Neutral Ottomans in WWI?

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Just a thought.

Is there a way to keep the Ottomans completey neutral in World War One?
How would this Affect the war, and the Aftermath?

 

[lothaw]

Well they had a lot to gain should the Central Powers win. A POD would have them realize just how much internal trouble their country is in.

As for effects well, this frees up an entire front basicly for Russian and British troops. The British may try and reinforce the Serbians or Italians instead.

 

[bobbis14]

Having the straights open will make the Russian war effort better, and also you'll be delaying riots from lack of supplies by a while.

 

[Atreus]

As far as keeping the Ottomans out of the war, my personal favorite means would be that Souchon's squadron is intercepted by the Royal navy, or otherwise disposed of (internment in italy or being trapped with the Austro-Hungarian fleet would also be acceptable, although the latter will have even more ripples). Basically, if the Mediterranean fleet manages to bring the Goeben to battle and sink or otherwise incapacitate it, Souchon doesnt reach Istanbul. Remove Souchon and his ships, with all the threats and promises that they convey, from the golden horn, and the Ottomans may very will decide to remain neutral, at least for the time being.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Just a thought.

Is there a way to keep the Ottomans completey neutral in World War One?
How would this Affect the war, and the Aftermath?

Remove Enver Pasha. He is key more than anything else.

The presence of the Goeben does not tip the Ottomans in the Central Powers camp, it is politics in Constantinople that does.

 

[xt828]

You'd probably have to marginalise in some fashion the pro-German lobby while strengthening the pro-British one. The seizing of the two British-built battleships may not have affected the German lobby in any significant way, but it did do quite a bit of damage to the pro-British lobby. Souchon only really capitalised on the hurt feelings, and even then he had to go and shoot Russians under the Ottoman flag to get the Ottomans involved.

I think that if Churchill kept his hands off the battleships, the Ottomans wouldn't be swayed in any particular fashion, which is a net gain over OTL for the Entente. If you then add to that a battle in the Med between Souchon and the British, with the British winning or forcing a German retreat to Austria or internment anywhere else, they've demonstrated their power in the region. I think that keeping the Ottomans out of the war would ultimately be easier than getting them involved on the Entente's side.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Maybe both sides engage in a bidding war to get Ottoman support and they realize that it is in their advantage to have support from all the major European powers.

 

[Xen]

That would be good, no USSR, no Nazi Germany and an Ottoman Middle East that would be far more stable

 

[Admiral Matt]

Well they had a lot to gain should the Central Powers win. A POD would have them realize just how much internal trouble their country is in.

As for effects well, this frees up an entire front basicly for Russian and British troops. The British may try and reinforce the Serbians or Italians instead.

Because of course the loss of the entire Balkans to Christian-separatists and the continuous trouble from Armenian terrorist groups wouldn't have clued them in by then.

The Ottomans had a good idea of their internal threats. The young turks may not have grasped the external ones so readily, but they knew what threats there were from inside the empire. Honestly, in relative terms there weren't very many.

As for doing this, it is all about the navy, but by the time the Goeben came up, things were already somewhat in motion. Those German ships were given shelter and brought into Ottoman service as a response to Britain commandeering two ship that were being built for the Porte's navy. That pushed the Ottoman's jarringly toward the Central Powers.

Absent that, it is easy to imagine politics in Constantinople taking a wait-and-see course. That would mean denying shelter to the German ships (who'd run for Trieste, no doubt) and keeping the straits partially open. Closing or limiting the straits would be a dramatic way to hurt Russia - The Enemy - without putting the empire in jeopardy.

Once the Ottomans decide on neutrality, they'll stay that way unless the Entente somehow collapses. More likely, in 1915 they come under heavy British pressure to open the straits completely so the Entente can support Russia, and use the opportunity to squeeze a mass of concessions out of the deal. Russia does phenomenally better with the added support.

