| Dardanelles Victory Timeline |
Comparison with Our Timeline, and General Commentary |
|
On 19th March about forty-five thousand infantry led by Charles Monro landed near
the tip of the Gallipoli peninsula. Most of the soldiers were British, with
contingents of French, Australians, New Zealanders and Jews. Their mission was to
seize or neutralise the forts on the north coast of the Dardanelles. Smaller
landings were also made on the Anatolian coast of the Dardanelles.
|
The main landing sites are roughly historical. The smaller numbers of Anzacs and
so on, and the greater numbers of British, are a consequence of the change in
timetable. The Jewish unit is historical: "The Assyrian Jewish Refugee Mule
Corps", I kid you not.
|
|
Resistance to the main landing was light, progress being determined as much by
disorganisation (opposed amphibious invasions were a new art) as by Turkish force
of arms. Fortifications were light, and the Turkish division commanders ranged
from almost adequate to inept. Some units fell back piecemeal and were besieged
in the forts. Others fled up the peninsula, and rallied at the neck. Others were
cut off and went "into the bag".
|
By the time the invasion historically went ahead on the 25th of April the Turks had
received two months of warning and their defences had been greatly
strengthened, they had about six divisions of infantry, for instance.
Troops led by Mustafa Kemal, later known as Atatürk, were instrumental
in blunting the attack. I'm assuming that Kemal commands one of the divisions that
was sent to some other front, rather than the Dardanelles: I don't know of any
reason to believe this, or to believe the contrary.
|
|
Simultaneously the naval part of the operation begun. It picked up pace on the
21st of March, when many of the ships involved in the landings returned.
Minesweepers attempted to clear the mines from the Dardanelles, braving fire from
the forts. Once a channel had been cleared the obsolescent but still mighty
battleships could move in close enough to demolish the forts. The Royal Navy
progressed up the Dardanelles at over a mile a day.
|
The naval part follows roughly historical procedures, though it's happening
earlier, faster and cheaper. The land operation in parallel is an extra. The
degree of success of the landings could be attacked as implausible. This is a key
element of the point of divergence, so I think we just have to accept any
disbelief it induces.
|
|
Initial progress was slow, and inevitably the allied ships suffered losses.
Battleships were more or less immune to fire from the forts but vulnerable to
mines: one was sunk and another so crippled that she was barely able to limp out
into the Mediterranean before she scuttled. Minesweepers, on the other hand, were
all too vulnerable to fire from the mobile howitzer batteries that the Turks
moved around between the forts. (The guns in the forts themselves had a rate of
fire too slow to be really suitable for engaging minesweepers.) Gunnery,
however, was poor, and tactical use of the howitzers flawed.
|
The problems on the British side are historical, but as usual less severe. A
major reason is that the
Turkish artillery hasn't benefited from weeks of intensive training by advisers under
Liman von Sanders. Historically the Royal Navy lost three battleships in a
day, and with it de Robeck's nerve. The landings were contained in small
beachheads, and evacuated in December with over two hundred-thousand casualties.
|
|
The British minesweepers were converted trawlers, their engines barely sufficient
to move against the currents of the Dardanelles. At times destroyers had to be
called in to perform minesweeping.
|
The idea of using the destroyers was never tried, but I have heard it discussed
with the benefit of hindsight. I'm not clear on whether it makes sense or not,
and I'm including it here as an optional extra.
|
|
On the 29th of March British troops cut the isthmus and the remaining Ottoman
effectives in the peninsula fell back into the forts. Confined to the forts,
the howitzers were swiftly silenced by the overwhelming firepower of the Royal
Navy.
|
Historically the allies never worked out how to deal with the howitzers. But once
fixed in place I don't think they'd have lasted long. The question here is how
well-protected a mobile howitzer inside a fort would have been.
|
|
British bombardment had less effect on the better protected big guns inside the
forts. But the defenders soon ran short of ammunition, and several surrendered
once they could not answer the battleships.
|
Some forts were down to their last few dozen shells when the British pulled back.
|
|
Thereafter progress was faster. On 3rd April, 1915, French troops occupied the
rubble that had been &Cced;ilanakkale. By this stage the allies had been
substantially reinforced with French, British and Indian troops, and more Anzacs.
|
Historically the landings were contained in small beachheads, and evacuated in
December with over two hundred-thousand casualties.
|
|
Meanwhile the allies were trying a new weapon, in the hands of a new nation. The
Australian submarine AE2 passed through the Dardanelles into the Sea of Marmara.
