Challenge: US and Islam cold war

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by Othniel

It depends on Italy. If Italy goes after the Ottomans, we might be in trouble. You might see a mini-cold war between Italy and the Ottomans after WW1....

I hadn't thought of that. Italy was an ally of Britain in WWI. If Italy goes after the Turks in the 1920s, the Turks will remember that in 1939 which means that a resurgent Germany allies itself with a superpower at it peak. Japan as well, if the muslim nations in Asia are Turkish protectortates. I don't think that's a winnable scenario.

[Othniel]

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

I hadn't thought of that. Italy was an ally of Britain in WWI. If Italy goes after the Turks in the 1920s, the Turks will remember that in 1939 which means that a resurgent Germany allies itself with a superpower at it peak. Japan as well, if the muslim nations in Asia are Turkish protectortates. I don't think that's a winnable scenario.

As I see it the glory of Rome isn't going to be restored if the Ottoman Empire exsists. In fact that might prevent Hitler from doing anything... or something along those lines.

Abdul, between 1918 and 1942 if the Ottoman Empire is still there what happens with Italy?

[Mike Stearns]

I don't think that Ottomans would prevent Hitler from doing anything. If you follow that logic, the mere prescence of the Red Army should have kept Hitler from taking on the Russians.

[Othniel]

The Russians didn't have the Itailans trying to take land. Without Mussolini's open lead in Albania, and Ethopia you think Hitler might try and be so bold?

Or that with the Ottoman Empire to the South that they'd try to annex Austria?

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by Othniel

The Russians didn't have the Itailans trying to take land. Without Mussolini's open lead in Albania, and Ethopia you think Hitler might try and be so bold?

Or that with the Ottoman Empire to the South that they'd try to annex Austria?

Yeah, he would. I think he'd underestimate the Turks the same way, he underestimated the Russians and like the Russians, the Turks would completely obliterate the Nazis.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

Yeah, but when Hitler used the word Aryan, he meant blond hair and blues and people with fair hair and blues eyes are really rare in the Middle East. I think Hitler would still try to sell people on the idea that the Turks are not Aryan.

That's actually not true, especially in the earlier 20th c. Many Turks are blue or green eyed, and a very large percentage of the population of Syria and Jordan have Circassian blood - as I said in another thread, Amman (capital of Jordan) was a Circassian town founded by the Ottomans at the end of the 19th c. After the 1877-78 war, the Treaty of Berlin mandated that all the Circassians be withdrawn from the Balkans; many went to Anatolia, but many were settled in Jordan as well.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

I hadn't thought of that. Italy was an ally of Britain in WWI. If Italy goes after the Turks in the 1920s, the Turks will remember that in 1939 which means that a resurgent Germany allies itself with a superpower at it peak. Japan as well, if the muslim nations in Asia are Turkish protectortates. I don't think that's a winnable scenario.

I don't mean to offend anyone, (and I'm half Italian anyway), but the Italians would get their asses kicked if they went after the Ottomans.

They weren't even able to conquer Libya - imagine an Italian Gallipoli.

[Thyme]

How about:

Stays out of WWI.

Reform ongoing.

Spreads money/guns to whichever factor in the Russian civil war seems weakest (assuming there still is a Russian civil war) & picks up part of the Caucuses and the Russian Stans (as protectorates, they're only there to ensure peace on their northern border and protect their co-religionists from the Bolsheviks). The Russian civil war is about a year longer, and a bit bloodier.

Peaceful during the late 20's, 30's. They start to get oil income rolling in. The former Russian Stans get incorporated as normal regions.

In WWII they play more wavering neutrals, rather than disinterested neutrals. Denunciations against Hitler's invading Poland, and Mussolini invading Ethiopia, but they don't quite cut off trade (just jack up the prices some). They could even embargo weapons, as it's unlikely that will make up much of their trade anyway. When Hitler invades Russia, he gets a few battalions of freikorps, maybe 5k men (6 month tours). They are technically independent from the Empire, but it gives them the chance to rotate thousands of men through a combat zone, and test their equipment (which will prove to be rather poor, think Italian). They can give logistical support for British forces in Egypt and Southeast Asia, in return for returning control of Egypt (which in this TL is still technically theirs, and which I'm sure they've been complaining about all along) after the war is over. They could even use the threat of war to back this up. They could have industry greater than Italy, with several times the population. Neither the allies or the axis is really happy with them, but them going over to the other side would be a disaster.

The war in the east goes somewhat better in this TL than OTL, and somewhat worse for the Soviets. The Germans gain a small number of troops (it might grow to a couple of divisions) that might or might not be good troops. They get a small propaganda bonus from having them. The Germans get a better supply of oil and other natural resources. This may include semi-military things such as uniforms, boots, trucks… They are likely to have to pay for these with gold, industrial equipment, manufactured goods… The Germans may be able to increase their military production if they can import more of the bread & butter items. Conversely, this Soviet Union is smaller, having lost part of the Caucuses and pretty much all of the Russian Stans. They also need to garrison the border regions with the Empire much more heavily than they needed to garrison the Persian border. On the other hand, the Russians can probably also buy things from the Empire, curiously enough in Dollars, and curiously enough many of the things have made in America stamped on them. Also, there is likely to be more lend lease, as the situation is more desperate.

