What if Russia vetoed the Gallipolli Operation?

[Rob]

What if Tsarist Russia said it found any British or western intervention objectionable?

They want it themselves as a spoil of war, and they just do not trust that the British or any other power would leave them to Russia or leave them at all once they possess Constantinople.

The model for this Russian "logic" or illogic as it were, is the OTL French objections to a British landing at Alexandretta.

"The problem with landing in Alexandretta was that it was in the French sphere of influence and they were opposed to the British landing there. It appears they went ballistic when a RN ship landed a raiding party and blew up a train and some buildings. Sean McMeekin talks about in his book, the Ottoman Endgame. Strategically, it was an excellent place to land and it would cut off the Ottoman armies in Syria/Palestine, Mesopotamia and Arabia. While it wouldn't open a passage to Russia, it might have knocked the Ottomans out of the war much earlier."

So, with Russians blocking the Gallipolli operation and the French blocking the Alexandretta Operation, what do the British do with themselves?

Feed more men into France? Men into Italy when she joins the war?

Provide better support to their Mesopotamia campaign and perhaps not suffer siege and defeat there?

Accelerate the Palestine campaign?

[jerry kraus]

Post by Rob
What if Tsarist Russia said it found any British or western intervention objectionable?
They want it themselves as a spoil of war, and they just do not trust that the British or any other power would leave them to Russia or leave them at all once they possess Constantinople.
The model for this Russian "logic" or illogic as it were, is the OTL French objections to a British landing at Alexandretta.
"The problem with landing in Alexandretta was that it was in the French sphere of influence and they were opposed to the British landing there. It appears they went ballistic when a RN ship landed a raiding party and blew up a train and some buildings. Sean McMeekin talks about in his book, the Ottoman Endgame. Strategically, it was an excellent place to land and it would cut off the Ottoman armies in Syria/Palestine, Mesopotamia and Arabia. While it wouldn't open a passage to Russia, it might have knocked the Ottomans out of the war much earlier."
So, with Russians blocking the Gallipolli operation and the French blocking the Alexandretta Operation, what do the British do with themselves?
Feed more men into France? Men into Italy when she joins the war?
Provide better support to their Mesopotamia campaign and perhaps not suffer siege and defeat there?
Accelerate the Palestine campaign?

Given the casualties they were suffering, the Russians are going to be looking for any way to end the war quickly, that they can, so they're hardly likely to object. They could still demand the Dardanelles as tribute, if they wished. Having the British there instead of the Turks might be more of an advantage, than otherwise. In any case, how exactly would they "veto" the British action?

[Rob]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Rob
What if Tsarist Russia said it found any British or western intervention objectionable?
They want it themselves as a spoil of war, and they just do not trust that the British or any other power would leave them to Russia or leave them at all once they possess Constantinople.
The model for this Russian "logic" or illogic as it were, is the OTL French objections to a British landing at Alexandretta.
"The problem with landing in Alexandretta was that it was in the French sphere of influence and they were opposed to the British landing there. It appears they went ballistic when a RN ship landed a raiding party and blew up a train and some buildings. Sean McMeekin talks about in his book, the Ottoman Endgame. Strategically, it was an excellent place to land and it would cut off the Ottoman armies in Syria/Palestine, Mesopotamia and Arabia. While it wouldn't open a passage to Russia, it might have knocked the Ottomans out of the war much earlier."
So, with Russians blocking the Gallipolli operation and the French blocking the Alexandretta Operation, what do the British do with themselves?
Feed more men into France? Men into Italy when she joins the war?
Provide better support to their Mesopotamia campaign and perhaps not suffer siege and defeat there?
Accelerate the Palestine campaign?

Given the casualties they were suffering, the Russians are going to be looking for any way to end the war quickly, that they can, so they're hardly likely to object. They could still demand the Dardanelles as tribute, if they wished. Having the British there instead of the Turks might be more of an advantage, than otherwise. In any case, how exactly would they "veto" the British action?

Voicing their displeasure. That is all France seemed to do with regard to the Alexandretta operational concept at the time, and it worked!

