Osman Reborn; The Survival of Ottoman Democracy [An Ottoman TL set in the 1900s]

[boredviewer1234]

Politicking in the Ottoman Empire and UK, succession in the House of Osman, China reconquers Tibet, and the Italians abolish their monarchy! Thoughts? Predictions?

Enver Pasha really won't give up on his dream of pan Turkism, then again he still did keep at it while being one of the most wanted criminals in the world so he's quite determined

View attachment 648226Map of

If I'm reading this map right wow the blue US really has lost control of their Philippine colonies.
.

 

[Sarthak]

Enver Pasha really won't give up on his dream of pan Turkism, then again he still did keep at it while being one of the most wanted criminals in the world so he's quite determined

indeed, he will be a hard nut to break.

If I'm reading this map right wow the blue US really has lost control of their Philippine colonies.

Partially yes, though they are on the process of reconquest.

 

[haider najib]

Sorry has it already been stated? but what is the ottoman position on bosnia and austria annexing it?

 

[Berat2beti]

I guess the major things that might happen are:

Russia’s ethnic tensions:

after all Danubia and the Ottomans have given rights and Autonomy to their people and hell Austria-Hungary even did a name change to not favor two ethnic groups exclusively. doesn’t help Russia shares some of those ethnicities those two nations do in their own empire.

France’s internal bickering, Italy’s republic:

Once 1929 hits or if the depression comes sooner we’re definitely going to be seeing some issues in France after all now that Germany’s been “vanquished” that unifying threat is gone time to go back to hating each other and all that. Maybe if it gets bad enough the Ottomans can bring up the Tunisia issue cause that’s a protectorate correct?

As for Italy once bad economic times hit expect every political ideology to be kicked up.

Britain looking to main a certain status quote somehow:

If a depression or something rocks France badly enough Britain’s gonna be worried after all Britain and France’s entente was a major issue why both had such large colonial empires. If France suddenly starts experiencing major hick ups than Britain’s going to need allies to prop up regional stability in certain areas. Like say North Africa could see major changes if France were to be seen as unreliable or worse a threat. Perhaps certain Moroccan and Tunisian protectorates would require new protectors.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Partially

It is partially due to the fact that the CUP and Socialist led Coalition led to the expansion of the suffrage as well as abolition of the Imperial Harem. As the Ottomans industrialized late, they had no qualms about using female labour in their factories, which led to a large pool of female workers in the country. However the Socialists aren't the only ones to gain extra votes. The most benefitted is the CUP, which is a center-right conservative party as you say.

That's a fascinating development, and seems very plausible.

Jackson has had a very very different career actually. Around the time when we reached the time of 1920, i intend to write short biographies of around 10 politicians of the decade. Jackson will be among them. The political developments of both the Conservatives and Jackson have changed since 1911. For now, that list contains Ali Kemal, Ahmet Riza, Stanley Jackson, Reginald McKenna, John M. Parker, Prince Louis of Lichtenstein. Until then, some 6 or 7 chapters later, as of right now, I cannot give up how Jackson comes to power for plot purposes. Though i do hope i make a good case when the chapter comes out.

I dunno, I just wonder if you're letting the butterflies flap their wings too fast. Your POD is in 1911- I don't think that's enough time for the Conservative party to so radically change their position on what's been the defining issue of British politics for decades that they put in an inexperienced (he's had a maximum of four more years in parliament, which means maybe two or three years as a minister, and I just don't see how he could have made it to Cabinet) reformer.

When your timeline began the Conservative party were willing to oversee a civil war rather than countenance any discussion of a change to unionism. Now they've put their fortunes in the hands of a young radical? I just don't see it.

I think the idea of Britain being influenced by Ottoman or Danubian multiculturalism is fascinating- but I just think it's too early. It's almost certainly too early to keep Ireland in the Union- by this point, if the south gets Home Rule that will set it on the path to Dominion status and independence. I think if you want the eastern influences to be felt, that's something to play around with in the event of a resurgence of Scottish nationalism.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I'd also like to note that even if we posit a wildly, amazingly successful career for Jackson, that won't be enough unless there's also been a massive swing of opinion in the Tory party room, among people who have been in Parliament for literally decades.

Look at Joseph Chamberlain: he moved to Parliament after a wildly successful career in local government as a reforming mayor of Birmingham, as well as industry- Jackson was a cricket player. Chamberlain had personal connections and friendships with reforming circles not just in Britain but across the Dominions- Jackson did not. Through Chamberlain's widespread popularity among the base of the party and his role as leader of the radicals, he became President of the Board of Trade- a cabinet position!- after four years on the back benches. Jackson, a man who was respected but not seen as charismatic nor with any history of wide appeal to the party, made it to a junior ministerial post in the War Ministry (not cabinet) after seven years, and did not distinguish himself. Chamberlain broke with Gladstone, built a core of Liberal Unionist around him, shattered his party and emerged as a powerful third force in British politics- Jackson resigned having never reached higher than that one, brief spell as a junior minister.

