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

History Learner

Well-known member
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.

But the Dutch and Americans were not belligrent and sought to continue non-material trade with Germany, which is precisely the point. Britain could not attack the Ottomans for this and then do it to the Americans, who were historically quite upset over the whole deal.

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.

Montenegro is further from Egypt than Gallipoli is; there's no Italy here to use as a logistics hub so everything has to come from either Malta or Egypt. And those places don't produce themselves, they are mid-shipping points.

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

Except they were, from Gorlice Tarnow in early 1915 until about the Brusilov Offensive, Russia was on the defensive on the Eastern Front. Would you like to cite me their offensives from Gorlice Tarnow onward? Lake Naroch as a precursor to Brusilov's wider offensive is about it.

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.

And yes, despite fighting for their homeland, that same Army disintegrated in 1917-1918, with none of the issues behind that being addressed by you. They are still losing the same territories and taking the same casualties, yet somehow for you this magically doesn't equate to the same morale issues as suffered historically. Meanwhile the Central Powers have greater resources relative to OTL, and here you even postulate a greater pool of the same with no Verdun Offensive; the Germans aren't sending supplies to the Ottomans, they are on the defensive in the West and the Austro-Hungarians have no forces deployed in Italy.

You've already conceded the Russians are poorly equipped and armed, so how exactly are they supposed to achieve success? I'm sure their elan will help them nicely against more Central Powers artillery and machine guns than they faced historically and Human wave offensives.

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

Meanwhile the Austro-Hungarians can leave the Bulgarians to handle anything in the Balkans for them.

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.

I'm assuming they will recruit equal to OTL, with the net effect of no change on the fronts, yes. Which way is it; are they going for your operations in the Balkans or are they sending them to the Western Front? You seem to have flipped from the beginning of your post to the end.
 

stevep

Well-known member
But the Dutch and Americans were not belligrent and sought to continue non-material trade with Germany, which is precisely the point. Britain could not attack the Ottomans for this and then do it to the Americans, who were historically quite upset over the whole deal.

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?

Montenegro is further from Egypt than Gallipoli is; there's no Italy here to use as a logistics hub so everything has to come from either Malta or Egypt. And those places don't produce themselves, they are mid-shipping points.

That is a valid point which would restrict the forces a bit more than OTL Gallipoli although of course there would be more forces/shipping available overall for such actions. Plus sea transport is about the most efficient form there is for moving large amounts of men and equipment.

Its possible that the Austrian fleet might do something but then that could be risky for them.

Except they were, from Gorlice Tarnow in early 1915 until about the Brusilov Offensive, Russia was on the defensive on the Eastern Front. Would you like to cite me their offensives from Gorlice Tarnow onward? Lake Naroch as a precursor to Brusilov's wider offensive is about it.

Not relevant. You were saying Russia was not talking losses on the offensive. Now your saying it doesn't matter if their on the offensive in 1916 or on the defensive. Please make your mind up. If the Germans [and Austrians?] continue their offensives from 1915 deeper into Russia by new strikes in 1916 their fighting that same Russian army but now on the defensive and the further they advance the worse the CP logistics become.

Not to mention that with Turkey being neutral there's no offensives against them. Which releases forces and also men, equipment and supplies which OTL were lost on that front are available for the main one.


And yes, despite fighting for their homeland, that same Army disintegrated in 1917-1918, with none of the issues behind that being addressed by you. They are still losing the same territories and taking the same casualties, yet somehow for you this magically doesn't equate to the same morale issues as suffered historically. Meanwhile the Central Powers have greater resources relative to OTL, and here you even postulate a greater pool of the same with no Verdun Offensive; the Germans aren't sending supplies to the Ottomans, they are on the defensive in the West and the Austro-Hungarians have no forces deployed in Italy.

I'm not sure if the ignorance your claiming is deliberate or not? They are taking almost certainly less losses while fighting in defence of their homeland rather than attacking defensive positions at heavy costs. That makes a significant difference. To take a similar example the predominantly Russian Soviet forces fought hard and continued fighting despite far worse losses in 1941-43 while the current Russian army is staggered to possible collapse in Ukraine now. The basic difference is that in WWII, once they realised that Soviet propaganda was telling the truth for one about how savage the Germans were they realised the cost of defeat to them and their families. Here something similar is almost certain to happen. An even older example in 1812.

There won't be a German offensive in the west true but your going to see a larger Somme one, with the more experienced and better equipped French forces able to play a much larger role.

You've already conceded the Russians are poorly equipped and armed, so how exactly are they supposed to achieve success? I'm sure their elan will help them nicely against more Central Powers artillery and machine guns than they faced historically and Human wave offensives.

I said they were after their initial losses. They recruited a lot more men but often lost them on offensives without adequate support - although further crippling the already weakened Austrians in the process. Also as the western powers got their production together as well as Russia ramping up its own they were able to get better levels of equipment as time went on but their morale was shot by the frequent offensive actions and the poor leadership. The latter is still going to be a problem but the former less so. Plus as pointed out there is no other fronts in Turkey or Persia, albeit the latter was relatively minor as a resource drain

Given that the Russian could generally get the better of the Austrian army, especially after the bulk of its regular forces were mauled so badly in 1914 the Germans are going to be stretched thin as they advance. At least unless and until the Russia morale collapses, which it could well not do TTL.


