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

[raharris1973]

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

They are going to do that even without the Ottomans in the war - simply to bail out the Austro-Hungarians.

 

[stevep]

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.

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.

 

[Buba]

Which French and Haig would have wasted there.

True.
But getting them killed while killing German soldiers is more productive than getting them killed against Turks.

 

[stevep]

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.

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.

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.

In 1915 they didn't but they were in fairly forward and exposed positions which they largely withdraw from, albeit with some crap commanders seeking to prevent that. If there's more CPs forces heading their way then the situations even clearer and they withdraw earlier. Plus given their quality after the loss of the bulk of the professional army in 1914 expect Austrian losses on the offensive to be high.

No such war developed on a massive scale because by then the damage to morale had been done. If there aren't the 1916/17 offensives but instead CP ones seeking to advance deep into Russia proper its a totally different matter.

Not with the Russian Army encircled in 1915, no.

If that happens true although there would still be reserves and forces that could be detached from other fronts.

 

[stevep]

True.
But getting them killed while killing German soldiers is more productive than getting them killed against Turks.

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 its likely to do is break your manpower and the morale of the survivors.

 

[Buba]

As even HL is implicity admitting

I may be having a Senior Moment - but HL is ... ?

 

[stevep]

I may be having a Senior Moment - but HL is ... ?

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.

 

[raharris1973]

That would be a massive breach of neutrality which could well not happen if the Ottomans actually stay neutral.

Would it for sure? Or would blocking the straits to belligerent traffic (either all cargo, or anything that can be regarded as 'war contraband'-again very elastic) just be one reasonable possible interpretation of Turkey's neutral duties under international treaties? In the months of the war when the Ottoman Empire was an avowed neutral, August, September, and October 1914, I think the straits were closed to belligerent cargo ships (and warships of course). That's why the legal fiction of incorporating the German cruisers and crews into the Ottoman navy was used.

 

[WolfBear]

I may be having a Senior Moment - but HL is ... ?

How old are you?

 

[Buba]

Don't get fixated on what's "legal". Might makes right.
Look at the UK closing the Channel or the Entente using Greek territory to wage war against the CP.
It is "what can we do without getting a DOW in return".

 

[History Learner]

They are going to do that even without the Ottomans in the war - simply to bail out the Austro-Hungarians.

The Austro-Hungarians didn't need a bailout, the Serbians were already on the brink and the Anglo-French could not rotate forces in. The Germans specifically went in as a means of influencing the other Balkan nations and getting aid to the Ottomans. If additional forces are needed, the lack of the Italian Front is an ample well spring for Vienna.

 

[History Learner]

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.

The Ottomans closed the straits historically in August of 1914 before they entered the war, and given this was their territorial waters, it was well within international norms. You seem to be confusing the Post Montreux Convention with the situation that existed before, with said Treaty changing the conditions on the strait.

As for Bulgaria, if anything, they enter even earlier because there is no Anglo-French expeditionary force near their borders waging a campaign Gallipoli. Everything else is, at absolute worst, the same as OTL so no reason to think longer.

In 1915 they didn't but they were in fairly forward and exposed positions which they largely withdraw from, albeit with some crap commanders seeking to prevent that. If there's more CPs forces heading their way then the situations even clearer and they withdraw earlier. Plus given their quality after the loss of the bulk of the professional army in 1914 expect Austrian losses on the offensive to be high.

Likewise, however, the Austro-Germans have even larger resources at hand to prevent that.

No such war developed on a massive scale because by then the damage to morale had been done. If there aren't the 1916/17 offensives but instead CP ones seeking to advance deep into Russia proper its a totally different matter.

And the reasons for that collapse in morale have been moved forward by two years, so the situation remains the same. The Russians did try this tactic during World War I after all, they weren't stupid.

If that happens true although there would still be reserves and forces that could be detached from other fronts.

Such as?

 

[raharris1973]

Don't get fixated on what's "legal". Might makes right.
Look at the UK closing the Channel or the Entente using Greek territory to wage war against the CP.
It is "what can we do without getting a DOW in return".

