WI Mustafa Kemal Atatürk dies in 1912?

Atatürk served under the Ottoman Forces in the Italian-Turkish War (of 1911-1912) in what is now Libya, this was the far war that Atatürk established himself milltary wise (such as the Battle of Tobruk, which he lead Ottoman Forces to a victory against a larger Italian Army).

In the Battle of Derna on 16–17 January 1912, Atatürk was assaulting the Italian-controlled fortress of Kasr-ı Harun, during this battle Italian plans dropped bombs on the Ottoman Forces led by Atatürk and thisd ultimately led to him suffering from some damage to the tissue of his left eye (although there was no loss of sight).

What if though, the attack led to his death in 1912? What would it mean for WW1 and its aftermath and what would the butterflies that emerge out of it?
 
Well probably no changes until the Great War, but without Kemal it is likely the Anzacs take Chanuk Bair on the first day of Gallipoli.
 
Well probably no changes until the Great War, but without Kemal it is likely the Anzacs take Chanuk Bair on the first day of Gallipoli.
Wasn't Kemal the leader of the force that took Edirne back from the Bulgarians in the Second Balkan War? Not to say that somebody else couldn't have done it, but there might be a few changes before Gavrillo Princip pulls the trigger in Sarajevo. That's to say nothing of any potential changes in the Italo-Ottoman War, let alone WW1 and its aftermath...
 
He was i think subordinate to Enver Bey and only a Major at the time, so i doubt much changes.

If the Anzac's do take Chanuk Bair on day 1, Gallipoli is effectively won. That height dominates the whole peninsula, and all the Dardanelles forts are directly observable. Whether the Entente fleet blasting Constantinople knocks out the Ottomans or not i am not sure. I have heard arguments for both sides.
 
He was i think subordinate to Enver Bey and only a Major at the time, so i doubt much changes.

If the Anzac's do take Chanuk Bair on day 1, Gallipoli is effectively won. That height dominates the whole peninsula, and all the Dardanelles forts are directly observable. Whether the Entente fleet blasting Constantinople knocks out the Ottomans or not i am not sure. I have heard arguments for both sides.

What does this mean for the course of WW1?
 
What does this mean for the course of WW1?

The deblocking of the straits significantly improves Russia's economic situation, allowing it to last much longer. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire also allows it to recall two whole army corps to the Eastern Front, along with some of its best generals.

Bulgaria will either join the allies to get some of the spoils or stay neutral; in either case, their non-hostility allows Serbia to hold out longer against the imminent CP offensive and be reinforced by French and British/Commonwealth troops, making for a Balkan Front that is wedged right under Austria-Hungary instead of being pinned down around Thessaloniki like it was OTL.

All in all, things don't look good for the remaining Central Powers.
 
The deblocking of the straits significantly improves Russia's economic situation, allowing it to last much longer. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire also allows it to recall two whole army corps to the Eastern Front, along with some of its best generals.

Bulgaria will either join the allies to get some of the spoils or stay neutral; in either case, their non-hostility allows Serbia to hold out longer against the imminent CP offensive and be reinforced by French and British/Commonwealth troops, making for a Balkan Front that is wedged right under Austria-Hungary instead of being pinned down around Thessaloniki like it was OTL.

All in all, things don't look good for the remaining Central Powers.

So a early victory for Britain-France-Russia, what would happen after that?
 
Well, an early victory by the Entente with Imperial Russia and no US at the table means a necessarily more "conservative" victory. The war will have been nasty, but not as nasty as OTL, and no one is interested in national self determination for minorities or other silly nonsense.

So Germany loses AL, probably whatever bits of Poland she has, and possibly the left bank of the Rhine, but keeps the corridor to Prussia, and the Empire is still there, probably under Kaiser Bill 3. AH loses bits to Serbia,Italy, Russia and Romania, but the core of Austria-Hungary-Bohemia remains and so does the Empire, propped up initially by Russia as they have no interest in Republics.

So there will be some measure of revanche in the defeated Central Powers, but it will not be as radical as OTL. Possibly the german stab in the back legend will have to do with how "crappy our allies were and they totally let us down", rather than internal traitors and jews and what not.

Probably some measures of liberal reforms in Russia,AH and Germany to keep the lid on things. Whether those continue in the following generations is open to debate. Russia had promised self government to Poland for example during the war but who knows if they keep the promise.
 
