CP Win WWI; What About Ottomans?

[John Fredrick Parker]

Take a standard neutral Britain leading to CP victory scenario, say in 1917.

My question here is, what becomes of the Ottoman Empire? How much longer does it have; how then is it split? And how do the overall power dynamics in the Middle East play out?

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Do the Turks enter the war in this scenario?

I read somewhere that Turkey could have been much more stable coming out of a WWI as a member of the victory party, maybe even lasting a lot longer, maybe long enough to reform. Didn't the Brits contribute to a lot of the instability among the Arab populous anyway? Without the Brits in WWI, perhaps the instability is lessened anyway.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Do the Turks enter the war in this scenario?

Yes, but Britain doesn't bother them.

 

[Keb]

Yes, but Britain doesn't bother them.

Then they don't collapse, pure and simple. Well, of course, there's always the possibility, but it's fairly remote. The Ottoman Empire was a lot more stable than Austria-Hungary and the breakup of that state isn't a certain thing.

Without Britain in the war, there'd be no Arab revolts, which doesn't destabilize the Empire. Thinking about it, even with the revolts, if the CP come out victorious, the Arab revolts would peter out in a year or two. IIRC, the leaders of the revolts kept their options open until the end of the war.

And when oil becomes important, the Ottomans discover that they (or their clients) are sitting on the largest deposits. Cue getting rich and transitioning into a full world power, rather than the 'sick man of Europe'. Of course, barring massive mismanagement and incompetence.

 

[Lord Insane]

Take a standard neutral Britain leading to CP victory scenario, say in 1917.

My question here is, what becomes of the Ottoman Empire? How much longer does it have; how then is it split? And how do the overall power dynamics in the Middle East play out?

That depends on internal political developments. From what I gather, it is quite possible the answer to 'how much longer does it have' is 'perpetually', making 'how then is it split' an irrelevant question. Equally, we might see a split - at least in an autonomous way - between Arab and... non-Arab... parts of the Empire, but it would still be the Ottoman Empire. It'd just be a different sort than the one that entered 1914.

 

[Grey Wolf]

There won't be an Arab Revolt in the Hejaz; in fact if France or Russia tried to stir up anything like that Britain would help the Ottomans stop it, due to fears of instability spreading to Anglo-Ottoman Egypt.

Without having to worry about the Egyptian frontier, or thus about the Middle East at all, the Ottomans are going to be focusing all of their energies on Russia.

Italy is supremely unlikely to jump into this conflict without Britain to guarantee any treaty for war aims. In fact, its more likely to eventually ally with the Central Powers in the dying months of the war in an attempt to get something out of France in the peace.

I'm not going to prophesise sweeping Ottoman victories, but they ought to be able to hold their own in the Caucasus better than OTL, and certainly not see Armenia over-run. They would thus be in a good position to regain their usual snippets of lost territory in the Russo-Ottoman squabble.

The war ending in 1917 in this scenario, I assume means that Russia collapses and France can't carry on alone so sues for peace. The Central Powers are thus far less likely to make penetrations into Russia beyond Poland-Lithuania-Western Ukraine, as the interval between Russian collapse and French armistice won't be a long one.

Expect a slither of German satellites, as the major change in the East. I doubt the Ottomans will gain much, since Russian power has not had the chance to implode in the Southern Caucasus

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[yourworstnightmare]

I doubt the One-Party Dictatorship would last long after the war though. Even a victorious Ottoman Empire would have faced enough problems during the war to make it clear to anyone that the current government was corrupt and incompetent. There could very well be a new Constitutional Era after the war.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Hmm, so a neutral Britain in WWI means the Ottoman Empire survives? And, I'm guessing, plausibly to modern day?

Certainly a very interesting thought...

 

[Susano]

Hmm, so a neutral Britain in WWI means the Ottoman Empire survives? And, I'm guessing, plausibly to modern day?

Certainly a very interesting thought...

The Ottoman Empire only collapsed due to WW1. Or more, to the point, unlike Austria-Hungary it didnt even collapse - more like the victorious powers carved it up. So if the OE is neutral, or wins, then its still around, and indeed probably will to modern times. Similarily, A-H most likely also wont collapse, though if thy survive to modern days is a different question...

