WI: Gallipoli Naval Attack Succeeded?

[MrP]

Do you think this combination - better Russian armies and large new front in the Balkans - would be sufficient to knock Austria-Hungary out of the war in 1916? Could this, in turn, have caused the Germans to sue for peace?

Mm, it's hard to say. Past a certain point several WWI offensives just ran out of steam because of logistical problems: Brusilov, Caporetto. However, with Allied supplies the Russian civilians won't be so shirty, so Russia will hang on longer . . . unless she drives harder than OTL. Paradoxically, that could wear her out earlier! Still, her efforts would also weary Germany and A-H.

O'course, if Bulgaria decides to join the Allies (IIRC, she gave serious consideration to this) or simply stays neutral, then the Central Powers have lost several extra armies. If that were to happen - Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and Russia all pressuring A-H, then a '16 or '17 defeat is not an impossibility. Since this is also the year of the Somme and Verdun, Germany is less able to give Austria assistance. They could cancel Verdun to free up troops (though its purpose was to bleed France dry), and France launches the offensive she would have. Either way: ow.

 

[stevep]

Mm, it's hard to say. Past a certain point several WWI offensives just ran out of steam because of logistical problems: Brusilov, Caporetto. However, with Allied supplies the Russian civilians won't be so shirty, so Russia will hang on longer . . . unless she drives harder than OTL. Paradoxically, that could wear her out earlier! Still, her efforts would also weary Germany and A-H.

O'course, if Bulgaria decides to join the Allies (IIRC, she gave serious consideration to this) or simply stays neutral, then the Central Powers have lost several extra armies. If that were to happen - Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and Russia all pressuring A-H, then a '16 or '17 defeat is not an impossibility. Since this is also the year of the Somme and Verdun, Germany is less able to give Austria assistance. They could cancel Verdun to free up troops (though its purpose was to bleed France dry), and France launches the offensive she would have. Either way: ow.

I must admit this is one of my favourite AH's, or at least the start of one. It would have taken a while for a successful clearing of the straits to work through into better equipment for the Russian armies. Britain was still in the early stages of mobilising its munitions production and even France, the arsenal of democracy in WWI, had a way to go. [Although one option might be a more traditional route for Britain, smaller expeditionary forces in France and the Balkans and putting more effort into producing the munitions the Russian bear needs.

However even if the Turks withdraw into the interior and fight on there, requiring continued Russian involvement on the Caucasus front and some sort of occupation forces to protect the straits there are a number of big advantages. Even a still resisting Turkey will be weaker as it would have lost its biggest industrial centre and be even more isolated from its allies. Also probably Goeben can be flushed out removing that irritant to allied sea control. Britain will probably only need a small proportion of the forces it committed to fighting the Ottomans in Palestine and Mesopotamia.

More importantly Austria is in a very grim position. Bulgaria is highly unlikely to join central powers now and given the right incentive, say E Thrace, could well join the allies. Greece will probably also jump on board, especially with the opportunity to protect its co-nationalist along the Ionnian coastline. Either would open a supply route to Serbia, enabling it to be supply and reinforced. It was proving a tough nut for the Austrians to crack and this time there will be no attack from Bulgarian and probably allied forces. With Italy joining the conflict and its king struggling to keep Rumania neutral Austria will be fast approaching the position that other than its border with Germany and the short one with the Swiss it is encircled by enemies. The Germans will still have interior lines but they will have to contribute increasing resources to simply keep Austria afloat. Once Karl replaces Franz Joseph I think peace will be made fairly quickly, if not before.

Steve

 

[Keenir]

re Italy...

*cough*
19 February British begin naval action against the Dardenelles
25 April British landing on Gallipoli Peninsula
23 May Italy declares war on Austria-Hungary

hm. *thinks* could Britain have pressured Italy into the war sooner?

squeeze the Germans all the way to the peace tables, and that removes pressure from Russia. (at least external pressure)

Impossible, old boy. Quite impossible. Whereas the Ottomans were defended solely by mines, Goeben and Breslau and a few cruddy ships, the Denmark Strait has as potential defenders the High Seas Fleet, the Baltic Fleet and mines.

oh. I honestly didn't know that.

Not quite everything, old boy. We were building them 2 BBs at the outbreak of war. Because we feared the Ottomans'd go over to Germany and because we needed more BBs, we nabbed 'em. This did annoy the Ottomans more, of course.

