AHC/WI: Ottoman Empire Collapses Sooner
- Thread starter kernals12
- Start date
-
- Tags
- middle east ottomans
What if I have the radical opinion that there was intentional mass murder of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks committed by the Ottoman government constituting genocide, but that it was not an industrially organized slaughter with an intent to wipe out a group like the Holocaust, that not every victim was intentionally killed, and that the blame should be placed squarely on the Three Pashas and their government, not “Turkey” as a whole?
OK sorry - I will stop posting in the thread. I'm going to take some fresh air outside.
My edit didn't work the rest of the message is here.
It would be interesting how far egypt will expand. Will they move to take all of syria and iraq? Depending on when its happens Persian expansion could happen into iraq.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
This is really blatantly trolling, which you brought up out of the blue to bait someone. Trolling is bad. Don't troll.
longsword14
Banned
Warning
Don't you know ? Hafez Al-Assad did his takeover because he was angry about Sykes-Picot.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
I actually assumed you were trying to make a point for a second before I realized you were assist trolling. Please do not be a cheerleader for trolling, you don't have the legs for those skirts.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
I was trying to make a joke about "cheerleading" as though you were a literal cheerleader, not trying to be antagonistic.
Well it would not be the same but at the same time it's not crazy to apply trends from conflict existing today or OTL(Kurdish minorities, Shia-Sunni etc.) and assuming that the Ottomans, that suffered from at least some of those problems too, wouldn't be able to deal them in a way almost no other state in history managed to do.
On the contrary, saying that the Ottoman collapse is the direct cause of OTL problems would be like saying that if Germany won WW1 antisemitism, fascism and communism wouldn't exist and the German empire would have managed to create a multiethnic friendly empire, both are unlikely.
Well, to be precise, there is a Sea of Marmara and there are "the Straits", Bosphorus and Dardanelles connecting it to the Black and Aegean Sea.
"power to block Russia's Navy and Maritime Commerce" is a tricky issue because between 1856 and 1889 it was pretty much non-existent: even if Russia rejected Paris Treaty after the Franco-Prussian War construction of the Black Sea fleet was delayed, not to offend the Brits, until 1881 with the first barbette battleships being available in 1889 and the 1st turret-based by the early XX. While, of course, this did not prevent the British fear of the non-existing Russian Black Sea fleet sailing though the Straits with an ambitious purpose of dominating the Eastern Med (obvious confusion with the late XVIII), the real issue was Russian fear of the Ottomans letting the 3rd party navies to sail into the Black Sea and attack Russian ports. The pre-wwi Russian naval buildup program on the Black Sea had been triggered by the Ottoman purchase of few modern battleships which would make the Black Sea fleet pretty much useless.
As for the maritime commerce, yes, this was an important consideration but keep in mind that most of that commerce had been conducted by the foreign ships and that the Ottomans were not obstructing it in a time of peace.
But by the late XIX this was not a consideration for starting a war.
Presumably we are still in "pre 1900" forum and presumably you are talking about 1870's so this is non-issuer: oil exploration in the Persian Gulf started in 1929 with the 1st well starting functioning in 1931.
Actually, this is quite simple:
(a) In the early 1850's Nicholas I does not behave as a jerk toward Napoleon III and Russia and France have a meaningful discussion regarding "the Sick Man in Europe".
(b) Palmerston is either pushed out of the British politics or recognizes that with an agreement between France and Russia Britain may miss its piece of a pie. Britain joins the alliance at which point you can come with any partition schema you wish. Of course, at the sight of an opportunity of getting something with no risk and effort, Austria joins the pact. Not sure what Britain is going to do with the Persian Gulf in the 1850's but probably there was still something of value to steal in the area. France & Russia are delineating spheres of interest in Levant (most of which goes to France with the agreement regarding a shared ownership of the Holy Places), Austria is getting pieces of the Balkans. Not sure how exactly Russia ends up with holding Constantinople unless its is permanently annexing all the coastal territory from the Danube to at least Bosporus but, to make it meaningful, to Dardanelles. On the Caucasus it can definitely get all or almost all Turkish Armenia. The Brits are getting Cyprus, Crete and whatever else they want and the loose pieces like Egypt, Arabia, etc. are falling apart just because the Ottomans can't hold them.
Consequences? Basically, with a little bit less of a paranoia among its political leadership Britain could get pretty much everything it got after WWI with a minimal fighting. There would be additional fringe benefits for the future Entente like not having the Ottoman Empire as a significant military factor in the WWI (if it happens).
kernals12
Banned
Maybe not in the 1850s but once they get Egypt, they'd probably want a railroad from Cairo to the Raj.
If France is getting a big part of Levant (in XX century usage; dark green on the map), such a railroad is almost inevitably going to pass through the French-held territory. And then, of course, there could be an issue with Persia in which Russia would inevitably have serious influence.
Albert.Nik
Banned
Other than collapsing under its own weight and instabilities within,the Western/European Christian powers or Eastern Shia power could do this.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Western Powers are the only possibility. The only Shia power is Persia and after 1820s they're pretty much a non-issue.
I wouldn’t say the Ottoman collapse itself was the problem. The Arabs/Kurds did not want to live under Turkish rule. They wanted self-determination. It was the way the region was divided up OTL after the Ottoman collapse that was problematic. It could have gone differently.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
And based on what did the Arabs and Kurds want Ottoman Rule gone?
They revolted during the war, did they not? Their leaders also campaigned during Versailles for the establishment of new states. And then the Kurds revolted again against the new Turkish regime.