If the Gallipoli campaign had been a success...

[AlanCurragh]

Please forgive me if this has been discussed before, as most things have, but I can't find any similar threads.

I was listening to a recording of a talk given by Les Carlyon at the Australian War Memorial concerning Gallipoli yesterday. He made the comment that he did not think the Gallipoli campaign could have succeeded - even if Istanbul/Constantinople had fallen, thus opening the sea route to Russia, it was "still a very long way to Vienna".

The implication here is that a land campaign would have followed (possibly with the support of Turkey and Bulgaria), with the objective of progressing all the way to the heart of Central Powers territory.

I'd be interested to know if pals think that this is credible...

Many thanks

Alan

[Will O'Brien]

Alan - If I'm honest I'm unsure whether it would have made a significant difference & I'm unsure how credible or realistic a march up through the Balkans into central Europe would be - I sit in the camp that believes that the war had to be won by defeating the German army on the Western front. Victory in Gallipoli I'm sure would have meant that certain events would not have happened or would have been different in outcome but not as much as to dictate the end of the war without having defeated the German army in the west.

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

I could be wrong but wasn't the main aim of the landing at Salonika to help the Serbs, so if the Turkish Campange was over by late 1915 would those troops be used to help Serbia?

A second front there would help the italians who's Izonzo offensives were a mess and help the Serbs by engaging the Austrian Army would also help the Russians, would the Braslov offensive in 1916 have greater succes if more Austrian reserves were tied down in Serbia?

I am inclinded to look here then back to France.

To knock Austria out of the war in 1916 would put to much presure on Germany and there wasting attacks at Verdun in early 1916 would help the Allied cause more then the hun.

S.B

[PDW]

If Gallipoli worked then Constantinople falls. Then the Ottoman empire is out of the war. Then more than 100,000 troops tied up in the region (eg defending the Suez canal from the Ottomans or holding Basra) are available elsewhere. More important is shipping. RN and transport assets would be freed from any problems in the eastern Med so the rest of the war effort would gain these. OR they could head on into the Black Sea and help the Russians which was one of the original aims of the Gallipoli landing.

Peter

[Peter Doyle]

Let's not forget, Gallipoli was a gamble, and on that was supposed to rest with the Navy. Like any gamble, you have to decide when to cut your losses. The stakes were high - the idea, as has been noted, was that the British and French navies would collectively show up outside Constantinople, and that this would frighten the Ottomans into submission. Would that work? Who knows. We should also remember that the landings were to silence the guns, disable the defences, and allow the Dardanelles to be swept of mines. This would then allow the navy to pass through and do its original job. Of course, by the end of the campaign, there was 'mission drift', aims became blurred, the navy stood off, and the Brits, Anzacs and French troops left to take the hill that was in front of them. If everything had gone according to plan, then the 'two feet on the peninsula' would have allowed the blue jackets to get on with it....

Cheers

Peter

[redbarchetta]

Went to a very interesting lecture on Tuesday by a lad from Oz who is doing a PhD to dismiss the myth of Gallipoli as a 'near miss' and highlighting that it hadn't a hope in hell. One thing that I thought whilst listening is that, given the fuss we had made (quite rightly) about the German army destroying Liege and Louvain on their way through in 1914, had we actually got our fleet to Constantinople and Turkey had refused to surrender, do we think we would have actually started shelling that beautiful city?? I think not... and I suspect the Turks would have known that... so even if we had got there, we would have been in a pretty awkward situation...

Nightmare.

Any thoughts?

Jim

[Peter Doyle]

Jim - I reckon you're right. What would have happened if , theoretically speaking and river depth permitting, the Bismarck had sailed up the Thames (OK, impossible) in WW2. Would the City of london surrendered?

Silly analogy, of course, but really one has to ask what the Ottomans would be doing while the Navy stood off and bombarded the ancient city of Constantinople. Gallipoli/The Dardanelles was a massive gamble, with the phrase 'in too deep' coming to mind.

[sorry about the mixed metaphors, etc]

Peter

[Steven Broomfield]

Amazing analogies with current affairs, really.

Not thought-through; too many assumptions about the poor morale of our enemy; poor planning; under-resourced; over-optimism about "our side's" abilities; squabbling between allies; mission drift.

Do politicians read history books?

[Peter Doyle]

Seems not....

[ian turner]

Allied success woud surely have caused some serious disarray to the Turks. And, if I am not mistaken, did not the RN threaten Constantionople with their guns (HMS Benbow if I recall) after the war - 1919/1920 or thereabouts?

However, again from memory (= none too reliable) had not the Allies agreed to giving some of the anticipated captured Turkish provinces to Russia/Greece/whoever - in effect the Allied servicemen were figthing (unbeknown to them) for the long-term benefit of these other nations and not just Britain or France in this area?

Ian

[n cherry]

Seem to recall the first idea was if the Royal Navy got to Constaninople they were gonig to bombard the few Turkish munitions factories and at one stroke knock Turkey out of the war...as the ships couldn't get past the Dardenelles the Army had to land....even so having done the journey from Instanbul to the peninsula twice does anyone really feel it would have been practical to walk/march it potentially fighting all the way????

Perhaps the answer with hindisght is that it was a poorly thought out plan and too many of hte high command eyes fixed on the Western Front.....

[Heid the Ba]

It depends what is meant by the RN bombarding Constantinople. Trashing the whole city would be pointless and counterproductive though straightforward as virtually all buildings were made of wood; destroying Topkapi, various factories, Pasha's villas etc. would be easy as the important buildings tend to be on or near the Bosphorus or Golden Horn.

I thought the plan was to allow better support for Russia?