Meanwhile the Austro-Hungarians can leave the Bulgarians to handle anything in the Balkans for them.

Well that could be risky with no CP forces supporting them unlike OTL.

I'm assuming they will recruit equal to OTL, with the net effect of no change on the fronts, yes. Which way is it; are they going for your operations in the Balkans or are they sending them to the Western Front? You seem to have flipped from the beginning of your post to the end.

Your 1st sentence makes no sense. If you assume the same recruitment why would the EPs maintain large forces on borders with a neutral Ottoman empire when there's a world war going on else. Those forces are going to be deployed against the enemy so the CP's aren't getting the free ride your assuming.

Not at all. I suggested an alternative operation that might keep Serbia in the war or at least fighting longer, in good defensive terrain in most cases. If that happens Austria also has a commitment there which will draw in its forces and probably other CP resources.

If it doesn't then more forces go to the western front. Well likely anyway because unless there's a clear breakout in the Balkans rather than just a holding action its likely that it would occupy only a few of the forces that OTL fought the Turks.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
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.
This figure is with the Honved and Landwehr ...
Top of mind the A-H did not pass the 80 Divisions mark at any point of the war.
@sillygoose Can you give us some insight here? I know this is an area of your expertise.

TBH it has been a long while since I looked, but according to this paper in total it was 48 infantry divisions and 11 cavalry division in 1914 plus some brigades (pp 38-39):
file:///C:/Users/asdesk04/Downloads/fulltext.pdf

It said at the outbreak of the war, so that may have been the pre-mobilization number.

According to this over the course of the war another 41 infantry divisions were formed:

That's not including the Polish, Ukrainian, and Albanian legions formed in the course of the war.

If you really want details here is the first volume of an english translation of the Austrian official history of WW1:
It said 49 infantry divisions, but the 49th was broken up and it's troops used in the other divisions, but two others were formed by expanding Landsturm brigades (group Kummer). 11 cavalry divisions.

Note that that doesn't count all the of the independent brigades, especially the mountain ones.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
TBH it has been a long while since I looked, but according to this paper in total it was 48 infantry divisions and 11 cavalry division in 1914 plus some brigades (pp 38-39):
file:///C:/Users/asdesk04/Downloads/fulltext.pdf

It said at the outbreak of the war, so that may have been the pre-mobilization number.

According to this over the course of the war another 41 infantry divisions were formed:

That's not including the Polish, Ukrainian, and Albanian legions formed in the course of the war.

If you really want details here is the first volume of an english translation of the Austrian official history of WW1:
It said 49 infantry divisions, but the 49th was broken up and it's troops used in the other divisions, but two others were formed by expanding Landsturm brigades (group Kummer). 11 cavalry divisions.

Note that that doesn't count all the of the independent brigades, especially the mountain ones.

Welcome back, @sillygoose! :)
 

Buba

A total creep
According to this over the course of the war another 41 infantry divisions were formed:
I believe that you may be misreading the text.
The little German I know and knowledge of the context suggests expansion to 41 COMMON i.e. k.u.k Divisions. Enough Regiments (155) are listed as to fill out 39 Divisions, with more than enough independent Battalions for the "missing" two.
If you scroll down a bit 10 LANDWEHR i.e. kk InfDiv are mentioned. No wartime expansion.
So that is 51 InfDiv.
Curiosly, there is no mention of the HONVED i.e. ku formations - which began the war with 32 Regiments in 8 InfDiv (included in the Original 49). As the number of HIR (Honved Infanterie Regiment) grew to 44, that'd be enough for 11 InfDiv later in the war.
So, c. 62 InfDiv max. Cavalry does not matter. Landsturm does not matter.

The A-H military was highly chaotic with a ton of independent InfBrig, many of which were Mountain Brigades, and commonly composed of detached Battalions or even - God help us - Marschbattalione, i.e. replacements diverted to other purposes (at least initially). An attempt was made to clean up the mess in 1917.

That's not including the Polish, Ukrainian, and Albanian legions formed in the course of the war.
That's "plankton", to use a Polish expression. Inconsequential. And with an error - there were not two but three Polish InfBrigades, with 6 Regiments and 18 Battalions. All those foreign volunteer formations added up to two weak InfDiv at best.

A-H strength - EOT for me.
 
Last edited:

History Learner

Well-known member
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?

You're confused on the point; the Americans, Dutch and Nords all wanted to trade with Germany in non military goods like foodstuffs and cotton for the United States. Britain cannot justify being opposed to the Turkish restricting trade, as is their legal right through their own territorial waters no less, and then restricting the others via its blockade of others. Even if they could get the Ottomans to agree to non-military trade, that does nothing to improve the conditions of the Russian Army.