I'll stop the comparison there because that's just what Chamberlain did in eleven years- the time Jackson was in Parliament. You'll note everything I left out- the time he spent building up the Unionists following the party break, the battle to get funding and set up branches, the deal with his old rival Salisbury, the time at the Colonial Office, breaking with his new allies. All that took another twenty years of hard work, and it was unsuccessful.

And that's worth hammering home- after thirty years in Parliament, with skills and resources no one had had, with ambition and a clear program of reform and a literal world-wide network of allies, Chamberlain did not get his reforms passed. He is, at the end of the day, a might-have-been. And that's in large part because again and again and again it was proven that public popularity- and there were times when Chamberlain was very popular with the public- does not mean anything without a majority of parliament. Not only did Chamberlain never get that, he never, at any point came close to getting the majority of people on his side of parliament.

I simply don't buy that a non-entity of a Junior minister could somehow be more successful in a third of the time with none of the advantages in a party that was even more hostile to Home Rule than the Liberals or Liberal Unionists after all the Home Rule crises of the past few decades, the Tory elites literally staking their careers on a civil war rather than making concessions to Home Rule, after a war that the IPP supported on the basis that they would be awarded their seats at the end of it.*Even if he kept his mouth shut about Unionism- not really possible, but alright- and even if he was vastly more successful as a junior minister than he was in our timeline... that doesn't change the fact that he couldn't have got to Cabinet or come even close to being a leadership candidate.

*That's another thing- how on earth has the IPP lost thirty seats if Sinn Fein isn't there to pick them up?

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I realise that could sound harsh, so to be clear:

1. You posted this when I'd literally just been rereading a whole swathe of material on early twentieth century British and Imperial reform schemes, and I've been writing a lot about why they weren't successful.

2. I enjoy this timeline. If I didn't think it would benefit from constructive criticism, I wouldn't be posting in this thread. I think you've got some fantastic ideas, but they're tripping out over themselves a bit- not every country is going to radically change in ten years, even after a crisis like the Great War. You can always hint at great developments that will happen later, even if you have no intention of actually writing about them before the timeline finishes.

 

[Sarthak]

Chapter 34: You Reap What You Sow.

***

“The Ottomans were by the virtue of the many flat lands in their country, interested in the Tank. Ever since 1916, prototypes of all calibers had been tested and made in the Ottoman Empire with the sole intention of creating a viable tank force, like the one present in the armies of the United Kingdom, France, Danubia, Germany and Russia. As a result, many Ottoman arms industries were investing into the idea of a proper tank batch with increasing ferocity. The most enthusiastic of these investors were Caelum Arms Organization and Osman Engineering which had been opened by Sehazade Mehmed Ziyaeddin in honor of the Dynasty and the Imperial family.

Led by Adrastos Baros, a prominent Ottoman Greek engineer from Salonika, and an employee of the Osman Engineering Corps and Company, the Ottoman government and the army finally got the breakthrough that they were after in the field of tank development. In May 2, 1918, Caelum and Osman Engineering unveiled a set of 8 prototypes after more than a year of testing and development. This new tank was called the Anadolu Mk. 1 Tank.

The Anadolu Mk. I​

The Mk.1 had a typical high track run and no revolving turret but two sponsons, one on each side of the tank, armed with a 6-pounder (57 mm) gun. It had more rounded and wider tracks than previous Ottoman prototypes and a large superstructure on top directly beneath the front of which the driver was seated. The Mk. 1 was compartmentalized with a separate engine room at the back. This vastly improved fighting conditions as a bulkhead protected the crew against the deafening engine noise, noxious fumes and heat that was so ever present in early tank development.

There were no machine guns in the sponsons, only the 6-pounders each manned by a gunner and loader. The side machine guns were to the rear of the sponsons mounted in the hull doors. Baros had designed the sponsons to be retractable so as to reduce the width of the vehicle if enemy obstacles were encountered. Five more machine guns were in the superstructure: two at the front—left and right next to the driver—and one on each of the other sides. As there was no machine gun position covering the back of the tank there was a dead angle vulnerable to infantry attack. To solve this problem a triangular steel deflector plate was attached. The rear superstructure machine gunner could use it to deflect his fire down into that area behind the tank. The tank carried 208 shells and 13,848 machine gun rounds, mostly in a large ammunition locker in the center which formed a platform on which the commander stood behind the driver observing the battlefield through a cupola with four vision slits.

