Actually the Armenian Genocide was the result of paranoia with no basis. Some Armenians did collaborate with the Russians but the majority stayed loyal to the Sultan. Before the 20th century the Armenians were one of the loyalest Christian populations of the empire and troubles only started during the hamidian massacres.
How to get rid of this paranoia? Well you have to go to 1908 and make the Armenians support the CUP revolution. The paranoia would die a lot from that.
Now for the Arabs and other minorities. Instead of forcing ottomanism down their throats the empire should have focused on Spain's or Britain's model. Where you still had your local identity if being Galician, Andalusian, Castilian, English, Welsh, Scottish etc but still overall had an identity of British and Spanish. This would have been much more effective and created less minority problems
I believe these two go hand in hand. That is exactly what "Ottomanism" was supposed to be, essentially hyphenating all the minority groups of the empire (Ottoman-Armenian; Ottoman-Arab; Ottoman-Turk; Ottoman-Bulgarian), it was NOT the widespread turkification policies practiced under the post-Balkan War governments. There are two events which primarily led to this; First, the Counter-Coup in 1909... While outwardly it was sparked by Islamist and Monarchist elements, the Liberal Party openly supported the move in order to cut out the Committee of Union and Progress. This put the minority parties (Bulgarian Clubs, Federative Party, ARF, Serb Democratic League) in the cross hairs of the CUP. While a few of these parties, specifically the ARF and the Federatives, were at least allies of the CUP the CUP did not discriminate in there decision to ban all ethnic parties they saw as potential allies of the Liberals after the coup was put down. This drove two potential allies away at the start.
The second major event was the First Balkan War. The CUP was founded and headquartered in Salonika, it's powerbase was in Macedonia, and its history was all centralized in Rumelia. The loss of European Turkey was beyond a gut punch for the leadership of the party, it was like getting their hearts and homes ripped away from them. They viewed the christian populations as traitors to the revolution who at the first sign of trouble welcomed their ethnic compatriots without a second thought, while at the same time turning on their Muslim neighbors and forcing them to flee. This was an extremely traumatic event which I believe is far too casually overlooked in the mindset of those in power during WW1. The CUP had become hardwired to view minorities as willing to betray their nation and that anyone who was not a Turk was a liability. This is where where move toward Turkism came from.
The ottoman army in retrospect did do pretty well in defensive maneuvers and were not able to conduct offensive missions properly due to........logistics. even then battles like sarakamish etc were so close it isn't funny. A simple maneuver would have finished the Russians. Now imagine the ottoman army with proper logistics. That was what is needed. The Baghdad railway was paused for some years before 1910. Dont. By 1914 the railway would extend almost all the way to Medina and make your logistics especially in the Sinai and northeast much better.
Just a nitpick on that, the Baghdad railway did not extend down the Mediterranean coast, That was the Syrian Railway and the Hejaz railway which were both already completed by the time war broke out (Except for a small portion through the Taurus mountains which was not completed and was a part of the baghdad railway project).
Not an expert on this particular part of WWI, but in what I've read Enver Pasha gets a lot of blame for having been a driving force in the genocide. He also, of course, was responsible for one of the Empire's huge offensive disasters. So if getting rid of the genocide helps them (which seems plausible enough), how about just replace Enver before the war? Admittedly, he apparently was also one of the more pro-CP figures in the government, but surely someone can construct a timeline where someone who is still pro-CP, but less incompetent and less genocidal, ends up in his place.
As
@Aghasverov mentioned, the primary figure behind the Armenian massacres was Talaat, who up until the defeat in the Balkan War did not appear to me to hold any particularly negative view on the Armenians and actually was a strong proponent of and electoral alliance with the ARF in the 1912 elections. It was the defeat in the war which radicalized him toward the minority communities in my opinion.
True, however the Armenian support was much lower than the other Christian parts of the empire. The Anatolian Greeks supported the CUP revolution ferverently along with the Maronites, however the same amount of support was missing from the Armenian population. A similar amount of support would have made Talat's goal impossible no matter how much he wanted it.
I'm not sure about your sources on this, the Greek communities were among the most staunchly against the CUP. The Armenians really need to be broken up between those who followed the religious leadership, among them the more economically prosperous Armenians in Istanbul and other major Ottoman cities, who were against the CUP and the ARF, who were primarily "middle class", who were at least initially supporters and allies of the CUP (even as much as running for Parliament as both a CUP and ARF member). The Greeks as a whole however were always on the Liberal Parties side.
Yeah, despite his many many faults, Abdul Hamid II continuing was much better for the stability of the empire and its development. I would say avoiding the IMRO uprising in Macedonia in 1903 and offing Ahmet Risa would make his position untouchable.
Abdul Hamid II was not a good ruler. The "stability" he provided was bought in blood and repression. Development wise he continued the policy of stagnation and decay, fearing any significant progress would weaken his personal grip on the Empire. There is no way he can avoid the uprising in 1903 without committing atrocities like in 1896, simply because he knew no other way to deal with problems. Killing Ahmet Riza will only allow someone more radical to replace him.
Now... A better military for the Ottoman Empire during WW1 depends on the POD.
If we are talking about a 1914 POD? Then getting Enver Pasha out of the Minister of War position is a start, or at the very least keep him away from actual command. The failures on the Caucasus front gutted the 3rd Army and the loss of the officer corp was irreplaceable. staying on the defensive and allowing the Russians to kill themselves against entrenched ottoman positions would help to keep the more radical elements of Armenians from smelling blood. Will there still be ethnic cleansing? Yes, but it may be curtailed somewhat, but we aren't here to talk about that just better performance. Everything else in the war? Well considering they butchered their trained armies at the start in OTL, simply avoiding that will provide better outcomes in the longrun... but as long as they are CP the Entente will be in Damascus and Baghdad by 1918 like in OTL.
POD earlier? Best case is the Balkan War, have the Empire fight a defensive war instead of trying to launch offensive battles with inferior numbers. Hold Salonika, Yanya, Iskoder, and Edirne while allowing the Bulgarians to bleed to death in Thrace against cholera and trench lines. By february the weight of Ottoman mobilization will be realized and they can defeat the Bulgarians (who would be stretched thin with Serbian and Bulgarian forces stuck in Macedonia facing Salonika) rolling up the allies. This is not a likely scenario, but its possible and it's the absolute latest I can imagine where the Empire can be saved and have a more efficient and effective army (bloodied and experienced in modern war).
