What would be the impact if *both* Italy and the Ottoman Empire remained neutral throughout all WWI?

[raharris1973]

What would be the impact if *both* Italy and the Ottoman Empire remained neutral throughout all WWI?

I'm of the view they both mattered and carried weight for their coalitions. Their absence would be felt.

 

[WolfBear]

The Entente still wins except Russia might not have one or both of its revolutions since its economy might be much less strained if it is allowed to engage in trade with the outside world. Even only preventing the Bolshevik Revolution would be an extremely massive benefit to Russia, no doubt.

I think that the really big winners in this TL would be the Armenians, who would avoid their genocide in this TL. Here's an interesting question: Is there any way for the Ottomans to still enter World War I, but for them not to engage in the Armenian Genocide?

 

[raharris1973]

The Entente still wins except Russia might not have one or both of its revolutions since its economy might be much less strained if it is allowed to engage in trade with the outside world. Even only preventing the Bolshevik Revolution would be an extremely massive benefit to Russia, no doubt.

I think that the really big winners in this TL would be the Armenians, who would avoid their genocide in this TL. Here's an interesting question: Is there any way for the Ottomans to still enter World War I, but for them not to engage in the Armenian Genocide?

That's a good question about the Armenians.

Another good question is about exactly how freely commercial traffic will flow through the straits during the war.

We do have a sample period to consider, in August, September, and October 1914, the war was going on, but the Ottomans were still neutral. I think the Ottomans closed the straits to some kinds of ships (maybe foreign warships?) but did they close the straits to foreign merchant traffic bound to and from neutral ports (Romanian, Bulgarian) and belligerent ports (Russian) during those months, and the merchant ships of those nations? Does anybody know?

 

[Buba]

27.IX.1914 - Turkey closes Straits to British, French and Russian merchant shipping. Looking for further details
Warships have always been forbidden.

 

[ATP]

If Turkey do not closed Straits for merchants - Russia would survive.No free Poland./but,possible vassal state on territories taken from germans and Austria/.
But - no communism,too - so ,it would be better even for us.
And,with Italy out of war,smaller A-H could actually survive.

 

[raharris1973]

27.IX.1914 - Turkey closes Straits to British, French and Russian merchant shipping. Looking for further details
Warships have always been forbidden.

That means on September 27th 1914, the Ottomans closed the straits to Entente merchant shipping? That is while they were still neutral. They did not attack the Entente (with the Germans ships) until October 29th 1914, and did not declare war until November 4th 1914.

 

[stevep]

27.IX.1914 - Turkey closes Straits to British, French and Russian merchant shipping. Looking for further details
Warships have always been forbidden.

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 Bulgaria still joins the CPs and helps crush Serbia the allies gain so much with no conflict with the Ottomans and all the problems that brings. Continued Italian neutrality means less pressure on Austria and also Italy is another potential breach in the blockade but I don't think that would be enough to counter the allied gains. Still going to be a long and bloody conflict however.

Not sure the Armenians would be saved as some of the Young Turks seem to have been considering such a massacre before the war started. OTL the trigger seemed to be that Envar Pasha needing a scapegoat to distract from his disastrous destruction of his own army in the winter campaign in 1914/15 which won't happen here but the YT regime was increasingly violently ethnically Turkish in outlook and there had already been massacres of Armenians. They might avoid the massacres but not going to say something nasty won't occur.

 

[Buba]

Netherlands closed Scheldt to Entente shipping in August (I think). Somehow no war over that ...

 

[stevep]

Netherlands closed Scheldt to Entente shipping in August (I think). Somehow no war over that ...

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.

 

[Buba]

Was there an international agreement on merchant shipping through the Scheldt as there is for the Turkish straits?

No idea

I know the Dutch were not willing to allow military traffic, which is a different matter altogether.

The warship/military traffic ban came on 4.IX.1914. I'm trying to find a date for commercial traffic - which I'm sure I've seen somewhere ...
Although me getting something wrong at some point cannot be excluded as well

As to the OP - IMO an overall gain for the Entente. No resources wasted on the campaigns against the Ottomans.