Internal Fitting of the Anadolu Mk. I Tank ​

The twelfth crew member was the mechanic, seated next to the 300 hp Caelum 90 petrol engine cooled by a large horizontal radiator. Three armoured fuel tanks at the rear held 900 liters of fuel giving a range of 89 km. The transmission used a planetary gearbox giving two speeds in either forward or reverse. Top speed was 5.25 mph (8 km/h).

The basic characteristics of this tank were:-

Mass: 37 Long tons​

​

Length: 34ft 2 inches​

​

Width: 11ft 8 inches​

​

Height: 10ft 3 inches​

​

Crew: 12​

​

Armor: 16 mm maximum​

​

Main Armament: two 6 pounder guns​

​

Secondary armament: seven 8 mm Caelum Machine guns​

​

Power/Weight: 5.79 kW/t​

​

Suspension: Unsprung​

​

Operational range: ~80 kilometers​

​

Maximum Speed: 8.45 km/h – 10.06 km/h​

The Mk.1 proved to be extremely successful and useful in combat rather than the other Ottoman prototypes of the era. As a result, the Anadolu Mk. 1 was adopted by the Ottoman Army and a plan unveiled by Mustafa Kemal Pasha and Mehmet Essat Pasha envisioned the army having around 90 tanks by 1921. [1]

Furthermore the interest in the military sparked the Mustafa Kemal Reforms in the Ottoman Army. The Ottoman Army had proven itself admirably throughout the Balkan War, however the lack of a professional core in the army had hampered the army a great deal throughout the many battles that the army had to face during this time period. Mustafa Kemal and Mehmet Essat Pasha recognized this growing deficiency in the Army and sought to reform the army as a result. The Ottoman Army during peacetime had an active force of around 400,000 men that could be raised to exactly 1 million men during wartime utilizing the reserves system.

The Mustafa Kemal Reforms were broad, however first and foremost, came the training of leaders. This had previously been a leisurely procedure, when officers were trained and commissioned with ease in Imperial Army Academy in Constantinople. Mustafa Kemal instead now based his training program for officers to be based on the 1906 – 12 British Haldane Reforms, and instead established the Ottoman Officer Training Academy or the OOTA as a direct inspiration from the Officer Training Corps of Britain, so that proper and trained officers could be commissioned into the army. The training of the OOTA follows a syllabus as laid out by the Ottoman Ministry of War. Weekly training nights were introduced to build up theory and basic practical lessons. Training exercises were structured around an academic calendar. The First Year is called Basic Training Syllabus Year, and involves instruction in all basic military techniques, including drill, map reading, camouflage, first aid, weapons training, small units tactics, and fieldcraft. The Second Year is called Leadership Training Syllabus Year, and involves team management teaching. This involved everything from planning an attack to giving effective orders and ensuring that they are carried out and from directing a constructive debrief after an exercise to ensure the welfare of all those under an officer’s command. The Third Year see’s the officers do a combination of second year and first year’s courses in a higher level of difficulty. This rounded up the syllabus created by Mustafa Kemal and Mehmet Essat Pasha and was aided in the creation of the syllabus by the British and French Military Attaché in Constantinople.

The First OOTA Batch in 1922 posing for a photo outside of Constantinople Imperial Military Academy​

A vast reorganization campaign was also launched by the new Minister of War, as he intended to go for a quality over quantity approach. The previous routine of having 15,000 men per division in the Ottoman army was abolished, and expanded to have 20,000 men under four brigades, alongside 1 engineer brigade, 2 logistical brigades, and 1 artillery brigade, creating a more centralized division with more logistical support and firepower to tip the scales in a fight. The inclusion of engineering brigades into normal divisions was a radical reform as the Ottomans had relied on Engineering Divisions to take care of engineering needs in warfare. However the addition of engineering brigades allowed the divisions to move independently of large engineering formations, giving them new amounts of large maneuverability. Individual Armored Car Divisions were also constituted as a part of the Army force in Arabia and the Levant, with extra logistical and engineering brigades pushed into these armored car divisions due to the logistical needs of the cumbersome armored cars of these era (Despite their combat capability, their logistical needs were high enough to called cumbersome).