Well, an early victory by the Entente with Imperial Russia and no US at the table means a necessarily more "conservative" victory. The war will have been nasty, but not as nasty as OTL, and no one is interested in national self determination for minorities or other silly nonsense.

So Germany loses AL, probably whatever bits of Poland she has, and possibly the left bank of the Rhine, but keeps the corridor to Prussia, and the Empire is still there, probably under Kaiser Bill 3. AH loses bits to Serbia,Italy, Russia and Romania, but the core of Austria-Hungary-Bohemia remains and so does the Empire, propped up initially by Russia as they have no interest in Republics.

What about gains by the Entente?

So there will be some measure of revanche in the defeated Central Powers, but it will not be as radical as OTL. Possibly the german stab in the back legend will have to do with how "crappy our allies were and they totally let us down", rather than internal traitors and jews and what not.

How does it affect the future of Europe?

Probably some measures of liberal reforms in Russia,AH and Germany to keep the lid on things. Whether those continue in the following generations is open to debate. Russia had promised self government to Poland for example during the war but who knows if they keep the promise.

Interesting, I might consider a TL about this PoD, but I am not sure if I have enough knowledge to do such a thing as of yet, certainly requires a fair bit of research.
 
What about gains by the Entente?

Well, France get AL back, plus a few colonies, plus the Levant directly not as a "mandate". They have no interest in doing this again, so they may go for the Rhineland, and damn the consequences, and Russia may back them.

Russia picks up all of Poland they don't already have, Galicia and whatnot plus probably Armenia directly or as client state, and probably transit rights through the straights or even basing rights in Constantinople.

Romania gets Transylvania as OTL, Serbia get Bosnia, Italy gets Trieste and chunks of the Tyrol, and Bulgaria and Greece argue over Thrace and Greece may go for chunks of Anatolia as OTL and absent Ataturk they may pull it off.

Britain gets most of Germany's colonies, possibly minus SW Africa as Lettow Vorbeck was still holding it in 1916, and they may let Germany keep it.Plus most of Arabia as a client state as OTL.

Note that there are a lot of friction points here, Russia, Bulgaria, and Greece all want Constantinople for example and Britain doesn't really want any of them to have it. So you may get some sort of codominion or internationalization there. And Britain will not be super happy to see Germany totally suppressed if Russia is still in the game, so Britain may well fall away from France and Russia over the Rhineland for instance.

How does it affect the future of Europe?

Hard to say. I think Russia, Germany and AH, possibly Italy depending will have internal issues to deal with for a while, and if much of the old structures are in place, even if liberalized, there will be a drag on radicalism. A shorter war means less stress on the civil structures in all those places, so quite possibly the rise of fascism and communism is butterflied away or suppressed. But the old game of empire is still in play, and Germany and AH will want their stuff back to one degree or another.

It could go either way though. The AH could federalize into the triple monarchy and march forward into a bright liberal future of constitutional monarchy, economic growth, and stability, which wants nothing to do with revanche against Italy or the south slavs, and becomes the envy of the world for tolerance and multiculturalism . Or they could blow apart in a bloody civil war which is won by the "death to all italians and serbs" party, who then launch WW2.

Britain will be very wary of Russia postwar, as OTL, and may well drift to Germany to try and keep the balance of Power. Or there may well be some sort of League of Nations analog that absent the "revolutionary" governments of OTL, keeps the lid on things until the bomb is discovered sometime in the 50s, and great wars get ruled out.

Interesting, I might consider a TL about this PoD, but I am not sure if I have enough knowledge to do such a thing as of yet, certainly requires a fair bit of research.

It could really open itself up to any interpretation.
 