 

[raharris1973]

Well Scheldt shipping would have been relevant to the Entente during this battle: Siege_of_Antwerp_(1914).

So warship, military traffic, banned on Sep 4, 1914, would have hampered the Entente in that fight, which continued until the Entente retreat and loss of Antwerp on October 10, 1914.

I guess during the battle the Entente didn't feel it would work out in their favor to force an ultimatum on the Dutch, compromise their neutrality, or force them to choose sides.

After October 10 and the retreat, the Germans occupied all Belgian ground on the other side of the Scheldt, so the Scheldt was completely irrelevant to the Entente.

So legal niceties aside, those were the strategy-diplomatic factors at play.

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?

It could have been. But I guess then it becomes a question for the Entente of when does it make sense for them to make an ultimatum out of the issue, and one they are truly ready to back-up.

And of course for the Turks it becomes a question of: If we are not actively trying to ensure Entente defeat, how long should we persist in antagonizing them, especially if and when the Entente appear to be the likely winners.

 

[Buba]

Antwerp was accessible by rail and canal until the Last Days ...

Yes, there was some interesting diplomacy concerning access to Antwerp.

 

[History Learner]

What would be the impact if *both* Italy and the Ottoman Empire remained neutral throughout all WWI?

I'm of the view they both mattered and carried weight for their coalitions. Their absence would be felt.

The Central Powers win in 1915 or 1916; no need to support the Ottomans and no diversion of Austrian forces to fight Italy means the Gorlice Tarnow Offensive develops in such a way the Russian Army is mauled instead of the largely successful Great Retreat, enabling Imperial Germany to send their Fall Schwehrpunkt to St Petersburg.

 

[WolfBear]

The Central Powers win in 1915 or 1916; no need to support the Ottomans and no diversion of Austrian forces to fight Italy means the Gorlice Tarnow Offensive develops in such a way the Russian Army is mauled instead of the largely successful Great Retreat, enabling Imperial Germany to send their Fall Schwehrpunkt to St Petersburg.

A fall of St. Petersburg doesn't necessarily mean that Russia is knocked out of the war. It could retreat to Moscow, you know?

 

[stevep]

The Central Powers win in 1915 or 1916; no need to support the Ottomans and no diversion of Austrian forces to fight Italy means the Gorlice Tarnow Offensive develops in such a way the Russian Army is mauled instead of the largely successful Great Retreat, enabling Imperial Germany to send their Fall Schwehrpunkt to St Petersburg.

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 likely to stick on the defensive rather than the frequent offensives to take pressure off the western powers. A CP block that is on the offensive more and especially with strained lines deeper into Russia is likely to suffer heavier losses and will also stiffen Russian resistance as its now a war for national survival rather than expansion of the empire for the benefit of the ruling political elite.

As such if the CPs were to win its probably going to be at least 1917 and their going to be a lot weaker than your assuming.

 

[raharris1973]

no need to support the Ottomans

I know the Germans sent arms, ammo, and officers to help, but were the Ottomans really all that much of a drain? I never got the impression they absorbed so many German or Austrian Divisions or Division equivalents or Corps. The #s of coalition units drawn in to aid the Austro-Hungarians and Italians were better known and substantial.

The Central Powers win in 1915 or 1916

I could see plausible arguments for greater relative advantages for the CP, even to the point of CP victory. But this seems *awfully* fast.

The only Italo-Ottoman swap that might give you a CP victory in 1915 or 1916 (or possibly, 1914) would be if Italy joins on the CP side, *in 1914* while the Ottomans join the EP.

 

[WolfBear]

I know the Germans sent arms, ammo, and officers to help, but were the Ottomans really all that much of a drain? I never got the impression they absorbed so many German or Austrian Divisions or Division equivalents or Corps. The #s of coalition units drawn in to aid the Austro-Hungarians and Italians were better known and substantial.

