Alternate History WI Entente does not waste resources on Ottoman Front (and Tanganika)

[Buba]

On Ah.com the thread" Ottomans sit out WWI" made me wonder about the resources used to fight the Turks. My question is a bit different
What if London (and Paris too) adopted a "Germany first" stance like the US in WWII? What if Easterners and ankle biters are sidelined after Gallipoli and Kuta?
Kuwait is abandonded. The Suez Canal and Persian oil fields are guarded by the British and Indian troops in OTL used in Tanganika (maybe South Africans too? At least in the Canal Zone as it can be claimed to be "Africa").
The Ottomans will not be able to press too strongly against either, due to logistics. Nor can the Ottomans divert that much to the Russian front, again due to bullock cart supply lines.

Where do the freed up Entente troops go? Balkans? Could these prevent Serbian collapse and/or Bulgarian involvement in autumn 1915?

 

[ATP]

On Ah.com the thread" Ottomans sit out WWI" made me wonder about the resources used to fight the Turks. My question is a bit different
What if London (and Paris too) adopted a "Germany first" stance like the US in WWII? What if Easterners and ankle biters are sidelined after Gallipoli and Kuta?
Kuwait is abandonded. The Suez Canal and Persian oil fields are guarded by the British and Indian troops in OTL used in Tanganika (maybe South Africans too? At least in the Canal Zone as it can be claimed to be "Africa").
The Ottomans will not be able to press too strongly against either, due to logistics. Nor can the Ottomans divert that much to the Russian front, again due to bullock cart supply lines.

Where do the freed up Entente troops go? Balkans? Could these prevent Serbian collapse and/or Bulgarian involvement in autumn 1915?

Good idea,sending them on western front would change notching.Maybe send few dyvisions to fight on East?
With better support there,Russia could not collapse.

 

[49ersfootball]

On Ah.com the thread" Ottomans sit out WWI" made me wonder about the resources used to fight the Turks. My question is a bit different
What if London (and Paris too) adopted a "Germany first" stance like the US in WWII? What if Easterners and ankle biters are sidelined after Gallipoli and Kuta?
Kuwait is abandonded. The Suez Canal and Persian oil fields are guarded by the British and Indian troops in OTL used in Tanganika (maybe South Africans too? At least in the Canal Zone as it can be claimed to be "Africa").
The Ottomans will not be able to press too strongly against either, due to logistics. Nor can the Ottomans divert that much to the Russian front, again due to bullock cart supply lines.

Where do the freed up Entente troops go? Balkans? Could these prevent Serbian collapse and/or Bulgarian involvement in autumn 1915?

Following!

 

[raharris1973]

On Ah.com the thread" Ottomans sit out WWI" made me wonder about the resources used to fight the Turks. My question is a bit different
What if London (and Paris too) adopted a "Germany first" stance like the US in WWII? What if Easterners and ankle biters are sidelined after Gallipoli and Kuta?
Kuwait is abandonded. The Suez Canal and Persian oil fields are guarded by the British and Indian troops in OTL used in Tanganika (maybe South Africans too? At least in the Canal Zone as it can be claimed to be "Africa").
The Ottomans will not be able to press too strongly against either, due to logistics. Nor can the Ottomans divert that much to the Russian front, again due to bullock cart supply lines.

Where do the freed up Entente troops go? Balkans? Could these prevent Serbian collapse and/or Bulgarian involvement in autumn 1915?

The Entente gets less savings from ignoring offensives on the Ottoman fronts if they stop after Gallipoli and Kut, than they would get from avoiding the Dardanelles and Basra-Mesopotamia operations in the first place.

I think you are correct that the Ottomans only have very limited potential to do offensives of their own against Entente possessions and territories. They can be contained at much lower cost than was invested in all the offensive campaigns directed into them. However, as a consequence of less pressure of the Ottomans, they will absorb less Central Powers support, and they may send substantially more workers and 'loaner' troops to other Central Powers for work on some sectors of their fronts. I believe some Turkish troops were involved in the occupation of Romania, and the southern sectors of the CP front in Europe.

It would be hard to make visible changes in short timespans through concentration on the western and Italian fronts.

In concept, the Balkans and shoring up Serbia sounds good. It seems more worthy than intervening late just to help evacuate Serbs, and set up a 'POW camp' in Salonica, to try to keep most of Serbia in the fight, even if the Austrians will inevitably push down into Belgrade. An upheld, surviving Serbia, with on the ground Allied support could deter Bulgarian entry on the enemy side and possibly speed Romanian entry into the Entente. I think Ty Bomba suggested this. But I have usually heard this criticized as logistically or politically impossible. The Greeks were not politically on board to supply Allied forces and the Serbs through Salonica, the logistically viable supply line. Montenegro theoretically connects Serbia to the sea, but there may not be a rail line, just mountain paths and goat tracks, and the Austrian navy is awfully close. But maybe that is all too pessimistic.

