If Italy fought on the CP side, would the Ottomans likely side with Entente?

If Italy fought on the CP side, would the Ottomans likely side with Entente?

  • Yes, Ottomans would be pro-Entente

    Votes: 3 7.3%
  • No, Ottomans would not be pro-Entente

    Votes: 16 39.0%
  • Ottomans on Entente side, Italy on CP side is still better for CP than OTL

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • Ottomans on Entente side, Italy on CP side is better for Entente than OTL

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • Ottomans would be even more likely to go pro-CP

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • Italy's position would have almost nothing to do with Ottoman alliance decisions

    Votes: 26 63.4%

  • Total voters
    41

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It's often suggested that if Italy fought on the CP side, the Ottomans would likely side with the Entente.

What are your thoughts on that?

It is true that Italy did a land grab from Ottomans in recent years, and it is a chance for revenge, but how much of a priority would it really be for the Ottomans to regain Libya? I would think that avoiding conflict with Italy might be preferred by the Ottomans if this helps the Ottomans somehow get revenge and gains on its more recent Balkan wars enemies like Greece or Bulgaria.
 
Not sure if Ottomans wanted these areas back very much. It had already troubles with its territories what had on 1914. Even in OTL Ottomans didn't want much. If they don't join to CPs probably are neutra.
 
Not sure if Ottomans wanted these areas back very much. It had already troubles with its territories what had on 1914. Even in OTL Ottomans didn't want much. If they don't join to CPs probably are neutra.

Rhodes and the Aegean Islands were a knife held at her throat; Triopolitania might have been an acceptable lose, but could major naval-air presences so close to their capital and heartland in Western Anatolia be tolerated in the hands of a power that showed she had no qualms about unilaterally seizing Ottoman territory?

While I can't imagine they'd join the war RIGHT AWAY, there's a real chance that if things drag on into 1916-1917the growing economic weight on Russia from limited Strait traffic and the search for additional forces/fronts should Bulgaria or Greece leap in on Serbia would increase the bribes and diplomatic pressure from the British to the point that the government in Constantinople (Having had time to rebuild) could be persuaded to jump in.
 
Rhodes and the Aegean Islands were a knife held at her throat; Triopolitania might have been an acceptable lose, but could major naval-air presences so close to their capital and heartland in Western Anatolia be tolerated in the hands of a power that showed she had no qualms about unilaterally seizing Ottoman territory?

While I can't imagine they'd join the war RIGHT AWAY, there's a real chance that if things drag on into 1916-1917the growing economic weight on Russia from limited Strait traffic and the search for additional forces/fronts should Bulgaria or Greece leap in on Serbia would increase the bribes and diplomatic pressure from the British to the point that the government in Constantinople (Having had time to rebuild) could be persuaded to jump in.

My opinion is that Greece steers more firmly neutral and Germany allows her to but Bulgaria weighs in to get the rest of her Balkan claims satisfied. And if Italy has stayed in the Alliance and joined the war on the side of Germany and A-H then I think this is the logical step. Britain will be free to pursue the OE, and the OE wants to get free of her restraints, mostly held by the British. Britain needs to restructure or forgive debt, insure Ottoman integrity and return her full sovereignty. It is this steeper cost that I ponder whether Britain will pay. The UK must sell out its position in the OE to open the Straights for Russia and get the OE to open a front against Bulgaria. She gets some better control over the Mesopotamian oil and protects Persia but loses any hope for the Levant and maybe loses position in Arabia, she benefits everyone but herself really. And worse you get France waiting in the wings to get more out of the deal than she ever puts in. Worse you might open the door for the Russians to interfere too. I see it as a giant step backwards for the Empire who already holds what she wants and aspires to more not less of the OE. I tend to think that the OE works like Italy as an ally, too much price for too little performance. And post-war you get a rather regretful relationship.
 
My opinion is that Greece steers more firmly neutral and Germany allows her to but Bulgaria weighs in to get the rest of her Balkan claims satisfied. And if Italy has stayed in the Alliance and joined the war on the side of Germany and A-H then I think this is the logical step. Britain will be free to pursue the OE, and the OE wants to get free of her restraints, mostly held by the British. Britain needs to restructure or forgive debt, insure Ottoman integrity and return her full sovereignty. It is this steeper cost that I ponder whether Britain will pay. The UK must sell out its position in the OE to open the Straights for Russia and get the OE to open a front against Bulgaria. She gets some better control over the Mesopotamian oil and protects Persia but loses any hope for the Levant and maybe loses position in Arabia, she benefits everyone but herself really. And worse you get France waiting in the wings to get more out of the deal than she ever puts in. Worse you might open the door for the Russians to interfere too. I see it as a giant step backwards for the Empire who already holds what she wants and aspires to more not less of the OE. I tend to think that the OE works like Italy as an ally, too much price for too little performance. And post-war you get a rather regretful relationship.

