CP Win WWI; What About Ottomans?

abc123

Banned
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


The main problem with survival of Ottoman empire are:

a) Oil ( a blessing and a curse )

b) nationalism ( in that Ottoman Empire Turks would be just about 1/3 of population, and not in oil-rich areas )

;)
 

Don Grey

Banned


I will start with the armenian issue. Its not deportation but relocation. As syria still belong to the ottomans. They were relocated because the male members of there ethnic groups started slaughtering muslims in the area to create greater armenia .Since there were only 1/6th of the pop of the areas they wanted even before the relocation. So the Goverment instead of rounding them all up and shooting them decide to send to them to syria. Lots died on the road. As the hole of anatolia was was facing famines sickness.You cant expect the gaurds to be to nice as they are transporting people have just gone on a killing spree since the war started.The ottomans didnt move the armenian for shits and giggles you know. The ones that did make it to syria were housed and fed. That how the general govener of syria was nicked named the pasha of armenia by armenian IIRC. They were all sent with there families because no one exactly new who did what. A tashnacksu didnt have tashnacksu written on his forheads. Lots of people died as did muslims from same region.To consider the armenian relocation a tragedy and be blind to what they left in there wake is prejudice. Of course there were atrocities which were isolated incidents usely done by villagers responding to what had been dont to them and irragulars not state policie. And there is no admitting of anything because there is no denial.

The ottomans had 3 choice.
a: let the armenian be and let them ethnicly cleanse eastern anatolai to create greater armenia and help russia that is charging into eastern anatolia.
b:commit a genocide and kill them all where they stood.
c:transport them to a location where they cant harm anyone and no one can harm them. Using what meager resources you have.
opiton C wasnt pretty but it was the best one they had and it was alot better then what the armenian had planed for the muslims of eastern anaotlia. I am honestly tired of this debate. This has been discused sevral times. The same things have been said over and over again. Please use the serach function.

As for the greeks. Use the search fuction. This has alos been discussed sevral times. The great power had decided on the population exchange and forced it on both parties. Which was clasiffied by religion thats why that why you get christians that can only speak turkish sent to greece and muslims that can only speak greek sent to turkey. Mustafa kemal didnt do it it was organized by the great powers and they stayed there and watched over as the population was exchanged.


As for the the atrocities. They were isolated incidents commited by villagers and irregulars responding to what had been dont to them. None of it was enforced or commited by the people in power as policie unlike what the greeks and armenians did using it as a policie. Again already discussed sevral times use serach function.

No i honestly do belive sevral world power will see the benefit in spreading nationalism in the ottoman population to split them up. And they can if they realy want to. And most likely will happen. The point i was trying to make was it wont be easy as blood nationalism is anathema to islam and and you have a much stronger and richer ottoman empire in this scenario. The arab revolt consisted of about around 20.000 beduins out of 7 million arabs. I fear some revolts are exagerated. Though it is still possible because if anything brings the end to the ottomans it will be nationalism. Im just saying it going to be harder this time for reasons listed above. I just dont agree with the almost certain part.

I fail to see how that was a cheap crack against the kurds. I was mearly remarking on the presistance misconception the kurds were always ready to go there own way .That would imply they have a strong identity. To this day they dont have a strong identity. And living purely nomadic at that time its even harder. The kurdish problam to day is very unique and realise on certain conditions in history being met.Its not inevitable it can easly be avoidable. I just saw it keep poping up and i felt i should speak about it more detailed this time.
 
Last edited:
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.

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

Snip

Actually Don Grey, a lot of Steve's response correlates with yours. You both believe that a neutral Britain would lead to a victorious Central Powers and a surviving Ottoman Empire.

Asking about the various competing nationalist strains that might have risen at some stage in a post-war Ottoman Empire is a reasonable thing. I understand the section about the Armenians may not be very tactful, but there are legitimate questions about the competing cultures and identities within the empire.

The Empire did include Turks, Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians and all sorts of other groups. At some stage, possibly decades after the war had ended, some of these groups will start to show nationalistic tendencies. If the Arabs are still in the Empire when oil is discovered on a grand scale, I imagine many other powers would love to encourage such separatism.

How do you think a surviving Ottoman Empire would deal with such tensions?
 
Don Grey

Various points:

a) A lot of people do however still deny the massacres, including most notoriously the Turkish authorities. Going as far as to jail Turks who admit to them having taken place.

b) Do you actually have evidence of the Armenians suddenly indulging in widespread bloodlust, other that Ottoman government sources? Or that the Armenians who reached Syria were housed in anything but the caves they were shot in. Or how a often suppressed minority, allegedly outnumbered 6-1 by your measure is able to cause so much destruction and chaos but limited numbers of Ottoman troops are able to round them up without problems? Don't you realise how farcical this this?

c) A 4th option, if there had been widespread unrest, was to take most/all the young males, say for forced labour as they did in other areas. I repeat my question. Why did they decide to send all the Armenian population they could get their hands on?

