Best case scenario for the Ottoman Empire post 1900?

Deleted member 94680

They're unrelated. Zionist money is just so the Ottomans have less debt.

Eastern Rumelia was only formally annexed by Bulgaria in 1908. The Ottomans are taking land in a defensive conflict that nobody else in Europe was really pushing for.

It was annexed in 1885. Bulgaria declared independence de jure in 1908. The annexation was recognised in 1886 and the Great Powers didn't oppose that treaty - what does that tell you vis-a-vis the Power’s attitude to Christian nations taking territory from the Ottomans? 21 years went by with no one attempting to make the Bulgarians hand back the territory they’d taken. Not falling over themselves to restore Ottoman territorial integrity, are they?

If the British were willing to sell the Ottomans dreadnoughts, I don't see why accepting them into the Entente is that big a difference.

Selling someone something for cash (or to increase their debt to you) is completely different to enacting a formal diplomatic alignment. It’s worth noting those dreadnoughts were promptly requisitioned on the outbreak of War. Britain had no care for the need of the Ottomans for the vessels they’d already paid for.
 

Germaniac

Donor
I've said this before but i cannot find my post in more detail about it. The key to Ottoman survival is victory in the Balkan War. The loss of Rumelia sent the Empire down a path it would not survive.

The "Young Turks are generally misunderstood. They can be spkit into three major groups: The Unionists (Committee); The Liberals; and the Military faction. The Unionists were in power until the 1912 election but the election was seen as unfair and the Liberals launched a coup.

This coup saw large scale explusion of CUP members and sympathizers in government and military. This drastically shifted military policy and doctrine (Nazim Pasha being of the French Offesive doctrine school where the prior minister Mehmet Shevket Pasha subscribed to Von Der Goltz doctrine of strategic defense) and this exponentially deteriorated the Ottoman Army's effectiveness.

With the failure in the Balkan War the Military Faction (With Enver pasha as a leader) launched a coup against the "Savior Officers" liberal government and then led the Ottomans down the path of destruction.

It's essential that is prevented and the Balkan War is a victory. Otherwise it would be difficult for the Ottoman Government to not turn to extremism.
 
Having the Ottomans avoid the Italo-Turkish War, Balkan Wars, and World War I might prolong the existence of their remaining empire for at least a bit longer. And of course, the discovery of oil would boost their economy, maybe even to the levels of OTL Saudi Arabia.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Having the Ottomans avoid the Italo-Turkish War, Balkan Wars, and World War I might prolong the existence of their remaining empire for at least a bit longer. And of course, the discovery of oil would boost their economy, maybe even to the levels of OTL Saudi Arabia.

If the Ottomans survive they are going to be able to secure the arabian peninsula, especially against the Saudis without british support.

They will have immense wealth... depending on where the revenues are going.
 
It's funny how in so many Ottoman wanks have in common the non-Muslim territories swamped with Muslim settlers (and usually the Christians emigrating). Rather at variance at the general forum's view of tolerance and support of multi-ethnic countries...

Sultan Mehmed accepts Herzl's offer of the Zionists paying off Ottoman debts in exchange for the governorship of Jerusalem Province. Down the line this results in much Jewish emigration to the empire as a whole - especially by economic migrants who proceed to show up in Palestine but then head for Salonika, Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad, etc.

Ottomans win the Balkan War and the Italo-Turkish War. They annex back East Rumelia and the Montenegrin coast. They proceed to join the entente, promised a reclamation of Bosnia, Kuwait, and Kars. Unfair treaties will also be renegotiated and the Ottomans can simply absolve themselves of debts they owe to the CPs (and nationalist their assets).
This would require an amazing victory by the Ottomans, considering that they're fighting Greece, Serbia and Montenegro at the same time. I don't see how your POD would improve their strength that much.
As for the assumption that WWI would break out in exactly the same way, this is in fact very unlikely. In any case the Ottomans have more to gain from a war with Russia and Britain than one with Austria-Hungary.


