No Italo-Turkish War of 1911

This is my first post, so apologies in advance for any idiocies

What if the the Italians had not been given free rein in Libya by the French in return of their support of the French adventure in Morocco, and Britain also had declared an interest in Libya remaining part of the Ottoman Empire?

After all, there seems to have been an understanding that if the Ottoman Empire was devoured in a free-for-all by interested parties then the potential ramifications were very bad.... as was proved. Of course, for the Mediterranean powers and Britain, the main negative possibility was Russia gaining control of the Bosporus and an outlet for their Black Sea navy

Very likely that if Italy had not rung the starting bell in 1911, then the 1st Balkan War would not have taken place in 1912. The Balkan states would arguably not have wanted to have been the first to attack the Ottomans.

Serbia would not almost have doubled in size and developed a battle hardened army by 1914. Not being so strong, it is unlikely that they would have attracted the amount of support they got from Russia, who would still probably be interested in Bulgaria. Bulgaria of course would not have been so weakened by the 2nd Balkan war.

1914 comes around, and assuming the Franz Ferdinand assassination still takes place, the situation is much more containable. It's maybe not such a convenient causus belli for the various parties involved. Russia still playing with Bulgaria, the Ottomans still not bleeding badly, the British communicating with Russia/France that any attempt to big the assassination up is a no-no...

So, the real kicker to this ...

The British were already mistrusting Russia more and more. They were paranoiac about Russia's designs in Central Asia, thought that Russia was already breaking agreements as regards areas of responsibility in Persia and had already been in contact with Germany to open up the possibility of some kind of increased contact/agreements.

In the Summer of 1914 they were already briefing another official emissary to Germany to develop this possibility further.

The anti-German faction in the British foreign office was showing signs of shakiness. Grey himself is thought to have been increasingly mistrustful of Russia.

So no Great War in 1914. And diplomatic change.

Britain carries on growing closer to Germany and further from Russia.

Is there a possibility that there's a basis for a new alliance here?

Britain offers to

• Support Germany against aggression, whilst also giving it free rein against Russia (takes Russian energy from Central Asian adventures against British colonies.
• Support France against any aggression, so allaying French fears of a German attack

Of course that's just a roughing out - but if Russia does come to be seen as the main threat then a British alliance with Germany would make a lot of sense as long as the French can be bought on board. That would mean that Russia was encircled - with Japan (a British ally) threatening its Eastern reaches.

Great minds think alike

Congratulations! About 2 years I concluded that this is an underexplored POD which could make a huge difference.

Wow, really good for a first post!

This does seem quite interesting, but I doubt that it could have evaded war entirely.

Great first post. Your POD is very interesting as well. If an Anglo-German Anglo-French dual non-aggression pact comes to fruition, it could be something that stops any French hopes of regaining Alsace-Lorraine, as well as relieving Germany's fear of not being to compete with rhe Franco-Russian alliance.

OTOH, I have doubts that Britain could pull off an alliance with both Germany and France without pissing off both of them. IMO Britain will have to pick one or the other, which will most likely be Germany due to Russian Expansionism. In this case France and Russia will be facing the first and second best naval powers in the world, respectively. Not to mention that Germany is also probably the best military power in the world at this time, unless Russia has massive army reforms (which they were in the process of doing, though I wonder how much of a success they could have actually been).

All in all the Balkans will still be a powder-keg, just waiting to kick off a large war.

Depend on the outcome

- Paris and London say that will not accept italian interference on Ottoman affairs, well Rome will not give their support to the French request on the Moroccan crisises and the Italian/French reapprochment will stop. On the plus side for Italy, no war mean no treasure and blood expediture and need to battle the local to keep/reconquer the place, that was a big hit for the italian economy expecially as it come at the same time of an economic crisis, plus Giolitti and the socialist will have a later fallout, Cadorna will not be anything near the job of commander of the italian army and the relationship with the other member of the Triple Alliance will be much better.

- France and UK only agree to allow Italy only an administrative control of Libya but keep the place legally Ottoman (more or less the same deal of Tunisia and Bosnia); Italy will accept even with some grumble, she will support the French but in general relations will be cooler and a series of diplomatic problem with A-H will be butterflyed away. Same result for the italian economy and internal politics of the case above.

