The Ottoman Empire gets their battleships

Cook

Banned
I think its still fairly likely that Russia will pursue a war with Turkey. Its important to remember...
It's important to learn a little history.
By conquering Constantinople and the Straits, annexing Turkish Armenia and Kurdistan, concentrating the bulk of their European armies towards Austrian Galicia inorder to get Russia's natural Carpathian boarders while committing comparably token forces towards Germany which was the Entente's greatest threat?
It was Turkey that attacked Russia; Enver Pasha ambition was to rebuild the Ottoman Empire, replacing the lost provinces of the Balkans with the ethnically and religiously reliable Turkic provinces of the Caucasus and Central Asia, Russian ruled provinces. The bulk of the Russian army throughout the war was deployed against Germany, the Russian forces in the Caucasus, particularly at the start of the war, were extremely small in comparison and initially deployed entirely defensively. The Tsar’s appeal to Britain and France in late 1914 for an offensive against the Ottomans was because the Russian front in the Caucasus looked like collapsing under the weight of the Turkish attack.
 
I suspect that this might have actually kept the Ottoman Empire out of the war, which would have interesting consequences down the line.
 
I suspect that this might have actually kept the Ottoman Empire out of the war, which would have interesting consequences down the line.

The seizure of the battleships? No, the Ottomans cast their lot with the Central Powers before that. They could remain neutral and get dismembered by the victorious Triple Entente, should they win, or better insure their survival by joining the Central Powers.
 
The seizure of the battleships? No, the Ottomans cast their lot with the Central Powers before that. They could remain neutral and get dismembered by the victorious Triple Entente, should they win, or better insure their survival by joining the Central Powers.

I was thinking in simpler terms than that. You can't give a government that's already allied with a belligerent more weapons than it had IOTL and expect that to keep them out of a fight.
 
The seizure of the battleships? No, the Ottomans cast their lot with the Central Powers before that. They could remain neutral and get dismembered by the victorious Triple Entente, should they win, or better insure their survival by joining the Central Powers.

So damned if they do, and doubly so if they don't?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So damned if they do, and doubly so if they don't?

WW1 is a close to a toss up as you will find in a major war. Basically a coin flip. To get to an CP loss, it takes two huge CP blunders - Bringing the USA in the war, and A-H attacking Italy in 1916. And the Ottomans compounded this by a very unwise attack against Russia in the winter of 1914/15. It is easy to see how the Ottomans could think they would benefit by joining an alliance fighting the main traditional enemy - Russia. It made a lot more sense than Iraq 2003, Vietnam 1965, or a lot of other wars that have been fought. It is actually easy to write a TL where the Ottomans come out stronger, unlike say Iraq 2003 helping the USA.
 
It's important to learn a little history.

Spare me the condescension.

It was Turkey that attacked Russia; Enver Pasha ambition was to rebuild the Ottoman Empire, replacing the lost provinces of the Balkans with the ethnically and religiously reliable Turkic provinces of the Caucasus and Central Asia, Russian ruled provinces.

Yes that is absolutely correct. But you have to remember the Russia was far from pacifistic. The main reason why the Battleship deal was halted is it would give an admittedly German leaning state navel superiority for the Black Sea region. Russia was quite eager to have another war with the Turks and vice versa. That is why Russia built up an army of 150,000 on their Caucasian border, and that is why Russia intensified its arming of Armenian nationalists in the months leading up to Ottoman entry.


The bulk of the Russian army throughout the war was deployed against Germany.

It depends on what you consider the entire war to mean. During 1914 while Germany was conducting the Schlieffen Plan to knock France out of the War quickly, a token army was left in place to hold the east. Rather than to concentrate its forces against Germany, and to therefore directly aid its Allies while Germany's eastern front was at its weakest, Russia focused the bulk of its army (2/3rds of it roughly) on an Offensive against Austro-Hungary. Coincidently, one of Russia's primary war aims was to annex Austrian Galicia. This was a very serious misstep, and an act of bad faith by Russia against its allies. After Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes Russia would never again have the opportunity to take the fight directly to German soil.
 
WW1 is a close to a toss up as you will find in a major war. Basically a coin flip. To get to an CP loss, it takes two huge CP blunders - Bringing the USA in the war, and A-H attacking Italy in 1916. And the Ottomans compounded this by a very unwise attack against Russia in the winter of 1914/15. It is easy to see how the Ottomans could think they would benefit by joining an alliance fighting the main traditional enemy - Russia. It made a lot more sense than Iraq 2003, Vietnam 1965, or a lot of other wars that have been fought. It is actually easy to write a TL where the Ottomans come out stronger, unlike say Iraq 2003 helping the USA.

I know it's off topic, but I've wondered this myself; Could the Central Powers have won the war had the Ottoman Empire stayed out?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I know it's off topic, but I've wondered this myself; Could the Central Powers have won the war had the Ottoman Empire stayed out?

