To the Victor, Go the Spoils (Redux): A Plausible Central Powers Victory

[TheReformer]

The Middle East
The Smyrna Question & the Adana Offensive
October 1918​

While the defeat of Ottoman forces at Megiddo had been dramatic and bountiful for Britain, the capture of large swathes of what was essentially arabian tundra occupied by a people resistant to any foreign interference left Britain unwilling to simply sit back and allow the Ottomans to continue to ride out the war. Britain desired not just battlefield victories, but a capitulation of a Central Powers state to legitimise their continued war and justify the conflict in the eyes of their people.

What had become clear to Prime Minister Bonar Law was that the Ottomans, despite being heavily defeated in Arabia, cared little for their Arab provinces and instead sought to seize territory in the Caucuses as compensation for projected losses. This created a strategic dilemma; Britain could not easily compel the Turks to surrender, nor could she easily march forces into the Turkish heartland to compel their capitulation due to the natural defences of the Taurus mountains and Dardanelles straits. This left British forces stuck either marching along the rail line over the Taurus Mountains to Afyonkarahisar, or having to complete a naval landing at Smyrna.

An attack on Smyrna presented a strategic dilemma too though. Since the fall of Greece to anti-British Royalists, the country had firmly fallen into the backing of Germany and would be sure to alert the Germans of any major British naval movements into the Agean. Further, any landing would surely be faced with resistance from Ottoman forces in strength, and thus any attack would require significant force being landed in Aydin vilayet. Britain meanwhile had only recently withdrawn troops six divisions from Macedonia and three from Italy. With some sent home or now in Palestine, this gave Britain essentially five divisions able to be deployed at Smyrna for a landing.

This left Britain essentially with three choices; either to expend large amounts of time and resources driving by land towards Afyonkarahisar, to land at Smyrna in a risky operation that might prompt Turkish capitulation and better terms, or to negotiate a conditional peace securing lands in Arabia from the Turks.

Britain ultimately decided that Smyrna was too risky and a total victory over the Ottomans not necessary - provided that the Turks prove willing to accept British terms. In the meantime, British forces continued to drive towards the Taurus mountains and Adana.

The Adana Offensive
The main target of British offensive operations was the city of Adana. A vital railway junction and the first at least partially Turkish city in the empire that would fall under attack, Adana presented the perfect chance for a morale victory and also to drive the nascent Turkish army north of the Taurus mountains.

Defeated at Aleppo, the Ottoman army under Mustafa Kemal Pasha barely struggled to re-form a force in strength in the wake of the British advance, but after becoming slowed in the mountain passes between Aleppo and Alexandretta Mustafa Kemal Pasha was able to form a defensive line and slow the British advance.

Heaped with praise for his impromptu planned defence, Mustafa Kemal Pasha did not halt the British advance, but slowed it enough to prepare a defence of Adana, which soon fell under attack from both air, ground and even sea as the Royal Navy Fleet in the Med launched minor landing operations against the port of Mersin south of the city.

Ultimately the city would fall in early October, providing the impetus for talks between the British and Turks over the future of their relations and the war. But this proved too slow to stop Turkish forces from locking down the Taurus Mountains into the Anatolian Plateau - greatly slowing the British advance and forcing both sides to consider terms.

 

[KingSweden24]

Im curious to see if the Hashemites comes out ahead in this version of the postwar settlement v the Saudis

 

[Tom_B]

Interesting. It looks like Enver's Panturanism is going to get at least some measure of satisfaction. An all too common cliche in CP Victory TL's is the oil rich Ottoman Empire, usually with a heavy focus on Saudi Arabia (ignoring the fact that oil was discovered there until 1939) It looks like your dodging that. Maybe the Germans will let the Turks share in the wealth of Baku as junior partners.

 

[Nivek]

Interesting. It looks like Enver's Panturanism is going to get at least some measure of satisfaction. An all common cliche in CP Victory TL's is the oil rich Ottoman Empire, usually with a heavy focus on Saudi Arabia (ignoring the fact that oil was discovered there until 1939) It looks like your dodging that. Maybe the Germans will let the Turks share in the wealth of Baku as junior partners.

The germans were already looking for Oil in Bagdad, even ASIP used Bagdad oil(and later on lybia) as that was the whole point of the railway the germans were building there

 

[The Ghost of Danton]

Im curious to see if the Hashemites comes out ahead in this version of the postwar settlement v the Saudis

Well, since the British don't have to worry about French interests in the Middle East and they aren't exactly at top strength, making a strong Hashemite Kingdom as an ally seems like the smart move.

 

[Megas Valens]

I'm most excited to see how Bulgaria turns out. A large Southern Slavic state with very defensible borders, not an artificial national identity (Yugoslavia), and not suicidally ambitious (Greece). Unless Ataturk manages to get into a position of power and masterfully reforms the Turkish as in OTL they could even become the regional power.