Rump Bulgaria ends up partitioned between Serbia and the Ottomans along the Iskar River. Maybe Romania gets Silistra, maybe not.
So while fighting the Central Powers, the Ottomans start another war against a neutral country as well, which is an ally of Russia? I can't really see the Entente liking this very much


During the Great Depression the Russians break out into Civil War. The Ottomans establish clients: Crimea (under the Ghirays?), Circassia (Abkhazia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia), Armenia, Azerbaijan, North Caucasua (Chechnya-Ingushetia-North Ossetia), and Dagestan. Envar Pasha leads an expedition into Central Asia, but the effect of this is the Russians deciding to expel the Uzbeks and Turkmens after their Civil War ends. Plus for the Ottomans: More Turks to stick places (Libya, gulf coast, upper mesopotamia, transjordan, Bulgaria, Macedonia, etc).
Crimea was mostly Russian and Ukrainian. I don't really see the Ottomans keeping it against any but the weakest Russia that would be around after a civil war (and a civil war breaking out over a Depression seems very unlikely).

It was annexed in 1885. Bulgaria declared independence de jure in 1908. The annexation was recognised in 1886 and the Great Powers didn't oppose that treaty - what does that tell you vis-a-vis the Power’s attitude to Christian nations taking territory from the Ottomans? 21 years went by with no one attempting to make the Bulgarians hand back the territory they’d taken. Not falling over themselves to restore Ottoman territorial integrity, are they?
This is because all of the Great powers signed a treaty that nominally returned Eastern Rumelia to Bulgaria while de-facto keeping united with Bulgaria. And of course Eastern Rumelia itself was an (autonomous) Christian region, though I don't think this is why the Great Powers prevented its return to the Ottoman Empire. More than likely it remaining Bulgarian was aligned with their interests (Britain preventing Bulgaria from completely falling into the Russian orbit and Russia keeping their influence in Bulgaria).

Just how sick was the 'Sick man of Europe?'. Despite 1914 appearances, economic collapse was a long way off. The Ottoman Empire outlasted the A-H, Russian and German Empires, finally being abolished in November 1922. The various minorities within the Ottoman Empire typically wanted autonomy and not independence. Even beyond the empire, Egypt and Cyprus were still paying tribute to the Sultan in 1914.
First, the Ottoman Empire never agreed to giving autonomy to anyone without a fight. For example, in 1876 with threatened a war with Russia and without British support, they still refused giving autonomy to Bulgaria. Second, autonomy almost inevitably lead to independence anyway and even when the minorities demanded autonomy, they usually only saw it as a stepping stone to fully independence.

In 1914, the Ottoman Empire comprised about 15m Turks, 10m Arabs, 1.7m Greeks and 1.1m Armenians. This multi-ethnic empire's population of 28 million was a religious mix of 80% Muslim to 20% non-Muslim. Three quarters of the population lived in the Anatolian core. The GDP of the empire was about £ 233m pounds. National debt stood at £140m pounds or about 60% GDP (half held by the French) but this can't have been too much risk as bond rates were at 0.78% and this is a tenth of the rates on Greek bonds.
Where do you get these figures from? The number of the Christians are from the Ottoman census of 1914 and are widely considered to be a significant underestimate. On the other hand, according to the same census there were 15 million Muslims altogether (with a total population of 18.5 million). Where do the other 10 million come from?

Turkey's problem was the inefficiency of its tax collection. However, the Young Turk regime would have little problem in squeezing the non-Muslim population through the Jizya (non-Muslim tax) to raise revenue and encourage them to leave. Ottoman taxes were only raising half per capita the amount that the Greeks and Serbs and other Balkan countries were able to manage.
Again, I find it fascinating how even the defenders of the Ottoman Empire seem to think that they would never really prosper with a large Christian minority.


Prior to the war, it was widely recognised that the Ottomans needed to reform and needed a period of peace to enact the necessary reforms. However, external pressures included the Russians arming both the Armenians and the Kurds where by they were attacking each other and developing a pretext for the Russians to move in and 'protect' the Christians. The Arabs were also beginning to court English and French aid to ensure a greater say in Ottoman politics, something the CUP were trying to soothe with pan-Islamic policies. The German Ambassador to the Porte was advising no external adventures, no entangling alliances and no joining the Central Powers nor the Entente.
Considering what happened before and after the period you mention, probably wouldn't have been a bad idea. In reality, Russia never spent very significant resources on supporting the Armenians (let alone the Kurds, which would quite counterproductive if it had happened) and generally had relatively correct relations with the Ottomans between 1878 and 1914.
 
I always found it interesting that people think that if the ottoman gust hold on until it's oil could be exploited that it would save the ottoman Empire.
Really, that has never happened, the money might keep the empire together but it would if anything didcerage reform as the oil, not the people that keeps the regime in power, I full expect that even if the empire services the presher oil adds to international relations it will still be a comparative backwater, do to duch deses and corruption.
 