The army also focused on 5 main tactics of warfare. In the case of defensive action, the army focused on Hedgehog Defense and Defense in Depth. Hedgehog defense is a military tactic in which a defending army crates mutually supporting strongpoints in a defense in depth scenario designed to sap the strength and break the momentum of an attacking army. The strongpoints are designed to be expensive for an attacker to assault. Although defending positions can be bypassed, doing so exposes the attacker’s rear echelons and line of communications to counterattack. Defense in Depth meanwhile is a military strategy that seeks to delay rather than prevent the advance of an attacker, buying time and causing casualties before yielding space to an enemy. Once the attacker has lost momentum or is forced to spread out to pacify conquered territories, defensive counterattacks can be mounted on the attacker’s weak points, with the goal of causing attrition or driving the attacker back to its original starting position. Offensively, the Ottoman Army went first and foremost for the tactic of Rapid Deployment, which as its name suggests is basically a doctrine of being able to respond to an attack extremely quickly using a rapid deployment system. To augment this doctrine, the second offensive doctrine the Ottoman Army took was Defeat in Detail. The Ottoman Empire was surrounded by three great powers, Danubia, Russia and Great Britain, all of whom could outnumber the Ottomans due to their population advantages, as such, the Ottomans decided to take an offensive doctrine known for defeating numerically superior foes. Defeat in Detail is a military tactic of bringing a large portion of one’s own force to bear on small enemy units in sequence, rather than engaging the bulk of the enemy force all at once. Finally, the last tactic that was taken by the Ottomans for offensive reasons was the Shock and Awe Tactic, a rather new and niche military tactic during 1918. The Ottomans had seen the advantages of combined arms in the Balkan War, and they intended to use a combination of great airpower, heavy but mobile artillery and stunning infantry attacks alongside powerful armored and cavalry attacks to create a rapid dominance scenario on the battlefield. Mehmet Essat Pasha, the Lion of the Balkans, and the one who created the training manual for it, defined it as ‘To affect the will, perception and understanding of the adversary to fight or respond to our strategic policy ends through imposing a regime of a shock and awe using near total or absolute knowledge and understanding of self, adversary and environment, rapidity and timeliness in application, operational professionalism in execution and near total control and signature management of the entire operational environment.’

Minister of the Army and Airforce, Mehmet Essat Pasha was a major leader of the Army Reforms ​

In a nutshell the Ottomans were banking on creating a massive professional army, in both the active and reserve forces of the empire. Training hour per year was raised from 98 hours annually to 140 hours annually for the active troops and 4 weeks a year training for reservists was raised to 6 weeks a year. Mustafa Kemal’s reforms would eventually lead to general professionalism of the Ottoman Armed Forces that we all know today.” History of the Ottoman Armed Forces © 1999.

***

“A Common mistake in all of the countries involved in the Great War was to assume that the war would not last long at all. Therefore no government concerned itself with developing realistic plans to feed the army and the civilian population in tandem. In short term, this led to having to reduce the consumption of even basic necessities in many countries involved in the war. For Italy the reductions were particularly painful. Sober by necessity rather than nature, as the liberal theorists wanted to repeat, the majority of the population during the war found themselves basing their diet on carbohydrates such as bread, pasta and polenta only. The situation of food shortage in Italy largely arose due to objective issues, namely the loss of usual channels of supply from Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States after the Italians entered the war, but also largely due to the mismanagement by the government with its uncertain policies. For example, concerning the question of duty on foreign what, the government had driven the private sector to reduce and then abandon imports. These conditions, combined with the refusal to buy from Switzerland as an intermediary, considered too expensive, led, as early as March 1915, to the first wheat shortages and a hike in bread prices, with the risk of serious consequences in maintaining public order. Following the entry into the war, the national production of wheat, together with all other agricultural products in Italy suffered significant deficits nor could it have been done otherwise, considering the manpower inferiority Italy had in comparison to France and even Spain, so as many men had been called to arms, above all from the agricultural sector. Unlike Russia who could rotate troops to go home for the season while bringing in new troops with their massive manpower pool, Italy didn’t have this luxury. The situation was also aggravated in Italy by the lack of work animals, which had been requisitioned for the army, and by serious shortcoming if not total absence of imports of fertilizers and machinery, of which Austria had many to spare, but found no requests from the Italian government.

Food shortage lines in Italy during the Great War. ​

By the end of the war, Italians were eating around only 900 grams a day, compared to the French 2300 grams and British 2600 grams a day, and the Austrian 1900 calories a day and the German 1000 grams a day. Russian statistics about calories are hard to come by due to regional differences, but even Russia who faced chronic shortages is said to have had a better time in food consumption and situational awareness than Italy. Italy was also hampered primarily due to its mountainous and rugged landscape, unfit for mass agricultural production before the agricultural innovations of the 1950s and 1960s. The Treaty of Barcelona, in blunt terms, wrecked the Kingdom of Italy. Many hoped that in peacetime, the import of Somalian wheat and Eritrean fruits would be able to lighten the food situation in Italy, however the loss of the colonies made that a non-starter and the heavy reparations imposed on Italy, as well as the general large amount of deaths the nation faced, now meant that Italy had neither the sufficient amount of monetary resources or manpower resources to feed its population back to pre-war situations.