In any case some kind of Balkan ruckus will happen, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro and the Albanians nationalist are all hitching for a fight, only in this case the Ottoman will be in a better shape and there is the strong possiblity that the different/late Balkan war will be the match that will inflame Europe

Alsace-Lorraine would be a major sticking point in a potential Germany/France/Britain alliance, but could the Germans be persuaded to return it in return for land in the East? More of Poland/Baltic states, or some kind of 'sphere of influence' over a Ukraine that has been separated from Russia?

Because after all in the short term at least a German-Russian war (with Japan keeping Russia occupied in the East) would be very much to Britain's advantage. A weakened Russia.

That Britain had offered Germany all or part of Angola and Mozambique in 1912 or thereabouts, I seem to remember when the expected collapse of the Portuguese Empire happened. So this kind of realpolitik is imaginable.

I wouldn't argue with the idea that a Balkan ruckus will happen, and it could still be the match that will inflame but the lack of a full Italo-Turkish War that in OTL so reveals the incompetency and weakness of the Ottomans probably pushes the ruckus back a few years and gives it a different dynamic. This is what allows the British to change their alliance.

One sticking point would be the amount of loans and investment that France has tied up in Russia. That might tie them too strong to Russia. They would have to be promised something better.

Mind you, and I might be in ASB territory here, a Britain/France/Germany axis would have the wherewithal to split up the juicy bits of the Ottoman Empire in a very friendly fashion - even allowing there is some form of a Great War.

What would happen to Russia if it did get into a war with Germany without the support of France - a Germany supplied by the Britain and France - whilst being ejected from its Chinese spheres of influence and possibly being pushed back in Central Asia?

Tom_B said:

Congratulations! About 2 years I concluded that this is an underexplored POD which could make a huge difference.

Click to expand...

I particularly like how, in OTL, this was basically the first war where fixed-wing aircraft saw early combat service. It was the pre-fighter era, to be sure, but plane-bombing was first tried here. In northern Africa, of all places !

imagineyoung said:

This is my first post, so apologies in advance for any idiocies

Click to expand...

It's an excellent first POD post. Welcome to the board !

Welcome to the board and you do raise a very interesting POD

My thoughts here

1) You are correct that without the Italian-Ottoman War there is much less of a chance for the Balkan Wars. The Balkan states clearly were taking advantage of a once in a lifetime chance to deal with the Ottomans and even if war does break out, the Ottomans are likely to do much better

2) Anglo-Russian relations are deteriorating fast. The agreements were made at a time of Russian weakness and that time was fast coming to an end. The internal situation in Persia was also making those agreements unworkable. Britain would have been happy to maintain an anti-Russian policy but that was impossible because she also had realized that supporting France was a vital necessity. There is no way for them to pursue an anti-Russian, Pro-France policy. France was too dependent on the Russians

3) France would never trade Britain for Russia. Russia offered far more and the French may have been able to survive 1914 without Britain but not without Russia. Longer term Russia was growing so much stronger that the imbalance would be even greater

4) Britain also had little to offer Germany. Germany really had no quarrels with Russia and was more inclined to deal with them. A pro-British policy on Germany's part would only expose their frontier even more. Germany had never shown much interest in offending Russia in Asia lest they attract Russian attention to themselves

5) Britain had proven itself unreliable in German eyes and the Germans had a host of grievances against the British. They aren't going to be easily swayed by anything other than a firm commitment- which Britain would never give. She doesn't do so to the Franco-Russian alliance either.

6) Russia was growing at sea as well as by land. She had 7 Dreadnoughts and 4 Battle Cruisers on the blocks. This could tilt that balance of Naval Power Germany's way if a deal could be reached. This would make Britain reluctant to pursue Germany very much. Russia could be lost without Germany being gained leaving Britain in a hopeless position

7) Britain had long lost interest in the straits and realized that she could live with a Russian Constantinople. The Italians would be more hesitant here but the Italians are playing a double game with a weak hand

I'm not sure if the Italo-Turkish war would have completely aborted a Balkan War. Remember that all of the Balkan states were VERY concerned about Ottoman reforms in Albania and Macedonia, particularly as the Ottoman regime tried to get ahead of nationalism in the region. Though I agree that attacking first and taking the chance against the Ottomans wouldn't have been ideal, I wonder if the Balkan states would have felt their opportunity to take advantage of Ottoman weakness slipping away in light of the reforms of 1912 onwards and would have attacked anyways, though likely at a later date.