 

[HangryBird]

I'm most excited to see how Bulgaria turns out. A large Southern Slavic state with very defensible borders, not an artificial national identity (Yugoslavia), and not suicidally ambitious (Greece). Unless Ataturk manages to get into a position of power and masterfully reforms the Turkish as in OTL they could even become the regional power.

I would disagree with Bulgaria not being suicidally ambitious, given how they ended up fighting all of their former allies in the Second Balkan War. But, you are right that Bulgaria is in a good position, provided that they can maintain stability and keep Romania, Serbia, and Greece in check in the future. As for Bulgaria's relationship with the Ottomans, Bulgaria will no doubt want revenge for the land the Ottomans took from them in the Second Balkan War. Their cooperation in WW1 was simply an alliance of convenience. Maybe Bulgaria gets greedy and attacks the Ottomans, seeing as the British have just trounced them.

 

[AntoniousTheBro]

I would disagree with Bulgaria being suicidally ambitious, given how they ended up fighting all of their former allies in the Second Balkan War. But, you are right that Bulgaria is in a good position, provided that they can maintain stability and keep Romania, Serbia, and Greece in check in the future. As for Bulgaria's relationship with the Ottomans, Bulgaria will no doubt want revenge for the land the Ottomans took from them in the Second Balkan War. Their cooperation in WW1 was simply an alliance of convenience. Maybe Bulgaria gets greedy and attacks the Ottomans, seeing as the British have just trounced them.

To be fair when it comes to the second Balkan War Bulgaria only attacked serbia and Greece and such a war they could have one. Not would have but possibly if lucky win. However, the intervention by literally everyone else put an end to that. So maybe not Suicidally ambitious and just recklessly ambitious?

 

[Zincvit]

I would disagree with Bulgaria being suicidally ambitious, given how they ended up fighting all of their former allies in the Second Balkan War. But, you are right that Bulgaria is in a good position, provided that they can maintain stability and keep Romania, Serbia, and Greece in check in the future. As for Bulgaria's relationship with the Ottomans, Bulgaria will no doubt want revenge for the land the Ottomans took from them in the Second Balkan War. Their cooperation in WW1 was simply an alliance of convenience. Maybe Bulgaria gets greedy and attacks the Ottomans, seeing as the British have just trounced them.

You’re very much underestimating the Turks here given that they’ve stalled the British advance in Anatolia. Not to mention, with his wartime service, Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal Pasha here) can get into a position of power in the future.

 

[HangryBird]

You’re very much underestimating the Turks here given that they’ve stalled the British advance in Anatolia. Not to mention, with his wartime service, Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal Pasha here) can get into a position of power in the future.

It is true that the British have stalled out, but earlier I was saying that I believe the Bulgarians are opportunistic and sensing weakness after the British victory, they might consider attacking the Ottomans. Whether or not Bulgaria can win is another question and I don't think the Bulgarians can win such a fight.

 

[Megas Valens]

You’re very much underestimating the Turks here given that they’ve stalled the British advance in Anatolia. Not to mention, with his wartime service, Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal Pasha here) can get into a position of power in the future.

When push comes to shove I do think that the Bulgarian military was a lot more formidable than the Ottoman military in WW1. They performed much better and were shown to have better generals. They're goals would be limited to thrace alone and therefore would be much more likely to succeed in such a war than Greece was IOTL. That being said after nearly a decade of war I doubt Bulgaria would try this anytime soon (or at all necessarily). Without Ottoman defeat in WW1 is it guaranteed that the likes of Enver Pasha would lose power in the Ottoman Empire leaving a vacuum for Mustafa Kemal Pasha? That seems like the best possible outcome for the Ottomans but I don't see why it's likely without the circumstances of OTL. Then again his command of the unit opposing the British does seem to foreshadow him having some importance in this timeline, so I'm probably wrong.

 

[TheReformer]

Protest and Rebellion
Italy Unfolds
July - September 1918​

Meanwhile in Italy the reaction was, much like in France, initially one of confused shock - followed by fury.

For many Italians the war was not one against Germany, but against Austria. Very few Italian soldiers had fought on the western front regardless, and while German forces had driven the breakthrough in the Battle of Caporetto, German forces had long since left Italy - returning only to prevent Austrian collapse. The victory in the Second Battle of the Piave River and then the subsequent Battle of Portogruaro further galvanised Italian public opinion into a naive belief that even despite France being repeatedly battered by Germany, Italy could crush Austria single-handedly and secure its own separate peace.