The AE2 was almost brand new and cutting-edge for its era, but its crew were
inexperienced and it found itself incapable of doing serious damage. The moral
effect, however, was tremendous. The Turks ceased attempting to resupply their
men and forts by sea. AE2 would soon be crippled by a Turkish gunboat and scuttled
by her crew before they surrendered, but her brief partial interruption of Ottoman
logistics would more than justify her loss.
|
Historical: AE2's story is an odd combination of the ridiculous and the heroic.
AE2's activities were a big shot in the arm for morale amongst the allied high
command. Just as they were contemplating withdrawal (the operation being, by now,
in obvious difficulty), news of AE2 restored their faith, as it turned out with
unfortunate consequences. The wreck, incidentally, was found in 1998 or
thereabouts. Historically the Turks were able to resupply by land instead, down
the Gallipoli peninsula. In the alternate timeline that option is gone. Not being
able to resupply the forts is a big blow, and arguably I should have the Turks
show a bit more courage here (since the stakes are larger).
|
|
On the 11th of April Göben, Breslau and several older, less capable
vessels sallied against the British minesweepers, as they had several times
before. Goöben struck a mine while evading fire from the battleship
Ocean and was forced to slowly limp back to Constantinople, pursued by
Ocean (in violation of Ocean's orders). Ocean then struck a mine
and sank. This was the last occasion on which the Turkish navy contested the
Dardanelles.
|
Göben was eventually sunk by a mine, and in fact was only just
recovering from such an accident when the Dardanelles operation begun. Ocean was
also mined in history due to even less excusable stupidity.
|
|
On other fronts the news was poor for the Sultan. Russian troops under General
Yudenich had ejected Ottoman troops from Tabriz, in neutral Persia, and were in
firm control of that part of Armenia the Ottomans had held when they entered the
war. Russia had also inflicted a defeat on the Austrians, in Galicia. A British
expedition in Mesopotamia, which had landed at Basra at the end of the previous
year, seemed ready for another lightning advance.
|
All this is historical, the period is an embarrassing one in Ottoman military
history. The British expedition would eventually strand itself in an overly bold
charge for Baghdad, and be forced to surrender. But in the alternate timeline the
war ends before it gets the chance to be fatally embarrassed.
|
|
Greece, urged on by its Anglophile prime minister Eleutherios Venizelos, declared
war on Turkey on the 17th of April. Ordinarily such a declaration
would have been very difficult to achieve, since the Greek king Constantine was
deeply respected and strongly pro-German. However Constantine had become very ill
during late March, making his survival doubtful and his political activities
negligible.
|
Greece was on the verge of entering on the allied side all through 1915, having
fought Turkey as recently as 1912 and (in alliance with Serbia and Bulgaria) won
convincingly. In that war, however, Constantine had been the Greek commander and
demonstrated himself to be an excellent general, probably the best in the
Balkans. Venizelos tried to bring Greece into the war in October 1915, at a time
when Bulgaria (which had scores to settle with Greece from 1913) had entered on
the Central Powers' side and Serbia was about to collapse. He was sacked by the
king, and had to force him to abdicate, which took almost two years. In my
setting the situation is so much more positive that I think it's reasonable for
Greece to seize the day.
|
|
The Western powers were somewhat unsatisfied with Greece's position, having hoped
for a declaration on Austria-Hungary. This would support embattled Serbia, Greece's
staunch ally in both Balkan wars.
|
It is the nature of the Balkans to focus one's attention on nearby enemies.
Austria is just a bit far away from Greece to be a really interesting enemy.
The Serbian alliance is important to Greece, but I don't think it's enough
to produce a declaration of war on its own.
|
|
In fact, the Greek entry into the war was motivated as much by fear of Bulgaria:
if Bulgaria made a contribution and Greece did not, sentiment in Britain and
France may flow against Greece. Elements of the Hellenic Royal Navy assisted in
blockading the Anatolian coast, the only significant Greek contribution at the
time. The bulk of the Greek army, never all that large, mobilised on the border
with Bulgarian Thrace. For allied consumption, it was pointed out that this was
the shortest land route to Constantinople.
|
Logistics and organisation rule out a big Greek landing force appearing in Asia
minor overnight. So as long as Bulgaria remains neutral Greek input will be limited.
|
|
Italy had technically been a member of the Austro-German alliance, but had
declined to fulfil its obligations. Both sides offered bribes, but the allies
were in a position to offer larger ones, mostly at the expense of Austria. Italy
was promised the Trentino and Trieste (which had mostly Italian populations) and
South Tyrol, Istria, and northern Dalmatia (which didn't). Italy was also offered
Ottoman territory if it would declare war on the Turks immediately: an
unspecified share of the Levant and some minor islands in the Aegean.
|
The bribes were those mentioned as being at the expense of Austria, and were
sufficient to persuade Italy to declare war on May 23rd, 1915. In this scenario
the allies are obviously winning, at least in the Mediterranean sector which
immediately concerns the Italians. Also, the bribes on Ottoman territory are
almost in the hand rather than in the bush. So I'm assuming that Italy would
enter sooner than historically. I've arbitrarily chosen a one month advancement.
