A Successful Gallipoli Campaign

[Apollo]

What do you think would have been the outcome of a successful British campaign in Gallipoli during WW1, and the subsequent capture of Istanbul/Constantinople? From what I have heard the British suffered from awful luck and poor planning, but in the beginning actually stood a chance of succeeding in the campaign.

There was a certain air around the whole thing of "liberating Constantinople" from the Muslims. If the British had taken it, do you think they would have just forced the Ottomans to surrender and then occupied it until the end of the war, after which giving it back, or do you think they would have tried to set up some sort of an Eastern Orthodox nation around it, or maybe given the city to Greece?

This isn't really meant to be an alternate-history thread, I'm just curious what course of action probably would have been taken if the British had had better luck and planning in their Gallipoli Campaign.

 

[Magnus]

If the British (and Australians) taken Constantinople, it would most certainly have knocked Turkey out of the war and would have established a "fourth front" in the war thru the Balkans. I don't think the outcome of the war would have changed significantly, though - and the revival of Turk nationalism in the 1920's would certainly have ended any foreign occupation of Istanbul.

On a somewhat related note...
Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul is quite a tough nut to crack - a city of immense strategic imprtance, and yet it has only fallen to enemy hands twice (1204, by treachery, and 1453, to its curren owners) in the 1600 or so years since its legendary walls were built, despite countless attacks and sieges. Quite a place, indeed.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

The campaign wasn't designed to knock out Turkey, but to open a sea route to Russian ports in the black sea.

I don't think Turkey would surrender based on the loss of Istanbul, but Russia would have benifitted from immense allied material supplies, and may have been able to field and feed more effective armies, and the October revolution and the fall of the Czar may have been delayed or averted all together.

Turkey would suffer immense supply problems without a link to the other central powers, so it's loss in the Mid east may have been accelerated.

Of course, there is gauruntee the Allies could have held the aera vs a determined German offensive, but all they needed was to hold one side of the straits to keep them from being mined again.

 

[raven]

Originally posted by Magnus

Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul is quite a tough nut to crack - a city of immense strategic imprtance, and yet it has only fallen to enemy hands twice (1204, by treachery, and 1453, to its curren owners) in the 1600 or so years since its legendary walls were built, despite countless attacks and sieges. Quite a place, indeed.

Not two; three times. After WW1, the Allies conquered Istanbul. After Independence War, Turkey got it. Turkey and Ottoman Empire are different states. The fact that, when Turkey had founded, Ottoman Empire was still alive. (Turkey founded: 23 April 1920. Ottoman Empire collapsed: 1 Nov. 1922)

 

[Apollo]

What about this part of my original post:

There was a certain air around the whole thing of "liberating Constantinople" from the Muslims. If the British had taken it, do you think they would have just forced the Ottomans to surrender and then occupied it until the end of the war, after which giving it back, or do you think they would have tried to set up some sort of an Eastern Orthodox nation around it, or maybe given the city to Greece?

 

[Andu Indorin]

Referring to your question as to the post-war control of Constantinople had the British/Commonwealth forces captured it, I think one would have to address the issue raised by Alcibiaties: would control of the Dardenelles/Strait of Bosphorus allowed sufficient war material to reach Russia to keep them in the war until the end. If so -- if I am recalling my WWI history correctly -- Great Britain and France more or less "promised" Russia "effective control" of that strategic waterway. Consequently, if Russia had eventually wound up on the winning side of WWI, it probably would have had a great deal to say on the eventual fate of Constantinople.

And on this issue, one must bear in mind that the Allied Powers did occupy Constantinople from Dec. 1918 to Aug. 1923; and that in the summer of 1922, they essentially delivered an ultimatum to Greece that forbade them from attempting to occupy Constantinople. The existence of an Imperial Russia -- and its commonality of religion with Greece -- may have resulted in a drastically different foreign policy by the Allies on the Constantinople question.

 

[History_Buff]

I think that the Russians would have benifited extremely. And not just agianst Germany and Austri-Hungary. With the Turkish government removed, The russians probably would have invaded via Armenia. this would most likely have given them access to the Med, given them warm water ports and hence increase trade exponentially.

Then if World War II still came about the same way, the Russian would have been able to more easily aquire supplies, and therfore possibly occupied more of Europe.

 

[MajorGeneral2]

I doubt anything could really have totally averted the Russian Revolution, though it could have been delayed. Most Russians were dissatisfied with their czarist government, and it wouldn't have taken much to set off a revolt, if not WWI, then something else.

 

[Vrylakas]

AofA was on the mark when he said that one of the major points behind the campaign was to open the Straits for the Russian navy and keep the Russians supplied. A successful seizure of the Straits probably would have led to a Russian campaign for Constantinople Whether they would have been successful or not is very debatable but they did float a suggestion during the war that Russia take over Constantinople - that the 3rd Rome take over the 2nd.

While the British had an immediate aim in World War I to open the Straits to Russian traffic this was contrary to the previous century's British policy designed to keep them bottled up there. Indeed, after the war Britain reverted to this policy and has pretty much kept to it since. The idea of Russian or Soviet warships freely roaming the Mediterranean never sat well with Whitehall.

As for a Balkan land campaign after a successful conquest of the Straits at Gallipoli, well that would have been foolhardy indeed though not out of the question. Churchill did want to inject some Allied pressure against the Germans and Austrians in their southern flank, and indeed even suggested a similar plan two decades later in another war as prime minister, much to American chagrin. The Balkans are named after a series of mountain ranges that almost cut the southern part of the peninsula off from the rest of Europe. Fighting through these mountains on unpaved mountain paths against modern defensive positions and local indigeounous peoples who know the region well would have been a nightmare with massive casualties and little progress. It would have been Italy in 1943, but X 100. It would have been a huge drain of men and material that the Allies of 1915-17 couldn't have afforded, and conversely easy for the Germans to defend with minimal resources.