I always found it interesting that people think that if the ottoman gust hold on until it's oil could be exploited that it would save the ottoman Empire.
Really, that has never happened, the money might keep the empire together but it would if anything didcerage reform as the oil, not the people that keeps the regime in power, I full expect that even if the empire services the presher oil adds to international relations it will still be a comparative backwater, do to duch deses and corruption.
Do you want the surviving OE to be number 1 or just among the top 10? Dutch disease did not prevent the Soviets from becoming a superpower and staying that way for two generations, imo the OEs power ceiling is lower than that but certainly among the top 10, likely even top 5 by the end of the 20th century, size does have its own advantages.
 
Do you want the surviving OE to be number 1 or just among the top 10? Dutch disease did not prevent the Soviets from becoming a superpower and staying that way for two generations, imo the OEs power ceiling is lower than that but certainly among the top 10, likely even top 5 by the end of the 20th century, size does have its own advantages.

Soviet Union had a lot of other things for superpower status, such as large industrial economy, an ideology which had worlwide following etc.
 
Soviet Union had a lot of other things for superpower status, such as large industrial economy, an ideology which had worlwide following etc.
That's why i said the OE ceiling is lower, though still having the caliphate around should be useful influence wise.
 
Do you want the surviving OE to be number 1 or just among the top 10? Dutch disease did not prevent the Soviets from becoming a superpower and staying that way for two generations, imo the OEs power ceiling is lower than that but certainly among the top 10, likely even top 5 by the end of the 20th century, size does have its own advantages.
Thing is it wasn't oil that made the ussr a superpower it was a large combination of resores and a very strong industrial system, second only to the us, could the ottoman do that maby, but both it's prior history and the history of all the nation's that came after dosnt fill me whith confidence.
 
Thing is it wasn't oil that made the ussr a superpower it was a large combination of resores and a very strong industrial system, second only to the us, could the ottoman do that maby, but both it's prior history and the history of all the nation's that came after dosnt fill me whith confidence.
The Soviets industrialized by selling to foreign nations whatever they got, oil, grain, minerals etc, there's other things besides oil in the OE as well, Anatolia is very mineral rich after all, but oil is the big one and unlike the Soviets the OE would not be stuck with a command economy and isolated from Western markets, in fact due to size i'd expect the OE economy/market to do better than the former OE parts put together - unified administration and laws for a large population is good for investor confidence.

Which nations that came after? The post colonial dictatorships or the actual colonies? Post Ottoman Turkey has developed well enough despite all the war losses and not having much oil. The same circumstances that allowed Turkey to succeed will be present for the OE in addition to the oil. Russia is around has to be contained in the region after all, this will put the OE in whatever is the "Western" camp, be it Nato or a German led alliance, this means large access to Western technology.
 
It's funny how in so many Ottoman wanks have in common the non-Muslim territories swamped with Muslim settlers (and usually the Christians emigrating). Rather at variance at the general forum's view of tolerance and support of multi-ethnic countries...


This would require an amazing victory by the Ottomans, considering that they're fighting Greece, Serbia and Montenegro at the same time. I don't see how your POD would improve their strength that much.
As for the assumption that WWI would break out in exactly the same way, this is in fact very unlikely. In any case the Ottomans have more to gain from a war with Russia and Britain than one with Austria-Hungary.



So while fighting the Central Powers, the Ottomans start another war against a neutral country as well, which is an ally of Russia? I can't really see the Entente liking this very much



Crimea was mostly Russian and Ukrainian. I don't really see the Ottomans keeping it against any but the weakest Russia that would be around after a civil war (and a civil war breaking out over a Depression seems very unlikely).


This is because all of the Great powers signed a treaty that nominally returned Eastern Rumelia to Bulgaria while de-facto keeping united with Bulgaria. And of course Eastern Rumelia itself was an (autonomous) Christian region, though I don't think this is why the Great Powers prevented its return to the Ottoman Empire. More than likely it remaining Bulgarian was aligned with their interests (Britain preventing Bulgaria from completely falling into the Russian orbit and Russia keeping their influence in Bulgaria).


