Ottomans Win World War I What happens to Libya?

Okay I just have to say it. The Ottoman Empire never imploded. Never. Period.
The entire European Ottoman Empire imploded in style; bar a token around Constantinople. The North African Ottoman Empire less imploded than increasingly ignored it until it went away in all but name. Other than that it all went well.......
 
I think the Sick man of Europe refers to externally, but not internally. Post-Young Turk Revolution, the CUP installed a number of reforms that increased the economy, army, navy, infrastructure, and technology.
And destroyed the fabric of the empire, you do realise even if a nation is reforming and economically strong they can still break up, states also need social coheisan to survive and popular support. can you not accept they didn't have the the population support and with the majority of the population they were unpopular.
 
Seconded. The Old Man may have been somewhat sick, but for quite awhile he was doing his exercises, cut back on the smoking, started to eat healthier, ect. and was well on his way to getting better. The cause of death was the effects of repeatedly getting punched in the gut until his liver started to give out.

The Walking Dead may explain it the best way possible. Survive as much as possible until the walkers start to eat out the human.
 
The entire European Ottoman Empire imploded in style; bar a token around Constantinople. The North African Ottoman Empire less imploded than increasingly ignored it until it went away in all but name. Other than that it all went well.......

It was torn apart, not imploded like Austria Hungary.
 
And destroyed the fabric of the empire, you do realise even if a nation is reforming and economically strong they can still break up, states also need social coheisan to survive and popular support. can you not accept they didn't have the the population support and with the majority of the population they were unpopular.

They didn't destroy the fabric of the empire, Abdulhamid II did. The Young Turks were constitutionalists, not Turkish nationalists. A nation can break up if reforming, but the CUP was trying to bring social cohesion, but couldn't do so with numerous wars and rebellions they wanted nothing to do with. They wanted Centralization, and if you ask me, Abdulhamid II was the one who was breaking up the empire, like neglecting the navy and spending more time on his paranoia than trying to be a good leader. The Young Turk support was kind of mixed but was opposed by selfish leaders who wanted to keep their decentralized rule and would even work with the British, or Russians to keep this.
 
They didn't destroy the fabric of the empire, Abdulhamid II did. The Young Turks were constitutionalists, not Turkish nationalists. A nation can break up if reforming, but the CUP was trying to bring social cohesion, but couldn't do so with numerous wars and rebellions they wanted nothing to do with. They wanted Centralization, and if you ask me, Abdulhamid II was the one who was breaking up the empire, like neglecting the navy and spending more time on his paranoia than trying to be a good leader. The Young Turk support was kind of mixed but was opposed by selfish leaders who wanted to keep their decentralized rule and would even work with the British, or Russians to keep this.
Social cohesion, begins a genocide of armenians. Oppression of arabs "Strictly centralised, racist, nationalist and oppressive policies cost the empire those lands, but more importantly, it cost the empire the hearts and minds of the people living in those areas." Most historians agree with the fact it was the CUP who destroyed the empire you're not going to change that. They were trying to bring 'social cohesion' Are you kidding me? What does this mean social cohesion in which meaning genocide oppression of identity of the arabs and secularisation. Okay so the empire identity is based on islam correct? That brings social solidarity, so how are they helping it by moving away from it? What are the alternates to an islamic identity can you elaborate on them. Abdul hamid destroyed the empire fabric are you just making stuff up at this point. He must of destroyed its fabric as that why he is still viewed positively by the arab world also the muslim world (he didn't you are just making stuff up), he defiantly did its his fault for the balkans lost even though the shit generals (THREE PASHAS WERE INCOMPETENT) it was him who caused the arabs revolt as he favoured his caliph title. The CUP were loved thats why they are celebrated in the arab world wait oh they are not in a matyer of fact they are hated. Oh yeah they are celebrated in turkey oh wait. Sorry but you are now just making stuff up. Please tell us what the fabric of the empire was. Selfish leaders right the ones who rebelled that is why the arab population didnt follow them wait they did. You keep arguing these weird points that white wash the CUP, It isn't opinion what im arguing its fact they fucked the empire to death. Why is their no successor to the young turks in the middle east, even though nassars ideas and parties have had successors why are people still supportive of monarchy in the middle east, why has young turks ideology died. Please answer these questions. Sorry im not trying to insult you but their so much evidence to counter you with and historian view.
 
