What if the Anzacs won at Gallipoli?

Next week in Australia and New Zealand, it will be Anzaz Day, a public holiday commemorating those who fought and died for both countries, respectively. April 25th was chosen as the date because that was the day that the Anzacs first landed on Gallipoli.

Of course, the campaign, which was supposed to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war and open a supply route to Russia by securing the Dardanelles, was a disaster and resulted in a Ottoman victory with the Anzacs retreating.

But what if the Anzacs were able to secure Gallipoli?
 
Considering how poorly planned and implemented it was, kind of difficult to imagine victory. I think the Brits and Churchill in particular thought that 100,000 troops and an Iron Flotilla would be enough, so, assume it does work. But, would it have major effects on the war? aside from supplying an extremely lengthy supply route and allowing the re-deployment of troops from the Mid-east will, admittedly have an effect considering there was over a million troops at their disposal (British). This would be considered stroke of strategic genius on the part of Churchill, giving him more accolade and confidence. While for the Russians, it would consolidate Saint Petersburg as the fall of Constantinople would provide ample opportunity for renewed offensive to the west, this would ultimately send shock waves to Berlin and Vienna considering the Russians would be able to assemble an additional 1000,000 troops on their borders. I can foresee the Brusilov offensive paying off due to their huge numbers and morale and the ultimate devastation of the Austrians, while the Germans sit haplessly while their southern flank disintegrates, they will try to intervene, but are unable to stop the juggernaut. I could go on and on about the butterflies of this POD but I'll let others pitch in.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
(There were other Allied troops at Gallipoli besides the Anzacs, you know.)

If the fall of Constantinople knocks Turkey out of the war, the results would be massive.

1. It could open up another front against the Central Powers in the Balkans, with Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece throwing their hat into the Allied camp. That would prove a massive headache for Germany and Austria-Hungary, pretty much squelching the Golice-Tarnow Offensive and forcing the Central Powers onto the defensive all across the board. With Italy soon to come in and Serbia not going out, it's easy to see the trouble they would be in.

2. Not only would supplies flow more freely from Britain and France to Russia through the Dardanelles, but Russian troops would also be able to be redeployed from the Caucasus Front to the Eastern Front and Britain wouldn't have to worry about Sinai and Mesopotamia anymore.

3. A point not often considered: the easier flow of Russian grain to the world market would greatly assist the war finances of the Russian Empire and reduce inflation in Britain and France.

4. The proponents in London of avoiding major combat on the Western Front will be vindicated, thus hopefully derailing the massive and futile offensives of the later war in favor of allowing economic warfare and sniping at the edges of the German realm to do their job.
 
Whilst totally respecting the bravery and sacrifice of the Anzac soldiers, they formed 1 in 5 of the allied deaths in the campaign. Slightly more than the French and nearly 2/3 of the allied deaths were British. Other losses were from India and Newfoundland. An iconic and bloody coming of age for New Zealand and Australia to the mass casualties of a major continental war and worthy of memory but a successful campaign would continue to be an Anglo French operation.

My point being that, from the OP, the Anzacs could not secure Gallipoli. Securing Gallipoli would be an Anglo French operation in concert with Anzac support.
 
Assuming a better initial assault is made with greater push early on then the Peninsular could be taken or perhaps made in concert with the initial attempt by the Combined navies to force the straights (they nearly and probably should have succeeded) then threaten Istanbul which IIRC was the site of Turkeys only munitions factory.

Force a change in Government and allow the butterflies to scatter
 
(There were other Allied troops at Gallipoli besides the Anzacs, you know.)
3. A point not often considered: the easier flow of Russian grain to the world market would greatly assist the war finances of the Russian Empire and reduce inflation in Britain and France.
A grain versus military material program with the rest of the Entente could be a really good thing.
No gold traded, just exchange of goods. Don't know what else could have been exchange (oil, rubber, ...?)
 
You don't need ASB or major changes to make Galliopoli succeed. If the British led forces are a bit more aggressive on day one they can secure some vital bits of ground that would let them have the landing be a success. To really make things work they need to grab enough territory so minesweepers can clear the channel and the the Navy sail through. A rapid advance to Constantinople by land/sea is by no means for sure even with a maximally successful landing.
 
You don't need ASB or major changes to make Galliopoli succeed. If the British led forces are a bit more aggressive on day one they can secure some vital bits of ground that would let them have the landing be a success. To really make things work they need to grab enough territory so minesweepers can clear the channel and the the Navy sail through. A rapid advance to Constantinople by land/sea is by no means for sure even with a maximally successful landing.