*nods*

I don't doubt your intelligence - but I do question your knowledge of this period and campaign.

I think its mostly because its the gaps in my knowledge (which I didn't realize were gaps until you pointed them out) overlapped with the argument you were advocating.

But to suggest that Britain and France would quarrel over which acquired short-term control of Istanbul doesn't make any sense. In 1915 Britain has sent her army to protect France and Belgium. She's raising and training a vast army that will be used against Germany and in support of France. They are allies.

A valid question-mark hangs over giving Istanbul to Russia, since Russia'd gain a Mediterranean port for her fleet, upsetting the traditional balance of power - after the war. But Britain and France quarreling with each other and worrying about losing a few men? No.

there's a proverb that I've heard of, and it may be French originally, or Hebrew...."Nothing says permanent like temporary."

 

[Keenir]

The Ottoman Empire is probably dissolved at least as much as in OTL, but with the Entente controlling the Dardanelles and the Aegean coast the Greeks living there will not be ethnically cleansed/killed as in OTL.

what??

you're kidding, right? didn't all the anti-Ottoman Greeks leave the area around, oh, roughly, 1821? (leaving only Greeks who didn't object to Ottomans)

 

[Anaxagoras]

Although one option might be a more traditional route for Britain, smaller expeditionary forces in France and the Balkans and putting more effort into producing the munitions the Russian bear needs.

This is rather important, I think. The British policy makers were generally divided into so-called "Westerners" who favored maximum concentration on the Western Front and "Easterners" who were opposed to such a policy. In fact, it was largely pressure from the Easterners which lead to the Gallipoli Campaign in the first place.

Assuming the Gallipoli Campaign succeeded, it might have resulted in a dramatically lower British commitement to the Western Front. Perhaps we would see a focus on naval and economic warfare, with substantial but comparatively small British forces dispatched to France, Italy and the Balkans. No slaughter of the British at the Somme.

This, in turn, might have important ramifications for the post-war world. If the Germans, French and Russians have suffered massive losses while the British have suffered substantially fewer casualties, it might vastly improve Britain's comparative power later on.

More importantly Austria is in a very grim position. Bulgaria is highly unlikely to join central powers now and given the right incentive, say E Thrace, could well join the allies. Greece will probably also jump on board, especially with the opportunity to protect its co-nationalist along the Ionnian coastline. Either would open a supply route to Serbia, enabling it to be supply and reinforced. It was proving a tough nut for the Austrians to crack and this time there will be no attack from Bulgarian and probably allied forces. With Italy joining the conflict and its king struggling to keep Rumania neutral Austria will be fast approaching the position that other than its border with Germany and the short one with the Swiss it is encircled by enemies. The Germans will still have interior lines but they will have to contribute increasing resources to simply keep Austria afloat. Once Karl replaces Franz Joseph I think peace will be made fairly quickly, if not before.

I think success at Gallipoli would have lead to Bulgaria, Greece and Rumania to join the Allies, thus creating a Balkan Front of roughly the same size as either the Western or Eastern Fronts. With Italy coming in as well (perhaps a few weeks earlier than IOTL), I think you have enough strength to bring about A-H collapse in 1916.

 

[MrP]

Hm. *thinks* could Britain have pressured Italy into the war sooner? Squeeze the Germans all the way to the peace tables. That removes pressure from Russia (at least external pressure).

You mean in concert with seizing the Dardanelles, right? I don't see why not. IIRC, Italy wasn't too keen on war at all, but the PM pushed the nation into it. Don't quote me on that, though. My memory may be at fault.

Oh. I honestly didn't know that.

That's the spirit, old boy. If y'don't know something, come out and say it! I always do. It's so much easier to find things out then.

There's a proverb that I've heard of, and it may be French originally, or Hebrew...."Nothing says permanent like temporary."

*chuckle* I've nae heard it afore, but it sounds about right.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

With the direct route to Russia opened, the Allies can provide sufficient grain and other foodstuffs to ease the plight which led to revolution, if not completely eradicate it.

Further, with sufficient airplanes and heavy weapons supplied, perhaps even a few brigades equipped to Anglo-French standards and some armored cars, the Eastern Front becomes much more dangerous for the Germans.

The question now is what happens to the Ottoman Empire. If it surrenders, dismemberment follows and the Allies now have bargaining chips to offer Greece and others. Further, with the Russians stronger and the Allies to the south, Bulgaria is in a serious bind and Romania also in a stronger position.

