What if Kitchener's plan for attacking Alexandretta was chosen over Churchill's plan for attacking Gallipolli? I have seen it argued at several threads at the other place that the Ottomans had no major divisions in the area and that it would have destroyed the Ottoman Empire by cutting off Syria and Iraq.
Going of wikipedia the plan was shelved due to lack of resources on the part of the allies and the Gallipoli operation only took its place because it promised a rapid relief of the Russians and the Allies had bad intelligence about how strong the Ottoman forces in the area were. So I think rather than a choice between the two it was more circumstances ruled out the first and the second came about as a promise of a limited operation with massive gains.
If you are refering to the French saying they couldn't send troops, that doesn't make sense as they sent troops to Gallipoli.
The French didn't want a major British attack in Syria because they wanted that area post war and the British had egg in their face from their veyr public failed attempts to win over the Ottomans and wanted a quick smack down of the turks rather than a longer campaign.
The allies absolutely missed a major opportunity in not attacking Alexandretta at the point where they'd been told the local troops were ready to rebel but they missed that out because of political bullshit infighting that is hard to butterfly.
Yeah but that was sold to them as an almost purely naval operation whilst the campaign in Syria would largely be land based.If you are refering to the French saying they couldn't send troops, that doesn't make sense as they sent troops to Gallipoli.