 

[Pellaken]

my thoughts?

A
the strait would have been made a 'free city' zone

B
all european areas would have gone to greece, including the city. the straight would have became a international straight

 

[majorlee]

As to a subsequent Balkan campaign had Constantinople fallen, there would have been little gains for the Allies to pursue this strategy. Bulgaria could have been taken out...so what? The terrain would have prevented any large scale use as a front to open into Germany.

If I recall, there was an Allied occupation of Salonika that effectively prevented Greece from going to the Central Powers. Eventually the "Army of the Orient" that was based on Salonika numbered several hundred thousand troops of French and Commonwealth forces. This army accomplished nothing due to the terrain of the Balkans. True, the commander, I believe it was Sarriel, probably misspelled, was not very aggresive, but we all know the power of defense in this war. Imagine Westfront all over again.

I submit that the failure of the operation actually IMPROVED the Allied position by not giving in to more of Churchill's multi-front fantasies that were just not feasible.

 

[Ozz]

No World War 2

Chruchill would have not been disgraced, and served in the
trenches in France. He would have been the Far sighted
Statemen with Immense prestige. Britain would have been
ARMED to The TEETH and would have kicked germany's ass
as soon as they occupied the Rhineland. Goodbye Hilter,
Goodbye Nazis.

 

[History_Buff]

That, or the Russians would have sided with the Germans and crushed all of Europe. Or the Russians would have been supplied continuosly throughout WWII, and therefore would have overrun Europe all by themselves.

 

[MajorGeneral2]

Russia had every intent of invading Europe during WWII. Stalin planned to wait for the Axis and Allies to essentally destroy themselves, then launch an invasion of a weakened Europe. This is why Stalin refused to believe his intelligence regarding Operation Barbarossa, it didn't fit into his plan for Europe, and he paid for it (at first, anyway).

 

[History_Buff]

Yes, and the Allies would have sent them supplies, in order to build up an invasion force to invade German territory.

 

[Ozz]

The Rhineland was in 1936(?), before Austria. France was thought by the Russians to be Very Strong. Russia only attacked
weak isolated countries. It only found strenght when attacked itself and the Nazi russian policy was a big part of this.

Russia would have lost to Finland (Allied supplies would have gone there not Russia,) . End of Stalin.

A lot of Big IFs to play here with, the whole war would have
been affected.

 

[History_Buff]

There is no way the Russians could have lost to Finalnd. The Finns had no way to keep fighteing once they got beyond Petersburg, as all thier tropps were alpine, and the summers would have crushed their mobility, and they would have mowed down by ruusians troops.

 

[basher]

Originally posted by History_Buff
There is no way the Russians could have lost to Finalnd. The Finns had no way to keep fighteing once they got beyond Petersburg, as all thier tropps were alpine

I'm sorry to inform you but I'm quite sure they didn't actually ski during the summers of 1941-1944. The area isn't tundra, or mountaineous, or even very north. Not all the Finnish troops were alpine. Can you imagine a tank on skis? Yep, the Finnish ski-tanks were renowned for their stealth abilities.

I hate wars but I do know something about warfare anyway

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Ozz
Chruchill would have not been disgraced, and served in the
trenches in France. He would have been the Far sighted
Statemen with Immense prestige. Britain would have been
ARMED to The TEETH and would have kicked germany's ass
as soon as they occupied the Rhineland. Goodbye Hilter,
Goodbye Nazis.

Are you on crack?

Anyway, regarding the question at hand. I don't know a terrible lot about military history, but I imagine that if the straits had been freed up, and allowed for material aid to Russia, it would have helped a great deal. I am of course, assuming that The Allies would have had sufficent material supplies to actually give aid to Russia, which, regarding what I know of the whole situation, I find it doubtful as to whether this would have actually been able to prevent a Russian military colapse.

I assume that if The Russians had held themselves militarily, then Tsarism would have been saved; if there was sufficent material aid, and food to supply the people, and the military situation was tenable, then there is no reason to believe that the February revolution, and subsequently The October revolution would have ever occured. My guess is that if Tsarism had held up, then the allies would have pressured Nicholas to reform the system post-war, and introduce a sort of constitutional monarchy, considering the problems they had just incured with from Mr Wilhelm and his friends in the German elite. Not that there's any assurance he would have done that.

I agree with this assesment:

Originally posted by Andu Indorin
And on this issue, one must bear in mind that the Allied Powers did occupy Constantinople from Dec. 1918 to Aug. 1923; and that in the summer of 1922, they essentially delivered an ultimatum to Greece that forbade them from attempting to occupy Constantinople. The existence of an Imperial Russia -- and its commonality of religion with Greece -- may have resulted in a drastically different foreign policy by the Allies on the Constantinople question.

I find it hard that The Allies would have actually been naive enough to actually reward the Eastern Orthodox nations with greater land. I assume it would have just become part of Turkey post-war.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Even if the Gallipoli campaign had been successful, and supplies had made it through to Russia, would it have altered the course of the war and history majorly?
I do not think so. Supplies of weapons and war materiel would not have alleviated the conditions on the Home Front in Russia, and would have only gone a small way towards fixing the morale of the soldiers on the front. They still would have had the same commanders, and the same crumbling society, and the same Bolshevik agitators in their ranks.
To win the war, the Allies would need to defeat the Central Powers at their centre of gravity, to wax Clausewitizian.
Where was the centre of gravity for the Central Powers?
The Western Front.
The Eastern Front was an effective sideshow to the main focus of the war.

A Balkan/Constantinople front would have also added to the extension of Allied troops in a manner that did not help them decisively win the war against their main opponent.