I fail to see how supporting Ottoman territorial integrity is a net negative for the British Empire, especially if she can pull them firmly into London's commerical sphere. Sure, she may have to accept some debt restructuring and more leniant terms on the capitulations, but A) Constantinople was already paying down the debt pre-War, B) Such a change would also naturally apply to her commerical rivals in the Empire who are also part of the Entente; IE France and Russia, and the removal of German commercial power, so in terms of proportional influence in the Ottoman economy she likely comes out ahead, C) If the Ottomans are entering the war, they're going to need to purchase supplies and get loans from SOMEWHERE... and who better to sell to them than Britain? The Turks will be racking up debts to London's banking houses and providing further profits to British industry as well as insuring access to Russian markets/gold and helping them stay in the war to soak up German resources which could otherwise be turned west against areas of greater British strategic interest. Simply put, I think London would weigh the risks and realize that Turkey isen't strong enough to actively displace British interests in the Middle East and, as an ally/client, do wonders from Imperial interests in the long term. She would act as a buffer against post-war Russian expansion (Russia being the next most threatening military and industrial rival after Germany had been dealth with and, therefore, needing to be considered in post-war calculations), act as a market for British capital, provide stability and protection for the oil supply that is going to keep the Royal Navy running without having to depend on the good will of Russia or The United States, and could act as a regional proxy/support to indirectly expand British-faction influence and provide additional protection for the Suez canal and bolster the naval balance in the Med. in the event of a future British-Franco-Russian rivalry.

Simply put, Britain can't count on the Entente remaining a friendly relationship once the mutual enemy of Germany has been trimmed down to size. To the contrary, in order to be secure in her own Pax Britannica without Germany checking France and Russia would need to make some major adjustments to forge an active alliance of her own in order to prevent being caught out in the diplomatic cold: something she was already doing with Japan. Backing second-tier powers who she can safely allow to be strengthened somewhat without becoming powerful enough to unilaterially break with British interests is well worth some minor concessions.
 
I fail to see how supporting Ottoman territorial integrity is a net negative for the British Empire, especially if she can pull them firmly into London's commerical sphere. Sure, she may have to accept some debt restructuring and more leniant terms on the capitulations, but A) Constantinople was already paying down the debt pre-War, B) Such a change would also naturally apply to her commerical rivals in the Empire who are also part of the Entente; IE France and Russia, and the removal of German commercial power, so in terms of proportional influence in the Ottoman economy she likely comes out ahead, C) If the Ottomans are entering the war, they're going to need to purchase supplies and get loans from SOMEWHERE... and who better to sell to them than Britain? The Turks will be racking up debts to London's banking houses and providing further profits to British industry as well as insuring access to Russian markets/gold and helping them stay in the war to soak up German resources which could otherwise be turned west against areas of greater British strategic interest. Simply put, I think London would weigh the risks and realize that Turkey isen't strong enough to actively displace British interests in the Middle East and, as an ally/client, do wonders from Imperial interests in the long term. She would act as a buffer against post-war Russian expansion (Russia being the next most threatening military and industrial rival after Germany had been dealth with and, therefore, needing to be considered in post-war calculations), act as a market for British capital, provide stability and protection for the oil supply that is going to keep the Royal Navy running without having to depend on the good will of Russia or The United States, and could act as a regional proxy/support to indirectly expand British-faction influence and provide additional protection for the Suez canal and bolster the naval balance in the Med. in the event of a future British-Franco-Russian rivalry.

Simply put, Britain can't count on the Entente remaining a friendly relationship once the mutual enemy of Germany has been trimmed down to size. To the contrary, in order to be secure in her own Pax Britannica without Germany checking France and Russia would need to make some major adjustments to forge an active alliance of her own in order to prevent being caught out in the diplomatic cold: something she was already doing with Japan. Backing second-tier powers who she can safely allow to be strengthened somewhat without becoming powerful enough to unilaterially break with British interests is well worth some minor concessions.

While I agree, that all argues in favor of British neutrality and extending those wings over her other vested interests. Alas Britain is at war and buying allies.

Sadly I cannot see the Ottomans being any genuine counter to the victorious Franco-Russian combine, Russia has her own designs on the OE, as did France, Britain is the one paying to get the OE in the war and likely getting it carved up anyway as France and Russia get greedy. The British should see Ottoman integrity as in its interests yet carved her up, gaining at best the Mesopotamian oil fields and yet more disaffected Arabs. In the panic over Germany's failure to let herself be defeated the British threw the Ottomans into the fire and tried to open the Straights for Russia. If Italy is on the CP side I see a similar panic, Britain will at best buy Ottoman allegiance but will the OE survive? She expects more than some ash, she wants her prizes. Will the UK give her back the Balkans? Kuwait? Egypt? Again the logic of British alignment with Russia is baffling, yes the Russians do more dying but Britain pays the bills and has nothing standing between her and the bear at war's end. Who in Britain presumed the Russians will not remember the Crimean War? It is dangerous to be the friend of one's enemy's enemy.
 
Italy was helpful, but the Ottomans control the Turkish Straits, so their switching sides allows the Entente to help resupply Russia and Romania. Mind you, The Italians have a bigger navy, so that could change things the other way if the Entente isn't careful.
 
Last edited:
Top