[squirrel]

"I thought the plan was to allow better support for Russia?"

And to allow us access to the Russian grain harvest in exchange?

[truthergw]

I think the aims were mainly strategical/political. It was hoped( somewhat piously) that if we could capture Gallipoli and occupy the Dardanelles with the RN, that Turkey would ask for terms. Following on from that would be Russian access to the Med and Allied access to the Black Sea. The potential for pressure on the Central Powers is plain for all to see, if the Navy had free access to the Black Sea. This would also free Egypt and the M.E. and all the troops involved without fighting. Greece, Bulgaria all those apples would fall from the tree if we could knock Turkey out. Whether we could realistically expect to succeed is a moot point. It would have required a lot more and a lot better preparation and resources than were in fact invested.

[michaeldr]

The Germans developed an early form of the 'domino theory' regarding Turkey and their eastern front.

Even as late as the August 1915 landings at Suvla, the situation was causing concern

The British OH quotes von Tirpitz as writing (Erinnerungen - p.491)

"Should the Dardanelles fall, the world war has been decided against us."

Their domino theory foresaw

-A strong Russia, after it was re-armed via the Dardanelles and the Black Sea, would challenge Germany's eastern borders

-Russian grain reaching the west would negate the work done by the u-boats

-the Balkans would fall to allied pressure and persuasion, allowing a whole new front to open up with a route through to middle-europe

-This new front would bring with it forces which Germany/Austria could not ignore;

Bulgaria c.300,000

Serbia c.250,000

Greece c.180,000

Rumania c. 350,000 plus its valuable grain and oil

[Heid the Ba]

"I thought the plan was to allow better support for Russia?"

And to allow us access to the Russian grain harvest in exchange?

A happy co-incidence, nothing more . . .

[Peter Doyle]

I think the aims were mainly strategical/political. It was hoped( somewhat piously) that if we could capture Gallipoli and occupy the Dardanelles with the RN, that Turkey would ask for terms. Following on from that would be Russian access to the Med and Allied access to the Black Sea. The potential for pressure on the Central Powers is plain for all to see, if the Navy had free access to the Black Sea. This would also free Egypt and the M.E. and all the troops involved without fighting. Greece, Bulgaria all those apples would fall from the tree if we could knock Turkey out. Whether we could realistically expect to succeed is a moot point. It would have required a lot more and a lot better preparation and resources than were in fact invested.

You're quite right - the gamble was a naval one; when the landings were put in place, there was actually more terrain intelligence available than has been credited (must admit an interest here - see Chasseaud & Doyle, 'Grasping Gallipoli' for details), which included the potential for landings. I think what came as a surprise was that the Naval attempt, the gamble, failed, and there was a grudging 'oh, all right then' from the rest of the military.

Peter

[tim_oz]

The thought that Turkey would simply collapse at the sight of some battleships off Constantinople has always struck me as wishful thinking on the part of the allies. The reality is more likely to have been the Turks making good on their threat to massacre the Christians in the city, which still had a large Greek/Christian population and destroy all the churches including the Hagia Sophia, followed by a withdrawal into central Turkey. This could have left us fighting a war not unlike the Greeks did in the 1920’s.

Even if a route to Russia had been opened up would this have prevented the collapse of 1917? Could we really have provided the necessary resources in 1915/16 to Russia given the supply problems and needs of the Western Front to prevent the political collapse that occurred?

Tim B

[Heid the Ba]

[pedant mode] Haghia Sophia was a mosque in 1915.[/pedant mode]

Hard to say what the Turks would have done, there were certainly precedents for the massacres of minorities in the area.

[ian turner]

Maybe the question to ask is had the Gallipoli campaign succeeded, would the Allies have been better off, no better off, or worse off?

My guess is better off. The alternative was to continue fighting them elsewhere, and we know that outcome.

It is difficult to predict the knock-on effect of success at Gallipoli but the domino theory holds good?

Ian

[truthergw]

Tim-oz, you are right. There was a great deal of wishful thinking involved but none of the posssibilities you mention would have been seen as unbearable. The Turks withdrawing into central Turkey would have suited Britain fine. Military control would have disappeared for Egypt, Arabia, Syria etc. The Dardanelles free to our shipping. Massacre of Christians would have paled into insignificance compared to the massacres which had taken place in the years preceding the war. Regrettable but great propaganda for whatever measures the Allies deemed necessary. Whether the opening of the Black Sea to the Med would have staved off revolution I have no idea. Too many imponderables to even make a worthwhile guess. Haig and the General Staff thought that the war had to be fought and won on the Western Front, so they would have definitely not expected victory against the Turks to prove decisive for the war as a whole.

[tim_oz]

Heid you are of course correct the Hagia Sophia was a mosque at the time. However the Turks knew that it was an important building to the Christian west and told the US Ambassador that they would blow it up if the allied fleet appeared off Constantinople. Whether they would have done it is of course the big question.

Tim B

[tim_oz]

Truthergw I agree I don’t think any of the Turks threats would have deterred the allies from taking Constantinople if they could have broken through at the Dardanelles as it would have a victory at a time when these were few on the ground. I wonder if this would have resulted in even more resources being diverted to the East with a resulting reduction in British capacity on the western front in 1916? However as you say there are too many imponderables.

Tim B

[Bryn]

The military landing was not meant as a 'march to Constantinople.' It was intended to knock out the forts that were barring the Navy's passage through the Dardanelles, then occupy the peninsula to ensure that passage remained safe at least on the European side.

[Bob Doneley]

So, if passage to the Black Sea could be gained, opening a supply route to Russia and allowing a re-distribution of forces, would the Russian Revolution occurred?

Bob