No, it loses faster.

1) Lots of extra supply reach Russia via the black sea. Russia had up to 1.5 million soldiers who did not have rifles. So 1.5 million rifles and 1.5 billion rounds of ammo would create huge problems for the Central powers.

2) The up to 15 Divisions used at Gallipoli are used in France, possibly breaking the German lines in 1915.

3) If the war is still going on in 1916, food & railroad cars can be shipped to Russia, preventing the food crisis of 1916/17 and likely saving the Tsar.

Unless you believe the Ottomans being neutral butterflies away Italy and/or USA entering the war, I can't see how it helps the CP win. I could write a TL where the Ottomans join the Entente and attack Libya, so Italy joins the CP, but this would take a really bizarre POD, and really be pushing ASB.
 
No, it loses faster.

1) Lots of extra supply reach Russia via the black sea. Russia had up to 1.5 million soldiers who did not have rifles. So 1.5 million rifles and 1.5 billion rounds of ammo would create huge problems for the Central powers.

2) The up to 15 Divisions used at Gallipoli are used in France, possibly breaking the German lines in 1915.

3) If the war is still going on in 1916, food & railroad cars can be shipped to Russia, preventing the food crisis of 1916/17 and likely saving the Tsar.

Unless you believe the Ottomans being neutral butterflies away Italy and/or USA entering the war, I can't see how it helps the CP win. I could write a TL where the Ottomans join the Entente and attack Libya, so Italy joins the CP, but this would take a really bizarre POD, and really be pushing ASB.

If Turkey allows Entente arms to pass through the Straits, they've effectively taken sides.

Although, if what you describe as likely does happen, how different are the peace terms from our timeline?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
If Turkey allows Entente arms to pass through the Straits, they've effectively taken sides.

Although, if what you describe as likely does happen, how different are the peace terms from our timeline?

No, that is neutral. Stopping the flow of ships is an act of war. I think the term is "international straights". What they were doing before the war was slowing shipping with various excuses, not stopping. And anyway, even if technically legal by some definition, stopping shipments would mean either Russia or the UK will declare war on the Ottomans.

It is vastly different, since Russia is at the peace talks. Russia had said that a Polish would be created, and they might even do that. If I had to guess, you would see the Triple Tsardom of Finland, Russia, and the Western Slav (all Polish, Czech, and Slovakian areas). There are dozen of different ways it could go, but a bigger Russian influence zone is a given. Also, with Russia and France allied and strong, the ToV, whatever the terms, will be enforced.
 
No, that is neutral. Stopping the flow of ships is an act of war. I think the term is "international straights". What they were doing before the war was slowing shipping with various excuses, not stopping. And anyway, even if technically legal by some definition, stopping shipments would mean either Russia or the UK will declare war on the Ottomans.

It is vastly different, since Russia is at the peace talks. Russia had said that a Polish would be created, and they might even do that. If I had to guess, you would see the Triple Tsardom of Finland, Russia, and the Western Slav (all Polish, Czech, and Slovakian areas). There are dozen of different ways it could go, but a bigger Russian influence zone is a given. Also, with Russia and France allied and strong, the ToV, whatever the terms, will be enforced.

I wonder though if Germany would make out better given that there is less of a reason here o provide Poland with a warm water port, and that exhaustion over the war may not have fully set in yet if this ends in 1915.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I wonder though if Germany would make out better given that there is less of a reason here o provide Poland with a warm water port, and that exhaustion over the war may not have fully set in yet if this ends in 1915.

You are asking a question that can only be written by writing a full TL. I would say 19 times out of 20, Germany will get a harsher ToV, and it will be enforced.
 

Cook

Banned
Yes that is absolutely correct. But you have to remember the Russia was far from pacifistic...
The main reason why the Battleship deal was halted is it would give an admittedly German leaning state navel superiority for the Black Sea region.
The only reason that the Turkish ships were not handed over was because Winston Churchill anticipated that Britain would, within the next few days, be at war with Germany and expected that the Royal Navy and the German High Seas Fleet would be fighting each other for control of the North Sea within a matter of a week or two. That being the case, the Royal Navy needed as much of a margin over the German fleet as possible. Turkey didn’t even enter into consideration.

Had diplomatic events taken place even days later, or the ships completed earlier, they would have been handed over to the Turkish crews; the official handover ceremony was scheduled for handover on 2 August, 1914 – the day after they were in fact seized on Churchill’s orders, without the authorisation of the British cabinet.