"Ataturk dies in 1912" is quite different from "the landing at Gallipoli succeeds". IMHO the landing would fail anyway, Mustafa Kemal or not. This is not a fancy battle of maneuver but rather a slogging match. Ottoman infantry, defending set positions (and pretty strong ones) will not be dislodged easily.
Even assuming that Gallipoli succeeds and the OE sues for a separate peace (which is almost a given) I would be less than confident that opening the straits is the magic bullet to save Russia (in the war and the revolution).
I'd also would like to know why the Germans - who are still well positioned in France - should sue for peace.
The best possible outcome for the Entente would be Bulgaria remaining outside the war (or even entering the war on the Entente side). IOTL Bulgaria joined the CPs in September 1915.
Forget Greece and the Megali idea: an early peace with OE would mean a reasonably lenient one but at the same time a peace which enforces the economic domination of the western powers in the empire: reaffirmation of the capitulations for sure, spheres of economic influence, removal of the CUP from power. No more than that I'm afraid. Russia might possibly gain Armenia (but I am convinced it would be a protectorate like Bosnia rather than an outright annexation).
If Bulgaria joins the war on the Entente side, the Austrian position becomes certainly weaker. In a better world sanity should prevail and A-H would sue for a separate peace once the Ottomans bow out and Bulgarian intervention means that Serbia is much strengthened. In the real world I do not see it in 1915. Maybe in 1916, after a few more reverses with the Serbian front stalled and some TTL equivalent of a Brusilov offensive, Charles might make a serious attempt to gain a separate peace. It does not mean he will succeed (he did not IOTL and his position was better than TTL) or that Germany will allow him to bow out of the war.
 
Note that there are a lot of friction points here, Russia, Bulgaria, and Greece all want Constantinople for example and Britain doesn't really want any of them to have it.

Wouldn't Britain prefer Constantinople to be under Greek rather than Turkish control? Britain could probably come to an agreement with Greece and even have a naval base there.
 
Well, France get AL back, plus a few colonies, plus the Levant directly not as a "mandate". They have no interest in doing this again, so they may go for the Rhineland, and damn the consequences, and Russia may back them.

How does it ultimately affect the Middle East?

Are you suggesting annexation of the Rhineland?

Russia picks up all of Poland they don't already have, Galicia and whatnot plus probably Armenia directly or as client state, and probably transit rights through the straights or even basing rights in Constantinople.

Both of which are good annexations and the Armenian Genocide is prevented, question is however who gets Constantinople?

Romania gets Transylvania as OTL, Serbia get Bosnia, Italy gets Trieste and chunks of the Tyrol, and Bulgaria and Greece argue over Thrace and Greece may go for chunks of Anatolia as OTL and absent Ataturk they may pull it off.

What happens to Croatia?

Could we see a Greek-Bulgarian War?

Would the Greeks get what they want out of Anatolia?

Britain gets most of Germany's colonies, possibly minus SW Africa as Lettow Vorbeck was still holding it in 1916, and they may let Germany keep it.Plus most of Arabia as a client state as OTL.

How is the German Colonial Empire split between Britain and France?

Would South Africa want German SW Africa?

Note that there are a lot of friction points here, Russia, Bulgaria, and Greece all want Constantinople for example and Britain doesn't really want any of them to have it. So you may get some sort of codominion or internationalization there.

A International Mandate between Russia, Greece and Bulgaria maybe?

And Britain will not be super happy to see Germany totally suppressed if Russia is still in the game, so Britain may well fall away from France and Russia over the Rhineland for instance.

Could we see a British-German alliance and a French-Russian one?

Hard to say. I think Russia, Germany and AH, possibly Italy depending will have internal issues to deal with for a while, and if much of the old structures are in place, even if liberalized, there will be a drag on radicalism. A shorter war means less stress on the civil structures in all those places, so quite possibly the rise of fascism and communism is butterflied away or suppressed. But the old game of empire is still in play, and Germany and AH will want their stuff back to one degree or another.

Enough to cause WW2 though?

It could go either way though. The AH could federalize into the triple monarchy and march forward into a bright liberal future of constitutional monarchy, economic growth, and stability, which wants nothing to do with revanche against Italy or the south slavs, and becomes the envy of the world for tolerance and multiculturalism . Or they could blow apart in a bloody civil war which is won by the "death to all italians and serbs" party, who then launch WW2.

I don't have high hopes for AH, what about German Austria?

Britain will be very wary of Russia postwar, as OTL, and may well drift to Germany to try and keep the balance of Power. Or there may well be some sort of League of Nations analog that absent the "revolutionary" governments of OTL, keeps the lid on things until the bomb is discovered sometime in the 50s, and great wars get ruled out.

So Britain could form a close relationship with Germany? Well it would prevent the rise of German Nationalism for sure.

It could really open itself up to any interpretation.

Explain further.
 
"Ataturk dies in 1912" is quite different from "the landing at Gallipoli succeeds". IMHO the landing would fail anyway, Mustafa Kemal or not. .