First, the Ottoman Empire never agreed to giving autonomy to anyone without a fight. For example, in 1876 with threatened a war with Russia and without British support, they still refused giving autonomy to Bulgaria. Second, autonomy almost inevitably lead to independence anyway and even when the minorities demanded autonomy, they usually only saw it as a stepping stone to fully independence.


Where do you get these figures from? The number of the Christians are from the Ottoman census of 1914 and are widely considered to be a significant underestimate. On the other hand, according to the same census there were 15 million Muslims altogether (with a total population of 18.5 million). Where do the other 10 million come from?


Again, I find it fascinating how even the defenders of the Ottoman Empire seem to think that they would never really prosper with a large Christian minority.



Considering what happened before and after the period you mention, probably wouldn't have been a bad idea. In reality, Russia never spent very significant resources on supporting the Armenians (let alone the Kurds, which would quite counterproductive if it had happened) and generally had relatively correct relations with the Ottomans between 1878 and 1914.
Its also funny how many tml (sometimes not even greek or armenian wanks) have all muslims expelled from eastern thrace, Western and Eastern Anatolia and don't present this as an humanitarian catastrophy of historical proportions but as a happy ocurrence for the greeks and armenians in their "just reconquista". Or that we still completly gloss over the ethnic cleansing of 5 million muslims (of which up to 1 in 5 died in the process) when talking about the collapse of the empire.
main-qimg-652d36c86c14d41f6f5bcb1fe27bcaff

Hell up to the dissolution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia they still had plans to "deport" the muslim population from Kosovo and other muslim majority areas to turkey.
When does this forum show support of multi-ethnic empires or countries? Most threads regarding Austria-Hungary are fill to the brim with comments calling it a "time bomb" destined always to explode in ethnic warfare, like it was something natural and inevitable that people that speak different lenguages or follow different religions will kill each other if put inside the borders (disregard centuries of peaceful coexistence, it goes against the narrative). It is a self fulfilling prophecy that enables ethnic violence. Then comes a flood of people unfamiliar with region calling for "borders following ethnic lines" as if people centuries ago settled following imaginary lines on the land that didn't even exist back then or moved constantly and even a glance at any ethnic map of the region shows a mosaic mess that couldn't be the base of a viable state. Then they propose "population trasfers" in the name of avoiding wthnic cleansing when those transfers are basically ethnic cleansing but this time decided (but most likely imposed) by more then one state. So yeah, it's really complicated. But the OP asked fot best case scenario for the Ottoman state not the ethnic minorities and by 1900 you already had a well entrenched dinamic of ethnic strife in which the turks were the last to arrive with envar pasha and other turkish nationalists, and of course they arrived with the same big "bang" that serbian, bulgarian and other nationalisms did in the balkans: ethnic cleansing.
 
Best case scenario?

The Young Turk revolution maintains it's democratic zeal and is able to get the ethnic groups of the empire to buy into the "Ottoman" identity alongside their ethnic one.

Then oil comes and it's debt and budget issues disappear, which have been a constant factor in Ottoman destabilization.

But there is no good reason for a Greek or Armenian to identify with Ottomans/Turks. They have their own identity, that is more ancient than the Turkish identity by far, why would they want to adopt another?
 
Its also funny how many tml (sometimes not even greek or armenian wanks) have all muslims expelled from eastern thrace, Western and Eastern Anatolia and don't present this as an humanitarian catastrophy of historical proportions but as a happy ocurrence for the greeks and armenians in their "just reconquista".
I don't recall any work which presented the expulsion of Muslims as a happy occurrence. You are free to point out such a work, if you can find it. Meanwhile, what I mentioned occurred in this very thread.

Or that we still completly gloss over the ethnic cleansing of 5 million muslims (of which up to 1 in 5 died in the process) when talking about the collapse of the empire.
We don't gloss about such numbers because they're substantially exaggerated. And no, maps with unbelievable numbers based on dubious authors don't count as reliable sources. The flight and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Balkans are in fact frequently mentioned on this forum, often with substantial exaggeration (like the claim that Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece ethnically cleansed all their Muslims).

Hell up to the dissolution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia they still had plans to "deport" the muslim population from Kosovo and other muslim majority areas to turkey.
Which didn't happen, so I'm not quite certain what the relevance here is.