This situation of lack of proper food had led to the deposition of King Victor Emmanuel III and had led to the rise of the Italian Republic, however Bombacci, who was from a rightist faction of the Italian Socialist Party was rather unable to deal with the ongoing food crisis. He created new ‘cooking centers’ in May 18, 1918 with the purpose of feeding the population throughout the country until the nation’s monetary resources were filled back up to purchase large quantities of food from the other powers of the world, however this system of cooking centers only really worked in the northern tracts of Italy, where the close industrial coordination of the northern cities allowed a better management of the situation. The food situation in southern Italy remained bad with no prospect of betterment in sight. The Neapolitans and Sicilians as well as Sardinians were openly rioting for food. In Sardinia, the situation was particularly grim. The island had been devastated by the Allied Invasion of Sardinia, and the infrastructure of the island, which was already poor in comparison to the rest of Italy before the war, was now devastated beyond the monetary capabilities of Italy for the time being. As a result, the food distribution program that the Italian government was conducting was a failure in Sicily and Southern Italy whilst it was an abysmal failure in Sardinia.

In this situation the entire crisis was deepened by the fact that Bombacci seemed more interested in political maneuvers rather than actually taking care of the populace and their food needs. In late May, the relative success of the cooking scheme in the north led to a rise in the calorie rate from 2900 to 3200 and considering that a success, and assuming a consistent rate of growth from then on Bombacci turned his eye towards politicking, much to the anger of the southern and central populace of Italy. Amidst this situation, within the All-Italian Worker’s Congress, which was the unified representation of the Italian Socialist and Italian Communist Parties, Giacinto Menotti Serrati was the rising opposition and critique to Bombacci’s rather inept manner of handling things.

Serrati. ​

Serrati was a follower of the Massimalisti doctrine of Italian Communism which was derived from Maximalism. In fact he was the leader of the Maximalist branch of the Italian Worker’s Congress and was fiercely critical of the management of the food crisis in Italy. As dissent grew throughout the country over the inept handling of the crisis, Serrati, led by a good amount of members of the Italian All-Worker’s Congress, launched a coup against Bombacci on June 17th, 1918 and deposed him from power using red militiamen.

Seratti ascended to power as the Prime Minister of Italy, and immediately began to enact severe crisis notes as measures against hunger. A rapid command center for the economy was deployed and food was requisitioned, collected and then distributed in a haphazard, but organized manner. Seratti was much more successful than his predecessor in lightening the load of the good crisis in Italy. However, Seratii, unlike Bombacci who had maintained the multi-party system was a hardline socialist, and on May 27, he decreed that every party in the country other than the All-Italian Worker’s Congress (AIWC) were banned and illegalized. Instead keeping a modicum of democracy, he did not abandon elections, and though candidates for elections would all have to be members of the AIWC, the elections would be done in a free and fair manner, with candidates being elected for their own non-partisan political views. This left only the AIWC and Independents as legal parties in the Italian Republic.

Luigi Sturzo. ​

Anti-Communist parties assembled in Palermo Sicily on June 6, led by the Italian Peoples Party whose leader was Luigi Sturzo, and the Liberal Democratic and Radical Party led by Vittorio Emmanuel Orlando refused to accept the illegalization of other political parties, and forming their own militias in Sicily, Sardinia and Neapolitan territories, the Provisional Government of the Republic of Italy was declared by Sturzo and Orlando, with Sturzo as President and Orlando as Prime Minister. They claimed to be the legitimate and democratic government of the Italian peoples, whilst Seratti denounced this action. With the political crisis deepening, the 14 year old Umberto II was found killed in his mansion, with a servant of his, who professed to be a radical left anarchist and republican to have been the one to take the young teen’s life. Before the murder, a negotiation seemed to have a small chance, but possible, but all thoughts of negotiation died after the news of Umberto II’s death became known. Many blamed Victor Emmanuel III, but few blamed his teen son. In fact the death and killing of Umberto II managed to evoke massive monarchist sympathies, and utilizing this to their advantage, Sturzo and Orlando declared that they would depose the new communist government in Rome. Seratti likewise decided to form up for war.

The Italian Civil War was about to start.” The Italian Civil War and Revolution: Seeds of the Proletariat © 2015.