That is a valid point which would restrict the forces a bit more than OTL Gallipoli although of course there would be more forces/shipping available overall for such actions. Plus sea transport is about the most efficient form there is for moving large amounts of men and equipment. Its possible that the Austrian fleet might do something but then that could be risky for them.

Likewise, the Austro-Hungarian Navy is unchallenged by the Italians and free to oppose such and, given how Gallipoli worked out for the Anglo-French, how well do you think such an operation on a further logistical tether is going to go? More shipping is addressed by more distance.

Not relevant. You were saying Russia was not talking losses on the offensive. Now your saying it doesn't matter if their on the offensive in 1916 or on the defensive. Please make your mind up. If the Germans [and Austrians?] continue their offensives from 1915 deeper into Russia by new strikes in 1916 their fighting that same Russian army but now on the defensive and the further they advance the worse the CP logistics become.

I never said that, for one, and I've been consistent on my position; the Russians are still going to be taking the same losses, at a minimum, because of the Austro-German envelopment in Poland combined with more German forces enabling more offensives on the East given the reduced nature of the Balkan Front. The Russians are going to remain materially weak and the better performance of the Central Powers from 1915 onward will just bring forward the collapse in the Russians, who failed to stop the Germans on the defensive historically anyway.

Any concerns on the logistics of the Central Powers is unfounded, given there is no Alpine Theater and the Balkans is a relative side show handled by the Bulgarians for the most part. You've freed up the rail requirements and supplies of hundreds of thousands of men historically, here.

Not to mention that with Turkey being neutral there's no offensives against them. Which releases forces and also men, equipment and supplies which OTL were lost on that front are available for the main one.

This tells me you're very unfamiliar with the historical conditions on the Eastern Front in World War I, in that their railway system was the major Russian disadvantage. By 1917 it was in collapse, which is why conditions in the cities and in the armies got so bad; if you switch those troops to the West, you merely speed up this collapse by further over-straining the network.

I'm not sure if the ignorance your claiming is deliberate or not? They are taking almost certainly less losses while fighting in defence of their homeland rather than attacking defensive positions at heavy costs. That makes a significant difference. To take a similar example the predominantly Russian Soviet forces fought hard and continued fighting despite far worse losses in 1941-43 while the current Russian army is staggered to possible collapse in Ukraine now. The basic difference is that in WWII, once they realised that Soviet propaganda was telling the truth for one about how savage the Germans were they realised the cost of defeat to them and their families. Here something similar is almost certain to happen. An even older example in 1812.

Because we have the demonstrated example of seeing it failed to stop the Germans from 1916-1918; they utterly collapsed because when the cities and armies are starving, propaganda doesn't work. If starvation doesn't get him, the German superiority in material will. If your enemy has artillery, while you don't, logic dictates what happens to your trench lines.

There won't be a German offensive in the west true but your going to see a larger Somme one, with the more experienced and better equipped French forces able to play a much larger role.

Based on what?

I said they were after their initial losses. They recruited a lot more men but often lost them on offensives without adequate support - although further crippling the already weakened Austrians in the process. Also as the western powers got their production together as well as Russia ramping up its own they were able to get better levels of equipment as time went on but their morale was shot by the frequent offensive actions and the poor leadership. The latter is still going to be a problem but the former less so. Plus as pointed out there is no other fronts in Turkey or Persia, albeit the latter was relatively minor as a resource drain

Given that the Russian could generally get the better of the Austrian army, especially after the bulk of its regular forces were mauled so badly in 1914 the Germans are going to be stretched thin as they advance. At least unless and until the Russia morale collapses, which it could well not do TTL.

Russia got the better of Austria in 1916 because of Vienna pulling significant forces out for the Asiago Offensive in Italy; that doesn't happen here. Beyond that, we've already addressed the Germans will be stronger, both in material terms and logistics, same for the Austrians.

Well that could be risky with no CP forces supporting them unlike OTL.

Why would it? Serbia is defeated, without the Ottomans in the war it's going to be hard to force things with Greece diplomatically.

Your 1st sentence makes no sense. If you assume the same recruitment why would the EPs maintain large forces on borders with a neutral Ottoman empire when there's a world war going on else. Those forces are going to be deployed against the enemy so the CP's aren't getting the free ride your assuming.

It makes perfect sense when you realize I never stated that anywhere; I fully assume the UK will mobilize its domestic population to the same extent, same for the Dominions. Pulling all of their forces out of the regions surrounding the Ottomans is a no go, however, because of concerns of German-supported revolts and a need to deter Ottoman entry later. You can't pull everything out of Egypt, for example.

Not at all. I suggested an alternative operation that might keep Serbia in the war or at least fighting longer, in good defensive terrain in most cases. If that happens Austria also has a commitment there which will draw in its forces and probably other CP resources.

Which, in other words, mean the same historical forces on the Western Front so how does that larger French force you talked about earlier materialize? I've already explained how your scheme doesn't work, but specifically it's also worth noting that the Serbs themselves had already been contemplating surrender since November of 1914 because of their shell shortage. They're still going to go under and no landing in Montenegro is possible without Italy in the war.

