How would a Turkish capitulation in 1915 effect the wider war?
- Thread starter Cook
- Start date
Short term would be a massive impact on Russia, which can receive substantial Western military and economic help. Don't forget that one of the reasons why the 1917 revolutions happened was large-scale unemployment due to the inability to import or export anything meaningful.
Long term, Greece gets the bit between its teeth and goes for Smyrna and Constantinople. And that could get messy.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Well, obviously Bulgaria wouldn't join the war, which in turn probably butterfly away Greek entry in the war too.
A huge moral booster for the Entente and the opposite for Germany-Hungary.
UK would not have to spend men, money, time and effort in Egypt or Mesopotamia. If the Ottoman surrender was due to Gallipoli the siege and surrender of Kut would been avoided.
Russia wouldn't have to fight in Kaukasus and, since Bulgaria probably will stay neutral, less in Balkans. That, combined with Cymraegs point of export/import, will almost certainly mean no bolsjevik revolution. Germany and Hungary will be forced to fight on the eastern front.
Italy would probably still join the Entente - a lot of bribes and influence had already been spent, and the enemy had just become far weaker.
But the Allied advantage can't be used in anything else than bloody attacks against trench systems. I doubt that "the cult of attack" would allow anything than even bigger Somme (but maybe more prepared, since there would be no need to help the Russians). Would it be possible/meaningful to attack through the Balkans against Hungary?
Germany may be tempted to launch unresticted submarine warfare earlier, which would mean an earlier US entry into the war. The German military leadership were sometimes very stupid in this way.
My guess is a WW1 that ended slightly faster (1917?) and with fewer dead. The Paris peace negotiations would be completely different with Russia still in play. Would they go for the ultimate goal, Constantinople? If Gallipoli was a success Churchill would still be in power and maybe become the PM during the 1920s? Would the Ottoman Empire survive? The Middle East would anyway be totally different.
UK would not have to spend men, money, time and effort in Egypt or Mesopotamia. If the Ottoman surrender was due to Gallipoli the siege and surrender of Kut would been avoided.
Russia wouldn't have to fight in Kaukasus and, since Bulgaria probably will stay neutral, less in Balkans. That, combined with Cymraegs point of export/import, will almost certainly mean no bolsjevik revolution. Germany and Hungary will be forced to fight on the eastern front.
Italy would probably still join the Entente - a lot of bribes and influence had already been spent, and the enemy had just become far weaker.
But the Allied advantage can't be used in anything else than bloody attacks against trench systems. I doubt that "the cult of attack" would allow anything than even bigger Somme (but maybe more prepared, since there would be no need to help the Russians). Would it be possible/meaningful to attack through the Balkans against Hungary?
Germany may be tempted to launch unresticted submarine warfare earlier, which would mean an earlier US entry into the war. The German military leadership were sometimes very stupid in this way.
My guess is a WW1 that ended slightly faster (1917?) and with fewer dead. The Paris peace negotiations would be completely different with Russia still in play. Would they go for the ultimate goal, Constantinople? If Gallipoli was a success Churchill would still be in power and maybe become the PM during the 1920s? Would the Ottoman Empire survive? The Middle East would anyway be totally different.
Maybe the Ottoman collapse it's the thing that A-H take the negotiations with Italy a little more seriously and give to Rome something enough to keep her neutral
Somehow I'm not sure a 1915 capitulation sees the Ottomans collapse, so much as decide they gain nothing from the war.
Alex Richards
Donor
One other thing to bear in mind is that without Bulgaria or the Ottomans in the war, Romania and Serbia can also be more easily supplied, thus opening the possibility of a joint push from Russia, Romania and Serbia/Montenegro into Hungary and Croatia.
J.D.Ward
Donor
Please explain this.
Who's point of export/import ??
Please correct or explain this.
It reads as though you're in an ATL where Wales is independent in WWI, but I don't think that's what you mean.
Who's point of export/import ??
Please correct or explain this.
It reads as though you're in an ATL where Wales is independent in WWI, but I don't think that's what you mean.
Yeah, I would have thought that they would still be in a reasonable position at that point. I guess it depends on the reason for the decision.
Is it because of military defeat near the capital? Or is it a wider strategic choice, better to suffer short term humiliation and keep it all together rather than fight on every front to a possible total defeat?
If it is the former then perhaps the current order get swept away in the panic, if it is the latter, then I would have thought they would keep control. In which case, the Ottomans would surely be able to keep most of what they hold
Thande
Donor
I'm assuming this is based on Gallipoli-gone-right. So I'm guessing the result is some minor territorial changes (perhaps in favour of British Aden) but the Ottomans otherwise retain basically everything, much to Russia's displeasure, and just shift from the Central Powers to a somewhat pro-Entente neutral position.
Ignoring the actual plausibility of Ottoman capitulation this early, I would agree that, if happens, Entente position will get a massive boost, especially Russia. Balkans will also be much more exposed to the entente. You would also wonder where the troops that IOTL were entangled with Ottoman campaign will be diverted to. Maybe the Balkans ?
A British Gallipoli isn't too plausible, but lets just accept it for the time being. The Russians would be annoyed at having gained little from the Ottomans, but at least they could be supplied through the Black Sea now. Bulgaria is almost certianly not going to join the war, having seen what happened to the Ottomans.
The wild card is how the Brusilov offensive of 1916 may progress. This time, the Russians may be better supplied, with more troops, against a Austria-Hungary that is more concerned about its southern flank then OTL. So all things considered, the Russians will preform better in the war, and they may be able to stay in the war right until the end, which would obviously have effects when drawing up peace plans at the end of the war.
Alex Richards
Donor
Not until 1916. The Russian's had been eager to get Constantinople and parts of the Caucasus (they might get a deal with regards to parts of Turkish Armenia) but this was no more than a war aim at the moment. Sykes-Picot and the Arab revolt haven't happened yet, so there is no formal agreement for a carve-up yet.
That's basically what I was suggesting.
I don't think Gallipoli had anything more than a snowball's chance in hell of success. The time that the Ottomans used to build up on the peninsula was the time it took for the invading force to be organized. So I think that's out.
For what I suggested to happen, I think you need the triumvirate to decide that the war wasn't worth carrying on, but I imagine the Army wouldn't be happy to end the war, so continuing it was probably the Ottoman government's best option from the viewpoint of the time. However, I imagine the hope in the highest echelons of the Ottoman government was that they would actually make gains from fighting alongside Germany.
Now the idea of a "soft underbelly" implies to me, that if a Galipoli-style operation actually knocks Turkey out of the war, trying on Austria-Hungary would be next.
How about pulling Bulgaria or Greece into the war? I can also imagine Churchill trying to pull off some amphibious landing on the Adriatic, an idea he toyed with in WW2, in order to relieve the Serbians. It worked fine once, it can work again. Maybe a recipe for disaster this time...
How about pulling Bulgaria or Greece into the war? I can also imagine Churchill trying to pull off some amphibious landing on the Adriatic, an idea he toyed with in WW2, in order to relieve the Serbians. It worked fine once, it can work again. Maybe a recipe for disaster this time...