Still, a later First Balkan War coupled with no Italo-Turkish war would likely look very different from OTL and could have resulted in WWI as we know it being avoided.

The First Balkan War was the culmination of decades of on-again, off-again planning and negotiations. If Italy doesn't present such an obvious opportunity, it will be delayed but probably not avoided.

By that point the Ottoman Empire has pretty much lost the battle with nationalism in the European provinces. The Young Turk reforms briefly enjoyed the support of the minorities, but they soon turned into a disappointment. None of the Balkan states felt that their "popularity" was threatened by reforms (potential Ottoman military improvements were a different story, of course). They'd wait, but eagerly look for new moment of Ottoman weakness.

Not sure how a World War could develop from a late Balkan War. Austria-Hungary's paranoia would not be as strong as in OTL's 1914, and Germany would be restraining them again, so they're unlikely to intervene on the Ottoman Empire's behalf.

LordKalvert said:

Welcome to the board and you do raise a very interesting POD

My thoughts here

1) You are correct that without the Italian-Ottoman War there is much less of a chance for the Balkan Wars. The Balkan states clearly were taking advantage of a once in a lifetime chance to deal with the Ottomans and even if war does break out, the Ottomans are likely to do much better

2) Anglo-Russian relations are deteriorating fast. The agreements were made at a time of Russian weakness and that time was fast coming to an end. The internal situation in Persia was also making those agreements unworkable. Britain would have been happy to maintain an anti-Russian policy but that was impossible because she also had realized that supporting France was a vital necessity. There is no way for them to pursue an anti-Russian, Pro-France policy. France was too dependent on the Russians

3) France would never trade Britain for Russia. Russia offered far more and the French may have been able to survive 1914 without Britain but not without Russia. Longer term Russia was growing so much stronger that the imbalance would be even greater

4) Britain also had little to offer Germany. Germany really had no quarrels with Russia and was more inclined to deal with them. A pro-British policy on Germany's part would only expose their frontier even more. Germany had never shown much interest in offending Russia in Asia lest they attract Russian attention to themselves

5) Britain had proven itself unreliable in German eyes and the Germans had a host of grievances against the British. They aren't going to be easily swayed by anything other than a firm commitment- which Britain would never give. She doesn't do so to the Franco-Russian alliance either.

6) Russia was growing at sea as well as by land. She had 7 Dreadnoughts and 4 Battle Cruisers on the blocks. This could tilt that balance of Naval Power Germany's way if a deal could be reached. This would make Britain reluctant to pursue Germany very much. Russia could be lost without Germany being gained leaving Britain in a hopeless position

7) Britain had long lost interest in the straits and realized that she could live with a Russian Constantinople. The Italians would be more hesitant here but the Italians are playing a double game with a weak hand

Click to expand...

Yes, I take your points and from this it could be argued that WW1 as is could have been the best strategy that Britain could have pursued - a ruined Russia and a ruined Germany - if it hadn't lasted so long. The massive borrowings from the US hadn't, AFAIK, been predicted.

However failing a Germany/France/Britain axis, which would be hard to pull off I admit, then a movement from Russia to Germany by Britain (in the extra time given by the lack of the Italo-Turkish war) might have had consequences to the importance of the German invasion of Belgium as a causus belli.

Also if a grand conflagration was put off by a year or two, with British/Russian relations getting much worse, then Britain might not be so happy with a Russian Constantinople. Persia under threat with India in the background, a Russian naval presence in the Med threatening Suez would not be welcome. and a British government that allowed this kind of situation might be deeply unpopular.

Halagaz said:

By that point the Ottoman Empire has pretty much lost the battle with nationalism in the European provinces. The Young Turk reforms briefly enjoyed the support of the minorities, but they soon turned into a disappointment. None of the Balkan states felt that their "popularity" was threatened by reforms (potential Ottoman military improvements were a different story, of course). They'd wait, but eagerly look for new moment of Ottoman weakness.

