An execution preempted: A lethal Otsu incident, Russian empire centered TL

[abc123]

Interesting update. Eagerly waiting for the maps...

 

[SenatorChickpea]

You're missing footnote (2), so you know.


Interesting- if and when the conflagration breaks out, the Middle East is going to be a much nastier front.

 

[Master Xion]

Awesome updates yboxman,keep em coming.

 

[yboxman]

You're missing footnote (2), so you know.

fixed- thanks.

Interesting- if and when the conflagration breaks out, the Middle East is going to be a much nastier front.

Well, that depends on the alliances and whether the rump OE joins in. If the OE does join in, then Anatolia can be expected to be very bloody indeed if the conflict last more than a few months. If Russia, let alone Greece, conqueres additional Turkish territory some form of ethnic cleansing and massacre is likely and the rump is likely to be subject to blockade until the war ends- and then you get "Mound of spring" like conditions. Of course,it's possible that Russia does devotes enough forces to rush crush the rump OE and force a "White peace" while the main struggle is still ongoing. From the starting lines TTL that outcome is also possible, which would make Turkish causulties far lower than OTL.

In the Mashriq (Syria-Jordan-Lebanon-Iraq-Israel/Palestine) the struggle will likely be shorter and less bloody if Britian is either neutral or on the side of Russia-France. In that case the entente will have such a disproportionate concentration of power Vs Germany, even if the Ottomans are in the war, that the war is likely to be swift and less bloody than OTL- more like WWII than WWI.

If Russia is fighting Brtiain in some combination or another- things get "interesting". Theoretically superior Russian land power needs to be funneled through an inadequate rail network and the really shity terrain of the Kurdish Zagros and Tauros mountains into Iraq Vs a initially Indian British defending force. Due to logistical issues a Russian Rush to the Persian Gulf is likely to be stymied at some logistical balance point and you are likely to see a see-saw battle develop as the industrial-transport capablities of the elephant and the whale challenge each other and the conflict widens to Persia, Afghanistan and maybe Tibet.

It is worth noting, once again, that OTL WWI resulted in a blockade, collapse of the transport infrastructure, collapse of agricultural production, flight of urban populations to the rural regions, blocakse/starvation of Mt Lebanon and jebal-El druze, and, at least in Iraq, general breakdown of law and order. It is estimated that as much of 20% of Syria's population, disproportionately urban christians, died in the war. Persia had numerous coups and an ongoing low-intensity civil war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_casualties_of_World_War_I

This death toll is very difficult to top- for one thing the Assyrian, Greek and Armenian populations are now concentrated (after massacres which killed tens of thousands instead of millions) and no longer vulnerable to genocide. The Turks took a real beating, but the Rump OE is not too crowded to eventually feed all of the people displaced from the Six Vilayets and Trebizon. Causulties are in the hundreds of thousands, not millions.

 

[Stark]

So Sultans are still able to hold to power in those pityfull remains of OE? Does this rump OE have any strenght to contribute to general war, since it really holds much less territory than even Republic of Turkey post WWI?

Btw, I hope that Great War that you hinted at doesn't really materialise. I always wondered what would become of Europe and the world if old powers of Europe didn't commit mass suicide. With all the flaws of old monarchies, stability they provided still seems much superior to what came after.

 

[yboxman]

So Sultans are still able to hold to power in those pityfull remains of OE? Does this rump OE have any strenght to contribute to general war, since it really holds much less territory than even Republic of Turkey post WWI?

For now. The core of the OEs strength and population lay in Central and Western Anatolia- the east was a mainly Kurdish inhabited financial drag for a long time post the establishment of the Republic. Generally speaking the only portions of the sprawling Ottoman empire that were directly administered, rather than being indirectly ruled through fractious local leaders, were Western and Central Anatolia and parts of the Balkans. Only in the late 19th century did the OE begin to centralize rule of the Mashriq and Eastern Anatolia (In Arabia they never did) and is debatable whether they were able to extract more from those regions via taxation and conscription than they had to invest in administration and repression.

TTLs Turkey has a much smaller manpower pool now but that manpower is now nationally homogenous, likely to be more efficiently ruled, etc. Consider the rump OE to be sort of an oversized Balkan power (9 million people Vs 4.5 million in Bulgaria in 1914) and you will not be much mistaken.