Ultimately this was just idealism though; while Diaz’s Italian forces had defeated the Austrians they would not easily defeat the Germans - and Diaz was a cautious man. Unwilling to risk Italy’s hard fought positive current position in exchange for a potential but uncertain victory, Diaz firmly had recommended a truce which had now since been accepted by the Giolitti Government.

The signing of an armistice at the start of August thus prompted apoplectic outrage across Italy. Having joined the war reluctantly in a divisive move ultimately decided by King Victor Emmanuel III and bribed with Austrian land, the prospect of the entire conflict being for nothing immediately lit a revolutionary match in the largely agrarian country.

Across the north of Italy, factory councils were formed and industrial work ground to a halt. While in the Padan Plain workers immediately threw down tools and ceased agricultural production in enormous peasant strikes. Faced with an existential crisis and fearful of a bolshevik uprising, Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti found that suddenly the Government had lost control on the ground of Romagna province.

Here, the socialist left had found a particularly strong base of support and strikers essentially prompted the collapse of civil control. Policemen were overwhelmed or joined protesters, perhaps some out of fear, others out of agreement with their goals. Peasants stormed wealthy landowners properties and took them by force, having lost faith that they would receive land reforms promised to them in 1916. While this was hardly a revolution or an uprising aimed at wresting control of the country, it was undoubtedly a dangerous descent into anarchy within part of the country.

Having come to power after the resignation of Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando a day prior to the armistice, Giolitti had been against the war since the outset and was the man who had formed the original Triple Alliance pact between Germany, Austria and Italy.

Picked as the man who could get Italy the best terms in the peace, Giolitti had taken up the challenge too as the man who had backed universal suffrage publicly in 1912 - an attempt to show the Italian public they now had a leader back at the reins that cared about them.

Unfortunately for Giolitti though, he inherited an Italy beyond the pale of furious and confused about their nation’s surrender. Of course, Italy had seen much of Veneto occupied, and further it had occupied virtually no hostile territory since the war began - but in the eyes of Italians the victory at Portogruaro proved they could win the war. This left many Italians seeing the likes of Orlando and Giolitti as traitors to their national cause, having given up too early.

Giolitti further had the issue that the political elite had already seen this play out before in Russia; there the country had been thrown into chaos and now Bolshevism had conquered it. Italy would not repeat that mistake.

Giolitti’s first effort was to attempt to convince King Victor Emmanuel to abdicate in favour of his son. He was a popular figure, but had ultimately made the decision to go to war rather than sit out the conflict after a national political schism, and thus in Giolitti’s eyes proved to be both an ideal scapegoat, but also a popular enough ‘scalp’ to remove that would allow the people to move on.

Yet, the King would not abdicate - partially out of pride but primarily out of his feeling of lacking responsibility. Instead he delivered a public radio address explaining the conflict and why Italy must bow out, he affirmed his desire to see Italians achieve a better settlement through unity and strength, condemned Italy’s ally France, and announced that elections would soon be held.

For Giolitti this was an inadvertent disaster. By announcing the intent to call elections, his Government immediately lost all credibility as a force capable of delivering land reform -the key offer to the peasants, and the credibility of Giolitti’s claims to be able to deliver a settlement were undermined by the King’s apparent lack of faith in his Prime Minister - even if the opposite was true.

Further, and arguably worse, the announcement of elections provided justification for mass political meetings; the worst being the long planned 15th Congress of the Italian Socialist Party taking place in Rome from September 1st-5th.

The announcement of elections also made worse the peasant unrest, which now spread to also encompass Appennine regions of Tuscany, Marche and Umbria. In some areas soldiers would even be ordered to protect landed property, but with 80% of Italy’s soldiers being former or current peasants this rarely met any success. Even in the southern territory of Apulia and central Sicily peasant strikes and attempted forcible seizure of property began, though in these cases many of the more radical groups were successfully suppressed by southern, loyalist troops.

The King’s planned elections, in Giolitti’s eyes, provided two concerns; first it was a challenge to the authority of the state as the conference was presenting an alternative political establishment in the nation’s capital at the end of a war Italy had lost that the Socialists had long opposed. Secondly though; since the moment the end of the war had been announced, the ‘maximalist’ faction urging a bolshevik style takeover had become ascendent within the Socialist party led by Nicola Bombacci.

While the current Socialist leader Costantino Lazzari himself was cautiously a supporter of revolution, he was interned in jail and thus the party was essentially rudderless, potentially open to revolutionary approaches which even if released Lazzari may endorse. Thus just days before the conference, after much deliberation, Giolitti’s Government officially prohibited the meeting of Socialist deputies, and in doing so opened the floodgates.

The Socialists had prepared for this eventuality, with temporary party leaders Egidio Gennari and Oddino Morgari having planned not to even travel to Rome until the day of the conference out of an expectation they would be arrested. Instead they had remained in Milan where the Socialists had a significant base of support and access to the city’s major rail infrastructure systems and political institutions.