I don't know if it is as simple as being a bit more aggressive, if they had all landed on their correct landing zones in Anzac cove it would have helped a bit but honestly to secure that landing they had to climb a cliff face that had machine gun nests with overlapping fields of fire.

Perhaps if Y beach was more aggressive and took Krithia the first day it would have helped.

I feel like the best opportunity was to reinforce and entrench Chunuk Bair before Mustafa Kemal attacked, the high ground might have allowed the Entente control over the surrounding battlefields.
 
If the Army had gone in at the same time as the assault on the minefields, even with how cocked up the landings were, they'd probably have succeeded. Whether having the Anglo French fleet aiming their guns at Istanbul would have knocked the Ottomans out of the war though, could be another thing entirely.
 

ben0628

Banned
If you want to win Gallipoli, screw the amphibious invasion and just have the British fleet run the straits early on. It would have been costly, but the Brits could have succeeded.
 
Even if they secure more ground they are still nowhere near their final objective and still outnumbered and locked in a relatively narrow corridor
 

Thomas1195

Banned
No "scouting" naval assault in day 1, but a full-scale naval amphibious attack including British and ANZAC troops. This requires Churchill to choose Gallipoli as a main target, but allow Fisher and the Admirals to devise actually strategies and tactics (I mean not allowing Churchill to mess up further).
 
With what little I know of the campaign (mostly from reading Richard Massey :)) I tend to feel that the fleet could have broken through if they had acted quicker and more decisively in the early days, and without too much forewarning. But it may be more based on admiration for the old dreadnoughts than sound analysis on my part. (Okay, it is based on that.)

So again - what could have gone differently? And would it have mattered?

Well, aside from the many great threads here at AH, I just found this interesting article wherein both England and Turkey reviews postwar what went wrong (worth a read just for that).

http://thegreatwar.theaustralian.com.au/could_we_have_won_at_gallipoli/

However, what stood out to me was this bit:

"Ekins says many of the assumptions on which the invasion was based could not have come to pass. He says the idea of opening a warm-water sea route to enable Britain to supply Russia, the struggling entente partner, with weapons and war materiel was absurd. Even if the landing had succeeded and the Allied fleet had broken through to Constantinople, Britain did not have enough cargo ships to carry supplies to Russia until 1917. Britain's war production did not reach its peak until 1917 and 1918, and in 1915 it was struggling to make enough munitions for its own troops on the Western Front. It certainly did not have enough to supply the hard-pressed Russians. In fact, the Asquith government fell because of shortages that left troops on the Western Front without enough artillery shells."

That was news to me (about the lack of cargo-ships and to some extent the bleak forecasts of being able to supply Russia). But what do the rest of you think? I don't want to derail the thread too much, but would it have mattered at all, if the Entente had had the most stunning success?

The article kind of overlooks Anaxagoras' point: "the easier flow of Russian grain to the world market would greatly assist the war finances of the Russian Empire and reduce inflation in Britain and France.", for example.

However, you'd still need the shipping to make good on this new supply line, and the Germans and Austrians could send more subs to try to choke off that new supply line like they did in the Atlantic and North Sea OTL. It's not as if you suddenly have a new shop open 24/7 with free food for the Entente ...
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
"Ekins says many of the assumptions on which the invasion was based could not have come to pass. He says the idea of opening a warm-water sea route to enable Britain to supply Russia, the struggling entente partner, with weapons and war materiel was absurd. Even if the landing had succeeded and the Allied fleet had broken through to Constantinople, Britain did not have enough cargo ships to carry supplies to Russia until 1917. Britain's war production did not reach its peak until 1917 and 1918, and in 1915 it was struggling to make enough munitions for its own troops on the Western Front. It certainly did not have enough to supply the hard-pressed Russians. In fact, the Asquith government fell because of shortages that left troops on the Western Front without enough artillery shells."
Well, note that a victory in Gallipoli would push Bulgaria, Romania and Greece to join Entente, release over 1 million Russian soldiers from Turkish border as well as around 2 million British Empire troops that fought in Middle East IOTL. I don't think A-H could survive a combination of Brusilov offensive from the East, British-ANZAC-Indian-French-Bulgarian-Greek from the south, and Italy from the West. Besides, this would allow the navalist faction to win the debate, so that British would not raise a big home army for a full-scale continental war, and no need of conscription.
 
Top