Their vagueness is quasi-historical, and disagreements engendered by that
vagueness is one of the historical reasons for Italy's fighting on the side of
the axis in the second world war.
|
|
Italy declared war on Austria on the 23rd of April, with an immediate offensive
toward Trieste commanded by General Luigi Cadorna. It made modest gains,
capturing a vital bridgehead over the Isonzo river and the town of Montfalcone.
When the river flooded in June, this bridgehead would become the focus of both
sides' efforts, with the Italians seeking to extend it toward Gorizia or Trieste,
and the Austrians trying to destroy it.
|
There is a saying that God created the Italian army in order that the Austrian
army could have someone they could beat. Historically the Italian advance bogged
down almost immediately, due to the flooding of the Isonzo river. The Italians
then spent most of the rest of the war assaulting the Isonzo. Anyone who thinks
the western front consisted of the mindless banging of heads against a wall
should take a look at the Italian front: when a battle has a name like "Eleventh
battle of the Isonzo" you really know what kind of war you're in. In the
alternate timeline the Italians start earlier and are over the river before it
floods, at least to some extent, so the front stays more active.
|
|
Part of the motive for the Dardanelles operation was to encourage Bulgaria to
join the war on the allied side. Bulgaria's motive for entering the war was
brutally persuasive: revenge. In 1913 it had been humiliated by Serbia, Greece,
Romania and Turkey during the Second Balkan War. Greece and Serbia were really
the preferred targets, but given the state of play in the Balkans the allied side
was the only game in town, and perhaps a dangerous one to decline to play.
Bulgaria declared war on Turkey on the 24th of April.
|
The failure of the Gallipoli landings was more than enough reason to scuttle any
thoughts Bulgaria had of joining the allies. The alternate timeline entry into the
war is vulturism, pure and simple.
|
|
It resisted, however, allied blandishments aimed at securing a declaration
against Austria. From Bulgaria's point of view such a declaration would
constitute supporting its enemies.
|
The allies might get a declaration by Bulgaria against Turkey but there's no
sense, for the Bulgars, in supporting their prospective victims (Greece, Serbia
and Romania) against the Austrians, with whom the Bulgars have no quarrel.
Historically Bulgaria joined the Central Powers late in 1915, and was
instrumental in the destruction of Serbia and Romania. In the alternate timeline
Bulgar participation is only against Turkey, and will prove of minor value to the
allies. But Bulgar neutrality with respect to the Balkan minor allies (Serbia,
Greece and Romania) is an absolutely critical factor.
|
|
The Bulgarian government thought it
imperative to be in control of as much territory as possible before any armistice
was signed. Bulgaria hoped to gain the entirety of European Turkey, including
Constantinople itself.
|
An historical, if overly ambitious, aim of the First Balkan War.
Constantinople is the traditional regional seat of power, the Bulgars seem to
have had delusions of grandeur, wishing to be the successor to the Ottomans as
imperial power in the Balkans.
|
|
Bulgar armies brushed aside the demoralised Turks in a mad
rush for a sight of Hagia Sophia. Bulgarian authorities also found excuses to
delay by a few days Greek troops wishing to pass through Bulgarian Thrace to
attack Turkey.
|
In the First Balkan War Greece and Bulgaria had both coveted Salonika. Greece
took it first, and refused to give it up, leading to the Second Balkan War.
Bulgaria can only see an alliance with Greece as one of convenience or necessity.
|
|
By 25th April the Dardanelles was secure, the forts captured or smoking ruin.
The mighty British armada punched through into the Sea of Marmara and bombarded
Constantinople.
|
The 25th of April is, of course, ANZAC day, the day of the first landing at
Gallipoli and to some extent the de facto Australian national day.
|
|
There were actually quite a lot of Turkish troops in Constantinople by this time,
but their supply situation was appalling. Refugees, augmented by deserters,
flooded across the Bosphorous into Anatolia. The civil administration of
Constantinople was collapsing. The position of the large numbers of non-Turks
in the city was becoming very dangerous, as frightened Turks took out their
anger and fear on the targets easiest to hand.
|
It's hard to say just how hard the Turks would have fought to save Constantinople.