Russia was quite eager to have another war with the Turks and vice versa...
That is why Russia built up an army of 150,000 on their Caucasian border…
Russia hadn’t been to war with the Ottoman Empire since 1878. When war broke out in 1914 the Russians were trying to increase their influence in the Balkans, not the Caucasus. And rather than building up the Caucasus front as you claim, the first decision of the Stavka at the commencement of the war was to strip the 1st Caucassian Army Corps of fully half of its strength, sending those forces to Poland and East Prussia. General Bergmann, the commander responsible for the defence of the entire Caucasus region, was left with only the 39th Infantry Division plus two independent Infantry Brigades, a Cossack Cavalry division, plus a locally raised cavalry brigade. If he was lucky and the Persians didn’t get involved, then he would be able to use General Oganovski’s mixed infantry and cavalry force that was defending the Persian border. Not surprisingly Bergmann remained deployed in an entirely defensive manner. Rather than building up the Caucasus for a war with the Turks, the Russians treating it as a quiet area that they could strip of forces to send to the war against Germany and Austria. Even after Turkey entered the war on 29 October 1914, the Russians did not increase their forces in the Caucasus and Bergmann was ordered to cross the Turkish border and secure a buffer zone against possible Turkish attack of only twenty kilometres in depth. Since the war that broke out in August was expected by all parties to last only a few months, these are hardly the actions of a country eager to conquer Turkish territory.
It depends on what you consider the entire war to mean. During 1914 while Germany was conducting the Schlieffen Plan to knock France out of the War quickly, a token army was left in place to hold the east. Rather than to concentrate its forces against Germany, and to therefore directly aid its Allies while Germany's eastern front was at its weakest, Russia focused the bulk of its army (2/3rds of it roughly) on an Offensive against Austro-Hungary.
Russia sent 32 Infantry and 10 Cavalry divisions in an offensive against Germany in August 1914, while 46 infantry and 18 cavalry divisions were sent against Austria. The German and Austrian high commands had agreed that the Austrian army would be focused against Russia, ignoring Serbia, so as to prevent the Russians from attacking Germany in overwhelming strength. On the Galician front it was the Austrians that attacked first and they did so with the bulk of their army. Tannenberg however, came first.

Rather than ignoring their Entente allies as you claim, the Russians commenced their invasion of East Prussia well before they were fully ready in order to relieve the pressure on France. Since the entire German war plan was focused on defeating France in the six weeks they believed they had between the commencement of Russian mobilisation and the Russians being ready for offensive operations it is hardly surprising that the Eastern Front was initially quiet; the Russians were still mobilising. In the event, the Russians moved faster than the Germans anticipated and attacked only three weeks after mobilisation. And this did have a signifigant effect on the war in the west, resulting in Moltke shifting three infantry corps away from the Western Front in late August, just when every man was critically needed there.
Could the Central Powers have won the war had the Ottoman Empire stayed out?
Probably not, they weren’t able to do so with Turkey in and Turkey’s entry into the war on the Central Powers side was a boost out of all proportion to the forces committed to aiding it by the Germans.
If Turkey allows Entente arms to pass through the Straits, they've effectively taken sides.
No, that is neutral. Stopping the flow of ships is an act of war. I think the term is "international straights". What they were doing before the war was slowing shipping with various excuses, not stopping. And anyway, even if technically legal by some definition, stopping shipments would mean either Russia or the UK will declare war on the Ottomans.
If the arms were shipped in civilian commercial freighters there would not be any violation of Ottoman neutrality; only if the Turks allowed Entente warships to pass through the straits would they be doing so since the treaty that regulated international shipping at the time forbade foreign military vessels from entering the straits. More important than any arms shipment would be the Russian wheat exports from the Ukraine; fully 90% of Russia’s wheat exports went via the Dardanelles and was worth more than half of its foreign income.

The decision to close the straits to commercial traffic was actually taken not by the Turks, but by the German officer commanding the garrison at the Dardanelles, General Erich Weber (Weber Pasha), on 26 September 1914. For a full month after that Russian grain ships continued to enter the Bosporus and anchor at the Golden Horn, waiting for the Dardanelles to be reopened. Weber was given command of the forts as part of the agreement signed between Turkey and Germany on the 1st of August. The treaty was signed during the day of the 1st, the Turkish battleships were seized by the Royal Navy that evening but the two events are not directly connected; the British had no knowledge that the Germans were negotiating with the Turks.


The key point with the Ottoman Empire acquiring the battleships several months earlier, or even just one month earlier, is that they would be in a much stronger position with regard to how they were regarded by the other powers in Europe and this would seriously affect the negotiations that took place in July 1914.
 
Last edited:

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Weber was given command of the forts as part of the agreement signed between Turkey and Russia on the 1st of August. The treaty was signed during the day of the 1st, the Turkish battleships were seized by the Royal Navy that evening but the two events are not directly connected; the British had no knowledge that the Germans were negotiating with the Turks.

Just a slip on the keyboard, I assume? :p
 
Top