That is the most despicable part of you're argument to me. That killing all Armenians, whatever age, sex or inclination because of alleged hostility to the Ottoman regime that admittedly have often persecuted them, is acceptable to you. It's the sort of race guilt that is proclaimed by groups such as the Nazis or Soviets or more recently Al Qaeda. Especially when you're practicing clear double standards. "You cant expect the gaurds to be to nice as they are transporting people have just gone on a killing spree since the war started" = you can't expect professional forces to treat straving women and children as human beings because their been told the Armenians are some sub-human enemy all out to murder them.

d) Also how many people are you suggesting living in NE Anatolia at this time? Going by you're figures you're suggesting at least 9 million which seems bloody high.

e) On the Greek explusion's my sources are it was decided by Kemel. To the distress and disgust of the various nations that were trying to neogotiate an end to the conflict. The Turkish government made it as difficult as possible for the evicted 'Greeks', often taking the men for forced labour, giving them minimal time for the deportation and refusing to allow Greek merchant ships to be used in the operation. Often the two communities themselves got on well together.There were cases of groups of deportees meeting in Greece [since the 'Turks' were deported later in response to the Turkish actions] and giving each other advice on where to settle and what crops to grow if they ended up in the others former homes.

I fear that you will never accept the massive flaws in you're arguments but I think they need to be challenged because such hate rants not only distort the truth but prevent any realistic solution of problems.

Steve

I will start with the armenian issue. Its not deportation but relocation. As syria still belong to the ottomans. They were relocated because the male members of there ethnic groups started slaughtering muslims in the area to create greater armenia .Since there were only 1/6th of the pop of the areas they wanted even before the relocation. So the Goverment instead of rounding them all up and shooting them decide to send to them to syria. Lots died on the road. As the hole of anatolia was was facing famines sickness.You cant expect the gaurds to be to nice as they are transporting people have just gone on a killing spree since the war started.The ottomans didnt move the armenian for shits and giggles you know. The ones that did make it to syria were housed and fed. That how the general govener of syria was nicked named the pasha of armenia by armenian IIRC. They were all sent with there families because no one exactly new who did what. A tashnacksu didnt have tashnacksu written on his forheads. Lots of people died as did muslims from same region.To consider the armenian relocation a tragedy and be blind to what they left in there wake is prejudice. Of course there were atrocities which were isolated incidents usely done by villagers responding to what had been dont to them and irragulars not state policie. And there is no admitting of anything because there is no denial.


The ottomans had 3 choice.
a: let the armenian be and let them ethnicly cleanse eastern anatolai to create greater armenia and help russia that is charging into eastern anatolia.
b:commit a genocide and kill them all where they stood.
c:transport them to a location where they cant harm anyone and no one can harm them. Using what meager resources you have.
opiton C wasnt pretty but it was the best one they had and it was alot better then what the armenian had planed for the muslims of eastern anaotlia. I am honestly tired of this debate. This has been discused sevral times. The same things have been said over and over again. Please use the serach function.


As for the greeks. Use the search fuction. This has alos been discussed sevral times. The great power had decided on the population exchange and forced it on both parties. Which was clasiffied by religion thats why that why you get christians that can only speak turkish sent to greece and muslims that can only speak greek sent to turkey. Mustafa kemal didnt do it it was organized by the great powers and they stayed there and watched over as the population was exchanged.
As for the the atrocities. They were isolated incidents commited by villagers and irregulars responding to what had been dont to them. None of it was enforced or commited by the people in power as policie unlike what the greeks and armenians did using it as a policie. Again already discussed sevral times use serach function.
No i honestly do belive sevral world power will see the benefit in spreading nationalism in the ottoman population to split them up. And they can if they realy want to. And most likely will happen. The point i was trying to make was it wont be easy as blood nationalism is anathema to islam and and you have a much stronger and richer ottoman empire in this scenario. The arab revolt consisted of about around 20.000 beduins out of 7 million arabs. I fear some revolts are exagerated. Though it is still possible because if anything brings the end to the ottomans it will be nationalism. Im just saying it going to be harder this time for reasons listed above. I just dont agree with the almost certain part.
I fail to see how that was a cheap crack against the kurds. I was mearly remarking on the presistance misconception the kurds were always ready to go there own way .That would imply they have a strong identity. To this day they dont have a strong identity. And living purely nomadic at that time its even harder. The kurdish problam to day is very unique and realise on certain conditions in history being met.Its not inevitable it can easly be avoidable. I just saw it keep poping up and i felt i should speak about it more detailed this time.
 