Further, if the Allies make some arrangement with Mustafa Kemal and others like him, there may be a peace settlement which frees up powerful allied forces while leaving a slightly larger Turkey in the post-war period. Perhaps part of Rumelia in Bulgaria, northern Syria, or the Kurdish territories in Iraq remain in Turkish hands?

Certainly if the new Turkish regime offers to aid the Allies, few will refuse a few hundred thousand trained men added to their side.

So in 1916 an Allied offensive shatters Bulgaria and forces them to sue for peace while one or more Central Powers offensives are cancelled to free forces to knock Romania out of the war. Alas, with Russia stronger and no Bulgarian part of the offensive, Romania is hit hard but stays in the war and when Bulgaria falls and Allied forces under Allenby reach Bucharest...

 

[Keenir]

You mean in concert with seizing the Dardanelles, right?

with or without the Dardanelles, Italy entering the war sooner.

That's the spirit, old boy. If y'don't know something, come out and say it! I always do. It's so much easier to find things out then.

well, yes, true....but at least half the time, folks look at me strangely & say "gadzooks, everyone and their uncle knows that! you been under a log fer long, boy?"

 

[Anaxagoras]

Further, with the Russians stronger and the Allies to the south, Bulgaria is in a serious bind and Romania also in a stronger position.

If the attack on Gallipoli had succeeded in March, 1915, I doubt Bulgaria would have joined the Central Powers. Indeed, she was playing the part of a mercenary, wishing to join the winning side and seeing what she could get.

If the Allies had succeeded at the Dardanelles and knocked Turkey out, I think it is quite likely that Bulgaria would join the war on the Allied side, especially if the Allies sweetened the deal by offering some of European Turkey.

 

[MrP]

with or without the Dardanelles, Italy entering the war sooner.

I don't think Italy entering a few months earlier, while the Dardanelles remained under Ottoman control, would have made a big difference. When Italy did enter she pinned down large numbers of Austrian troops and bled them dry. Her troops fought as bravely as anyone's, but her OTL arrival didn't make Germany hurry to the negotiating table. For Italy's arrival to make a signal difference, you really need to have poor Austria surrounded on all sides as outlined above. If she can be forced to give ground or negotiate peace, then Germany must do the same.

Well, yes, true . . . but at least half the time folks look at me strangely & say "Gadzooks, everyone and their uncle knows that! You been under a log fer long, boy?"

It's the only way to learn, old man. I only pretend to knowledge if people assume I have it already. mainly, this means when friends bore me about computer hardware, the latest wargaming figures or the statistics of military hardware. I sit, nod and say, "Wow!" or "Cool!" intermittently. However, that's because they want to talk, and my involvement is peripheral at best. Plus, I generally don't want their boring lecture on the British 1970s era 105mm gun to go on even longer.

I think people do the same when I talk about battleships.

 

[stevep]

With the direct route to Russia opened, the Allies can provide sufficient grain and other foodstuffs to ease the plight which led to revolution, if not completely eradicate it.

Further, with sufficient airplanes and heavy weapons supplied, perhaps even a few brigades equipped to Anglo-French standards and some armored cars, the Eastern Front becomes much more dangerous for the Germans.

The question now is what happens to the Ottoman Empire. If it surrenders, dismemberment follows and the Allies now have bargaining chips to offer Greece and others. Further, with the Russians stronger and the Allies to the south, Bulgaria is in a serious bind and Romania also in a stronger position.

Further, if the Allies make some arrangement with Mustafa Kemal and others like him, there may be a peace settlement which frees up powerful allied forces while leaving a slightly larger Turkey in the post-war period. Perhaps part of Rumelia in Bulgaria, northern Syria, or the Kurdish territories in Iraq remain in Turkish hands?

Certainly if the new Turkish regime offers to aid the Allies, few will refuse a few hundred thousand trained men added to their side.

So in 1916 an Allied offensive shatters Bulgaria and forces them to sue for peace while one or more Central Powers offensives are cancelled to free forces to knock Romania out of the war. Alas, with Russia stronger and no Bulgarian part of the offensive, Romania is hit hard but stays in the war and when Bulgaria falls and Allied forces under Allenby reach Bucharest...