As for @ATP's idea of putting units in Russia, I don't know how this could be made logistically feasible. I mean there was Allied intervention quite late in the war in the Russian Arctic and Pacific, but that was far from CP lines. Allied intervention in the Baltic and Black Sea regions, more relevant to the war effort against the CPs, was not really possible until the CPs surrender.

Trying to use the troops and ships to extend the frontage to Denmark, especially Jutland, would be a nightmare, and a trap, playing to German mobilization strengths. Even if just aimed at island Denmark/Copenhagen, to allow junction of the British and Russian fleets and a British Empire expeditionary force to the Russian Baltic, it creates more needless opportunities for German naval success.

 

[ATP]

The Entente gets less savings from ignoring offensives on the Ottoman fronts if they stop after Gallipoli and Kut, than they would get from avoiding the Dardanelles and Basra-Mesopotamia operations in the first place.

I think you are correct that the Ottomans only have very limited potential to do offensives of their own against Entente possessions and territories. They can be contained at much lower cost than was invested in all the offensive campaigns directed into them. However, as a consequence of less pressure of the Ottomans, they will absorb less Central Powers support, and they may send substantially more workers and 'loaner' troops to other Central Powers for work on some sectors of their fronts. I believe some Turkish troops were involved in the occupation of Romania, and the southern sectors of the CP front in Europe.

It would be hard to make visible changes in short timespans through concentration on the western and Italian fronts.

In concept, the Balkans and shoring up Serbia sounds good. It seems more worthy than intervening late just to help evacuate Serbs, and set up a 'POW camp' in Salonica, to try to keep most of Serbia in the fight, even if the Austrians will inevitably push down into Belgrade. An upheld, surviving Serbia, with on the ground Allied support could deter Bulgarian entry on the enemy side and possibly speed Romanian entry into the Entente. I think Ty Bomba suggested this. But I have usually heard this criticized as logistically or politically impossible. The Greeks were not politically on board to supply Allied forces and the Serbs through Salonica, the logistically viable supply line. Montenegro theoretically connects Serbia to the sea, but there may not be a rail line, just mountain paths and goat tracks, and the Austrian navy is awfully close. But maybe that is all too pessimistic.

As for @ATP's idea of putting units in Russia, I don't know how this could be made logistically feasible. I mean there was Allied intervention quite late in the war in the Russian Arctic and Pacific, but that was far from CP lines. Allied intervention in the Baltic and Black Sea regions, more relevant to the war effort against the CPs, was not really possible until the CPs surrender.

Trying to use the troops and ships to extend the frontage to Denmark, especially Jutland, would be a nightmare, and a trap, playing to German mobilization strengths. Even if just aimed at island Denmark/Copenhagen, to allow junction of the British and Russian fleets and a British Empire expeditionary force to the Russian Baltic, it creates more needless opportunities for German naval success.

True about Serbia support,and also true about Allies in Russia.They could send few dyvisions there,no more.
But - those few dyvisions could be enough to crush Lenin after his putch,and that would be change.
Russia would fall anyway,but we do not have ruling genociders here.

P.S once i read some article about turkish calvary supporting A-H against russians,unfortunatelly forget where and when.

 

[raharris1973]

The orthodox solution would be to send freed up resources, mainly British Empire resources, directly at the German Army via the most logistically efficient, shortest route, the channel ports to Flanders. And, all by itself, through compounding attrition, even if it looks like ghastly slaughter for no gain at the end of 1915 and the end of 1916, by the end of 1917, it might have turned out to have worked and brought Germany to terms, or left German too weak to even try an offensive in 1918.

But, in terms of a force multiplier effect against the total Central Powers position, it seems to me there is an area to reinforce besides the well-supported, but deadlocked, western front, and the too far away to be relevant Ottoman and African fronts, and that is the Austro-Serb Balkan front.



With augmentation/support from growing Imperial forces from "East of Suez" or "East of Malta" western colonial possessions, Serbia, which was doing a surprising good job holding out against Austria-Hungary, should do even better, and hold out for good, barring major German troop transfers risking German positions in northern France of Poland-Lithuania. Successful prolonged holding and wasting of Austro-Hungarian forces at the Danube and Drina rivers will be bad for Habsburg morale and sustainment, and encourage Italian entry into the war as historical, and possibly Romanian entry into the war several on the Entente side several months early. Even without any Romania bonus, protraction and persistence of a Serbian front busying Austro-Hungarian forces should reduce pressure on the Russians or compel Germany to compensate for a reduced Austrian effort. So that's already a decent substitute for even the Holy Grail of a successful Gallipoli and straits campaign, which was harder in practice than in theory.