 

[stevep]

Guys

If Britain is neutral in 1914 and stays out, which is far less certain, then the Ottomans will probably join the central powers about the time they did OTL. Britain will try and keep them neutral but will have less influence as a non-belligerent and Enver Pasha was pretty hard line pro-German by most reports.

The central powers will win, almost certainly unless some butterflies adjust things dramatically. That will probably mean a big carve up of territory with major gains for Germany and Austria, although the latter especially will be gravely weakened. Not so sure about gains for the Ottomans, as Bulgaria, which is likely to go central even earlier than OTL will make gains in the Balkans pretty difficult. Possibly, if Russia collapses big time they try and take Baku. Without fighting on the other fronts they should be able to maintain an intervention here. Even if Enver Pasha fouls up big time like he did OTL they will have much greater resources.

However I can't see the empire surviving at anything like it's 1914 dimensions until the present day. The discovery of oil in the Arab territories are likely to give a big boost to Arab nationalism as it gives an economic as well as political reason for rebellion. Also its likely to clash with at least some of it's neighbours given the various differences and either Russia or Britain could easily make use of such unrest.

What would happen to the substantial number of Greeks in Anatolia? [Using any definition]. Would they be expelled, killed like the Armenians - which is still likely to occur with such a late POD or continue to be a minority group facing discrimination? This is both a factor in itself and could be a trigger/excuse for intervention by another power. Also their expulsion/killing would have further economic effects.

Similarly what would happen to the Kurds? Likely they would also seek to gain independence once the empire started to collapse and this could be easier if boundary dividing them amongst Turkish and Arab states hadn't already been established.

I think the big problem is going to be the same as for Austria. A multi-national state is very vulnerable to national identities and is likely to be torn apart even if external factors or internal corruption and disputes between the ruling elites don't weaken it further.

Steve

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Some good points by Steve...

 

[Green Shadow]

I doubt more powerful nations would allow them to exploit their monopoly over Middle Eastern oil- after all, the British and Americans were willing to overthrow the democratically elected Mosaddegh. Either they play it smart and avoid pissing of oil importers, or they're fucked.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Or, alternately, Istanbul finds a powerful oil-importing ally to watch its back -- Germany seem a likely candidate...

 

[Green Shadow]

Or, alternately, Istanbul finds a powerful oil-importing ally to watch its back -- Germany seem a likely candidate...

Wouldn't it be little more then a puppet state in that case? Still that's probably it's best case scenario.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Guys

If Britain is neutral in 1914 and stays out, which is far less certain, then the Ottomans will probably join the central powers about the time they did OTL. Britain will try and keep them neutral but will have less influence as a non-belligerent and Enver Pasha was pretty hard line pro-German by most reports.

The central powers will win, almost certainly unless some butterflies adjust things dramatically. That will probably mean a big carve up of territory with major gains for Germany and Austria, although the latter especially will be gravely weakened. Not so sure about gains for the Ottomans, as Bulgaria, which is likely to go central even earlier than OTL will make gains in the Balkans pretty difficult. Possibly, if Russia collapses big time they try and take Baku. Without fighting on the other fronts they should be able to maintain an intervention here. Even if Enver Pasha fouls up big time like he did OTL they will have much greater resources.

However I can't see the empire surviving at anything like it's 1914 dimensions until the present day. The discovery of oil in the Arab territories are likely to give a big boost to Arab nationalism as it gives an economic as well as political reason for rebellion. Also its likely to clash with at least some of it's neighbours given the various differences and either Russia or Britain could easily make use of such unrest.

What would happen to the substantial number of Greeks in Anatolia? [Using any definition]. Would they be expelled, killed like the Armenians - which is still likely to occur with such a late POD or continue to be a minority group facing discrimination? This is both a factor in itself and could be a trigger/excuse for intervention by another power. Also their expulsion/killing would have further economic effects.

Similarly what would happen to the Kurds? Likely they would also seek to gain independence once the empire started to collapse and this could be easier if boundary dividing them amongst Turkish and Arab states hadn't already been established.

I think the big problem is going to be the same as for Austria. A multi-national state is very vulnerable to national identities and is likely to be torn apart even if external factors or internal corruption and disputes between the ruling elites don't weaken it further.