When does this forum show support of multi-ethnic empires or countries? Most threads regarding Austria-Hungary are fill to the brim with comments calling it a "time bomb" destined always to explode in ethnic warfare, like it was something natural and inevitable that people that speak different lenguages or follow different religions will kill each other if put inside the borders (disregard centuries of peaceful coexistence, it goes against the narrative).
This seems to be your perception. Mine is that Austria-Hungary is highly regarded on this forum. And the number of threads asking about how the Ottoman Empire could do better seem to indicate that they're quite popular as well.

It is a self fulfilling prophecy that enables ethnic violence. Then comes a flood of people unfamiliar with region calling for "borders following ethnic lines" as if people centuries ago settled following imaginary lines on the land that didn't even exist back then or moved constantly and even a glance at any ethnic map of the region shows a mosaic mess that couldn't be the base of a viable state. Then they propose "population trasfers" in the name of avoiding wthnic cleansing when those transfers are basically ethnic cleansing but this time decided (but most likely imposed) by more then one state. So yeah, it's really complicated.
There is significant difference between stating that ethnic cleansing would have been likely under certain circumstances and supporting it outright. The later is far from common and at least nowadays is generally actionable. In any case, for each post that supported ethnic based borders I would say there are multiple ones where multi-ethnic societies are extolled and the possibility of a truly tolerant, multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire is rather optimistically considered a realistic scenario. Of course, less optimistic posters think differently, hence the frequent, if oblique, assertions that reducing the proportion of non-Muslim minorities is the way forward for a more successful Ottoman Empire.

But the OP asked fot best case scenario for the Ottoman state not the ethnic minorities and by 1900 you already had a well entrenched dinamic of ethnic strife in which the turks were the last to arrive with envar pasha and other turkish nationalists, and of course they arrived with the same big "bang" that serbian, bulgarian and other nationalisms did in the balkans: ethnic cleansing.
With this statement you more or less prove what I claimed: no one can envision a good alternative for the Ottoman Empire that doesn't involve a worse alternative for their minorities. Of course you're wrong in claiming that this was because the Ottomans were adopting by then the same tactic of ethnic cleansing as the Christian states. In reality, those same tactics had been practiced for nearly a century by then.
 

Germaniac

Donor
But there is no good reason for a Greek or Armenian to identify with Ottomans/Turks. They have their own identity, that is more ancient than the Turkish identity by far, why would they want to adopt another?

It's not a binary thing. The highminded young turks, especially in the first constitutional era, wanted to promote being both your ethnic identity and also an Ottoman civic identity.

Alongside the loss of Ottoman Europe, the Balkan Wars led to the military coup after which the government adopted a Turkish nationalism ideology. Prior to that it's still possible, just really hard to pull off.

The best chance after 1900 is after the constitution is reinstated but before the counter-coup in 1909.
 
Its also funny how many tml (sometimes not even greek or armenian wanks) have all muslims expelled from eastern thrace, Western and Eastern Anatolia and don't present this as an humanitarian catastrophy of historical proportions but as a happy ocurrence for the greeks and armenians in their "just reconquista". Or that we still completly gloss over the ethnic cleansing of 5 million muslims (of which up to 1 in 5 died in the process) when talking about the collapse of the empire.
main-qimg-652d36c86c14d41f6f5bcb1fe27bcaff

Hell up to the dissolution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia they still had plans to "deport" the muslim population from Kosovo and other muslim majority areas to turkey.
When does this forum show support of multi-ethnic empires or countries? Most threads regarding Austria-Hungary are fill to the brim with comments calling it a "time bomb" destined always to explode in ethnic warfare, like it was something natural and inevitable that people that speak different lenguages or follow different religions will kill each other if put inside the borders (disregard centuries of peaceful coexistence, it goes against the narrative). It is a self fulfilling prophecy that enables ethnic violence. Then comes a flood of people unfamiliar with region calling for "borders following ethnic lines" as if people centuries ago settled following imaginary lines on the land that didn't even exist back then or moved constantly and even a glance at any ethnic map of the region shows a mosaic mess that couldn't be the base of a viable state. Then they propose "population trasfers" in the name of avoiding wthnic cleansing when those transfers are basically ethnic cleansing but this time decided (but most likely imposed) by more then one state. So yeah, it's really complicated. But the OP asked fot best case scenario for the Ottoman state not the ethnic minorities and by 1900 you already had a well entrenched dinamic of ethnic strife in which the turks were the last to arrive with envar pasha and other turkish nationalists, and of course they arrived with the same big "bang" that serbian, bulgarian and other nationalisms did in the balkans: ethnic cleansing.
Well gust because people lived picfuly for hundreds of years means squat, once nationalism hits you are going to see ethnic minority try to create there own nations, especially when it seems all the most powerful nations success stem partly from that.
 

