What if Entente invaded Alexandretta (Hatay) instead of Gallipolli in 1915?

I'm not proposing that the British and French make peace with Germany; I'm suggesting Russia, which was lukewarm about having mobilized to start with, does so or threatens to do so as a means of guaranteeing itself Constantinople.

Ok fair enough - though she probably doesn't need to.
 
Assuming that an Alexandretta landing results in the OE losing Syria, might this butterfly away the Salonika Front?

Iirc the Entente troops at Salonika were mainly French. But TTL France has to find an army of occupation for Syria, for fear of being bilked of it either by her British allies or (Mon Dieu!!) by the wretched natives who just happen to live there. Given her (quite understandable) focus on the Western Front, will France be willing to divert troops to both Syria and Salonika?
 
Maybe, the French supplied 80,000 troops for the Gallipoli Campaign.
In regards to Salonika, Britain and France had repeatedly promised to send serious military forces to Serbia, while nothing had materialised. But with Bulgaria's mobilisation to its south, the situation for Serbia became desperate.

This forced the French and the British to decide upon sending a small expedition force of two divisions to help Serbia, but even these arrived too late in the Greek port of Thessaloniki (Salonica) to have any impact in the operations. The main reason for the delay was the lack of available Allied forces due to the critical situation in the Western Front. There was also also the protracted secret negotiations aiming at bringing Bulgaria into the Allied camp, which event would have alleviated Serbia's need for Franco-British help. Bringing Bulgaria into the war on the Allied side would definitely force Turkey from the war.
 
There was also also the protracted secret negotiations aiming at bringing Bulgaria into the Allied camp, which event would have alleviated Serbia's need for Franco-British help. Bringing Bulgaria into the war on the Allied side would definitely force Turkey from the war.


Are these at all likely to bring Bulgaria in before the Gorlice-Tarnow breakthrough (May 2)? Once that starts the Bulgars are likely to wait and see, and once the extent of its success becomes clear they are far less likely to join what might prove to be a losing side.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Are these at all likely to bring Bulgaria in before the Gorlice-Tarnow breakthrough (May 2)? Once that starts the Bulgars are likely to wait and see, and once the extent of its success becomes clear they are far less likely to join what might prove to be a losing side.

I don't think so. I think that the Bulgarian decision would be sway-able only by factors right next door to them, like the fighting in Serbia or a hypothetical Entente success in the straits. A rollback of the Ottomans to the Taurus mountains, even with the withering and loss of Ottoman territory south of the Taurus, won't be seen as too relevant in Sofia.

An early sweep of the Ottoman out of the Arab lands can be a blessing for the Allies regardless. If they win in Palestine, Syria and Iraq early, well, they don't need to keep trying to win on those fronts. If things turn into a stalemate in southern Anatolia, the Western Allies can possibly remove some of their troops to other fronts. I would think that if the Anatolian heartland is being pressed from the south, the Russians do not need to use as many forces as they did to defend in the Caucasus, or to attack, which maybe helps them some elsewhere.

An early sweep of the Ottomans out of the Arab lands could also be a bit of a poisoned chalice. The British would have to deal with the politics of Ottoman succession and occupation in those regions, possibly facing multiple revolts that the Germans and Turks won't even need to pay for. There could be a lot of political energy and policing costs expended, as well as chances for the British and French to build up mistrust or envy.
 
Top