Don Grey
b) Do you actually have evidence of the Armenians suddenly indulging in widespread bloodlust, other that Ottoman government sources? Or that the Armenians who reached Syria were housed in anything but the caves they were shot in. Or how a often suppressed minority, allegedly outnumbered 6-1 by your measure is able to cause so much destruction and chaos but limited numbers of Ottoman troops are able to round them up without problems? Don't you realise how farcical this this?
Steve
Actually, the records from the Ottoman census show that hundreds of thousands of Muslims died as well as the Armeniand deaths. And the reason why the Armenians found it so easy to kill Turks and Kurds in eastern Anatolia was because the male Muslim population of the area was in the army at the time. There are many records of the Armenian violence against the Ottoman state (even going as far as to kill all the Muslims in Van, then give the city over to the Russians when they arrived). And there was an effort made by the Ottoman state to house the Armenians (although the effort made was not nearly enough, which is understandable in a state of total war).
 

Don Grey

Banned
Don Grey

Various points:

a) A lot of people do however still deny the massacres, including most notoriously the Turkish authorities. Going as far as to jail Turks who admit to them having taken place.

Well the onese that say the massacers didnt happen are idiots. And the ones that say that the armenians didnt massacere the the muslims are the same type of idiots. As for the last part that hasent happend in a long time. And armenian isnt any better on that subject while people can freely discuss it on tv in turkey as they do.

b) Do you actually have evidence of the Armenians suddenly indulging in widespread bloodlust, other that Ottoman government sources? Or that the Armenians who reached Syria were housed in anything but the caves they were shot in. Or how a often suppressed minority, allegedly outnumbered 6-1 by your measure is able to cause so much destruction and chaos but limited numbers of Ottoman troops are able to round them up without problems? Don't you realise how farcical this this?

Nassirisimo seems to have already answred this.

c) A 4th option, if there had been widespread unrest, was to take most/all the young males, say for forced labour as they did in other areas. I repeat my question. Why did they decide to send all the Armenian population they could get their hands on?

What forced labour are you talking about site sources (other then wiki). They didnt send all the armenian population they could get there hands on hence the onse in izmir and istanbul wasnt touched. Only the onese in eastern anatolia because they were killing the muslims. And if they wanted to commit genocide they would have shot them not waste time and reasources relocating them.

That is the most despicable part of you're argument to me. That killing all Armenians, whatever age, sex or inclination because of alleged hostility to the Ottoman regime that admittedly have often persecuted them, is acceptable to you. It's the sort of race guilt that is proclaimed by groups such as the Nazis or Soviets or more recently Al Qaeda. Especially when you're practicing clear double standards. "You cant expect the gaurds to be to nice as they are transporting people have just gone on a killing spree since the war started" = you can't expect professional forces to treat straving women and children as human beings because their been told the Armenians are some sub-human enemy all out to murder them.

I never said it was exceptible. But you are willfuly blind to the horrors they inflicted in eastern anatolia. You act as if they were moved for shits and giggles. No they werent persecuted until there started terrorism. You have run out of things to say now you exagerating and pulling shit out of your ass. Everyone was starving. There was no other option or let them kill everybody. This is like saying the allies commited genocide on the germans because you refuse to see the allied body count of soldiers. This is nothing but an emotional hyper boil to derail the thread.

d) Also how many people are you suggesting living in NE Anatolia at this time? Going by you're figures you're suggesting at least 9 million which seems bloody high.

When did i give figures? when did i say 9 million?

e) On the Greek explusion's my sources are it was decided by Kemel. To the distress and disgust of the various nations that were trying to neogotiate an end to the conflict. The Turkish government made it as difficult as possible for the evicted 'Greeks', often taking the men for forced labour, giving them minimal time for the deportation and refusing to allow Greek merchant ships to be used in the operation. Often the two communities themselves got on well together.There were cases of groups of deportees meeting in Greece [since the 'Turks' were deported later in response to the Turkish actions] and giving each other advice on where to settle and what crops to grow if they ended up in the others former homes.

Then state you sources.

I fear that you will never accept the massive flaws in you're arguments but I think they need to be challenged because such hate rants not only distort the truth but prevent any realistic solution of problems.

And i fear the turkophobia that has been put into from childhood has blinded your understanding of events. And you show obvious bais and prejudice. If you think this is a hate rant then report me to IAN lets see what he thinks about it.