If it doesn't then more forces go to the western front. Well likely anyway because unless there's a clear breakout in the Balkans rather than just a holding action its likely that it would occupy only a few of the forces that OTL fought the Turks.

I'm sure the logistics just magically materialize for this scheme too. Even accepting that handwave, Hundreds of thousands of troops deployed to Italy historically say hello.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
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.
I haven't read this thread yet, so not sure if any of this has been addressed, but here is my take:

both nations staying out cancels each other out somewhat. Russia keeps trade going with the Entente via the Dardanelles, which is a huge economic help, though has to face A-H naval forces targeting their supply lines in the Mediterranean, probably mostly via uboats. They also save considerable resources not fighting in the Middle East, which they can use in the East instead. Without the Ottomans in Bulgaria probably stays neutral.

A-H has a major enemy removed from the equation, so can continue helping to beat up on Serbia and Russia in 1915 instead of having to divert major forces to hold the Alps. However the Entente now has all the resources saved from fighting the Ottomans and supporting the Italians so can get into the Balkans via Greece sooner and with much greater strength and resources to aid Serbia. So likely the Serbia front heats up in 1915 as the Entente for wont of things to actually do on the periphery goes in on the Balkans. Germany and A-H instead have to send the forces that would have gone against Italy to Serbia instead. Instead of that front shutting down by the end of 1915 it stays a going issue for the rest of the war.

Pressure on Romania to join the war would likely increase then sooner. Question is who is able to capitalize quicker on the Eastern Front, as IOTL when Italy joined it helped take pressure off of Russia in the wake of the Gorlice-Tarnow disaster at least in Galicia. Likely the situation in Serbia bogs down in early 1915 and sees both sides reinforce the best they can and it turns into a trench warfare situation limited by the rail lines in terms of intensity. Germany and Austria-Hungary smash up Russia a little more in 1915, but not enough to offset the Russians not having to deal with the Ottomans.

I'd say after that things largely stay the same in terms of how the war plays out until 1916 when the lack of Italy and a more restricted and stable Serbian Front mean that the Eastern Front remains the focus of A-H. Likely then no Brusilov victory and potentially no Romanian entry. Extra Russian strength helps offset increased A-H strength, same with a continuing and tougher Serbian Front. Russia probably doesn't fall apart any sooner than IOTL, but then A-H is more stable thanks to no Brusilov defeat and able to keep going too, so is in a better position to handle the pressures on it in 1916.

In the West things might be a bit different too, as without the ME front then Britain has more troops to deploy in France/Belgium even with an active Balkans front. Not sure that would change much though, as it was a pretty saturated front. Britain could just afford more casualties.

1917 would be interesting because if Russia is knocked out per OTL and A-H is then able to focus only on the Balkans front without having to worry about Italy they will probably last out the rest of the war without major issue and be more internally stable. However that means then Germany is left carrying all the same weight as IOTL in the west with the same result. A-H might send more divisions than the 4 they did IOTL, but then given how outmatched they were technologically in the west they'd really only be useful for holding quiet areas and freeing up German troops or using excess manpower for labor.

Certainly there would be some differences that I'm just not thinking of ATM, but it is hard seeing them be decisive in changing much at the strategic level. CPs still lose, but A-H is likely in a better position to negotiate at the end without Italy in the picture and without the Brusilov defeat. Might remain more intact then, just with some territories carved out at the edges with ethnic minorities (Galicia, Bosnia, Bukowina) and the empire officially split in half but remaining in personal union due to inability to force greater territorial changes without Italy. Maybe part of South Tyrol gets carved off, same with some of Istria.

Germany probably faces the same outcome ITTL. Same with Russia.
 

stevep

Well-known member
You're confused on the point; the Americans, Dutch and Nords all wanted to trade with Germany in non military goods like foodstuffs and cotton for the United States. Britain cannot justify being opposed to the Turkish restricting trade, as is their legal right through their own territorial waters no less, and then restricting the others via its blockade of others. Even if they could get the Ottomans to agree to non-military trade, that does nothing to improve the conditions of the Russian Army.

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.


Likewise, the Austro-Hungarian Navy is unchallenged by the Italians and free to oppose such and, given how Gallipoli worked out for the Anglo-French, how well do you think such an operation on a further logistical tether is going to go? More shipping is addressed by more distance.

Given that the allied losses in Gallipoli were while seeking to force a passage through straits held by an enemy - as opposed to landing in friendly controlled territory then there is a world of difference between the two as you would be totally idiotic not to know. Yes the Austrians can try and intervene but their likely to be drawn into a battle of attrition and since on this issue the allies have interior lines and better equipment its one their going to lose.


I never said that, for one, and I've been consistent on my position; the Russians are still going to be taking the same losses, at a minimum, because of the Austro-German envelopment in Poland combined with more German forces enabling more offensives on the East given the reduced nature of the Balkan Front. The Russians are going to remain materially weak and the better performance of the Central Powers from 1915 onward will just bring forward the collapse in the Russians, who failed to stop the Germans on the defensive historically anyway.