Last edited:
They didn't destroy the fabric of the empire, Abdulhamid II did. The Young Turks were constitutionalists, not Turkish nationalists. A nation can break up if reforming, but the CUP was trying to bring social cohesion, but couldn't do so with numerous wars and rebellions they wanted nothing to do with. They wanted Centralization, and if you ask me, Abdulhamid II was the one who was breaking up the empire, like neglecting the navy and spending more time on his paranoia than trying to be a good leader. The Young Turk support was kind of mixed but was opposed by selfish leaders who wanted to keep their decentralized rule and would even work with the British, or Russians to keep this.

This one. When the Ottoman Empire lost in 1878 they lost a lot of land and population and with it a lot of revenue. Making it impossible to finance bothe the large navy and the Army while having an hard to defend Rumelia which needed more protection.

Abdul Hamid II 'paranoia' came from the situation of the Empire. No longer stable, no reason to trust some government officials for not being bribed by the Great Powers. It really is exaggerated. His absolute rule came from the same situation. The Empire was weak, it needed a strong leader. And it isn't as it was suggested. Not anymore absolutist than Russia or even Germany.
 
Last edited:
Social cohesion, begins a genocide of armenians. Oppression of arabs "Strictly centralised, racist, nationalist and oppressive policies cost the empire those lands, but more importantly, it cost the empire the hearts and minds of the people living in those areas." Most historians agree with the fact it was the CUP who destroyed the empire you're not going to change that. They were trying to bring 'social cohesion' Are you kidding me? What does this mean social cohesion in which meaning genocide oppression of identity of the arabs and secularisation. Okay so the empire identity is based on islam correct? That brings social solidarity, so how are they helping it by moving away from it? What are the alternates to an islamic identity can you elaborate on them. Abdul hamid destroyed the empire fabric are you just making stuff up at this point. He must of destroyed its fabric as that why he is still viewed positively by the arab world also the muslim world (he didn't you are just making stuff up), he defiantly did its his fault for the balkans lost even though the shit generals (THREE PASHAS WERE INCOMPETENT) it was him who caused the arabs revolt as he favoured his caliph title. The CUP were loved thats why they are celebrated in the arab world wait oh they are not in a matyer of fact they are hated. Oh yeah they are celebrated in turkey oh wait. Sorry but you are now just making stuff up. Please tell us what the fabric of the empire was. Selfish leaders right the ones who rebelled that is why the arab population didnt follow them wait they did. You keep arguing these weird points that white wash the CUP, It isn't opinion what im arguing its fact they fucked the empire to death. Why is their no successor to the young turks in the middle east, even though nassars ideas and parties have had successors why are people still supportive of monarchy in the middle east, why has young turks ideology died. Please answer these questions. Sorry im not trying to insult you but their so much evidence to counter you with and historian view.
.

This part bothered me enough to write about it. First of all, I am not going in discussion about what happened with the Armenians but what I understand from you is that you see it as: as soon as the Young Turks took power they started a large genocide campaign against the Armenians. I hope you don't because it is nowhere close.

The racist campaign? How in any way are the Young Turks racist if they aren't even only Turkish members. For God sake there were even Christians among the CUP. Never did they ever consider Turks as superior. Hell, until 1918, calling someone a Turk was insulting, even for Turks from Rumelia. The Turkishness came when Arabic lands were lost and there were gains in the Caucasus.

For installing the Turkish as language... an attempt to centralise an already endangered empire. They haven't done it the right way but never was it in any racist manner what people consider.

@Incanian & you have really 'interesting' ideas about Abdul Hamid II and the CUP
 
.

This part bothered me enough to write about it. First of all, I am not going in discussion about what happened with the Armenians but what I understand from you is that you see it as: as soon as the Young Turks took power they started a large genocide campaign against the Armenians. I hope you don't because it is nowhere close.

The racist campaign? How in any way are the Young Turks racist if they aren't even only Turkish members. For God sake there were even Christians among the CUP. Never did they ever consider Turks as superior. Hell, until 1918, calling someone a Turk was insulting, even for Turks from Rumelia. The Turkishness came when Arabic lands were lost and there were gains in the Caucasus.

For installing the Turkish as language... an attempt to centralise an already endangered empire. They haven't done it the right way but never was it in any racist manner what people consider.

@Incanian & you have really 'interesting' ideas about Abdul Hamid II and the CUP

The part to do with Armenian genocide, has to do with social cohesion, i was not saying they began with it, just that they did do it to preserve their power in the land.

The entire racist part is a quote i got that isn't my view. Also just because christains did join doesn't mean christains were supportive of them. Lebanon's autonomous status was abolished on Nov. 1, 1916, and the Christian administrator Ohannes Kuyumcuyan was removed to be replaced by Pan-Turkist Ali Munif. The seizure of animals in Lebanon accompanied with a shortage of seed, resulted in mass starvation.