***

“During the Treaty of Versailles, many Polish and Russian diplomats had demanded the entirety of Silesia, which had a large Polish plurality to be given to the Realm of Poland, a pseudo-Dominion that was given to the Polish subjects of the Russian Empire. However the British had stymied that proposal, on the basis of keeping Germany as a viable economic power, the loss of the Silesian mineral resources would have been dreadful for the German economy after all. In the end, some border areas with Polish majority were handed over to the Realm of Poland, however around 92% of Silesia remained in German hands. This situation led to a massive upturn in ethnic tensions between the ethnic Poles and ethnic Germans within Silesia, especially since the conservative Poles in the region had supported the monarchists and the industrial germans of the Silesian region had supported the republican movement. Combining ethnic tensions with political tensions always seemed to have been a surefire way to start conflict in history.

Mining Strikers being arrested by the German police. ​

On June 15, 1918, German border guards, the Grenzschutz massacred ten Silesian civilians in a labour dispute at the Myslowice mine. The massacre sparked protests from the Polish miners, including a general strike of many thousands of workers. The miners demanded the local government and police become ethnically mixed to include both Germans and Poles to ensure no ethnic group got dominance over the other within the Silesian region.

While Gustav Noske attempted to make the situation better, and sent an ethnic commission into the region, this ethnic commission only ruled in favor of the Germans, and this enflamed tensions even more, and about 21,000 German soldiers of the Provisional National Army with about 40,000 troops held in reserve quickly put down the strikers, and massacred several of them. The army’s reaction was harsh, with 2,500 Poles either hanged or executed by firing squad due to their parts in the violence. Some 19,000 ethnic Poles fled Silesia into Austrian Poland and the Realm of Poland bringing their family members along with them.

Silesian Polish Militia. ​

This sparked a diplomatic row with the Realm of Poland. The Polish government demanded that the Russians do something about the Silesian Uprising as it became known. The Russians who were not eager for a new War, nonetheless, lodged a complaint with their ambassador in Berlin and asked the German government for a definite answer for their actions in Silesia. Rosa Luxembourg, who was herself quite horrified by the actions, tried to advocate a reconciliatory approach, however the general diplomatic inexperience of herself and the new government meant that they could not provide a good answer to the Russians. The crisis worsened when the Polish National Guard, a home defense militia of the Polish Realm was mobilized by the Poles, however finally the intervention of the British and French governments ensured that a new war would not break out. An international commission which would supervise ethnic rights in Silesia was created with French, British, Russo-Polish and Danubian observers to mitigate further uprisings like that of the Silesian one.” The Germanic-Polish Conflicts of the 20th Century © 2020.

***

“On November 7, 1911, a man named David Ben-Gurion arrived in Salonika to study Turkish law as a part of his law studies. Ben-Gurion was delighted in the city, calling it a Jewish city with no equal in the world, due to the large plurality of Greek and Turkish Jews living in the city. 9 months later, he moved to Constantinople and enrolled in the University of Constantinople to study higher Ottoman Law. During his stay in the Ottoman Empire during this time, the man was offered Ottoman citizenship based on naturalization, due to his immigration status in the Ottoman Empire. Ben-Gurion, along with a good friend and colleague of his, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi were hitting hard times monetarily, due to increased university fees during this time and gaining citizenship would have lowered their personal fees, as a result, the two men accepted citizenship from the Ottoman government and became official Ottoman citizens.

During this time, in 1913, he graduated from the University of Constantinople, and became involved in Jewish efforts in the Ottoman Empire. The opening of the empire due to pro-Jewish views was a godsent to the man, and he became extremely involved into the Ottoman Jewish Front Organization and became the regional head of the OJFO within Salonika by 1914. There, he became involved in maintaining Jewish rights within the Ottoman Empire, and was a fierce critique of anti-semitism and wrote many dialogues and books that criticized anti-semitism to a very large degree. The Ottomans were not worried about such books, however the foreign powers of Russia, Italy and France during that time were increasingly wary of the pro-Jewish books that were pouring out of the Ottoman Balkans, and the Ottomans forced many Jewish writers in the Ottoman Empire to have moderated books published instead of their original versions, to stop a diplomatic incident at the time.

