serbia, Trento and Trieste to Italy (if they join) and probably some land in Transylvania to Romania (though more limited than in OTL).

Without the Great Depression, the economic situation in Germany will be better than in OTL, many people believed in the stab-in-the-back myth, that the Germans were on the verge of victory and that they were betrayed by elements of German society such as Jews, pacifists, socialists and communists. Hitler's popularity was largely based on factors such as these. With Germany being more decisively defeated, possibly with home territory being occupied, the German people would be able to see that their nation has been clearly defeated.

Due to the above I find it unlikely that Hitler would become as popular as he was in OTL, but even if he did come to power, he would not be able to go far as a lot of his early success was due to the antagonism and distrust between the western allies and Soviet Russia. With the Tsarist regime surviving, the western allies will consider these more ideologically compatible and perhaps work together to prevent Hitler achieving much outside German-speaking territories.
 
Top