[Rob]

Post by Rob

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Rob
What if Tsarist Russia said it found any British or western intervention objectionable?
They want it themselves as a spoil of war, and they just do not trust that the British or any other power would leave them to Russia or leave them at all once they possess Constantinople.
The model for this Russian "logic" or illogic as it were, is the OTL French objections to a British landing at Alexandretta.
"The problem with landing in Alexandretta was that it was in the French sphere of influence and they were opposed to the British landing there. It appears they went ballistic when a RN ship landed a raiding party and blew up a train and some buildings. Sean McMeekin talks about in his book, the Ottoman Endgame. Strategically, it was an excellent place to land and it would cut off the Ottoman armies in Syria/Palestine, Mesopotamia and Arabia. While it wouldn't open a passage to Russia, it might have knocked the Ottomans out of the war much earlier."
So, with Russians blocking the Gallipolli operation and the French blocking the Alexandretta Operation, what do the British do with themselves?
Feed more men into France? Men into Italy when she joins the war?
Provide better support to their Mesopotamia campaign and perhaps not suffer siege and defeat there?
Accelerate the Palestine campaign?

Given the casualties they were suffering, the Russians are going to be looking for any way to end the war quickly, that they can, so they're hardly likely to object. They could still demand the Dardanelles as tribute, if they wished. Having the British there instead of the Turks might be more of an advantage, than otherwise. In any case, how exactly would they "veto" the British action?

Voicing their displeasure. That is all France seemed to do with regard to the Alexandretta operational concept at the time, and it worked!

So answering the OP's question of "what do the Allies do instead?", here are my thoughts:

Pumping more men into any Near Eastern campaign this early on would be a logistical nightmare; the Palestine front can't get sufficent fresh water over the Sinai to supply a large offensive across the desert. Perhaps by 1916 they'd be in a better position, but my money would be on a stronger push for establishing a Salonika front to provide support for Serbia and pressure the Balkan nations into the Entente (Enforce it on Greece, scare/impress Bulgaria, and provide proof of Entente military might to Romania), since those troops were looking for "Elsewhere" after seeing the meat grinder that was the Western Front.

[jerry kraus]

Post by Rob

Post by Rob

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Rob
What if Tsarist Russia said it found any British or western intervention objectionable?
They want it themselves as a spoil of war, and they just do not trust that the British or any other power would leave them to Russia or leave them at all once they possess Constantinople.
The model for this Russian "logic" or illogic as it were, is the OTL French objections to a British landing at Alexandretta.
"The problem with landing in Alexandretta was that it was in the French sphere of influence and they were opposed to the British landing there. It appears they went ballistic when a RN ship landed a raiding party and blew up a train and some buildings. Sean McMeekin talks about in his book, the Ottoman Endgame. Strategically, it was an excellent place to land and it would cut off the Ottoman armies in Syria/Palestine, Mesopotamia and Arabia. While it wouldn't open a passage to Russia, it might have knocked the Ottomans out of the war much earlier."
So, with Russians blocking the Gallipolli operation and the French blocking the Alexandretta Operation, what do the British do with themselves?
Feed more men into France? Men into Italy when she joins the war?
Provide better support to their Mesopotamia campaign and perhaps not suffer siege and defeat there?
Accelerate the Palestine campaign?

Given the casualties they were suffering, the Russians are going to be looking for any way to end the war quickly, that they can, so they're hardly likely to object. They could still demand the Dardanelles as tribute, if they wished. Having the British there instead of the Turks might be more of an advantage, than otherwise. In any case, how exactly would they "veto" the British action?

Voicing their displeasure. That is all France seemed to do with regard to the Alexandretta operational concept at the time, and it worked!

Pumping more men into any Near Eastern campaign this early on would be a logistical nightmare; the Palestine front can't get sufficent fresh water over the Sinai to supply a large offensive across the desert. Perhaps by 1916 they'd be in a better position, but my money would be on a stronger push for establishing a Salonika front to provide support for Serbia and pressure the Balkan nations into the Entente (Enforce it on Greece, scare/impress Bulgaria, and provide proof of Entente military might to Romania), since those troops were looking for "Elsewhere" after seeing the meat grinder that was the Western Front.