Btw, I hope that Great War that you hinted at doesn't really materialise. I always wondered what would become of Europe and the world if old powers of Europe didn't commit mass suicide.

I've changed AJP Taylor's retroactive interpetation of Bismarck's warning to make it more ambiguous.

I have decided that the Great war, if it comes, will be shorter and less socially, financially and politically destablizing than OTL. I sort of want to explore the non-Jewish specific themes I was startign to look at in "Mound of Spring".

I haven't yet decided whether I'll nix or nerf it down altogether, end it with a reltively quick overwhelming Russo-French victory, or speed things up to a negotiated end once the German OHL realizes there is no hope for millitary victory as in MOS.

Since this is a Russia wank, and since the best way for Russia to win the first world war is to avoid it, the option is attractive. But there is a reason it is the path less explored in AH writing.

First, it forces the author to work much harder on finding interesting developments to write about which do not involve the tragic drama of WWI. the world wars are the focus of fiction and film because, frankly, that is what people want to see. Second, it's much harder for us to conceptualize the future of European and world society absent the great war. It's simply less familliar terrain. Third, avoiding some manner of great European war is simply unlikely. Europe enjoyed a long holiday from long wars between 1815-1914 and owes much to Bismarck's genius in sheparding Germany to unity without touching off a general European war. The causes for WWI run deep- simply butterflying away FF's date with a bullet does not ablate them.

With all the flaws of old monarchies, stability they provided still seems much superior to what came after.

Either way, this is indeed exactly the theme I wish to explore. Realistically- which means not assuming the old order could or would remain static, and looking at the loosers, as well of the winners of that order.

 

[lukedalton]

First, it forces the author to work much harder on finding interesting developments to write about which do not involve the tragic drama of WWI. the world wars are the focus of fiction and film because, frankly, that is what people want to see. Second, it's much harder for us to conceptualize the future of European and world society absent the great war. It's simply less familliar terrain. Third, avoiding some manner of great European war is simply unlikely. Europe enjoyed a long holiday from long wars between 1815-1914 and owes much to Bismarck's genius in sheparding Germany to unity without touching off a general European war. The causes for WWI run deep- simply butterflying away FF's date with a bullet does not ablate them.

i don't think that a general conflict can be avoided, too much different interest and agenda, not counting the rampant nationalism

 

[Clandango]

So Sultans are still able to hold to power in those pityfull remains of OE? Does this rump OE have any strenght to contribute to general war, since it really holds much less territory than even Republic of Turkey post WWI?

Btw, I hope that Great War that you hinted at doesn't really materialise. I always wondered what would become of Europe and the world if old powers of Europe didn't commit mass suicide. With all the flaws of old monarchies, stability they provided still seems much superior to what came after.

I am guessing they end up sweeping through occupied areas, eventually ending up with their getting the Asian side of the Straits, plus going into the more Turkic areas of the British and French occupation zones, perhaps netting them northern Iraq and Syria at the end of the day. The Bulgarians had a hell of a lot of Turks and Pomaks even without this expansion, and if they didn't give portions of Dobruja to Romania there are even more. I see a potential three way show off between the Greeks, Turks, and Bulgarians, though two of them would likely focus on Austria. Anyone remember if Trebzond was mentioned and if the Greeks were getting it, the Turks, or if the British decided to go through with their proposal to ship people through the Straits, ending up with them setting up a republic cutting off the coast from the Six Vilyaets? Also, what about the area between Kuwait and Qatar? Probably a bone the British and Russians could throw to the Persians, since it is Shia populated and worthless to their knowledge.

 

[yboxman]

I am guessing they end up sweeping through occupied areas, eventually ending up with their getting the Asian side of the Straits, plus going into the more Turkic areas of the British and French occupation zones, perhaps netting them northern Iraq and Syria at the end of the day. The Bulgarians had a hell of a lot of Turks and Pomaks even without this expansion, and if they didn't give portions of Dobruja to Romania there are even more. I see a potential three way show off between the Greeks, Turks, and Bulgarians, though two of them would likely focus on Austria. Anyone remember if Trebzond was mentioned and if the Greeks were getting it, the Turks, or if the British decided to go through with their proposal to ship people through the Straits, ending up with them setting up a republic cutting off the coast from the Six Vilyaets? Also, what about the area between Kuwait and Qatar? Probably a bone the British and Russians could throw to the Persians, since it is Shia populated and worthless to their knowledge.