Any concerns on the logistics of the Central Powers is unfounded, given there is no Alpine Theater and the Balkans is a relative side show handled by the Bulgarians for the most part. You've freed up the rail requirements and supplies of hundreds of thousands of men historically, here.

So your continuing to assume there's no difference between being on the offensive and on the defensive. Also that the CPs can continue to magic up additional forces and supply them over markedly longer supply lines. I very much doubt that trench warfare on the Alpine front consumed much in the way of railway requirements. Let alone allow a lot of supplies used on a static position for deep penetration into enemy territory with poor logistics. Try and push a major attack through the Pripet marshes for instance.

The Russians were on the defensive to a degree in the north and held find until morale and hence discipline collapsed there. That was a region where the CPs could fairly easily supply an offensive and also aid it by naval actions. Again try and do that several hundred miles into Russia.


This tells me you're very unfamiliar with the historical conditions on the Eastern Front in World War I, in that their railway system was the major Russian disadvantage. By 1917 it was in collapse, which is why conditions in the cities and in the armies got so bad; if you switch those troops to the West, you merely speed up this collapse by further over-straining the network.

Not at all. Your saying that Russia can't move forces from one front to another without total collapse. Also that collapse will come a year earlier than OTL despite the Germans having to carry offensives deeper into Russia.

Because we have the demonstrated example of seeing it failed to stop the Germans from 1916-1918; they utterly collapsed because when the cities and armies are starving, propaganda doesn't work. If starvation doesn't get him, the German superiority in material will. If your enemy has artillery, while you don't, logic dictates what happens to your trench lines.

Except that your assuming that with far less losses collapse occurs a year earlier. Plus how are the Germans going to supply as much artillery - including the masses of shells required - a lot further east under poorer logistics?


Based on what?

Historical fact. The Somme offensive would have hgad a significantly larger French component except that the Verdun campaign increasingly pulled in their forces. Here your arguing the latter won't happen so there will be a lot more French forces available for a larger Somme campaign.

Russia got the better of Austria in 1916 because of Vienna pulling significant forces out for the Asiago Offensive in Italy; that doesn't happen here. Beyond that, we've already addressed the Germans will be stronger, both in material terms and logistics, same for the Austrians.

Russia got the better of Austria because it had a well thought out plan, a good commander and the enemy were weak. Two of those still apply and the Austrian army is still going to be struggling in quality terms after their heavy losses in 1914 when the Germans left them in the lurch. Its got a lot of new conscripts but many have little love for the empire - hence the defections that occurred in OTL. Its not going to suffer as badly as OTL in the event of a Russian attack - which we're assuming won't be occurring but attacking with poor morale, limited artillery, poor leadership against a motivated defender is going to be very costly for them.

Why would it? Serbia is defeated, without the Ottomans in the war it's going to be hard to force things with Greece diplomatically.

That's if Serbia is defeated. If its supported it might well not be or at least a lot of those additional forces that your assuming would be available for the CP blitzkrieg against Russia in 1916 will be tied up in the region.

It makes perfect sense when you realize I never stated that anywhere; I fully assume the UK will mobilize its domestic population to the same extent, same for the Dominions. Pulling all of their forces out of the regions surrounding the Ottomans is a no go, however, because of concerns of German-supported revolts and a need to deter Ottoman entry later. You can't pull everything out of Egypt, for example.

Which, in other words, mean the same historical forces on the Western Front so how does that larger French force you talked about earlier materialize? I've already explained how your scheme doesn't work, but specifically it's also worth noting that the Serbs themselves had already been contemplating surrender since November of 1914 because of their shell shortage. They're still going to go under and no landing in Montenegro is possible without Italy in the war.

All their forces no. That would make no more sense than Austria leaving its border with Italy totally unmanned. However their not going to be launching major offensives in Gallipoli, Mesopotamia and Palestine. Also without the Ottomans seeking to make a religious war out of the conflict there's going to be no unrest with the Senussi for instance.

Those can either go to the Balkan front if the allies move to aid Montenegro or to the western front but they will exist, despite your desire to assume otherwise. As stated above the French forces your denying don't exist do and your making an assumption that has no basis of fact in the inability of the allies to support Montenegro with Italy being neutral. IIRC this move was being considered as an alternative to the Galipoli operation. Which suggests that it was being considered prior to the Italian dow.


I'm sure the logistics just magically materialize for this scheme too. Even accepting that handwave, Hundreds of thousands of troops deployed to Italy historically say hello.

Your now trying to pretend its harder to supply forces in France, near the allied primary production centres and with very good logistics than deep into Palestine and Mesopotamia! Even for your that's being unrealistic.

Your also trying to have your cake and eat it again as well. Those Austria forces deployed against Italy OTL can't both being dying in costly attacks against the Russians and also doing likewise on the western front. Please make your mind up.
 