Reaper

In general agreement apart from a couple of points.

a) I think Russia would have continued exporting grain, as it was one of the great food surplus countries. Later problems were partly due to the breakdown of co-ordination leading to food shortages in the cities and revolution. [One of the reasons the communists treated the peasants so brutally even before Stalin]. You would probably have had Russia exporting food rather than the western allies importing it from the US, easing everybody’s debt problems.

b) As said elsewhere if the Ottoman empire falls I can't see the Bulgarians joining the central powers.

c) Personally, once the straits are under control and the Balkan powers start flocking to the winning side I would be glad, if in command of the allied diplomats to play carrots and sticks with the Turks. Basically say, you will/may [depending on the timing] lose various areas because we have already committed to them [E Trace (Bulgaria), Ionnian coast (Greece), Armenia (Russia) and probably the Basra and Sinai areas to protect British interests in the Gulf and Canal Zone]. However if you make peace now you will lose no more keeping the bulk of your empire. If you decide to fight on then your armies will lack your main production areas and you will be fighting very much on your own against overwhelming odds. As such they would face mush stiffer terms later. For instance how far do they want the Greeks to get into Anatolia?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Since it seems likely that success at Gallipoli would bring about the establishment of a Balkan Front, would this be enough to knock out Austria-Hungary? In turn, would the collapse of A-H bring Germany to the peace table? Could we see an end to the war in early 1916, rather than late 1918?

 

[Alratan]

Since it seems likely that success at Gallipoli would bring about the establishment of a Balkan Front, would this be enough to knock out Austria-Hungary? In turn, would the collapse of A-H bring Germany to the peace table? Could we see an end to the war in early 1916, rather than late 1918?

I don't think the establishment of Balkan front in itself is sufficient to bring about the collapse of Austro-Hungary. What will break them is the fact that the Russians will be being supplied by Britain and France, and that the Ottomans have been knocked out, freeing up those Russian troops who were engaged on that front.

It is the spectre of big Russian gains in the East against an imploding Austro-Hungary that might compel the Germans to the table in something like a frame of mind to accept the price the Allies are going to demand for peace.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Another aspect of critical importance was the exporting of Russian grain. Before the war, 90% of Russian grain exports had gone through the Dardanelles- this not only supplies France and Britain with badly needed grain, but provided the bulk of Russian trade revenue.

Reopening the Dardanelles means less hardship on the home front in Britain and France and a much more stable financial situation for Russia.

 

[Alratan]

So, if we say a timeline like this:

18th March: The Navy is luckier with the minefields - 4 ships hit mines and ony one is lost. John de Robeck decides to press on.

19th March: 2 more ships are struck by mines, both are lost. Despite this the commanders on the scene decide to contine. The Ottoman forces run out of shells.

21st March:
Forward elements of the fleet engages the German ship which had been in harbour at Constantinople, but it escapes into the Black Sea.

A message is sent asking for the surrender of Constantinople. The Ottoman governement refuses.

What happens now? There are 85,000 of the best Ottoman troops in the immediate vicinity, but Constantinople is very vulnerable. I'll leave it blank and pick up a little bit later.

If all the Balkan states pile into European Turkey (although I don't know how soon that can happen, mobilisation etc), and the Russians have successes against demoralised Ottoman troops, they'll probably fold.

8th of April: The British begin to advance up the Tigris towards to Bagdad.

10th April: The Ottoman city of Van rebels and declares for the Russians.

14th April: Constantinople is in French and British hands, albeit a touch worse for wear. The best part of the Ottoman army, bottled up on Gallipoli, is in the process of negotiating its surrender.

17th April: Italy and Bulgaria declare for the Allies, hoping for a piece of the pie.

19th April: The Ottoman goverment agrees to a general ceasefire during which negotiations can occur.

At this point the Allies will presumably be selling the dismembered bits of the European Ottoman Empire to the highest bidder. This probably won't do them any good in the long run, but then again, without Woodrow Wilson's good intentions, ethnic nationalism won't get the ecouragment it got in OTL.

Anyone have any good ideas for what happens next? Up thread it was suggested:

E Trace (Bulgaria), Ionnian coast (Greece), Armenia (Russia) and probably the Basra and Sinai areas to protect British interests in the Gulf and Canal Zone.

1st May: the first Allied merchant ships enter the Black Sea

4th May: The newly reformed Balkan league begins to mobilise in support of Serbia.