Actually, the main effect I see is on Winston Churchill's career. He'd probably have been Prime Minister a lot sooner, without the Gallipoli disaster. That was the only unmitigated disaster of his political career, until the 1945 campaign, I believe.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by jerry kraus
Actually, the main effect I see is on Winston Churchill's career. He'd
probably have been Prime Minister a lot sooner, without the Gallipoli
disaster.

Hard to see when or how. He wouldn't be PM in WW1 (too young, and Ll G
was senior). If he doesn't resign from the government, would he join the
Conservative Party? Because if he doesn't, he won't be PM at all, the
Liberals being out of office from 1922. If he joins the Conservatives
after 1922, having been in office under Ll G until the Liberals are
defeated in the General Election, he'll look like a deserter, which is
exactly what he would be. The Conservatives wouldn't choose such a one
over Baldwin or Chamberlain (either Chamberlain).

So on that analysis, yes, it might have a major effect on Churchill's
political career - exactly the opposite of what you think it would!

Post by jerry kraus
That was the only unmitigated disaster of his political
career, until the 1945 campaign, I believe.

Well putting the pound back onto the gold standard in 1925 might count as
an unmitigated disaster, but I'll grant that it wasn't an immediate and
obvious unmitigated disaster, so might well go unnoticed!

[jerry kraus]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by jerry kraus
Actually, the main effect I see is on Winston Churchill's career. He'd
probably have been Prime Minister a lot sooner, without the Gallipoli
disaster.

Hard to see when or how. He wouldn't be PM in WW1 (too young, and Ll G
was senior). If he doesn't resign from the government, would he join the
Conservative Party? Because if he doesn't, he won't be PM at all, the
Liberals being out of office from 1922. If he joins the Conservatives
after 1922, having been in office under Ll G until the Liberals are
defeated in the General Election, he'll look like a deserter, which is
exactly what he would be. The Conservatives wouldn't choose such a one
over Baldwin or Chamberlain (either Chamberlain).
So on that analysis, yes, it might have a major effect on Churchill's
political career - exactly the opposite of what you think it would!

Post by jerry kraus
That was the only unmitigated disaster of his political
career, until the 1945 campaign, I believe.

Well putting the pound back onto the gold standard in 1925 might count as
an unmitigated disaster, but I'll grant that it wasn't an immediate and
obvious unmitigated disaster, so might well go unnoticed!
--
Pete BARRETT

I think, Pete, that, absent Gallipoli, which Churchill was held personally responsible for, Winston actually looks rather good, for almost any party, and for almost any purpose, in the 1920's and 1930's. After all, he could be seen as progressive or conservative, at whim, and he'd been rather effective in both roles, with no major down side. So, I think he might well have wangled the PM's job somehow or other prior to the disaster of 1940, when he was more or less acclaimed by default of anyone else qualified for the situation.

The Gold Standard worked well enough for years, and, possibly Churchill might have muscled himself into the PM's role during this period, one way or another, he was very creative. However, that disaster at Gallipoli might have made people a little skittish!

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 06:08:49 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
Actually, the main effect I see is on Winston Churchill's career. He'd probably have been Prime Minister a lot sooner, without the Gallipoli disaster. That was the only unmitigated disaster of his political career, until the 1945 campaign, I believe.

I agree - being PM in say 1928 (e.g. just in time for October 1929)
pretty much assures somebody else is PM in 1939-40. Now a Britain that
had had WSC as PM in the early 30s is probably better prepared for war
in 1940 but assuming nothing else changes (for instance having 100
37mm anti-tank guns at Sedan on 10 May 1940) France still loses.

I can't speculate authoritatively what ex-PM WSC might say or do in
1940 - I certainly cannot imagine an elder statesman who isn't PM
making the 'we will never surrender' speech!

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 06:08:49 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
Actually, the main effect I see is on Winston Churchill's career. He'd probably have been Prime Minister a lot sooner, without the Gallipoli disaster. That was the only unmitigated disaster of his political career, until the 1945 campaign, I believe.