In 44’, the eastern front is still grinding back and forth a couple hundred miles west of Moscow. By the middle of 45’ the wallies have most of Germany. Seeing the way the wind is blowing, the Empire pulls the Friekorps out of the east (or tries to). The war ends somewhere in Belorussia. The Empire does declare war on Germany at the 11’th hour and does a few last minute land grabs. Most of these become independent republics (to keep the west happy). Note: one of the atomic bombs (I delayed completion a couple months on a whim) is used in Byelorussia against the largest remaining German concentration, prompting the surrender of the remnants. The other is used against Japan, but is used against a naval base (again a whim). Not knowing the US won’t have another bomb for a few months, the Japanese surrender.

The Soviet Union in this TL isn’t a superpower. Compared to OTL, it’s lost some land to Finland, the Baltic Republics are independent, the Ukraine is divided into free & communist sections, They have lost most of the Caucuses and all of the Stans to the Empire. The Empire has also taken the Crimea. They’ve lost about the same number of people, out of a smaller population base. Their industry is in shambles, worse than OTL. They don’t get to loot the industry of Eastern Europe (how they made up for their industrial problems in OTL). They have also fought the largest war in their history, and come out with nothing to show for it, except barest survival. I’d expect civil war within a few years.

The west controls all of Eastern Europe, the Baltic’s, 2/3’s of the Ukraine, all of Korea (independent about 3 years later). With western aid, the nationalists win vs the communists in China, it’s a little better than OTL (well less brutal/bad idealist and more corrupt).

OK, now that I’m here, I don’t see how to turn this into a real cold war. A bit of cultural chauvinism, trade disagreements, Ottoman supported independence or pro-pan-Islamic movements in previous colonies (include current French colonies), and somewhat chilly (correct) relations I can get, but not nukes over open gunsites cold war.

[NapoleonXIV]

The Ottomans would have to reform their system a great deal, and this was the problem. Early on the Ottoman system's strengths had also become its weaknesses. The Sultan brooked no rivals for power but thus had noone to help him when his own bureaucracy began to become entrenched and corrupt. Eventually, Ataturk had to throw the whole thing aside, even moving the Capital which had stood as symbol of Turkish power for centuries.

I think this would be a much more plausible TL if the reforming Sultan who had been overthrown at the beginning the 19thc had succeeded, but that would be a big change. No 'sick man' , no Crimean war, most of 19thc history radically different.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That's actually totally untrue. That view is a result of 19th c European biases and Turkish nationalist propaganda.

The Ottomans did radically reform throughout the course of the 19th c to the point that there was little resemblance between the empire in 1800 and 1900. Ataturk did little that wasn't already being done - but as a dictator, he couldn't bear having anyone around with greater prestige then him so the Sultan had to go. Ankara was chosen as the capital because it was safer, plus he could control it much more easily than Istanbul. The bureaucracy was not thrown out, it was retained in its entirety, although it was grumpier, having to give up the comforts of Istanbul to move to what was then a muddy village.

All of Ataturk's reforms were continuations of Ottoman reforms. The bureaucrats and officers of the Turkish republic were all educated in Ottoman schools.

The Ottoman Empire had a parliament, elective local administration, secular legal and school systems, ministerial government, etc - it was in every way a modern state, just behind the Western powers.

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

The Ottomans would have to reform their system a great deal, and this was the problem. Early on the Ottoman system's strengths had also become its weaknesses. The Sultan brooked no rivals for power but thus had noone to help him when his own bureaucracy began to become entrenched and corrupt. Eventually, Ataturk had to throw the whole thing aside, even moving the Capital which had stood as symbol of Turkish power for centuries.

I think this would be a much more plausible TL if the reforming Sultan who had been overthrown at the beginning the 19thc had succeeded, but that would be a big change. No 'sick man' , no Crimean war, most of 19thc history radically different.

[Grimm Reaper]

More than once the sight of successful reforms in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century resulted in intervention by England, Russia, et al aimed at deflecting said reforms. While the Ottomans certainly understood the consequences of failing to reform and develop properly, they understood equally well the consequences of being subject to a massive attack by the colonial powers prior to a properly advanced set of reforms.

Might I mention that at SUNY Binghamton(grad school) one of my friends specializing in international affairs was a Turkish exchange student? Anyone judging him by looks would have guessed German or Scandinavian. So let's not get into the foolishness of what people are 'supposed' to look like.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That's very true, and a big reason for problems between the Ottomans and Europe. Ottoman reforms were all aimed at strengthening the state by increasing centralization, whereas the Powers wanted the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

More than once the sight of successful reforms in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century resulted in intervention by England, Russia, et al aimed at deflecting said reforms. While the Ottomans certainly understood the consequences of failing to reform and develop properly, they understood equally well the consequences of being subject to a massive attack by the colonial powers prior to a properly advanced set of reforms.