Buba

A total creep
The A-H navy, the KKK (Kaiserlich Koeniglich Kriegsmarine), was a farce and a waste of money (as bad as the Regia Marina, albeit - thankfully - smaller).
The KKK putting surface combatants into the Aegan to harrass Entent landings or supply is more or less the same territory as "Austria launching sputniks".
And up to mid 1915 the fleet had u-boots which could be counted on fingers (maybe with one boot off). An axiomatic rule of thumb - at any one time one third of uboots can be on station, the rest coming or going or being readied for a new sortie.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
I haven't read this thread yet, so not sure if any of this has been addressed, but here is my take:

both nations staying out cancels each other out somewhat. Russia keeps trade going with the Entente via the Dardanelles, which is a huge economic help, though has to face A-H naval forces targeting their supply lines in the Mediterranean, probably mostly via uboats. They also save considerable resources not fighting in the Middle East, which they can use in the East instead. Without the Ottomans in Bulgaria probably stays neutral.

A-H has a major enemy removed from the equation, so can continue helping to beat up on Serbia and Russia in 1915 instead of having to divert major forces to hold the Alps. However the Entente now has all the resources saved from fighting the Ottomans and supporting the Italians so can get into the Balkans via Greece sooner and with much greater strength and resources to aid Serbia. So likely the Serbia front heats up in 1915 as the Entente for wont of things to actually do on the periphery goes in on the Balkans. Germany and A-H instead have to send the forces that would have gone against Italy to Serbia instead. Instead of that front shutting down by the end of 1915 it stays a going issue for the rest of the war.

Pressure on Romania to join the war would likely increase then sooner. Question is who is able to capitalize quicker on the Eastern Front, as IOTL when Italy joined it helped take pressure off of Russia in the wake of the Gorlice-Tarnow disaster at least in Galicia. Likely the situation in Serbia bogs down in early 1915 and sees both sides reinforce the best they can and it turns into a trench warfare situation limited by the rail lines in terms of intensity. Germany and Austria-Hungary smash up Russia a little more in 1915, but not enough to offset the Russians not having to deal with the Ottomans.

I'd say after that things largely stay the same in terms of how the war plays out until 1916 when the lack of Italy and a more restricted and stable Serbian Front mean that the Eastern Front remains the focus of A-H. Likely then no Brusilov victory and potentially no Romanian entry. Extra Russian strength helps offset increased A-H strength, same with a continuing and tougher Serbian Front. Russia probably doesn't fall apart any sooner than IOTL, but then A-H is more stable thanks to no Brusilov defeat and able to keep going too, so is in a better position to handle the pressures on it in 1916.

In the West things might be a bit different too, as without the ME front then Britain has more troops to deploy in France/Belgium even with an active Balkans front. Not sure that would change much though, as it was a pretty saturated front. Britain could just afford more casualties.

1917 would be interesting because if Russia is knocked out per OTL and A-H is then able to focus only on the Balkans front without having to worry about Italy they will probably last out the rest of the war without major issue and be more internally stable. However that means then Germany is left carrying all the same weight as IOTL in the west with the same result. A-H might send more divisions than the 4 they did IOTL, but then given how outmatched they were technologically in the west they'd really only be useful for holding quiet areas and freeing up German troops or using excess manpower for labor.

Certainly there would be some differences that I'm just not thinking of ATM, but it is hard seeing them be decisive in changing much at the strategic level. CPs still lose, but A-H is likely in a better position to negotiate at the end without Italy in the picture and without the Brusilov defeat. Might remain more intact then, just with some territories carved out at the edges with ethnic minorities (Galicia, Bosnia, Bukowina) and the empire officially split in half but remaining in personal union due to inability to force greater territorial changes without Italy. Maybe part of South Tyrol gets carved off, same with some of Istria.

Germany probably faces the same outcome ITTL. Same with Russia.

Very thorough and sophisticated response.

I would note that your prediction of the war's endgame does seem to position both the Ottomans and the Italians pretty well to be successful jackals in at the last act of the war, if they are ready to gamble. If Russia is brought low and to revolution and a Brest-Litovsk like peace, the Ottomans really should not have a problem making a small offensive against down and out Russia to seize Kars and Ardahan in the Caucasus to move the border there, without joining the general war, or incurring the wrath of the Entente [after all, they are only attacking traitors to the Entente cause]. The hitherto neutral Ottomans even have an outside shot at liberating/conquering Azerbaijan/Armenia from the infant Bolshevik state. Meanwhile, as Germany finally exhausts and falters, Italy has a chance to enter the war last minute on the Entente side and gather up its territorial irredenta from Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary is better off than OTL to be sure, but is still exhausted from years of struggle and blockade, and being hit by a fresh combatant from a new direction when its strongest ally is being pushed to capitulation would have to be a hard blow.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I haven't read this thread yet, so not sure if any of this has been addressed, but here is my take:

both nations staying out cancels each other out somewhat. Russia keeps trade going with the Entente via the Dardanelles, which is a huge economic help, though has to face A-H naval forces targeting their supply lines in the Mediterranean, probably mostly via uboats. They also save considerable resources not fighting in the Middle East, which they can use in the East instead. Without the Ottomans in Bulgaria probably stays neutral.