Not sure how a World War could develop from a late Balkan War. Austria-Hungary's paranoia would not be as strong as in OTL's 1914, and Germany would be restraining them again, so they're unlikely to intervene on the Ottoman Empire's behalf.

Click to expand...

Yes, delayed and possibly not with such an easy victory after another couple of years of Turkey receiving army training from Germany and naval training from Britain, with armament purchases.

Speculatively, if a Balkan war starts later and turns into a stalemate or even with Turkey making advances, then Russia might be eager to be sucked in with it's eyes ever on the Bosphorus.

With worsened Russian relations, Britain supports Turkey and Germany also (it has invested a lot in Turkey). If there's signs of the conflict spreading, what is France to do?

If Russia is on a war footing against Britain and Turkey (but not Germany) then they may not get involved. As soon as the Germans become a factor, then Frances hand is forced, they can't allow Germany to take on the Russians alone, for reasons of their treaty obligations and pragmatism.

By the way, what were the Arabs up to in the Balkan wars?

Halagaz said:

The First Balkan War was the culmination of decades of on-again, off-again planning and negotiations. If Italy doesn't present such an obvious opportunity, it will be delayed but probably not avoided.

By that point the Ottoman Empire has pretty much lost the battle with nationalism in the European provinces. The Young Turk reforms briefly enjoyed the support of the minorities, but they soon turned into a disappointment. None of the Balkan states felt that their "popularity" was threatened by reforms (potential Ottoman military improvements were a different story, of course). They'd wait, but eagerly look for new moment of Ottoman weakness.

Not sure how a World War could develop from a late Balkan War. Austria-Hungary's paranoia would not be as strong as in OTL's 1914, and Germany would be restraining them again, so they're unlikely to intervene on the Ottoman Empire's behalf.

Click to expand...

I disagree that the Balkan states didn't feel threatened by Ottoman Reforms. Keep in mind in the immediate lead up to the First Balkan War the Ottoman state was engaged in a protracted series of negotiations with the Albanians. Albanian nationalists recognized that their best hope was an autonomous state within the Ottoman Empire and right before the outbreak of the war, the Ottoman government had basically agreed to all of the Albanians' demands. Of course the First Balkan War made all these gains made by the Albanians moot, but the threat of a strong semi-independent Albania was taken very seriously by the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbians as they depended on the non-recognition of Albania by the other great powers to achieve their expansionist goals in the region.

Also there was a fear that if the Ottomans were willing to give the Albanians autonomy to keep them within the Empire that they'd be willing to do the same with the amorphous populations in Macedonia which were frankly a bigger prize.

IMO though the Italo-Turkish war made the Balkan league much more willing to go to war, the real driver was the prospect of Ottoman reforms. Some kind of war in 1912/1913 in the Balkans is almost guaranteed. However given that the Albanian border issue ALMOST caused WWI in OTL, I wonder if it might do so in TTL as well...

imagineyoung said:

Yes, delayed and possibly not with such an easy victory after another couple of years of Turkey receiving army training from Germany and naval training from Britain, with armament purchases.

Speculatively, if a Balkan war starts later and turns into a stalemate or even with Turkey making advances, then Russia might be eager to be sucked in with it's eyes ever on the Bosphorus.

With worsened Russian relations, Britain supports Turkey and Germany also (it has invested a lot in Turkey).

Click to expand...

Depends on when this war would start. It's hard to imagine British-Russian relations becoming that bad as early as 1914 or 1915.

Fearless Leader said:

I disagree that the Balkan states didn't feel threatened by Ottoman Reforms. Keep in mind in the immediate lead up to the First Balkan War the Ottoman state was engaged in a protracted series of negotiations with the Albanians. Albanian nationalists recognized that their best hope was an autonomous state within the Ottoman Empire and right before the outbreak of the war, the Ottoman government had basically agreed to all of the Albanians' demands. Of course the First Balkan War made all these gains made by the Albanians moot, but the threat of a strong semi-independent Albania was taken very seriously by the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbians as they depended on the non-recognition of Albania by the other great powers to achieve their expansionist goals in the region.

Click to expand...