Might I mention that at SUNY Binghamton(grad school) one of my friends specializing in international affairs was a Turkish exchange student? Anyone judging him by looks would have guessed German or Scandinavian. So let's not get into the foolishness of what people are 'supposed' to look like.

[Bill Cameron]

Before I joined this board I was safe, but now I've got it bad! A terminal case of:

OTTOMAN FEVER!!!

I've read more about the Ottomans in the last four months than I had in the previous 40 years and I'm loving it!

Go, go, Ottoman, go, go Ottoman, go, go Ottoman! Yeah!

falls on the floor and starts running in a circle....

Wahwoowoowooboowoobooboobooboowoowoo....

[Thande]

I believe the technical term is OTTOMANIA.

However, my vaccinations are currently holding out pretty well.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

Before I joined this board I was safe, but now I've got it bad! A terminal case of:

OTTOMAN FEVER!!!

I've read more about the Ottomans in the last four months than I had in the previous 40 years and I'm loving it!

Go, go, Ottoman, go, go Ottoman, go, go Ottoman! Yeah!

falls on the floor and starts running in a circle....

Wahwoowoowooboowoobooboobooboowoowoo....

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Soon, my triumph will be complete.

Just stay away from Kinross. Very bad history.

[Dave Bender]

WWI.
Remains neutral.

Post WWI.
Stable and prosperous. The oil money is rolling in.

1930s.
The Nazi statements about Jews are well received within the Islamic community. The Ottomans grow close to Germany during the mid to late 1930s. German weapons, tactics and technology go to the Ottomans in exchange for oil. By 1939 these forces are a serious threat to the British presence in Iran, Kuwait and Egypt.

Because of the Ottoman threat, Britain cannot challenge Germany in Eastern Europe. Without British prodding, France also stays clear. All of central Europe, including Poland, falls into the German orbit without a shot being fired.

German - Soviet War (WWII does not happen).
Germany signs a secret treaty with the Ottomans for a joint invasion of the Soviet Union. The Ottoman forces are enough to tip the balance, and the Soviet Union collapses.

The opportunity is too good to pass up. Japanese forces in Manchuria jump in once they are sure the Soviet army is already beaten.

1942 Treaty Of Brest-Litovsk II.
- The Baltic States, Belerus, and Ukraine become German States.
- The Ottomans acquire the Islamic regions along the southern border.
- Japan slices off the eastern portion, including all of the Pacific coast.
- The remaining portion of Russia becomes a German dominated client state.

1940s.
Germany has achieved all it's territorial objectives. The next decade is spent digesting the conquest. After a few chilly years, relations between Germany, Britain, France and the U.S. return to normal.

Japan is purchasing oil from the Ottomans and steel from Germany. Any possible U.S. embargo would be ineffective, and they don't even try. Plus Japan is busy digesting Manchuria and eastern Russia. Relations between Japan and the U.S. are icy, but there is no war.

The Ottomans give some thought to reclaiming Iran, Kuwait and North Africa. But cooler heads prevail. Instead the Ottomans begin funding an Islamic insurgency in these regions.

1950s.
When Hitler dies a short power struggle ensues. The huge German empire breaks up into separate states, similiar to the historical Soviet Union in the 1990s. Germany is still powerful, but it is no longer a super power.

The British Empire lasts longer, as it does not have the huge financial drain of WWII. However the insurgency in the Islamic regions is becoming a real problem. This also effects France (North Africa), Italy (North Africa), Spain (North Africa), Holland (East Indies) and the U.S. (Philippines).

1960s.
Nations effected by the Islamic insurgency sign a treaty of cooperation against this common threat. (NATO for the sake of argument). By now there is no doubt as to Ottoman involvement. Relations between NATO and the Ottoman Empire become very strained. By now both sides have nuclear weapons, and there are many threats to use them.

[Bill Cameron]

Originally Posted by Dave Bender

1930s. The Nazi statements about Jews are well received within the Islamic community.

Dave,

Nifty timeline, I like it lot. One question however; Why would Islam be anti-Semitic in the 30s? Jews hadn't been waiting for the Empire to fall so they could carve it up, Christian Europe had.


Bill

[Dave Bender]

Islam has always been anti Jewish (Semites include both Jews and Arabs). However not always to the same extent. Historically many Islamic authority figures (including the Mufti of Jeruseleum) openly backed Hitler during WWII. In this timeline the anti Jewish hot heads gain the upper hand within the Ottoman Empire.

[Nicole]

Wasn't the Ottoman Empire rather pro-Jewish, even this late in it's history?

[Superdude]

I always thought Islam and Judaism got along relatively well until relatively recent times.