Meanwhile, the Bulgarians are desperately keeping their heads down instead of jumping on Serbia's back. So Austria-Hungary has both a much stronger Russia (and the Russians were more than a match for the Hapsburgs' military) and a surviving Serbia to deal with. That means less success against Italy, and more German troops sent south to prop them up.

The war ends early. Heck, even the Romanov's might make it out of this one.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Entente supplies to Russia may well keep the Tsar afloat and powerful Russian forces used against the Ottomans are now available against Germany or, more likely, Austria-Hungary.

Bulgaria likely stays neutral. Sofia can't beat the Ottomans and the last thing that Berlin needs is another enemy power. Imagine the forces from the Gallipoli landings arriving to support the Turkish drive on Bulgaria!

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It would be easy to keep the Ottomans out.

You have to realize that the Ottoman regime in 1914 was a revolutionary one, and wasn't terribly unitary or well-directed, and more subject to "random events" than had been the case before 1908.

The arrival of Goeben was instrumental. Enver wanted in on the CP side, but he had no mechanism with which to force the issue until the German squadron appeared. The transfer of the ships was a huge PR boost for the CP (public opinion did matter in the Ottoman Empire), and Enver was able to send Souchon into the the Black Sea to attack Russia without the knowledge and approval of the government, which was largely against entering the war, especially on the side of the CP. The navy was particularly pro-Entente, although not thrilled with the battleship appropriation.

Which latter event was not so damaging in itself as the contempt and diplomatic incompetence with which it was handled.

The Entente powers simply didn't think the Ottomans mattered, and paid the price for this underestimation.

If the Ottomans had not entered, it would have been a boost for Russia; I'm not sure how this would have developed as I would think it likely the Germans would concentrate subs around the Straits, so the Ottomans might close them anyway.

It would most likely shorten the war enormously. Not only would supply to Russia be easier, the Entente wouldn't have to waste millions of troops against the Ottomans and Bulgaria, which would also have to stay out, and Italy might enter sooner.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Well they had a lot to gain should the Central Powers win. A POD would have them realize just how much internal trouble their country is in.

As for effects well, this frees up an entire front basicly for Russian and British troops. The British may try and reinforce the Serbians or Italians instead.

They were in virtually no internal trouble at all, other than some degree of political instability due to the Young Turk Revolution.

 

[wormyguy]

If the Ottomans had not entered, it would have been a boost for Russia;

You know, I'm not quite sure about that one. Without victories to show on the Caucasian front, public opinion in Russia might be radicalized against the war sooner than OTL.

 

[Atreus]

You know, I'm not quite sure about that one. Without victories to show on the Caucasian front, public opinion in Russia might be radicalized against the war sooner than OTL.

From a military standpoint, having open direct supply lines to the western entente and large numbers of troops freed up from the Caucasus campaign will be very important for the Russians. This might be able to create enough victories to buoy opinion, but more to the point it Gives russia a far better position vis a vis the Austro-Hungarians and germans.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Remove the Young Turks, then there's a chance for a neutral Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans could buy a couple of decades through staying out of wars.

 

[I Blame Communism]

You know, I'm not quite sure about that one. Without victories to show on the Caucasian front, public opinion in Russia might be radicalized against the war sooner than OTL.

Not, assuming open straits, soon enough.

You see, Austria-Hungary had a bad 1916 as it was. The Brusilov Offensive showed their military weakness and from then on the Eastern Front was the German manowar and the Austrian tugboat. The Italians took Gorizia. The Romanians captured much of Transylvania in ludicrously quick time for WW1 owing to it being denuded of defences and were defeated by counterattacks orchestrated by Germany and involving Bulgarian soil and many Bulgarian and even Ottoman troops. It was enough to make the new Emperor try (and fail) for peace.

So, in ATL 1916, we have all this, but

A) The *Brusilov Offensive is better manned (no Caucasus), better supplied, (straits), and has better morale and starting positions (less disastrous 1915).

B) With Bulgaria neutral (speaking of which both Romania and Italy may have joined in early), Serbia, stiffened by Britons and Frenchmen and especially Anglo-French ammunition, will be hanging right in there, continuing to tie up way more troops than it ought to.