Turkey would have to go through the Russian Six Vilayets to get to Mosul or French Syria. Not going to happen unless Russia collapses to revolution. The was was fought on Turkish soil OTL, and will be even worse off for them TTL.

To get at French Cilicia they need to go through the harshest part of the Tauros mountains, through the Cilician gates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilician_Gates, and then fight the French- whose local forces will presumably be the same Armenians who held back the Ottomans during the Zeytun resistance OTL- and do all this while the Russians are breathing down their necks in Angora. Doable under certain circumstances- but not likely.

Trebizon is Russian. Alexsyev finally made a landing (as the Russians did OTL in WWI) and seized it in July.

Much of OTLs Saudi's oil province was claimed by Kuwait until 1923.
Rashidi Arabia (emirate of Hail), who were Ottoman clients, sorta kinda controls the area between Kuwaits claims and Qatar in 1895 and presumably the British will reach some kind of arrangement with them. If the Saudis ever rebel against them (they might not. They are currently exiled in Kuwait and the power dynamics will therefore be different from OTL in 1902) the Brits may encourage Kuwait to extend it's writ further south, or qatar or Bahrain to lay claim to the territory. Or they may prop up their own local Shiite emir.

What they won;t do is allow Persia any foothold at the other side of the Persian/Arabian Gulf- they are too suspicious of Russian influence in Teheran.

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

AJP Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Eurasia- end of the Eastern question

Why is Taylor's chapter titled "the end of the Eastern question" yet it is obvious that nothing was properly resolved?

His attempts to expand his writ into Monastir Vilayet while receiving some support from Muslim Albanian clans, ran into Austrian forces who were in turn supported by the Christian Orthodox Albanian clans.

What happened in the Monastir Vilayet during and after the Berlin conference?
The other great European powers did agree to a de-facto ceasefire only after securing their occupation zones.
A-H has not, but the k.u.k. forces have local support and are fighting the claims of a rogue governor on a disputed region.

Germany, anxious to prevent an open breech between the two junior members of the triple alliance sought to square the circle by proposing that none of the lands occupied by the powers should be formally detached from the Porte. Rather, they proposed that the various powers hold the Porte's territories in trust until such time as the concert of Europe viewed the Porte as capable of ruling them. Privately, of course, Holstein reassured Austria of support in the case of future annexation. Albania, in any event was to remain an "autonomous" emirate subject to the Suzeiranty of the Sultan in Istanbul- as, indeed, was Bulgaria.

This is getting ridiculous.
None of the occupants is willing to let the Ottomans reestablish control in their occupied territories yet they pretend that the Ottoman Empire has the territory of a major power.
They could have at least recognize Bulgaria's independence.

I am gonna root for the less dishonest revisionists.

What many of the powers could not ignore was the Izmir crisis. The attempt of Greek forces to re-join their Ionian brethren to the Greek mainland met with determined resistance on the part of the Turk. Even battered, the remnants of the Ottoman forces defeated in Eastern Anatolia wrecked their vengeance on both Hellene invaders and the native Greek population. By November Ottoman forces were besieging an Izmir which was choked with panicked refugees. This, the powers might have ignored. What they could not ignore was Russia's threat to renew its advance into Anatolia if the Ottomans did not halt.

The powers determined therefore to place the City of Izmir under their protection and, in order to facilitate the return of the Greek refugees to their homes and relieve the powers of the responsibility for their care placed the Sanjaks of Izmir, Aydin and Saruhan under their occupation as well, while placing limitations on the military deployments of the Ottoman empire in the inland Sanjaks of Aidin Vilayet. Though Greece was obligated to resign itself to a collaborative role in the administration of the Izmir autonomy, it's remaining forces supported the returning refugees in expelling those Muslims who had not fled their earlier advance. By the end of the year few Muslims remained in the Izmir autonomy, and likewise few Greeks and Armenians remained in Western Anatolia outside of the three Sanjaks and the Straits region (1).

Looks the origin of a Turkish stab-in-the-back myth.
Whose occupation forces were sent to Izmir?

