DBWI: Ottoman Empire picks sides in World War I

I was on a tour of the Hagia Sophia church in Constantinople last month and the tour guide remarked that the Ottoman Empire considered siding with the Central Powers in the Great War but decided against it in the face of financial difficulties and internal rebellions.

Seeing that the Treaty of Versailles broke up the German and Austro-Hungarian empires, would the same thing have happened to the Ottomans had they joined the losing side?

I mention this because the Ottoman Empire's decision to stay neutral during the war only delayed the inevitable. The Turkish Generals led by Mustafa Kemal were gaining influence and wanted to make the empire closer more secular while reducing Sultan Mehmed VI to a figurehead ruler.

It would be Mehmed's alliance with the Wahhabists and the al-Saud clan in Arabia that triggered the Ottoman Civil War (1922-1924). The Wahhabists advocated a harshly theocratic form of Sunni Islam and sought to unite Arabia as an Islamic caliphate. The Hashemites were the traditional guardians of Islam's most holiest sites which included Mecca and the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and viewed the Wahhabists/Saudis as the enemy.

The Hashemites formed an anti-Turkish, anti-Wahabbist alliance with the Kurds, Armenians and the Arab tribes in Babylonia and Syria.

With the Ottomans tearing itself apart, the Greeks decided to seize their opportunity. Having won Salonika in the Balkans War, they decided to take back Constantinople and the province of Anatolia.

The Treaty of Bethlehem awarded Constantinople, Anatolia and Cyprus to the Greeks resulting in the re-birth of the Byzantine Empire. The Hashemites took control of Nejd and Hedjaz (merged in 1948 as the Kingdom of Arabia), and Palestine. The treaty also created the nations of Kurdistan, Babylonia, Syria, Armenia (which included northern Cilicia), Palestine, and Albania (protectorate of the Byzantine Empire).

Lebanon (majority Christian) became a Byzantine protectorate until 1944 when it achieved full independence.

The Turks were lucky to have a country left after that war.

What would a broken up Ottoman Empire have looked like if it was not neutral?
 
Last edited:
OOC: You mean the Central Powers not the Axis

Seems kind of a long shot. Why get into the bloody mess that was Great War? Like you said they had financial and internal problems enough. Getting involved would only make things worse unless they were on the winning side. If they got involved maybe the Central Powers would have won the Great War or at least got a stalemate. The Ottomans might have had their problems but they weren't an insignifigant power. If they did win they might have lasted quite a big longer. However I don't think they could have survived the stress of war and would have fallen apart even sooner. I think the Central Powers would have lost anyways and the Ottomans wouldn't survived long enough to be carved up.
 
I reckon that a lot of it would have ended up being incorporated in the British Empire. Here's how I see things going down. If they joined the CP, they would have been choking the Russians even more so, the British probably would have intervened with their navy. Long story short, the Royal Navy smashes it's way up the Straits to the Constantinople and sends the Ottomans into complete disarray. They would have collapsed even faster and definitely divided up if they lost.
 
i don't remember - how did the byzantines get cyprus, seeing as it was occupied by the british since 1878? what happened to the nominal ottoman province of egypt? did italy keep the dodencanese?
 
OCC. To be honest, I don't really see this scenario happening. Where on earth would the Arab rebellion get the strength to actually challenge the Turks by themselves? Even assuming that all the Arab soldiers in the Ottoman army defect (Unlikely, to say the least) then they are still outnumbered heavily by the rest of the army. Also, there is pretty much zero chance of the Greeks or "Byzantines" taking back Constantinople and western Anatolia. Outside of Gallipoli, the Greeks make a majority nowhere in these areas, and at any rate, would be defended by the Ottomans. Also, alliance with the Sauds? The Ottomans and Sauds didn't get along well, and I don't see how the Saudis could really help with any internal threats.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
If the Ottomans would enter WW1 it would be on the Entente side. Grand Vizier Ahmed Riza and most of the Liberal Union government supported the Entente anyways. They didn't enter the war because they feared a CUP coup attempt sponsored by the Central Powers.
 
If the Ottomans would enter WW1 it would be on the Entente side. Grand Vizier Ahmed Riza and most of the Liberal Union government supported the Entente anyways. They didn't enter the war because they feared a CUP coup attempt sponsored by the Central Powers.

Quite likely, yes. Also the Allies were more likely to win (As they did) with GB, France and Russia against Germany and Austria-Hungry. They had both more money and manpower. Why would the Ottomans pick the losing side?
 
If the Ottomans would enter WW1 it would be on the Entente side. Grand Vizier Ahmed Riza and most of the Liberal Union government supported the Entente anyways. They didn't enter the war because they feared a CUP coup attempt sponsored by the Central Powers.
I agree. It's not like the Entente would do anything stupid like deliberately encroach on Ottoman neutrality or reject Ottoman alliance feelers. Britain would have done quite well with the Turks on their side, since the Colonial Office was terrified of the sultan calling for jihad and seriously weakening Britain's hold on India and Egypt.
 
Top