The Iskenderun Option.

maverick · Mar 10, 2007

During the early days of the Great war, two men presented plans to take the Ottomans out of the war.
One was the suicidal attack at the Dardanelles that killed 500,000 people for not gain whatsoever...and Lord Kitchener's plan, with involved an amphibious invasion of Alexandretta, which would have cut the Ottoman empire in two while taking an strategic centre of the ottoman railway system.

Now, what if the British had went with Lord Kitchener's Plan? war over by early 1917? late 1916?

Calgacus · Mar 10, 2007

maverick said:
During the early days of the Great war, two men presented plans to take the Ottomans out of the war.
One was the suicidal attack at the Dardanelles that killed 500,000 people for not gain whatsoever...and Lord Kitchener's plan, with involved an amphibious invasion of Alexandretta, which would have cut the Ottoman empire in two while taking an strategic centre of the ottoman railway system.

Now, what if the British had went with Lord Kitchener's Plan? war over by early 1917? late 1916?

Why would the fall of the OE have knocked Germany out of the war?

Max Sinister · Mar 10, 2007

It would've helped indirectly - the western Allies could've helped Russia via the Bosphorus now. Until then, the country was cut off. And it would've helped allied morale and harmed the German and Austrian one.

maverick · Mar 10, 2007

@Calgalus
-More British troops and resources at the Western Front.
-Bulgaria might not join, meaning that Serbia might not fall.
-More russian troops on the Eastern Front.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Mar 10, 2007

It would have been a much better option than the Dardanelles, but it would not have ended the war much earlier - maybe pushed the Ottomans out earlier...

carlton_bach · Mar 10, 2007

Could it have discombobulated the Ottoman government enough to actually drop out of the war early, with minimal (or no) territorial losses? That would hurt Germany badly.

Wendell · Mar 10, 2007

This might help the Zionist movement...

carlton_bach · Mar 11, 2007

Wendell said:
This might help the Zionist movement...

I doubt it. With a negotiated peace early in the war, would the Ottomans even be required to give up Palestine? And if they were, would the British actually run it themselves rather than through client rulers? In Zionist terms, WWI really could not have had a better outcome short of ASBs making the Entente deed Palestine to their Congress in perpetuity.

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Mar 11, 2007

carlton_bach said:
With a negotiated peace early in the war, would the Ottomans even be required to give up Palestine?

I'd expect so. Both the British and the French had their eyes on it, and with Alexandretta taken the Entente can more easily advance north from Egypt.

Wendell · Mar 11, 2007

carlton_bach said:
I doubt it. With a negotiated peace early in the war, would the Ottomans even be required to give up Palestine? And if they were, would the British actually run it themselves rather than through client rulers? In Zionist terms, WWI really could not have had a better outcome short of ASBs making the Entente deed Palestine to their Congress in perpetuity.

There is one thing that could have been better for the Zionists: No British protectorates on the Arabian Peninsula. Unfortunately, all except Iraq and Jordan predate the war.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Mar 12, 2007

carlton_bach said:
Could it have discombobulated the Ottoman government enough to actually drop out of the war early, with minimal (or no) territorial losses? That would hurt Germany badly.

If having a landing a few miles from the captial didn't "discombobulate" the government enough to drop out of the war early, why would you think a landing in Syria would?

carlton_bach · Mar 12, 2007

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
If having a landing a few miles from the captial didn't "discombobulate" the government enough to drop out of the war early, why would you think a landing in Syria would?

Not a landing in Syria, a thoroughgoing military defeat there. If the Gallipoli landings had been successful, they'd have stood a good chance. If Iskenderun fails, it'll just be another Mesopotamia. The difference is here, British success is assumed.

Grey Wolf · Mar 12, 2007

carlton_bach said:
Not a landing in Syria, a thoroughgoing military defeat there. If the Gallipoli landings had been successful, they'd have stood a good chance. If Iskenderun fails, it'll just be another Mesopotamia. The difference is here, British success is assumed.