Bulgaria, distrusted by Britain as a Russian satellite and still viewed with suspicion by Russia as an Austrian catspaw, was ordered to withdraw its forces to the Midis-Enos line.

What is the Midis-Enos line?

Though France failed to secure Britain's support, it could count on that of Russia and to a lesser extent Italy. To the first it had promised support in the Far East and to the second recognition of Abyssinia as an Italian protectorate (4).

Would have Russia accepted the same deal regarding Abyssinia if it had established a colony in the Horn of Africa region?

Though several years would pass before the revival of the reinsurance treaties might be negotiated, the path had been opened for Russia to turn its back on Europe.

Reinsurance treaty you say?
Does that mean Bismarck won't leak the old reinsurance treaty to the press?

It is good that Russia will concentrate on Asia.
Pan-Slavism is a waste of blood and money.

Because it a moral crusade launched for Justice, Christianity and the Right... which incidentially paints quite a bit of the globe in the British Red without bleeding out much of the arterial red. "They came to do good and they did right well". That, at least is how it will be presented to the public and if this is not a rational analysis... well, so be it.

The British leadership and public focus on the few things that worked and looked good and ignore the more numerous things that did not work and that Britain got a less favourable deal than the other great European powers.

Speaking of great European powers, what do you think of the synergies between the two major alliances of the great European powers in the eastern Mediterranean/Near East?
The empires of the members of the Franco-Russian Alliance border each other for the first time.
For French Syria-Cilicia, it means a friendly hinterland and for Russian Greater Armenia and the Imperial Russian navy, friendly Mediterranean ports.
The new territories of members of the Dual Alliance increase each others importance (fairly short route between Salonica and Haifa) and defence (combined fleet)

For now. The core of the OEs strength and population lay in Central and Western Anatolia- the east was a mainly Kurdish inhabited financial drag for a long time post the establishment of the Republic. Generally speaking the only portions of the sprawling Ottoman empire that were directly administered, rather than being indirectly ruled through fractious local leaders, were Western and Central Anatolia and parts of the Balkans. Only in the late 19th century did the OE begin to centralize rule of the Mashriq and Eastern Anatolia (In Arabia they never did) and is debatable whether they were able to extract more from those regions via taxation and conscription than they had to invest in administration and repression.

TTLs Turkey has a much smaller manpower pool now but that manpower is now nationally homogenous, likely to be more efficiently ruled, etc. Consider the rump OE to be sort of an oversized Balkan power (9 million people Vs 4.5 million in Bulgaria in 1914) and you will not be much mistaken.

Unfortunately for the Ottomans, some of the best part of Western Anatolia are occupied by foreigners.
Not to mention that an efficient administration under the current circumstances won't be possible.

 

[abc123]

I wonder what will this man do during the next 5+ years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Knox_D'Arcy

 

[Clandango]

Why is Taylor's chapter titled "the end of the Eastern question" yet it is obvious that nothing was properly resolved?

The question was what to do about the Ottoman Empire. It has been dealt with in great finality.

And Ybox, should be interesting to see far in the future if the Emir of Kuwait tries getting the Trucial States in his orbit or to become King of Mesopotamia. Wonder if the area he claimed actually has most of the IOTL Saudi oil, or just parts of it. Ahh right, just parts. Still, the oil of Nejd will likely have to cross their borders in the future if they want to export it cheap.

 

[yboxman]

The question was what to do about the Ottoman Empire. It has been dealt with in great finality.

And Ybox, should be interesting to see far in the future if the Emir of Kuwait tries getting the Trucial States in his orbit or to become King of Mesopotamia. Wonder if the area he claimed actually has most of the IOTL Saudi oil, or just parts of it. Ahh right, just parts. Still, the oil of Nejd will likely have to cross their borders in the future if they want to export it cheap.

Britian will retain the current Ottoman administrators in Messopotamia, at least for now. Kuwait will definately not draw the Trucial states into it's orbit, at least not in the near future. Britain likes it's vassals weak and dependent unless they need to be buffed up to buffer against a potential threat.

The zone Kuwait claims contains quite a few oil deposits, I think they amount to about 25% of SA deposits. Few of the remainder are Inland in the Nejd- most are in coastal AL-Ahsa and most of the rest in Qatif..

