Ottoman Empire joins WWI later. Effects within OE? Fate of Armenians?

[Fehérvári]

In the "mild CP victory" TL I'm working on, I'm having the Ottomans join the war later than OTL, in late February/early March. The sole purpose of this change is the delay/lessening/prevention of the Armenian genocide. With more favourable weather conditions, the Turks don't suffer such a disastrous defeat like OTL's Sarikamish, thus Enver doesn't blame his failure on the Armenian population of the region.

The way I envisioned the delay of Ottoman entry was the pursuit of Goeben and Breslau concluding differently. Instead of heading to Constantinople (contrary to his most recent orders), Admiral Souchon returns to Pola. The A-H Navy is larger ITTL (butterfly genocide, I know, sorry), thus returning seems a more attractive option to Souchon compared to OTL. Without Souchon and the Goeben in Turkey, the Black Sea Raid simply does not happen and the Ottoman government remains torn on the question of joining the war longer.

Now, my question: What could go down in the OE politically during this extra 4 months? More specifically, could the Armenian reform package be fully implemented in this time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914_Armenian_reforms
If yes, could the reforms somewhat safeguard the Armenians during the war? Could less desperate Central Powers perhaps force their ally to respect the reforms?

On another note, could any kind of shake up happen within the Ottoman leadership during this time?

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

It's difficult for me to imagine the Ottomans keeping the Armenian reforms after declaring war on Russia, given that Russia was the treaty's guarantor and the Ottomans themselves viewed the imposition of Europeans as senior officials in the Ottoman civil service as a major humiliation. Even worse, the OTL accords were unable to settle the disputed question of further Turkish settlement in the region, strenuously opposed by Armenian leaders fearful of being simply outvoted in the vilayet parliaments if swamped by large numbers of state-sponsored Muslim settlers. It's hard for me to imagine the Central Powers imposing harsher requirements than the existing reforms on the Ottomans, but the existing reforms were incomplete and no guarantee that conflict could be avoided.

This doesn't have to lead to Armenian genocide; but the Armenians are an unpopular minority inside the Ottoman Empire who have their own desires for independence that are unlikely to go away. Unfortunately, even without Enver Pasha choosing to incite genocide to try to distract from his disastrous failures, I suspect the most likely scenario for Armenians in the OE is to end up something like the Kurds- too distinct to ever really be Turkish, too small to seize independence on their own; a long-running story of discrimination and conflict that, if well-managed, can at least usually avoid bloodshed.

 

[Fehérvári]

It's difficult for me to imagine the Ottomans keeping the Armenian reforms after declaring war on Russia, given that Russia was the treaty's guarantor

Was Russia the sole guarantor? I thought all GPs guarantueed the reforms.

the Ottomans themselves viewed the imposition of Europeans as senior officials in the Ottoman civil service as a major humiliation.

Yeah, that's true.

Even worse, the OTL accords were unable to settle the disputed question of further Turkish settlement in the region, strenuously opposed by Armenian leaders fearful of being simply outvoted in the vilayet parliaments if swamped by large numbers of state-sponsored Muslim settlers.

Sure thing, but it was still better than nothing.

It's hard for me to imagine the Central Powers imposing harsher requirements than the existing reforms on the Ottomans, but the existing reforms were incomplete and no guarantee that conflict could be avoided.

Still, Germany and A-H leaning on the Ottomans to ensure it does not provide free propaganda material to the Entente with its actions seems plausible to me. IOTL they hardly had a moment to spare to deal with such "trivialities", but ITTL things are somewhat better on the frontlines so they might just be able to work on the matter.

This doesn't have to lead to Armenian genocide; but the Armenians are an unpopular minority inside the Ottoman Empire who have their own desires for independence that are unlikely to go away. Unfortunately, even without Enver Pasha choosing to incite genocide to try to distract from his disastrous failures, I suspect the most likely scenario for Armenians in the OE is to end up something like the Kurds- too distinct to ever really be Turkish, too small to seize independence on their own; a long-running story of discrimination and conflict that, if well-managed, can at least usually avoid bloodshed.

The CUP and the biggest Armenian political party were allies until 1913. The Three Pashas might have began to steer the empire in the direction of (Pan-)Turkish nationalism and Turanism, but Ottomanism wasn't dead just yet. A liberal-democratic resurgence under the banner of Ottomanism could possibly improve the position of the Christian minorities of the empire, imo.

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

Was Russia the sole guarantor? I thought all GPs guarantueed the reforms.

All the Great Powers were consulted during the process of crafting the accord; but I can't find any reference to any of them formally signing any treaty or otherwise acting as guarantors for the project. That's not to say that the other European powers wouldn't be upset if the Ottomans unilaterally broke the accords. For that matter, the Ottomans themselves were well aware that the Europeans had all been consulted- something that undoubtedly influenced the ways they felt about the reforms (primarily humiliated and afraid that these terms were a prelude to further European colonization efforts- not a crazy fear to have one decade on from the 1890s and less than a decade before European powers declared mandates over Palestine, Iraq, Syria, etc.).

The CUP and the biggest Armenian political party were allies until 1913. The Three Pashas might have began to steer the empire in the direction of (Pan-)Turkish nationalism and Turanism, but Ottomanism wasn't dead just yet. A liberal-democratic resurgence under the banner of Ottomanism could possibly improve the position of the Christian minorities of the empire, imo.

It's certainly true that Turkish nationalism didn't have to mean attacking minorities, and that a better history for the Ottoman empire might reduce some of the tensions that led to so many tragedies, but in my opinion the Armenians were always going to be something of a problem for Istanbul- they weren't onboard with becoming part of an Ottoman project that had not historically included them, and they were a Christian regional majority on the border with Russia. Even if the government in Istanbul is more reasonable, so long as Russia still exists as a potentially hostile northern neighbor, the Turks and the Armenians are going to have a certain political tension.

I do agree, by the by, that a democratic government for the whole of the Ottoman empire is by far the best hope for the Armenians- I think they would still find themselves sometimes faced with ethnic conflict, and sometimes afraid of demagogues reaching power in Istanbul, but better off on both measures than under a plausible authoritarian regime.

The Young Turks weren't pure evil, and were to some degree genuinely afraid that Armenian ambitions would invite outside interference. The Armenians had their own reasons to be wary of Russia's motives for intervention. But the existing ethnic mutual mistrust would, even in the best case, make Ottoman politics awkward for the Armenians. It's important to remember that the Yenikoy Accords were an effort (unfortunately made by outsiders with an... imperfect understanding of the situation) to fix an ongoing situation where low-level conflict simmered between Christian and Muslim populations on the Ottomans' northern border, not an imposition forced by outsiders onto a perfectly happy and stable region.