With their conference cancelled, the Socialists then sought to play for time - fearing an intended Government crackdown. Calling for the meeting to be held in Milan, the Socialists quickly endorsed a broader workers strike across the country. This triggered the social unrest’s spread into the cities, particularly those in the industrialised north where workers now lay down their tools too for good at the behest of their council’s orders. This in effect brought the country to an economic stand still.

This was arguably for a time the Socialists best and only chance at surviving the period, as the party had no military or paramilitary forces even with a large contingent of supporters among the Army. Through these soldiers, combining with militias of armed peasants and workers, small units did start to be established though - but while these were far from regular troops they were enough to deter an immediate armed crackdown of the party.

Milan in the meantime became somewhat of a hub for radicals. Thinkers and extremists from the political left and in some cases even the right assembled in the city fuelled by a sense of nationalist hatred of the Government, and socialist revolutionary drive. Individuals like the depressed and pessimistic Gabriele D'Annunzio would emerge in the city as one of its many thinkers, addressing crowds in the occasional speech but generally gaining a following through the writing of pamphlets.

Other radicals such as Bombacci, head of the revolutionary faction of the party, and even expelled individuals such as Mussolini would enter Milan throughout september. The two sides found little in common though, with the nationalists and socialists often hurling abuse at one another or even fighting militia battles in the streets in north Italy as peasant farmers and workers fought peasant veterans of the conflict - both sides furiously blaming the other for the armistice in the war.

Among Italy’s elite meanwhile the social conflict across the country was a source of growing panic. The army, once motivated by the offensive into Veneto, had now grown tired and many officers reported revolutionary sentiments among the peasant soldiers from the north.

Prime Minister Giolitti thus sought to act prior to planned elections in October, while the legislature would not consult legislation on the matter prior to the poll, Giolitti issued a decree in effect handing all seized lands to the peasants in the north - despite its illegality. This alienated the right of the Liberal Union under Orlando, but ultimately was seen as a necessary move in order to contain the spread of socialist radicalism.

While this did to an extent temper some frustrations of the more moderate peasants, it would also motivate peasants to seize yet more land across much of the afflicted territories. It seemed Italy, despite its efforts to stave off domestic chaos, would be forced to reckon with the political chaos unleashed after its decision to enter the conflict.

 

[St. Just]

Between the unrest and the chaos unleashed despite best intentions from the King and PM, looks like Italy is in for some fun times ahead. An Italian revolution would be interesting, especially since fascism has not yet had time to coalesce into a separate political tendency within the PSI. If Italy descends into civil war, then that also opens up even more possibilities for colonial horsetrading (or perhaps an Ethiopian reconquest of a Red Sea coast?)

 

[Gabingston]

Between the unrest and the chaos unleashed despite best intentions from the King and PM, looks like Italy is in for some fun times ahead. An Italian revolution would be interesting, especially since fascism has not yet had time to coalesce into a separate political tendency within the PSI. If Italy descends into civil war, then that also opens up even more possibilities for colonial horsetrading (or perhaps an Ethiopian reconquest of a Red Sea coast?)

Perhaps Austria-Hungary, if they survive, could poach Italy's African colonies either in the treaty or during some Italian Revolution/Civil War. Austro-Hungarian Libya, anyone?

 

[Gabingston]

It looks like we could end up with a Red Italy a la A Day In July. The King should step down, since he was the one who brought Italy into the war.

 

[Tom_B]

How many Italians had access to a radio in 1918? Other than that possible quibble the political analysis is most impressive.

 

[Drizzt]

How many Italians had access to a radio in 1918? Other than that possible quibble the political analysis is most impressive.

Well I'm guessing "all the Senate and all the men of quality" probably had access to one. With those on your side what do the Socialists have ?

 

[TheReformer]

How many Italians had access to a radio in 1918? Other than that possible quibble the political analysis is most impressive.

Less a means of directly speaking to all people, more a means of speaking to enough of the country to ensure word is passed through newspapers and word of mouth

 

[lukedalton]

I PM to you days ago my opinion and my thought regarding Italy

 

[TheReformer]

I PM to you days ago my opinion and my thought regarding Italy

Alas I have been busy since then and not yet responded, so I shall do so here. Your points were looked over and I dont actually see any conflict with the update, in fact elements made me rethink certain actions such as Giolliti's approach to the threat of social unrest among the peasantry. That being said I disagree with your portrait of the political situation in Austria Hungary and Germany and the latter's willingness to aid the former.

I value the input, though naturally my interpretation will be how the TL is written - notably one informed by other students of Italian history in the period such as yourself.