True, it was placating the Albanians, but the Balkan League never seriously believed the Albanians will support them. Serbia and Montenegro gave them some funds and weapons while they were rebelling against the Ottoman Empire but this arrangement was understood to be temporary by all sides. Basically, the Albanians were never going to be allies against the Ottoman Empire, and the ethnic Bulgarian/Greek/Serb citizens would remain reliably supportive. Which is why IMO the Balkan League governments did not feel like they were running out of time, and military-centered reforms are the only kind of reforms that could make them start feeling that way.

imagineyoung said:

Yes, I take your points and from this it could be argued that WW1 as is could have been the best strategy that Britain could have pursued - a ruined Russia and a ruined Germany - if it hadn't lasted so long. The massive borrowings from the US hadn't, AFAIK, been predicted.

However failing a Germany/France/Britain axis, which would be hard to pull off I admit, then a movement from Russia to Germany by Britain (in the extra time given by the lack of the Italo-Turkish war) might have had consequences to the importance of the German invasion of Belgium as a causus belli.

Also if a grand conflagration was put off by a year or two, with British/Russian relations getting much worse, then Britain might not be so happy with a Russian Constantinople. Persia under threat with India in the background, a Russian naval presence in the Med threatening Suez would not be welcome. and a British government that allowed this kind of situation might be deeply unpopular.

Click to expand...

I understand where your coming from but is a Franco-German-British coalition really feasible? Certainly they could combine on limited issues but as a long term one? Really doubtful

On the continent, Britain had little to offer. She could only play a major role in a long war and no one expected to gain much from a long war. The Germans were paranoid about a replay of the Seven Years War where Prussia bled itself dry and got nothing while Britain grabbed North America and India.
Britain was a dangerous ally since her interest was always in maintaining the European balance of power.

To get that Britain actually needs a long war giving her time to build up an army where she would have a say on the continent


On the other hand, Russia is immensely powerful on the continent and in the eyes of the Europeans growing even more so. Offending Russia for the sake of British interests is not a policy likely to find favor in Germany or elsewhere

On the straits issue- Britain certainly wouldn't be happy about Russia getting the straits but had long since realized that Britain could not alone deny Russia the straits and that Britain could suffer Russian occupation. If the choice is a Russian Constantinople or the Germans in Paris, British interests were clearly with the French

What ties Britain with Russia is there common need to preserve France.

Delay the war a year, and Russia's perceived power is going to be much greater. The biggest intervening event will be the death of King Carol in Romania. If that leads to Romania drifting further into the Russian camp as it does OTL, then Austria is in real trouble on the Southern Flank

If you delay it by two years, these problems will be even worse. Delay it twenty eight months and everything Changes with Franz Joseph's death.

Britain tried to maintain a free hand on the continent. She avoids any firm commitment to France and Russia and she's not likely to make a firm commitment to Germany either. Britain isn't likely to back a Russian intervention to seize Constantinople but she isn't going to bargain away her neutrality to Germany

For war to break out, it has to do as it does- with everyone thinking they are only defending themselves. A naked war of aggression is too risky and there's too many players. Figure out what the Italians, Romanians, Swedes, Turks, British and Dutch will do and then maybe you could strike. There's just no way to do that

I think the discussion was beginning to drift from the questions presented in your OP so I've split this into a second post


Let's assume that the Italian-Ottoman war doesn't happen and the Balkan Wars don't happen. Serbia is much smaller and therefore much less useful as an ally. The Turks are still strong in the Balkans. This opens up a lot of possibilities

The Russians may be more willing to let the Serbs take it. After all, the Russians really want the Balkans for themselves. By allowing Serbia to be destroyed they wouldn't be losing all that much given her weaker position. Moreover, an aggresive Austria is likely to inflame passions in the regions against the Austrians

What would the Turkish reaction be? Its one thing for the Austrians to advance in 1914 when Serbia no longer borders Turkey but an Austria that had annexed Bosnia and now Serbia? The Turks could easily drift into the Russian camp

The Italians aren't likely to be happy either. One of the secrets of the Triple Alliance is that Italy was using it to get the Germans to check Austria. The two had a lot of incompatable objectives in the Balkans- most strongly over Albania. An Austrian move against Serbia could be the end of the Triple Alliance.