Why is Taylor's chapter titled "the end of the Eastern question" yet it is obvious that nothing was properly resolved?

He (I) needed a title. Besides, you might as well say that WWI, or WWII or the fall of the Berlin wall didn't "properly" resolve anything. But it changed the playing field and the rules of the game. Russia isn't striving to get at Constantinopole, the British aren't trying to stop them, and Christian rebellions against Ottoman rule (or Ottoman massacres of Christians) can no longer touch off a struggle by Russia/Austria to carve out more teritory for themselves and their clients. It's a whole new ball game.

What happened in the Monastir Vilayet during and after the Berlin conference?
The other great European powers did agree to a de-facto ceasefire only after securing their occupation zones.
A-H has not, but the k.u.k. forces have local support and are fighting the claims of a rogue governor on a disputed region.

The K.U.K won a few skirmishes, lost a few others, made a few deals with local Christian Albanian clans, and bribed the shit out of the rest. Eventually they secured Monastir for his Apostolic Majesty Franz Jozef. Hurrah for the Habsburgs!

This is getting ridiculous.
None of the occupants is willing to let the Ottomans reestablish control in their occupied territories yet they pretend that the Ottoman Empire has the territory of a major power.
They could have at least recognize Bulgaria's independence.

I am gonna root for the less dishonest revisionists.

politics is the art of finding an acceptable diplomatic formula that keeps reality's ugly head down.

Looks the origin of a Turkish stab-in-the-back myth.
Whose occupation forces were sent to Izmir?

Makarov was first on the scene (Punch has an amusing cartoon of him as Poseidon preserving Smyrna from the hordes of Abdul Hamid as Xerexes...) and of course every other power rushed in to preserve their influence. Eventually they will sponser a similliar arrangement as they did OTL on Crete with a Swiss or Belgian commander. Prince George will probably be eventually appointed high commissoner.

What is the Midis-Enos line?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Balkan_War#/media/File:Map_of_the_First_Balkan_War.png

It's the dotted red line.

Would have Russia accepted the same deal regarding Abyssinia if it had established a colony in the Horn of Africa region?

Err... is this an alohistorical question regarding the allohistorical scenario? I guess not. Russia's involvement with Abyysinia was absolutely sentimental OTL, but I can't see them turning their backs on fellow Orthodox chrisitians (well, sort of, as Monophysites , they are actually closer theologically to the Armenians.) if they had retained that crazy foothold that Cossack adventurer tried settling north of Djibouti.

Reinsurance treaty you say?
Does that mean Bismarck won't leak the old reinsurance treaty to the press?

Havn't considered that. It may be that Bismarck's leak is butterflied away. Even if it isnt, leaking the old treaty would not neccesarily nix a new one- under the new circumstances where Russia and Austria have agreed to a statues quo in the Balkans prior to the leak it might not raise such a stink.
It is good that Russia will concentrate on Asia.

Pan-Slavism is a waste of blood and money.

Arguably, so is East Asia. Internal development is where the money is. but the prospects of gain in East Asia are better and potential complications less .

Speaking of great European powers, what do you think of the synergies between the two major alliances of the great European powers in the eastern Mediterranean/Near East?
The empires of the members of the Franco-Russian Alliance border each other for the first time.
For French Syria-Cilicia, it means a friendly hinterland and for Russian Greater Armenia and the Imperial Russian navy, friendly Mediterranean ports.

Witte is already planning a railway to connect Tbilisi with Haleb, Adana and Latakia. Russia will probably use Latakia much as Putin does today. Like him they don't really have much to do there given the political situation- other than piss off Britain.

All of the which is one reason Britian is not to sorry to see Germany in Palestine (same reason they backed Germany in the Yellow river OTL).

The new territories of members of the Dual Alliance increase each others importance (fairly short route between Salonica and Haifa) and defence (combined fleet)

Haven't considered this. This is a good reason for Ausria to concentrate it's fleet in Saloniki. In case of war they can interfere with traffic to the straits. Britian will presumably try to prevent a naval arms race in the East Med- it may or may not work. Cyprus and Crete are better placed to cut the Saloniki-Haifa link though.

I wonder what will this man do during the next 5+ years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Knox_D'Arcy

Think he still goes for Persia. The mineral indications were there even if political conditions are more friendly on the other side of the gulf. Heck, Kuwait only got serious drilling in the 1930s OTL.

