Let's say the Ottomans stay neutral in the First World War or something, or perhaps even lean slightly into the pro-Allied camp: enough to retain their 1914 borders, but not enough to grab anything else. How do the Greeks, Armenians, Kurds etc fare?
Minorities in a surviving Ottoman Empire
- Thread starter Basileus Giorgios
- Start date
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
I guess they would be treated quite well. Local autonomy and the ability to have government documents written in their languages. Turkey seems to have a good thing going with its minorities, I assume the Ottomans would be the same thing.
I wonder what would happen to a surviving Ottoman Empire when decolonization comes around (if it does). Especially considering how much oil the Ottoman Empire will turn out to control, it will be a major player in global politics, and it could easily turn out to be in some power bloc's interest to promote nationalist (especially Arab nationalist) movements in order to destabilize the OE and harm whichever power bloc is its major trading partner if/when there's a re-match of the alt-WWI.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
According to the Don and Pasha, the Arabs were pretty much content under Ottoman rule considering that the Ottoman sultan was also the Caliph, you know supreme authority of Islam or something like that.
wolf_brother
Banned
With a neutral or allied-leaning Ottomans I'm not sure how long WWI even lasts. Certainly what-ever conflict follows isn't titled something as grandiose as 'World War Two;' so ITTL the great European colonial empires aren't pushed to the breaking point and then some. Decolonization never takes off the ground except in a few places with very unique circumstances, and even then its less of a 'de-colonial' movement towards independence than it is a reformist movement to increase colonial independence in the imperial governments. Given that context the minorities in a surviving Ottoman Empire are likely to be fairly well off. Most likely a certain amount of ethnic/religious autonomy, but still fiercely loyal to the Sublime Porte. And considering the sheer size of the Ottoman oil reserves the state will have more than enough cash on hand for a substantial welfare system to placate the population. Any foreign-supported nationalist independence movements are likely to be viewed as terrorists ITTL.
I could not possibly disagree more strenuously. While the Ottoman Empire was pretty chill with its minorities for much of its history, the rise of nationalism within the Empire was definitely doing away with that by the turn of the century. While a lot of the rise of Turkish nationalism can probably be laid at the Sublime Porte's poor showing in the war, it was definitely on the rise. We're just seen the Hamidian Massacres and the Adana Massacre in the east, and anti-Greek sentiment is stirred pretty high by irredentism. Constantinople got along fine with the Arabs but, to be frank, this is more because of benign neglect than anything. Arab nationalism is still going to rise, with or without British support, and when it does, the Arabs probably aren't going to be happy with limited self-government under a federation ruled quite definitely by Turks. This is even more the case in the Shia regions of Iraq, and the Kurds probably aren't going to be too happy either.
My prediction would actually be forced Turkification of Smyrna/Izmir and "western Armenia". The Kurds are probably pretty safe because they live holed up in the mountains and (being Muslim) aren't worth the same effort as the Christian Armenians. The Arab issue might be solvable by creating a sort of "ethnic republic" along the lines of modern Bosnia and Herzegovina, but I'm convinced that prominent Arab families (the Hashemites, Rashidis, and Saudis for example) are going to want proper independence sooner rather than later.
There's also the issue of Zionism. While relatively minor in terms of numbers (the population of Palestine is less than a million at this time), Europe's going to be watching. The Ottomans are going to be in a really tough place: if they support the Jews, they'll incite the Arabs even further throughout the Empire; if they support the Arabs, they'll risk European intervention.
The more I think about it, the less I feel that the Ottoman Empire is going to be able to hold onto "Arabia", even without the war. Nationalism and the desire for self-determination will see that.
While ethnic nationalism was a problem in the late Empire, there was a parallel current of thought that opposed it: Ottomanism, the idea of a cosmopolitan transcendental national identity. This outlook actually had quite a bit of popularity, especially in the middle class and some peasantry, as most of them didn't really have a conception of nationality to begin with. Of course, this worldview disintegrated during the war, but if that's avoided, and the government pushes it, it may well cancel out most of the nationalist rhetoric. The Empire can then use its newly found oil money to buy off the few remainders.
Caesar Australis
Banned
It will certainly have problems with its Christian populations, not just the Greeks and Armenians but also the Syriac Arab Christians(who held more responsibility for Arab nationalism then Muslim Arabs initially). They could very easily have problems with Zionist settlement in Palestine and Shia in Iraq as well.
However Sunni Muslims are probably numerous enough to hold the empire intact(hell, they proved capable of maintaining dominance in Iraq despite being outnumbered by Shi'ites)and most likely will sustain the empire barring the unlikely scenario of Turkish nationalist movements developing into something approaching fascism.
However Sunni Muslims are probably numerous enough to hold the empire intact(hell, they proved capable of maintaining dominance in Iraq despite being outnumbered by Shi'ites)and most likely will sustain the empire barring the unlikely scenario of Turkish nationalist movements developing into something approaching fascism.
The problem with Ottomanists is that its followers were far less likely to use violence to advance their cause. In a contest between two groups like this, the more violent group tends to win (see, e.g., Yugoslavian unionists)
Caesar Australis
Banned
Now this might provide an avenue for Arab nationalism to develop- specifically a movement denying the legitimacy of Ottoman Caliphate based in part on it not being "fundamentalist" enough and in part on it's not being Arabic enough(little basis in truly fundamental Islam for the latter sentiment hence the quotation marks, but their is a substantial strain of arrogance and chauvinism amongst Arabs based on the idea of being Islam's foremost standard bearers, and an especially liberal caliph might antagonize that). It's unlikely to form a majority amongst Arabs, but it could cause the Ottomans no shortage of trouble in terms of terrorism.
Well, I guess that the OP needs some specification.
A neutral OE has a MAJOR impact on the WWI in favor of the Entente. The Armenian genocide and the Lebanese famine are butterflied away, and very probably the Bolshevik Revolution as well.
However, by 1914 the Arab, Syrian, Kurd, Assyrian, Armenian and Turk nationalisms are rather established, let alone groups like the Pontic Greeks.
The OE was NOT lenient or tolerant vis-a-vis minorities a that time, and Republican Turkey was even less.
Neutrality in WWI won't change it, but will give far less bloody outcomes.
The OE is going to be a mess in the near future (like its succesor satets have been OTL). But if a sensible goverment manages to install in Istanbul and get some stability, the area could be FAR better off than OTL in general.
A neutral OE has a MAJOR impact on the WWI in favor of the Entente. The Armenian genocide and the Lebanese famine are butterflied away, and very probably the Bolshevik Revolution as well.
However, by 1914 the Arab, Syrian, Kurd, Assyrian, Armenian and Turk nationalisms are rather established, let alone groups like the Pontic Greeks.
The OE was NOT lenient or tolerant vis-a-vis minorities a that time, and Republican Turkey was even less.
Neutrality in WWI won't change it, but will give far less bloody outcomes.
The OE is going to be a mess in the near future (like its succesor satets have been OTL). But if a sensible goverment manages to install in Istanbul and get some stability, the area could be FAR better off than OTL in general.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
All depends on who's in charge. There will be a bumpy road due to nationalism being awakening all over the Empire. The best solution would be to get rid of those Jokers who ran the Ottomans into ruin in WW1 quickly, and establish a Third Constitutional Era. Still, Arab and Kurdish nationalism would probably awaken in the mid 20s. Turkish nationalism is tricky, since it could either become an ethnic identity, or try to become some kind of ubrella identity for the whole empire.
Armenian, Assyrian and Greek identity was pretty much strong already.
Armenian, Assyrian and Greek identity was pretty much strong already.