I agree - being PM in say 1928 (e.g. just in time for October 1929)
pretty much assures somebody else is PM in 1939-40. Now a Britain that
had had WSC as PM in the early 30s is probably better prepared for war
in 1940 but assuming nothing else changes (for instance having 100
37mm anti-tank guns at Sedan on 10 May 1940) France still loses.
I can't speculate authoritatively what ex-PM WSC might say or do in
1940 - I certainly cannot imagine an elder statesman who isn't PM
making the 'we will never surrender' speech!

I shall go on to the end, I shall fight in France, I shall fight on the seas and oceans, I shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, I shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, I shall fight on the beaches, I shall fight on the landing grounds, I shall fight in the fields and in the streets, I shall fight in the hills; I shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then my Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 06:10:07 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by The Horny Goat
I can't speculate authoritatively what ex-PM WSC might say or do in
1940 - I certainly cannot imagine an elder statesman who isn't PM
making the 'we will never surrender' speech!

I shall go on to the end, I shall fight in France, I shall fight on the seas and oceans, I shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, I shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, I shall fight on the beaches, I shall fight on the landing grounds, I shall fight in the fields and in the streets, I shall fight in the hills; I shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then my Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Somehow your version doesn't have the impact of the original.

For me the Churchill quote that most brings tears to my eyes is his
May 8 1945 "This is your victory" followed by him leading the crowd in
"Land of Hope and Glory".

My most wanted TV special (though admittedly not a mass market TV
show) would be a retroactive special covering the 1945 General
Election since while I've read plenty about it (It's still a favorite
topic for masters' level political science theses) haven't really seen
any video of it.

For what its' worth Churchill pretty much HAD to call the election for
when he did as his 1942 coalition agreement with Attlee required a
general election within 90 days of the end of hostilities IN EUROPE
(Note: Britain was at war with Japan but Britain at war with Japan but
not Germany was not considered a danger to the realm) at a mutually
agreeable date between Churchill and Attlee.

There were all sorts of sub-paragraphs dealing with how voting was to
be conducted involving military personnel since it was not expected
demobilization would be that swift and it was expected Britain might
still be at war with Italy and/or Japan.

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 06:10:07 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus

Post by The Horny Goat
I can't speculate authoritatively what ex-PM WSC might say or do in
1940 - I certainly cannot imagine an elder statesman who isn't PM
making the 'we will never surrender' speech!

I shall go on to the end, I shall fight in France, I shall fight on the seas and oceans, I shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, I shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, I shall fight on the beaches, I shall fight on the landing grounds, I shall fight in the fields and in the streets, I shall fight in the hills; I shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then my Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Somehow your version doesn't have the impact of the original.
For me the Churchill quote that most brings tears to my eyes is his
May 8 1945 "This is your victory" followed by him leading the crowd in
"Land of Hope and Glory".
My most wanted TV special (though admittedly not a mass market TV
show) would be a retroactive special covering the 1945 General
Election since while I've read plenty about it (It's still a favorite
topic for masters' level political science theses) haven't really seen
any video of it.
For what its' worth Churchill pretty much HAD to call the election for
when he did as his 1942 coalition agreement with Attlee required a
general election within 90 days of the end of hostilities IN EUROPE
(Note: Britain was at war with Japan but Britain at war with Japan but
not Germany was not considered a danger to the realm) at a mutually
agreeable date between Churchill and Attlee.
There were all sorts of sub-paragraphs dealing with how voting was to
be conducted involving military personnel since it was not expected
demobilization would be that swift and it was expected Britain might
still be at war with Italy and/or Japan.

Isn't interesting how simply changing a pronoun alters the whole sense of the speech? You see, Churchill's great strength was social manipulation, something he developed in childhood because of his deathly ill father and totally self-absorbed socialite mother. So, the intimacy of self-inclusion that he forced on the British people during the war was what was so effective, and necessary. Of course, once the war was over, the British people had had quite enough of being a national appendage to Winston's ego!