 

[blysas]

If turkey is knocked out of the war, in turn we have better supplies going to the russians and a third front is locked down on the Austrian army, looks like the Austrians would collaspe on all front by 1916.


Let's change the topic, what happens next after Turkey has suddrendered and the third front finally saves serbia. What will the German High command do next ?

 

[Keenir]

So, if we say a timeline like this:

21st March:
Forward elements of the fleet engages the German ship which had been in harbour at Constantinople, but it escapes into the Black Sea.

A message is sent asking for the surrender of Constantinople. The Ottoman governement refuses.

What happens now? There are 85,000 of the best Ottoman troops in the immediate vicinity, but Constantinople is very vulnerable. I'll leave it blank and pick up a little bit later.

If all the Balkan states pile into European Turkey (although I don't know how soon that can happen, mobilisation etc), and the Russians have successes against demoralised Ottoman troops, they'll probably fold.

8th of April: The British begin to advance up the Tigris towards to Bagdad.

just a thought...maybe have the real (if subtle) divergence being that the British don't send troops to the Tigris, focusing them instead on being that much more manpower to go through the Straits.

 

[Anaxagoras]

just a thought...maybe have the real (if subtle) divergence being that the British don't send troops to the Tigris, focusing them instead on being that much more manpower to go through the Straits.

In the Gallipoli Campaign, I don't think more troops would make much of a difference. The question I have asked in this thread is what would have happened had the Royal Navy attack in March succeeded.

 

[Anaxagoras]

A message is sent asking for the surrender of Constantinople. The Ottoman governement refuses.

What happens now? There are 85,000 of the best Ottoman troops in the immediate vicinity, but Constantinople is very vulnerable. I'll leave it blank and pick up a little bit later.

Henry Morgenthau was the American ambassador to Turkey in 1915, and probably the most accurate and intelligent foreign observer of Turkish affairs at the time. He said, "The whole Ottoman state, on that eighteenth day of March, when the Allied fleet abandoned the attack, was on the brink of dissolution." He describes a city in panic, with the government planning on fleeing and many elements within the city ready to welcome the Allies. He was always of the opinion that the moment the fleet arrived off Constantinople, the Turks would surrender.

 

[Alratan]

Henry Morgenthau was the American ambassador to Turkey in 1915, and probably the most accurate and intelligent foreign observer of Turkish affairs at the time. He said, "The whole Ottoman state, on that eighteenth day of March, when the Allied fleet abandoned the attack, was on the brink of dissolution." He describes a city in panic, with the government planning on fleeing and many elements within the city ready to welcome the Allies. He was always of the opinion that the moment the fleet arrived off Constantinople, the Turks would surrender.

That does make things easier. How about this then?

18th March: The Navy is luckier with the minefields - 4 ships hit mines and ony one is lost. John de Robeck decides to press on.

19th March: 2 more ships are struck by mines, both are lost. Despite this the commanders on the scene decide to contine. The Ottoman forces run out of shells.

19th March: The Ottoman government flees into the Asian side of the Empire. Constantinople erupts into chaos. Law and order break down. Wild rumors sweep the city.

21st March:
Forward elements of the fleet engages the German ship Goeben which had been in harbour at Constantinople, but it escapes into the Black Sea.

A message is sent asking for the surrender of Constantinople. There is no effective civil authority left to respond. Some factions within the city ask the Allies to enter to restore order.

24th March: British and French forces enter the city unopposed. The commanders on the round are still unable to communicate with the Ottoman government.

The Ottoman forces on Gallipoli have also lost contact with their own central command - no orders have been made for their withdrawal, so they dig in.

The Mediterranian Expeditionary Force (MEF) begins to deploy around Constantinople.

27th March: The neck of the Gallipoli peninsula has been closed, albeit by inadequate forces to hold against a determined assault by the Ottoman forces penned there.

The commander of the MEF, sends runners along the peninsular with a message offering a ceasfire whilst surrender terms can be worked out.

29th March: The offers of ceasfire are rejected. Probing attacks are made on the MEF's lines, which are only rebuffed with fire support from the battleships. As one officer said later, more by luck than judgement.

1st April: Substantil reinforcements for the MEF arrive and disembark.

Any one have any issues with that?

What will the British be doing about the Ottoman forces on the other side of the Straits?

What will the Ottoman government be up to, or has it collapsed. Will the Allies have to pick one of the military commanders on Gallipoli to negotiate with as a representative of his government?