Germaniac

Donor
It's funny how in so many Ottoman wanks have in common the non-Muslim territories swamped with Muslim settlers (and usually the Christians emigrating). Rather at variance at the general forum's view of tolerance and support of multi-ethnic countries...

First, the Ottoman Empire never agreed to giving autonomy to anyone without a fight. For example, in 1876 with threatened a war with Russia and without British support, they still refused giving autonomy to Bulgaria. Second, autonomy almost inevitably lead to independence anyway and even when the minorities demanded autonomy, they usually only saw it as a stepping stone to fully independence.


Where do you get these figures from? The number of the Christians are from the Ottoman census of 1914 and are widely considered to be a significant underestimate. On the other hand, according to the same census there were 15 million Muslims altogether (with a total population of 18.5 million). Where do the other 10 million come from?


Again, I find it fascinating how even the defenders of the Ottoman Empire seem to think that they would never really prosper with a large Christian minority.

As to the first point, I think its just ignorance of the context which the Ottoman Empire existed in. It just takes more reading and open mindedness.

Second, the Ottoman Empire's existence was completely tied to its territorial integrity. The picking away at the extremities had hurt the empire terribly and wouldn't under any circumstances other than complete and total collapse agree to any additional territory after Berlin. Even Eastern Rumelia existed, on paper, as an autonomous state of the Ottomans (totally controlled by Bulgaria). The shock of Bosnia and ER followed by Crete then Libya each nearly breaking what spirit the country had left. Every inch lost sent violent shakes through the foundations and it would eventually give way.

I agree with you totally on the last points. The value of the Empires ethnic diversity, especially in its bureaucracy, was incredible. In order for the Ottoman Empire to survive long term they would need to fully embrace the multi-ethnic nature of the country and develop a common civil identity (Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike). Honestly, I feel like its really the only way for stability in the region to have continued, the ethnic groups in the regions are way to intermingled and ancient that no one would ever be happy with what they have.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Its also funny how many tml (sometimes not even greek or armenian wanks) have all muslims expelled from eastern thrace, Western and Eastern Anatolia and don't present this as an humanitarian catastrophy of historical proportions but as a happy ocurrence for the greeks and armenians in their "just reconquista". Or that we still completly gloss over the ethnic cleansing of 5 million muslims (of which up to 1 in 5 died in the process) when talking about the collapse of the empire.
main-qimg-652d36c86c14d41f6f5bcb1fe27bcaff

Hell up to the dissolution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia they still had plans to "deport" the muslim population from Kosovo and other muslim majority areas to turkey.
When does this forum show support of multi-ethnic empires or countries? Most threads regarding Austria-Hungary are fill to the brim with comments calling it a "time bomb" destined always to explode in ethnic warfare, like it was something natural and inevitable that people that speak different lenguages or follow different religions will kill each other if put inside the borders (disregard centuries of peaceful coexistence, it goes against the narrative). It is a self fulfilling prophecy that enables ethnic violence. Then comes a flood of people unfamiliar with region calling for "borders following ethnic lines" as if people centuries ago settled following imaginary lines on the land that didn't even exist back then or moved constantly and even a glance at any ethnic map of the region shows a mosaic mess that couldn't be the base of a viable state. Then they propose "population trasfers" in the name of avoiding wthnic cleansing when those transfers are basically ethnic cleansing but this time decided (but most likely imposed) by more then one state. So yeah, it's really complicated. But the OP asked fot best case scenario for the Ottoman state not the ethnic minorities and by 1900 you already had a well entrenched dinamic of ethnic strife in which the turks were the last to arrive with envar pasha and other turkish nationalists, and of course they arrived with the same big "bang" that serbian, bulgarian and other nationalisms did in the balkans: ethnic cleansing.

Can we just agree that all nations involved sucked, everyone made mistakes (Deliberate or not) and you can't dwell on them. Why not come up with alternate history where all of that doesn't happen.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Well gust because people lived picfuly for hundreds of years means squat, once nationalism hits you are going to see ethnic minority try to create there own nations, especially when it seems all the most powerful nations success stem partly from that.

There's more than one type of Nationalism, ethnic nationalism is not the destiny of all countries.
 
Top