Make the Ottoman Empire survive

[Rockingham]

Okay, so maybe a win is possibel but is it a good thing?

Even Abdul seems to agree that reforms in OE was needed. And winning versus Russia aint the best way of insigating reforms.

IMHO a draw with acceptable territorial losses would both give the incitament to reform while not devastating the territorial positions.

What do you mean? Ottoman's were already reforming, and one of the main reasons the russians went to war when they did was because the Ottomans's were getting stronger. Their would have been pressure from other european states to give it's chrstians some autonomy, and even i na victorious scenario I see something like that being guaranteed by the ottomans, ditto for the russians muslims. Ok, maybe not autonomy....

This implies reforms. As said earlier, the defeat also lead the ottoman empire to move from Ottomanism to Islamism, which was a slight deterioration. A victory would probaly require the Ottomans to reform so they could more succesfuly integrate the European regions, and the reduction of their massive tax buden wouldn't hurt.

If the Ottomans have any sense, they will reform. We may even see a constitutional monarchic system a decade and a half earlier...otl the Emperor's were prety weak anyway, and prone to squandering money.


You may be right, but I doubt it, especially as many of the Empire's problems have been so recently highlighted.

If their is ever any time for the reforms to take place, it is in the aftermath of the war when the european powers are less likely to prevent it, and more likely focused on Russia(which if defeated probaly suffers rebellions in some form, at least in poland)

Anyway, a win is certainly better then what happened OTL, were in agreement their aren't we? It will also provoke a reformation of russia's miliary, 2 decades or so before sino-japanese war, might actually be good for Russia. The ottoman system wasn't that bad at this time anyway, they were able to beat the Russians and were the 3rd largest navy in the world.
Room for improvement, but all the powers, bar Britain and Germany, had major problems

 

[Rockingham]

This is the after 1900 thread anyway, why are we discussing the 1887-1888 war?

 

[Oddball]

What do you mean? Ottoman's were already reforming, and one of the main reasons the russians went to war when they did was because the Ottomans's were getting stronger. Their would have been pressure from other european states to give it's chrstians some autonomy, and even i na victorious scenario I see something like that being guaranteed by the ottomans, ditto for the russians muslims. Ok, maybe not autonomy....

This implies reforms. As said earlier, the defeat also lead the ottoman empire to move from Ottomanism to Islamism, which was a slight deterioration. A victory would probaly require the Ottomans to reform so they could more succesfuly integrate the European regions, and the reduction of their massive tax buden wouldn't hurt.

If the Ottomans have any sense, they will reform. We may even see a constitutional monarchic system a decade and a half earlier...otl the Emperor's were prety weak anyway, and prone to squandering money.

You may be right, but I doubt it, especially as many of the Empire's problems have been so recently highlighted.

If their is ever any time for the reforms to take place, it is in the aftermath of the war when the european powers are less likely to prevent it, and more likely focused on Russia(which if defeated probaly suffers rebellions in some form, at least in poland)

Many good points

Interresting

Anyway, a win is certainly better then what happened OTL, were in agreement their aren't we? It will also provoke a reformation of russia's miliary, 2 decades or so before sino-japanese war, might actually be good for Russia. The ottoman system wasn't that bad at this time anyway, they were able to beat the Russians and were the 3rd largest navy in the world.
Room for improvement, but all the powers, bar Britain and Germany, had major problems

Im unsure wether a win is possible, but a draw should be ok yes

 

[Oddball]

This is the after 1900 thread anyway, why are we discussing the 1887-1888 war?

Now there is a statement that cannot be debated...

 

[Fenwick]

I think what can save the Empire in the end is a middle class. Some buffer between the wealthy, and the poor. It needs to be entrenched as well, so clerking jobs, and anything else along the lines will need to be in great demand. Going along the lines of oil, companies will need to be formed, and clerks will have to man them. So those educated few find themselves in need of people who are skilled, but willing to work for a lesser wage.

So let's take this a step further, for the Ottomans would most likely want to preform such tasks themselves, and try to control the oil within their nation. So in the 20', maybe 30's you would begin to see this middle class emerge. Compared to the wealthy they have little, but they have homes, and various luxury items like a refriderator, or a radio. Say 12% of the population is the middle class, that seems like nothing, but I think it may be like the middle class of the 1880's 1890's in America. They where these people whi wanted to change society, and stabilize it. The wealthy tolerated them, and the poor either wanted to be them or hated them.