Well, taking it to the next level. Can neutral Ottomans keep the straits closed to Entente cargo shipping without getting an Entente DoW in return? If not, how long till the Entente does its DoW? Can the Entente run massive cargo convoys through neutral Ottomans officially closed straits, without getting an Ottoman DoW in return? If it comes to tactical fighting in the second case, I imagine the Ottomans can close the straits and the Entente cannot force them, just DoW the Ottomans and retaliate elsewhere, so we are back on track to OTL.

 

[Buba]

Can neutral Ottomans keep the straits closed to Entente cargo shipping without getting an Entente DoW in return?

Yes.
It will be easier and cheaper to talk the Ottomans into reopening the Straits in the near or medium term if there is no shooting war. Lesson learned (?) by 1939 - no DOW on USSR for invading Poland. Then again, Russia/Soviets is a Great Power and White, not a bunch of swarthy ragheads ...

Can the Entente run massive cargo convoys through neutral Ottomans officially closed straits

Not if the Ottomans decide to deny passage. But if the Ottomans wish to play the "we close Straits, honest, but Evul! Entente send gazzilion warships and ay vey we no can stop them!!!!1" card they can.

without getting an Ottoman DoW in return?

Yes.
Even if there is a fight either side - or both -can blame it on "junior Officers misinterpreting orders".
Weirder shit has happened in OTL (Top of Mind - Panay "incident")

 

[stevep]

The Ottomans closed the straits historically in August of 1914 before they entered the war, and given this was their territorial waters, it was well within international norms. You seem to be confusing the Post Montreux Convention with the situation that existed before, with said Treaty changing the conditions on the strait.

You may have a point here although blocking merchant shipping by an allegedly neutral nation is definitely an hostile act.

As for Bulgaria, if anything, they enter even earlier because there is no Anglo-French expeditionary force near their borders waging a campaign Gallipoli. Everything else is, at absolute worst, the same as OTL so no reason to think longer.

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 logistics were.

Likewise, however, the Austro-Germans have even larger resources at hand to prevent that.

Not greatly larger than OTL while the Russians are acting on the defensive in their own homeland.

And the reasons for that collapse in morale have been moved forward by two years, so the situation remains the same. The Russians did try this tactic during World War I after all, they weren't stupid.

No it hasn't. Russia has spent one campaign waging a fairly successful offensive against the Austrian empire - along with the disaster in the north. Now its defending its homeland, especially after a withdrawal from the Polish salient, which will lengthen CP lines considerable, rather than launching very costly attacks against enemy positions. If the Russians had 1917 army/positions with 1915 morale then the Germans will struggle a lot more and the Austrians are likely to suffer a lot worse. - True the Russian army won't have the same level of equipment it had in 1917 but neither will the CPs.

Such as?

What was used against Turkey - including operations in Persia and probably reserves from the Far East. As well as new recruits being entered into the army as it still has a lot of people to call upon in 1915.

 

[WolfBear]

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 logistics were.



Not greatly larger than OTL while the Russians are acting on the defensive in their own homeland.



No it hasn't. Russia has spent one campaign waging a fairly successful offensive against the Austrian empire - along with the disaster in the north. Now its defending its homeland, especially after a withdrawal from the Polish salient, which will lengthen CP lines considerable, rather than launching very costly attacks against enemy positions. If the Russians had 1917 army/positions with 1915 morale then the Germans will struggle a lot more and the Austrians are likely to suffer a lot worse. - True the Russian army won't have the same level of equipment it had in 1917 but neither will the CPs.



What was used against Turkey - including operations in Persia and probably reserves from the Far East. As well as new recruits being entered into the army as it still has a lot of people to call upon in 1915.

Didn't the Great Retreat actually benefit the Russians by significantly shortening the length of the Russian front lines? There was no longer a Polish salient to worry about, after all. Instead, there was a new, relatively straight front line.

 

[History Learner]

You may have a point here although blocking merchant shipping by an allegedly neutral nation is definitely an hostile act.

The British blockade impeding Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish and American shipping to Germany from 1914-1917 says hi. Again, what you consider hostile was not necessarily considered hostile back then; there was far more legal room on this issue back then.

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 logistics were.

Non existent and ignores that in 1915 the best they could do was send a pair of divisions to Greece.

Not greatly larger than OTL while the Russians are acting on the defensive in their own homeland.

