Questions on hypothetical Ottoman neutrality on WWI

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Ottomans were neutral in WWI would Britain put it on an import ration like with the Nordic neutrals?
With a neutral Turkey, would emigration by mostly Lebanese, Greek and Armenian Ottoman Christians to the US and rest of the western hemisphere continue at pre-war levels, or at levels substantially above OTL's wartime years?

Most importantly, what would be the rules for traffic through the straits?
a) straits are closed to non-Ottoman warships, but open to commercial ships of all nations for the duration
b) straits are closed to all foreign ships, naval and commercial, for the duration
c) straits are closed to non-Ottoman warships, legally open to foreign commercial traffic, but the Ottomans mobilize their fleet, rigorously inspect commercial ships and mine the straits except for a select narrow channel

How much would any of a, b or c piss off the Entente?

Would Ottoman restrictions on straits traffic irritate the Entente enough they would declare war on the Ottomans and try to seize the straits?

How useful for the Entente are
1) basically unlimited commercial only traffic
2) constricted straits traffic but with trade permitted via transloading to Ottoman barges and rail.

Would 1 or 2 be enough to significantly increase Russia's chances of surviving the war?

Could the effects of there simply being no active shooting fronts for the British and Russians against the Ottomans, even if the straits are blocked, be enough to make Russia survive the war?
 
I would think the Entente would be happy, Russia gets its supplies and immigration would remain low to non-existant to the US
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think in OTL, before the Ottomans joined the war, they did mobilize without an intention to take sides, and did begin mining the straits.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think in OTL, before the Ottomans joined the war, they did mobilize without an intention to take sides, and did begin mining the straits.

So I wonder how much trade between Russia and the west could go on, had those circumstances of an armed Ottoman neutrality continued.
 
So this is neutrality with letting the British take their dreadnoughts which were paid for by public subscription?

I would be intrigued as to how unstable this would make the regime?

Would we see a revolution or a political shift? The ruling dudes might well end up dead, not really affecting the Emperor and his family but causing more and great upheaval at the centre of the empire
 
So this is neutrality with letting the British take their dreadnoughts which were paid for by public subscription?

I would be intrigued as to how unstable this would make the regime?

Would we see a revolution or a political shift? The ruling dudes might well end up dead, not really affecting the Emperor and his family but causing more and great upheaval at the centre of the empire
Maybe that could be the POD?
 
So this is neutrality with letting the British take their dreadnoughts which were paid for by public subscription?

I would be intrigued as to how unstable this would make the regime?

Would we see a revolution or a political shift? The ruling dudes might well end up dead, not really affecting the Emperor and his family but causing more and great upheaval at the centre of the empire

Could be that the UK pays back for the ships or so. I don't know.
 
I think it's almost inevitable that Britain takes the ships, so the question becomes "What could Britain do to placate the Ottomans sufficiently to keep them neutral?"
Alternatively, the ships are completed sooner, and get onto the open sea.
 
I think it's almost inevitable that Britain takes the ships, so the question becomes "What could Britain do to placate the Ottomans sufficiently to keep them neutral?"
Alternatively, the ships are completed sooner, and get onto the open sea.

They could offer to lease the ships, essentially; giving the Ottomans a monthly payment and guarantee the full price of purchase with a fairly substantial markup with seizable British assets within the Empire in the event of irreparable damage/sinkage. Some favorable debt restructuring terms couldn't hurt either. If there's one thing London has, it's purse string power via the capital markets of The City
 
I don't think leasing the ships would placate the Ottomans. They wanted the battleships so they could compete with the Greek Navy in the Aegean and the Russians in the Black Sea, they needed capital ships. Perhaps, the British could provide the Ottomans with a squadron of Pre-Dreadnoughts (4-5 ships), this would definitely allow them to outgun the Greeks and keep them competitive with the Russians until their Black Sea Dreadnoughts were commissioned. This along with the favorable debt restructuring/forgiveness might do the trick.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The straights will be closed for the duration of the war. No significant amount of additional supplies will reach Russia compared to OTL in most scenarios.

UK will got to war with Ottomans anyway. Look the British units that landed in Basra. Look at their departure dates from India. Compare this date to the "causa belli" the Ottomans did. Also look at planning and order dates for UK units.

Since Enver Pasha lost units so fast in the east, the Russians may be in worse shape than OTL. If delayed entry or peace scenario for the Ottomans, the Russians will have to keep an extra half army or army on Ottomans border, so the battles in Poland are more difficult for the Russians.
 
Britain would find a neutral Ottoman Empire useful, so long as the right of innocent passage is maintained, allowing merchant ships passage through the straits. The question is what price Britain might pay to keep the Ottomans neutral. Perhaps some sort of guarantee from Russia--and a high price for food sent through the straits--would help. Debt cancellation, and a pair of brand new first line ships to be built after the war--or even paying for American built dreadnoughts--would help. Certainly refunding the money paid for the ships would come into play; IIRC, the Ottomans weren't compensated for the ships, but I could be wrong.
 
What forces do the German and British have for Europe that they wouldn't in OTL, and how does that change the war? Does this change Greek entry into the war? Romanian?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Could be that the UK pays back for the ships or so. I don't know.
They could offer to lease the ships, essentially;
...
Something the Brits acually did with getting a turkish answer of :
If you don't deliver the ships right now ... Thx but no thanks !

Esp. since the Brits did NOT put some additional money (favorable loans, would have compromised the french position within the OE) or - even more important - to skip the "capitulations" (special rights for foreigners).


About 'sailing the straits' :
They were IOTL closed for all foreign traffic on 28th or 29th september IIRC. ... after the Brits waiting just outside the Dardanells and harassing ottoman coastal trade had seized a turkish torpedoboat.
...
still needed Suchon to pull his Black Sea stunt on 29th october to actually Ädraw' the Entente powers into war with the OE.

BTW, does anybody know how much russian or other Entente trade went through the straits BEFORE their closure to trade ?
 
Last edited:
If the Ottomans aren’t involved in the war, Britain and Italy can basically make the Mediterranean an Allied lake, no? I know the Ottomans didn’t really take many naval actions in the Mediterranean during the war, but if the British don’t have to worry about them at all, they might be able to commit more forces to defeating the Germans in the North Sea and forcing the Kattegat in order to help the Russians in the Baltic.
 
Top