And the Ottomans drained Allied troops as well, so overall a mixed bag.

I could see plausible arguments for greater relative advantages for the CP, even to the point of CP victory. But this seems *awfully* fast.

The only Italo-Ottoman swap that might give you a CP victory in 1915 or 1916 (or possibly, 1914) would be if Italy joins on the CP side, *in 1914* while the Ottomans join the EP.

I don't think that Italian entry on the CP side in 1914 will secure a CP victory in WWI. After all, France can simply withdraw as many troops as necessary from southeastern France in order to protect Paris, assuming that it has the necessary railroads to move them all of the way up to Paris in time, and then send these troops and/or replacement troops to southeastern France once Paris is already safe and secure. Protecting Paris is the most important thing here, not protecting Marseilles or Nice.

 

[History Learner]

I know the Germans sent arms, ammo, and officers to help, but were the Ottomans really all that much of a drain? I never got the impression they absorbed so many German or Austrian Divisions or Division equivalents or Corps. The #s of coalition units drawn in to aid the Austro-Hungarians and Italians were better known and substantial.

Basically the Germans sent an entire army (the 11th) in the Fall of 1915 to the Balkans to knock out the Serbs and help get aid flowing to the Ottomans.

I could see plausible arguments for greater relative advantages for the CP, even to the point of CP victory. But this seems *awfully* fast. The only Italo-Ottoman swap that might give you a CP victory in 1915 or 1916 (or possibly, 1914) would be if Italy joins on the CP side, *in 1914* while the Ottomans join the EP.

Basically what I'm suggesting here is that the lack of Central Power force drain to Italy and the Balkans is sufficient to maul the Russian Army during Gorlice Tarnow and the following Great Retreat. Historically the Austro-Hungarian diversions to Italy compromised the success of the former, which enabled the success of the latter. Here, I would speculate they are able to inflict much greater damage, enabling the 11th Army to be used to achieve a decisive breakthrough on exhausted and damaged Russian forces in the second half of 1915. If they do, it's possible Russia sues for peace that fall, given the threat to St. Petersburg, but 1916 seems the mostly timeframe.

A fall of St. Petersburg doesn't necessarily mean that Russia is knocked out of the war. It could retreat to Moscow, you know?

The vast majority of their war industry is concentrated on the St Petersburg axis. Given the political weakness of the regime, losing St. Petersburg is likely to cause a collapse in morale on it's own.

 

[History Learner]

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.

The Straits would be closed, yes, and Bulgaria still has a Pro-German political orientation matched up with territorial claims on Serbia resulting from the Balkan Wars. Romania and the Ottomans remain Pro-CP neutrals, Greece is still the same mess; if you are suggesting Anglo-French resources aren't going to be on this axis, there's even less concern for Bulgaria given the lack of strategic focus by the aforementioned.

Plus a more powerful threat in the east is likely to make Russia retreat further and faster and their far more likely to stick on the defensive rather than the frequent offensives to take pressure off the western powers. A CP block that is on the offensive more and especially with strained lines deeper into Russia is likely to suffer heavier losses and will also stiffen Russian resistance as its now a war for national survival rather than expansion of the empire for the benefit of the ruling political elite.

I would recommend you review 1915 on the Eastern Front, because the Russians did not engage in such offensives anyway because of critical shortages of weapons in general. They took 2:1 losses in Gorlice Tarnow and thereafter in abandoned all of Poland in the Great Retreat; the Germans were actually positioning themselves for a decisive battle of seeking encirclement of the Russian Army, but the Austro-Hungarian diversions stymied this effort. No such war of national survival materialized in 1917-1918, either.

As such if the CPs were to win its probably going to be at least 1917 and their going to be a lot weaker than your assuming.

Not with the Russian Army encircled in 1915, no.

 

[Buba]

The Ottomans were a net gain for the CP. But the Entente and "Easterners" and their French brethen helped by wasting resources on that front. Had the Brits stuck to defending the canal and Abadan they'd have more men for the Western Front.