Vastly larger, given the Italian Front had 61 Austro-Hungarian Divisions in 1915; you've effectively doubled the Central Powers force ratio with the Russians. As for the Russians being on the defensive, that didn't work out too well for them historically, no?

No it hasn't. Russia has spent one campaign waging a fairly successful offensive against the Austrian empire - along with the disaster in the north. Now its defending its homeland, especially after a withdrawal from the Polish salient, which will lengthen CP lines considerable, rather than launching very costly attacks against enemy positions. If the Russians had 1917 army/positions with 1915 morale then the Germans will struggle a lot more and the Austrians are likely to suffer a lot worse. - True the Russian army won't have the same level of equipment it had in 1917 but neither will the CPs.

You seem to be convinced the Russians suddenly woke up in 1917 with low morale, instead of realizing said morale was a ramification of having lost the same territories and taken the same casualties you are conceding they will be suffering here. Here they're going to lose the same territory and taken even more casualties, in a shorter time span, so why exactly are we assuming they don't have 1917 morale to match a 1917 style situation? Even if they don't, the Russians will weaker relative to the Central Powers in both material and manpower constraints, which opens up greater operational possibilities against them.

What was used against Turkey - including operations in Persia and probably reserves from the Far East. As well as new recruits being entered into the army as it still has a lot of people to call upon in 1915.

Oh I full assume the British will still be mobilized to the same extent as historical, so that's no change. If we are assuming those "reserves" are detached from their postings, you need to stop and consider why they were there in the first place.

 

[Buba]

the Italian Front had 61 Austro-Hungarian Divisions in 1915

Please check this figure. To me that number looks like the TOTAL number of A-H InfDiv ...

 

[stevep]

The British blockade impeding Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish and American shipping to Germany from 1914-1917 says hi. Again, what you consider hostile was not necessarily considered hostile back then; there was far more legal room on this issue back then.

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.

Non existent and ignores that in 1915 the best they could do was send a pair of divisions to Greece.

Given the number of divisions sent to Gallipoli that sounds definitely wrong. Let alone if the power of the westerners can be reduced so not as many are committed to the western front where they were largely wasted without a lot of heavy equipment that wasn't available and was less necessary in the Balkans at that point. Even small forces could make a difference in the short term.

Vastly larger, given the Italian Front had 61 Austro-Hungarian Divisions in 1915; you've effectively doubled the Central Powers force ratio with the Russians. As for the Russians being on the defensive, that didn't work out too well for them historically, no?

Be interested to see your reply to Buba's point. That does sound a large number for a short and highly mountainous front.

The point was that OTL except for part of 1915 they weren't on the defensive until 1917.

You seem to be convinced the Russians suddenly woke up in 1917 with low morale, instead of realizing said morale was a ramification of having lost the same territories and taken the same casualties you are conceding they will be suffering here. Here they're going to lose the same territory and taken even more casualties, in a shorter time span, so why exactly are we assuming they don't have 1917 morale to match a 1917 style situation? Even if they don't, the Russians will weaker relative to the Central Powers in both material and manpower constraints, which opens up greater operational possibilities against them.

No I'm convinced of what I've said and you keep ignoring. What broke Russian morale was repeated very costly offensives by a fairly under-equipped Russian army which tended to suffer horrendous losses, in part due to dire leadership at higher levels. If they have the OTL retreat from Poland then in 1916 instead of Verdun the Germans seek to push the Russian deeper in Russia that's going to be significantly more difficult given the problems of logistics. It also gives the Russian soldiers a clearer idea of what their fighting for, defending their homeland against an invader.

Oh I full assume the British will still be mobilized to the same extent as historical, so that's no change. If we are assuming those "reserves" are detached from their postings, you need to stop and consider why they were there in the first place.

Actually I was talking about the Russian forces released. Including of course those casualties that won't be suffered on the Turkish fronts TTL.

Britain will probably recruit as many people as OTL, both British and from the Commonwealth and empire. Which would mean a hell of a lot more men available for deployment in the Balkans or on the western front. Let alone the naval forces released.

 

[History Learner]

Please check this figure. To me that number looks like the TOTAL number of A-H InfDiv ...

Possible, off the top of my head the Austro-Hungarian Army, by itself, had 49 divisions in 1914 not counting the Honved and Austrian others. Mobilization had likewise been underway for almost a year by the time of Italian entry.