Yes but it wasn't racist but it still alienated arabs and the CUP didn't bother to gain arab support

@Koprulu Mustafa Pasha this is the qoute im using this isnt my opinion "
Cemal Pasha, who played the leading role in the oppression of the Arabs, threatened bankers and merchants to keep the paper money and gold on par. When he rejected U.S. aid to the region, a large part of the population quickly vanished. Cemal Pasha persecuted leaders in Syria, especially those holding higher positions in local governments and the educated. Abdulhamit Zohravi, a member of the delegation of Ayan, and former deputy, Sefik al-Mawyid, was among 36 people executed on the orders of Cemal Pasha during this period. The families and relatives of those convicted were exiled from Syria to Anatolia, hence, wiping out the local leaders of the Syrian people.

Their crime, according to the military courts, was “forming an underground organisation”. The activity of the organisation was determined to be establishing relations with British and French diplomats in order to gain autonomy for Syria. Military courts were closed to the public, they did not allow defendants to bring their own counsel, and verdicts were immediately carried out.

When Mecca's Amir Hussain Pasha's son, Faisal, made a plea to Cemal Pasha on behalf of prisoners, Cemal Pasha not only declined the request, but also ordered the arrest of Faisal for constituting a danger to the state.

Following these events, Mecca's Amir Hussein, a descendant of Prophet Muhammad, declared his independence in July 1916 and occupied a large part of the Hijaz region. Hussein afterward restated his commitment to the Caliphate and the Sultanate. His rebellion was against the Turkish Unionists and he cited Cemal Pasha's atrocities, including the persecution of the Christians.

Because of the security policies and the atrocities of Ottoman Empire officials, Arab warriors ended up cooperating with the British in Syria and Mesopotamia. Thus, the empire lost two of its sacred cities, slashing the clout of the caliphate in the region.

Strictly centralised, racist, nationalist and oppressive policies cost the empire those lands, but more importantly, it cost the empire the hearts and minds of the people living in those areas."
 
This one. When the Ottoman Empire lost in 1878 they lost a lot of land and population and with it a lot of revenue. Making it impossible to finance bothe the large navy and the Army while having an hard to defend Rumelia which needed more protection.

Abdul Hamid II 'paranoia' came from the situation of the Empire. No longer stable, no reason to trust some government officials for not being bribed by the Great Powers. It really is exaggerated. His absolute rule came from the same situation. The Empire was weak, it needed a strong leader. And it isn't as it was suggested. Not anymore absolutist than Russia or even Germany.

I didn't realize that, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'm not an expert of Abdulhamid II's rule, and I don't know much about it, so thanks for the information.
 
@Incanian
@haider najib

You both have important and valid points. Operating from my phone right now, so I can't get into too much detail for the difficulty of typing, but here's my take.

Both Abdul Hamid and The Young Turks were trying to build a centeralized, socially cohesive, and physically secure state in an Enlightened Absolutist or at least Bismarkian model that was proving so successful in Germany and, in a more moderated form, Britain. The difference between the two came primarily in what groups they saw the Empire's problems/divided nature stemming from, what the best method for neutralizing them was, and weather reform needed to be bottom up (Change the broader Imperial society to meet the requirements of the state) or top down (Change the state to placate the concerns of and thus remove the causes of weakness and social disunity).

For the Sultan, the issues stemmed from above; the court was corrupt, the provinces had grown too autonomous and their officals and economies beholden to forgein interests rather than the locals. Russian meddling/expansionism and other securuty concerns (including the maintence of an increasingly strategically less important yet large fleet) leading to ballooning military expenses and the nation's first forgein loans, the effective lose of the revenues from what had traditionally been some of their richest provinces (Egypt and the Balkans) and the compunding effects of the Capitulation as international commerce grew cutting into state revenues, nessecitating the higher direct taxes on the subjects of the Empire that produces things like the Bulgarian riots which prompted the Russo-Turkish War and resulting Berlin Conferance and increased ethnic tensions, ect.

(Will cover Young Turn perspective from laptop once I have time. Need to get back to the convention)
 
hard to defend Rumelia which needed more protection.
The modern history of the Ottoman Empire has more shades of complicated grey than pure black and white but my grandfather came from Eastern Rumelia and I can assure you that the only thing that they wanted defending from was the Ottoman Empire. I should gratefully add that the family was welcomed into the Ottoman Empire when in distress so this is another shade of grey but Rumelia saw itself as under foreign rule by force of arms.
 
Top