The argument against this would be that domestic politics were beginning to play a role in Russian foreign policy- much to its detriment. The cold calculations of the Armenian crises where the Russians stood by and allowed the Turks to slaughter the Armenians and thereby drive Britain and Turkey apart might not be so easy

I'll join in the chorus of those praising the idea of this POD. I had not really thought of it, but I'd like to point out that in the "game" of WWI, each country has three options (not two): Join Side A, join Side B, or remain neutral. Let us assume that Side A will center on Germany and Side B on Russia. Austria and Germany will side together...but beyond that, nothing is clear (with the sympathies of Italy, Turkey, and Britain being negotiable).

The Triple Alliance was a bit of a mess, to put it mildly. Austria had, IIRC, committed a technical violation of said alliance over Bosnia (technically they were supposed to consult Italy, blah blah blah) and this is how Italy stayed out of the war at the start.

One thing to consider as well is that alliances shifted with some frequency, and it would not be hard to imagine virtually any combination in the above game (aside from anything splitting Germany and Austria or getting Germany and Russia together) given enough time and to get significantly different coalitions depending both on what the nominal issue behind the war is and what other issues come into play.

With this in mind, possibly the most interesting possibility for a war is one which plays out with Britain neutral for an extended period at the start (either due to domestic issues or due to simply being "between alliances" at the time). Britain cannot necessarily bring much to bear directly on the continent, but they have room to make a pretty mess elsewhere on the globe and it isn't hard to imagine Britain pulling away colonies from any other powers.

Assuming a war with a stronger Russia and a neutral Britain...well, the winner would be Britain if everyone does a good job bashing themselves apart and Britain isn't directly entangled at the start.

Well, it's a total delight reading all the posters on here - the perceptions are a great education for me

With this in mind, possibly the most interesting possibility for a war is one which plays out with Britain neutral for an extended period at the start (either due to domestic issues or due to simply being "between alliances" at the time)

Click to expand...

Various countries' domestic issues are another factor that come into play. A delay of a year or three before another match that can light the conflagration brings what?

Short term - what kind of problem has Britain got in Ireland. It has a Home Rule Bill - not very satisfactory to anyone - ready to launch but then again the UVF has just smuggled in 25,000 rifles and 3-5 million rounds of ammunition, and the South is also arming. Whilst it's tempting to say that the British Government will fudge its way through, that's only true until it doesn't.... plus the Curragh Incident. Passions were very high.

A worsening of the 'Irish Question' might well mean that by 1915 Britain can not send the BEF abroad. It might be needed in Ireland, if not actually being used.

How stable is the Russian polity? It's difficult to imagine a controlled expansion of suffrage and access to power and policy. If Russia is weakened by internal upheavals? I don't know the realistic chance of this.

I understand where your coming from but is a Franco-German-British coalition really feasible? Certainly they could combine on limited issues but as a long term one? Really doubtful

On the continent, Britain had little to offer. She could only play a major role in a long war and no one expected to gain much from a long war. The Germans were paranoid about a replay of the Seven Years War where Prussia bled itself dry and got nothing while Britain grabbed North America and India.

Click to expand...

OK, I take your point about a Franco-German-British alliance and it's certainly better than mine

However given that the Albanian border issue ALMOST caused WWI in OTL, I wonder if it might do so in TTL as well...

Click to expand...

That's an idea - though I do suspect that a Balkan War would still be pushed back.

What would the Turkish reaction be? Its one thing for the Austrians to advance in 1914 when Serbia no longer borders Turkey but an Austria that had annexed Bosnia and now Serbia? The Turks could easily drift into the Russian camp

The Italians aren't likely to be happy either. One of the secrets of the Triple Alliance is that Italy was using it to get the Germans to check Austria. The two had a lot of incompatable objectives in the Balkans- most strongly over Albania. An Austrian move against Serbia could be the end of the Triple Alliance.

Click to expand...

The lack of an Italo-Turkish War might well cause Italy to turn its attentions to the Balkans and its desires there. An Italy that is conniving to get Trieste might well want to support Serbia and other Balkan states as well as internal separatist movements in the Austro-Hungarian Balkans. Another lighted fuse?