Now if you have a middle class the average person has something to strive for. Then again maybe the poor will experince a boom of their own. For when oil is seen as the vital resource it is someone, will need to construct the wells, of course this will be the europeans at first. But where will they stay? shop? eat? Following BP entering the region a small selection of Arabs found themselves working at shops , and restaraunts tailored to the British. You might see people flocking to the cities, and towns to find jobs.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I´m just telling you that they wouldn´t have willingly given anything up, especially after winning. Before they war they had the opportunity to ceded territory and decided they might as well fight for it. It probably would have been better to make concessions to the Powers, avoid a fight, and try to weasel around them afterwards. I think you either have to have the Ottomans lose their territory, or not. There isn´t really an intermediate option. The areas where there were Muslim majorities tended to be on the periphery - Bosnia, Northern Bulgaria. I´m working on an ethnic map as of 1877 - I´ll post it when I´m done.

Be nice Abdul You dont always have to defend the Ottoman to death you know...

Im just interested in creating a scenario where OE can keep the core area in the Balkans while still be able to have those other independent states. I would also like to do this without to mutch resentment later

Is this possible?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Is "winning" even within grasp of OE?

In my scenario I had more of a draw in mind, but then that would probably be a strategic victory to OE. But not to a extent that OE can gain territory.

I would tend to agree. An Ottoman "win" is beating back a Russian invasion, which I think was highly possible. Launching an offensive war is out of the question, as is the Powers letting the Ottomans annex new Christian territory.

Eventually the Powers would have to step in in any case to prevent Russia from collapsing.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Okay, so maybe a win is possibel but is it a good thing?

Even Abdul seems to agree that reforms in OE was needed. And winning versus Russia aint the best way of insigating reforms.

IMHO a draw with acceptable territorial losses would both give the incitament to reform while not devastating the territorial positions.

The Ottomans were well aware what reforms were needed, and had no illusions about what needed to be improved even when successful - they would have been very conscious of the fact that Russia failed due to their sending insufficient troops to prevail, and even surviving would have revealed the failures of the Ottoman command structure.

The war would most likely have validated in everyone´s mind the direction of reform; the war if anything DIScredited many directions, especially liberal-democratic reform in the central government. It also decreased Ottoman confidence and optimism.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I agree with a lot of this, but there was a middle class developing - that´s one of the main reasons the Young Turk revolution happened. It was the desire for the new middle-class to share power.

The problem was that there were two middle-classes; a military-bureaucratic-land-owning Muslim middle-class, and a commerical Christian middle-class. I tend to think abolition of the Capitulations would level the playing field and decrease the problems associated (in the end, the Ottomans/Turks) just booted out all the Christians, with very high consequences to the economy...

But in the years before the war, industrial and economic development was moving at a very rapid pace - I would think being neutral in the war would have created enormous competitive opportunities for the Ottomans, much as the Civil War did in the 1860s (cotton & tobacco through the roof!)

I think what can save the Empire in the end is a middle class. Some buffer between the wealthy, and the poor. It needs to be entrenched as well, so clerking jobs, and anything else along the lines will need to be in great demand. Going along the lines of oil, companies will need to be formed, and clerks will have to man them. So those educated few find themselves in need of people who are skilled, but willing to work for a lesser wage.

So let's take this a step further, for the Ottomans would most likely want to preform such tasks themselves, and try to control the oil within their nation. So in the 20', maybe 30's you would begin to see this middle class emerge. Compared to the wealthy they have little, but they have homes, and various luxury items like a refriderator, or a radio. Say 12% of the population is the middle class, that seems like nothing, but I think it may be like the middle class of the 1880's 1890's in America. They where these people whi wanted to change society, and stabilize it. The wealthy tolerated them, and the poor either wanted to be them or hated them.

Now if you have a middle class the average person has something to strive for. Then again maybe the poor will experince a boom of their own. For when oil is seen as the vital resource it is someone, will need to construct the wells, of course this will be the europeans at first. But where will they stay? shop? eat? Following BP entering the region a small selection of Arabs found themselves working at shops , and restaraunts tailored to the British. You might see people flocking to the cities, and towns to find jobs.

 

[Faeelin]

But in the years before the war, industrial and economic development was moving at a very rapid pace - I would think being neutral in the war would have created enormous competitive opportunities for the Ottomans, much as the Civil War did in the 1860s (cotton & tobacco through the roof!)

Hmm. OTL, the war caused a boom for China and Japan's textile mills that continued after the war, as foreign manufacturers turned to neutral shipping. And, of course, textiles are a great way to start industrialization...

Does cotton grow in the OE? I wanna say yes but I'm not sure.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Hmm. OTL, the war caused a boom for China and Japan's textile mills that continued after the war, as foreign manufacturers turned to neutral shipping. And, of course, textiles are a great way to start industrialization...

Does cotton grow in the OE? I wanna say yes but I'm not sure.

Yes, quite a bit. Due to a number of reasons that are too complex to get into, they were of lower-quality varieties, but there is plenty of market for them, and the textile, along with the food-processing industry was what was booming. Silk was doing OK but the Greeks chopped down all the mulberry trees when they invaded, and permanently destroyed the industry.

