What if Egypt joined the Central Powers?

I once had a conversation with somebody that claimed if Egypt (which was a puppet under Britain at the time) joined the Central Powers, this would completely change the war. He claimed that Egypt would divert significant amounts of the British army to Africa to the point where it would change the war in the Western Front. He also claimed it would give less pressure on the Ottomans allowing the Central Powers to defeat Russia sooner. He then claimed Germany will have time to launch an all out offensive on the Western front to knock out France sooner. I told him the British army will just clobber Egypt and that Britain isn’t fighting alone, it’s right next to Italian Libya. So anyways, what if Egypt joined the Central Powers?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Well, ... in a pure legal sense ... Egypt actuall was in a way allied with the CP ... as if was by legal 'arrangement' officially still subjected to the Ottoman Porte ... another sign how much "worth" international traeties actually were in these times ...

While your discussion partner IMHO grossly exaggerated the effect of Egypt participating in the Great War it would ... it could have some interesting consequences.
As so often especially in Great Waer affairs : a lot would depend on the point of time of their joinung the CP ... or in this case rather obeying their legal sovereign : the Ottoman Chaliphate.

However, to get the ball rolling lets assume around the declaration of Jihad in late 1914 in its wake some edyptians actually start some upheaval against the british 'occupiers'.
  • that would let look one strategic option for the ottomans - attacking the Suey-Channel - look much more teasing with the british forces there occupied and to a great extent unable to answer such an attack. ... aside from possible changes due to the following ...
  • Gallipoli would not gonna happen at least because all the ANZACS would be sent to the Iraq, Arabia and Jemen (?) to attack the ottomans from the south and/or to the Sudan to fight/recapture Egypt ...
  • which by their arrival might already be re-occupied by ottoman forces ... maybe also lead by von der Goltz (?) (him having in Egypt might also butterfly his death by Typhus away ?)
  • with no Entente-forces on the Balcan - even if only on the Gallipoli-peninsula but later trabnsferred to Saloniki/continental Balcan/Greece - Bulgaria that already had a non-aggresion-pact with the OE might dicide to join the mutilation of Serbia earlier
  • ... and afterwards would be powerfull enough to let Romania think, maybe rethink at least another time its points of interest (keeping at least parts of the Dobrusja and gaining additionally Moldawia). Despite the rather pityfull performance the romainan army showed IOTL in its first abiut halfyear ... it would be by A-H at least a very welcomed 'distraction' of the russians.
  • the quicker fall of Serbia might have some effect on Italy as well.
    • Though probably not preventing its joining the Entente it might wait a wee bit longer and set up a higher price ... like some MOARE pre-action deliveries of coal and goods of war by Britain and France.
    • ... though a delay of action might already be of 'use' for the CP to get something even more decisive against Russian in 1915/16
    • it also might come to the idea of 'grabbing' something in Egypt might look more attracrtive than attacking across unfavorable terrain against a now war-tested opponent on the european continent ...
    • though most likely getting (once again) tied up in an assymetric (unwinnable at least in a somewhat at least middle term lasting 'rest') warfare campaign
  • Not to forget Greece :
    • without Entente-forces around Venizelos might find it rather difficult to set up his at least from the rightfull royal goverment in Athens almost independant pro-entente reign in northern Greece.
    • with the serbs earlier (by earlier bulgarian intervention) beaten an occupation of northern Epirus of Albania - due to the unrest, almost upheaval fromany lacking executive power - might look teasing enough for Venizelos to join again with his king in a pro-CP armed neutrality
  • some other 'off-spring' of a no-gallipoli timeline :
    • though Enver might still slaughter his own forces in a senseless winter-campaign, most of the Gallipolo-forces of the Ottomans are available for redistgributing elsewher
    • may it be in mesopotanmia throwing the indians and ANZACS back into the Shat-el-Arab, may it be in the Caucasus against the russians
These are just some ideas that came to my mind
 
I once had a conversation with somebody that claimed if Egypt (which was a puppet under Britain at the time) joined the Central Powers, this would completely change the war. He claimed that Egypt would divert significant amounts of the British army to Africa to the point where it would change the war in the Western Front. He also claimed it would give less pressure on the Ottomans allowing the Central Powers to defeat Russia sooner. He then claimed Germany will have time to launch an all out offensive on the Western front to knock out France sooner. I told him the British army will just clobber Egypt and that Britain isn’t fighting alone, it’s right next to Italian Libya. So anyways, what if Egypt joined the Central Powers?

