Search results

Germany tried to bypass the blockade via goods through neutral countries. The EPs were able to restrict this somewhat. The US was opposed to this procedure when neutral as it reduced their trade with the CPs then did a 180 and encouraged further tightening once they became a belligerent.

Its likely although who would be supplying the shipping. The EPs have an even greater chance of stopping goods going into the Med to Italy for inspection for contraband than into the North Sea. [Gibraltar, along with French colonies and Corsica and then Malta can also act as basis for such...

Possibly although it could be more that modern weapons have longer range, are more accurate and a lot more lethal. Hence you have to dig in and hide a lot unless and until you can break either/both the enemies heavy weapons/morale. After initial losses, once the Ukrainians organised and...

Much lower troop density because of the length of the front and poorer defensive capacity by the Russians and Austrians especially. [Less trained troops, poorer overall officer quality and markedly less artillery and the like.

Apologise about the late response but I'm busy during the week currently so only visiting at weekends. Interesting thanks. Its more a cause of social collapse and the government, both Czarist and Republican lacking a clear understanding of the facts on the ground about the impact of...

Sorry, I possibly expressed that badly. While some of the quality was dubious - have read of shells filled with sand rather than explosives - the US did make a lot of munitions. Agree the heavy equipment, tanks, artillery etc were overwhelmingly from France then towards the end of the war...

Yes Russia is likely if allowed, to be able to send grain to export and a lot would probably go to the EPs as its easier to obtain than US grain and also can be countered against Russia's own imports. The thing with grain shortages in 1917 was I think less with actual shortages and more...

Not at all. Your ignoring that Britain is a belligient and that Turkey in this scenario is not but your assuming it could operate as such without being treated as such. Given that the allied losses in Gallipoli were while seeking to force a passage through straits held by an enemy - as...

The Dutch or Americans aren't seeking to stop shipping as the Turks are. Plus I'm assuming you made a typo with the reference to non-material trade. I presume you mean items that were strictly non-military? That is a valid point which would restrict the forces a bit more than OTL Gallipoli...

Chalk and cheese. Britain was a belligent, which Turkey is claiming not to be and it didn't block trade totally but sought to prevent war materials reaching Germany via neutral shipping. Given the number of divisions sent to Gallipoli that sounds definitely wrong. Let alone if the power of...

You may have a point here although blocking merchant shipping by an allegedly neutral nation is definitely an hostile act. Possibly although one alternative could be sending forces to the Balkans via Montenegro, which unlike Serbia did have a coastline, although not sure how capable the...

Sorry History Learner - see his post at the bottom of the previous page of this thread. With commercial traffic allowed that would greatly change the economic issue for both Russia and the western allies. Even if the Turks tried to block arms shipments which would still count as commercial traffic.

It depends on the ratios and also how much damage you can do beyond the battlefield. As even HL is implicity admitting the blocking of the Turkish straits is a huge blow to the allies. If your getting a very bad rate sending poorly equipped men against heavily fortified German positions all...

That would be a massive breach of neutrality which could well not happen if the Ottomans actually stay neutral. True about Bulgaria but its still going to think more about it, even with that German army group being on offer for the attack. In 1915 they didn't but they were in fairly forward...

Which French and Haig would have wasted there. Plus given the demands for a lot of heavy equipment, especially artillery - which you need if your not simply throwing men against barbed wire and enemy machine guns and artillery which is the most efficient way of wasting them.

It also frees up a lot of EP resources, even if for whatever reason the straits are closed to the allies. Also it might make Bulgaria question its own decision to join the CPs. Plus a more powerful threat in the east is likely to make Russia retreat further and faster and their far more...

Was there an international agreement on merchant shipping through the Scheldt as there is for the Turkish straits? I know the Dutch were not willing to allow military traffic, which is a different matter altogether.

Since at raharris1973 pointed out that's about a month before the Turkish/German attack on Russia I'm not sure whether that is a potential casus belli for the allied powers? If both stay neutral and the straits aren't blocked then I would say the advantage is with the allies. Even if...