Opium and tobacco were major exports, these products being of the highest quality. But in the last couple of years before the war, contracts were signed for some major industry, including electric companies, a huge shipyard at Izmit, several thousand km of rail & road, lots of mining (one of the industries that best weathered the war as it was largely in Muslim hands), etc.

 

[Glen]

It's interesting to speculate that the simple act of staying out of WWI may have been enough to keep alive in some form the Ottoman Empire.

I doubt it would take much to keep them out, though Abdul would know better than I what the most likely reason for this divergence would be.

That would have several immediate knock-off effects. Possibly the British wouldn't take complete control of Egypt since the Sultan Husayn wouldn't be siding with the Ottomans against them. No Gallipoli, so Churchill might have a bit brighter political career in the interwar period.

No Ottomans in the war may mean some nominal increase in Allied troops that can be thrown against the Central Powers, but would this be enough to change any of the course of the war? Perhaps, but let's assume not really, beyond some butterflies.

Let us say the Russians still have their revolution, and Brest-Litovsk or its equivalent is still passed. I can imagine the Ottomans protesting the German presence in the Caucuses but still valuing it as a buffer between the Empire and these new Red Russians.

Then, as the US enters the war and eventually the tide turns decisively against the Central Powers, and only then, do the Ottomans jump into the fray, like so many other nations of that era.

Bulgaria is actually more likely to join the Central Powers ITTL than in OTL, so this will still happen. When the Ottomans jump in at the end of the conflict, they can make some territorial gains on the Bulgarians.

As the Germans withdraw from the Caucuses, I can see the Ottomans offering to prop up the Georgian Republic as a buffer state between itself and Soviet Russia.

The Ottoman Empire as one of the original permanent members of the League of Nations seems likely.

Probably the 1920s to 1930s are very similar to OTL except for the Ottomans going through some modernization in the 1920s, and no Armenian Genocide. Maybe Churchill instead of a backbencher is more of a leader of the opposition to the Appeasment movement, but still not able to do anything yet.

Very interesting here might be the Ottoman response to the rise of Nazi Germany, and particularly the plight of the Jews. Are the Ottomans still more tolerant of Jews than Europe? Could the Ottomans open up their borders to Jews fleeing from Germany? Its actually quite possible. Many will gravitate towards the City and other cosmopolitan sites, whereas only a few will want to go to Palestine. Here there is much weaker of a Zionism movement without the Balfour Declaration.

When WWII rolls around, things might be very interesting. I like the Ottomans staying with the Allies.

As mentioned, the Ottomans will gain some money from oil, though how much in part depends on what they do with the Saudis in the 1920s. But they'll have basically OTL Iraq's oil.

The Ottomans probably still gravitate towards Western Europe post WWII. In fact, they would be a very important member of NATO I suspect, a bulwark against Communism in the Balkans and the Middle East.

I could see this world being very interesting, and perhaps just a little bit better in some ways....

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The only thing I would disagree with in here is that I think Bulgaria would never join the CP with the Ottomans neutral. If they did and committed their army against Serbia or anyone else, they´re leaving their back door open to the Ottomans - exactly what happened in the 2nd Balkan War.

If the Ottomans had stayed neutral, the Saudis would be blasted into a puddle of goo. They have no means to hold Hasa, and without it have no food. It´s also where the oil is. It would also be an opportunity to assert control over Kuwait.

The biggest impact on the war is a huge boost to Russia if the Straits can be used for supply. However, the Ottomans could close them anyway. Russia would likely not be able to free too many troops up for need to guard against the Ottomans.

I don´t see why the Ottomans wouldn´t grant santuary for Jews in WWII - historically Turkey went way out on a limb to rescue a huge number of Jews - although they didn´t have the resources to house too many long-term. In this TL, they would have plenty of room and resources - although allowing too many into Palestine would probably be strongly resisted. Also, conflict could develop between the predominant Sephardim and the Ashkenaz newcomers. But the Ottomans were not inclined to refuse a million taxpayers with valuable skills. Especially with so much underutilized land available.

It's interesting to speculate that the simple act of staying out of WWI may have been enough to keep alive in some form the Ottoman Empire.

I doubt it would take much to keep them out, though Abdul would know better than I what the most likely reason for this divergence would be.

That would have several immediate knock-off effects. Possibly the British wouldn't take complete control of Egypt since the Sultan Husayn wouldn't be siding with the Ottomans against them. No Gallipoli, so Churchill might have a bit brighter political career in the interwar period.

No Ottomans in the war may mean some nominal increase in Allied troops that can be thrown against the Central Powers, but would this be enough to change any of the course of the war? Perhaps, but let's assume not really, beyond some butterflies.