 

[ATP]

The orthodox solution would be to send freed up resources, mainly British Empire resources, directly at the German Army via the most logistically efficient, shortest route, the channel ports to Flanders. And, all by itself, through compounding attrition, even if it looks like ghastly slaughter for no gain at the end of 1915 and the end of 1916, by the end of 1917, it might have turned out to have worked and brought Germany to terms, or left German too weak to even try an offensive in 1918.

But, in terms of a force multiplier effect against the total Central Powers position, it seems to me there is an area to reinforce besides the well-supported, but deadlocked, western front, and the too far away to be relevant Ottoman and African fronts, and that is the Austro-Serb Balkan front.



With augmentation/support from growing Imperial forces from "East of Suez" or "East of Malta" western colonial possessions, Serbia, which was doing a surprising good job holding out against Austria-Hungary, should do even better, and hold out for good, barring major German troop transfers risking German positions in northern France of Poland-Lithuania. Successful prolonged holding and wasting of Austro-Hungarian forces at the Danube and Drina rivers will be bad for Habsburg morale and sustainment, and encourage Italian entry into the war as historical, and possibly Romanian entry into the war several on the Entente side several months early. Even without any Romania bonus, protraction and persistence of a Serbian front busying Austro-Hungarian forces should reduce pressure on the Russians or compel Germany to compensate for a reduced Austrian effort. So that's already a decent substitute for even the Holy Grail of a successful Gallipoli and straits campaign, which was harder in practice than in theory.

northern France of Poland-Lithuania? sorry,such thing never existed,and P-L do not existed in 1915,too.

But,sending troops to Serbia nad crush A-H in 1915 without any offensives on Western Froint - that could be done.
From 1916,combined russian-french-england forces on Eastern front could actually move front there and beat germans,too.

 

[Buba]

German positions in northern France of Poland-Lithuania

northern France of Poland-Lithuania ? sorry,such thing never existed,and P-L do not existed in 1915

Evidently typo for "or".
And Poland-Lithuania as geographic area e.g. Portugal-Spain.

 

[ATP]

Evidently typo for "or".
And Poland-Lithuania as geographic area e.g. Portugal-Spain.

Well,in this TL Entente would win with tsarist Russia,so Poland would remain geographic area.
But - still better then commies,i agree with Norwid that Poland uncer tsar occupation is still better then Poland ruled by commies.

 

[raharris1973]

Norwid

?

 

[Buba]

Norwid was Polish poet and writer in the mid XIXth century. Mostly unknown. His writings became popular and trendy much later.

 

[ATP]

?

As @Buba said - i say about short poem in which he stated/in 19th century/ that if independent Poland become communist,it would be better if we remain under tsar yoke forever.

And i agree with him,at least as long as we speak about 19th centurt tsars,not Ivan the terrible coward.

 

[raharris1973]

As @Buba said - i say about short poem in which he stated/in 19th century/ that if independent Poland become communist,it would be better if we remain under tsar yoke forever.

And i agree with him,at least as long as we speak about 19th centurt tsars,not Ivan the terrible coward.

Wow, so he thought ahead, to a possible Communist Russia. That was certainly forward thinking in the 19th century.

 

[ATP]

Wow, so he thought ahead, to a possible Communist Russia. That was certainly forward thinking in the 19th century.

No,he thought about Revolution and commie independent Poland.And he still preferred tsar yoke to that.
As do J - if i must choose between any russian tsar from 19th century,and commie poland,i would choose russian tsar.

 

[raharris1973]

No,he thought about Revolution and commie independent Poland.And he still preferred tsar yoke to that.
As do J - if i must choose between any russian tsar from 19th century,and commie poland,i would choose russian tsar.

Even thinking about a Commie Poland was thinking ahead from a pre-1880 point of view, considering that is about when he died.

 

[ATP]

Even thinking about a Commie Poland was thinking ahead from a pre-1880 point of view, considering that is about when he died.

Indeed.In his times victory of revolution seems impossible - monarchs were united to crush it,if it occured in one country.
Then,WW1 happened....which,in theory,should not be possible.
I read,that some economist in 1913 wrote book about how world war is impossible,becouse countries are to connected with each other to do so.
And,from purely economical point of viev,he was right....