Russo-German alliance in WWI... - History Forum ~ All Empires

Originally posted by Joinville

Originally posted by gcle2003

In that scenario, Italy dies a quick death. A peninsula in the middle of a British lake doesn't have much of a future. And the British dominated the Mediterranean in 1914-18 much more even than in 1939-45.

Oh, quite possibly, but would the RN have the resources to do it? This wasn't yet an age of amphibious invasions, despite the pioneer work at Gallipoli.

How about a Franco-British fleet bombarding Rome? Or Genoa? Or Naples?

Much of Italy is within reach of WWI naval bombardment.

Iirc the naval agreement between the UK and France stipulated the French navy concentrating on defense of the sealanes of the eastern Med, meaning the RN lacked the resources to do that and keep a margin of superiority over the German Hochseeflotte they felt comfortable with. So wouldn't it have to be the French navy sailing into Italian waters?

Well, it could. For that matter Japan had 14 destroyers in the Med, so they could have helped too. And, of course, the Austrian dreadnoughts, and the Ottoman navy (though I'd agree they would probably have stayed in the Black Sea until Russia dropped out).

However I think you misread the agreement. The deal was that the French would keep OUT of the North Sea and the Channel, and only concentrate on the Mediterranean. There was no suggestion the British should keep out of the Med - the bases at Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria remained critical, and the Mediterranean Fleet stayed active as it had since 1797 and would continue to do until the late forties/early fifties.

Considering the way Italy fought the naval war in the Adriatic it would also seem they wouldn't be exactly defenseless. They could expand the system of railway mounted large-bore naval guns running up and own the coats (steam up 24/7 and never more than 30 min to reach any point),

It's always easier for a ship to hit a land target than for a land-based gun to hit a ship at sea. Especially when the ship is out of sight.

and any British of French squadron approaching the coats would likely be confronted by attacks by MAS, the Italian period equivalent of swift torpedo boats, often deployed in night attacks and responsible for enough spectacular kills of Austrian capital ships to pretty much force the Austrian navy to sit the war out in port.

I don't deny Italian naval talent, in fact I've often acclaimed their bravery in WW2. But if you have Italy on one side, and Britain, France, Turkey, Austria and Japan on the other, I wouldn't place much of a bet on Italy, especially since the peninsula is so vulnerable to naval attack.

(Actually, with France and Britain allied to Austria and the Ottoman empire, I can't see Italy joining the war at all. It would have meant the immediate loss of the Libyan colonies in return for nothing really.)

True. Italy would be neutral until they are sure of who is winning... like they did in WWI.

And hitting the ships from land is difficult. But understand that much of Dardarnelle waterway was mined, plus Turks had a lot of artilleries. Hitting the ship wouldn't be that difficult Plus, Britain attacked in daytime, making the Turks to spot the Allied navy easier.

Land invasion with navy only does not work well. That's common sense...

Join us.

And that's why I predicted that Germans/Russians would attack Ottoman Empire by land. Just plain logical. Allies have overwhelming sea supremacy.

Suppose that a bit of Germans/masses of Russians overrun the oil-fields of Middle East? Without oil, Allies would experience fuel crisis. America' powerful economy would mean nothing without oil. In fact, Rommel could have made Allies' nightmare to reality... if Hitler gave him few more tanks.

Join us.

Oil didn't become a factor in the Mid East until after WWII.

And iirc all the needs of Britain by WWI could probably be met by the supply from the operations of Anglo-Dutch Shell in Dutch East India (modern Indonesia).

One must not insult the future.

Originally posted by pekau

Originally posted by Joinville

Oil didn't become a factor in the Mid East until after WWII.

And iirc all the needs of Britain by WWI could probably be met by the supply from the operations of Anglo-Dutch Shell in Dutch East India (modern Indonesia).

Oh, thanks for info. I didn't know about oil situation in WWI.

Anglo-Dutch Shell? Never heard of it. Is it the Shell oil company that we have now or...?

It should actually be Royal Dutch Shell. The Royal Dutch Petroleum Company merged with Shell Transport & Trading (a British company) in 1907. The Dutch assets were in Indonesia, and Shell's primarily around the Caspian in Iran, though it also had ties to the Burmah Oil Company, the only one operating in the Indian sub-continent.

The Anglo-Persian company (later Anglo-Iranian and then British Petroleum - BP) also started up in Persia, and Churchill as first Lord of the Admiralty played a part in having it partially nationalised to guarantee oil supplies to the fleet. Burmah Oil actually ended up as part of today's BP.