Steve

If Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians are "dealt with" during the wars, the most troublesome minorities would be gone. The Kurds were somewhat loyal during this era, the Arabs would be a tad more problematic, but without Britain in the war even Arab nationalism would be weaker. If the Dictatorship fails, which I guess it would after the war, since it became eminent that the government weren't handling the situation well, Turkish nationalism would weaken, and a more pan- Islamic identity would reurface, which both Kurds and Arabs could live with.

I suspect there would be dissatisfaction within the Young Turks and a strong resuface of the Liberal Union after the war, the dictatorship would be overthrown and a Third Constitutional Era would begin. The Young Turks and the Liberals would probably get competition in the elctions from Socialists and Islamists soon though.

 

[Don Grey]

snip snip

Some of the things hear are absurd. This has been done before sevral times i think.

With out britian in the war if the ottomans join the cp things would be entirly diffrent.

Without britian there is no gollipoli landings no middle east campaign no commonwealth troops no royal navy and no arab revolt (which was minor). The entire ottaman army is focused on the caucasus. While russia is fighting alone with no supplies no help against germany AH and the ottomans on a wide front. With out british troops in the west germany has an easyer time against france with out the royal navy there is no blockade of germany. With out britian america probably doesnt give loans to france since it has good relations with germany and it look likes there going to win the war. So no point in given money to a person your probably not going to get it back from. With no britian there is no italy on the entente side either. And germany plus AH wanted to nock out russia permanatly before she industrialised and become a problam so they wanted major gains.With more troops freed up in the west Russia will be facing real trouble in eastern europe aswell as the entire ottoman army in the caucasus.


For the caucasus armenia and azerbaijan is over run in the early years. Georgia falls after then they will hold there ground. After russia colapses they will keep moving north as far as logistics will carry them. The ottomans out performed expectation in the otl given there terrible conditions (terrorits, insurgence, sepratists, fighting on sevral fronts ,lack of supplies ,out gunned out numberd and out flanked etc). Hell the army of islam almost got up to astrakhan by it self. Imagin what the organized well supplied ottoman army will do.With out the army being strained on sevral fronts the caucasus will be a lost cause for russia. The least they will get will be georgia armenia and azerbaijan. The ottomans will also have the two ships from britian. Though i dont know what they could use it for other then shelling a russian port or two in the black sea. Since there is no britian there is no dreaded royal navy. France is too busy germany to send her navy to fuck with the ottomans and italy isnt on the entente side worst case scenario she is neutral.


As for your statement below its utterly absurd.
------------------------------------------------------------
What would happen to the substantial number of Greeks in Anatolia? [Using any definition]. Would they be expelled, killed like the Armenians - which is still likely to occur with such a late POD or continue to be a minority group facing discrimination? This is both a factor in itself and could be a trigger/excuse for intervention by another power. Also their expulsion/killing would have further economic effects.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get your information from what do you think this is nazi germany? The ottomans had no intention killing any of there minorities. The armenian were relocated to syria because they revolted and slaughtered there muslim neighbours all through out eastern anatolia thats why the kurdish nomads attacked there convoys.It wasnt an acted of pure hate but an act of revenge. If the ottomans wanted to kill them they would have shot them where there stood not wast time relocateding them to syria housing and feedign the ones that got there. They were sent there so they couldnt cause harm to anyone and no one could take revenge on them.The levels of discrimination were not any diffrent from the other powers against there minorities if not better.

With the massive number of troops in eastern anatolia a tashnacksu killing spree would be suicde for the tashnacksu. I highly doubt any revolt would happen when the ottomans are fighting a more cohisive manner in this scenario. Even if it did for some odd reason it would be crushed instantly

As for the kurds more absurditiy. Kurds are not a monolithic people they can hardly understand eash other today (speaking there own langauge) how do you think it was then. They were nomads living in mountain caves. A bunch of cave men does not make an independence movement. The issue with the pkk today does not properly represent the reality of the situation especialy not in the ww1 era. The pkk started as a proxy by another nation and took years to mature. With out funding weapons from others the pkk would die out. Its a faux-revalutionary force. Nothing but a bunch of warlords using former sheep herdes to further there own personal power and wealth.The only reason they exsist today is because some nations have intrestes invested in them.