You first have to explain how Egypt, which was a British-occupied protectorate of Britain (it had long been a de facto one, after December 1914 it was official) manages to join the Central Powers. You have to have a major prior change in the world situation--which would probably have all sorts of effects making it doubtful that the War would be fought when and how it was.
 
[/QUOTE]
Well, ... in a pure legal sense ... Egypt actuall was in a way allied with the CP ... as if was by legal 'arrangement' officially still subjected to the Ottoman Porte ... another sign how much "worth" international traeties actually were in these times ...

While your discussion partner IMHO grossly exaggerated the effect of Egypt participating in the Great War it would ... it could have some interesting consequences.
As so often especially in Great Waer affairs : a lot would depend on the point of time of their joinung the CP ... or in this case rather obeying their legal sovereign : the Ottoman Chaliphate.

However, to get the ball rolling lets assume around the declaration of Jihad in late 1914 in its wake some edyptians actually start some upheaval against the british 'occupiers'.
  • that would let look one strategic option for the ottomans - attacking the Suey-Channel - look much more teasing with the british forces there occupied and to a great extent unable to answer such an attack. ... aside from possible changes due to the following ...
  • Gallipoli would not gonna happen at least because all the ANZACS would be sent to the Iraq, Arabia and Jemen (?) to attack the ottomans from the south and/or to the Sudan to fight/recapture Egypt ...
  • which by their arrival might already be re-occupied by ottoman forces ... maybe also lead by von der Goltz (?) (him having in Egypt might also butterfly his death by Typhus away ?)
  • with no Entente-forces on the Balcan - even if only on the Gallipoli-peninsula but later trabnsferred to Saloniki/continental Balcan/Greece - Bulgaria that already had a non-aggresion-pact with the OE might dicide to join the mutilation of Serbia earlier
  • ... and afterwards would be powerfull enough to let Romania think, maybe rethink at least another time its points of interest (keeping at least parts of the Dobrusja and gaining additionally Moldawia). Despite the rather pityfull performance the romainan army showed IOTL in its first abiut halfyear ... it would be by A-H at least a very welcomed 'distraction' of the russians.
  • the quicker fall of Serbia might have some effect on Italy as well.
    • Though probably not preventing its joining the Entente it might wait a wee bit longer and set up a higher price ... like some MOARE pre-action deliveries of coal and goods of war by Britain and France.
    • ... though a delay of action might already be of 'use' for the CP to get something even more decisive against Russian in 1915/16
    • it also might come to the idea of 'grabbing' something in Egypt might look more attracrtive than attacking across unfavorable terrain against a now war-tested opponent on the european continent ...
    • though most likely getting (once again) tied up in an assymetric (unwinnable at least in a somewhat at least middle term lasting 'rest') warfare campaign
  • Not to forget Greece :
    • without Entente-forces around Venizelos might find it rather difficult to set up his at least from the rightfull royal goverment in Athens almost independant pro-entente reign in northern Greece.
    • with the serbs earlier (by earlier bulgarian intervention) beaten an occupation of northern Epirus of Albania - due to the unrest, almost upheaval fromany lacking executive power - might look teasing enough for Venizelos to join again with his king in a pro-CP armed neutrality
  • some other 'off-spring' of a no-gallipoli timeline :
    • though Enver might still slaughter his own forces in a senseless winter-campaign, most of the Gallipolo-forces of the Ottomans are available for redistgributing elsewher
    • may it be in mesopotanmia throwing the indians and ANZACS back into the Shat-el-Arab, may it be in the Caucasus against the russians
These are just some ideas that came to my mind