A-H has a major enemy removed from the equation, so can continue helping to beat up on Serbia and Russia in 1915 instead of having to divert major forces to hold the Alps. However the Entente now has all the resources saved from fighting the Ottomans and supporting the Italians so can get into the Balkans via Greece sooner and with much greater strength and resources to aid Serbia. So likely the Serbia front heats up in 1915 as the Entente for wont of things to actually do on the periphery goes in on the Balkans. Germany and A-H instead have to send the forces that would have gone against Italy to Serbia instead. Instead of that front shutting down by the end of 1915 it stays a going issue for the rest of the war.

Pressure on Romania to join the war would likely increase then sooner. Question is who is able to capitalize quicker on the Eastern Front, as IOTL when Italy joined it helped take pressure off of Russia in the wake of the Gorlice-Tarnow disaster at least in Galicia. Likely the situation in Serbia bogs down in early 1915 and sees both sides reinforce the best they can and it turns into a trench warfare situation limited by the rail lines in terms of intensity. Germany and Austria-Hungary smash up Russia a little more in 1915, but not enough to offset the Russians not having to deal with the Ottomans.

I'd say after that things largely stay the same in terms of how the war plays out until 1916 when the lack of Italy and a more restricted and stable Serbian Front mean that the Eastern Front remains the focus of A-H. Likely then no Brusilov victory and potentially no Romanian entry. Extra Russian strength helps offset increased A-H strength, same with a continuing and tougher Serbian Front. Russia probably doesn't fall apart any sooner than IOTL, but then A-H is more stable thanks to no Brusilov defeat and able to keep going too, so is in a better position to handle the pressures on it in 1916.

In the West things might be a bit different too, as without the ME front then Britain has more troops to deploy in France/Belgium even with an active Balkans front. Not sure that would change much though, as it was a pretty saturated front. Britain could just afford more casualties.

1917 would be interesting because if Russia is knocked out per OTL and A-H is then able to focus only on the Balkans front without having to worry about Italy they will probably last out the rest of the war without major issue and be more internally stable. However that means then Germany is left carrying all the same weight as IOTL in the west with the same result. A-H might send more divisions than the 4 they did IOTL, but then given how outmatched they were technologically in the west they'd really only be useful for holding quiet areas and freeing up German troops or using excess manpower for labor.

Certainly there would be some differences that I'm just not thinking of ATM, but it is hard seeing them be decisive in changing much at the strategic level. CPs still lose, but A-H is likely in a better position to negotiate at the end without Italy in the picture and without the Brusilov defeat. Might remain more intact then, just with some territories carved out at the edges with ethnic minorities (Galicia, Bosnia, Bukowina) and the empire officially split in half but remaining in personal union due to inability to force greater territorial changes without Italy. Maybe part of South Tyrol gets carved off, same with some of Istria.

Germany probably faces the same outcome ITTL. Same with Russia.

Does A-H also lose Transylvania? What about Dalmatia? Croatia? Also, wouldn't Italy enter the war at the very end in this TL in order to grab some spoils at A-H's expense for itself? If so, then there would be no Mutilated Victory for Italy.

And does Russia still go Bolshevik in this TL?
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Very thorough and sophisticated response.

I would note that your prediction of the war's endgame does seem to position both the Ottomans and the Italians pretty well to be successful jackals in at the last act of the war, if they are ready to gamble. If Russia is brought low and to revolution and a Brest-Litovsk like peace, the Ottomans really should not have a problem making a small offensive against down and out Russia to seize Kars and Ardahan in the Caucasus to move the border there, without joining the general war, or incurring the wrath of the Entente [after all, they are only attacking traitors to the Entente cause]. The hitherto neutral Ottomans even have an outside shot at liberating/conquering Azerbaijan/Armenia from the infant Bolshevik state. Meanwhile, as Germany finally exhausts and falters, Italy has a chance to enter the war last minute on the Entente side and gather up its territorial irredenta from Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary is better off than OTL to be sure, but is still exhausted from years of struggle and blockade, and being hit by a fresh combatant from a new direction when its strongest ally is being pushed to capitulation would have to be a hard blow.
Given that IOTL the Ottomans attacked all the way to Baku and seized it from the British I could see that being a flash point in 1917-18 and the British maybe even diverting from fighting in Europe to try and pick apart the Ottomans even at that late date; they after all coveting the oil and wanted to deny it to the Ottomans in case the Germans won, because even a late CP victory would mean the Berlin-Baghdad RR would still go forward and be massive threat to British interests in the region.