C) Less German help may be available (Gallipoli troops in France and so on).

So even if the Russian people are growing tired of the war by the end of '16, this shouldn't be a problem since it's pretty likely that it will end about then when A-H gives in and/or implodes.

Remove the Young Turks, then there's a chance for a neutral Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans could buy a couple of decades through staying out of wars.

Nyarghl!

No '08 revolution butterflies the Balkan Wars! There will be no WW1 as we know it!

This simple ignorance I can tolerate, but your apparent belief that the Ottomans were living on borrowed time by 1914 enrages me beyond any semblance of reason.

*Dons fez, sharpens scimitar*

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I don't think you have to remove the Young Turks to keep the Ottomans out. The Young Turks were generally more pro-Entente than was the preceding Hamidian regime.

The Entente had however, just prior to the war forced 2 autonomous inspectorates on the Ottomans in 6 of their eastern provinces, which would have destroyed the empire if the war had not intervened. The war presented the opportunity to get out of this arrangement, as well as the Capitulations. Taking advantage of the war to dismantle all the disabilities and mechanisms for intervention imposed on the empire should have left the Ottoman Empire free to exist until the present day.

Not, assuming open straits, soon enough.

You see, Austria-Hungary had a bad 1916 as it was. The Brusilov Offensive showed their military weakness and from then on the Eastern Front was the German manowar and the Austrian tugboat. The Italians took Gorizia. The Romanians captured much of Transylvania in ludicrously quick time for WW1 owing to it being denuded of defences and were defeated by counterattacks orchestrated by Germany and involving Bulgarian soil and many Bulgarian and even Ottoman troops. It was enough to make the new Emperor try (and fail) for peace.

So, in ATL 1916, we have all this, but

A) The *Brusilov Offensive is better manned (no Caucasus), better supplied, (straits), and has better morale and starting positions (less disastrous 1915).

B) With Bulgaria neutral (speaking of which both Romania and Italy may have joined in early), Serbia, stiffened by Britons and Frenchmen and especially Anglo-French ammunition, will be hanging right in there, continuing to tie up way more troops than it ought to.

C) Less German help may be available (Gallipoli troops in France and so on).

So even if the Russian people are growing tired of the war by the end of '16, this shouldn't be a problem since it's pretty likely that it will end about then when A-H gives in and/or implodes.



Nyarghl!

No '08 revolution butterflies the Balkan Wars! There will be no WW1 as we know it!

This simple ignorance I can tolerate, but your apparent belief that the Ottomans were living on borrowed time by 1914 enrages me beyond any semblance of reason.

*Dons fez, sharpens scimitar*

 

[Hashasheen]

I don't think you have to remove the Young Turks to keep the Ottomans out. The Young Turks were generally more pro-Entente than was the preceding Hamidian regime.

The Entente had however, just prior to the war forced 2 autonomous inspectorates on the Ottomans in 6 of their eastern provinces, which would have destroyed the empire if the war had not intervened. The war presented the opportunity to get out of this arrangement, as well as the Capitulations. Taking advantage of the war to dismantle all the disabilities and mechanisms for intervention imposed on the empire should have left the Ottoman Empire free to exist until the present day.

Could you explain more on that?

 

[I Blame Communism]

Could you explain more on that?

Concur. I know there was some proposed "solution" to the Armenian question which would have drastically curtailed Ottoman sovereignty in some of its own territories, but I had no idea it could have entirely destroyed the empire.

 

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

That would be good, no USSR, no Nazi Germany and an Ottoman Middle East that would be far more stable

stable Middle east, maybe.
No USSR, Possibly.
but as for the Nazis, I still feel they may come to power.

You know, I'm not quite sure about that one. Without victories to show on the Caucasian front, public opinion in Russia might be radicalized against the war sooner than OTL.

That was acctually something I thought about, but then I figured, with out those troops in the Caucasian, they maybe able to pull off some victories in against Germany/Austria-Hungary