 

[abc123]

Err... is this an alohistorical question regarding the allohistorical scenario? I guess not. Russia's involvement with Abyysinia was absolutely sentimental OTL, but I can't see them turning their backs on fellow Orthodox chrisitians (well, sort of, as Monophysites , they are actually closer theologically to the Armenians.) if they had retained that crazy foothold that Cossack adventurer tried settling north of Djibouti.
















Think he still goes for Persia. The mineral indications were there even if political conditions are more friendly on the other side of the gulf. Heck, Kuwait only got serious drilling in the 1930s OTL.

What?



I wanted to say that Great Game is still here and that UK and Russia will not cooperate for long, especially about Iran...

 

[yboxman]

What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagallo

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

The question was what to do about the Ottoman Empire. It has been dealt with in great finality.

The Ottoman Empire is not gone.
In fact, nominally it seems to have lost little if any territory.

He (I) needed a title. Besides, you might as well say that WWI, or WWII or the fall of the Berlin wall didn't "properly" resolve anything.

WWI and WWII resolved the German question for good: the German Empire and Prussia were broken and dissolved.

The fall of the Berlin wall resolved the question of the German partition.

But it changed the playing field and the rules of the game.

Rules have changed, but the game is not over.

Russia isn't striving to get at Constantinopole, the British aren't trying to stop them, and Christian rebellions against Ottoman rule (or Ottoman massacres of Christians) can no longer touch off a struggle by Russia/Austria to carve out more teritory for themselves and their clients. It's a whole new ball game.

There is still conflict between Russia and Britain.
Any move by one side is countered by the other side.
What changed is that neither side is too invested and not interested in escalation and war.

There won't be more Christian rebellions against Ottoman rule, but most of them still live in nominal Ottoman territory.

The K.U.K won a few skirmishes, lost a few others, made a few deals with local Christian Albanian clans, and bribed the shit out of the rest. Eventually they secured Monastir for his Apostolic Majesty Franz Jozef. Hurrah for the Habsburgs!

Pious and honest, true and open
Let us stand for the right and duty;
Let, if and only if, with joyful hope
Go courageously in the fight to us
Mindful of the bay sprigs
The army is often the case, the wall
Blood and Treasure for Our Emperor,
Blood and Treasure for Our Country!

Makarov was first on the scene (Punch has an amusing cartoon of him as Poseidon preserving Smyrna from the hordes of Abdul Hamid as Xerexes...) and of course every other power rushed in to preserve their influence. Eventually they will sponser a similliar arrangement as they did OTL on Crete with a Swiss or Belgian commander. Prince George will probably be eventually appointed high commissoner.

Crete? Do the Greeks have similar plans to take over the Sanjaks of Izmir, Aydin and Saruhan?

Err... is this an alohistorical question regarding the allohistorical scenario? I guess not. Russia's involvement with Abyysinia was absolutely sentimental OTL, but I can't see them turning their backs on fellow Orthodox chrisitians (well, sort of, as Monophysites , they are actually closer theologically to the Armenians.) if they had retained that crazy foothold that Cossack adventurer tried settling north of Djibouti.

Thanks for the answer, the Russian involvement was not purely sentimental, though.

The idea of acquiring a Russian port on the Red Sea arose in the context of Anglo-Russian rivalry in the Middle East. This idea, like the notion of Russian involvement in Ethiopia, found its origin in the thinking of Porfiry Uspensky. Recognizing that Russia might itself become involved in the intensifying struggle to control the Suez route to India, Uspensky, as early as 1862, raised the question of securing permanent representation for Russian interests at some point along the Red Sea coast. This concept was taken up by Mashkov who, in his writings of 1889, developed in full the economic and military rationale for acquiring a Russian Red Sea base.

Certainly if Russia wanted to sabotage the British position in Egypt or India, a fortified position at the mouth of the Red Sea would be a logical point from which to strike at the Suez route and thereby achieve this goal. That a Red Sea port would also serve as a valuable facility for provisioning Russian vessels and for enhancing the security of their journey to the Far East seemed to occur to Russian strategists only as an afterthought.

The last part would be quite interesting for our Far-East-focused Russian leadership, especially as long as the Transsib is not completed.
European Russia and the Russian Far East were connected by ships which used the Suez route.