As for the future. The ottomans never lost an inch of territory with out foriegn annexation or intervention in its history. Niether has any rebel movement in the ottoman relms came do exsistence on its own. All have been funded and supplied by other powers or atleast encouraged. Example the armenian revolt would have never happend with out russia and if russia gave up on them they would die out. Same goes for the arab revolt and britian. So the unity of the ottoman empire is depended on how it industrialised builds transport and communitication networks through out its lands. Depends on how cohisive it could become and the meddling of foriegn powers in its internal politics. If sevral powerfull nations are not happy with the ottomans holding that much oil under there feet thats a diffrent matter then.It depends on how far they will fund and go to split it up. But on its own the ottomans would not collapes. It would actualy be helpfull for the middle east as it would stop islamic extremism/islamofascism for ever happening and stop the senceless bloodshed that plagues the middles east today.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Where do you get your information from what do you think this is nazi germany? The ottomans had no intention killing any of there minorities.

 

[Lord Insane]

It was inevitable that the matter would come up, and - to be honest - I'm not entirely convinced the part of the post that motivated the sentence you quoted is all that much better.

 

[Don Grey]

snip

This issue has been discussed sevral times instead of covering you face with your hand you should have opened you eyes read some of the threads on this subject on the board.

With out the unique conditions of the otl the relocation would never have happend. And even in the otl the greeks and armenians of smyrna and istanbul were not touched. With out the unique conditions there was no logic and reason to do anything to them .There is this annoying misconception that the ottomans were out to get them either way just like the nazies for the jews. If you view this issue this way your entire understanding of ottoman history is one big facepalm.

 

[stevep]

This issue has been discussed sevral times instead of covering you face with your hand you should have opened you eyes read some of the threads on this subject on the board.

With out the unique conditions of the otl the relocation would never have happend. And even in the otl the greeks and armenians of smyrna and istanbul were not touched. With out the unique conditions there was no logic and reason to do anything to them .There is this annoying misconception that the ottomans were out to get them either way just like the nazies for the jews. If you view this issue this way your entire understanding of ottoman history is one big facepalm.

Don Grey

Somewhat less than accurate. At least you admit that the forced deportation of the Armenian was deliberate government policy unlike some apologetics for the regime. Where do you get the idea that they actually fed the Armenians? That was a cause of a lot of the deaths on the march, along with the brutality of the guards and, with their support many of the locals. Then may of the rest were shot when they were hidden in the desert.

I also find it strange that you imply women and children were murdering Turkish troops. I know no details of Armenian resistance before the round up's started and it was only those who did resist who survived the atrocity.

On the Greeks its a valid question. When Kemel organised the nationalistic Turkish state after the war he decided on the expulsion of the Greeks, which he defined in religious terms. [That's why I put that in quotes, as other definitions could have been taken. Its also why people who were Turkish speakers and knew no Greek at all were classified as Greeks and expelled]. If he did that would the even more brutal regime in power during the war have done any less? If not what happens when there are pressure from the Greeks for equal treatment?

Its also disengenerous to say there was no expulsions from smyrna as, in the city itself they had been expelled or killed during the last stages of the Turkish defeat of the Greeks at the end of the war. There were expulsions from neighbouring regions where the two communities had lived side by side in a large measure of peace. Ditto with places along the Black sea coast and the interior which had seen no fighting and generally peaceful co-existence. Some of the Pontic Greeks had even given political and financial support to Kemal early on, although that could have been from fear of the persecution that came later.

There was no expulsions from Istanbul in large parts because it was still in allied hands when the agreement to end the conflict was concluded. I think, given its historical importance and how much the allies were letting the Turkish government get away with even they would have had difficult abandoning the Greeks of the city.

I am concentrating on the atrocities by the Ottoman/Turkish elements because a) we're talking about the future of the empire here and b) as the elements in power they committed the bulk of the abuses. I fully accept that there were almost certainly attrocities by the Greeks during their advance in 1919-1920 given the hostility between the two governments. [Although often the ordinary people seem to have got on quite well.

Very few countries lose territory solely to internal unrest. However why do you think no foreign power would ever see advantage in helping an Arab revolt against a Turkish dominated empire [whether still using the title Ottoman or not]. As I said the development of nationalism, in Anatolia as much as the Arab lands, coupled with the potential of oil makes it almost certain that empire will be split up.

I fail to see the point in the cheap crack against the Kurds?

Steve