WW1 no Mediterranean theater

Counterpart to the other thread, this is less likely than the Med not being a theater in World War 2 but could still happen. What is the effect on the wider war?

For this to happen at a minimum Turkey has to stay neutral, though maybe you still get this if they declare war on the Central Powers. Italy probably has to stay neutral too, though having no Dardanelles campaign would help here.
 
If we keep Italy and the Ottoman Empire out of the First World War, we are still left with a pair of Mediterranean powers on the side of the Entente (France and Montenegro) and one on the side of the Central Powers (Austria-Hungary.) Thus, we would thus have the likelihood of Austro-Hungarian submarine warfare against Entente transportation in the Mediterranean and the possibility of Entente landing operations in the Balkans.

If we remove Austria-Hungary or France from the First World War, then it would be so different from the First World War of our own time line that we would probably have to find a different name for it.
 
Enter the Balkans Boondoggle v.1.0, or the first Greek adventure of Winston Churchill.

AH could free troops to fight Russia. On the other hand, Russia could keep exports and imports going, probably preventing it's collapse.
 
There's no way to have something like OTL's World War One without a Mediterranian theatre. Even if Turkey is neutral, the Med is still a battle zone.
Prior to the war, most of the French navy was concentrated in the Mediterranian. (Britain was responsible for protecting France's Channel and Atlantic coasts.) Once the war started, the French navy's job was to protect the troop convoys carrying the Army of Africa to southern France. Goeben and Breslau were in the Mediterranian there to attack those convoys. (The three RN battlecruisers in the Med were there to prevent this.)
The Mediterranean was a combat zone the moment the war started.
 
Top