Arguably, so is East Asia. Internal development is where the money is. but the prospects of gain in East Asia are better and potential complications less .

The development of the Russian Far East is also internal development.
You said yourself that it was considered Russian land and not a distant colony even in the late 19th century.

Haven't considered this. This is a good reason for Ausria to concentrate it's fleet in Saloniki. In case of war they can interfere with traffic to the straits. Britian will presumably try to prevent a naval arms race in the East Med- it may or may not work. Cyprus and Crete are better placed to cut the Saloniki-Haifa link though.

Indeed, they are problematic.
The Dual alliance should create plans to neutralise these threats by instigating revolts on these islands against British rule or pro-British locals.

By the way, the text of footnote (2) is missing.

 

[yboxman]

Crete? Do the Greeks have similar plans to take over the Sanjaks of Izmir, Aydin and Saruhan?

Is the pope catholic? Of course they do, as the opportunity permits.

Thanks for the answer, the Russian involvement was not purely sentimental, though.

The last part would be quite interesting for our Far-East-focused Russian leadership, especially as long as the Transsib is not completed.
European Russia and the Russian Far East were connected by ships which used the Suez route.

If Sagallo had endured then the Russians could indeed be expected to prop up Ethiopia to achieve strategic depth Vs the Brits and to view the Red sea port as crucial Vs britian. Though realitically I can't see it holding on for more than a few weeks in the case of war- British naval supermacy, and it's ability to garrison far larger troops in Aden, Egypt and Kenya would mean Sagallo would be almost immediately captured. I suppose you could say that French Djibouti serves a similliar end if Ethiopia is friendly and independent. But that is many if's seems to me most likely that any war between England and France-Russia in which Italy was neutral would see Habash gleefully turning on it's allies and invading Djibouti in order to gain a port. These "Orthodox unity" fantasies didn;t work in the Balkans- Russia lost influence over Bulgaria as soon as that nation's interests diverged from those of Russia. No reason the same would not happen in the Horn of Africa.

But that's water under the bridge. Sagallo is gone, and the Itallians British and French now have claims on every spot of the coast of the Horn of Africa. I suppose Russia might try seizing a port on the Arabian side of the Red sea (or perhaps Red sea islands) now that the OE's power is gone there but I can't see that turning out well. The most likely outcome of such an attempt is Brtiain formally making Yemen, Asir and Hejaz protectorates and/or providing them with arms to drive any Russian foothold and proxies out.

The development of the Russian Far East is also internal development.
You said yourself that it was considered Russian land and not a distant colony even in the late 19th century.

yeah, but what Witte has in mind is a railroad empire that extends deep into Northern China, commercially if not politically. Frankly, the money would be better spent on providing a denser rail and road network for European Russia.


OK, enough Jaw-Jaw. Maps coming soon!

 

[LordKalvert]

Err... is this an alohistorical question regarding the allohistorical scenario? I guess not. Russia's involvement with Abyysinia was absolutely sentimental OTL, but I can't see them turning their backs on fellow Orthodox chrisitians (well, sort of, as Monophysites , they are actually closer theologically to the Armenians.) if they had retained that crazy foothold that Cossack adventurer tried settling north of Djibouti.

The Ethiopians aren't closer theologically to the Armenians- they are in communion with them. They are one and the same church.

Don't know how strongly the Russian and Armenians took the controversy over the Tome of Leo at the turn of the century. I know several Orthodox Bishops today who view the matter as "serious but surmountable" others more adamant on it.

Point should be made though- the Oriental Orthodox (Armenians, Ethiopians, Eritreans, Coptics, Assyrians, and Indians) do not think they are monophsites and actually consider the term degrading as monophositism would be heretical in their view. The preferred term is Miaphysite

 

[yboxman]

map #1: Anatolia and the Mashriq 1896

Red is British
Blue is French
White is Russian
Black is German
Purple is occupied/administered/demillitarized by the great powers+Switzeland jointly

Thin lines represent autonomous Kurd, Zaza, Yezidi, Druze and Turkmen emirates which neither the Europeans or remaining Ottoman officials are much involved in administering.

 

[Clandango]

If the Hejaz still official Ottoman, then? And what about that large island between the Straits and Smira areas?