Let us say the Russians still have their revolution, and Brest-Litovsk or its equivalent is still passed. I can imagine the Ottomans protesting the German presence in the Caucuses but still valuing it as a buffer between the Empire and these new Red Russians.

Then, as the US enters the war and eventually the tide turns decisively against the Central Powers, and only then, do the Ottomans jump into the fray, like so many other nations of that era.

Bulgaria is actually more likely to join the Central Powers ITTL than in OTL, so this will still happen. When the Ottomans jump in at the end of the conflict, they can make some territorial gains on the Bulgarians.

As the Germans withdraw from the Caucuses, I can see the Ottomans offering to prop up the Georgian Republic as a buffer state between itself and Soviet Russia.

The Ottoman Empire as one of the original permanent members of the League of Nations seems likely.

Probably the 1920s to 1930s are very similar to OTL except for the Ottomans going through some modernization in the 1920s, and no Armenian Genocide. Maybe Churchill instead of a backbencher is more of a leader of the opposition to the Appeasment movement, but still not able to do anything yet.

Very interesting here might be the Ottoman response to the rise of Nazi Germany, and particularly the plight of the Jews. Are the Ottomans still more tolerant of Jews than Europe? Could the Ottomans open up their borders to Jews fleeing from Germany? Its actually quite possible. Many will gravitate towards the City and other cosmopolitan sites, whereas only a few will want to go to Palestine. Here there is much weaker of a Zionism movement without the Balfour Declaration.

When WWII rolls around, things might be very interesting. I like the Ottomans staying with the Allies.

As mentioned, the Ottomans will gain some money from oil, though how much in part depends on what they do with the Saudis in the 1920s. But they'll have basically OTL Iraq's oil.

The Ottomans probably still gravitate towards Western Europe post WWII. In fact, they would be a very important member of NATO I suspect, a bulwark against Communism in the Balkans and the Middle East.

I could see this world being very interesting, and perhaps just a little bit better in some ways....

 

[Oddball]

I´m just telling you that they wouldn´t have willingly given anything up, especially after winning. Before they war they had the opportunity to ceded territory and decided they might as well fight for it.

Hardly willingly, but somethimes you have to do what you have to do...

It probably would have been better to make concessions to the Powers, avoid a fight, and try to weasel around them afterwards.

That could also work, but then the incitament to further or different reforms would perhaps not be there???

I think you either have to have the Ottomans lose their territory, or not. There isn´t really an intermediate option.

What do you mean? All or nothing????

The areas where there were Muslim majorities tended to be on the periphery - Bosnia, Northern Bulgaria. I´m working on an ethnic map as of 1877 - I´ll post it when I´m done.

Looking forward to that

 

[Rockingham]

Could the Ottomans possibly remain Emperor's after a defeat in the World War? Mabe with an earlier defeat due to victory at Gallipoli?

 

[Glen]

The only thing I would disagree with in here is that I think Bulgaria would never join the CP with the Ottomans neutral. If they did and committed their army against Serbia or anyone else, they´re leaving their back door open to the Ottomans - exactly what happened in the 2nd Balkan War.

I must disagree. The Bulgarians at this point in time are unlikely to particularly fear the Ottomans. They have other issues to work out on the Balkans. You are right that they will suffer much the same as in the Second Balkan War, but then again, people don't always learn from history.

If the Ottomans had stayed neutral, the Saudis would be blasted into a puddle of goo. They have no means to hold Hasa, and without it have no food. It´s also where the oil is.

Sounds reasonable.

It would also be an opportunity to assert control over Kuwait.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'control'. I assume the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913 would go into full effect in such a timeline.

The biggest impact on the war is a huge boost to Russia if the Straits can be used for supply. However, the Ottomans could close them anyway. Russia would likely not be able to free too many troops up for need to guard against the Ottomans.

I could see them staying strict neutral at this point, keeping it closed for both, but it is a benefit to Russia.

Is it enough of a benefit to keep the Tsar in power, though?

I don´t see why the Ottomans wouldn´t grant santuary for Jews in WWII - historically Turkey went way out on a limb to rescue a huge number of Jews - although they didn´t have the resources to house too many long-term. In this TL, they would have plenty of room and resources - although allowing too many into Palestine would probably be strongly resisted. Also, conflict could develop between the predominant Sephardim and the Ashkenaz newcomers. But the Ottomans were not inclined to refuse a million taxpayers with valuable skills. Especially with so much underutilized land available.

I agree. I would imagine they would be more evenly distributed throughout the Empire, and in fact I think many of the Jews would be fine with this. There wouldn't be the same drive towards a homeland for all of them.

What kind of conflict would develop between the Sephardim and the Ashkenazi? They won't necessarily embrace each other, but why would they have conflict?

 

[Glen]

What, no further comments here? I think that something like this might make the basis for a nice little timeline.