The consequences of a successful Gallipoli campaign?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Pars RE:The consequences of a successful Gallipoli campaign? 6/25/2005 8:02:43 PM

You might have failed to notice but Allies did win the WW1. Ottoman Empire had accepted a very devastating peace treaty as Ottoman Army had catastrophic loses at the war. Greece, France, GB and Armenia have invaded large parts of the Ottoman Empire which included Istanbul. In the end Ottoman army revolted against the Sultan. Defeated the few troops still loyal to Sultan and thern defeated Greek, French and Armenian armies, secured Anatolia and founded new Turkish Republic. If Gallipoli have succeeded Ottoman Empire would surrender much earlier before her army having catastrophic losses in the war. So, revolting Ottoman Army would have much more strength when the time had come. Surrender of Ottoman Empire at 1915 would not end the war much more earlier as it was the standing power of German armies that have decided the length of war. So only consequences of a succesful Gallipoli campaign could be a slightly larger Turkey.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:The consequences of a successful Gallipoli campaign? 6/25/2005 10:29:36 PM

I think one likely consequence of a successful Gallipoli campaign would have been the eventual opening of the passage from the Aegean to the Black Sea allowing British Navy access to Russia and the Balkan allies of Germany and Austria. This would have allowed the British and French to link up with the Russians and eventually the Serbs and would no doubt have led the Germans to send more forces to the Balkans. I believe the main concept inspiring the operation envisioned the sequential neutralization of the southeast Europe Central Powers allies, generally. This would follow from the principle that it is better to gang up on the weaker of two partners or I suppose the weakest of more than two partners first. I have read that the original Russian operational plan for the outbreak of hostilities had called for a Russian invasion of the Balkans aiming at the Austrians rather than an attack on the eastern frontier of Germany. That would have had results at least parallel to the intended follow up to a successful Gallipoli campaign.

Quote Reply

timon_phocas RE:The consequences of a successful Gallipoli campaign? 6/26/2005 11:44:41 AM

I think the Russians did fairly well against the Ottomons and Aurtro-Hungarians in WWI. It was their disasterous war against the Germans that brought their downfall. Would the french and British have been able to reinforce them through the Black Sea? I don't know. They already had the northern route through Murmansk and that didn't seem to help much. Would the French and British have been able to reinforce the Roumanians? Possibly. But it was always easier for the Germans to reinforce the Hapsburg armies. They had central lines of communication, the Russians were inneffective and they were on the defensive on the Western Front, so they should have been able to send some substantial reinforcements. I think that a wider war in the Balkans would have worked to Germany's advantage.

Quote Reply

Pars RE:The consequences of a successful Gallipoli campaign? 6/26/2005 7:40:25 PM

According to German High Command of WW1 only decisive theater of the war was the Western Front. Even their great East Front offensives of 1915 and 1917 were made to destroy as much Russian formations as possible; release the pressure at that front then return again to West.

Quote Reply

Caesar Maximus RE:The consequences of a successful Gallipoli campaign? 6/28/2005 8:24:00 PM

Pars- Thanks, but i did realise the Brits won WW1. Notice i said Gallipoli campaign? I'm also aware this front was a sideshow to the main event. My point is simply that A British Empire presence in Asia Minor in 1916 may have led to a completely different settlement for the Greek/Turk issue- one more in favour of Greece. Given the genocide of the Armenians, the Turks should've been kicked out completely. But of course we didn't know at the time...

Quote Reply

CJH RE:The consequences of a successful Gallipoli campaign? 7/2/2005 3:42:15 PM

Mustafa Kemal not withstanding, were the post war goverment of Turkey more inclined to a mutual defense alliance with Britain, the Germans in WWII would have had more difficulty tackling the southern USSR. At least the Black Sea would be the scene of a lively naval conflict.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:The consequences of a successful Gallipoli campaign? 7/2/2005 4:14:56 PM

I believe the British may have more effectively aided the Russians were they to have access the southern Russia. Murmansk was remote both by land and by sea and the weather took its toll on those WWII convoys. Odessa or Sebastopol should have afforded better access. Of course the Russians should have used land space for defense of the German front as they did in WWII and concentrated on the Hapsburg empire and Bulgaria aiming to link up with the Serbs. Where the Germans had the advantage of interior communications, the Brits had an empire and could muster the Aussies and New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans, etc. They could have widened the war and diluted the strength of the Germans away from Poland and Belgium and France. But the intended immediate consequence of Gallipoli for the Germans would have been surprise and being put into a reactive mode. Presumably, what was wanted would be for the Germans to be always a step or two late getting to the basket so to speak. An incursion into the Balkans or Galicia might be followed by an offensive on the Western Front. An additional intended consequence may have been for junior allies to change sides as Italy did causing irreversable damage to the Central Powers' cause. In WWII Churchill also thought Italy was the soft underbody of the Axis. As I understand it, our GIs in Italy would like to have asked Churchill what he was thinking when he came up with that idea.

Quote Reply

ProDemocracy RE:The consequences of a successful Gallipoli campaign? 7/5/2005 10:49:12 AM

Turkey falls, Brits can supply Russia MUCH better AND British and Russian troops that were fighting the Turks can be redeployed to fight with Serbia against Austria. Romania is still in along with Greece...only a matter of time before Austria falls - and with Germany isolated, the war would have been over by Dec 1917 at the latest...probably with no American declaration of war. And from what I have read, Gallipoli was a closer battle than most think - Britain almost prevailed...

Quote Reply

GrandTurk RE:The consequences of a successful Gallipoli campaign? 7/16/2005 4:31:58 PM

Caesar, As far as the armenian genocide is concerned it never happened. Yes the armenians suffered and starved. However, you forget that the armenians rebelled against the Turks at the behest of the russians. For each armenian that died, 4 Turks perished. 90,000 Turks alone starved to death on the eastern front. The Turks don't complain because they realised it was war. Food shortages were rampant. The Turks were forced to remove them from the russian border with every intention to let them return to their status quo in whatever part of the empire they were deported to. This included land, monetary and animal reallocations. The Turks were being attacked on all sides and it had little or no resources. She was trying to protect herself and whatever was left of the empire. Could the deportations been a paranoic reflex on the part of the Turks? Sure! But don't forget the we Americans also rounded up Japanese-Americans during WW2. So don't go kicking the Turks out of Turkey yet.

Quote Reply

kane RE:it is not possible 9/22/2005 10:49:10 AM

greeks could not push a nation that is living there for centuries. they had the allies help but every turk has talent to fight.war is in their nature.and greeks population was less.

Quote Reply

1 2