The main question really is whether Britain has the resources to push through the mountains of Anatolia, and if it does whether the Ottomans can organise an effective defence there.

If Britain (and presumably France too, since they had contingents bound for Gallipolli that ended up at Salonika when they saw how doomed it was, plus of course France having great interests in the Lebanon)... er, if the Allies instead of advancing through Anatolia choose to focus on a Sykes-Picot view of the Middle East and set about conquering and taking the territories there, whilst damn annoying to the Ottomans its not going to cost them the war.

The third option, and perhaps the one that makes most sense in a bizarre way, would be to strike NORTHWARDS to link up with the Russians in the Caucasus. This cuts the Ottoman Empire in half, without having to actually conquer Syria or Mesopotamia which can be cleaned up later, and presents a united front to the Ottomans. However, it may well be a DEFENSIBLE united front, and get bogged down in attrition pretty soon

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Mar 12, 2007

Grey Wolf said:
The third option, and perhaps the one that makes most sense in a bizarre way, would be to strike NORTHWARDS to link up with the Russians in the Caucasus.

Why not strike east, link up with the British forces advancing through Mesopotamia (unless they're defeated in TTL too), then link up with the Russians around Lake Van?

Wendell · Mar 12, 2007

Grey Wolf said:
The third option, and perhaps the one that makes most sense in a bizarre way, would be to strike NORTHWARDS to link up with the Russians in the Caucasus. This cuts the Ottoman Empire in half, without having to actually conquer Syria or Mesopotamia which can be cleaned up later, and presents a united front to the Ottomans. However, it may well be a DEFENSIBLE united front, and get bogged down in attrition pretty soon

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Thus producing some rather interesting butterflies.

LordKalvan · Mar 12, 2007

IMHO the Alexandretta option would have been much better (and much more successful) than the blood bath at Gallipoli; the impact would have been very significant, cutting the empire in two, and threatening to move into either the Anatolia proper or toward Damascus.

I would not have tried to force my way through the Cilician gates, however; and the idea of pushing toward the Caucasus is quite ambitious, but might become a logistical nightmare. Possibly the best option might be to push along the cosast, and, as soon as the front stabilizes, threaten it from the back with another amphibious landing. I would think that the Ottomans would have significant difficulties in opposing such a strategy, given the total domination of the Egean sea by the Entente; and logistic issues would be deal with much more easily.

My guess: OE pulls out from the war before winter 1915; under such an assumption, the peace treaty might be much less punitive (it's not in British interest to create a vacuum in the region which might be exploited by the Russians: the friends of today....): the economic interests of UK and France might be better served by a tightening of the Capitulations regime; possible exceptions might be Palestine and Lebanon (not so much as a naked land grab, but rather to toss a bone to the French whose stewardship of the Holy Sites would become much stronger); the straits would be garrisoned by Entente troops, obviously.

Outcome: Russia can be fed through the straits (and even more importantly can export though the same); a new front can be opened in Western Thrace, knocking out Bulgaria - if they still get into the war - and creating a supply route for Serbia. AH position should get worse very very soon (at best, I give them until the death of Franz Joseph). How long do you think Germany can last in such a scenario?

It would be a negotiated peace for Germany and OE; A-H would be partitioned. It might be hoped that the 1917 Versailles treaty would be less punitive than the OTL one, but I am not really convinced of that. Best outcome for Germany might be loosing all the colonies and Alsace-Lorraine (assuming tha Russia is satisfied with some minor gains in the Caucasus and Galicia)

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Mar 15, 2007

VoCSe said:
Why not strike east, link up with the British forces advancing through Mesopotamia (unless they're defeated in TTL too), then link up with the Russians around Lake Van?

If you look at a map, it wouldn't really be possible to do that due to desert.

I think the main attraction of this would be it would cut the Ottomans off from Syria and Arabia - but I wouldn't count on it diminishing Ottoman military capability, and I don't think there is any chance of success in pushing into Anatolia.