The person I was talking to claimed that the British army is too small to fight Egypt. I told him Egypt was right next to Italian Libya. He claimed Italy was just as industrialized as Egypt. I then told him Italy would be fully supported by Britain like in OTL. Not to mention FRANCE, who in OTL had the largest army of the Western Allies. He then claimed with less British and French forces in Europe, battles like the Somme would not been possible and France will lose Verdun. He then claimed with the Ottomans having less pressure, the Central Powers will defeat Russia sooner. He then claimed the Germans will make a Kaiserschlacht even sooner, and Britain and France are unable to halt the German offensive due to forces in Egypt. I then made several rebuttals. First, Egypt was a puppet of the British Empire, similar to the Nguyen dynasty of Vietnam to the French Empire. Any attempt for Egypt to join Central Powers would result in an immediate coup. Secondly, how in the hell will Egypt being in the Central Powers will divert forces in the Western Front THAT significant? In OTL, Britain and France sent several divisions to Italy to assist them after the Battle of Caporetto in order to halt the Austro German offensive to Venice, however these divisions played no part of the halting of the Austro German armies because the British and French believed that Venice could not be saved and deployed these divisions at the Mincio river instead. Perhaps these divisions would be deployed to Egypt instead (if pro Central Powers Egypt still existed by this time of the war). Also, where did the get the idea that Egypt was just as industrialized as Italy? Italy at the time was already one of the world’s leading industrial nations, even if it had a low GDP compared to other Great Powers. Meanwhile, Egypt to THIS DAY is still considered third world nation. Not to mention the AMERICANS, who could replace any British and French losses in the Western Front (which did happen in OTL). Would Egypt being in the Central Powers give the Ottomans advantage in the Middle East? Yes. Would it stop all Allied traffic in the Suez? Yes. Would it change the war in the Western Front to that extent? NO. After I made these rebuttals, the person started saying Germany would capture Paris if Egypt was in the war before the Americans could come in on time. Then, he started talking about the First Italo Ethiopian War, the Vietnam War, ect and how Egyptians are masters at guerrilla warfare. A common cliche in alternate history is how often guerrilla warfare happens and how OVERPOWERED they seem in these scenarios. First of all, the Ethiopians in the first Italo Ethiopian war were supplied and TRAINED by the British, French, and Russians. In the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese were fully supplied and trained by the Soviets and Chinese. Memes and cliched Alternate History scenarios often portrayed the North Vietnamese as ass kicking rice farmers, which is offensive and historically inaccurate. The North Vietnamese had a real army and they were again, fully equipped and trained by the Soviet and Chinese armies. Where do you think they got all their tanks from? The Indonesian revolution? That was a Dutch military victory, and the Dutch SMOKED the Indonesian rebels, and most of the Indonesian’s weapons were captured Japanese and Allied weapons. After pointing this out, he then claimed the Germans will just supply and train the Egyptians. First of all, unlike the Egyptians, the Ottomans had a REAL army and the Egyptians were merely a puppet of an empire. Eventually, the group of people I was speaking to started saying how kickass Muslims were and how Muslims survived in history time to time, how Allah would save them, and I should read some Islamic history. It was at this point I knew they were using feelings to prove their point. Anyways, do you think what the group I was speaking to’s scenario is possible?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
You first have to explain how Egypt, which was a British-occupied protectorate of Britain (it had long been a de facto one, after December 1914 it was official) manages to join the Central Powers. You have to have a major prior change in the world situation--which would probably have all sorts of effects making it doubtful that the War would be fought when and how it was.

While this is a challenging scenario, it should not be pooh-poohed and could be accomplished in a way without a PoD set years earlier. What it would require would be a royal, elite, popular and local troop revolt against the British that happens to succeed. It would be hard for it to succeed with British troops and informants around, but should not be impossible a priori.
 
Top