The Imtiyaz Medal of Honor and Bravery. One of the highest military awards in the Ottoman Empire. ​

In 1915 at the start of the Balkan War, Ben-Gurion joined the Ottoman Army as a part of the Ottoman Jewish Legions, which were two Ottoman Regiments filled with Ottoman Jews. He was enlisted as an officer, and was involved in the Bulgarian front and in the war against the Bulgarians. Taking part in the war, he was commended for his bravery and patriotism for Ottoman Jews, so much so that in late 1915 he won the Imtiyaz Medal, a high military honor within the Ottoman Empire. After the Balkan War, he filed to be handed over to the Reservist Officer List, and after he was successful in this endeavor, he joined the Liberal Union political party. This was how the Ottoman Empire’s first Jewish Grand Vizier finally entered politics.” A Brief History of Ottoman Grand Viziers. © 2014

***
----

[1] – The tank is based off on otl Mark VIII ‘International Tank’

 

[Sarthak]

Sorry has it already been stated? but what is the ottoman position on bosnia and austria annexing it?

they actually weren't really tough about it. They got the money and that land was already defacto Austrians after 1878.

Sarthaka,can u give a vignette update of a Bulgarian/serbian family during ottoman occupation

the occupation basically ended in mid-1918 about right now.

I guess the major things that might happen are:

Russia’s ethnic tensions:

after all Danubia and the Ottomans have given rights and Autonomy to their people and hell Austria-Hungary even did a name change to not favor two ethnic groups exclusively. doesn’t help Russia shares some of those ethnicities those two nations do in their own empire.

France’s internal bickering, Italy’s republic:

Once 1929 hits or if the depression comes sooner we’re definitely going to be seeing some issues in France after all now that Germany’s been “vanquished” that unifying threat is gone time to go back to hating each other and all that. Maybe if it gets bad enough the Ottomans can bring up the Tunisia issue cause that’s a protectorate correct?

As for Italy once bad economic times hit expect every political ideology to be kicked up.

Britain looking to main a certain status quote somehow:

If a depression or something rocks France badly enough Britain’s gonna be worried after all Britain and France’s entente was a major issue why both had such large colonial empires. If France suddenly starts experiencing major hick ups than Britain’s going to need allies to prop up regional stability in certain areas. Like say North Africa could see major changes if France were to be seen as unreliable or worse a threat. Perhaps certain Moroccan and Tunisian protectorates would require new protectors.

The otl depression of 1929 is quite butterflied away. However a new depression rocking the internal politics of the age is quite possible.

That's a fascinating development, and seems very plausible.

that is basically what happened in countries that industrialized late and gave women's suffrage early.

I dunno, I just wonder if you're letting the butterflies flap their wings too fast. Your POD is in 1911- I don't think that's enough time for the Conservative party to so radically change their position on what's been the defining issue of British politics for decades that they put in an inexperienced (he's had a maximum of four more years in parliament, which means maybe two or three years as a minister, and I just don't see how he could have made it to Cabinet) reformer.

When your timeline began the Conservative party were willing to oversee a civil war rather than countenance any discussion of a change to unionism. Now they've put their fortunes in the hands of a young radical? I just don't see it.

I think the idea of Britain being influenced by Ottoman or Danubian multiculturalism is fascinating- but I just think it's too early. It's almost certainly too early to keep Ireland in the Union- by this point, if the south gets Home Rule that will set it on the path to Dominion status and independence. I think if you want the eastern influences to be felt, that's something to play around with in the event of a resurgence of Scottish nationalism.

I'd also like to note that even if we posit a wildly, amazingly successful career for Jackson, that won't be enough unless there's also been a massive swing of opinion in the Tory party room, among people who have been in Parliament for literally decades.

Look at Joseph Chamberlain: he moved to Parliament after a wildly successful career in local government as a reforming mayor of Birmingham, as well as industry- Jackson was a cricket player. Chamberlain had personal connections and friendships with reforming circles not just in Britain but across the Dominions- Jackson did not. Through Chamberlain's widespread popularity among the base of the party and his role as leader of the radicals, he became President of the Board of Trade- a cabinet position!- after four years on the back benches. Jackson, a man who was respected but not seen as charismatic nor with any history of wide appeal to the party, made it to a junior ministerial post in the War Ministry (not cabinet) after seven years, and did not distinguish himself. Chamberlain broke with Gladstone, built a core of Liberal Unionist around him, shattered his party and emerged as a powerful third force in British politics- Jackson resigned having never reached higher than that one, brief spell as a junior minister.

I'll stop the comparison there because that's just what Chamberlain did in eleven years- the time Jackson was in Parliament. You'll note everything I left out- the time he spent building up the Unionists following the party break, the battle to get funding and set up branches, the deal with his old rival Salisbury, the time at the Colonial Office, breaking with his new allies. All that took another twenty years of hard work, and it was unsuccessful.

And that's worth hammering home- after thirty years in Parliament, with skills and resources no one had had, with ambition and a clear program of reform and a literal world-wide network of allies, Chamberlain did not get his reforms passed. He is, at the end of the day, a might-have-been. And that's in large part because again and again and again it was proven that public popularity- and there were times when Chamberlain was very popular with the public- does not mean anything without a majority of parliament. Not only did Chamberlain never get that, he never, at any point came close to getting the majority of people on his side of parliament.