Sure Italy could do that, but once Russia is out they'd be unlikely to want to try. Besides if France is doing poorly the Italians could just as well try to seize things from them. Remember IOTL they sat out to see who would look like they're winning and chose in 1915 to join the Entente because they offered the better deal and were looking like they were winning about to collapse A-H, so that was the time to be a jackal and reap the rewards. ITTL if they wait beyond that to the end of the war the Entente looks weak and French territory is ripe for the picking, all the more so since the British are financially exhausted and at least in 1917 the US still isn't in and the Uboat offensive is seemingly winning.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Does A-H also lose Transylvania? What about Dalmatia? Croatia? Also, wouldn't Italy enter the war at the very end in this TL in order to grab some spoils at A-H's expense for itself? If so, then there would be no Mutilated Victory for Italy.

And does Russia still go Bolshevik in this TL?
Potentially yes, but that depends on how much Romania does in the war.

Same with Italy if it joins in, but as I say above in 1917 it would be very tempting for them to join in against the Entente before the US joins, since France would be weak in 1917 (mutinies), Britain is broke, and Italy did covet Tunisia, Corsica, Nice and Savoy. Plus Russia, assuming a similar TL for them to experience their regime change situation, would appear weak and about to drop out.

For Russia it depends on how their economy is doing. Not really sure how the lack of an Ottoman cut to trade would impact them.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
I haven't read this thread yet, so not sure if any of this has been addressed, but here is my take:

both nations staying out cancels each other out somewhat. Russia keeps trade going with the Entente via the Dardanelles, which is a huge economic help, though has to face A-H naval forces targeting their supply lines in the Mediterranean, probably mostly via uboats. They also save considerable resources not fighting in the Middle East, which they can use in the East instead. Without the Ottomans in Bulgaria probably stays neutral.

I should modify that upon further reading:
Foreign creditors were concerned that as the war hindered exports and destabilized the economy it would become difficult for the tsarist government to service its debts.[30] The skepticism of the bond markets was justified: enemy blockades on the Baltic and Black Seas forced a 75 percent decline in exports by 1915. At the same time, imports soared as industry and government placed more and more orders for military equipment abroad. All of this was compounded by the German occupation of some of Russia’s most productive agricultural and industrial regions, lopping off 20 percent of its pre-war factory output and disrupting the food supply. The exchange rate of the ruble fell sharply and the trade balance went from positive (+ 146 million rubles in 1913) to deeply negative (-737 million rubles in 1915, and -1.874 million rubles in 1916).[31]
This might end up being worse for Russia, as they could export more grain to service their debts, which when coupled with the occupied grain regions and refugee problems could result in food shortages and prevent realistic tax reforms that had to be imposed IOTL due to the lack of exports. The Entente too would want to save on grain from the US, so could demand the Russians pay their debts to them in grain and other resources. Which would mean potentially an earlier revolution even when scarcity at home gets worse sooner as a result.
 
Last edited:

stevep

Well-known member
I should modify that upon further reading:

This might end up being worse for Russia, as they could export more grain to service their debts, which when coupled with the occupied grain regions and refugee problems could result in food shortages and prevent realistic tax reforms that had to be imposed IOTL due to the lack of exports. The Entente too would want to save on grain from the US, so could demand the Russians pay their debts to them in grain and other resources. Which would mean potentially an earlier revolution even when scarcity at home gets worse sooner as a result.

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 with horrendous mismanagement and problems with the railways meaning a lot of the crop was rotting in sidings. If this could be avoided or significantly reduced then even with exports occurring you could see the revolution possibly avoided or at least no earlier than OTL.

Also if we're assuming a fully neutral Turkey that doesn't block the straits then Russia can import a lot of the military stuff it needs a lot earlier which could have a significant impact on its military performance. In the early years while France and Britain are building up their capacity to supply their own forces most of this would have to come from probably the US and Japan but still a lot better than what they achieved OTL.
 

Buba

A total creep
The US did not make "military stuff" in WWI. Not before 1919, as anything it managed to make earlier - besides maybe rifles - was needed for the US Army. In WWI the "arsenal of democracy" was France.
Mass deliveries of "military stuff" from Entente - not before 1916. IN 1915 they barely had enough for themselves.
Japan can be a small to medium supplier of small arms and artillery, just like in OTL :)
 

stevep

Well-known member
The US did not make "military stuff" in WWI. Not before 1919, as anything it managed to make earlier - besides maybe rifles - was needed for the US Army. In WWI the "arsenal of democracy" was France.
Mass deliveries of "military stuff" from Entente - not before 1916. IN 1915 they barely had enough for themselves.
Japan can be a small to medium supplier of small arms and artillery, just like in OTL :)

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 Britain but the US made a lot of munitions and might well have been able to produce some artillery if Russia had the funds. Again not massive amounts but when your as short as the Russians were everything helps. Also you could have things like machine tools or simply quality steel, specialised materials etc that would ease bottlenecks in Russian production. Or possibly simply additional trains and the like.

Agreed that mass delivers of weapons or even munitions from the allies are unlikely before 1916/17 as the British especially were desperately short. However again some materials might have been useful for Russia and with a better supply line could have helped.

Japan would have been of some use and with the straits open it would take pressure off the Trans-Siberians, plus sea transport is a hell of a lot more efficient than even rail as long as subs operating from Austria don't cause too many losses.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top