One might think very hard indeed: after all, they fought hard enough at Gallipoli
and this is their capital. But nearly everyone, historically, seems to have assumed
that if the British got into the Sea of Marmara then the game was up. Perhaps the
defeatism was justified, or perhaps it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, or perhaps
I'm being unrealistic in having Constantinople fall cheaply. Certainly the thought
of taking a city the size of Constantinople, fought street to street, can't fill
anyone with joy. Especially civilians living in it, while British battleships stand
just offshore and flatten everything.
|
|
Italy declared war on the 26th,
rather to the irritation of Britain and France, who felt they had done the real
work and did not appreciate others stealing the credit and the spoils.
|
In a way, more self-fulfilling prophecy. Lesser but still weighty powers like Italy
and Bulgaria enter because they think Turkey is going to lose, and their entry makes
that defeat more likely.
|
|
The Breslau bombarded British troops outside Constantinople one more time
for honour's sake, then sailed to the neighbourhood of Constanta to scuttle: most
of the crew would eventually make their way home through neutral Romania.
Crippled Göben, unequal to such jaunts, scuttled in Constantinople
harbour.
|
The return of the crew to Romania is inspired by the story of the raider
Emden. This ship inflicted astonishing losses on allied shipping in the
Far East before it was eventually caught by an Australian cruiser. The crew
escaped, and spent some time in the Ottoman Empire before returning to a hero's
welcome in Germany.
|
|
Enver Pasha was killed leading a doomed and pointless counterattack of fanatics.
The new government permitted Britain to dictate the terms of an armistice on the
8th of May. British and ANZAC troops landed in Constantinople. The Ottoman
Empire's short and inglorious adventure in the Great War was over.
|
Enver Pasha was a bit of a die hard, so I thought it only fair to let him die
heroically and pointlessly. This result may sound a bit easy for the allies, but
it seems not too far off what most Turks expected to happen.
|
|
Under the terms of the subsequent peace treaty, largely dictated by Britain and
Russia, the Ottoman Empire contracted to a Turkish nation-state. Britain took
Mesopotamia, parts of Palestine and the Red Sea coast of Arabia. France took
Syria and the Lebanon. Italy received some Aegean islands, parts of Palestine and
the East bank of the Jordan. Russia took the Armenian part of Anatolia, a
protectorate over the Persian parts of Armenia and Kurdistan and guarantees of
navigation rights through the straits from Turkey, Britain and France. Greece
took some other islands and a strip of land around Smyrna. Bulgaria, which had
not had time to take any of its major objectives, was nonetheless rewarded with
Edirne in return for the galling requirement of allowing allied use of its
railways for supplies to Serbia.
|
If anything this is a little worse than history, because Russia gets to take a
slice as well (whereas in our timeline Russia was in no condition to slice
anything). At the risk of bringing myself to the attention of certain vociferous
elements of the USENET population, this means no Armenian genocide, or at least
not to the same extent; straggling minorities in areas still under Turkish
control may still suffer, as may Turks in the Russian-occupied areas, I suppose.
The Arabs have no chance to help the British so they get even less of what they
wanted than historically, and Colonel T. E. Lawrence remains obscure.
|
|
Strategic areas related to the straits were to be occupied by Britain and France.
These areas included the remnant of European Turkey, as well as the entire coast
of the Sea of Marmara, the Bosphorous and the Dardanelles. In practice neither
France nor Britain had forces to spare, and troops from Australia, India and
Greece were used to fill the gap. The Bosphorous and Dardanelles become lesser
siblings to the Suez canal. Russia, denied a share of the occupation but in need
of Anglo-French industrial assistance, muttered in its beard.
|
Russia's attempt to control these straits was the cause of the Crimean war. This
section, like many others, has the feeling of the nineteenth century to it.
|
|
Mehemet V was permitted to keep his twin secular and religious titles of sultan
and caliph. With the fall of Enver Pasha's government he briefly had more power
than had been common for some time. The capital of the new Turkish state was
moved to Angora.
|
The last sultan abdicated in 1922, although there was still a caliph until 1924.
The survival of these institutions in the alternate timeline is partly a consequence
of Mustafa Kemal's reduced influence.
|