What if the Ottoman Empire stayed neutral in WW1? How would that affect things with them, the course of the war and the future in the 20's and 30's ? More than that, what if they also pursue a policy of permanent neutrality like Switzerland in regards to European affairs or would such a neutrality be easily threatened as the Middle East is just too strategic an area to be left in peace by the Europeans? I figured that if their neutrality is successful, the Ottomans could get rich selling oil when the next war comes along.
Neutral Ottomans in WW1?
- Thread starter The Federalist
- Start date
Mussleburgh
Banned
I always though that the Ottomans, if they stayed neutral in World War one, would make a killing until World War two when they would be jointly invaded by The Nazis and Soviets, or even the Nazis and Italians.
Yours faithfully
Mussie
Yours faithfully
Mussie
Depends. Do they close the Bosporus, or not? If they do, the Great War may go somewhat on schedule (no Gallipoli, aiding Arab Revolt, invading Palestine, etc, but I'm sure Britain can find something else to take up their time, their money, and their men).
If they don't, however, then the Entente will have an easier time supplying the Russians... and the Russians doing better (or, even, just getting more food for the ordinary folk) could have quite large effects.
Also, Bulgaria is more likely to stay out if the Ottomans do... which would aid the Entente, and make Bulgaria somewhat bigger and stronger in the post-war enviroment.
If they don't, however, then the Entente will have an easier time supplying the Russians... and the Russians doing better (or, even, just getting more food for the ordinary folk) could have quite large effects.
Also, Bulgaria is more likely to stay out if the Ottomans do... which would aid the Entente, and make Bulgaria somewhat bigger and stronger in the post-war enviroment.
Well, I don't know about the relevant laws... it might be so that as long as they close it to either all other states but themselves, or to all participants, on either side, of the war, it counts as neutral.
Military shipping is probably easier to motivate closing for then civilian, I'd say.
Of course, in practice, it hits the Entente more then it hits the Central Powers, but in theory, they're doing the same to both sides.
MrP
Banned
I think it would do the Ottomans a great deal of good to be neutral, but it could be tricky to bring about. AHP has expounded before on the fact that the Ottomans, after years of being poked and prodded by the other powers, were desperate to survive by allying with someone. The Ottomans were still trying to ally themselves with France as late as July '14, IIRC. I fear I can't offer much in the way of suggestions on how it can be achieved. France and Russia recognising the coming war will be long, and planning accordingly, perhaps?
I fear laws will be irrelevant. Barring an early Russian victory, the Entente will want to re-open the Dardanelles to supply the Russians, and the Ottomans will get sucked into the war.
I fear laws will be irrelevant. Barring an early Russian victory, the Entente will want to re-open the Dardanelles to supply the Russians, and the Ottomans will get sucked into the war.
Not necessarily. Even if they were the Sick Man of Europe, they still packed some punch, and that should make the Entente slightly uncertain about attacking them, even if they close the Bosphorus. Given Belgium, Britain should be quite unwilling to attack a neutral, even one leaning in one direction... and it would make them look worse in the eyes of others. US involvement, for instance, looks less likely. They might want to rely on diplomacy, at least for a while (until Russia's weakness, and that this looks to be a long war indeed, is made clear). A delayed Ottoman entry in which they were atttacked by the Entente could aid the Central Powers...