On the day of the landing Kemal disregarded orders from Liman von Sanders to move one way, and on his own initiative took the 27th regiment to Chanuk Bair to hold it. He beat the anzacs by 10 minutes apparently. Another Commander could have done the same, but i doubt it. Quite literally Kemal saved the Gallipoli campaign for Turkey at that moment. If the Entente take it, the whole peninsula, including the Dardanelles forts are directly observable.

In essence the peninsula is functionally cut in half and all the troops defending Cape Hellas now have their supply lines and troop movements under observable interdiction.
 
How does it ultimately affect the Middle East?

Dependant on the nature of peace with the Ottomans i think.

Are you suggesting annexation of the Rhineland?
Well, natural borders of France and all that. They wanted it OTL but obviously Britain and the US were not that interested. ITTL France will be less damaged by a shorter war but the desire to stick it to Germany will still be there, and if Russia takes the place of the US at the negotiations, then they have an ally in the idea, as Russia will be nearly as interested in putting Germany down a bit.

Both of which are good annexations and the Armenian Genocide is prevented, question is however who gets Constantinople?
Good question, it is almost as plausible that the Ottomans get to keep it if they bow out early. And ultimately it will be Britain that decides as they actually will have the place. Regardless, someone is getting pissed off.
What happens to Croatia?
Well Croatia was loyal to the Habsburgs for a very long time. If the AH get out early as an intact political entity, i could see them keeping most of it. They may lose some of the Dalmatian coast to Serbia and Italy.

Could we see a Greek-Bulgarian War?

Would the Greeks get what they want out of Anatolia?
Yeah i could see it, especially if either end up with bits of Thrace the other wants. Of course Greece has lots of other stuff they want as well, and they could well be sated by the bits they do get rather than going for it all. Greek moves on Anatolia though will be dictated by the nature of the Ottoman exit from the war. If the Entente force the straights and threaten Constantinople the Ottomans may well call for a ceasefire and end up keeping rather more than they did historically. For example the French long had an interest in the Levant so they may get Lebanon, and the British get Palestine and southern Iraq, probably as part of an Arab client state, but the Ottomans keep Syria and Northern Iraq to get them out of the war. Or the Ottomans could totally fall apart and the Entente could promise Megali to the Greeks to get them in, Thrace to Bulgaria, and so on, and the Turks are reduced to a rump worse than OTL. It could be very ugly.


How is the German Colonial Empire split between Britain and France?

Would South Africa want German SW Africa?
Something approximating OTL i think, although East Africa as a sop to German pride due to Lettow Vorbeck is i think possible. Certainly South Africa would want German SW Africa

A International Mandate between Russia, Greece and Bulgaria maybe?
Possibly, although as above the Ottomans could end up keeping it too with demilitarization and free passage of the straights. Anything that makes no one happy is the probable solution.
Could we see a British-German alliance and a French-Russian one?
Certainly the French and Russians will remain allied for the foreseeable future. The British may well drift to Germany if Germany remains "stable".
Enough to cause WW2 though?
Probably not. The only one of those countries with a real interest in overturning the war result will be Germany, and unlike Britain-France in OTL, France-Russia in this one have the power, and more importantly, the will, to keep them in line. I don't see Britain going to war on behalf of Germany to overturn the Alt Versailles order. It is plausible that the underlying issues in Russian society result in upheaval, and Germany is able to get loose so to speak.
I don't have high hopes for AH, what about German Austria?
Well the Habsburgs were pretty resilient. If the army is still intact and Karl makes a separate peace, they will lose a bunch of peripheral bits that caused trouble anyway, and keep the parts of the empire that were pretty loyal, with the exception of Hungary, which if it gets transylvania stripped away is fairly weakened. Federalization would have to occur i think, but the Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes would be in favour of it. And the victorious powers( Russia), would want to preserve the Empire to certain degree for stability, and to balance Germany.
So Britain could form a close relationship with Germany? Well it would prevent the rise of German Nationalism for sure.
Certainly possible. I assume you mean national socialism here.

Explain further.
Well Alt Hist is a blank canvas. Any reasonably plausible result is possible. Some are more likely than others but there really isn't a right answer.

So an Austria-Hungray that retrenches, liberalizes, and reforms, lasting unitl the 21st century is just as plausible in this scenario, given the POD we have, as one that breaks up. Up to the writer. If people don't like your story they won't read it. It is why i only got halfway through "Marching through Georgia", before tossing it in the fireplace.
 
Top