Steve

This subject and everything you have said has already been discussed on this board sevral times by people that have far better knowlagde on this subject then i do and has been proven to be false on many occastions. You have over a 1000 posts its hard to belive you to have not seen any of them. I will not wast my time repeating my self over and over again with things that have already been fully rebutled. I will not waste my time in trying to break through your prejudicial point of view .Please use the search function.
 
Last edited:

Leo Caesius

Banned
a) A lot of people do however still deny the massacres, including most notoriously the Turkish authorities. Going as far as to jail Turks who admit to them having taken place.
Technically, it's not the "Turkish authorities", it's a single lawyer, Kemal Kerinçsiz, who is responsible for the overwhelming majority of "insulting the Turkish nation" charges against people. As far as the "authorities" go, you will not doubt be overjoyed to learn that virtually every case the courts have either dismissed the charges or found for the defendants. I can't think of anyone in recent years who has actually been jailed for this "crime".

b) Do you actually have evidence of the Armenians suddenly indulging in widespread bloodlust, other that Ottoman government sources? Or that the Armenians who reached Syria were housed in anything but the caves they were shot in. Or how a often suppressed minority, allegedly outnumbered 6-1 by your measure is able to cause so much destruction and chaos but limited numbers of Ottoman troops are able to round them up without problems? Don't you realise how farcical this this?
With regard to population statistics, I'll refer to David McDowall, who while somewhat pro-Armenian is nonetheless one of the preeminent historians of this region in the post-WWI period:

McDowall said:
How many perished in all? There had probably been approximately 3 million people living east of Sivas in 1914.[1] Kurds probably outnumbered Armenians, but both were around the one million mark, with a largely Turkish urban population of about 600,000. The total Armenian death toll, which included those living in Cilicia and central Anatolia [and therefore outside of the area east of Sivas-Ed.] was probably in the order of one million. Very few survived in eastern Anatolia. Probably over 500,000 Kurdish civilians also perished, together with combatants probably totalling very approximately 800,000.[2]
[1] Public Record Office (Great Britain), series FO, No. 371/4192. See also Noel, Note on the Kurdish situation, 18 July 1919, and Robert Olson's discussion of the conflicting figures in The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism, pp. 19-21, comparing the figures in Justin McCarthy, Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of Empire (New York, 1983), and Hovanissian, Armenia on the Road to Independence.

[2] Zaki, Khulasat, p. 259, footnote; Olson, The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism, p. 21.
With regard to Armenian massacres of Muslim (Turkish and Kurdish) citizens, he notes:
McDowall said:
Ethnic cleansing now became an essential ingredient of the conflict, as some had forseen.[1] When Russian forces briefly penetrated beyond Bayazid (Doğubayazıt) to Alaşkırt in December 1914, they garrisoned the area with Armenian troops, many of whom were ex-Ottoman citizens. By the time they left, only one tenth of the largely Kurdish population of the area, it was claimed, had survived.[2]
[1] See, for example, FO 371/2080 Buchanan to Grey, Petrograd, 6 October 1914; Townley to Grey, Tehran, 11, 14, and 16 October 1914.

[2] Ahmed Emin, Turkey in World War, pp. 218-19, quoted by Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, p. 363. It is extremely difficult to know how reliable this account is. Given Kurdish treatment of Armenians it is perfectly credible. On the other hand, the Turks had the strongest possible motive for alleging that the Armenians began the atrocities.
He also notes, somewhat euphemistically,
McDowall said:
There have been Kurds in the Caucasus for possibly a thousand years [...] In the eighteenth century there was a migration of tribes northwards into the Caucasus region, particularly onto the Yerevan plain. [...] Muslim Kurds, less comfortable in Christian Armenia, not least because of Kurdish complicity in the Armenian genocides of 1895 and 1915, tended to migrate to Muslim Azerbaijan.
All in all, roughly half the population of the Yerevan Governorate (the Muslim half) "emigrated" to Azerbaijan after WWI.

Bear in mind that these are not "Ottoman government sources" as you claim; it is, rather, the word of a well-respected establishment historian who accepts unconditionally the Armenian narrative of events.

The next two questions are merely efforts at editorializing, so I'll skip ahead to the following one:

e) On the Greek explusion's my sources are it was decided by Kemel. To the distress and disgust of the various nations that were trying to neogotiate an end to the conflict. The Turkish government made it as difficult as possible for the evicted 'Greeks', often taking the men for forced labour, giving them minimal time for the deportation and refusing to allow Greek merchant ships to be used in the operation. Often the two communities themselves got on well together.There were cases of groups of deportees meeting in Greece [since the 'Turks' were deported later in response to the Turkish actions] and giving each other advice on where to settle and what crops to grow if they ended up in the others former homes.
I'm afraid that your sources are wrong. The population transfer agreed at Lausanne was decided by the respective governments and modeled directly upon a series of earlier population exchanges, particularly the Greek-Bulgarian transfer of populations which was decided during the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine in 1919, a full four years before Lausanne.