I simply don't buy that a non-entity of a Junior minister could somehow be more successful in a third of the time with none of the advantages in a party that was even more hostile to Home Rule than the Liberals or Liberal Unionists after all the Home Rule crises of the past few decades, the Tory elites literally staking their careers on a civil war rather than making concessions to Home Rule, after a war that the IPP supported on the basis that they would be awarded their seats at the end of it.*Even if he kept his mouth shut about Unionism- not really possible, but alright- and even if he was vastly more successful as a junior minister than he was in our timeline... that doesn't change the fact that he couldn't have got to Cabinet or come even close to being a leadership candidate.

*That's another thing- how on earth has the IPP lost thirty seats if Sinn Fein isn't there to pick them up?

I realise that could sound harsh, so to be clear:

1. You posted this when I'd literally just been rereading a whole swathe of material on early twentieth century British and Imperial reform schemes, and I've been writing a lot about why they weren't successful.

You do make a lot of good points. Very well, I shall retcon Jackson. Will tell everyone in the thread when the edited part of the earlier chapter comes up.
About your IPP question, the Home Rule Crisis being resolved (partially at least) ittl, has led to a slight dampening of Irish nationalism for the moment in Ireland, with no Easter Rising and Conscription Crisis to raise Irish nationalism even further, Irish Unionists in the north have gained ground, and the Labour Party picked up a good amount of seats from the industrial constituencies. The IPP also lost some seats on the loss of Redmond as a leader, who was extremely charismatic and a decider of votes in his own way. Devlin while competent is not as charismatic to the public as his predecessor after all. For now Irish Nationalism has reverted to regionalism due to a solution to the home rule conflict, however frozen the situation may be in the non-participating Ulster counties.

2. I enjoy this timeline. If I didn't think it would benefit from constructive criticism, I wouldn't be posting in this thread. I think you've got some fantastic ideas, but they're tripping out over themselves a bit- not every country is going to radically change in ten years, even after a crisis like the Great War. You can always hint at great developments that will happen later, even if you have no intention of actually writing about them before the timeline finishes.

Constructive Criticism is more than allowed in this thread. I would even encourage it even!

 

[CountryUsedToBeBritish]

After the Balkan War, he filed to be handed over to the Reservist Officer List, and after he was successful in this endeavor, he joined the Liberal Union political party. This was how the Ottoman Empire’s first Jewish Grand Vizier finally entered politics.” A Brief History of Ottoman Grand Viziers. © 2014

Egad! This is shocking! We must know more!

 

[Sarthak]

Egad! This is shocking! We must know more!

He will be one of two Jewish Grand Viziers of the OE ittl.

 

[Sarthak]

any predictions?

 

[Deleted member 117308]

any predictions?

Unless Russia abandons panslavism, I think Russia and the Ottomans will be on opposing sides during the next Great War.

 

[Sarthak]

Unless Russia abandons panslavism, I think Russia and the Ottomans will be on opposing sides during the next Great War.

its possible i guess.

 

[Sarthak]

With a small discussion with @SenatorChickpea , I have retconned Jackson as British PM, and instead replaced him with Austen Chamberlain, who seems to be have been a way more viable candidate.

 

[Sarthak]

See guys, I cannot always be right on things, and I will sometimes inevitably slip up. In those times, your inputs will be valuable to smoothen the TL and make this TL much better. So I appreciate all of your comments and thoughts in this thread. Thank you all so much!

Constructive criticism, predictions and thoughts on the chapter are all encouraged, as well, an advantage of doing so just happened!

 

[Pio2013]

Hmmm, OE pumping out tanks, Italy in a future civil war... market opportunity?

 

[scretchy]

Im wondering about the amount of food they were still consuming. In Germany OTL they were down to around 1000 to 1500 calories during the harshest moments of ww1. A quick google check shows that currently a normal man should need around 2500 calories. So the amounts mentioned in your post look to be a bit high for food riots to happen.

 

[Sarthak]

Hmmm, OE pumping out tanks, Italy in a future civil war... market opportunity?

It is a small market opportunity that's for sure.

 

[Sarthak]

Im wondering about the amount of food they were still consuming. In Germany OTL they were down to around 1000 to 1500 calories during the harshest moments of ww1. A quick google check shows that currently a normal man should need around 2500 calories. So the amounts mentioned in your post look to be a bit high for food riots to happen.

Ah shoot, a unit error. mean gram instead of calories.