I fear that you will never accept the massive flaws in you're arguments but I think they need to be challenged because such hate rants not only distort the truth but prevent any realistic solution of problems.
You'd be well advised to consider your own advice here.
 
This subject and everything you have said has already been discussed on this board sevral times by people that have far better knowlagde on this subject then i do and has been proven to be false on many occastions. You have over a 1000 posts its hard to belive you to have not seen any of them. I will not wast my time repeating my self over and over again with things that have already been fully rebutled. I will not waste my time in trying to break through your prejudicial point of view .Please use the search function.

Yeah, ditto.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Let's not discuss forbidden forum topic, we all disagree on that. Instead let's discuss the Third Constitutional Era in the Ottoman Empire, and if Ottoman democracy could work, or it's doomed to fall into yet another dictatorship.
 
Let's not discuss forbidden forum topic, we all disagree on that. Instead let's discuss the Third Constitutional Era in the Ottoman Empire, and if Ottoman democracy could work, or it's doomed to fall into yet another dictatorship.

I've actually been thinking about this recently... Any hope of debating this (without getting into the debate that got us sidelined)?
 
Let's not discuss forbidden forum topic, we all disagree on that. Instead let's discuss the Third Constitutional Era in the Ottoman Empire, and if Ottoman democracy could work, or it's doomed to fall into yet another dictatorship.

Because people would much rather drag heated topics like this out of the cesspool known as Chat, where such things belong.
 
Well, trying to steer the conversation back on topic, im gonna go out there and suggest that if the Ottomans were still in control of the Arab provinces, as long as they ruled fairly well (which they had been doing for most of the 19th century), Arab nationalism wouldn't be a problem, as it could easily be replaced by loyalty to the Ottoman dynasty, as well the Ottoman version of Islamism.

The remaining Christians of the empire will be the bigger challenge, however, not as big a challenge as before. Assuming there are no Armenian deportations, they will be the biggest headache for the Ottoman empire, but with no area in the empire where they make a majority (or even a plurality), it will be difficult for them to form a state without massive foreign intervention, and that is very unlikely to be forthcoming.

The Greeks will always be too weak to challenge Ottoman rule on their own, and the Bulgarians have little stomach (or ability) to take any more of Ottoman Europe, so the borders there will most likely be the same.

Last but not least, is the situation in Arabia and the wider Muslim world. The Arab rebellion will have been crushed, and al-Hasa and the Hijaz will remain in Ottoman hands. The only big question marks in terms of future Oil reserves will be the Trucial states and Bahrain. Would the Ottomans care enough about these places to demand them from the British in a peace treaty? (assuming a early CP win) Also, how will Muslims in the world react to the defeat of some of the Colonial powers by the Caliphate? If the British keep Inida (which is probebly likely), they will have a greater problem with Muslim unrest. Also to consider, the declaration of Jihad had little effect in the war, but with the Ottomans proved as a great power again, would any future declarations carry more weight?
 
I also think that with Russia weakened after WWI, the Ottomans would also start fomenting rebellion amongst the Turks of Central Asia. Enver Pasha was a big propenent of Pan-Turanism, and likely would be keen on the creation of several Central Asian Khanates to serve as client states to the Sublime Porte.

With that in mind, the Ottomans might decide to bully Persia a bit to obtain its oil field and create a land bridge to connect the Central Asian Khanates to the core of the Empire. However, that would seem a bit overly ambitious, and could invite British intervention.

As for as the Armenian issue, the way I understand it is that first, the 2 million or so Turks living in the Balkans were ethnically cleansed by the Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians as the Ottomans lost territory, and then, seeking to resettle them, the Ottomans placed them in Eastern Anatolia, where they could increase the demographics of the Muslim population in an unstable region and could serve as a bullwark against any future wars against Russia.

Unfortunately, the Ottomans conducted this resettlement policy at the expense of the Armenians, who didn't have much reason to love the Ottomans to begin with, and now seeing themselves squeezed out, began plotting rebellion, in which they did so once WWI started. The Ottomans, in response, attempted to remove the Armenians from the area in the same fashion that the Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians had with the Turks about 10 years earlier, but with the chaos of the war, the breakdown of authority and oftentimes government and military officials taking matters into their own hands, untold numbers of Armenians died on the way.
 
Top